Some of the news stories below highlight individuals who, so far from getting the praise at the end of a 10-day vegan diet which Daniel and his friends received, are getting hospitalized or interred. I have much sympathy for the infants involved who are so dependent on their parents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...laborative_1_na

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...or-frostbitten/

http://www.thelocal.it/20160629/two-year-old-in-serious-condition-after-being-raised-vegan

http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/what-to-eat/5-nutrients-vegans-dont-get-enough

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/trends/being-vegan-is-a-health-risk/259715.html

http://myfox8.com/2016/07/11/1-year-old-...n-from-parents/

Perhaps the bottom line is this: It is an unhealthful and unsafe practice nowadays to be entirely vegan without supplements. Either accept your pills, or, as Ellen White says, use some milk and/or eggs, of which she comments "you must not deprive yourself of that class of food which makes good blood."

Folks still continue to prove her to be right!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

We do need to understand that modern farming does deplete the soil of minerals. Juicing and supplements do a great job of furnishing minerals and nutrients to the body.

Strange that Green does not include all the people that die of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer which by huge percentages can be reduced by following the counsel given by God. of but focuses on just a few cases. Why is that Green? Strange that you imply that Daniel only undertook his diet for 10 days! That was only the trial. After seeing their state, Daniel was allowed to continue. And he was 10 times that of his heathen compatriots. How many people subsist on the diet that those looking for translation should be eating and are thriving!

June 28, 1898

"Evangelistic Temperance. What Is Not Good Food" The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 27 , p. 408.

IV

IF, in reading up on this important subject, you find yourself using some of the things that are named as injurious, do not fly to the other extreme, and go to starving yourself by dropping everything at once, without putting that which is better in its place. To do that is only to perpetuate the evil; for an impoverished diet will produce the same results as flesh-meats and rich food,—it will create a poor quality of blood. See "Testimonies for the Church," Vol. II, page 368. {June 28, 1898 ATJ, ARSH 408.1}

"We would not recommend an impoverished diet. I have been shown that many take a wrong view of the health reform, and adopt too poor a diet. They subsist upon a cheap, poor quality of food, prepared without care or reference to the nourishment of the system. It is important that the food should be prepared with care, that the appetite, when not perverted, can relish it. Because we from principle discard the use of meat, butter, mince pies, spices, lard and that which irritates the stomach and destroys health, the idea should never be given that it is of but little consequence what we eat. There are some who go to extremes. They must eat just such an amount and just such a quality, and confine themselves to two or three things. They allow only a few things to be placed before them or their families to eat. In eating a small amount of food, and that not of the best quality, they do not take into the stomach that which will suitably nourish the system. Poor food can not be converted into good blood. An impoverished diet will impoverish the blood."—Id., page 367. {June 28, 1898 ATJ, ARSH 408.2}

"These changes should be made cautiously, and the subject should be treated in a manner not calculated to disgust and prejudice those whom we would teach and help."—Id., page 370. {June 28, 1898 ATJ, ARSH 408.3}

Let us turn, then, to the consideration of— {June 28, 1898 ATJ, ARSH 408.4}

WHAT IS GOOD FOOD

Yes, let us find what is the best food, and enjoy ourselves to the full on that, in order that we may have the best of health, and enjoy ourselves in every other right way. what, then, is good? What shall we find to put in the place of all these things that are not good to eat in this time? Here is is:— {June 28, 1898 ATJ, ARSH 408.5}

"Grains and fruits prepared free from grease, and in as natural a condition as possible, should be the food for the tables of all who claim to be preparing for translation to heaven."—Id., page 352. {June 28, 1898 ATJ, ARSH 408.6}


"Fruits and grains, prepared in the most simple form, are the most healthful, and will impart the greatest amount of nourishment to the body, and, at the same time, not impair the intellect."—Id., page 400. {June 28, 1898 ATJ, ARSH 408.7}
Those who discard meat "need to supply its place with the best fruits and vegetables, prepared in the most natural state, free from grease and spices. If they would only skillfully arrange the bounties with which the Creator has surrounded them, parents and children with a clear conscience unitedly engaging in the work, they would enjoy simple food, and would then be able to speak understandingly of health reform."—Id., page 486. {June 28, 1898 ATJ, ARSH 408.8}

"God has furnished man with abundant means for the gratification of natural appetite. He has spread before him, in the products of the earth, a bountiful variety of food that is palatable to the taste and nutritious to the system. Of these our benevolent heavenly Father says that we may 'freely eat.' We may enjoy the fruits, the vegetables, the grains, without doing violence to the laws of our being. These articles, prepared in the most simple and natural manner, will nourish the body, and preserve its natural vigor without the use of flesh meats."—Id., Vol. III, page 50. {June 28, 1898 ATJ, ARSH 408.9}

Adopt the free use of these things, and you will find that all those other things will drop away and never be missed. Then health, such as the Lord desires that you shall have, enjoyment of life, and prosperity in all the things of God, will be yours. For "I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereith." {June 28, 1898 ATJ, ARSH 408.10}

In other news, Green denies the validity of the Bible and misrepresents Ellen White. Besides failing to read the articles he linked.

APL wrote;

"Strange that Green does not include all the people that die of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer which by huge percentages can be reduced by following the counsel given by God. of but focuses on just a few cases. Why is that Green? Strange that you imply that Daniel only undertook his diet for 10 days! That was only the trial. After seeing their state, Daniel was allowed to continue. And he was 10 times that of his heathen compatriots. How many people subsist on the diet that those looking for translation should be eating and are thriving! "

Powerful statement APL.

But, it does happen that once in a while some one changes their diet to vegan without really understanding the issues. Consequently, they don't get the results that they should. These days, so many people in the world eat vegan that the information is much more readily available.

Alchemy,

APL's statement is misleading. The counsel given by God does not lead to veganism, as much as he prefers to see it that way. Read Ellen White for yourself and you will find that God's counsel leads to a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet. In the final moments, when God tells us to do so, we may have to give up the milk and eggs entirely, but to give them up too soon, Mrs. White says, will lead to premature death.

What APL says about all of those other diseases has some truth to it, but it ignores the equal truth that the overall mortality among vegans is equal to that of the meat eaters. These studies have been published and are available online. They prove, once again, how right Mrs. White was. She tells us to prepare people for the time when they may need to cook without milk and eggs, but at the same time she forbids us to teach people to give up the milk and eggs. Repeatedly, she advocates for them, eggs in particular, as long as you can secure them from healthy hens. Veganism leads to imbalanced health that causes a hasty descent to the grave when once a cancer takes hold. Vegans die of cancer where others may not. It is true that vegans have far less diabetes and heart disease. But why do vegans have double the risk of cervical cancer? We don't know all of the reasons, yet. But we know that Ellen White spoke the truth, and we have been told not to give up milk and eggs until God reveals to us that it is time to do so--which may be an individual decision.

The question I would, therefore, ask of any vegan is simple: Did God tell you to give up the milk and eggs?

Regardless of the answer, I would also tell anyone that, according to Mrs. White, you are not to teach anyone else to give up the milk and eggs. She gives us this message repeatedly. Many vegans today are missionaries for their veganism, like the woman who died on Mt. Everest hoping to prove to the world that vegans can do anything (see news link from earlier post). As Adventists, we are to have no such message. Our message is that of the third angel.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Alchemy - Green has an agenda. He believes he must eat eggs and that veganism nearly killed him. He has also been confused on the types of B12 deficiencies and his confusion has been pointed out to him on several occasions, and he had even contradicted himself on the topic. He has claimed that B12 deficiency happens very quickly, "I was vegan for 7 months when I started having symptoms." It is unusual to happen that quickly. He has said, "There is a name for the condition I had, pernicious anemia", but then said "I don't remember saying I had pernicious anemia". Yes, it is confusing.

It is true, that EGW did say that trying to force a strict diet on the poor could result is worse health for them. But note, it was the poor. Perhaps Green had his computer are considered poor, and thus he justifies himself in condemning anyone who does not eat like himself.

Consider the following quotes of EGW:

"Those who are in a position where it is possible to secure a vegetarian diet, but who choose to follow their own preferences in this matter, eating and drinking as they please, will gradually grow careless of the instruction the Lord has given regarding other phases of the present truth and will lose their perception of what is truth; they will surely reap as they have sown." {9T 156.3}

Grains and fruits prepared free from grease, and in as natural a condition as possible, should be the food for the tables of all who claim to be preparing for translation to heaven. The less feverish the diet, the more easily can the passions be controlled. Gratification of taste should not be consulted irrespective of physical, intellectual, or moral health. {2T 352.1}

Here is a note by someone I have met and spent time with numerous times:

Malnourished Vegan Baby? - Two-year-old hospitalized after being raised vegan (headlines July 12, 2016)

Why did this case of malnutrition get a title that condemns potentially the healthiest way of eating - if the diet is starch based and incorporated with mother's milk from 6 months to 2 years of age? Certainly the dairy and meat industries got a big promotion. And, as I often say, "people love to hear good news about their bad habits."

This is a repeat of a similar story from 2007 printed in the NY Times, that received world wide attention. It was titled: Death by Veganism. Parents were convicted of murder of their 6 week old child by feeding him a diet of apple juice and soy milk.

See: http://www.drmcdougall.com/health/educat...-by-veganism/

The details in this 2007 article will help you understand the current publication.

In contrast there are thousands of children who die every year from complications caused by eating meat, dairy, and other junk foods. These never make headlines. Plus hundreds of millions of children suffer with obesity, constipation, and arthritis, to name a few well-known affects of standard eating practices.

John McDougall, MD

"The Lord desire, through His people, to answer Satan's charges by showing the result of obedience to right principles. He desires our health institutions to stand as witness for truth. They are to give character to the work which must be carried forward in these last days in restoring men through a reformation of the habits, appetites, and passions. Seventh-day Adventists are to be represented to the world by the advanced principles of health reform which God has given us." {Ms166-1899 1.9}

Alchemy,

To say Green's statement is misleading would be an understatement.

And yes, you're correct, many do choose a diet without understanding the issues. Read Green's first link. It says that eating vegan isn't the problem, but stupid people are. There's nothing wrong with the diet, but with how some people choose to implement it. Ellen White says the same thing:

Provide Nourishing Food

Some of our people conscientiously abstain from eating improper food, and at the same time neglect to eat food that would supply the elements necessary for the proper sustenance of the body. Let us never bear a testimony against health reform by failing to use wholesome, palatable food in place of the harmful articles of diet that we have discarded. Much tact and discretion should be employed in preparing nourishing food to take the place of that which has constituted the diet of many families. This effort requires faith in God, earnestness of purpose, and a willingness to help one another. A diet lacking in the proper elements of nutrition brings reproach upon the cause of health reform. We are mortal, and must supply ourselves with food that will give proper sustenance to the body. {MM 273.3}

And as much as Green wishes, it does not mean eggs.

The question is, do we now know how to supply the place of that which is discarded? Green suggests that we will never know how until right before the Lord comes.

But it's apparent, Green likes eggs and does not hesitate to promote them. Something for him:

We find in every such instance a good reason why they cannot live out the health reform. They do not live it out, and have never followed it strictly, therefore they cannot be benefited by it. Some fall into the error that because they discard meat, they have no need to supply its place with the best fruits and vegetables, prepared in their most natural state, free from grease and spices. If they would only skillfully arrange the bounties with which the Creator has surrounded them, parents and children with a clear conscience unitedly engaging in the work, they would enjoy simple food, and would then be able to speak understandingly of health reform. Those who have not been converted to health reform, and have never fully adopted it, are not judges of its benefits. Those who digress occasionally to gratify the taste in eating a fattened turkey or other flesh meats, pervert their appetites, and are not the ones to judge the benefits of the system of health reform. They are controlled by taste, not by principle. {CD 399.1}


Do you recall Green saying he's had brain damage from a vitamin deficiency?

But you're not brain dead are you? Think through it. Consider APL's post. Lot's of people are eating a vegan diet. If eating vegan leads to death or malnourishment, there would be lot's of people that way. Are there? If someone dies from eating meat (or eggs) does that mean no one can eat it? Taking the extremes does not mean a generality.

Green is dangerous. He thinks eating minimal amount eggs will supply all his B12. When pointed out how many one needs to eat to get the B12, he objects and says he follows Ellen White. Ellen White says nothing about getting B12 from eggs. The danger is blindly promoting you don't need to worry if you eat eggs.

I do so like
green eggs and ham!
Thank you!
Thank you,
Sam-I-am

The diet reform should be progressive. As disease in animals increases, the use of milk and eggs will become more and more unsafe. An effort should be made to supply their place with other things that are healthful and inexpensive. 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. {CCh 225.4}

Does that sound like never?
Does that sound like not teaching people to give up milk and eggs?

So you see, Green is promoting going directly contrary to the instructions God has given us through Ellen White. As an Adventist, this is a dangerous thing.

Cervical cancer is a sexually transmitted disease. What does science show? Consider the following:
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/ffl/newsletter/national-cervical-cancer-awareness-month
http://nutritionfacts.org/2014/03/18/why-do-vegan-women-have-fewer-female-cancers

God Will Provide
613. We see that cattle are becoming greatly diseased, the earth itself is corrupted, and we know that the time will come when it will not be best to use milk and eggs. But that time has not yet come. We know that when it does come, the Lord will provide. The question is asked, meaning much to all concerned, Will God set a table in the wilderness? I think the answer may be made, Yea, God will provide food for His people. {CD 359.2}
In all parts of the world provision will be made to supply the place of milk and eggs. And the Lord will let us know when the time comes to give up these articles. He desires all to feel that they have a gracious heavenly Father who will instruct them in all things. The Lord will give dietetic art and skill to His people in all parts of the world, teaching them how to use for the sustenance of life the products of the earth.—Letter 151, 1901 {CD 359.3}
[Use of Milk in Breadmaking—496]
[Use of Milk in Whole-Wheat Rolls—503]

I am not a full vegan myself. But, I believe the food of the world is dangerous enough now and I believe the Lord is revealing that to His people.

This guy is a vegan btw; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP_LIY8cjf4

Yes, eating processed foods high in oils increases the omega-6s and increases inflammation. But if we follow the recommendations we have had for over 100 years, we need not go down that path. Grains and fruits prepared free from grease, and in as natural a condition as possible, should be the food for the tables of all who claim to be preparing for translation to heaven. The less feverish the diet, the more easily can the passions be controlled. Gratification of taste should not be consulted irrespective of physical, intellectual, or moral health. {2T 352.1}

Grains and fruits, as natural as possible, and free from oil is the diet for those preparing for translation.

Green makes another mistake in believing that health reform is not part of the third angel's message.

APL,

Do you eat vegetables?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Who shall we follow?

APL,

Personally, it does not matter to me if you answer me or not, but for your own soul's sake, you deserve to properly consider how you are choosing to interpret Mrs. White. You could not answer me whether or not you are eating vegetables. Why is that? It was a very simple question.

The fact that you are not answering such a simple question as that is indicative of a larger issue: You KNOW that you have twisted Mrs. White by using her out-of-context.

I couldn't live with my conscience if I did that.

If you want to use that Ellen White statement regarding preparing for translation as excluding milk and eggs, here are other items you should be giving up as well:

beans
honey
mushrooms
nuts
seaweed
vegetables
-- (carrots, potatoes, radishes, onions, chives, beets, turnips, spinach, lettuce, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, celery, kale, artichokes, watercress, mint, basil, herbs, licorice, dill, alfalfa sprouts, bean sprouts, sugarcane, okra, asparagus, garlic, shallot, kohlrabi, lemon grass, bamboo, cassava, yam, sweet potato, ginger, jícama, parsnip, turnip, rutabaga, taro, wasabi, turmeric, galangal, etc.)
yeast

Are you teaching people to cook without all these?

Note: Teaching cookery is different than teaching diet. Mrs. White is more than clear on this point. You deserve to take some time apart to consider the full body of her statements on the matter. It appears someone has misled you as to what Mrs. White teaches on this subject. To a doctor who went to less of an extreme than the one which you appear to be advocating, the following was written.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It would be good for you if you considered ALL that EGW has written. You last post is clear evidence of twisting all that she has written. I know what your question was pointing to, and it based on a single quotation. Even your quotations from TSDF reveal the weakness of your position. Example, most people have no idea the condition of the animals from which they obtain their milk and eggs. EGW is clear that giving up milk and eggs can be done. Her greatest caution is for the poor. Today it is not difficult to forgo milk and eggs and use things which are better and more healthful.

Thank you, I have. Have you?


If you mean to accuse me, have at it. But it appears you may be accusing Mrs. White herself, whom I quoted in that post.


That's interesting, because that "single quotation" just happens to be the one you brought here.


First of all, it is not my position that you are attacking, but that of Ellen White. Other quotes support the concept when you read them "all."


This is a straw man argument and has little to do with Mrs. White's statement, though she does tell us our milk and eggs should be from healthy animals. That's common sense, though, don't you think? Personally, I hope my fruits and vegetables are from healthy sources too, don't you? (I wouldn't care to have them full of pesticides, for example, would you? Is GMO healthy?)


Sure. She tells us that the "very small minority" can do so without harm.


That's stretching the truth, or perhaps dependent upon one's definitions of "greatest caution." She speaks of more than just the poor, but she certainly does address them as well.


No, it is not difficult in some places to obtain good supplements. As long as the vegan knows that he or she needs to take supplements to replace what they would naturally have obtained in the milk or eggs, then perhaps they can switch from the animal products to the supplements with less risk of ill effects.

For vitamin B12, those who take supplements should know, however, that by far the most common source on the market, cyanocobalamin, which is also the cheapest, is virtually unusable by the body. Precious little uptake of B12 occurs with it, and a B12 deficiency can still develop when taking this as one's source. Hydroxocobalamin is a slightly better form, and more expensive, but a better one by far, and most expensive of the three as well, is methylcobalamin. Where I am located, it is unavailable. We have only cyanocobalamin here. Perhaps Mrs. White refers to this country as among those "poor" which she allows greater latitude in terms of dietary health reform. Of course, anyone can still, given a rural setting, obtain eggs from healthy hens, simply by raising a few of their own.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here is again you twist EGW. Only a small minority can do without milk and eggs? NO, she said that the poor MAY not be able to provide sufficient nutrition without it. Quite the opposite of what you'd like to believe.

***GREEN LOGIC*** LOL!! You call it a straw man argument then back me up by what EGW says. Actually, it is "black logic" as it is far from the light. Do you know what your eggs and milk come from healthy animals? Do MOST people know? Nope! Most have NO IDEA. I won't address the rest of YOUR STRAW MAN argument.

</shaking head>

APL,

I put that phrase in quotes for a reason. You can, by using that very same quoted string, find where Ellen White confirms what I am saying.

So, will you do your homework like a true Berean?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Again, your proof-text fails you. Your "quote" comes from the Kress collection. Have your does your homework and read the whole article? WHO is EGW most concerned with in the topic of milk and eggs? Note also when this was written, but of course you know the year, right? Is the worry for the poor the same today as it was then? Do we now have access to foods which replace the need for the less healthful. You bet!

The load of sickness and disease is increasing. We have the knowledge and tools to now combat this rising plague of heart disease, cancer, auto-immune disease, etc. The time has come to give up that which is not for our best and use the now bountiful blessings of produce our Father has supplied.

I guess that must be the same principle you use to reject the truths of Biblical passages like 1 Timothy 3, is that right? "Well that came from a personal letter to Timothy. . . ."

Thou seemeth not to be a true Berean.

For the Bereans among us, here are some additional thoughts to ponder on the topic in support of what has already been said.



The context of the above quote demonstrates that Ellen White's own teaching regarding "extremes" is within the context of giving up milk and eggs, i.e. it is "extremist" to give them up. She uses that word as well. . .



Of course, Mrs. White would not have told only one person not to go to extremes, would she? Can a true Berean say "only Dr. Kress should not go to extremes and be an extremist. . .the rest of us should be extremists"?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did you read the WHOLE letter? Did you? Every word and all that was said?

NO. You want to know how I know? Because of this statement:You then quote {CD 202.4} and {CD 204.1}. IF, IF, you were a berean as you claimed, this is not additional information. This is from the SAME Kress letter. The SAME letter! Shall we also recommend blood transfusions?

Now who has EGG on their face?

APL,

Yes, I knew that those statements I quoted next came from the same letter. I also knew that they are quoted in other places, including Counsels on Diet and Foods, and Medical Ministry. Will you now reject those as well?

You may be on course toward rejection of the light God gave us through Mrs. White.

I hope you consider well these things. Of course, an extremist, by definition, lacks balance, and may never be able to read the literature in its proper light.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

green - I hope you are not bearing false witness because I don't believe you knew the the CD quotes was from the same letter. You bring a quote from a letter, then bring what you call additional quotes, but they are from the same letter. This is evidence you don't know your source. Why did you not quote the original source instead of a compilation which was all from the same letter as your original quotation thinking is was new information? As for extreme, I think I know who is extreme. The advice in the Kress letter is good where it should be applied. The Lord has given us ample evidence that we no longer need to rely on foods of animal sources, and this has been true for quite sometime.

APL,

I am far more versed in Ellen White than you might suppose. I certainly DID know, and did not bear false witness. However, I also knew that you wished to portray the quote as a little-known statement in someone's personal collection, and that if I used the portions quoted in a well-known book, it would undermine your ability to gainsay them. I, therefore, selected the additional information from Counsels on Diet and Foods.

Contrary to what you are saying, however, the Lord has given us ample evidence that eggs and/or milk are still quite necessary. Ellen White says this, and perhaps you were simply unaware of the fact? (I don't think you should be, though, as I have understood that you should also be quite versed in her writings.)



Eggs are not meat, according to Ellen White. This fact never changed. Consider her own diet in her last year of life, if you will.

APL, you should know that when I say I have read every statement on milk and eggs from Mrs. White, I mean it. I have not only done so, I have from them prepared presentations that I have presented to churches on the topic. You are not discussing this with an uninformed individual. Mrs. White was balanced. She would have called you an extremist.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In 1883, Mrs. White published the following:



The following statement was published in 1890.



In 1897-1898 it was adjusted slightly and republished as:


[Underlining added to show a significant change.]

Clearly, Mrs. White viewed milk and cream as part of a healthful diet. This did not change. What is changing is the health of animals. Many people today can still obtain milk and eggs from healthy animals. America may be less privileged in that area than some countries. Mrs. White would likely have advocated in our day against eating raw cabbage, unless it had come from a known sanitary source. She might have recommended blanching all cabbage or Brussels sprouts to reduce the risk of e coli. Most bacterial outbreaks in the news of late have been with our vegetables. Should we give up vegetables because "it is clearly no longer safe and God is telling us to do so"? I think not. Mrs. White makes clear that we are to give up milk and eggs when God tells us to.

Dr. Kress ate eggs to his dying day. They are what gave him his longevity, and were a prescription from God. God never told him to give them up. That being the case, why did Mrs. White write to him that when it is time to give them up, God Himself would reveal it? Did she not rather write this for our benefit?

Be a Berean. He that hath an ear, let him hear.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That is not my point! My point is to read every statement in the context of the original document. As you said, Quote: " I, therefore, selected the additional information from Counsels on Diet and Foods." The "additional" information was from the same original document which you did not quote, as if this was actually "additional" information. It was not. It was the same document. I do like the selection of quotes you posted this time, "in some cases". You make it out to be all EXCEPT "some cases". I wonder, have you ever treated anyone with heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, auto-immune disease?

APL,

Your grasping at straws weakens your position. Any reader here will see through your attempted argument as a futile excuse to discredit the idea you disdain. The fact is, your argument has no merit. If I read the first chapter of "Steps to Christ," can I assume there is no "additional information" in the rest of the book? It comes from the "same source," does it not? Or, if you should say each chapter is separate, what about reading just the first paragraph of each? If you write me a letter, should I read only the first idea, sentence, paragraph, or page of it as there will be no "additional information" after that?

If you wish to be a Berean: Instead of your false accusations, find some statements from the Bible or Ellen White to support your views. If you cannot find them, reconsider your views.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Actually, I think I caught you off guard and you are trying desperately to save face. The "same source" example is not a book, but a single letter. You produced a quote, which I challenged to you read in context of the whole letter, then you brought forward "additional" information but was in fact the same single letter, and this after being challenged to read the whole letter.

As for the Bible and Ellen White, I have no faith in your opinions, from repeated twisting of the statements to mean the exact opposite. Ex: "God destroys no man", but green says God destroys be active execution. Or, God is not the destroy, He is a destroyer. Or, "likeness of sinful flesh" to green means "sinless flesh". Or, nah, I'll stop.

Are you teaching everyone, and EGW instructs, to cook without milk and eggs? If not, why not? Actually, forget that question, I have no more questions for you.

Why you're making a connection of B12 and eggs can only be assumed from the fallacy you used in the past.

So, according to similar Green-logic, we can get all the fiber we need from eating one egg a day! In fact all vitamins, minerals, anything we need for healthy bodies are received by eating one egg a day. Ellen White said so (By twisting, implying, and conjecturing). Fabulous.



I do so like
green eggs and ham!
Thank you!
Thank you,
Sam-I-am

This was true in her day, but, she warns that it will not always be that way. And that is my point. These days, we know that food is being polluted and genetically altered so that we can't trust what is provided for us in the grocery stores. Dairy products are among those items we need need to beware of.

I'm sure you know that B12 does not come from meat. It is actually from the bacteria that is in the meat. Our current society of scrub, clean, sterilize etc. causes more of a problem with B12 than in Ellen White's day. If you grow you own organic food, you can just walk in the garden, pull a carrot, brush off the dirt and eat it. Many folks are afraid of dirt and with good reason if you don't grow your own food organically.

Excellent post daylily.

My understanding is that B12 is formed from bacteria in human mouths as well as animals. It is rather difficult to get the B12 from our mouth into the blood stream, but, we don't need any flesh food or dairy products to all the B12 we need.

This is misleading. Animals absorb B12 from the bacteria such that it is indeed in the meat. Bacteria do make B12. Animals do not make B12. Those facts remain. However, if one were to remove all bacteria from the meat, and then eat the meat, there is still B12 in it. There is also B12 in milk and in eggs, without needing to eat these as yogurt or with salmonella. There is no scientific evidence beyond a theory or supposition that supports the concept of obtaining B12 from eating dirt.



You might get some B12 from that bacteria in your mouth if you are not brushing your teeth. How much is questionable. Few people, even among meat eaters, have sufficient B12. B12 cannot be absorbed by the body just because it is present in the diet. It requires a special enzyme called "intrinsic factor." Intrinsic factor used to be thought to be closely related to stomach acid production. It is now known to be a more complex situation than this. Intrinsic factor is actually a tube-shaped molecule that wraps itself around the B12 vitamin, creating a package that can then essentially "inject" the B12 through the lining of the intestinal wall in the small intestine. Without intrinsic factor, you can have as much B12 in your diet as you wish and yet none of it will be absorbed or utilized. Humans likely create more than enough B12 in the colon, but none of it is absorbed or used--it simply exits the body. Some animals consume part of their own feces to obtain B12--I'm thankful to not be among them.

Mrs. White tells us that a very small minority of people can obtain all they need without milk and eggs. There are some, then, who can. I am among the great majority who cannot.

If you take supplements, which I have also tried and it did not work in my case (IM cyanocobalamin), you may be able to replace the milk and eggs--if you feel this is necessary. There are other properties in eggs that Mrs. White tells us counteract poisons. While she does not specify which ones, it is almost certain that sulfur is one of those. Ounce for ounce, an egg has eight times as much sulfur as garlic--the highest vegan source of sulfur. Most vegans do not sit down to a bowl of mashed garlic for lunch, and eat it rather sparingly. Therefore, vegans tend to have greater problems with toxicities, lacking the sulfur to help purge out the toxins.

Your statement that "we don't need any flesh food or dairy products to all the B12 we need" appears to go against Mrs. White's balanced wisdom on the matter. Milk and eggs are not a magic pill. They have their downsides. We will not find eternal life until we eat of the Tree of Life. However, given our present condition and situation in a sin-contaminated world, milk and eggs provide some essentials that cannot be found in adequate supply in a diet without them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Virus in cattle linked to human breast cancer

The above study from UC Berkeley shows that the largest signal in the association of breast cancer is Bovine Leukemia Virus. Shall we conclude that dairy today is benign? Green will tell us that, ignoring the facts that the dairy industry has no resemblance to that of EGW's time.

Here is a rational commentary on the current situation of dairy products.



And do note DayLily, read the words of Ellen White for yourself to get the true import of her comments, don't trust Green or me on this.

Why are you saying this? Daylily didn't mention anything about removing all the bacteria from the meat. That would be like removing all the bacteria from us and then thinking the B12 inside us magically disappeared.

But as pointed out before, you are not getting enough B12 from the egg you are eating. You will then say that Ellen White says we get all we need from eggs, implying there's enough B12 in 1 egg. To which I say:

So, according to similar Green-logic, we can get all the fiber we need from eating one egg a day! In fact all vitamins, minerals, anything we need for healthy bodies are received by eating one egg a day. Ellen White said so (By twisting, implying, and conjecturing).


I wonder why she said the following if only a few could? Hmmmm.

The diet reform should be progressive. As disease in animals increases, the use of milk and eggs will become more and more unsafe. An effort should be made to supply their place with other things that are healthful and inexpensive. 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. {CCh 225.4}


And is that "cannot" or "will not"? She does say that there are a few who cannot. But that shouldn't be a rule nor be taught to the rest of us.

I just did an interesting, specialized search on Ellen White. I searched ONLY her original BOOKS--no compilations, no periodicals, no books that came out long after her death. I looked at all of the references to "milk OR cream." I then classified each statement as:

Positive: 50
Negative: 4
Neutral: 9

I would say the positives are clear. The line between neutral and negative is a little fuzzier, and more subjective. For example, she speaks of "milk and sugar" in "large amounts" as being worse than eating meat. But how does one count this relative to the milk itself? I went neutral on those statements, as the sugar obviously takes more of the blame, especially given that Mrs. White is so positive about milk elsewhere.

Here are some nice samples from her pen:

I would advise all to take something warm into the stomach every morning at least . . . while the gruel is hot, add milk. This will make a most palatable and healthful dish for the campground. . . . Another very simple yet wholesome dish is beans boiled or baked. Dilute a portion of them with water, add milk or cream, and make a broth; the bread can be used as in graham gruel. {2T 603.1}

. . . A moderate amount of milk and sugar, and a little salt, white bread raised with yeast for a change, graham flour prepared in a variety of ways by other hands than her own, plain cake with raisins, rice pudding with raisins, prunes, and figs, occasionally, and many other dishes I might mention, would have answered the demand of appetite. If he could not obtain some of these things, a little domestic wine would have done her no injury; it would have been better for her to have it than to do without it. In some cases, even a small amount of the least hurtful meat would do less injury than to suffer strong cravings for it. {2T 383.4}

. . . We have no meat, cake, or any rich food upon our table. We use no lard, but in its place, milk, cream, and some butter. We have our food prepared with but little salt, and have dispensed with spices of all kinds. We breakfast at seven, and take our dinner at one. It is seldom I have a faint feeling. My appetite is satisfied. My food is eaten with a greater relish than ever before. {4aSG 153.3}

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 the rich and poor together at the feet of Jesus. {9T 162.2}

. . . Vegetables should be made palatable with a little milk or cream, or something equivalent. {9T 161.4}


Here is a statement that could perhaps be taken positively, negatively, or neutral--depending on one's perspective.

The time will come when we may have to discard some of the articles of diet we now use, such as milk and cream and eggs; but it is not necessary to bring upon ourselves perplexity by premature and extreme restrictions. Wait until the circumstances demand it and the Lord prepares the way for it. {9T 162.3}

Notice that "we may have to." In other words, we would rather NOT. It would be better if we did not "have to." That sees it in the positive. To see it as a negative, one must assume we have already crossed the line. To see it as neutral, one simply combines both perspectives. But she is clear that God will reveal when it is time to give up milk and eggs. (See my next post.) He hasn't revealed this to me yet. Has He revealed it to you? if so, how? by your own self-reached conclusions/opinions? or by a clear "word behind" you saying "this is the way, walk ye in it"?


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Now, for the hard-core statement of truth that should speak decisively to all balanced individuals on this topic.



It is clear in the above that "a very small minority" of the people can discard milk and eggs and still do fine. Such a diet can "accommodate" them, in Mrs. White's words. That leaves the very large majority who need milk and eggs. I, being oblivious at the time to this statement, found out the hard way.

Note also that the context of her statement about "what is declared to be harmful" obviously does not include Mrs. White's saying so. She is very supportive of the benefits of both milk and eggs in her writings. She says they may become unsafe to use at some point, but that God will reveal it--not that people will declare it. The next statement after this sentence proves that the milk and the eggs were not considered by her to be harmful at all, even though some might make such a declaration, for she says "They fail to supply the system with proper nourishment, and as a consequence become weak and unable to work." That is the result of giving up the milk and eggs before God has told us to do so.

Yes, Mrs. White teaches that we should give instructions to all in how to cook without milk and eggs in preparation for the time when we may have to give them up. She also says that "the doctrine of dispensing with them should not be taught." Unless one wishes to believe she contradicted herself, then, we must accept that there is a fine line between teaching how to cook and teaching what to eat.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

By the way, could you show your results ordered and with date written by each? Would that make a difference?


What does that mean to you? (This is not a solicitation of a multi-page post but only of an answer). Could there be another way of understanding what she said? Could that indicate that some you count as "positive", someone else may count as "negative"?

"who can obtain all they need to take the place of the things discarded;"

Keyword: "who can obtain".

Who, today, cannot obtain?

When Ellen White wrote that, how many grocery stores with fresh produce were available?

When Ellen White wrote that, how many people had easy access to go to them?

When Ellen White wrote that, how many people had refrigerators?


As far as there coming a time, is incubating avian flu in eggs not a red flag? Is Salmonella outbreak in Australia not a red flag? Does a recall of half a billion eggs not suggest the time may be near? Does the FDA saying 79,000 are sickened from eggs annually not send up a red flag? When asked before, you refused to say what would be a sign for you. Do you have one now? Otherwise, it comes across as being impossible for you to know when it's time to give up eggs.


(Really, should be taught how to cook but not eat it?)

Some of our people, while conscientiously abstaining from eating improper foods,
neglect to supply themselves with the elements necessary for the sustenance of the body.
{TSDF 47.8}

Some foods are improper
and should be abstained from,
but in its place
the elements necessary for the sustenance of the body
should be supplied.

kland,

Many that I counted as positive were quoting from the Bible. Remember, Canaan was a land said to be "flowing with milk and honey." Poor vegans! Those are BOTH animal products!

The Bible speaks of milk in the positive. Canaan represents Heaven for the Christian. It represents our inheritance.

Ok...for your sake, since you asked, here's a breakdown of the years--with statements per book as a bonus.

Positive:
AA (1911): 3
COL (1900): 1
CTBH (1890): 2
DA (1898): 1
LS80 (1880): 1
LS88 (1888): 1
MH (1905): 1
PP (1890): 6
PK (1917): 3
LP (1883): 1
1SP (1870): 6
2SG (1860): 1
3SG (1864): 3
4aSG (1864): 4
1T (1855-1868): 1
2T (1868-1871): 3
3T (1872-1875): 2
4T (1876-1881): 2
5T (1882-1889): 2
7T (1902): 1
9T (1909): 6

Negative:
CTBH (1890): 1
MH (1905): 1
3T (1872-1875): 1
7T (1902): 1

Neutral:
CTBH (1890):2
MH (1905): 4
2T (1868-1871): 2
3T (1872-1875): 1


Given that there were only four statements that I counted as negative, they should at least represent the worst to be found. I will put them in a quote box for review below.



Those are truly some of the worst I can find towards milk. Excepting the possibility of disease in animals, there is nothing at all against it from Mrs. White's pen, save for its use in bad combinations with sugar or mush. Far more of her statements actually recommend it as wholesome and nourishing.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is 2016 the same as 1901? The fact that now 100% of milk contains Bovine Leukemia Virus, which is the strongest signal in those with breast cancer must not be a revelation according to the logical mind of some individuals. Today we have no need to take in these cancerous germs. God has revealed it, but some want to ignore it. The same do not want to heed the instruction that people everywhere should be taught now to cook without these items.

Are you letting your moderation be known unto all men? When did Mrs. White advocate teaching cookery without milk and eggs? Did she say "in the future it may be necessary to instruct people in ways to cook without milk and eggs"? No. She said people should be taught everywhere--in her day.

BUT, in her day, she still used milk and eggs to her dying day. She told some people they should add these back into their diet for strength. She told sick people they needed eggs to get well, and the eggs effected nearly a miracle cure. She prescribed these remedies for both young and old.

From the introduction to the Counsels on Diet and Foods, the White Estate wrote of Mrs. White's balance as follows (for those shorter on time, skip to the highlighted sections):

---

CD - Counsels on Diet and Foods (1938)


YOU SHOULD READ THIS


HOW THIS BOOK CAME TO BE

DECADES BEFORE MANY PHYSIOLOGISTS WERE CONCERNED WITH THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIET AND HEALTH, ELLEN G. WHITE IN HER WRITINGS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FOOD WE EAT AND OUR PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL WELFARE. IN HER DISCOURSES AND WRITINGS FROM 1863 ONWARD, SHE DISCUSSED FREQUENTLY THE IMPORTANCE OF DIET AND ADEQUATE NUTRITION. HER COUNSELS, AS PRESERVED IN PAMPHLETS AND BOOKS, IN THE JOURNALS OF THE DENOMINATION, AND IN PERSONAL TESTIMONIES, HAVE EXERTED A STRONG INFLUENCE ON THE DIETETIC HABITS OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, AND INDIRECTLY HAVE LEFT THEIR IMPRESS UPON THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
MRS. WHITE'S WRITINGS REGARDING FOODS AND A HEALTHFUL DIET WERE DRAWN TOGETHER IN 1926 IN A TOPICALLY ARRANGED WORK DESIGNED TO SERVE PRIMARILY AS A TEXTBOOK FOR STUDENTS OF DIETETICS AT THE COLLEGE OF MEDICAL EVANGELISTS AT LOMA LINDA. THIS INITIAL PRINTING, TITLED TESTIMONY STUDIES ON DIET AND FOODS, WAS SOON EXHAUSTED.
A NEW AND ENLARGED VOLUME, TITLED COUNSELS ON DIET AND FOODS, APPEARED IN 1938. IT WAS REFERRED TO AS A "SECOND EDITION," AND WAS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ELLEN G. WHITE ESTATE. A THIRD EDITION, PRINTED IN A SMALLER PAGE SIZE TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN HOME LIBRARY SERIES, WAS PUBLISHED IN 1946. THE PRESENT EDITION IS THE FOURTH, AND INVOLVES NO CHANGE IN TEXT OR PAGINATION.

THIS IS A UNIQUE COMPILATION

IN ASSEMBLING THE MATERIALS COMPRISING COUNSELS ON DIET AND FOODS, AN EFFORT WAS MADE TO INCLUDE THE FULL RANGE OF INSTRUCTION ON THE SUBJECT FROM MRS. WHITE'S PEN. THE RESULTING COMPILATION IS UNIQUE AMONG THE ELLEN G. WHITE BOOKS,

4

FOR IT PRESENTS THE COUNSELS CLUSTERED TOPICALLY UNDER A GENERAL HEADING, WITH NO ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE A CONTINUITY IN READING.
EACH SECTION CONTAINS THE E. G. WHITE MATERIALS THAT, ASSEMBLED, MAKE A REPRESENTATIVE PRESENTATION OF THE TOPIC DEALT WITH. NOTHING THAT WOULD MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN IGNORED. OFTEN IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCES MANY PHASES OF HEALTH INSTRUCTION ARE TREATED TOGETHER IN ONE PARAGRAPH. TO GIVE ALL THE CONTEXT IN SUCH CASES WOULD HAVE INVOLVED CONSIDERABLE REPETITION. THROUGH THE USE OF CROSS REFERENCES SUCH REPETITION IS MINIMIZED.
WHILE THE LIMITATIONS OF SPACE AND THE EFFORT TO AVOID REPETITION HAVE MADE IT INADVISABLE TO INCLUDE EVERY STATEMENT ON THE MORE GENERAL PHASES OF THE DIET QUESTION, A COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION OF THE E. G. WHITE TEACHINGS HAS BEEN GIVEN.

PERIL OF TAKING A PART FOR THE WHOLE

THE FACT THAT THIS VOLUME IS CONSTRUCTED SOMEWHAT LIKE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, ISOLATING THE MAJOR PRESENTATIONS AND GROUPING THEM BY TOPIC, MAKES IT A CONVENIENT REFERENCE WORK. BUT THE ENCYCLOPEDIA DESIGN ALSO MAKES THE BOOK ONE THAT MAY EASILY BE MISUSED. TO GAIN THE AUTHOR'S INTENT AND THE FULL IMPACT OF ALL HER TEACHINGS, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE BOOK BE STUDIED AS A WHOLE.
THE READER SHOULD BEAR IN MIND THAT A SINGLE ELLEN WHITE STATEMENT ON SOME PHASE OF THE SUBJECT OF NUTRITION MAY COME FAR SHORT OF EXPRESSING HER FULL INTENT AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE NUTRITIONAL NEEDS OF THE BODY. FOR EXAMPLE, IN A SENTENCE APPEARING ON PAGE 314 OF THIS BOOK, TAKEN FROM TESTIMONIES, VOLUME 2, PAGE 352, SHE SAYS; "GRAINS AND FRUITS PREPARED FREE FROM GREASE, AND IN AS NATURAL A CONDITION AS POSSIBLE, SHOULD BE THE FOOD FOR THE TABLES OF ALL WHO CLAIM TO BE PREPARING FOR TRANSLATION." IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER OF HER STATEMENTS, CLEARLY IT WAS NOT MRS. WHITE'S INTENT TO TEACH THAT THOSE PREPARING FOR TRANSLATION SHOULD REDUCE THEIR DIET TO SIMPLY" GRAINS AND FRUITS." PENNED IN 1869 IN THE SETTING OF COUNSEL AGAINST THE USE OF MEAT, THIS STATEMENT SEEMS TO MAKE "GRAINS AND FRUITS" STAND FOR THE NONMEAT DIET. THE

5

STATEMENT DOES NOT MENTION NUTS, VEGETABLES, OR DAIRY PRODUCTS, ALL OF WHICH ELLEN WHITE RECOGNIZED AS IMPORTANT TO A BALANCED NUTRITIONAL PROGRAM.
ANOTHER STATEMENT ON THE SAME PAGE (314), WRITTEN SOME TWENTY YEARS LATER, IN DELINEATING A DIET INTENDED TO IMPART NOURISHMENT AND GIVE ENDURANCE AND VIGOR OF INTELLECT, MENTIONS "FRUIT, GRAINS, AND VEGETABLES" PREPARED WITH "MILK OR CREAM." NUTS ARE NOT MENTIONED. ACROSS THE PAGE IN ANOTHER PARAGRAPH WRITTEN IN 1905, "GRAINS, NUTS, VEGETABLES, AND FRUITS" ARE LISTED AS TAKING THE PLACE OF MEAT. IN THIS STATEMENT MILK IS NOT MENTIONED. YET MILK IS INCLUDED IN HER 1909
STATEMENT THAT APPEARS ON PAGE 355: "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."
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER INSTANCES SIMILAR TO THOSE CITED ABOVE WHERE ELLEN WHITE DOES NOT IN A GIVEN STATEMENT ENUMERATE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF AN ADEQUATE DIET. CARE MUST BE EXERCISED TO GET HER COMPLETE THOUGHT ON EACH SUBJECT. AN ISOLATED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT BE USED BY ITSELF, LEST THE PART BE TAKEN FOR THE WHOLE.

A CALL FOR EVERYONE TO STUDY

ELLEN WHITE DID NOT INTEND THAT HER WRITINGS ALONG NUTRITIONAL LINES SHOULD EXCLUDE THE NEED FOR EARNEST STUDY TO FIND THE BEST AND MOST AGREEABLE DIET, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A GROWING KNOWLEDGE, AND THE EXPERIENCE AND INVESTIGATION OF OTHERS. SHE WROTE:
"TO KEEP THE BODY IN A HEALTHY CONDITION, IN ORDER THAT ALL PARTS OF THE LIVING MACHINERY MAY ACT HARMONIOUSLY, SHOULD BE THE STUDY OF OUR LIFE."--PAGE 18.
"IT IS PLAINLY OUR DUTY TO GIVE THESE [NATURE'S] LAWS CAREFUL STUDY. WE SHOULD STUDY THEIR REQUIREMENTS IN REGARD TO OUR OWN BODIES, AND CONFORM TO THEM. IGNORANCE IN THESE THINGS IS SIN."--IBID.
CLEARLY MRS. WHITE FELT THAT EACH PERSON SHOULD BECOME WELL INFORMED, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE ADVANCEMENTS OF SCIENCE

6

IN NUTRITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS, SO LONG AS THE CONCLUSIONS HARMONIZE WITH THE COUNSELS GIVEN THROUGH INSPIRATION.

THE HAZARDS OF EXTREMES

ELLEN WHITE WAS NOT SLOW TO POINT OUT THE HAZARDS OF EXTREMES, OR INATTENTION, OR LAXITY IN PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE DIET FOR THE FAMILY. THIS FACT IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE STATEMENT THAT THE MOTHER "BY ILL-PREPARED, UNWHOLESOME FOOD" MIGHT ACTUALLY "HINDER AND EVEN RUIN BOTH THE ADULT'S USEFULNESS AND THE CHILD'S DEVELOPMENT" (P. 476). IN THE SAME STATEMENT SHE CALLED FOR "PROVIDING FOOD ADAPTED TO THE NEEDS OF THE BODY, AND AT THE SAME TIME INVITING AND PALATABLE."
WHILE THE REASONS FOR INCLUDING SOME DAIRY PRODUCTS IN A BALANCED, ADEQUATE DIET WERE NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD, ELLEN WHITE SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THEM, AND EVEN CAUTIONED AGAINST ELIMINATING THEM. TODAY IN THE LIGHT OF THE KNOWLEDGE THAT CERTAIN MINUTE NUTRIENTS ARE VITAL TO BODY FUNCTIONS, WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. SOME OF THESE NUTRIENTS, WHILE APPARENTLY NOT PRESENT IN ALL-VEGETABLE DIET, ARE AVAILABLE IN ADEQUATE AMOUNTS IN A LACTO-OVO-VEGETARIAN DIET. THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO CHILDREN WHOSE PROPER DEVELOPMENT ELLEN WHITE STATED MIGHT BE HINDERED BY "ILL-PREPARED UNWHOLESOME FOOD."
NEAR THE TURN OF THE CENTURY ELLEN WHITE BEGAN TO WRITE THAT BECAUSE OF ACCUMULATING DISEASE IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM ALL ANIMAL FOODS, INCLUDING MILK, WILL IN TIME HAVE TO BE GIVEN UP (SEE PP. 356, 357); YET AT THE SAME TIME SHE REPEATEDLY CAUTIONED AGAINST PREMATURE STEPS IN THIS DIRECTION AND IN 1909 DECLARED THAT THE TIME WILL COME WHEN SUCH MAY BE NECESSARY, BUT URGED AGAINST CREATING PERPLEXITY BY "PRE-MATURE AND EXTREME RESTRICTIONS." SHE COUNSELED THAT WE "WAIT UNTIL THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND IT, AND THE LORD PREPARES THE WAY FOR IT" (PP. 355-359).
IT WAS THE LACTO-OVO-VEGETARIAN DIET THAT SUSTAINED ELLEN WHITE IN ACTIVE SERVICE WELL INTO HER EIGHTY-EIGHTH YEAR.

EMPLOY SOUND PRINCIPLES IN STUDY

CERTAIN SOUND PRINCIPLES MUST EVER BE APPLIED IN THE STUDY OF THE DIETARY COUNSELS FOUND IN THIS BOOK. ALL THE

7

INSTRUCTIONS, AS A BROAD, CONSISTENT, WELL-BALANCED WHOLE, SHOULD BE STUDIED WITH AN OPEN MIND. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO READ THE ENTIRE STATEMENT ON A GIVEN TOPIC. THEN, TO GAIN THE FULL INTENT OF THE AUTHOR, STATEMENT SHOULD BE PUT WITH STATEMENT. IF ONE STATEMENT DOES NOT SEEM TO ACCORD WITH ANOTHER, THE STUDENT WOULD DO WELL TO TRACE ONE, OR BOTH, TO THE ORIGINAL SETTINGS.
THE STUDENT SHOULD ALSO FOLLOW ELLEN WHITE'S EXAMPLE IN RECOGNIZING THREE BASIC PRINCIPLES AS ENUMERATED ON PAGE 481:
1. "THE DIET REFORM SHOULD BE PROGRESSIVE."--MH 320.
2. "WE DO NOT MARK OUT ANY PRECISE LINE TO BE FOLLOWED IN DIET."--9T 159.
3. "I MAKE MYSELF A CRITERION FOR NO ONE ELSE."--LETTER 45, 1903.

A RECOMMENDATION FOR HEALTH REFORM

TRUE DIET REFORM WILL RECOMMEND ITSELF BECAUSE OF ITS GOOD SENSE. ITS FRUITAGE WILL BE SEEN IN GOOD HEALTH, STRENGTH, A SWEET BREATH, AND A SENSE OF WELL-BEING. EVEN THE SPIRITUAL LIFE MAY BE AIDED BY GOOD HEALTH HABITS. IT HAS BEEN GRATIFYING TO WITNESS, THROUGH THE ONWARD MARCH OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY, A FULL SUBSTANTIATION OF MANY GREAT PRINCIPLES AND EVEN MINUTE POINTS OF INSTRUCTION REVEALED TO SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS THROUGH ELLEN WHITE'S INSPIRED PEN.
THAT THIS VOLUME MAY AID ITS READERS IN OBTAINING BETTER HEALTH, BOTH PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL, IS OUR SINCERE WISH.

THE TRUSTEES OF THE ELLEN G. WHITE ESTATE

WASHINGTON, D. C.
SEPTEMBER 17, 1976

---

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You should read that!

I suspect you do not deal very much with real people with real illness on a daily basis. I suspect you do not deal with blindness causes by bad habits. I suspect you do not deal much with leg and foot ulcers causes by diet. I suspect you do not deal much with people dying from diet induced heart disease. I suspect you do not deal much with people that have suffered strokes. Don't use your criterion for anyone else is a good recommendation. But when I am dealing with people dying of self inflicted disease, I will use the most effective medicine available - diet.

I certainly have read that, and I abide by it. Mrs. White ate no beans. I thrive on them and need them. Thankfully, her diet did not become the standard for everyone else. As she says herself, some cannot eat milk, others can do well on it. She told those who taught people to discard milk and eggs to do no such thing. Have you understood those statements? (I won't ask if you have read them, for I am certain that you have.)

Put your suspicions away. Mrs. White says we are not to be suspicious of the brethren.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But why do you continue to ignore present truth that milk contains "cancerous germs"? Do you believe that milk is a harmless drink today? What kind of evidence do you need to show that it is not healthy TODAY? I'm not sure ANY evidence would convince you. You are stuck in 1900. Life style diseases are epidemic, vastly beyond what was happening in EGW's day. But is it not great that you have a choice?

God has a sense of humor sometimes, He lead me to the following quotation just now: Ellen White writes: "God desires us to deal with . . . problems sensibly." She continues: "My mind has been greatly stirred with the idea [expressed by some as follows], 'Why, Sister White has said so and so, and Sister White has said so and so; and therefore we are going right up to it.'" [To this she responds:] "God wants us all to have common sense, and he wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relations of things." {Ms7-1904}

Yes. That is good. That's virtually the same message I posted above HERE.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes - milk is fine - - in her day. Is it safe today? You are welcome to it. The evidence is out there - are you going to continue to ignore it? Has the situation changed? Shall we use common sense?

You are the one ignoring Mrs. White. I am following her. She says clearly no one's diet should be made the criterion for others to follow.

I've used no cheese for many years. I drink no milk, and haven't for nearly decades now. I do, on occasion, encounter milk as an ingredient in some of the foods I eat. I am less privileged in my location with respect to food options than you may be. I do, for the bacteria specifically, eat yogurt once in awhile. That would be a few times a year. You are not following Mrs. White's counsel on the diet question. You are attempting to force others to your view, when, in fact, Ellen White said this should NOT be done.

Both of us will one day face our words again--in judgment. I hope you can feel confident that God will bless your course. I would not feel so confident if I were in your position. I advocate balance. Mrs. White was clear that we are not to go to extremes, which is what she called veganism, until the Lord Himself revealed it.

He has not revealed it to me. I cannot say whether or not He may have revealed it to you. But I am certain of one thing: He has not revealed to you that you should tell everyone else to follow your diet. Common sense tells me that God would not contradict Himself.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

My last quote of EGW tells me you may indeed be not following her advice. And no, God has not contradicted Himself, on many topics! Perhaps, I need to now take the advice of Hosea 4.

Good advice. Please follow it.

Good advice. Please follow it.

Good advice. Please follow it.

Who started this thread for what purpose?
Who jumps at most every chance to plug eggs?
Who is it that urges others to eat eggs?

Hmmmm.

Who needs to be confident when standing before their maker and how they will explain to Him the untold amount of harm and damage to both body and soul they have caused others by urging faulty and misleading advice upon them? And for the apparent purpose of self-justification of making their diet their personal idol.

Hmmmm. Indeed.

But yet you feel it is revealed that everyone still needs eggs. When asked before, you refused to say what would be a sign for you that it's time to give up eggs. Do you have one now? Otherwise, it comes across as being impossible for you to know when it's time to give up eggs.

Good advice. Please follow it.

kland,

If you feel I am making my own diet a criterion for others, you are greatly mistaken. I have said very little regarding my own diet here, and that merely to clarify a few points. It appears that, in place of clarifying, I have thrown you a stone of stumbling. I apologize for this.

While I advocate very strongly the views of Mrs. White, some here are advocating an opposite policy. While Mrs. White was balanced, many in both her day and ours were/are not. Mrs. White's visions given her showed her that eggs were a suitable treatment for the sick. Do you suppose that such medicinal advice from God is no longer valid?

Some ask me when I would say that the time has come to give up milk and eggs. WHY DO YOU ASK ME? Mrs. White said that the LORD would reveal it. Ask HIM. Why do I not know what I would say would constitute "a sign"? Because it would be presumptuous of me to suppose God would descend to my level and give me the sign I demanded.

I see others here as following the same course of presumption that I do not wish to enter. Some here make claims that because of such and such conditions in our world today, they must now teach people to do away with milk and eggs. Did God tell them this?

Has GOD told you that it is time to give up the milk and eggs?

I don't know the answer, only you can know. But I do know this: God has not told you to tell anyone else to give them up. Mrs. White was clear on that point.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is it not ironic that we know more about green's diet that either my own or kland's? I don't think EGW has said anything about what God had told us, and green is claiming to know the will of God, is he a prophet?

Has green ever treated a person with severe vascular disease such that they can't walk 25 feet because of leg pain?

Has green ever treated a person with diabetes who now has neuropathy in the legs leading to pain?>

Has green ever treated a person who has been blinded by diabetic retinopathy?

Has green ever treated a person with ischemic cardiomyopathy such they cannot walk up a single flight of stairs?

Has green ever treated a person with a stroke? Kidney failure? Depression? Cancer of the breast, bowel or prostate?

Green mocks health care, but quotes a few articles on supposed problem with a vegan diet, yet ignores the real problem that is all around us where many orders of magnitude more problems are caused by diet, which if implemented would help to alleviate the legend of diseases that afflict us and could result is greatly reducing real costs associated with the resultant medical care. I will do as EGW has told us to do in teaching others health reform.

Green, you started this thread with a purpose of making a criterion for others.

Green, no one here is urging an opposite policy. Those here are objecting to you making your choice of diet a criterion for others.

We're asking you what would it take to indicate God is telling you to give up milk and eggs. You are responding, there's no sign possible He could give you.

(You remind me of evolutionists in more than a few ways. There is nothing that could possibly be discovered for them to believe in a creator - their premise definition of evolution)

I started this thread with vegans in the news. In most of those, the vegans were merely getting "bad press." Here are some more. In these cases, they are facing legal trouble, and/or jail time. Would they be able to stay vegan in jail?

http://tri-cityherald-odd-chatter.tri-ci...za-credit-card/

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle...ted-italian-law

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37034619

https://www.rt.com/news/355348-vegan-parents-law-children/

http://www.newsweek.com/italy-could-imprison-parents-who-impose-veganism-their-children-488687

NOTE: These latest news pieces appear to be but ripples from the effects of the earlier ones.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I hope your Bible study is not like the pick-and-choose with news articles of this thread to support your own personal dietary desires, for the the truth becomes very obscure. The popular press has taken up the theme that "carbs are bad" and protein is good. And scientific studies have been published that say white rice is associated with an increase in diabetes. The "Green" title would be that white rice causes diabetes and maybe we should jail parents who feed their children white rice.

The following is from Dr. Rosane Oliveria's blog, of the University of California Davis (UC Davis) August 10, 2016.

The single most important staple food on the planet, rice currently feeds almost 50 percent of the world’s population.

Americans alone consume an average of a half-cup of cooked rice daily, more than three times of what they ate in the 1930s.

While white rice consumption is not linked to an increased risk of heart attack or stroke, it does seem to be associated with a higher incidence of diabetes.

Specifically, a meta-analysis of seven studies spanning two decades and 350,000 people showed an association between higher intake of white rice and an elevated rate of type 2 diabetes. It concluded that a single white rice serving per day could increase the risk of diabetes as much as 11 percent. It also noted that risk of developing diabetes was particularly high in Asian populations.

Japan has a higher incidence of diabetes relative to the US despite having eight times less obesity, while the Chinese diabetes rate rivals that of Americans (10 percent for China, 11 percent for the US) even though the former is seven times less obese.

Up until the year 2000, the Chinese enjoyed one of the lowest diabetes rates in the world. What has really changed in the last two decades is an increased consumption of animal-based foods.

Over the past 20 years, pork intake rose a dramatic 40 percent, oil consumption went up 20 percent and the amount of rice in the diet dropped 30 percent!

Since diabetes skyrocketed even though rice consumption decreased, this begs the question: Is the increase in diabetes linked to white rice or the rise of animal food intake?

Moreover, the dramatic uptick in diabetes incidence may also be explained by a little-known fact: combining animal protein with a refined carbohydrate like white rice sends your insulin soaring.

For example, if you feed people mashed white potatoes (a starchy, high carbohydrate food like white rice) and then add an animal protein like tuna fish to the meal, you get twice the insulin spike. Similar results are seen when you combine white flour spaghetti with meat.

Simply put, the addition of the animal protein will make the pancreas work overtime.

It is not the rice, it is the animal products. Should we jail everyone who feed their children meat? Green?

APL/kland,

You appear to be missing the title of this thread, and you appear not to have read the news pieces linked. I'll stand by what kland has quoted me saying, but will the government officials regard Mrs. White in that same manner and not send the vegans to jail?

This thread is not about rice. I'll start one about that, as APL seems interested in that topic. Most vegans don't eat it. Most rice eaters are not vegan. True vegetarianism is rare in Southeast Asia--almost unheard of. Consider that there are several forms of Buddhism, and the form that dominates Southeast Asia takes a laissez-faire attitude toward meat. This may be crucial as a protein source, because the diet is otherwise very lean on protein, particularly the amino acid lysine. And white rice also provides more protein than brown rice. (See below.) Even the monks eat meat. Where I live, people will seemingly eat anything that moves.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green's reading of my last post reinforces by belief that he focuses on a twig and ignores the forest. His belief that I was focusing on rice PROVES that his reading is very selective. Is he intentional in this which would be a very malignant response, or is it ignorance?

Green, I'm sorry I was not clear. I am objecting to your whole premise, your purpose of intent, of creating this thread, of making one's diet a criterion for others to follow.


I disagree, but there's more important things...

Now that's a statement that is either absolutely true or absolutely false!

It is not an opinion, that a twisting of information can be attempted, to make one's desire of food choices as a criteria for others. But that statement is either true or false.

Notice the statement does not say certain brands of rice are fortified with more protein. This is about the process of turning brown rice into white. Logic seems to suggest, that if you have something, take away part of it, you will not have more of what makes it up. But there is a possibility that in the process of taking away something, the rest is concentrated. So that potential possibility could possibly exist. Of which, such facts can either be shown or not shown.

So before I finalize my judgment, could you please give evidence of the facts supporting that "white rice also provides more protein than brown rice"?

A much more relevant news story than Green's vegan stories.



Transcript: Animal Protein Compared to Cigarette Smoking

Only about one in 10,000 people make it to be 100 years old. What’s their secret?  Well, in 1993, a major breakthrough in longevity research was published: a single genetic mutation that doubled the lifespan of a tiny roundworm. Instead of all being dead by 30 days, the mutants lived 60 days or longer. This lifespan extension was the largest yet reported in any organism.

This Methuselah worm medical marvel is the equivalent of producing a healthy 200-year-old human—all because of a single mutation? That shouldn’t happen; I mean, presumably, aging is caused by multiple processes, many genes. How could just knocking out one gene double the lifespan?

What is this aging gene, anyway? This gene that so speeds up aging that if it’s knocked out, the animals live twice as long? It’s been called the Grim Reaper gene. What is it? It’s the worm equivalent of the human IGF-1 receptor. And mutations of that same receptor in humans may help explain why some people live to be a hundred, and other people don’t.

So, is it just the luck of the draw whether we got good genes or bad? No, we can turn on and off the expression of these genes, depending on what we eat. Three years ago, I profiled a remarkable series of experiments about IGF-1—insulin-like growth factor 1—this cancer-promoting growth hormone, released in excess amounts by our liver when we eat animal protein. So, men and women who don’t eat meat, egg whites, or dairy proteins have significantly lower levels circulating within their bodies.

Switching people to a plant-based diet can significantly lower IGF-1 levels within just 11 days, markedly improving the ability of women’s bloodstreams to suppress breast cancer growth, and then kill breast cancer cells off.

Similarly, the blood serum of men on plant-based diets suppresses prostate cancer cell growth about eight times better than before they changed their diet. This dramatic improvement in cancer defenses is, however, abolished if you add back just the amount of IGF-1 banished from their systems because they were eating and living healthier.

This is one way to explain the low rates of cancer among plant-based populations: the drop in animal protein intake leads to a drop in IGF-1, which leads to a drop in cancer growth. An effect so powerful, Dr. Dean Ornish and colleagues appeared to be able to reverse the progression of prostate cancer without chemo, surgery, or radiation—just a plant-based diet, and other healthy lifestyle changes.

Now, when we’re kids, we need growth hormones to grow. There’s a rare genetic defect that causes severe IGF-1 deficiency, leading to a type of dwarfism—but also apparently makes you effectively cancer-proof. Not a single death from cancer in about 100 individuals with IGF-1 deficiency. How about 200 individuals? None developed cancer. See, most malignant tumors are covered in IGF-1 receptors. But if there’s no IGF-1 around, then they may not be able to grow and spread.

This may help explain why those eating low-carb diets appear to cut their lives short. But not just any low-carb diet—specifically those based on animal sources, whereas vegetable-based low-carb diets were associated with a lower risk of death.

But look, low-carb diets are high in animal fat, as well as animal protein. So, how do we know it wasn’t the saturated animal fat that was killing people off, and it had nothing to do with the protein? What we need is a study that just follows a few thousand people and their protein intakes for 20 years or so, and just see who lives longest, who gets cancer, who doesn’t. But, there’s never been a study like that—until now.

6,000 men and women over age 50 from across the U.S. were followed for 18 years, and those under age 65 with high protein intakes had a 75% increase in overall mortality, and a fourfold increase in the risk of dying from cancer. But not all proteins; these associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant-derived. This all makes sense, given the higher IGF-1 levels among those eating lots of protein.

 The sponsoring university sent out a press release with a memorable opening line: “That chicken wing you’re eating could be as deadly as a cigarette,” explaining that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die from cancer than someone with a low-protein diet—a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking cigarettes. And when they say low-protein diet, what they actually mean is just getting the recommended amount of protein.

“Almost everyone is going to have a cancer cell or pre-cancerous cell in them at some point. The question is: Does it progress?” said one of the lead researchers. That may depend on what we eat.

“The question is not whether a certain diet allows you to do well in the short term,” one of the researchers noted. “But can it help you survive to be 100?” It wasn’t just more deaths from cancer; middle-aged people who eat lots of protein from animal sources were found to be more susceptible to early death in general. Crucially, the same did not apply to plant proteins, like beans. And it wasn’t the fat, but the animal protein that appeared to be the culprit.

What was the response to the revelation that diets high in meat, eggs, and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking? Well, one nutrition scientist replied that it was potentially dangerous. It could damage the effectiveness of important public health messages. A smoker might think, “Why bother quitting smoking if my ham and cheese sandwich is just as bad for me?'”

It reminds me of a famous Philip Morris cigarette ad that tried to downplay the risks by saying, “Hey, you think second-hand smoke is bad, increasing the risk of lung cancer 19%; well, hey, drinking one or two glasses of milk may be three times as bad—62% increased risk of lung cancer. Or doubling the risk frequently cooking with oil; or tripling your risk of heart disease eating non-vegetarian; or multiplying your risk six-fold eating lots of meat and dairy.” So, they conclude, “Let’s keep some perspective here.” The risk of cancer from secondhand smoke may be well below that of other everyday activities.  So, breathe deep. 

That’s like saying: yeah, don’t worry about getting stabbed, because getting shot is so much worse. It’s like saying if you don’t wear seat belts, you might as well have unprotected sex. If you go bungee jumping, might as well disconnect your smoke alarms at home. Two risks don’t make a right.

Of course, you’ll note Philip Morris stopped throwing dairy under the bus once they purchased Kraft Foods.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer.

"It reminds me of a famous Philip Morris cigarette ad that tried to downplay the risks by saying, “Hey, you think second-hand smoke is bad, increasing the risk of lung cancer 19%; well, hey, drinking one or two glasses of milk may be three times as bad—62% increased risk of lung cancer. Or doubling the risk frequently cooking with oil; or tripling your risk of heart disease eating non-vegetarian; or multiplying your risk six-fold eating lots of meat and dairy.” So, they conclude, “Let’s keep some perspective here.” The risk of cancer from secondhand smoke may be well below that of other everyday activities. So, breathe deep.

That’s like saying: yeah, don’t worry about getting stabbed, because getting shot is so much worse. It’s like saying if you don’t wear seat belts, you might as well have unprotected sex. If you go bungee jumping, might as well disconnect your smoke alarms at home. Two risks don’t make a right.

Of course, you’ll note Philip Morris stopped throwing dairy under the bus once they purchased Kraft Foods."

Excellent observation. There is just too much science to ignore the health risks of meat and meat by-products.

I've been quite busy lately, and am just now seeing a lot of activity here, as well as that I was evidently planning to post more on the protein issue but it appears not to have been posted. I've had some browser glitches that have lost some of my posts--perhaps that occurred here. In any case, it's been awhile since I looked at the journal article I had found online upon which I based that statement. But it stands to reason that the bran of the grain is not high in protein so much as in fiber. The fiber would offset the ratio. Even such nutrients as B-vitamins, present in the bran, are not protein, nor is the arsenic which comes in at much higher levels in that bran.

Have you ever eaten rice bran? I have. It's nearly intolerable. I was at the time attempting to supply myself with some missing nutrient, hoping to overcome the general weakness I had been feeling. The bran didn't work, unfortunately, and looking back it probably aggravated my problems, because I was later diagnosed with high levels of arsenic. I know now what I did not know then--the bran contains a disproportionate amount of the arsenic in rice.

Arsenic weakens the digestive system in general, which in turn can cause general weakness. At that time, when I ate a bowl of beans I would afterward feel so weak that I could hardly stand up. The arsenic had weakened me, and had caused my digestion to be so weak as to have trouble with high-protein meals. This may be one of the causes for white rice promoting better protein absorption than brown rice.

Looking for this information on protein again, I found this.


That is the abstract for an article that can be found online. More information about it. . .


Honestly, as one who eats rice far more regularly than perhaps any other member on this forum, have some respect. I have personal acquaintance with the rice diet. It has its advantages and disadvantages, just as any dietary might. There are advantages to brown rice. I happen to see the disadvantages outweighing the advantages, given the complementary compounding factors of the Asian dietary.

More information on some of the dangers of brown rice can be found here: http://www.livestrong.com/article/487110-brown-rice-dangers/

I remember reading somewhere that white rice also stores better, with fewer risks of toxins from molds, etc. that might develop over time, especially in the moist conditions of Southeast Asia. I guess I would rather sacrifice some nutrients, if need be, to eliminate the risk of mold poisoning. I have known fellow missionaries who have become nearly incapacitated on account of the molds. This is an important area of health in which many people have little knowledge. Mrs. White warns of the dangers of molds, but most doctors do not know how to treat patients who have lost their strength on account of them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Were we talking about "And white rice also provides more protein than brown rice. " or something else?


What is it about "whole foods" do you not understand? Why are you kicking against the pricks? Why are you resisting counsel? Do you not suppose that if you extract the arsenic out of lettuce and consume that, it would be harmful?

Grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables constitute the diet chosen for us by our Creator. These foods, prepared in as simple and natural a manner as possible, are the most healthful and nourishing. They impart a strength, a power of endurance, and a vigor of intellect that are not afforded by a more complex and stimulating diet. 376 {CCh 222.1}

Nothing here about extracting anything.

Nothing in your links address anything of the sort relating to
It could be your brain has been so damaged by your choice of an impoverished diet that you do not understand that your statement is not in anyway supported by your links, nor are the links even addressing what you are suggesting.

I do notice:
While this process eliminates much of the nutritional benefits of eating brown rice,

Over time, the moist, nutrient-rich environment of brown rice can serve as a breeding ground


Do you understand that your link is saying brown rice has more nutrients? It does suggest, that included along with the nutrients, are elements which can cause food allergies. Why do you suppose people are allergic to "soy, gluten and nuts," and such? Do you suppose there could be at least the slightest possibility it's because they make their diet one of refined foods?



As a side note, if "the molds, bacteria and fungi" cannot get enough nutrients to grow on white rice, can you?

kland,

The white rice is the staple of the world for its calories, not for its having a full spectrum of essential vitamins and minerals. It does not. The vitamins come with the vegetables, eggs, meat, etc. that people add to the rice (of course, no meat for me). I have a challenge for you, however. You appear very interested in brown rice. Would you please try consuming brown rice as your primary carbohydrate source for every meal, every day, for one week? After this, perhaps you might indulge in white rice every day, every meal, for the next week for the sake of experiment. Tell us how your digestive tract handled the two separate dietaries.

You seem to have purposely missed the facts presented in the abstract I posted. Did you read it? I guess I should not be surprised.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, what I was objecting to was that statement of yours there.

You have not supported it. You now seem to be attempting to change the conversation.

Am I understanding correctly you no longer wish to talk of that statement? Shall we consider that you accept it as an incorrect statement which you cannot support?

Kland,

I no longer wish to converse with someone who misconstrues everything I say, who either cannot or will not read, and who closes his eyes to the facts in order to maintain a preconceived opinion.

Enjoy your opinion. You have the wonderful right to be wrong, and to believe you are right at the same time.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - is have MORE protein intake a GOOD thing? By implication that is your conclusion. Will eating brown rice lead to protein deficiency? Nope. Your last article shows value in eating brown rice over white!! But again this demonstrates now one reads the literature. Does science support that a vegan diet kills as you are trying to show? NO. A diet based on animal products contributes by far more significantly to disease but yet you are keep bringing up vegan diets and leave out the more significant points. One has to wonder WHY?

Green,
You accuse me of misconstruing your bold-faced statement? Closing my eyes to facts - ummm, that's funny. Didn't you make that statement? How can it be misconstrued? Is that my preconceived opinion that it CANNOT be misconstrued?

Do you mean facts such as white rice DOES NOT provide more protein than brown rice? Preconceived opinion? And that would be .... what? That you have reading comprehension problems of the articles you present - or is it that you do not think through statements you make as absolute?

I suppose it's better that you no longer wish to converse about your bold-faced statement rather than spend the next 15 pages spinning how you think it is true.


Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. -- Thomas Jefferson