Fred:
>I don't think that perfect health is possible when you live in the city,

Living in cities is rarely very healthful but being preoccupied with
"perfect health" no matter where one lives is usually at the cost of
impaired mental health.  We need not look any further than to your NFL
buddies who with their megalomaniacal and paranoid behavior alone would
supply enough material for a whole, international conference of
psychiatrists. ;-)

>and when generations before you have been eating cooked foods and taking
drugs.

Long-term use of drugs can be problematic I agree but many native cultures
have for centuries done very well on diets that were predominately cooked.

>But perfect health is possible for the future generations,

Many of the privileged citizens of this planet will have the opportunity to
improve their health greatly in the coming years and many will live to ripe
old ages. However, if you by "perfect health" mean never getting sick,
looking great and having great energy, many people on quite average diets
fit this description already which makes it very difficult to know what we
are really talking about.  To help clear up this matter anybody who claims
to have achieved or to be well on their way to "perfect health" should be
willing to subject themselves to a battery of rigorous, independent
biomarker tests and publish the results.  If they object one can only
question their credibility.

>and 100% raw eating is one of the prerequisite.

Not true. See above.

>And yes, I believe that raw-foodism will save the world...Utopia or Death!!!

This a prime example of how obsession with diet can cause mental imbalance.
I rest my case. ;-)

>People who eat mostly raw are not inferior to those who eat all raw. But
>their diet is...

Not according to NFL.  They are very clear on how they believe diet effects
consciousness and how people who eat cooked in so many ways are inferior to
raw food eaters both spiritually & mentally.  I could quote from "Raw
eating", but I am sure you know this book better than I do. ;-)

>Could you please stop using the word "extreme" when you refer to an
>all-raw, all-vegan diet.

Compared to any diet that humankind has ever lived on, your diet is
extreme.  Besides, I thought your NFL pals took great care to nurture their
bad boy image and that they enjoyed being provocative and getting off being
viewed as extremists. :-)

>It may be extreme compared to the SAD, but when it's part of your
lifestyle, you no >longer have the feeling it is.

Sure, we humans adapt quickly.  But to an outsider a raw, vegan diet will
in most cases be viewed as quite extreme.

>Some wise person once said that truth is always found on one extreme, never
>in the middle. Truth is the most radical thing in the world!!!

Your "wise person" sounds a bit immature to me. ;-)

>That's ok with me. If you guys want to eat bread, I'm not gonna bust in
>your place with a gun and stop you.

That can wait until you rule the world, right? ;-)

> But feeding bread to child is another story...

If not allergic I have little concern if a child is fed bread - especially
if it is essene bread or low temperature flat bread.  What I am more
concerned about are raw, fruitarian vegans feeding their children diets
potentially very nutritionally deficient.

>I don't agree with that. I think that on the contrary you can do fine
>with RAF for a while, but it's gonna catch up with you sonner or later.

You talk as if you were an authority on the subject which I am sure you are
not. ;-)

>Long-term vegans are not rare at all.

Long-term healthy vegans are very rare indeed - especially when they are raw.

>Have you met Ric Lambart who's been raw-vegan for over 22 years.?

Yes, quite a few times.

> He looks way younger than his age

He does look a little younger than his age but so do many people.

> and is really healthy.

This I doubt.  Until quite recently he was at least 10 lbs overweight and
afflicted with a with life-long habit of overeating.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]