D., I pulled out the herbal volume of the PDR and I pulled out the Varro
Tyler texts.  Except for the German Monographs there aren't supposed to be
any more ACCURATE references for herbal things.  There is squat on Stevia.
 
Ela, did you find an affordable way to gain access to a copy of the German
Monographs?  If so, could you check on Stevia for us all?
 
Anyway, last I read in periodicals (and it tallies with the dearth of info
on Stevia) is that ***even safety information is lacking*** for the herb,
and that ***any potential benefits are without study***.  On WHAT do you
base your claim that Stevia is good for the immune system?  Using what
mechanism?  Remember that some herbal things which actually are known to
have immune system effects should NOT be given to individuals with auto-
immune disorders, or with allergies, or with chemo treatments, or...
Stevia might be safe or it might not, or it might be safe within certain
boundaries (dose level, frequency, duration, etc.), or it might be safe for
certain individuals, or it might be good for certain individuals, or it
might be bad for certain individuals.  Claims can be thrown around (and
certainly by some of the people in our local health food store they are in
profusion, usually with one person's claim after another quoting the same
things that all lack reliable study and often lack any study at all, or
with anecdotal "evidence" given even though the placebo effect is so strong
that even placebo surgeries have good cure rates for some things given the
power the mind sometimes might have in certain people) but that does NOT
mean that health food store pundits or popular websites or such are
ACCURATE.
 
If you have some more recent info with real studies I'd like to check them
out.  Certainly, there ARE some things sold in herbal stores which are
useful and healthy (and we use or have used some of them), but just as with
a pharmacy this depends on the item, the situation, the patient, how it is
taken, etc.
 
Ditto, the assumptions made about some of the ingredients in things like
Pedialyte.  WHY assume that they must be bad?  When the numbers are run
many of the ingredients which people scream about are a lot healthier than
other things that they just take cavalierly based upon what someone told
them.  LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.  Look at dose size in comparison to size,
look at frequency, look at duration, look at percentages affected and how
affected.  etc.  Look at other studies which compare risks associated with
NOT having that ingredient (esp.  preservatives).  Look at BENEFITS seen in
relation to some of the ingredients (Yes, such exist).
 
Just because something is natural does not make it safe.  Need examples?
Here's just a tiny, tiny sample: golden chain "tree", assorted venoms,
shellfish in summer months, stonefish, surgeon fish, unripe akee fruit,
castor beans, hemlock, amanita mushrooms, pokeweed, rhubarb leaves,
nightshade, yew, false hellebore, hellebore, boxwood, cherry leaves,
daphne, holly berries, iris roots, lily of the valley, laurel, lupin,
mistletoe, moonflower, four o'clocks, datura, privet, sweet pea, etc. etc.
etc.  Never forget that walled city in France centuries ago in which a
hidden mold was in grain used by the town baker and the entire small city
had to be locked and turned into a mental hospital.  Think abou tthe cases
of liver and kidney damage and of GI tract cancer connected with blue-green
"algea" (actually cyanobacter) when species that even experts can't readily
tell from safer ones got in with the safe one marketed.
 
Glad you wanted to check, but think that some of the assumptions in your
foundation need checking, too, before others just carry on from them.
[Posted in FML issue 3144]