Date:   9/12/2006 3:42:13 PM ( 18 y ago)
Hits:   6,841
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=734584

There is alot of debate as to whether this organism should be classified under the name "lactobacilli sporogenes" or "bacillus coagulans". To me this is irrelevant. The organism was originally named lactobacilli sporogenes, by the scientist who discovered it. But they are saying now, that since it is spore forming, it should be reclassified as bacillus coagulans. There are some who say that the effectiveness of this organism has not been proven as an probiotic. Yes, maybe not by the FDA, but neither has any other probiotic. There are actually foreign clinical studies that suggest it could be very beneficial. Apparently this organism has been used for many years in Europe, and Japan as a probiotic supplement. It is one of the main ingredients in Three-Lac, along with bacillus subtilis. I have noticed that the manufacturers prefer to use the term "lactobacilli sporogenes". I did notice that there is another strain of bacillus coagulans that is pathogenic. Maybe this is why they avoid the term. But this is true of other SBO's. Here is a website, that discusses the controversy over it's classification: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:755npP_lFuAJ:www.newcenturyhealthpublishers.com/probiotics_and_prebiotics/about/pdf/3-10.pdf+lactobacillus+sporogenes+bacillus+coagulans&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

Here are some websites that talk about clinical studies done in Japan: http://www.lactospore.com/clinical.htm
and http://www.flora-balance.com/lactobacillus_sporogenes.htm
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=734584