This tells me that children are not necessary, assuming that Jesus has made provision for the end times.

I have seen a study posted online somewhere, but cannot seem to find it just now, that gave statistics comparing meat eaters, lacto-ovo vegetarians, and vegans for all causes of death. Vegans and meat eaters were almost tied in their mortality rates, while lacto-ovo vegetarians had better longevity. If I find it again, I will post it.

Mortality in 5 diet groups
Diet was categorized further into 5 groups. The nonvegetarians were subdivided into regular meat eaters [ate meat ≥1 time/wk (reference group)], occasional meat eaters (ate meat occasionally but <1 time/wk), and fish eaters (never ate meat but did eat fish). The vegetarians were subdivided into vegetarians (ate dairy products, eggs, or both) and vegans (did not eat any animal products). In the Health Food Shoppers Study there was no information on the frequency of meat consumption or on the consumption of fish or eggs; therefore, this study was excluded from the analysis (Table 7). Compared with the regular meat eaters, death rate ratios were significantly <1.00 for lung cancer in the vegetarians (P < 0.05), for ischemic heart disease in the occasional meat eaters, fish eaters (both P < 0.01), and vegetarians (P < 0.001); for other causes of death in the occasional meat eaters (P < 0.01); and for all causes of death in the occasional meat eaters (2P < 0.001), fish eaters, and vegetarians (both P < 0.05). However, the exclusion of data from the Health Food Shoppers Study in this analysis tended to lower the death rate ratio in the vegetarian groups compared with the nonvegetarian groups.

The number of vegans was small (n = 753 subjects, 68 deaths), so the analyses in Table 7Go were repeated with the inclusion of data from the Health Food Shoppers Study, making the assumptions that all nonvegetarians were regular meat eaters and that vegetarians who reported that they did not consume dairy products were vegans. This increased the number of vegans to 1146, of whom 165 died before age 90 y. However, the numbers of deaths from individual cancers among vegans remained small (range: 3–8). The death rate ratios for the vegans compared with the regular meat eaters from the other causes of death were: for ischemic heart disease, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.65, 1.24; NS); for cerebrovascular disease, 0.51 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.00; NS); for other causes, 1.39 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.72; P < 0.01); and for all causes, 1.06 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.38). However, these death rate ratios should be interpreted with caution because of the uncertainty of the dietary classification of subjects in the Health Food Shoppers Study.

The vegetarians were subdivided into vegetarians (ate dairy products, eggs, or both) and vegans (did not eat any animal products).

If the milk and eggs were truly harmful, where are Mrs. White's statements to that effect? On the contrary, there are many statements to the opposite meaning from her own pen. She is alluding to the statements made by those who have chosen to abstain from milk and eggs, e.g. yourself.

She doesn't speak of the items being harmful. She speaks of them as being declared harmful. This is an important distinction. Her statement that they fail to supply the system with proper nourishment by trying to abstain from these so-called "harmful" things tells us that they are not harmful, but helpful.

If we think that just because we give up meat and other animal products that we will be disease free, we are kidding ourselves.

The study shows that vegans and meat eaters have about the same life expectancy.

If you are emphasizing "just", then I would agree. Otherwise, a little reasoning would show it otherwise. You would agree that eating certain foods will make you sick. If we didn't eat those foods, we would not experience the sickness caused by them. If we replaced those harmful foods with wholesome foods, then it would stand to reason, we would not get sick.

Unless you are saying as some doctors tell patients to go ahead and eat whatever you want since diet doesn't affect your health.

Everything you put in your mouth either harms you or heals you. Also, what is going on in the videos about curing diabetes in 30 days, forks over knives, etc.? Sounds to me that eating the correct foods will not only cure disease, but prevent it, as many are finding out and experiencing. Unfortunately, as the video pointed out, the desire of appetite is strong, and some choose to die rather than give up their pleasure.

So? Did the vegans eat healthy or did they eat sugar, drink, etc. or are you making some assumptions here?

I make the assumption that, as with most people, and as manufacturers do, when they leave off meat, they add the sugar and fat to make up for it. Why would your assumption be any more valid than mine?

The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study is low compared with national rates.

Suppose milk and eggs were not truly harmful. Why then, did she make the statements APL and others have quoted? Why should "soon" we need to give them up?
...

Again, if they were helpful, why would we need to soon give them up? Why should we tell "the people be taught how to prepare food without the use of milk or butter"? Why should we "Tell them that the time will soon come when there will be no safety in using eggs, milk, cream, or butter, because disease in animals is increasing in proportion to the increase of wickedness among men"? Why should the diet reform be progressive? How "progressive" has it been for 100 years? Why should "The people everywhere should be taught how to cook without milk and eggs, so far as possible, and yet have their food wholesome and palatable"?

If milk and eggs were truly healthful....
But if not, then it makes sense. How do you resolve the statements?

We are to be brought into connection with the masses. Should health reform be taught them in its most extreme form, harm would be done. We ask them to leave off eating meat and drinking tea and coffee. This is well. But some say that milk also should be given up. This is a subject that needs to be carefully handled. There are poor families whose diet consists of bread and milk, and, if they can get it, a little fruit. All flesh food should be discarded, but vegetables should be made palatable with a little milk or cream or something equivalent.

Some, in abstaining from milk, eggs, and butter, have failed to supply the system with proper nourishment, and as a consequence, have become weak and unable to work. Thus health reform is brought into disrepute. The work that we have tried to build up solidly is confused with strange things that God has not required, and the energies of the church are crippled. But God will interfere to prevent the results of these too strenuous ideas. The gospel is to harmonize the sinful race. It is to bring rich and poor together at the feet of Jesus. {CD 207.5}

While warnings have been given regarding the dangers of disease through butter, and the evil of the free use of eggs by small children, yet we should not consider it a violation of principle to use eggs from hens that are well cared for and suitably fed. Eggs contain properties that are remedial agencies in counteracting certain poisons. {CCh 237.4}

And that's not a correct statement based on the study.