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.
False assumption, I don't need to show anything and am not promoting nor rejecting stevia, just encouraging people to DO THEIR OWN research and decide. I AM however a proponent of Natural Law and natural plants as healing and good for us. Genesis 1:29 As we were created, plants are our best food and medicine. Once processing by man begins, you can't be sure of what you are getting, or if it is detrimental or not without doing a deep dive on specific sources and processes of a particular product. No need to attack and rant, just present your research/experience. When I was a child I learned about many healing plants. My mother smoked comfrey to counteract the bad effects of a tobacco smoking habit. btw I was a diabetic for decades, and have beat diabetes and many other serious health issues including RA.
If you counter someone's personal experience with "there have been many studies that say the opposite" then yes, you need to show us what you are talking about, because several of us came here and said this is not true for those of us actually using it.
So just say "male". Distinguish between "non/bio" male is adopting their language. This is how they shift the Overton window. Don't give them what they want.
I agree with your statement in general, but not in regard to my interaction with the other commenter. Biological meaning real male as opposed to a fake male[woman pretending to be male], or just a woman named Michael... sometimes words are just descriptors to focus on the truth. Maybe some people spend too much time being a peterbeater [?] and miss the primary point of a communication, which is that this commenter was wondering which category the other commenter was coming from with their handle SINCE the research I referred to involved FEMALES. There are biological males and there are pretenders who adopt male names, so there IS a difference and I was correct that judging from the handle he is likely a biological male, not a pretender[female] or an actual female named Michael.
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.
False assumption, I don't need to show anything and am not promoting nor rejecting stevia, just encouraging people to DO THEIR OWN research and decide. I AM however a proponent of Natural Law and natural plants as healing and good for us. Genesis 1:29 As we were created, plants are our best food and medicine. Once processing by man begins, you can't be sure of what you are getting, or if it is detrimental or not without doing a deep dive on specific sources and processes of a particular product. No need to attack and rant, just present your research/experience. When I was a child I learned about many healing plants. My mother smoked comfrey to counteract the bad effects of a tobacco smoking habit. btw I was a diabetic for decades, and have beat diabetes and many other serious health issues including RA.
If you counter someone's personal experience with "there have been many studies that say the opposite" then yes, you need to show us what you are talking about, because several of us came here and said this is not true for those of us actually using it.
There is no such thing as a non-bio male.
not many real women would choose a name MichaelConservative ...
So just say "male". Distinguish between "non/bio" male is adopting their language. This is how they shift the Overton window. Don't give them what they want.
I agree with your statement in general, but not in regard to my interaction with the other commenter. Biological meaning real male as opposed to a fake male[woman pretending to be male], or just a woman named Michael... sometimes words are just descriptors to focus on the truth. Maybe some people spend too much time being a peterbeater [?] and miss the primary point of a communication, which is that this commenter was wondering which category the other commenter was coming from with their handle SINCE the research I referred to involved FEMALES. There are biological males and there are pretenders who adopt male names, so there IS a difference and I was correct that judging from the handle he is likely a biological male, not a pretender[female] or an actual female named Michael.