bacillus lecheniformis and primal defense, question, was Re: Re: a question to Duncan

[Guest guest]

Duncan,

I'm being told now by proponents of PD that it doesn't contain

bacillus licheniformis.

Here are the ingredients they are now putting on their label:

> Primal Defense is created using the following species or their enzymes:

> Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus

> salivarius, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus paracasei,

> Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus brevis, Bifidobacterium bifidum,

> Bifidobacterium breve, Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum,

> Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis, Saccharomyces boulardii.

Googling, I found that bacillus subtilis may or may not be the same

exact species as bacillus licheniformis. Some say it is the same

species, some say not. The mfr of PD claims it is a different species,

NOT bacillus licheniformis.

IIRR several years ago, when I tried Primal Defense (and had allergic

reactions to it, and to another GOL product) I believe the label at that

time did list bacillus licheniformis. I am wondering if they are now

really using a different species, i.e. bacillus subtilis, as they claim,

or if this is just a name change for the same bacterial species, made in

response to customer concerns. Labelling lying? Or is is a real change?

I'd really like your opinion on this.

thanks,

sol

Duncan Crow wrote:

> Sorry Bonnie, I didn't see the question. The undesireable ingredient

> in Primal Defense is extract of bacillus licheniformis or the actual

> bacteria, which if you look it up has been associated with cancer for

> many decades. Many top health researchers won't use it, and some

> state it doesn't muscle test well anyway.

>

> Duncan

>

>