A general statement that a 1968 study was 'debunked' but there is plenty of info on pubmed that processed stevia suppresses fertility in lab rats, and continues to do so for as much as 50-60 days after last ingested. You may like it for other reasons, but these are not fertility .. Have you had a baby while using stevia? That kind of thing might be evidence that it is not a depop tool.
Yes me, I got pregnant easily with my two kids and the only sweetener I ever touch is stevia. I'm also an obsessive health nut existing on an extremally strict diet for over a decade and can explain the confusion over this topic.
@PlantTrees you would need to show exactly what form of "stevia" was used in the study. These studies are set up in advance to get the intended results. So when you say "processed" know that by law any product can be labeled "stevia" as long as it contains 1% stevia. In the case of Truvia, the most recognized brand of stevia, years ago they got sued by the american diabetics association because not only did they sell their product as "stevia" they also promoted it as safe for diabetics. Problem is, they lawfully called it stevia even though it contained just 1% stevia and 99% corn sugar, making it dangerous for diabetics. So they followed the law but got in trouble with false claims. Stevia is safe for diabetics, but a product that is 99% corn sugar and only 1% is not, even though by law they can label that garbage as stevia. This is why you should never buy "processed" stevia. I grow my own, i make my own extract, that is the best way to do it. And I wouldn't be surprised if they used truvia in that experiment, and I wouldn't be surprised if they used it in excessive amounts 1000x higher than humans would ever use (an old trick they use on repeat to manipulate results because anything in excess is harmful).
Don't even get me started on how they used manipulated studies to make everyone believe comfrey is poisonous to us.
Do the research and you will find that the reason the original was debunked was because the amount given to lab rats was very excessive. Anything given in very large, unrealistic doses can cause adverse effects. Saccharin was thought to be carcinogenic because it caused cancer in lab rats. It wasn't until they started doing realistic doses and studies that they changed that. Like I said, as a diabetic, I have researched ALL facets of stevia, not just the obvious sugar substitute.
A general statement that a 1968 study was 'debunked' but there is plenty of info on pubmed that processed stevia suppresses fertility in lab rats, and continues to do so for as much as 50-60 days after last ingested. You may like it for other reasons, but these are not fertility .. Have you had a baby while using stevia? That kind of thing might be evidence that it is not a depop tool.
I have had no fertility issues (2 kids under 3 while using stevia)
OK, a good relevant comment. The research was on females tho, and it looks like your name may imply bio male?
Another anon was a female with the same results.
Yes me, I got pregnant easily with my two kids and the only sweetener I ever touch is stevia. I'm also an obsessive health nut existing on an extremally strict diet for over a decade and can explain the confusion over this topic.
@PlantTrees you would need to show exactly what form of "stevia" was used in the study. These studies are set up in advance to get the intended results. So when you say "processed" know that by law any product can be labeled "stevia" as long as it contains 1% stevia. In the case of Truvia, the most recognized brand of stevia, years ago they got sued by the american diabetics association because not only did they sell their product as "stevia" they also promoted it as safe for diabetics. Problem is, they lawfully called it stevia even though it contained just 1% stevia and 99% corn sugar, making it dangerous for diabetics. So they followed the law but got in trouble with false claims. Stevia is safe for diabetics, but a product that is 99% corn sugar and only 1% is not, even though by law they can label that garbage as stevia. This is why you should never buy "processed" stevia. I grow my own, i make my own extract, that is the best way to do it. And I wouldn't be surprised if they used truvia in that experiment, and I wouldn't be surprised if they used it in excessive amounts 1000x higher than humans would ever use (an old trick they use on repeat to manipulate results because anything in excess is harmful).
Don't even get me started on how they used manipulated studies to make everyone believe comfrey is poisonous to us.
There is no such thing as a non-bio male.
not many real women would choose a name MichaelConservative ...
Do the research and you will find that the reason the original was debunked was because the amount given to lab rats was very excessive. Anything given in very large, unrealistic doses can cause adverse effects. Saccharin was thought to be carcinogenic because it caused cancer in lab rats. It wasn't until they started doing realistic doses and studies that they changed that. Like I said, as a diabetic, I have researched ALL facets of stevia, not just the obvious sugar substitute.