This is concerning some remarks that Mr. Billings recently made.
They sort of stayed with me and I'd like to hear further comments
regarding the matter.

The remark in question was that 100% raw diets are not for everyone and
that everyone should eat whatever gives him optimal health. Well, in my
view, optimal health is very difficult to determine (that's short-term
health; it becomes nearly *impossible* to anticipate the effects of a
current diet on one's health on a long-term basis).  A diet that may seem to
work now, could cause problems to the person's health in the future.

While I agree that no one should view 100% raw as a dogma of some sort, I
don't find it good advice not to look at other people's experiences and
strictly do your own.  Simply because this may not produce the desired
results in the long run.

Furthermore, I'm still not sure why there would be a person for whom a
100% raw diet (a well-balanced one, that is) would not work.  What are
the basis of the statement "100% raw is not for everyone?"  Is it
implying people whose health has degenerated to the extent where a raw
diet might actually cause more harm than good?  Surely, a reasonably
healthy human being cannot not be able to handle and live on only he
foods that he's been genetically designed to eat (let's assume that the
genetics part is true for a moment).

Has a not-all-raw diet become somewhat of a dogma to you perhaps, Mr.
Billings?  Or if you're speaking purely from experience (which is
probably the case) then why do people fail on all-raw diets (again,
*well-balanced* raw diets); put another way: why would there be a *need* to
eat something that is not raw?