Since you call "pontifications" the simple hygiene of the reasoning, I will pontificate further for those “rare forumers” which the subject interests more than the controversy. On the other hand, I would be delighted if my interlocutors specify my possible errors of reasoning rather than bask in sterile dialectic.
Here’s a summary of my point of view (see also on my website “Instinctothérapie” the page “The theory in short”, not yet translated in english): current knowledge supports the assertion that the phenomenon is possible, i.e. some “non original” molecules that the hen’s assimilation system would be unable to degrade correctly are likely to accumulate in the body of the bird or to pass in her eggs. Such reasoning is however relevant from the qualitative point of view only: it doesn’t allow to predict the extent of the phenomenon.
It could be that the molecules of a given type, escaping normal degradation, accumulate partly in the hen’s body, others in her fat and that others are still eliminated by the intestine wall or others emunctories. The bulk will most probably be distributed between these various routes. But nothing excludes that some harmful substances pass in the eggs. The mucous membranes can certainly recognize the molecules which they are supposed to control, but they base on some characteristics of the molecules and can, like any system of information reading, be induced in error.
What then can we theoretically expect to find in eggs: either non-degradable residues deriving directly from the daily feed, or of matters accumulated in the hen’s body and rejected occasionally into the circulatory system during a “detoxination” reaction. One can fear that the concentration of undesirable matters is greater in the second case.
How to know what really happen? To search for these molecules by analysis, we would have to identify them, i.e. predict at least some of their chemical characteristics. Research knocks against the fact that they result from unforeseeable chemical reactions at the time of random molecular shocks produced by the temperature rise. It is thus definitely impossible to envisage their structure as there will always be some which could be different from those we would have identified their characteristics.
Moreover, the world of science was hardly concerned with the nutritional problem under the angle of the inadequacy of traditional food to the genetic data of the metabolism. There is hence a large delay in research. It is very recently only that the presence of AGE and ALE in processed food began to be taken into account. Even more recently still, it’s been shown that these molecules of culinary origin can find their way in the circulatory system, accumulate in living tissues and be excreted latter by various emunctories. The egg white and yolk being made by mucous membranes, we can predict without much risk of being mistaken that the latter can give way to abnormal molecules present in the serum.
The empirical observation remains. What are the effects that non-degradable molecules contained in eggs might have on the consumer body? Will it be the same effects as direct ingestion of the kind of food ingested by the hen? In fact, the problem is extremely complex, because some of the “nonoriginal” molecules contained in poultry feed can be degraded partially, have at first some specific toxicity (for example a neurotoxicity) which won’t be found in the partially degraded form, while at the same time this degraded form may have other harmful effects (to be carcinogenic), etc.
The neurotoxicity can be observed very directly, at least in some cases, whereas the carcinogenicity is expressed generally after several years only. Systematic epidemiological studies, which were never undertaken due to a lack of awareness of the problem, are needed to put some light in this area. The eggs issue hardly interested the toxicologists, considering its minor impact in the traditional food context where many other factors are by far more urgent.
Facing this imbroglio, the instinctotherapy provides us an experimentation ground unique in its kind: the removal of all factors of toxicity related to the culinary denaturizing or to the use of “new” food such as grain and milk, enables us to highlight in a much clearer way the effects of a toxic food. Bodies nourished on the natural mode for a sufficient time, if possible ever since birth, make it possible to see things much more clearly – since there’s no interferences with abnormal molecules accumulated before and rejected into the circulatory system. Experiments on animals raised with raw food for several generations (or on wild animals) will immediately highlight a neurotoxicity.
I for example raised cats under conditions as close as possible to nature, feeding on pine voles or other small rodents present in natural areas (forest, natural meadow, no agriculture nor manure, etc). I chose several of criteria of behavior, in particular: yawn, stretching, vibrations of the tail, back arching, manner of rubbing our legs or of thrusting their claws in our trousers, level of agitation during the paradoxical sleep, crying eyes (mucus on the corner of the eye), hair quality, level of aggressiveness at the approach of a dog, vomiting, odor and consistency of droppings, urines odor, sexual behavior (growls during coupling due to the fact that the male attacks the female without her being sufficiently in rut).
I then gave to my cats by short alternate periods, hen eggs either nourished on the natural mode or alternatively receiving wheat or food denatured by heat. The results convinced me that the egg is carrying certain toxic molecules resulting from the poultry feed. I also compared the effects of the same eggs on human beings, particularly on the level of the “fixing” (excitation of the nervous system) and noted a clear parallelism. The eggs which disturbed the behavior of my cats had similar effects on humans: agitated sleep, disordered dreams, irritability, depression, sexual overexcitation, pestilential gases, eczema, etc.
A more direct experiment, based on organoleptic localization, consisted in giving fresh fish left overs in excessive amounts to hens. We could then regularly observe that the eggs gets a fish flavour, testifying the passage of some aromatic molecules through the different filters and barriers. One can easily check that the hens manage “to assume” a definite proportion of fish in their food, beyond which parasitic odors appear in their eggs. Therefore some molecules can be degraded below a particular concentration threshold and not beyond a line where the possibilities of the species and/or of the body are overwhelmed. Considering it rests on very general basis, the same model of reasoning applies very likely to other molecules like AGEs resulting from culinary denaturations or cereal’s hot drying.
It can be inferred that hens nourished in a way closer to their metabolic capacities, for example with organic food and searching for worms in free range, should lay eggs containing definitely less poisons than industrial eggs. The poisons concentration in egg is certainly not proportional to the introduced quantities, but increases quickly as soon as the threshold of adaptability of the bird is exceeded. But if we want to be sure of what we do and knowing that minor amounts of antigenic molecules can have important effects on the immune system, warden of our health (for example allergies, maintenance of tolerances), we of course have the greatest advantage in avoiding unknown factors which consequences in terms of health are unidentified, and therefore to eat exclusively eggs form sources as perfect as possible.
Topic: organic raw eggs (Read 17117 times)