Okay since you want to stay on topic, let’s stay on topic.
Raw meat or cooked meat, what is healthier for humans?
Your main arguments are that some nutrients, enzymes & amino acids are reduced, it’s our natural diet and cooking creates harmful compounds.
1. Raw meat commonly contains pathogenic bacteria. Yes we are made of bacteria, but there are good strains and bad strains of bacteria. Ecoli, salmonella, listeria etc. are not good for you and are harmful and bad for human health. Which is why safety of eating raw meat also translates to the health outcomes.
- Food safety incidents in the red meat industry: A review of foodborne disease outbreaks linked to the consumption of red meat and its products, 1991 to 2021
- Prevalence and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Foodborne Pathogens from Raw Livestock Meat in China, 2021
- Parasite risks from raw meat-based diets for companion animals
- Health Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies
- Foodborne Parasites and Their Complex Life Cycles Challenging Food Safety in Different Food Chains
- Predictors of Eating Raw or Undercooked Meat, Poultry, Seafood, and Eggs among Older Adults
- Retail Meat Analyzed for Parasites
There have been thousands of deaths proven to be caused by salmonella, ecoli, listeria etc. The only reason our ancestors could eat raw meat instead of cooked meat was because they had a much better stomach than humans today. We have been eating cooked meat for almost a million years. We have evolved to eat cooked meat and not raw anymore. It’s why you wouldn't drink river water now instead of filtered. Natural doesn’t also doesn’t always mean good.
2. Nutrients are lost. Yes they are lost, but not by a significant amount. With your evidence, you are boiling the food. You can cook your foods in different ways and preserve the nutrients well. It is easy to eat a diet of less than 2000 calories and hit all your micronutrients. Vitamin C in organs isn’t in significant amounts anyways, so the loss isn’t a big deal. The idea of nutrient deficiency by cooking your food is stupid. Our ancestors were more nutrients deficient than a modern human today anyways.
3. Cooking does create harmful compounds when burnt to a fucking crisp. If you lightly cook your food at low temperatures, the amount of AGE’s, HCAs and oxidation is so insignificant when you do this. That your phone is around the same level on the carcinogenic scale then lightly cooked meat.
Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet
A fact sheet that outlines the available evidence regarding use of cellular/mobile telephones and cancer risk.www.cancer.gov
I don’t see how you are this blind, to not notice the harmful effects of eating raw meat. People die from eating raw meat, even from good sources. Vegetables and fruits are good for you. No, you won’t become nutrient deficient.
First of all, stop with the boiling. No one boils their meat. Methods like sous vide will not make a meaningful difference in the nutritional profile. All the studies with significant loss is frying or boiling. Sure, many people don’t use sous vide for cooking but that is completely irrelevant. And yes you need to eat more food to get some of those nutrients back, but you don’t go out of your way to do it, you do it naturally to eat enough calories.
Plenty of cooked meat eaters are deficient in B vitamins, minerals, and fat-soluble vitamins. Cooking destroys heat-sensitive nutrients, thiamin (B1) losses up to 70–100% in boiling (Gerber 2009), B12 degraded by heat (Bito 2018), folate destroyed. You claim it’s “not significant,” but then admit you need to eat more food to make up for it. That’s the opposite of efficient. It is a waste of money, bad for the environment, waste of time etc etc.
Bacteria
You throw “salmonella” like it’s a trump card, but ignore that the majority of foodborne outbreaks come from spinach, salad, and bagged greens (CDC 2015). If bacteria = unhealthy, then vegetables are statistically more dangerous. You still haven’t proven that humans “lost” their ability to handle raw meat. Our gastric pH is 1–2, same as scavengers (Beasley 2015). That is hard physiological data. You still haven't proven anything with raw meat and bacteria, not even proven if bacteria is the reason for illness?. I know meat contains bacteria, all meat does so do yourself a favour and skip prooving that, I want to show me why it would be bad.
You claim we’ve been cooking for “almost a million years.” Source? The CNN link you dropped admits the earliest controlled fire evidence is ~780,000 years and patchy at best. This isn't even proof of cooking it is proof of burning fish remains btw. Even if it were a million, that’s less than 5% of our evolutionary timeline. Raw was the baseline, cooking is the deviation. If you admit “nature isn’t always better,” then you just destroyed your own appeal to evolution. Pick one.
No need to mention calories as they don't apply to organisms? And as I mentioned why would you waste more resources and so on to compensate + more toxins. And no it was not my evidence it was your own evidence that said that the sous vide was the least harmfull and other cooking methods being harmfull. Again most modern people are nutrient deficient in nutrients such as b12 because of cooking.We are talking about raw meat being healthier so insignificance is not a thing, even if raw meat is 0,001%healthier it is still healthier so shut up.
Toxins
Cooking creates poisons, AGEs, HCAs, PAHs, lipid peroxides. All linked in the literature to cancer, insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, and aging. Your defense is literally “light cooking makes them insignificant.” Okay, so you admit they exist. What is healthier: no poison or little poison? Exactly. Phones have nothing to do with food, stop embarrassing yourself.
You still haven’t produced a single randomized controlled human trial or meta-analysis showing cooked > raw. You cite epidemiology about “foodborne illness” but ignore that those studies also include salads, processed meats, and bad storage. That doesn’t prove that raw meat itself is unhealthy, only that the industrial food system is.
Also why do you mention vegetables and fruit? we are talking about meat. and if you want to I can also destroy you in that department but again humans don't eat leaves so you start off with the burden of proof, but let us finish the meat thing first I will be sure to remember.
Alright I will be addressing everything but since you don't seem to be reading and understanding everything please read everything and also maybe read your own response before sending it lol
) is not always bad."
You just keep repeating the same point. Yes there is nutrients loss. Im admitting it. But there isn’t a significant amount. There is not significant amount of nutrients loss that a healthy individual who consumes a well balanced diet would become deficient. There just isn’t a problem with that. Yes it’s technically “unideal”. But unideal doesn’t mean bad. It’s unideal that meat does not have enough nutrients for an optimal diet by itself, but that doesn’t make it bad. The nutrient argument is completely irrelevant. Stop bringing it up. Our ancestors were more deficient than we were. Prove that wrong.Alright I will be addressing everything but since you don't seem to be reading and understanding everything please read everything and also maybe read your own response before sending it lol
"First of all, stop with the boiling. No one boils their meat. Methods like sous vide will not make a meaningful difference in the nutritional profile. All the studies with significant loss is frying or boiling. Sure, many people don’t use sous vide for cooking but that is completely irrelevant"
You brought up the boiling and sous vide and you would know if you had read your "evidence" before sending it to me, not my fault. And as your "evidence" actually proves it is not "irrelevant" what method you choose as it greatly influences the degree of "unfavourable changes". All of this has been concluded on the basis of your own study my guy.
"And yes you need to eat more food to get some of those nutrients back, but you don’t go out of your way to do it, you do it naturally to eat enough calories."
And what is your point here? Adress my argument: The more cooked meat you eat to compensate for the nutrient loss the more harmfull compounds you consume, therefore more unhealthy than raw. The increase also leeds to increased negative impact on the environment and would cost more time and money. Either you agree or you make it clear to me that I am wrong and why. Furthermore stop talking about calories as they don't apply to organisms, how many times do I have to tell you, same thing with all my arguments you keep circling around like an idiot.
I think we can move on from the nutrient argument now, is that correct? We have established a loss in nutrients, increase in harmfull particles, cost more, worse for environment more time consuming and things I mentioned earlier from cooking (not directly health related but I think we can agree that environment and stress from money and time etc does influence health), so just shortly confirm in the next answer if you agree. Otherwise make a valid argument ofc.
next.
"
Salmonella is found on plants and does cause more salmonella outbreaks. But think about how many people eat plants every day. Almost the entire population. People who eat raw meat willingly, there are only a couple thousand. So of course there would be more salmonella breakouts with vegetables, but that doesn’t mean it’s more risky. The risk for raw meat is still way higher just less common due to sensible people not eating raw meat. And we do still have reactions to ecoli, salmonella, listeria etc. even though scavengers have the same pH level, their short intestines make it easier to pass through the harmful bacteria, while humans have longer intestines which make it very hard to get harmful bacteria out of our system. The scavengers also contain a very differently gut microbiome to us which allows them to break down the bacteria easier. These bacteria strains are harmful to us…
"Escherichia coli Infection" from StatPearls
"Salmonella" in Medical Microbiology
Mayo Clinic's overview of Salmonella infection
"Listeria monocytogenes: epidemiology, human disease, and mechanisms of brain invasion"
"Human Listeriosis" in the journal Pathogens:
The Link to Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
"
Why the fuck do you use the "less cases does not mean less risky" rebuttal and then link a study for vegetables. You are confusing case counts with actual relative risk. The CDC and EFSA outbreak data show that vegetables like sprouts, lettuce, melons and tomatoes are consistently the leading sources of Salmonella and E coli outbreaks in the modern world. That is not just because more people eat plants, it is because they are a highly vulnerable vector. If risk was purely proportional to how many eat them, the raw dairy and raw meat outbreaks would still dominate given the small niche that eats them. They do not.
Your citations are generic textbook descriptions of pathogens. They prove nothing about relative risk of raw vs cooked animal foods in healthy humans. Mayo Clinic and StatPearls are patient info summaries, not comparative studies. Drevets 2008 on Listeria is a mechanistic review of brain invasion pathways, not an argument that raw meat is uniquely unsafe. You are throwing scary pathogen names around without a single human trial comparing outcomes.
The scavenger argument is also weak. Humans do not have herbivore guts. Our intestines are short relative to body size and our gastric acid is at pH 1 to 2 in fasting state. That is a direct adaptation to handling animal tissue.
So to recap: you claim that just because there are less cases of raw meat being the reason of these pathogens than of vegetables it is still more risky but you did not prove this in any way so that point remains false. Then you talk about human anatomy and claim we have longer intenstines (like herbivores) without any proof, and other animals gut microbiome is irrelevant so let us just look at humans (yes I earlier compared humans to scavengers earlier because we are alike which I wanted to make you realise).
next.
"Also please explain why evidence is “patchy”. The burning of fish is it being cooked, pretty simple. And you can pretty surprised at how quickly species evolve. We will adapt if we continue doing something for so long. My point on natural isn’t always good, doesn’t go against evolution. It’s stating that something that artificial (which cooking isnt) is not always bad."
First off, one account of burned fish remains does not relate to cooked meat being healthier than raw meat. I will happily teach you why the evidence is utter shit for proving anything but I think it is completely irrelevant to the cooked meat being healthier than raw meat debate.
Secondly you need to learn to clearly state your point so that I can tell what you are talking about because you are mostly just rambling like a schizophrenic TikTok conspiracy theorist. It seems like you want to talk about nature and evolution? Just make this point clear in the next argument, maybe google how to argument too lol
JFL cause ur an idiot:
"It’s stating that something that artificial (which cooking isnt
This is the definition of artificial:
"made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural."
"Most people aren’t eating quality meats, fruits, vegetables and dairy. So it’s completely stupid to use them as an example and then label them as cooked meat eaters(first claim). They aren’t deficient in B12 because of cooking, it’s because they don’t eat enough animal products(second claim). “Even if raw meat is 0.00001% healthier it is healthier”, that doesn’t matter at all if it has a tiny bit more nutrients because of the significant risk of bacteria."
Coherence level 0
First claim needs proof and when did I use them as an example.
Second claim also need proof, and how does this relate to the point again, I hope I don't need to remind you but you are trying to prove that cooked meat is healthier than raw.
And you cannot use the bacteria being risky argument here because you didn't prove it, also risk of food poisoning is also part of something being healthier, not admitting that bacteria is risky but that seemed like your point (any risk lowers health so no need to mention riskines making the healthier choice less advantageous)
"Yes the compounds formed are harmful, but those studies heat them at high temperatures for a long time. A little heat for little time won’t form many. It’s very ironic to mention poison or no poison, because raw meat has risk of food POISONING. The compounds harms are so insignificant that they wouldn’t take more than a week of your life, which just isn't worth the risk of harmful bacteria. I only refereed to phones because you still use them and they are about as dangerous as slightly cooking food. Showing how useless the point is."
Again, you need to show how raw meat is poisonous or risky to use the argument. You don't need to mention the poisonous effects of cooking any more as we have already established that the only thing you have left to prove is the risk of illness. It is easy to establish that the poisonous compounds from cooking makes it unhealthy therefore waste of time, doesn't matter if it is just as much as your phone or whatever, 0 is better than 0,1."Yes the compounds formed are harmful" then don't use the fucking argument.
"I think I’ve repeated the point almost three times and you just seem to ignore it. There are no solid RCT or meta analysis on raw vs cooked because they can’t put volunteers at the risk of eating raw meat because there is such an abundant amount of evidence showing that it is harmful. Studies on food-borne illness involve lots of different foods, but raw meat still has harmful bacteria, you said you know yourself. All harmful bacteria acts the same in all foods. Bad storage? You mean stored in fridges?"
1. you simply have the burden of proof so that is your problem.
2. show how rawmeat bacteria is harmfull. I don't think bacteria is bad.
Show me 1 single piece of evigende if "there is such an abundant amount of evidence showing that it is harmful", seems like a waste of time if there is sooooo much evidence right?
“So far you admitted nutrient losses exist, harmful compounds form with heat, and your only argument left is ‘risk’. But you have not posted a single piece of human evidence proving raw meat is uniquely risky compared to plants, dairy, or anything else. If you had the evidence you would have posted it already. Either bring real data or concede.”
what an utter disgrace to your genetic pool, must feel good
Please read everything and respond
when eatin raw liver for the first time you will maybe feel a little bit dizzy thats because ur body hasnt recognized your natural diet yet and watch it as a threat, and you dont need that much raw liver because its so nutritous and u will get full fast
explainSo u buy it from a good source loke ur local butcher u trust and then u cut it up and put it in ur mouth chew it and swallow it
looksmax.org
Okay fine, let’s stop going on about the nutritional content and the compounds created. I think we both agree that nutrients are lost and harmful compounds are created but they make no significant impact. Again, i only brought up ancestors because that’s one reason you stated for us to eat raw meat, because our ancestors naturally did. But let’s move on then.
. If you can’t reply with a study next time, don’t bother, you would have officially lost the argument. Yes our body is made of bacteria. But if yo listened to what i said the first time when I replied to this. Our body is made of good and bad bacteria. Some is good for us and some is bad.
Dnr shr rthreadVegetables are UNHEALTHY (full explanation)
This thread will explain to you why vegetables arent healthy, optimal, beneficial and necessary I will cover: - Common Misconceptions - What makes them unhealthy - Why they arent necessary - Etc. // TLDR at end // // Bump this up so more people will see this // 1. Common misconceptions...
You just iq mogged him bhai
The burden of proof, you idiot, is not on the person stating that high-consequence pathogens are dangerous; it is on the one claiming that consuming food laced with them is healthier than not. The global health apparatus already confirms the risk: the WHO estimates that foodborne diseases cause 600 million illnesses and 420,000 deaths annually worldwide, resulting in 33 million Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost. You want to argue that this massive, persistent biological catastrophe is less significant than preserving some vitamin C? That's not a healthy choice; that's suicidal recklessness backed by profound scientific illiteracy. The fact that animal-source foods account for roughly one-third of the total global foodborne disease burden just slams the door on your raw meat fantasy. In the US, meat and poultry are linked to 29% of all foodborne deaths, primarily due to the specific organisms you are minimizing.
raw liver mogs everything
Your first paragraph is pointless and I hope you receive 0 credit for this entire answer as you clearly did not go from 5. grade writing to this level overnight, nothing wrong in using chatbots as they themselves cannot find proof of anything that is false they can however act as an eco chamber for the users ideas and reinforce them heavily with their rhetorical writing. So look out you might be brainwashing yourself and others and I hope you receive 0 credit for "high iq post"
.. This makes cooking more risky
Just eat
Yeah I do that now
Fr, plus it’s really easy to source
I only started writing more analyticaly to try and get this information into your thick skull. Hopefully you get it this time but I doubt it. This is beyond ridiculous. You're trying to use a semantic argument about the word "contaminated" to deny the entire reality of the industrialized food chain, simultaneously committing almost every logical fallacy listed in your pathetic little recap. You haven't reached checkmate; you've reached "I don't understand microbial ecology or risk management." Let me dismantle your entire, baseless defense brick by agonizing brick.Your first paragraph is pointless and I hope you receive 0 credit for this entire answer as you clearly did not go from 5. grade writing to this level overnight, nothing wrong in using chatbots as they themselves cannot find proof of anything that is false they can however act as an eco chamber for the users ideas and reinforce them heavily with their rhetorical writing. So look out you might be brainwashing yourself and others and I hope you receive 0 credit for "high iq post"
And why did your even mention WHO as a source of evidence, it just proves that the majority of cases come from vegetables out of every other type of type, Including what I assume more cooked than raw meat. Also raw meat is not isolated at all, if anything you are proving the DALYs of cooked meat because of your statement of people generally eating more cooked than raw. Not stating that more cases = more risk just stating that your paragraph is irrelevant to this discussion and even proves according to your logic that more cases come from the type of food you are advocating.
What you describe is an accurate and detailed explanation of what can happen if someone gets infected with certain pathogens — such as Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Campylobacter jejuni. You document thoroughly how these bacteria operate and how severe the consequences of infection can be. All of this is true. But what you do not do — and what you cannot do — is prove that raw meat in itself is dangerous or unhealthy.
Let’s analyze your argument logically:
You confuse cause and context
You describe the consequences of infection with certain pathogens and use that as an argument against eating raw meat. But this is a logical fallacy to assume that because contaminated raw meat can cause illness, all raw meat is dangerous.
It’s like saying: “A salad can cause STEC infection — therefore, salad itself is dangerous.”
No — the salad is only dangerous if it has been contaminated. And contamination is not an inherent property of the product, but a matter of handling.
These bacteria are not natural components of meat biology
You argue as if these pathogens are a fixed part of raw meat. This is incorrect:
This means a piece of raw meat — under hygienic conditions — Is completely free of these bacteria. In fact, this is exactly how dishes like tartare, carpaccio, and sashimi can be safely served. It’s not because one “accepts the risk” — it’s because the meat is not inherently contaminated.
- STEC primarily exists in the intestines of some cattle, not in muscle tissue.
- Listeria often comes from environmental contamination (soil, processing equipment).
- Campylobacter is typically found in the intestines and on the surface of poultry, but not inside the actual meat.
If raw meat was dangerous, these dishes would never exist safely. But they do — every day, worldwide.
Your argument implies contamination but understand that raw meat is not inherently contaminated, there fore you do not prove that "cooked meat is healthier than raw meat" you do prove that "cooked meat is healthier than contaminated raw meat". Since the contamination is not an inherent property of raw meat I could also use that argument, imagine you have a normal piece of raw meat (inherently no risk of illness) and then you cook it, by cooking it the meat is introduced to a greater number of possibly contaminated surfaces, raw meat is ready to eat without any preparation whatsoever, 0, but cooking needs >0, making cooked meat more risky.
Your answer is only a criticism of contamination.
STEC (Shiga toxin-producing E. coli)
- Spinach outbreak (USA, 2006): Linked to bagged fresh spinach, not meat. Source traced to contaminated irrigation water or animal feces.
(CDC, 2006)- Rocket salad outbreak (Finland, 2016): STEC isolated from arugula/rocket salad served at multiple events.
(PubMed ID: 30180926)- FDA Leafy Greens Action Plan: Recognizes repeated E. coli outbreaks linked to leafy greens like romaine and spinach.
(FDA, 2020)Listeria monocytogenes
- Cantaloupe outbreak (USA, 2011): Caused 33 deaths, traced to contaminated melons, not meat or dairy.
(CDC Final Update, 2012)- Frozen vegetables (Europe, 2015–2018): Multi-country outbreak linked to frozen corn and vegetables.
(EFSA & ECDC joint report)Campylobacter jejuni
See? you only explained the mechanistic action of these infections but did not prove that they are inherent to raw meat. So far you are mentioning these things but have not proven that they are inherent to raw meat. You have only argued that contaminated food is more risky than uncontaminated food, this is unrelated to your point of cooked meat being healthier than raw, as cooked meat can also become contaminated. This argument fundamentally implies that raw meat is contaminated but that is not an inherent property to raw meat. The only argument you can derive from your explanation is that contaminated meat is risky. Now you have to understand what raw meat is and not make any hypothetical situations where it has become contaminated, if that was a logically allowed argument anything could be unhealthy, even using as washcloth as I in your logic just proved. Literally according to your logic using a washcloth is unhealthy. Please understand how to actually prove something, like fundamental use of logic and argumentation it would save you a lot of time.
- Kindergarten outbreak (Norway, 2012): Linked to a contaminated cleaning cloth, not food.
(Euro Surveill. 2013;18(25):20520)
“If you look at peer-reviewed microbiology, muscle tissue of healthy animals is typically sterile. The bacteria you speak of are introduced afterward — from hide, intestines, handling, environment — not because raw meat inherently harbors pathogens. To argue that raw meat is ‘inherently dangerous’ is to ignore what microbiology says about meat in its natural, uncontaminated state.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29564/
Here are some points I would like to make:
1. Raw meat is not inherently contaminated and therefore not risky to consume. You cannot make an argument using your earlier mentioned pathogens as that would imply contamination, something that could also apply to cooked food. At the very best making them equal.
2. Cooking does not remove the risk. I proved that according to your logic it would increase the risk from an increase in the risk of contamination by increasing the possibility of potential contamination e.g by increasing number of contacted contaminated surfaces. It is called post-cooking contamination. This makes cooking more risky.
3. Cooking always increases harmfull health-damaging compounds, including carcinogens, mutagens, and pro-inflammatory agents like AGEs and heterocyclic amines but it does not always reduce any harmfull bacteria (which was your argument) because as I proved they are not always present. This means 100% of the time you make the meat unhealthier with damaging compounds in order to compensate for a <100% chance the meat containing harmfull bacteria
In short, raw meat is not contaminated, cooking increases risk of contamination by number of surfaces and reduces all the earlier mentioned harmfull compounds and I could also mention the things we have agreed on in the beginning with nutrition and all.
Do you understand that you keep shooting yourself in the foot with every answer.
New nickname achieved: hasty generalization fallacy master.
by this point I can see you have reached chekmate, you have no arguements left. I you wanted to keep going with the bacteria thing you would additionally have to prove that the risk cannot be mitigated by any other means than cooking, because remember your point "cooking is healthier than raw", therefore if you want to even use the cooking reduce harmful pathogens I could just make you prove that cooking is the superior pathogen reducing mitigation technique as I have proven that cooking increases harmfull compounds.
LMAO after this you are genuinely never going to win this
Here is the full list of your logical failures, so you can stop pretending this is science:
View attachment 4154697
- Burden of proof misplacement
What you do: You demand I prove bacteria are not harmful.
Why it fails: You claim cooked > raw, so the burden is on you to show positive human outcomes.
Callout: The burden is yours. You claim cooked is healthier, you must prove it.- Appeal to authority
What you do: You wave WHO numbers without causal evidence for raw vs cooked.
Why it fails: Authority totals are not proof of your specific claim.
Callout: WHO totals ≠ evidence that cooked > raw. Show relative risks per portion or drop it.- Non sequitur
What you do: From rare pathogenic strains you conclude all raw meat is unsafe.
Why it fails: The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Callout: A rare strain ≠ proof that raw meat itself is inherently unsafe.- Cherry picking
What you do: You highlight HUS, neurolisteriosis and GBS as if they are typical.
Why it fails: Extreme outliers are not general rules.
Callout: You cherry-pick edge cases. Show baseline incidence per portion in healthy people.- Base rate neglect
What you do: You ignore how rare severe outcomes are compared to total exposures.
Why it fails: Risk requires a base rate.
Callout: Where is your per-portion rate in healthy populations? Without it, your fear-mongering is statistics-free.- Confusing hazard and risk
What you do: You list molecular hazards and call it risk.
Why it fails: Hazard ≠ risk without dose and exposure.
Callout: Hazard is not risk. Show real dose-response under normal raw intake.- Necessary vs sufficient
What you do: You treat bacterial presence as proof of illness.
Why it fails: Presence is not sufficient without host state, dose, strain.
Callout: Presence ≠ causation. Prove sufficiency in humans.- Ecological fallacy
What you do: You use population totals to claim truth about individuals eating raw meat.
Why it fails: Group stats don’t automatically apply to individual cases.
Callout: Totals from many foods ≠ proof about raw vs cooked meat in healthy individuals.- Category error
What you do: You treat contamination as if it is an inherent property of raw meat.
Why it fails: Contamination is handling and environment, not essence.
Callout: You only prove contaminated food is risky, not raw meat itself.- Ignoring post-cooking contamination
What you do: You act as if heat ends the problem.
Why it fails: Listeria and others thrive post-cooking in chilled foods.
Callout: If heat solved it, there would be no outbreaks in cooked ready-meals.- Straw man
What you do: You pretend I claim all pathogens are beneficial.
Why it fails: I say outcomes are context-dependent, not that all bacteria are good.
Callout: You’re fighting a straw man. I never made that claim.- False dichotomy
What you do: You present it as raw=poison vs cooked=safe.
Why it fails: Many mitigation strategies exist besides heat, and cooked food can also be contaminated.
Callout: It’s not raw poison vs cooked safe. Show net health benefit, not just hazard reduction.- Appeal to fear
What you do: You drown in scary words like “molecular warfare.”
Why it fails: Fear rhetoric ≠ data.
Callout: Fear is not evidence. Show controlled human comparisons.- Moving the goalposts
What you do: You jump between WHO, models, toxins, infants to dodge the core claim.
Why it fails: The criterion is simple: outcomes per portion, raw vs cooked.
Callout: Stay on target. Show direct comparisons in humans or retract.- Model reification
What you do: You treat quantitative risk models as truth.
Why it fails: Models = assumptions, not observed outcomes.
Callout: A model is not proof. Show real human data, not math.- Texas sharpshooter
What you do: You match outbreaks to your story after the fact.
Why it fails: Selective matching is not evidence.
Callout: You pick cases that fit and ignore those that contradict. Show the full dataset.- Composition/division fallacy
What you do: You assume if some strains are harmful, all are harmful.
Why it fails: Subset traits ≠ universal truth.
Callout: A few virulent strains ≠ all raw meat, all hosts, all contexts.- Begging the question
What you do: You assume heat is necessary and conclude heat is necessary.
Why it fails: Circular reasoning.
Callout: You assume your conclusion. Show net health benefits beyond alternatives.- Isolated demand for rigor
What you do: You demand impossible RCTs from me but rely on weaker evidence yourself.
Why it fails: Double standard.
Callout: If ethics block RCTs, that applies to you too. Don’t demand what you can’t provide.- False analogy with vultures
What you do: You dismiss human stomach acid comparisons by jumping to extreme carrion eaters.
Why it fails: Irrelevant species ≠ proof for humans.
Callout: Vulture analogies don’t prove cooked > raw in healthy humans.- Equivocation on “pathogen”
What you do: You treat “pathogen” as if it always means guaranteed disease.
Why it fails: Pathogen = potential, not inevitability.
Callout: Potential ≠ outcome. Context decides.- No True Scotsman
What you do: Every time data contradicts you, you redefine what counts as “relevant risk.”
Why it fails: Unfalsifiable.
Callout: Stop shifting definitions. Fix clear criteria or concede.- Anecdote & availability bias
What you do: You rely on dramatic outbreaks instead of base rates.
Why it fails: Memorable ≠ frequent.
Callout: Anecdotes are not statistics. Show per-portion incidence.- Moralistic/naturalistic misuse
What you do: You call infection trials “unethical” and treat that as proof.
Why it fails: Ethics block methods, not truth.
Callout: Saying “it’s unethical” doesn’t prove your claim.
fucking slave
My point is that everything you mention in this chapter is completely irrelevant to this debate:
You claim "raw meat is not inherently contaminated" because the muscle tissue is initially sterile. This is a deliberate, moronic Category Error that ignores the process, and the process is the product. The meat you consume is not excised in an aseptic lab; it comes from a slaughter line where pathogens from the animal's hide, feet, and viscera—the reservoirs of virulent E. coli and Salmonella—contaminate the surface the moment the carcass is dressed.[1]
DUDE READ WHAT I AM TELLING YOU AND STOP COPY PASTING THE SAME FUCKING IRRELEVANT NUMBERS
Your whole argument is built on a pathetic, philosophically purified definition of "raw meat" that exists only in your delusional head and not in the actual food supply. You keep demanding "pure logic" while committing the most basic logical and scientific fallacies. Let me put this to a stop by giving you the exact, quantifiable data you demanded, thereby proving you are wrong not just ethically, but mathematically.
Your meta-analysis data is entirely on cooked red meat, not raw. Calling it ‘raw product’ is a category error. You’re arguing against the food people actually eat, not the variable in debate, this is not beneficial to you In anyway actually the oposite. Cooking always generates toxic byproducts (HCAs, AGEs, oxidized fats). Raw AND cooked only sometimes carries pathogens, and often not at infectious dose. You flipped the risk comparison upside down. You just listed numbers without sources. Post the DOI or outbreak PDF, or admit you haven’t met the criteria.
The Quantifiable Proof: 45% DALY Reduction and Relative Risk >1.0 You demanded per-portion human outcome data. Since an ethical human challenge trial is blocked because we can't intentionally poison people to prove Shiga toxin causes kidney failure, we use the gold standard: Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QRA). This is the Type C evidence you asked for, and it proves the catastrophic cost of skipping the thermal kill step. Acute Risk is Quantified (The DALY Metric): QRA modeling focused on virulent, high-risk Salmonella strains found in NRTE (Not Ready-to-Eat) ground beef—a commodity regulated for cooking—showed that these specific strains carry 96.7% of the acute DALY burden from salmonellosis in that product. The measurable outcome, the proof that cooking is healthier, is this: Mitigating these high-risk virulent strains would result in a 45% reduction in acute DALY annually attributable to salmonellosis. That 45% DALY reduction is the per-serving human outcome quantified in terms of years of healthy life lost. This proves, mathematically, that the raw microbial load is a source of severe, high-consequence disease. The Chronic Risk Is Inherent (The RR Metric): Even if your raw meat were magically sterile, it still carries a statistically significant, documented chronic health risk entirely independent of cooking toxins. Large-scale prospective cohort studies analyzing decades of data on healthy adults confirmed that consumption of unprocessed red meat is positively associated with long-term mortality. The risk is quantified per serving per day: Relative Risk (RR) for all-cause mortality is 1.15, and the RR for cardiovascular mortality is 1.19 . The food you are defending is linked to a 15% to 19% increased risk of death independent of HCAs. Cooking is healthier because it eliminates the acute risk and the base product still poses a chronic risk. Your Pathogen Lie and Molecular Sabotage You dismiss these pathogens as harmless commensals, but the science is clear: they are armed killers with ultra-low infectious doses. Lethal Dose: Outbreak data shows the infectious dose for STEC O157:H7 is as low as 10 to 100 CFU . For Campylobacter, it can be less than 500 cells . Retail contamination levels can reach 10 8 to 10 10 CFU/g. The thermal CCP achieves a 10 5 to 10 7 log reduction , which is the only reliable way to reduce that massive contamination load to an ingestible dose of zero. Molecular Assassination: STEC's Shiga toxin binds to the Gb 3 receptor on kidney vascular cells and cleaves a specific adenine residue from the 28S rRNA of the 60S ribosomal subunit, irreversibly shutting down protein synthesis and causing HUS (kidney failure) . Listeria monocytogenes uses the master regulator PrfA to unleash LLO and ActA to rocket-propel itself through the host cell cytoplasm , leading to 44% long-term neurological sequelae in survivors of neurolisteriosis. This is severe, quantified risk of permanent disability. Final Dismissal of Your "Logic" The Policy Mandate is Science: You dismiss regulatory guidelines and the HACCP system as irrelevant policy. These systems were created by microbiologists and epidemiologists to manage the quantified 45% DALY risk. The USDA mandates that cooked poultry achieve a 7-log reduction of Salmonella and cooked beef a 6.5-log reduction . This is not politics; it is the scientific intervention required to maintain public safety. PCC is a Red Herring: You claim Post-Cooking Contamination (PCC) makes cooking riskier. PCC is a secondary, manageable hazard that results in a lower microbial dose. It does not negate the 10 7 log reduction that eliminated the primary, high-dose, life-threatening hazard inherent in the raw product. Vultures are Irrelevant: You keep bringing up the highly acidic stomach of scavengers to justify raw meat consumption. Vultures have stomachs with the approximate pH of battery acid and possess unique genetic immune adaptations to digest putrefied meat. Human gastric acidity, while strong, is an evolutionary defense mechanism against high contamination , a defense easily overwhelmed by the low infectious dose of modern virulent strains. You are not a vulture. You asked for the data. I gave you the QRA DALY attribution and the cohort mortality RR. You have lost this argument on every single scientific, mathematical, and epidemiological metric. Concede.
go to like 5 different butchers and buy small amount of liver and taste them all to find the best source because 5/6 times its trash but eventually u will hit the liver jackpot
It’s cope
deer infected meat yes but other wise no.
You truly are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? You demand "pure logic" and then reject the only scientific tools capable of measuring population-level risk because they are called "assessments" and not "observed outcomes." You've thrown every fallacy in the book at me, but you still haven't produced a shred of data to prove your claim that a non-sterile, pathogen-carrying commodity is healthier than one that has undergone a scientifically validated 10 7 pathogen reduction step.
you are so dedicated to your intellectual dishonesty that you reject the only scientific tools capable of measuring population risk and then have the gall to accuse me of failing a "human test." let me be clear, you idiot: i am giving you the verifiable data you demanded by title, demonstrating that your philosophical definition of "raw meat" is fatally flawed by the quantifiable reality of microbiology. 1. qra is the proof, because you can’t prove a negative without it. you scream that quantitative risk assessment (qra) is just a model, not empirical proof. that is a meaningless semantic argument. when human rcts are ethically blocked—because, yes, deliberately infecting 50,000 people with listeria to see how many fetuses die is unethical—qra is the scientifically accepted method to translate real-world contamination into human outcomes, and it is built on decades of empirical dose-response data. the model proves the catastrophic cost of your raw meat fantasy: qra analyzing virulent, multi-drug resistant (mdr) salmonella in nrte ground beef—a product regulated for cooking—found that these specific high-risk strains account for 96.7\% of the total acute daly burden from salmonellosis in that commodity.[1, 2] the quantifiable safety benefit of applying a kill step is measured as a 45\% reduction in acute daly annually attributable to salmonellosis, as proven in the study "removal of mdr salmonella would result in decreased burden of disease with a 45% reduction in acute daly annually".[1] that 45\% daly reduction is the per-serving human outcome you demanded, quantified in lost healthy life years, proving the raw product is dangerously compromised. you are fighting mathematical proof. 2. cohort studies prove the raw commodity is inherently flawed. you try to dismiss the mortality data (rr >1.0) as an ecological fallacy because the subjects ate cooked meat. that is the dumbest defense possible. if eating unprocessed red meat—which includes your perfect sterile muscle tissue—even after being cooked (which should mitigate risk) is associated with an increased risk of death, it means the unprocessed matrix itself is detrimental. the data from the study "red meat consumption and mortalityresults from 2 prospective cohort studies" [3] and "consumption of unprocessed red meat consumption was significantly and positively associated with risk of all-cause mortality" [4] shows that per serving per day, this commodity carries a: relative risk for all-cause mortality of 1.15. relative risk for cardiovascular mortality of 1.19. this means the raw commodity you defend is intrinsically associated with a 15\% to 19\% increased risk of death, independent of the hcas created during cooking. you cannot logically claim the raw state is healthier when the "unprocessed" product is already linked to chronic mortality before a single pathogen is considered. 3. hazard \ne risk? you ignore the lethal dose and molecular sabotage. your "hazard \ne risk" argument is just intellectual laziness used to ignore the specific, high-consequence pathogens that thrive in the non-sterile retail environment. lethal dose: retail raw meat environments are shown to have total aerobic counts (tac) in the 10^8 to 10^{10} cfu/g range [5], and specific raw beef preparations carry multi-drug resistant e. coli at high counts.[6] against this load, the estimated infectious dose for stec o157:h7 is confirmed by outbreak data to be as low as 10 to 100 cfu [7, 8, 9], and campylobacter can infect with less than 500 cells . the thermal kill step, achieving a 7-log reduction for salmonella [10, 11], is the only measure that reliably reduces that risk to zero. irreversible damage: the risk is realized when these pathogens attack the central nervous system. listeria monocytogenes—the most fatal foodborne pathogen [12]—uses its prfa regulon, llo toxin, and acta protein to evade the immune system, leading to systemic neuro-invasion . a french national prospective study confirmed that 44\% of patients surviving neurolisteriosis suffer long-term neurological sequelae . this is the baseline chronic outcome for survivors, not a rare anecdote. 4. policy is the enforcement of science, not just policy. you dismiss usda and cdc guidelines as irrelevant appeals to authority. the cdc explicitly classifies "raw or undercooked poultry or meat" as a riskier choice [13] because meat and poultry contribute to 29\% of foodborne deaths.[14] these rules exist because the qra proved that raw microbial load is too high. the fact that outbreaks still occur in cooked foods (listeria in ready meals) is a secondary contamination failure [15]—a failure of hygiene after the cooking step. it does not negate the proven, massive log reduction achieved by heat against the primary, inherent contamination in the raw commodity. the evidence is overwhelming and specific. you have the quantified daly reduction, the cohort mortality risk, and the molecular mechanism for paralysis. you have lost this ar
You keep repeating the same methodological errors without realizing they’re not evidence, they’re models and assumptions pretending to be evidence. Let me make this painfully clear, since you confuse policy modeling with scientific proof.
You keep repeating the same flawed philosophical defenses, rejecting actual, peer-reviewed data because it doesn't fit your sterile fantasy definition of "raw meat." You demand empirical proof, but when the numbers are shoved down your throat, you call the science "simulation." Let me absolutely shut down your idiotic excuses one final time, using the exact study titles you demanded. 1. QRA Is The Proof, Because Your "Ethical Test" Is A Death Sentence. You mock the ethical block excuse by asking why we can't study the 50 million daily raw servings. That's precisely why you fail Koch's Postulates: those 50 million servings are uncontrolled, undocumented, and statistically diluted events where the strain, dose, and host history are unknown. You cannot isolate causation from that noise. To perform the "human test" you want, a scientist would have to knowingly feed a healthy subject a controlled dose of virulent E. coli O157:H7 or Listeria monocytogenes. That is medically impossible because the infectious dose is so low and the outcome is so severe. The QRA is the only ethical, scientifically valid substitute for this test, and it uses observed, hard epidemiological data as its input, not guesses. The model proves the lethal risk magnitude of the raw commodity: The study "Removal of MDR Salmonella Would Result in Decreased Burden of Disease with a 45% Reduction in Acute DALY Annually" quantified that highly virulent MDR Salmonella strains—which are present in NRTE ground beef—account for 96.7% of the acute DALY burden from salmonellosis in that commodity. The 45% DALY reduction is the direct, quantifiable outcome proving the severity of the load that cooking eliminates. You are fighting against the documented prevention of death and disability. QRA is not a guess; it is the mathematical consequence of the ultra-low infectious dose of STEC O157:H7, which outbreak data, summarized in "The estimated infectious dose from outbreak data is 10–100 CFU (Griffin et al., 1994)," proves can cause illness in the range of 10 to 100 CFU. Cooking provides a 10 5 to 10 7 log reduction in this load, which is the quantifiable difference between lethal exposure and zero risk. 2. Cohort Studies Prove Raw Meat is Inherently Detrimental. You dismiss the long-term mortality risk associated with red meat consumption as an "ecological fallacy." You fundamentally fail to see that your defense of raw meat as nutritionally superior is destroyed by the fact that the unprocessed matrix itself carries a significant health detriment. The studies "Red Meat Consumption and MortalityResults From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies" and "Consumption of Unprocessed Red Meat Consumption was Significantly and Positively Associated with Risk of All-Cause Mortality" tracked populations consuming mostly cooked red meat. If consuming this meat, even after the thermal kill step has eliminated pathogens and reduced the microbial load, is still associated with a: Relative Risk (RR) for All-Cause Mortality of 1.15 Relative Risk (RR) for Cardiovascular Mortality of 1.19 —it proves that the baseline chronic risk of the raw commodity is already above one (RR >1.0). Your claim that raw is "healthier" is statistically invalidated because the product you defend is linked to a 15% to 19% increased risk of death per serving, independent of the debate over HCAs. 3. Hazard = Risk? You Ignore The Final Act of Molecular Terror. You keep hiding behind "Hazard = Risk" while ignoring that the molecular mechanism is the final proof of the high consequence. This is not "fear rhetoric"; this is pathology: Listeria monocytogenes: This pathogen uses its PrfA regulon, LLO toxin, and ActA protein to evade the immune system, and the consequence of this neuro-invasion is catastrophic. The French national prospective study confirmed that 44% of patients that survived neurolisteriosis had long-term neurological sequelae. This is the quantified cost of consuming a product where Listeria is frequently found, as documented in studies on the meat supply chain. Campylobacter jejuni: This triggers Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)—paralysis—through molecular mimicry, as described in studies like "Molecular mimicry in Guillain-Barré syndrome." The risk is concrete: About 1 in every 1,000 people with Campylobacter infection gets GBS. You have the quantified acute risk (45% DALY reduction) and the quantified chronic risk (RR 1.15 mortality). The scientific imperative to cook is validated by the need to eliminate these specific, high-consequence biological agents. You have lost. Stop repeating these kindergarten fallacies and concede the proven safety differential.
THIS IS IMPORTANT – READ BEFORE REPLYING
ok here's what I did. 1. take meat out package 2. eat it. Nah real talk tho read we want to live by aajonus vonderplanitz. Don't take everything at face value though some of his ideas are probably wrong.
buy it from a trusted farm if possible, you could buy it from a butcher but its a bit riskier. you should also implement raw dairy into your diet.
