A post from a friend of mine Dean Blehert on Facebook:
A few days ago, I received an email from some “Healthy solutions“ provider about a long and complex study done by some researchers in Brazil. The article on this study claimed that the study involved more than 15,000 subjects over many months and proved that sugar alcohols (not sugar, but sugar alcohols, often used as sweeteners because many of them do NOT have the bad effects on health that sugar itself has), taken over a period of months, lead to some terrible physical situations. The authors of the study claimed that erythritol was particularly dangerous and that probably Xylitol was similarly dangerous, and that it might be healthier to put sugar back into a healthy diet. The article gave the chemical explanations in language beyond my current grasp (very impressive!).
It was unclear from the article who funded the experiments, but hinted at government help.
Since the person I’ve found most reliable on matters of diet (Dr. Eric Berg) has claimed that both these sugar alcohols were safe, I had some questions about that study. I did not (and do not) have time to get an MD or a PhD in biochemistry to challenge the “science“ of the article. I found a simpler approach. I asked a single question (actually, just a subject, not really a question) on Google, and that resolved the matter for me.
What did I ask? Before you read my answer, work out what YOU would ask in this situation.
Here’s what I entered into Google’s AI:
THE SUGAR INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL?
Instant answer (all data I didn’t have before–I thought most sugar on this planet came from the American south (e.g., Louisiana) and West Indies sugar cane plantations and the beet sugar from Hawaii. Not so):
The sugar industry is the LARGEST industry in Brazil, and sugar is the largest EXPORT from Brazil, and Brazil is the largest producer of sugar in the world (more than a quarter of the world’s sugar). It’s income from sugar has been rising year by year. Anything that challenges the growth of that industry is the enemy, and part of that enemy is erythritol and other products that have begun to replace sugar in many products. Some of the sugar substitutes (the chemical substitutes) have gotten enough valid bad press that they are avoided by many. Stevia and monk fruit are among the safer sugar substitutes, though not everyone can tolerate them. The sugar alcohols, and ESPECIALLY erythritol, are emerging as among the safest and best tolerated sugar substitutes, so, of course, any study (especially an expensive and long one) done in Brazil will easily find funding.
Why is it so crucial to ask who funds a study? Because OTHER studies have been done (many) that found that, even when a study is claimed to be unbiased, “double blind,” etc., nearly always (like 90% of the time) a study financed by some entity (such as a pharmaceutical company) gets the results that entity WANTS TO SEE. In other words, if the Cureitall company wants to prove a product will be effective, they pay someone to test it, and the testers almost always find that it’s effective.
And when independent testers try to replicate the original result . . . THEY CAN’T. For some reason, those without a special financial interest in showing that the drug is effective do NOT get the same results (nowhere near, in most cases) as the people paid by the drug company. (Books have been written about this!)
When a BIG company is promoting the product, and it’s allies in government are behind it, those later studies, often, don’t get published–or their publication is stalled for years. (Though I hear some recent reforms of that system are slowly taking effect.)
Follow the money trail. If the study doesn’t seem to make sense, find out who paid for it.
[By the way, the exact amount of erythritol this “study” found dangerous in regular use happened to be the exact amount of erythritol in a pint of my favorite sugar-free ice cream (Rebel).]
[One other (and last) “By the way”: The people who run these experiments that get the desired results probably vary in their degree of corruption. Some intentionally alter results, play complex tricks with statistics, etc. Others are simply influenced by the pressure to get a certain result, and see things the way they are “supposed” to see them, not necessarily realizing that they’re missing things (like bad effects of a drug), etc.]






