Guest guest Posted December 23, 2008 Report Share Posted December 23, 2008 Thank all who responded to this request. I did not want to post a " thank you " because this group only allows relevant posts -- and I understand this rule with such a large group. So, now I can respond with additional information. I wrote up all of the suggestions given on this forum and sent it to my friend. She took the advice, esp. about seeing an ENT. He told her it was acid reflux. I googled this condition (GERD) and got some good suggestions. Having read Suzanne Somers' excellent book, BREAKTHROUGH, I advised her not to take those antiacids for too long. Dr. Jonathan Wright (I have known about this doctor for years and his excellent reputation) felt that this caused poor nutrition absorption and this was common with people who developed Macular Degeneration (many took antiacids). If anyone has had success with GERD, I would appreciate hearing about this. Again, I am grateful to all who responded to my last request. This site has been so valuable to me. Lynn Koiner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2008 Report Share Posted December 24, 2008 I used to have GERD, don't any more. I gave up a ton of foods: dairy (all dairy which is not as hard as you imagine unless you are a vegetarian), wheat, sugar (and all sweeteners except honey). Once I lived like that for a few weeks, I noticed that raw onions give me severe heartburn, cooked onions don't. Cooked tomatoes give me heartburn, raw don't. I started to notice how foods affected me. I've added some foods back in, I eat desert when I'm out. But I no longer have heartburn. When I do get it, I can pinpoint what food caused it and stay away from that. I am also a big fan of Suzanne Somers (from Ageless). In her new book, she talks about " leaky gut " and how important it is to take care of our digestive system. I've started making homemade sauerkraut and yogurt with active cultures just to be on the safe side. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2008 Report Share Posted December 25, 2008 Boy can I relate. We went out for dinner and I can't believe I ordered fried fish. I wanted fish so badly and they didn't have any broiled except swordfish (I shoulda had it). Who knows what oil they used; could have been previously used for other fish; or it could have been palm oil which I react to. I had GERD all night and felt weak. I assumed the fried flounder was one big piece but they had it in 12 chunks. It becomes expensive to try an elimination diet when dining out. I think I'll stick to my homemade foods OR only go to fine restaurants. llaci MERRY XMAS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2008 Report Share Posted December 26, 2008 It is not Stevia as you and I might know it. They have done something to it in order to patent it (GMO Stevia plants??) into something they now call Truvia. This stuff is being made by Cargill, which is also a big proponent of GMOs and big agribusiness. Remember many of these things fall under proprietary ingredients, so they do not have to disclose what is in it or even how it is made. Hope this helps, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2008 Report Share Posted December 26, 2008 You are so correct. Truvia is not really stevia any more than Splenda is sugar. Splenda is chemically modified sugar and while still having a sweet taste it is not sugar. The chemically modified stevia has the same results as it is not really stevia either. According to an article from http://www.qualityassurance.synthasite.com/truvia-sweetener---our-continuing-inv\ estigation.php it may be extremely dangerous. Jackdaw Truvia ~ new Low Calorie Sweetener (toxin) Manufactured by Cargill (in conjunction with Coca Cola ) This is a non-organic, manufactured and possibly a chemically processed product originally starting with from Stevia leaves (the real thing). There is no evidence, yet, that the finished product is healthy, or that it remains a STEVIA-like product, with its original beneficial qualities intact. NOTE: As with SPLENDA...the firm said it was from sugar. Yet, after processing, it turned out that SPLENDA evolved ( was processed ) into a chlorocarbon, with a molecular structure closely resembling chlorine-based DDT, the banned pesticide. SPLENDA being a chlorocarbon, contained chlorine and chlorine derivatives that the human body cannot metabolize. Whenever you see this aspect in processed food or sweeteners or additives, almost 99 % of the time, this means that the body expends vast amounts of energy trying to metabolize it, putting stress on the liver, pancreas, and other organs. As you may know, the body does NOT metabolize chlorine very well, and therefore created long term health consequences associated with hepatomegaly (enlarged liver), increased size of thymus gland, kidney malfunctions, and a host of other pathologies leading into a diseased state. That is SPLENDA ...a chlorinated, processed molecule that more closely resembles DDT, than any sugar. In addition to our previous experience with SPLENDA, Aspartame, and cyclamates, et al, problems always developed from their use. Some of these issues, like with aspartame, were substantially (neuro)toxic. Thus, this has led us to formulate and research several important questions and queries... First: Erythritol, a sweetening agent contained in TRUVIA ® (and ZEROSE ®), is processed AND SYNTHESIZED from its original state. TRUVIA is processed with Erythritol and treated (Rebiana). This does not mean that the finished product resembles the original state from which it is manufactured. So, that's a red flag. Second: To date (Nov. 2008) Our investigation is currently involved with looking into the following issues: a) That this PROCESSED Rebiana or Stevia may not reflect the original starting product. b) Increased calcium loss, along with potassium, and phosphate (from what we discovered currently) may have a severe, long-term consequence on kidney function by causing or increasing renal lesions. c) Noted increases in urinary calcium, potassium, etc. reflects these constituents being released into the blood stream from moderate intake of Erythritol (PROCESSED REBIANA), and that this increase accumulates in the kidneys, causing calcification and lesions. We found testing which showed weight changes in animal kidneys upon examination, with developing lesions. d) We are also finding data that " alludes " to the development of an enlarged cecum, a small pouch attached to the ascending large colon, near the ilio-cecal valve in the intestine. This seems to make sense due to the fact that unmetabolized and artificially processed additives may aggravate or instigate inflammation of the cecum. We have learned that most artificial products (chemicals, additives, flavor enhancers, coloring agents, etc) that are not capable of being metabolized have led to pathological health issues. This raises another red flag. e) With natural Stevia - Rebiana available on the market, why would anyone destroy this perfectly wholesome, safe natural sweetener by processing it, using chemicals and other additives in the finished production process ? This question is may be answered three-fold = 1) It is being developed by a multi-national corporation with significant influence over the FDA ; 2) Profit motive, and, 3) the agenda to eventually provide another pharmaceutical requisite for a " precondition of illness " for further profit. It sounds sinister, because it is sinister, as these people, focused on profit, care less about our health or well-being. So, what we have included in this research, is MOTIVE.... We think these days, this has become an important aspect of planned investigative research, especially when it comes to the FDA or pharmaceutical firms. Why process an already natural product ??? To process Stevia into Stevioside (powdered form) requires that the leaves are subject to a process of using nitrogen, water, and in some cases, methanol (like caffeine-free coffee) to create the powdered sweetener of Stevia. So, Why not simply add natural Stevia to these products ? Good question...and it deserves an answer. This is where we are, so far. We have a way to go yet. We will keep this site updated as the information becomes available and is validated. Currently, we recommend promoting and using natural Stevia. We found one firm, Stevita, Inc., from Dallas, Texas operated by a man (Oscar Rhodes) with direct connections to Stevia-Pharma in southern Brazil, where it is naturally produced and packaged, retaining all its natural beneficial qualities. ______________ Here are some of the studies we have found, so far... Additional Supporting Documents, Below: Manufacturing of Erythritol (from Industry) http://www.cargillsweetness.com/index.php?id=577 Erythritol is the first polyol to be industrially manufactured by a fermentation process. (It would be good to know and understand this " fermentation process " , as the same thing can be said for hydrolized protein (neurotoxin) …which this is starting to sound like ??) The starting material is a glucose-rich substrate (?) obtained by enzymatic hydrolisis from the natural raw material starch. Glucose is then fermented by a yeast to yield erythritol. Erythritol is crystallised at over 99.5% purity from the filtered and concentrated fermentation broth. A fermentation process using natural raw materials derived from maize was developed by Cargill, first on laboratory scale, then on a pilot industrial scale. Commercial production of purified, high quality erythritol - initially for the Japanese market - started in 1993. _________________ Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenicity Study of Erythritol in Rats B. A. R. Linaa, M. H. M. Bos-Kuijpersa, H. P. Tila and A. Bär b, 1 a TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, P.O. Box 360, 3700 AJ, Zeist, The Netherlands b Bioresco AG, Hauptstrasse 63, Postfach 406, 4102, Binningen, Switzerland Received 29 July 1996. Available online 22 April 2002. Abstract comments by: Dr. E in BLUE The potential toxicity and carcinogenicity of erythritol, a low-calorie sugar substitute, were examined in Wistar Crl:(WI) WU BR rats. Groups of 50 rats of each sex consumed diets with 0, 2, 5, or 10% erythritol, or 10% mannitol, for a period of 104–107 weeks. To each of these main groups, two satellite groups of 20 males each were attached for interim kills after 52 and 78 weeks of treatment. At start of the study, the rats were 5–6 weeks old. The average intakes of erythritol in the 2, 5, and 10% groups were 0.9, 2.2, and 4.6 g/kg body wt/day for males and 1.0, 2.6, and 5.4 g/kg body wt/day for females, respectively. Mannitol intakes were 4.4 and 5.2 g/kg body wt/day in males and females, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated without diarrhea or other side effects. Body weights were significantly below control levels during most of the study in males of the 5% erythritol group and in males and females of the 10% erythritol and 10% mannitol groups. Survival of the animals was not adversely affected by the treatments. Hematological and clinicochemical examinations did not reveal noticeable changes which could be attributed to treatment. Analysis of urine samples collected during five 48-hr periods, from rats of the satellite groups in Weeks 26, 42, 50, and 78 and from rats of the main groups in Week 102, showed that about 60% of ingested erythritol was excreted unchanged. The urine volumes (this refers to urinary output in general) increased with increasing dietary erythritol levels. In line with previous observations on other polyols, erythritol and mannitol ingestion led to an increased excretion of urinary calcium and citrate. The urinary excretions of sodium, potassium, phosphate,N-acetylglucosaminidase (NAG), & #947;-glutamyltransferase (GGT), low-molecular-weight protein (LMP), and total protein (TP) were slightly elevated in the 10% erythritol group. (This means that these minerals and proteins are removed from ??? (bone, tissues, plasma ??) and then released into the bloodstream due to consumption of Erythritol…and that these, subsequently, pass through the kidney, its phalynx, and are excreted.) Increased GGT and NAG excretions also were seen occasionally at the 5% dose. Significantly increased relative cecum weights were seen in rats of either sex in the 10% mannitol and, somewhat less pronounced, 10% erythritol groups. Some cecal enlargement also was seen in the 5% erythritol group. The relative weight of the kidneys was highest in the 10% erythritol group, the difference from controls reaching statistical significance at interim kills (males) and termination (females). Except for more frequent pelvic nephrocalcinosis in female rats, of all erythritol dose groups, the histopathological examinations did not reveal any nonneoplastic, preneoplastic, or neoplastic changes that could be attributed to the ingestion of erythritol. (This statement may reflect the industry's funding for these studies, as this appears to downplay the issues of nephrocalcinosis due to the high excretion rates of calcium, citrate, potassium, and phosphate). In male and female rats of the 10% mannitol group, pelvic nephrocalcinosis, which in females was associated occasionally with pelvic hyperplasia, was the only remarkable finding. The incidence and progression of nephrosis, which is commonly seen in aging rats of this strain, were not influenced by the treatments. (Do you think they used aged rats on purpose, to cover up the renal calcification lesions ? ) Considering corporate testing these days, it is my belief that testing for renal nephrocalcinosis is most likely much worse than what is being explained here. Until we have more information, I would suggest natural Stevia rather these processed or synthesized sweeteners (Truvia or Zerose). The reason these companies have not sought to legalize, STEVIA, is because they would not be able to patent it, and because the natural health industry would pose serious competition. So, in order to protect their profits, these pharma-chemical companies decided to process their synthesized version of a sweetener (again), in order to reap their money, of course, at the expense of the public health. In the absence of morphological alterations in the kidneys or other signs of nephrotoxicity, the increased excretions of NAG, GGT, LMP, and TP are regarded as innocuous, functional sequelae of the renal elimination of erythritol. This does not make any sense. In conclusion, the toxicological profile of erythritol in rats resembles that of other polyols in several respects. Except for nephrocalcinosis, which is commonly seen in polyol-fed rats, no other treatment-related, morphological changes were observed in the kidneys. Evidence for a tumor-inducing or tumor-promoting effect of erythritol was not seen. (Was it looked for ??) You can see how this industry funded, or " watered-down " study downplays the ominous facts to kidney pathogenesis. At least they mentioned the problems...albeit, sugar-coated. , " Landies " <EBLandies wrote: > > It is not Stevia as you and I might know it. They have done something to it > in order to patent it (GMO Stevia plants??) into something they now call > Truvia. This stuff is being made by Cargill, which is also a big proponent > of GMOs and big agribusiness. Remember many of these things fall under > proprietary ingredients, so they do not have to disclose what is in it or > even how it is made. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.