Wes:

>Actually, I'm just a student. But I do acknowledge that everyone is
>obviously different. We're each as unique as snowflakes.

>I don't see why the meat would be necessary - raw dairy and/or eggs should
>be enough.

It's wonderful that you recognize our differences; I hope that you'll also
recognize that we should not all be held to your bias against meat.

>There's a high probability that it could be the meat. Animals are higher
>on the food chain, and generally concentrate toxins in their bodies. There
>is no such thing as "pure" meat, even if it's organic. One reason is due
>to the toxins the animal naturally produces (metabolized byproducts, etc.)

>However, I need some more hardcore data to convince me that we should be
>eating any cooked food. :)

It's great that you're setting a high standard of burden of proof against cooked
food.  However, I'm going to say that I'd like the same kind of "hard-core data"
to convince me that the above statement about "pure meat" is nothing more than
your biased opinion about meat.

>It's very risky to eat raw meat of any kind.


And I personally feel that it's risky _not_ to eat raw meat of any kind.  As
many on this list have attested to, there seems to be a great deal of
paleological evidence showing that animal foods, including meats, have been
important factors in human nutrition throughout our history.  For more
information about this, you may visit http://www.beyondveg.com -- there are many
great articles there on the subject.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to convert you to be a raw meat eater --
but I'm certainly letting you know that your "raw meat is impure" attitude is
fine with me, as long as you realize that there are many of us who achieve
greatly improved health by using all raw animal products, including dairy, eggs,
_and_ raw meats, including fish.

Regards,

Ben