From your NIH page:

Breakfast cereals, fortified with 25% of the DV for vitamin B12, 1 serving, 1.525 mcg.

Egg, whole, hard boiled, 1 large, 0.610 mcg.

enough said

Just the one food item comparison does not make every vegetarian brain damaged. Preventing B12 deficiency is not rocket science nor difficult. Green admitted to pernicious anemia, do you still claim that green? No about of supplementation will cure this without intrinsic factor unless the B12 is given parenterally. An unhealthy diet will lead to all kinds of things, obesity, GERD, diabetes, etc., and the medications that treat these diseases can interfere with absorption of B12. Some of the radical treatments, such as gastric bypass can play havoc with all of absorption issues. Advocates of plant based diets have good rationale and support from the Adventist health message to the reduction of most of our common western diseases. B12 is not hard to get, and focusing on this one issue is myoptic at best.

APL,

Based on the fact that you did not qualify any portion of the statement you earlier posted, after I specially invited you to do so, I will assume that you accept it in its entirety.

This being the case, you have some things to learn (or unlearn, as the case may be).

The article you posted by Dr. McDougall is inaccurate on multiple counts.

He incorrectly asserts that "The human gut also contains B12-synthesizing bacteria, living from the mouth to the anus.8 The presence of these bacteria is an important reason that disease from vitamin B12 deficiency occurs very rarely in people, even those who have been strict vegetarians (vegans) all of their lives."

In fact, there is no evidence that I have found to support such a claim. There are bacteria in the colon which produce B12, as Dr. McDougall also admits in the sentence which follows the quoted portion above, but like he says it is not absorbed. There is no evidence that bacteria on the teeth or elsewhere in the intestinal system produce B12 in sufficient supply to be an adequate source. In fact, any B12 produced in the small intestine would not have the advantage of the stomach's intrinsic factor, and would therefore not be absorbed, even if it were produced there.

I am surprised that you agree with the following statements that Dr. McDougall has made regarding folic acid, considering your "conflation" of folic acid and folate.



Regarding the seaweed sources, Dr. McDougall appears to have fallen prey to the same ignorant claims that have caught many people off guard, about which only recently scientists have learned the truth. Perhaps he is simply not up-to-date on this matter, though he does inject a bit of doubt concerning his facts.



There is now clear evidence that these B12 analogues actually may interfere with the absorption of real B12. In other words, vegans might be better off avoiding the seaweeds.

I will agree with the doctor's final advice to vegans. However, I would not agree with the possibility of premature death from veganism being "extremely rare." It might be rare to become a national headline over it.



The facts are these: Vegans have the same longevity as meat eaters. Studies have proven this.

I have it on good authority from one who has connections to those involved in the study that one of the reasons the AHS-2 (Adventist Health Study #2) results have not yet been fully released is that it is not looking good for the vegans. Apparently, the vegans have begged for more time, thinking that in the end, their diet simply must come out better than it presently appears. Of course, all of us must await the moment when those results are made public. I can only hope that the statisticians have not played tricks with their data to cover up any "anomalies" to their way of thinking. Let the truth be known.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - you make assertions, but do not back it up with references. Unlike McDougall who gives you references, for example #8 which you say is wrong, yet, he has the reference.

Yes, I know the data AHS-2 is producing and some of the biases of those conducting the studies knowing them personally. I also know the data they are collecting is insufficient to determine all that needs to be known to make a sweeping statement that veganism in itself is the problem. Example, how became vegans because of health issues? Can AHS-2 tell us that information? Not that anyone associated with the study can confirm. There are those that have chosen that lifestyle because of health issues. There are very few life long vegans in the study. These are the people that need to be included to conclude that veganism is the way to death as you like everyone to think.

But please, eat your eggs! Be happy. But as EGW says, there are those that should not eat eggs. You make it that EVERYONE that does not eat them is in trouble. But EGW makes no such claim. She does that the SOME who give up milk, butter, and eggs fail to supply what the body needs. Some. Not all. "Some, in abstaining from milk, eggs, and butter, have failed to supply the system with proper nourishment". She does make some interesting statements, which you seem to like to ignore, "You place upon your tables butter, eggs, and meat, and your children partake of them. They are fed with the very things that will excite their animal passions, and then you come to meeting and ask God to bless and save your children. How high do your prayers go?"

We have quoted these all before, "Those who live in new countries or in poverty-stricken districts where fruits and nuts are scarce, should not be urged to exclude milk and eggs from their dietary. It is true that persons in full flesh and in whom the animal passions are strong need to avoid the use of stimulating foods. Especially in families of children who are given to sensual habits, eggs should not be used. But in the case of persons whose blood-making organs are feeble,--especially if other foods to supply the needed elements cannot be obtained,-- milk and eggs should not be wholly discarded. Great care should be taken, however, to obtain milk from healthy cows and eggs from healthy fowls, that are well fed and well cared for; and the eggs should be so cooked as to be most easily digested. {CD 365.1} "

Note - poverty makes it difficult to supply the needs, but some even then should not eat eggs. How many know the cow or the chicken where their milk comes from besides you? Not many. She continues: "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. {CD 365.2}"

When should we be teaching people how to not use milk and eggs? In the future as you'd like for EVERYONE to believe? Or NOW as EGW tells us?

Finally she writes, "The question of using milk and butter and eggs will work out its own problem." I think she is right!

Perhaps you haven't been reading others' posts. I have provided more references here than have you. References already posted here addressed those points.

Here's the abstract of that reference #8 you refer to (February 1980):

Note the terms "may," "often," and "southern Indian subjects." In other words, their study ended in inconclusive results with a certain subject group, and that group happens to have had further research done on it which have invalidated the theory that they received B12 from the flora of their small intestine.

In this case, the credit goes to Alpendave for having already posted the evidence on this question, including a link to the article from which it was taken. I will quote it here again.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you read medical literature often?

As to your second point, I think you have missed my comments on having one's own garden...

Speaking of references, where is your reference to this?

Hint: You won't find one. Because there isn't one.

Mrs. White tells us to teach people how to cook without milk and eggs. This is a step toward eventually giving them up when necessary. She never tells us, however, to teach people to give them up. On the contrary, she calls those, who even by their own examples are attempting to teach that we should give them up, health deformers. (She doesn't use that exact word, but here is the quote that supports the concept.)


Mrs. White expressly warned against teaching others against milk and eggs.


She herself used eggs up to her death in 1915.


In fact, that statement shows that the bulk of her diet in the end was just eggs, about 75% of it!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And did this change the end result? Nope.

What does EGW say?SOME - not all. Is SOME the majority? Nope. Can a healthful diet be had if one gives up eggs and milk? You say no.

In you quote in CD 204, read on. Who is EGW talking about? Hint - read on a page or two.

Who ever said that eggs equaled fruits from the Tree of Life? But it is clear from her writings that she taught they are effective medicinally in a number of cases, they prolong life, and she herself never taught that "now" is the time to give them up. If she had taught this, why did she not follow her own advice?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, "some" is the majority. She says only a very small minority can do without milk and eggs.



I can personally attest to the fact that the energies of the church have been crippled in my part of the world on account of this doctrine of dispensing with milk and eggs. Mrs. White rings true again.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.