I really do hate to keep harping on this, but I will :)

>The point - as far as I've understood - is that pemmican, if properly
>prepared (very low temp dehydration and rendering), should maintain the same
>qualities of raw meat. + it keeps for longer and it is more convenient.

Yes, and pemmican should be classified (IMHO) as nothing more than what I like to think of as a "travel food", much like jerkey, dried fruit, etc. You could almost call it a "supplement" because that's what it truly was. I'm fairly sure that those who partook in it - mainly native Americans AFAIK - likely skipped turned their noses up at it if there was *any* other food available to them. I know I would.

>Comprehension may follow if you are aware of the report of a Dr. Harris
>of the PaNu website; he mentioned that there is an allergen in beef
>blood which is neutralized by drying meat. IIRC it was something to do
>with albumin.

And that is a rationalization *for* pemmican??

OK, so, we are trying to emulate what paleos ate. Would they have been aware that beef, or aurochs, or any other meat animal would have a potential allergen in its blood? So they invented pemmican? Pemmican is a fairly recent development in the dietary history of man - closer to the neolithic timeframe than the paleolithic.

> But different people have different problems to deal
> with,
> so I can't say that eating pemmican daily is "wrong" for those people.

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against pemmican. I've pretty much adopted a live and let live philosophy - even with regards to friends who go the vegan (yuck) or macrobiotic (double yuck) route. I've enjoyed an occasional pemmican snack in the past, and I may (or may not) eat pemmican in the future. It's not the pemmican "diet" per se that is an issue. What irks me is the raw foodists (on this list as well as a couple others I've visited) who would apparently slap my hand for eating cooked steak or veggies, and then turn around and promote a food that includes (no, depends on) a cooked element.