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 because YOU or even a couple or even a few expressed an opinion, no one is supposed to question or comment in any way that might trigger you? My personal experience with processed stevia is it makes me dizzy and I have beat diabetes without it. Coconut, maple cinnamon and not needing any sweetener is my preference, not processed stuff. About your demands, I see it completely different. No one owes you proof of anything especially a discussion board comment... it is called personal responsibility to research, read and discuss MANY sources because no person should base an opinion on one or two sources. This is a discussion board, not the place to write dissertations and theses to prove anything to someone who is closed to discussion. Merely pointing out sources that say something contrary or where one might research is not your license to scream "source" or "you need to do" this or that... get a grip. Any one can go to pubmed or sciencedigest or researchgate and do searches. Plus not all people have the same experiences--we are not all sensitive or allergic or thriving on the same things. Differences of opinion for the purposes of discussion should be welcome. Again, even tho I agreed partially with your 'experience' [the grow and make your own part only], you seem to have conflicting actions vs what you are pushing, and seemed bent on countering /arguing [NOT my problem, good luck with that].
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.
So because YOU or even a couple or even a few expressed an opinion, no one is supposed to question or comment in any way that might trigger you? My personal experience with processed stevia is it makes me dizzy and I have beat diabetes without it. Coconut, maple cinnamon and not needing any sweetener is my preference, not processed stuff. About your demands, I see it completely different. No one owes you proof of anything especially a discussion board comment... it is called personal responsibility to research, read and discuss MANY sources because no person should base an opinion on one or two sources. This is a discussion board, not the place to write dissertations and theses to prove anything to someone who is closed to discussion. Merely pointing out sources that say something contrary or where one might research is not your license to scream "source" or "you need to do" this or that... get a grip. Any one can go to pubmed or sciencedigest or researchgate and do searches. Plus not all people have the same experiences--we are not all sensitive or allergic or thriving on the same things. Differences of opinion for the purposes of discussion should be welcome. Again, even tho I agreed partially with your 'experience' [the grow and make your own part only], you seem to have conflicting actions vs what you are pushing, and seemed bent on countering /arguing [NOT my problem, good luck with that].