Hello Wes,

Once again in the spirit of friendship I would like to comment on your post.
Just so you understand my personal view, let me reiterate that I really don't
feel that cooked/processed foods are the optimal way to eat, but I also have
little desire to debate the cooked vs. raw topic with those who feel that cooked
is the way for them to go.  More power to them.

As JL commented on cooked eggs, you asked him:

>Have you improved upon nature in this case?

Apparently you feel that natural food should not be "improved upon" by cooking.
Most often I agree when it comes to preparing food.

>Didn't you know that all meat begins to putrefy within 24 hours after
>the animal is killed? This is why the bacteria multiplies, the carcass
>attracts flies, and so on.


Within 24 hours?  Maybe, depending on the climate.  But that's not the point.

>Road kill doesn't appeal to me. When I see a dead animal laying on the
>road, I certainly don't get excited about it and desire to imbibe in
>that putrefying flesh.


That's great, Wes.  As long as this is your personal opinion, that's fine and
dandy.  But just for some additional insight, you should be aware that there is
a great historical precedent for man consuming both fresh and aged animal
products.  Two examples that I have commonly used are:

1) The Asian custom of "Century-old Eggs," in which eggs are essentially buried
and left to age for long periods of time (weeks, I assume) until the yolks are
black.  Rich in bacteria, these eggs are consumed as delicacies.

2) The old Native Eskimo custom of aging meat, essentially the meat and animal
oils being buried in the ground and aged until the concoction's odor can be
detected from a certain distance.  This was eaten traditionally in specific
schedules to prepare for long cold seasons.

So while I respect your personal opinion that raw meat is not for you, I do not
agree with your assumption that there is no obvious value in the consumption of
such foods.  While you caution others to not fool with mother nature in regards
to cooking, I also caution you to re-evaluate if your current paradigm of
nutrition may be fooling with mother nature also, especially if you believe that
animal flesh is more or less the scourge of nutrition.  Again, there is a great
historical precedent spanning a wide array of cultures that shows not only the
frequent use but the great importance of raw animal foods, not only in the diet
of humans, but wild animals.

If you truly are open enough to investigate these precedents, a few good places
to start are:

"Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," Dr. Weston Price.
"Pottenger's Cat's, a Study in Nutrition,"  Robert Pottenger.
"Traditional Foods...." Ronald F. Schmid.

The bibliography in Schmid's book is very comprehensive and has hundreds of
references for his research if the above items whet your appetite for additional
information.

>> Like you, I was at first put off by the idea of eating raw meat, but once
>> you are hooked...
>
>Must be pretty toxic and addictive, huh?


Yeah, whatever.  Let me put it simply --- I despised raw meat when I first
investigated it.  I thought it was disgusting and unclean.  I thought that I'd
drop dead from bacterial poisoning.  After a year and a half of eating raw meat,
I can honestly say that it is the single most important factor in the healing
and development of my body.  That's sure not to say that every man, woman and
child should start wolfing down raw steaks, but I'm sure glad that I was able to
rediscover it.  It has made all of the difference for me.

Friendly Regards,

Ben