> there is no scientific justification for consumption of raw food diets.

there is no scientific justification for consumption of cooked foods that
are grounded ever

 It sterilizes food by killing
> harmful bacteria that are naturally found on many foods.

Demonstration have been made that bacterias per se are not a problem and
there is some indications that sterilising our environements too much are
source of problems .
It have been proven by the fact that raw foods have been eaten since eons
and still are .

It denatures
> proteins; that is, the three- dimensional structure is broken down to
> improve digestion and makes some proteins (common is beans, seeds, and
> sprouts) nontoxic. It makes foods softer to chew and digest.

cooking render what is not really edible in its raw state,  edible,  it
doesn't improve the quality of humans specific foods.could it be that
coagulation of proteins are making them not so good .
Raw meat in my experience and others is  more easelly digestible than cooked
meats .


>
> A research paper in the March 1999 issue of Annals of Nutrition and
> Metabolism reported on 500 people who consumed raw food diets for an
average
> of almost four years. Subjects reported losing 10-12 kg (22-25 pounds) and
> the body-mass index (BMI) was below normal range (<18.5) in 15% of men and
> 25% of women. About a third of the women stopped menstruating. The higher
> the proportion of raw food consumed, the more likely for women to have
> stopped menstruating.

vegetarian diets are problematic and even more so when raw .