Let's start with this: What sugars are missing?

I'm not persuaded that there exist such things as "missing sugars." I'm not trying put you down here, so please bear with this next question so that I can know where to start in explaining things as I see them. What is your level of education with biology and chemistry?

I'm a certified teacher who has taught high school biology and health classes. But the biochemistry here is sufficiently involved that I would like to know where I should start in explaining my understanding of it. For example, are you already familiar with the terms Krebs cycle/citric acid cycle, ATP, mitochondria, insulin response, ketones, alpha-chain vs beta-chain carbohydrates, and some of the molecular differences among fructose, sucrose, glucose, galactose, lactose, dextrose, etc.?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thought I had made a reply, but it is not showing.
I could name the sugars but I would have to go back to the source material to find them all.
Yes, I am familiar with most of the terms mentioned, but no, I am not educated in biology and chemistry beyond high school, and that was a long time ago. If you go to Mannatech.com you will find a section there that explains the science and names the sugars.

We are certainly fearfully and wonderfully made and it is great to see the science, but as a lay person, the most important thing I need to know is, does it do anything for me?
After coming to the point where she was scheduled for a hip replacement, my wife reluctantly agreed to take the products. She was surprised to find after five weeks that the swelling in her knee had decreased more than 50% and the pain in her finger joints had completely gone.
I don't think you can put it down to placebo effect when she was a skeptic.

There is a scientist here in Australia who has been studying glyco nutrient for six years and has received a government grant to study further, so I guess the government scientists don't feel it is a hoax. She has presented at least one paper at an international symposium on the beneficial effects of Ambrotose. There are a number of other clinical trials that have been done in other places
demonstrating positive benefits from Ambrotose.

It is nice to know there is a good scientific reason why it works, but the most important thing to know is that it does work.

Greeen, how do animal foods get the sulfur? Can we get it the same way? Why is getting it second-hand better?

I don't know the answer to this. What I do know is that animals process foods much differently than humans. The cud-chewers like cows, goats, sheep, deer, etc. get their calories from what our bodies would be unable to absorb--cellulose. These animals can't absorb it any more than we can, except they have bacteria in their gut to break it down, and they then digest the bacteria.

Animal systems differ from human systems in many areas. Goats manufacture as much as 13-15 grams of vitamin C every day, whereas humans produce zero and must receive this essential nutrient via food, with the FDA telling us we need only 60 mg/day.

When it comes down to actual numbers, the math is tricky. Garlic, for example, may be one of the highest sources of sulfur for the average vegan. But even if said vegan eats garlic every day, how much garlic? Few people make a meal of garlic! Most garlic eaters use a clove or two of it, nowhere near an ounce, to flavor their main dish. Mathematically speaking, per 100 mg serving, garlic has about 1/8 as much sulfur as egg. And onion has much less sulfur than garlic. Nor is egg the highest in the list, if one is willing to consume meat.

It is much easier to eat one egg, than to eat 8-eggs-worth of garlic to get the equivalent amount of sulfur! The stomach can only hold so much.

I believe this is why Mrs. White recommended eating eggs to counteract poisons. In fact, she recommended eggs to cure illness and debility as well. Mrs. White herself ate eggs to her dying day.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - please recall that not every is to eat eggs. EGW says that there are people who should NEVER eat eggs. Your deficiency is not universal to everyone. She is explicit the that most healthful diet is one that resembles the original diet. Chapter 23 of The Ministry of Healing, "Diet and Health", does not even mention eggs. In this book, she is clear that all (ALL) should be taught cook without milk and eggs. And that these items will need to be excluded entirely.

Sulfur - one postulate about sulfur containing amino acids, which are higher in animal products than plant products, actually contributes to certain disease states. Example is osteoporosis. Whether by excess excretion, or decrease bone building, healthy plant based diets can build strong bones.

Ok, let's take this one point at a time (less confusing for me).


Correct. Some people are allergic to them, or cannot tolerate them. If your health will be damaged, don't use them.


I have never read such a statement. I don't believe it exists. But if you can procure it, I would be happy to update my understanding. I agree that some people who are allergic to eggs or have other health conflicts with using them should not use them. I don't recall Mrs. White saying anything outright forbidding them, however, such as by the word "never."


I hope not.

But Mrs. White does say that the majority need to use milk and/or eggs, and that it is only a "very small minority" that can subsist well without them.



I'm sure that in Heaven we will be happy to never taste of milk, honey, or eggs again. None of these were part of the original diet. In fact, neither were vegetables. But on this earth, such things were permitted by God, or even commanded, to make up a lack or to augment our diet in light of the weakened condition of our environment.

However, show me the context for Mrs. White's statements about the original diet, and I will show you that she is contrasting it to that of eating flesh foods, i.e. meat. She never classes milk and eggs with meat, and expressly forbids us doing so either.



That would be fine if it were the truth. I'm sure it does not mention a great many things. Mrs. White wrote so voluminously as to prevent all information from ever being able to be included into a single summary or chapter. Yet there are many places where she specifically speaks of eggs. If you want to know and understand her perspective on eggs, refer to those statements.

However, it does mention eggs in that chapter.

She seems, however, to feature the eggs more in terms of "extremes in diet," which she covers two chapters later. She calls it extreme to leave them out of one's diet, or to teach that others should do so.


And I agree with her. But she is just as clear, while saying that, that we should not teach people to stop using the milk and eggs.

Who best to teach health, but a physician? Why would Mrs. White not allow this doctor to teach people to stop using milk and eggs? More importantly, why did Mrs. White command the doctor to include milk and eggs in his diet?

By the way, these quotes from "Medical Ministry" come from the chapter titled "Diet and Health." Here's one from chapter 25 of Ministry of Healing which also tells us not to teach people against the use of milk and eggs.


We've already brought up the anti-poison contributions of eggs, and in other countries, the toxin levels can be much higher, even in the water table. So this is sound advice from Mrs. White that would serve our missionaries well to the present day.


There are two sets of statements to this effect. There is one set of statements where she expresses it more conditionally, such as "there may come a time..." or "there will come a time when we may have to...." There is another set that seems more definitive. I think part of this difference has to do with two variables, that may be somewhat related. First, she advocates getting eggs from healthy fowl. If you have no access to such, then no eggs might be best. If, however, you can obtain good eggs from healthy hens, you may not have to give them up. The second variable is one of diet and nutrition, frequently tied to one's geographical location. She indicates that proper substitutes must be found before we can give up milk and eggs. Some countries may have more options in this area than others.



I have never seen sulfur intake linked to weak bones. Where is your evidence for this? What I have found, instead, is that mercury toxicity leads to weak bones and calcium loss. Sulfur can help to mobilize mercury, making it easier to flush out of the body. Regarding the mercury itself, again, Mrs. White has already informed us of this.



Note that "calomel" is a preparation of mercury.



Here again, the "healthy animal" concept is important. Non-organic farmers are using plenty of mercury in their livestock, because every shot or vaccine contains the mercury preservative thimerosal. Heavy consumers of dairy products in this country have a higher incidence of osteoporosis, and if studies were done on this, I am certain they would find higher levels of mercury among those with osteoporosis.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

She goes beyond allergies.

Does "should not be used" not equal never?
I did show you the context, Chapter 23 of MH.

You are of course, correct, when mentions them ONCE, and that is to warn against their free use.
Yes, and it would be good to quote her in context. You extrapolate that quote to include all peoples. But what does she write? Who? Those in new countries or in poverty-stricken districts. She also says we are to only use milk from healthy cows, and eggs from healthy fowl. Can you categorically state you know the health of the animals from which your milk and eggs come from? Recently in the U.S, in California, a milk cow was found to have "mad cow" disease. Does this give us assurance of the health of the animals from which our milk comes from?
MM is a compilation. The original source for that quote is from an manuscript release, and was specific instruction to that physician. Just as you have found, not have found a way to eliminate eggs.

one of many examples:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/ar/archive/mar03/osteo0303.htm
It is more that mercury.

A.P.L.

That is correct. Those terms are not equal. Never means not ever. But the fact is, Mrs. White is not prohibiting eggs entirely for always here. Other statements clarify her intent.


Once the children are no longer "small," her counsel in this regard is no longer applicable. She clearly states that we should not consider it a violation of principle to use eggs, as eggs are beneficial. Note also the "free use" phrase. This implies that even small children might have an egg once in awhile, but that they should not be getting eggs all the time. Certainly, this is not quite the same as "never."

That's about as helpful as saying the context is the "Ellen White CD." Provide an entire paragraph or two of text, in which the statements you found are located, and you will note the context is a contrast to flesh foods.


Did you see "free use" in that quote? Do you need to add more context to what you quoted? or is that phrase not there?

She is not speaking about the eggs being evil. She is speaking about that particular combination of ingredients being problematic. She has much good to say about both milk and eggs. In this particular statement, she is being consistent with her other statements that warn of fermentation in the stomach resulting from milk and sugar combinations. The eggs are mentioned here because she is outlining all of the "chief ingredients." I could not, for example, in trying to warn against the yeast in bread, speak of "yeast and sugar" being the chief ingredients. I would have to mention the flour as well.



I'm not sure who you mean by "our," but I have not used milk in over a decade. If I were to go back to using milk, I think it would be goats' milk, from animals I either owned or from a nearby farmer--healthy animals.

I agree with you that the industry-produced dairy products are highly unsafe.

Mad cow disease is another issue. I do not believe the disease is quite what it has been cracked up to be. There are too many discrepancies in the whole thing that make it appear to support a grand conspiracy. To cut to the chase, I don't believe the disease is based so much on so-called "prions." It is perhaps little more than a severe bovine form of Alzheimer's. I believe the chief cause is mercury. Mercury in the brain wreaks havoc. The University of Calgary has published a video on the effects of mercury upon brain tissue that shows exactly how it damages the neurons and dendrites.

Think about it. The so-called "prions" are said to be indestructible by pressure, radiation, heat, alcohol, bleach, peroxide, or any chemical for that matter, and they cannot be removed from surgical instruments. Does that sound like a protein? Proteins are large molecules. The larger the molecule, the more opportunity for it to be broken down. You would think they could invent some kind of lysine-based solution to cut it apart, or something.

But, the fact that a "prion" cannot be destroyed in these ways points to one obvious conclusion--it is an elemental toxin. Elements cannot be created or destroyed except by nuclear reactions. But the industry does not want you to know about mercury. There are too many potential side-effects to their business should you become aware of the real problem. So they have invented a code word for it to explain the disease to the public.

This planet is getting poisoned more and more all the time. Mercury is especially potent, and receives the most scathing remarks of any of the elements which Mrs. White mentions.


Your last sentence does not seem to make sense to my mind. I'm not sure what you were trying to say there. As for the compilation, yes, MM does appear to be a compilation. However, I chose to take the quote from it, as it came out before the Manuscript Release of it had been published.

Yes, it was specific instruction to that physician. But there is instruction in it that applies far more broadly. For example, Mrs. White did not say "You should not teach people not to use milk and eggs." She said "the doctrine of dispensing with them should not be taught." This means that this physician could not have told someone else working with him to do the teaching in his place. This instruction applied to anyone and everyone in our work.

Regarding your last link, it takes me to a site by the USDA. I don't trust information coming from them, as they have been known to twist facts for decades to suit their own purposes. Furthermore, they openly declare in that article that this concept of sulfur's relationship to bone density is only a theory. Again, nice coverup job on their part. They would not want the average consumer to be aware of mercury's effects on the body. The issue is compounded by the lobbyists for big pharma, the American Dental Association (ADA), and by other groups such as the AMA who routinely use mercury in treatment of people. They have all banded together to prevent an awareness of its ill effects from being made public, and are making legal instruments to support their business.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, not sure if you were aware, sulfur is an element. Not something which can be manufactured. Although, I'm not sure you understand what the elements are: Unless you mean prions are a new element in the periodic table.
?



If you are implying Ellen White meant that, that is not a correct statement.


Has the way been prepared to do without? If not, when will you know the way has been prepared?

Is just not eating eggs considered "reforms that are strained to the highest tension"? Or does she mean something else?

Let's assume she means only eggs. Would it be "reforms that are strained to the highest tension", if a way has been prepared to do without them, to supply the system with proper nourishment without them?

Are there still only "a very small minority of people" in that class "who can obtain all they need to take the place of the things discarded"? Who could in Ellen White's day, who can today?

The words, "can obtain", seems to suggest to me the ability of procurement.



Regarding your assumed comment of who better to teach health than a physician, I don't know about the past, but physicians today are taught little if any about diets. They would not be qualified to teach.

But they do know about drugs. And teaching users of drugs, they do.