Some food RCTs I’ve read also do such biasly stupid things. For instance: for the most part erythritol is a safe sugar substitute and is only a 1 on the glycemic index, and unlike other sugar alcohols that stress the digestive track, erythritol exits the body through the urine in under 24 hours, avoiding the digestive system. But the sug…
Some food RCTs I’ve read also do such biasly stupid things. For instance: for the most part erythritol is a safe sugar substitute and is only a 1 on the glycemic index, and unlike other sugar alcohols that stress the digestive track, erythritol exits the body through the urine in under 24 hours, avoiding the digestive system. But the sugar industry can’t have that, so an RCT was done to try to discredit Erythritol. It was given to subjects in … wait for it … soft drinks, cookies, and other snacks. 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️ God forbid they see the other variables of chemicals and ingredients in those foods. What they found is that it raised an erythritol marker in the bloodstream that “could” be a cause for heart disease. Again, 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️. Erythritol is also made naturally in the body. They made no attempt to discern which kind, natural or exogenous, was increased. They did state that an elevation on that marker was just a correlation. But of course the media ran with the desired industry narrative, “Study finds erythritol a potential cause of heart disease!”
Looking closer, I found the doctor and author of the study was significantly compromised. Not only did he receive “funding”, but he had a patent pending for a new medical instrument that would measure this particular “marker”. Well - how do you guarantee sales? Create a fear of that marker and then a need to measure it regularly. SMH. They ALL follow the same playbook now. RCTs used to be so trustworthy but most in the last few decades are now compromised and purposefully sabotaged for financial gain.
Same with Ivermectin where they didn't give the correct dose, started the medication later than recommended (and later than the pharm drug) and stopped before the protocol timelines. Then declared that Ivermectin didn't help!
Some food RCTs I’ve read also do such biasly stupid things. For instance: for the most part erythritol is a safe sugar substitute and is only a 1 on the glycemic index, and unlike other sugar alcohols that stress the digestive track, erythritol exits the body through the urine in under 24 hours, avoiding the digestive system. But the sugar industry can’t have that, so an RCT was done to try to discredit Erythritol. It was given to subjects in … wait for it … soft drinks, cookies, and other snacks. 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️ God forbid they see the other variables of chemicals and ingredients in those foods. What they found is that it raised an erythritol marker in the bloodstream that “could” be a cause for heart disease. Again, 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️. Erythritol is also made naturally in the body. They made no attempt to discern which kind, natural or exogenous, was increased. They did state that an elevation on that marker was just a correlation. But of course the media ran with the desired industry narrative, “Study finds erythritol a potential cause of heart disease!”
Looking closer, I found the doctor and author of the study was significantly compromised. Not only did he receive “funding”, but he had a patent pending for a new medical instrument that would measure this particular “marker”. Well - how do you guarantee sales? Create a fear of that marker and then a need to measure it regularly. SMH. They ALL follow the same playbook now. RCTs used to be so trustworthy but most in the last few decades are now compromised and purposefully sabotaged for financial gain.
Same with Ivermectin where they didn't give the correct dose, started the medication later than recommended (and later than the pharm drug) and stopped before the protocol timelines. Then declared that Ivermectin didn't help!
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2023/03/popular-sweetener-erythritol-found-truvia-linked-heart-risk-new-study