Was Ellen White More Accurate than Other Health Reformers?

By Dirk Anderson, Sep. 2009

In 2005, Seventh-day Adventists Leonard Brand and Don McMahon published a book entitled The Prophet and Her Critics. The book's cover boldly proclaims:

A striking new analysis refutes the charges that Ellen G. White "borrowed" the health message.

What? Does this book really refute the charges that Ellen copied her health message from others? Did Ronald Numbers and Walter Rea get it all wrong?

Ironically, while carefully avoiding the words "plagiarized" or "copied," the authors candidly admit the following:

Many of her health principles are found in the works of others who wrote before her and concurrent with her.¹

Despite this candid admission, they go on to claim that just because her writings mirror other health reformers, and despite the fact that those reformers' books were in her personal library, that is not sufficient proof for these SDA authors to believe she plagiarized her health message. How much more proof does one need? They argue that Mrs. White could have received her message supernaturally and written it out independently before she read those books. If that is even believable, then how can a person know if she really plagiarized or not?

The authors crafted a clever test to save the reputation of their beleaguered plagiarizing prophetess. They claimed that if the accuracy of her health writings exceeded that of other health reformers of her era, then that proves to them that her writings were received supernaturally.

After proposing this test, McMahon spends a chapter explaining how he carried out this test to prove Ellen White was receiving her health messages from God.

Putting Ellen White's Writings to the Test

In chapter five of the book, McMahon explains the methodology he used in his study of Ellen White's health writings:

1. He selected five reformers to compare to Ellen (Sylvester Graham, William Alcott, L.B. Coles, Caleb Jackson, and J.H. Kellogg).
2. He selected health categories (e.g. drugs, smoking, meat) and then subjectively sub-divided them into either "significant" or "minor." For example, he classified "pig meat" as minor and "butter" as significant.
3. Using his own undisclosed comparison methods, he determined that Ellen White's reforms correlated much higher to being accurate (according to today's medical standards) than any of the other reformers.

McMahon's Striking New Analysis

After applying his "striking new analysis," McMahon boasted that Ellen White's health teachings in Spiritual Gifts were amazingly accurate:

Of the 46 'whats' in Spiritual Gifts, 96 percent have been verified by modern medicine, with 70 percent being significant to health, and 26 having a minor effect. In contrast, the health principles ('whats') of the five other health reformers studied ranged from 35-45 percent verified. ... The accuracy of her health principles cannot be derived from any human source available anytime during her lifetime.²

These pseudo-scientific results portray Ellen as having a near-perfect score. This would seem to prove the authors' hypothesis. Mrs. White passed the test! Since she was so much more accurate than other health reformers, she must have had supernatural assistance. There is just no other explanation.

Just one question: Can these findings stand up under the pressure of a real investigation?

McMahon's Findings Investigated

No one should be surprised that McMahon — an ardent believer in Ellen White — found Ellen White to be an inspired prophet using his striking new analysis. That is because McMahon created this analysis with the intent of proving Ellen was inspired. This is not an objective inquiry; it is a forensic rescue mission aimed at saving a 19th-century "visionary" from the inescapable reality of her massive plagiarism.

What McMahon is trying to sell is that Ellen never opened those other books until she was done with her own writings. This is proven by the accuracy of her writings compared to others. Is this a believable argument?

The spectacle of SDA doctors attempting to "verify" Ellen White by comparing her accuracy to others is a masterclass in fraud that rivals even that of the White Estate.

The facts presented below will refute McMahon's striking new analysis using his own stated criteria:

If we can demonstrate that the prophet had access to ordinary human resources that can adequately account for the information delivered in his or her message, then we have refuted or at least seriously weakened the hypothesis that "supernatural communication is needed.³

Evidence will be presented below that...

1. Ellen White "had access to ordinary human resources that can adequately account for the information delivered in his or her message" thus seriously weakening Brand and McMahon's hypothesis.
2. Ellen White was not more accurate than other reformers, thus refuting their hypothesis.

Questions about the Criteria

One concern with McMahon's research is that he established his own criteria for his test. It was not established independently. Furthermore, it appears slanted to give Ellen White the edge.

He is not just listing health principles. He is curating a scoring system that already favors Ellen’s profile. The categories are not neutral—they are selectively framed to highlight what she emphasized, while quietly sidelining areas where she was weak, mistaken, or simply echoing the common thought of her time. Whole categories of her debunked health teachings are not even listed for comparison (condiments, fruits and vegetables at the same meal, vital force, cheese, hot and cold food and drinks, baking soda, milk in bread, hot bread, salad dressing, and more).

In McMahon's methodology, questionable or demonstrably incorrect ideas are downgraded to “minor” or “unverified,” or left off the list entirely, effectively neutralizing their impact. The result is a system where correct ideas count heavily, while incorrect ones carry little to no penalty.⁵

By defining significance in terms that align with Ellen’s strengths while minimizing her errors, the system virtually guarantees the outcome before the evaluation even begins. It is a system geared to produce a favorable result for Ellen.

The question remains: Even when using McMahon's questionable criteria, does Ellen beat the rest of the health reformers "significantly"?

Significantly Better?

McMahon asserted:

Significantly more of the health principles Ellen White chose are correct than those of any of the others.⁴

According to McMahon, Ellen wasn't slightly more accurate. She was "significantly" more accurate. That hypothesis will be tested below. Ellen White will be tested against his pre-selected group of health reformers usings his questionable criteria to determine if she demonstrated any significant advantages over the other reformers.

The following analysis was produced by neutral computer-based software:

An Unbiased Investigation

To better ascertain if Ellen White was significantly more accurate than other health reformers, each will be evaluated using a striking new analysis: Unbiased computer software with access to all of the health reformers' teachings. No subjective categories or divisions into "significant" or "minor." Simply a straight-forward analysis.

Sylvester Graham

It is not difficult to see why this Graham was selected by McMahon for comparison. He was not a physician but a temperance lecturer whose views—especially on sexuality—were extreme even by the standards of his own day. The medical establishment of the period largely dismissed his theories as speculative and excessive.

By the time Ellen G. White began promoting similar health concepts in the 1860s, the original Grahamite movement had already lost much of its momentum. Its lack of demonstrable results had eroded its credibility.

When a comparison is drawn between Ellen and Graham, the outcome will favor Ellen—not because she is divinely inspired, but because Graham is a weak reformer. Demonstrating Ellen's superiority over a fringe reformer from a prior generation does not establish unique insight or divine origin; it simply reflects the weakness of the benchmark.

William Alcott

Like Graham, Alcott was also a generation before Ellen White. Alcott was a true health reformer and Ellen White had two of his books in her private library. Nearly every "unique" health reform later claimed as "revealed light" by Ellen White—including the rejection of "flesh meats," the emphasis on fresh air, the condemnation of spices, and the link between physical health and "secret vice"—was already fully developed and meticulously documented in Alcott’s published works long before her 1863 Otsego vision.

Was Ellen White really more accurate than Alcott? Computer analysis follows:

James Caleb Jackson

Although older than Ellen White, Dr. Jackson was more of a contemporary of her than any of the other health reformers that McMahon selected. Jackson was a solid choice because Ellen White not only had his book in her personal library but she modeled her entire health message after his. She soaked up as much as she could of Jackson, spending weeks at his sanitarium and reading his books and articles. When SDAs first heard Ellen speak about her health reforms, they thought that she was repeating Jackson's teachings. Below is the unbiased analysis:

Once again there is virtually no difference, which is not surprising at all, since Ellen modelled her health message after his.

John Harvey Kellogg

Dr. Kellogg initially received his health reforms from Ellen White, so there should be no surprise that his reforms are similar to hers. He was contemporaneous with Ellen White, albeit a little younger. According to McMahon's thesis, if Ellen White was receiving supernatural guidance, her reforms should be well ahead of Kellogg's. Let's test that thesis below with an unbiased analysis:

Not surprisingly, McMahon's thesis fails. Kellogg was substantially more accurate than Ellen White.

Elizabeth Blackwell

While Ellen White was "visioning" about the spiritual dangers of meat and the insanity-inducing properties of masturbation, Dr. Blackwell was driving real and meaningful health reforms in rigorous, evidence-based science.

Blackwell was the first woman to receive a medical degree in the United States (Geneva Medical College, 1849). Unlike Ellen’s massive plagiarism, Blackwell offered the world original insights based upon scientific facts. While Ellen’s "Health Reform" was largely a list of "don'ts" aimed curbing animal passions, Blackwell’s reform was a massive effort to bring hygiene, nutrition, and sanitation to the urban poor.

Blackwell founded a Women's Medical College (1868) to train the next generation of scientifically literate female doctors while Ellen founded schools to train "medical missionaries" who were taught to prioritize the "Testimonies" and proselytization of other Christians.

The absurdity of the SDA claim that Ellen White was a 'medical pioneer' is laid bare the moment she is compared to a true giant like Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell. While Ellen was recycling the stale, pseudo-scientific rants of health fanatics, Blackwell was in the trenches of the New York slums, applying actual science to public health. Blackwell didn't need a vision to know that sanitation saved lives; she used observation and intellect. To call Ellen a 'pioneer' in the presence of Blackwell is like calling a fortune teller an astrophysicist—one guesses at the future using the folklore of the past, while the other builds the telescope that actually sees it.

Blackwell was never included by McMahon for obvious reasons. Her science-based approach far outshines Ellen White's "divine" approach in an unbiased comparison:

Conclusion

Upon further examination, Ellen White does not demonstrate superiority to McMahon's cherry-picked list of individuals (Alcott, Jackson, Kellogg). His research has been proven to be a White lie designed to sell people the myth that Ellen White did not engage in massive and systemic plagiarism of other health authors.

Questions Demanding Answers

In his book, Brand asks several leading questions, designed, no doubt, to encourage faith in Ellen White's gift:⁸

1. "Since Ellen White had very little formal education, and certainly no medical education at all, how did she know how to avoid those principles that may have seemed valid 150 years ago but are now known to be very wrong?"
2. "And where did she get the numerous health principles that the other reformers did not espouse?"
3. "Does anyone have another explanation?"

These questions will be answered below.

1. How Did Ellen White Avoid Health Reform Pitfalls?

How did Ellen White steer clear of all the medical nonsense of her day? This is a misleading question, because it presumes that she actually steered clear of medical nonsense. She did not. For example, she promulgated false ideas such as that solitary vice, marital excess, and animal passions brought on disease through the depletion of "vital force." She also taught the superiority of a vegan diet, that tea and coffee were poisonous, and that cinnamon, pepper, and mustard were bad for the blood, when in fact modern medical science has disproven all of these unfounded myths. She went to extremes on restricting drug medicines, one of which — quinine — may have saved the lives of her own missionaries. Many more examples could be cited. Therefore, it is ludicrous to suppose that she somehow evaded the medical nonsense of her day. She was a purveyor of that nonsense.

2. Where Did She Get the Numerous Health Principles Other Reformers Did Not Espouse?

This second question presumes that Ellen White had "numerous" health principles not espoused by other health reformers. It presumes the reader is unfamiliar with the history and writings of American health reformers in the nineteenth century. The truth is that Ellen White added nothing of value to the subject of health reform. Her only originality was in taking the reforms of others to extremes. All her health reforms were taught before her by other health reformers.

To claim she had "numerous principles" they didn't is a historical fabrication. As will be shown in the evidence presented below, nearly every single health reform she ever espoused during her entire life was also espoused by a single individual: Larkin B. Coles. Only a handful of her "reforms" were not also taught by Coles, and those few can be shown to come from other reformers whose books were in her personal library — Alcott, Coles, O.S. Fowler, Graham, and Jackson.

In addition to her library books, the Whites subscribed to and heavily clipped from journals like "The Water-Cure Journal" and "The Laws of Life." Her "principles" weren't revealed to her; they were clipped from magazines. She acted as a 19th-century "scavenger," taking the radical ideas of other reformers and stamping them with a "Thus Saith the Lord."

The claim that Ellen White possessed health principles unknown to her contemporary reformers is a historical hallucination. She didn't have 'more light.' She had more plagiarism than all of them combined.

"Does Anyone Have Another Explanation?"

As a matter of fact, yes! The "explanation" is really quite simple: Ellen White copied nearly every health idea she ever taught from L.B. Coles. The evidence presented below will substantiate that fact. Whatever did not come from Coles, came straight off the pages of other health reformers. That is the explanation. Massive plagiarism. Zero new light.

More Accurate than L.B. Coles?

McMahon claimed that Ellen White was more accurate than the primary individual she copied her health message from: L.B. Coles. In her personal library, Ellen White had a copy of this Adventist physician's 1860 book Philosophy of Health. Nearly every health reform Ellen White proposed in 1864 in Spiritual Gifts was derived from Coles' book. What a coincidence!

96% Accuracy in Spiritual Gifts?

One of McMahon's most audacious claims is that when compared to modern medical knowledge, Ellen White was 96% accurate in Spiritual Gifts. The evidence presented below refutes that assertion. The study below looked at 28 health teachings proposed by Ellen White in her 1864 book Spiritual Gifts. This analysis shows the following:

1. The source of Ellen's health message is Coles' book Philosophy of Health.
2. Ellen White was less accurate than L.B. Coles, not more accurate.
3. Ellen White was far less accurate than 96%.

In the analysis below, each health teaching will be compared to modern medical science. At the end, Ellen White's and L.B. Coles' scores will be compared to determine if she was more inspired than Coles. The quotes below will be color-coded with GREEN for accurate, and RED for inaccurate.

It should now be apparent that the source of White's health reforms in Spiritual Gifts was L.B. Coles. Nearly every health principle promoted by her was also promoted by Coles, and in the few places she differed from Coles, she was wrong more often than right.

As for 96% accuracy, that is untenable. If this were a test, Ellen and Coles would both get a grade of a "D". In actuality, Mrs. White should get an "F" for cheating from Coles. This disproves the theory that Mrs. White had supernatural assistance in the plagiarism of her health writings, because her writings are not even as accurate as the writings she copied from!

Failed to Copy Accurate Statements from Coles

Mrs. White was blind about copying accurate statements from Coles. For example, Coles viewed cocoa as a healthy alternative to coffee or tea. In Philosophy of Health, he wrote: "Cocoa is a healthy drink" (p. 86).

Mrs. White never wrote anything positive about cocoa. She missed a great opportunity because Coles was right. Cocoa is high in flavonoids (like epicatechin), which are powerful antioxidants. These compounds can:

• Improve blood vessel function
• Lower blood pressure
• Reduce inflammation
• Protect against oxidative stress

Flavonol-rich cocoa has been shown in clinical studies to:

• Improve endothelial function (lining of blood vessels)
• Lower LDL ("bad") cholesterol
• Increase HDL ("good") cholesterol
• Reduce risk of heart disease

If God was showing Ellen what to copy from Coles, why did she skip this truly beneficial drink?

Continues to Copy from Coles After Spiritual Gifts

Just to prove that Mrs. White continued to use Coles as her primary source of health information throughout the remainder of her career, take a look below at the book Counsels on Diet, a carefully compiled and edited book published by the SDA Church some 23 years after Mrs. White died. In this book, Mrs. White repeatedly promulgates the same concepts as Coles did in 1851.

Ellen G. White, Counsels on Diets and Foods, 1938	Larkin B. Coles, Philosophy of Health, 1851
A close sympathy exists between the physical and the moral nature. (p. 43.1)	Great sympathy exists between the physical and moral nature. (p. 226)
The transgression of physical law is the transgression of God's law. (p. 43.3)	To needlessly transgress a law of life, is therefore a violation of the law of God. (p. 211)
Grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables constitute the diet chosen for us by our Creator. (p. 81.2)	Living on…the vegetable kingdom, is undoubtedly the most natural and healthy… (p. 52) Fruits of various kinds are proper articles of diet… (p. 61)
You should avoid the use of drugs…(p. 82.5)	…drugs…push you into the grave. (p. 177)
Exercise is important to digestion, and to a healthy condition of body and mind. You need physical exercise. … Neither study nor violent exercise should be engaged in immediately after a full meal… (p. 103.2)	Time for exercise has an important connection with digestion, and is indispensable to health. … Just after a meal, they should be at leisure…for at least one hour. (p. 43)
The lungs should be allowed the greatest freedom possible. … A similar effect is produced by tight lacing. . . . (p. 104)	Tight lacing…dresses are made too tight…chest should have free room to expand itself, and allow the lungs to fill with air. (p. 192)
Hot drinks are not required, except as a medicine. The stomach is greatly injured by a large quantity of hot food and hot drink. Thus the throat and digestive organs, and through them the other organs of the body, are enfeebled. … the free use of hot drinks is debilitating. (p. 106.2,3)	Hot drinks of any kind are objectionable. … They excite by the force of the heat, and then debilitate the stomach. (p. 87)
Food should not be eaten very hot or very cold. If food is cold, the vital force of the stomach is drawn upon in order to warm it before digestion can take place. Cold drinks are injurious for the same reason; (p. 106.3)
Food should be eaten slowly, and should be thoroughly masticated. This is necessary, in order that the saliva may be properly mixed with the food, and the digestive fluids be called into action. (p. 107.3)	When food is taken, it should be thoroughly masticated…chewing causes the food to be mixed with the saliva, which is an important item in the preparation of it for the action of the stomach and its juice. (p. 25)
It would be much better to eat only two or three different kinds of food at a meal than to load the stomach with many varieties. (p. 110.2)	The more simple the diet, on the whole the better. Complicated food, especially that which is compounded with various kinds of condiments, is bad… (p. 59)
It is not well to eat fruit and vegetables at the same meal… It is better to have the fruit at one meal, and the vegetables at another. (p. 112.3)	As a general rule, fruit should be taken as a part of the regular dinner. Good, ripe fruit, taken in this way, is beneficial to health. (p. 61) [Note: Coles contradicts Ellen White on this point]
But the sugar and the milk combined are liable to cause fermentation in the stomach, and are thus harmful. (p. 113.2)
Wrong habits of eating and drinking destroy the health and prepare the way for drunkenness. (p. 123.3)	…a deranged tone and action of that organ [stomach]…prepares the way for other unnatural habits of eating and drinking. (p. 91)
Intemperance in eating, even of healthful food, will have an injurious effect upon the system, and will blunt the mental and moral faculties. (p. 131.5)	Intemperance of any kind will deaden the native acuteness of the perceptive organs. Over-eating will not only blunt the vigor of bodily health, but stupefy the intellect. (p. 223)
Indulgence of appetite is the greatest cause of physical and mental debility, and lies at the foundation of a large share of the feebleness which is apparent everywhere. (p. 135.1)	Intemperance of any kind will deaden the native acuteness of the perceptive organs. Over-eating will not only blunt the vigor of bodily health, but stupefy the intellect. (p. 223)
Make your breakfast correspond more nearly to the heartiest meal of the day. (p. 173.2)
Many indulge in the pernicious habit of eating just before sleeping hours... If a third meal be eaten at all, it should be light, and several hours before going to bed. (p. 174.1)	…no food should be previously taken, in all ordinary cases, within the space of two or three hours… A late supper generally occasions deranged and disturbed sleep. (p. 35)
In most cases, two meals a day are preferable to three. (p. 176.1)	For persons having weak stomachs, and many person of sedentary habits, two meals a day, rightly distanced, might be preferable. (p. 36) [NOTE: Coles says two meals is only preferable for the sedentary, but Mrs. White expands that to include "most cases"]
After the regular meal is eaten, the stomach should be allowed to rest for five hours. Not a particle of food should be introduced into the stomach till the next meal. (p. 179.1)	No two meals or luncheons should be allowed to come nearer to each other than a distance of at least FIVE HOURS. (p. 89)
Regularity in eating is of vital importance. There should be a specified time for each meal. (p. 179.5)	If persons intend to have health, their meals should be regularly timed and distanced. (p. 33)
The well-being of the child will be affected by the habits of the mother. Her appetites and passions are to be controlled by principle. There is something for her to shun, something for her to work against, if she fulfills God's purpose for her in giving her a child. If before the birth of her child she is self-indulgent, if she is selfish, impatient, and exacting, these traits will be reflected in the disposition of the child. Thus many children have received as a birthright almost unconquerable tendencies to evil. (p. 217)	A child, after birth…will give a living illustration of the feelings and immediate character of his mother during the period of her pregnancy. If the mother, during that period…indulge a gloomy, evil-foreboding state of mind, her child will give proof of it in after life. If she indulge a peevish, or fretful, or crying disposition, her child will give her ample testimony to the fact after birth. (p. 88-89)
Diseased children are born because of the gratification of appetite by the parents. (p. 220.3)	By the unlawful course of parents in regard to themselves, the children suffer disease and premature death. (p. 144)
The mother who permits her child to be nourished by another should consider well what the result may be. To a greater or less degree the nurse imparts her own temper and temperament to the nursing child. (p. 226.3)	…if it [the child] can draw its first nourishment from the fountain which the Author of its being has provided, it is better. (p. 92)
The character also of the child is more or less affected by the nature of the nourishment received from the mother. How important then that the mother, while nursing her infant, should preserve a happy state of mind, having the perfect control of her own spirit. By thus doing, the food of the child is not injured... (p. 228.2)	The physical appetites, mental inclinations, and moral feelings, in a very large degree, are enstamped on the character of children so deeply in this way, that they may remain visible in all after life. (p. 90)
By the use of tea and coffee, an appetite is formed for tobacco, and this encourages the appetite for liquors. (p. 233.3)	Thus, alcohol prepares the way for tobacco, and tobacco for alcohol. (p. 232)
Bread is the real staff of life, and therefore every cook should excel in making it. (p. 315.3)	Bread may, with scientific exactness, be called "the staff of life." (p. 54)
The use of soda or baking powder in breadmaking is harmful and unnecessary. Soda causes inflammation of the stomach and often poisons the entire system. (p. 316.2)
When hot, or new, raised bread of any kind is difficult of digestion. It should never appear on the table. (p. 316.4)	Hot bread, just from the oven, should never be ate till it has cooled and parted with its heated gases, which are hurtful to the stomach. (p. 60)
The stomach has not power to convert poor, heavy, sour bread into good food; but this poor bread will convert a healthy stomach into a diseased one. (p. 317.5)
Fine-flour bread cannot impart to the system the nourishment that you will find in the unbolted-wheat bread. (p. 320.2)	Bread made of flour has a tendency to constipate them. But…bread mad of wheat meal, have a tendency to open them… (p. 31)
All wheat flour is not best for a continuous diet. A mixture of wheat, oatmeal, and rye would be more nutritious than the wheat with the nutrifying properties separated from it. (p. 321.1)
Sugar is not good for the stomach. It causes fermentation, and this clouds the brain and brings peevishness into the disposition. (p. 327.1)	…sugar is too nutritious, i.e., too much nutrition in a given quantity, to be used alone as a meal; the digestive organs would soon break down with such an encumbrance. But sugar is a good article of diet… (p. 60) [NOTE: Unlike White, Coles regarded sugar as a "good" food]
Sweet cakes, sweet puddings, and custards will disorder the digestive organs; and why should we tempt those who surround the table by placing such articles before them? (p. 332.4)	Complicated food…is bad; such as rich puddings, cake, and pastry of various sorts. (p. 59)
Cakes, sweet puddings, pastries, jellies, jams, are active causes of indigestion. Especially harmful are the custards and puddings in which milk, eggs, and sugar are the chief ingredients. (p. 333.3)	Mince-pies, wedding-cake, and plum-puddings…should never be introduced into the human stomach. (p. 59) [Note: Coles did not forbid jellies and jam]
Plain, simple pie may serve as dessert… (p. 333.5) [Note: This contradicts her 1864 statement forbidding "pie"]
Condiments are injurious in their nature. Mustard, pepper, spices, pickles, and other things of a like character, irritate the stomach and make the blood feverish and impure. (p. 339.3)	The taking of condiments…is a crime against the stomach. …pepper and ginger and spice and mustard. All these are as truly destructive to its tone and healthy action…(p. 180)
The mince pies and the pickles, which should never find a place in any human stomach, will give a miserable quality of blood. (p. 345.3)	Cucumbers [pickles]...should never be eaten. Mince-pies…should never be introduced into the human stomach. (p. 59)
The salads are prepared with oil and vinegar, fermentation takes place in the stomach, and the food does not digest, but decays or putrefies; as a consequence, the blood is not nourished, but becomes filled with impurities, and liver and kidney difficulties appear. (p. 345.6)
Butter is less harmful when eaten on cold bread than when used in cooking; but, as a rule, it is better to dispense with it altogether. (p. 349.3)
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? (p. 366.2)	…flesh…excites the animal propensities to increased activity…it excites the animal passions. (p. 65-66) [Note: Coles only condemns meat, but White adds butter and eggs]
Cheese should never be introduced into the stomach. (p. 368.4)
Vegetables, fruits, and grains should compose our diet. Not an ounce of flesh meat should enter our stomachs. The eating of flesh is unnatural. We are to return to God's original purpose in the creation of man. (p. 380.2)	Flesh-eating is certainly not NECESSARY to health or strength… (p. 64) Those who choose to eat flesh should take it only at dinner, and be satisfied with only one kind…The objections against eating flesh are, however, less forcible in the case of laborers than of those of intellectual and sedentary habits. (p. 71) [Note: Coles opposed meat-eating, but for non-sedentary laborers who chose to eat it, he recommended it once a day at dinner.]
A diet of flesh meat tends to develop animalism. A development of animalism lessens spirituality, rendering the mind incapable of understanding truth. (p. 382.3)	One objection to eating…animal food lies in the fact that it increases the proportion of our animalism. (p. 65)
The common use of the flesh of dead animals has had a deteriorating influence upon the morals, as well as the physical institution. (p. 383.3)	The objections, then, against meat-eating are three-fold: intellectual, moral, and physical. (p. 71)
The liability to take disease is increased tenfold by meat eating. (p. 386.4)	Eating largely of meats tends, undoubtedly, not only to engender disease…. (p. 70)
Cancers, tumors, and all inflammatory diseases are largely caused by meat eating. (p. 388.1) From the light God has given me, the prevalence of cancer and tumors is largely due to gross living on dead flesh. (p. 388.2)	Take the great many cases which require treatment for a humor, and it will generally be found that the individuals thus affected were…large eaters of flesh. Even the cancer can generally be traced back…to such an origin. (p. 67)
Those who use flesh meats freely, do not always have an unclouded brain and an active intellect, because the use of the flesh of animals tends to cause a grossness of body, and to benumb the finer sensibilities of the mind. (p. 389.1)	…eating much flesh tends to diminish the intellectual activity… When we increase the proportion of our animal nature, we oppress the intellectual. (p. 66)
Swine's flesh above all other flesh meats, produces a bad state of the blood. Those who eat freely of pork can but be diseased. (p. 392.3)	Swine's flesh--that worst of all flesh for eating… (p. 52)
Food should not be washed down; no drink is needed with meals. Eat slowly, and allow the saliva to mingle with the food. The more liquid there is taken into the stomach with the meals, the more difficult it is for the food to digest; for the liquid must first be absorbed. (p. 420.1)	One or two common tea-cups of any kind of drink, taken with our meals, is sufficient. If we take more, it injures the digestive process. (p. 87) [Note: Coles is not quite so strict on drinking with meals as Mrs. White]
Tea, coffee, and tobacco are all stimulating, and contain poisons. They are not only unnecessary, but harmful, and should be discarded if we would add to knowledge temperance. (p. 420.2)	The coffees and the teas…as well as that most deadly of all poisons in popular use, tobacco, should be rejected. (p. 229)
Never take tea, coffee, beer, wine, or any spirituous liquors. (p. 421.3)	The essences of tea, and coffee, and alcohol…can never be converted into blood… (p. 33)
Through the use of stimulants, the whole system suffers. The nerves are unbalanced, the liver is morbid in its action, the quality and circulation of the blood are affected, and the skin becomes inactive and sallow. The mind, too, is injured. The immediate influence of these stimulants is to excite the brain to undue activity, only to leave it weaker and less capable of exertion. The aftereffect is prostration, not only mental and physical, but moral. (p. 422.3)	And not only are these physical functions injured, but the mental forces also; for the nervous system is the connecting medium…hence the wretched economy of all stimulants and narcotics on the nerves. The injury done to the electrical [nerve] forces by the use of such agents as the habitual use of tea, coffee, alcohol, opium, and tobacco…is far greater than is generally supposed. (p. 13) These stimulants produce a diseased action and excitement of the heart and arteries. (p. 16) …it gives the skin a dead, dull, sallow appearance. (p. 79)
When these tea and coffee users meet together for social entertainment, the effects of their pernicious habit are manifest. All partake freely of the favorite beverages, and as the stimulating influence is felt, their tongues are loosened. (p. 423.1)	See a party of ladies…soon come the tea…the tongue is let loose… (p. 82)
Tea and coffee drinking is a sin, an injurious indulgence, which, like other evils, injures the soul. These darling idols create an excitement, a morbid action of the nervous system…. (p. 425.3)	Depression of spirits and melancholy are greatly increased, if not wholly produced, by unnatural stimulants on the nervous system. … Every drop, therefore, of tea or coffee should be strictly prohibited. (p. 187)
I was shown that the whole human structure is affected by this [flesh meat] diet, that by it man strengthens the animal propensities and the appetite for liquor. (p. 487)	Eating largely of meats tends…to make a demand for stimulating drinks. (p. 70)

So, where are the "numerous" health principles not espoused by other reformers? Looking at a single reformer—Larkin B. Coles—it is obvious that Mrs. White only had a few health principles not mentioned by Coles. Of those few that did not derive from Coles, their source can be traced back to other health reformers. For example, several of the statements above made by Ellen White regarding bread can be derived from Sylvester Graham's 1837 book, Bread Making.¹⁰

Summary:

• Ellen copied nearly all of her health reforms from Coles.
• Ellen often took extreme positions that went beyond Coles and were wrong (total abstinence from meat, fruit cannot be eaten with meals, etc.)
• Ellen was not more accurate than Coles

A Convenient Escape Hatch

To cover Mrs. White's failures, McMahon tried to excuse her based upon the idea that even though she was often wrong about "the why" of her health reforms — she gave false and mythological explanations for her health teachings (such as vital force) — but her teachings themselves (the what's) were coherent. He put it this way:

Interestingly, when people are troubled by apparent medical errors that Ellen White made, it's usually the "whys" that trouble them. ... But the correctness, or lack thereof, of the "whys" is not a good test of whether Ellen White's health principles were inspired. ... It is evident that the explanations He didn't communicate--which , in fact, He couldn't realistically communicate at that time—wouldn't affect our health anyway.¹¹

This Is Spectacular Intellectual Dishonesty

McMahon is proposing that Ellen White got the "whats" right but the "whys" wrong, and that this does not matter. This is a catastrophic misunderstanding of how prophetic inspiration works and creates an absurd double standard that would validate every quack doctor in history.

THE FATAL FLAW

Ellen White didn't just give wrong explanations for right advice. She gave dangerous advice BASED ON false explanations. The "whys" and "whats" are inseparably linked. When your "why" is false, your "what" becomes arbitrary, inconsistent, and often harmful.

1. Ellen White CLAIMED Divine Knowledge of the "Whys"

Ellen White didn't say "God showed me you should eat vegetables, but I'm not sure why." She claimed God revealed the medical mechanisms themselves:

• On masturbation: "Why is this weakness? It is because the animal propensities have been indulged, and strengthened by exercise, until they have gained the ascendency over the higher powers."¹² — She claimed to know "the why" — mechanism of mental/moral deterioration.
• On meat eating: "Cancers, tumors, and various other inflammatory diseases are largely caused by meat eating. From the light which God has given me, the prevalence of cancers and tumors is largely due to gross living on dead flesh."¹³ — She claimed to know causation, not just correlation. And this knowledge of causation came from "the light which God has given me."
• On vital force: "Females possess less vital force... The result of self-abuse in them is seen in various diseases... The mind is often utterly ruined, and insanity supervenes."¹⁴ — She claimed to know the mechanism — disease and insanity are the "result" of draining vital force through masturbation.

If God gave her the health advice, why would He give her FALSE EXPLANATIONS for it? Did God deliberately mislead her about the "whys" while somehow ensuring the "whats" were correct? That makes no sense.

2. Wrong "Whys" Lead to Wrong "Whats"

Example: The Vital Force Theory Disaster

The "Why" (FALSE): Sexual activity depletes a finite reservoir of "vital force," causing disease, insanity, and early death.

The "What" that followed (HARMFUL):

• Married couples should minimize sexual relations
• Adolescents showing any interest in the opposite sex need immediate intervention
• Children should sleep alone to avoid "temptation"
• Children practicing "solitary vice" should be constantly monitored and disciplined

The Result: Generations of SDAs suffered psychological damage, sexual dysfunction, and marital problems because the advice flowed directly from the false "why."

If the "why" is wrong, the "what" is arbitrary. Why should married couples abstain from sexual activity except for fear of draining vital force? Why worry about "animal passions" if vital force theory is nonsense?

Example: The Meat-Causes-Cancer Debacle

The "Why" (FALSE): "Cancers, tumors, and all inflammatory diseases are largely caused by meat eating."

The "What" that followed: Complete vegetarianism is God's ideal diet.

The Problem:

• If the "why" is false (meat doesn't cause cancer), then the strictness of the "what" is unjustified
• Some SDAs developed nutritional deficiencies following this advice and some died (documented in Ellen White's own writings—see footnote)¹⁵
• The claim creates false guilt and anxiety about normal dietary choices
• It diverts attention from actual cancer prevention strategies

You cannot separate the "what" from the "why" when the "what" is predicated on the "why."

3. The "God Couldn't Communicate It" Excuse Is Absurd

McMahon claims God "couldn't realistically communicate" correct medical knowledge in the 1800s. This is theologically bankrupt for multiple reasons:

A. God Is Omnipotent

It is preposterous to argue that the God who created communication was unable to communicate basic medical facts to His prophet. The same God who gave Isaiah an understanding of the universe couldn't explain germ theory?

B. Simpler Explanations Were Available

God didn't need to explain antibiotics or DNA sequencing. He could have simply avoided FALSE explanations:

• Instead of "masturbation depletes vital force" → Just say "sexual purity honors God" (true and timeless)
• Instead of "meat causes cancer" → Just say "a plant-based diet can benefit some people" (defensible and less extreme)
• Instead of "amalgamation of man and beast" → Just... don't say that at all

C. Ellen White Had No Problem with Complex Theology

Apparently God could communicate the intricacies of the investigative judgment, the two-apartment sanctuary, and the 2300-day prophecy, but explaining "wash your hands because tiny organisms cause disease" was beyond Him? Please.

4. This Standard Would Validate Every Quack

If one accepts McMahon's logic, one would have to accept any health teacher who got some things right, regardless of how absurd their explanations:

• Ancient bloodletting doctors: "Sure, they thought they were balancing humors, but sometimes bleeding actually helped with certain conditions! Don't worry about the 'whys'!"
• Homeopathy: "The water memory explanation is wrong, but some people feel better! Don't worry about the 'whys'!"
• Crystal healing: "The vibrational frequency theory is nonsense, but if someone's stress decreases, don't worry about the 'whys'!"

This is the "broken clock is right twice a day" defense. It proves nothing about divine inspiration.

5. The "Whys" DO Affect Health

McMahon claims the wrong explanations "wouldn't affect our health anyway." This is demonstrably false:

Direct Health Consequences of False "Whys":

1. Vital Force Theory → Sexual guilt and dysfunction — Generations of psychological damage from teachings that normal sexuality was medically dangerous
2. Drug Phobia → Avoiding Necessary Medicine — Teaching that all drugs are poison led people to reject life-saving medications
3. False Cancer Causation → Misplaced Prevention Efforts — Focusing on meat-eating diverted attention from other more-effective anti-cancer protocols
4. Disease as Punishment → Medical Neglect — If disease is primarily caused by sin or health violations, people may avoid seeking proper medical care

The "whys" absolutely affect health outcomes. False medical theories lead to bad medical decisions.

6. Inspiration Doesn't Work This Way

McMahon's argument creates an impossible theological position:

• God inspired the advice but not the reasoning?
• Ellen White received visions about what to do but God let her make up false explanations?
• The Holy Spirit guided her health reforms but allowed her to attribute them to debunked Victorian medical theories?

This is not how biblical prophets worked. When Isaiah prophesied, when Jeremiah spoke, when John wrote Revelation — their explanations and their messages were unified. You don't get "Thus saith the Lord: eat vegetables, but I'm going to let you give completely wrong reasons why."

Either Ellen White was inspired in her health teachings or she wasn't. You can't cherry-pick.

If Ellen White's health "whys" were merely reflective of 19th-century medical ignorance, then she has nothing to offer beyond what any educated health reformer of her time would have said. She's not a prophet — she's just a well-read Victorian health enthusiast who plagiarized contemporary health literature.

And that's exactly what the evidence shows.

7. What About the Bible Prophets?

Did God give Moses correct dietary laws but let him provide false explanations? Did Daniel get dream interpretations right but the "whys" wrong? Did Jesus heal people but offer incorrect medical theories about how healing worked?

No. Biblical prophets spoke with divine authority on both the "whats" and the "whys" within the scope of their prophetic message. When they didn't know something, they didn't make false claims about it.

Ellen White, by contrast, confidently proclaimed medical theories that were scientifically false and attributed them to divine revelation. This is the opposite of prophetic inspiration.

The Bottom Line

McMahon's argument is a desperate attempt to rescue Ellen White's credibility by lowering the bar for prophetic inspiration to the point of meaninglessness.

Here are the facts:

• Ellen White made specific medical claims with specific explanations
• Both the claims AND the explanations were often wrong
• When correct, they were plagiarized from contemporary health reformers
• Her false "whys" led to harmful "whats" that damaged people's health and psychology
• She attributed all of it to divine revelation

If your defense of a prophet requires saying "God gave her right advice but wrong reasons, and the wrong reasons don't matter," you are under strong delusion.

A true prophet doesn't need excuses this tortured. The evidence is clear: Ellen White's health teachings were not divinely inspired — they were plagiarized Victorian-era medical fads that included both helpful advice and dangerous nonsense.

Don't let anyone gaslight you into thinking this is acceptable.

Conclusion

The factual evidence and unbiased research are undeniable. Ellen White was not superior in any measurable way to other nineteenth century health reformers. McMahon said it best:

If her message is no more correct that theirs is, then it would appear that the hypothesis of divine communication has been refuted.

Yes, the hypothesis of divine communication has been refuted!

Having examined the evidence, what do you think now of this statement by Dr. Brand?

The accuracy of her health principles cannot be derived from any human source available anytime during her lifetime.

See also

• More examples of Ellen White copying L.B. Coles
• Examples of Ellen White copying James Caleb Jackson (bottom of page)