As for the claim re: coagulation of protein via cooking it, here are a
couple references:

--
"The formation of cross-links in peptide chains may further reduce
protein digestibility*, due to blocking of the cleavage of peptide bonds
by trypsin and carboxypeptidase B."
Biochemistry of Food Proteins, B J F Hudson.

*Erbersdobler, H F, The biological significance of carbohydrate-lysine
crosslinking during heat treatment of food proteins. In Protein
Crosslinking: Nutritional and Medical Consequences, ed. M Freidman.
Plenum Press, NY, 1977, pp.367-378
--

I will now reply to the messages in the order that they were received on
my end. Keep in mind that I have limited time, and therefore won't be
able to reply to all the comments. I see that quite a few feathers were
ruffled. Note that I have replied in three messages, as I see that the
server has a limit on word space per message.

Ben:
> Once again in the spirit of friendship I would like to comment on your post.

Join the club. :)

> 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.

Totally gross. My opinion.

> 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.

I am aware of that practice, yes. They did not have access to plant
foods.

> 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

Where did I state that?

> 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

That's good to hear that it has helped you. What other types of diets
have you experimented with, and how did you come to the conclusion that
a raw meat-based diet was the best out of all of them, including other
versions of raw foods diets?

Kirt:
> And if others have a different experience are they "wrong"? You get
> immediately snippy when someone doesn't take your experience seriously. Can
> you imagine how it seems when you dismiss other's hard won experience with
> your dogma?

Dogma? Give me a break.

> Again, here you are the RAF expert, eh? What you say is simply false to

Where did I state that I was a "RAF expert". And, I have no desire to be
a "RAF expert".

> I have eaten many different kinds of aged RAF (beef, several kinds
> of poultry, lamb, venison, buffulo, elk, dozens of varieties of fish, even
> aged oysters and clams) which had no off-flavors associated with bacterial
> putrification. Rex can probably explain why excellent quality raw food,
> whether tomato or salmon fillet, prefers to age/dry instead of rot.

:(

> Well, how seriously are we supposed to take these questions to someone who
> dismisses Ward's interviews on beyondveg as spurious. The info is out

How did you come up with this?

> gonna say? ;) Let's put it this way, Wes. List your three favorite raw
> foods. Whatever they are I get to say, "Must be pretty toxic and addictive,
> huh? ;)"

I find that I have no "attachment" to any food I eat. J-L mentioned
regarding "aged meat" -- "...once you are hooked..." -- Sounds like an
addiction or attachment to me.

> subject like you know what you're talking about. And then back off
> immaturely as above. You _can_ have it both ways I guess, but don't expect

Oh, and you're Mr. Maturity? Reading through a variety of your previous
posts shows quite clearly that you
make your share of "immature" comments.

> >I take it you don't understand this subject too well. There are some
> >good books on this subject. Deepak Chopra's "Ageless Body, Timeless
> >Mind: The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old" would be a good start.
>
> No I don't understand this subject too well. (I've always had a problem
> with the puzzler, "What's the difference between a shoe?" as well.) But
> checking out the latest new age mass marketer isn't gonna inspire me to
> anything, except maybe a acidic debunking.

Wow, you must be the all-knowing source of all things, huh?

> >When you think you perform biochemistry. For example, tears of joy have
> >a different chemical composition from tears of sadness.
>
> So you do consider there is a physical basis to thought. (Though what tear
> composition has to do with the subject baffles me.)

I figured as such. No surprise there.

> >Our thoughts are powerful and influence every aspect of our lives,
> >including the health of our physical body.
>
> You'll get no argument from me there. Your thoughts are influencing you all
> over the place ;) But that is a far cry from "Consciousness is superior to
> matter."--your original proclamation.

I won't waste my time explaining it to you.

> those who eat them, and especially your earlier posts proclaiming that any
> diet deficient in raw starch is not going to work. It may seem like a picky

I did not say that "any diet deficient in raw starch is not going to
work".

> whatever you have found useful for you is good enough news for the rest of
> the world, eh?

Do you live in Canada? Eh?

Wes