We adapt to taste of raw flesh, as long as it's wild.

[KindMaster1]

I've been eating raw meat for the past 9 months.

Grain fed meat tasted like shit before and still tastes the same.

After a few days of eating raw fish (wild), I adapted to taste, and now appreciate it a lot.

We need to eat organic raw foods, ideally with healthy sauces (no salt, no seed oils), and then we'd actually enjoy food and life.

 

[MaracasMogs]

Is it larp ? Most people out here are larping about it because they live with their parents.

 

[Zeekie]

I enjoy life better with cooked food, thank you.

Now, raw meat? Pretty dumb, but fine, I suppose. Raw chicken or pork? Even more stupid in my opinion, but raw fucking fish?! Basically all fish have some sort of parasite living on them at any given time, if it is possible to get food poisoning from raw meat, imagine how it is for fish.

Y'all have officially lost it

 

[Sens]

You are out of your fucking mind

 

[KindMaster1]

I enjoy life better with cooked food, thank you.

Now, raw meat? Pretty dumb, but fine, I suppose. Raw chicken or pork? Even more stupid in my opinion, but raw fucking fish?! Basically all fish have some sort of parasite living on them at any given time, if it is possible to get food poisoning from raw meat, imagine how it is for fish.

Y'all have officially lost it

It's a benefit. You get improved microbiome and parasitic symbiotes. They help digest and detox.

Enjoyment is sure better. At least eat seared red meat if you want cooked food, this will be 90 percent raw. Never buy white meat, what a waste, no sear.

 

[KindMaster1]

Is it larp ? Most people out here are larping about it because they live with their parents.

Try eating fatty raw fish for a week. Everything except salmon has a specific taste that is initially unpleasant. But after a week you adapt and start liking it. With sauces, to make a proper sashimi, you enjoy it from the get go a lot.

 

[Bryce]

I enjoy life better with cooked food, thank you.

Now, raw meat? Pretty dumb, but fine, I suppose. Raw chicken or pork? Even more stupid in my opinion, but raw fucking fish?! Basically all fish have some sort of parasite living on them at any given time, if it is possible to get food poisoning from raw meat, imagine how it is for fish.

Y'all have officially lost it

There was this one doctor who said if you've ever eaten sushi you have parasites because of how abundant they are on raw fish, yet people are eating raw fish and raw fish eggs every single day, how is it only a problem when you isolate the fish without rice, seaweed, sauces, wasabi, soy sauce, etc.?

 

[MaracasMogs]

Try eating fatty raw fish for a week. Everything except salmon has a specific taste that is initially unpleasant. But after a week you adapt and start liking it. With sauces, to make a proper sashimi, you enjoy it from the get go a lot.

I eat primal too
I just feel like there are so many kids that watched 4 Goatis videos and now larp about it because "meh look at me im different "

 

[KindMaster1]

There was this one doctor who said if you've ever eaten sushi you have parasites because of how abundant they are on raw fish, yet people are eating raw fish and raw fish eggs every single day, how is it only a problem when you isolate the fish without rice, seaweed, sauces, wasabi, soy sauce, etc.?

You mean how it's a problem when it's combined with rice, instead?
You said sushi causes it.

 

[Bryce]

You mean how it's a problem when it's combined with rice, instead?
You said sushi causes it.

I'm asking him why he thinks raw fish by itself is crazy when people are eating raw fish day in and day out, it's just paired with rice and seaweed and given the name "sushi". It's like when people say eating raw meat is disgusting yet rich people eat raw meat every single day, but it's given a different name which makes it more socially acceptable to do or something, even though its the same thing

 

[LegendaryKennen]

i dont live alone but i try to cook it as little as possible for this reason, i once ate a wild-caught fish and cooked it as little as possible (the inside of it was barely cooked, just the outside) best tasting fish ever tbh

 

[KindMaster1]

I'm asking him why he thinks raw fish by itself is crazy when people are eating raw fish day in and day out, it's just paired with rice and seaweed and given the name "sushi". It's like when people say eating raw meat is disgusting yet rich people eat raw meat every single day, but it's given a different name which makes it more socially acceptable to do or something, even though its the same thing

Yeah, they're simply retarded overall, because parasites are a good thing. They're wrong on more than 1 issue, basically.

 

[alexias]

Microplasticsmaxxing

 

[KindMaster1]

Microplasticsmaxxing

Myth news.

 

[KindMaster1]

Microplasticsmaxxing

Mythos are usually cool.
Retarded myths from retards are lame.

 

[alexias]

Myth news.

Raw fish is most likely to have tons of microplastics considering how much plastics is in the sea, the fact your eating it raw is probably more dangerous but this probably ain't true.

 

[KindMaster1]

Raw fish is most likely to have tons of microplastics considering how much plastics is in the sea, the fact your eating it raw is probably more dangerous but this probably ain't true.

Coastal fish is contaminated a bit, yes.
Alaskan fish must be pristine.

 

[Zeekie]

It's a benefit. You get improved microbiome and parasitic symbiotes. They help digest and detox.

Enjoyment is sure better. At least eat seared red meat if you want cooked food, this will be 90 percent raw. Never buy white meat, what a waste, no sear.

I do not think 99% of parasites are trying to form a symbiotic relationship w you bro

 

[Zeekie]

There was this one doctor who said if you've ever eaten sushi you have parasites because of how abundant they are on raw fish, yet people are eating raw fish and raw fish eggs every single day, how is it only a problem when you isolate the fish without rice, seaweed, sauces, wasabi, soy sauce, etc.?

I guess the implication here based on the commenters post is that he doesn't care too much about the sourcing, he does eat organic, raw whatever the fuck, but the freshly caught fish you can find at a store is unprocessed. Sushi-grade fish is typically at the very least in most establishments, or treated with utmost care to avoid any contamination, and even then it still happens. Regardless, most people don't eat raw fish too often, so there's not too many chances of getting any issues from it, but if you're eating it constantly, that's just pushing your luck

 

[KindMaster1]

I do not think 99% of parasites are trying to form a symbiotic relationship w you bro

They do, otherwise they are killed by my body's internal processes which recognize which parasites are good and which are bad, the same is with bacteria.

 

[KindMaster1]

I guess the implication here based on the commenters post is that he doesn't care too much about the sourcing, he does eat organic, raw whatever the fuck, but the freshly caught fish you can find at a store is unprocessed. Sushi-grade fish is typically at the very least in most establishments, or treated with utmost care to avoid any contamination, and even then it still happens. Regardless, most people don't eat raw fish too often, so there's not too many chances of getting any issues from it, but if you're eating it constantly, that's just pushing your luck

I don't eat only filets, I eat entire fish and raw guts every time. I'm not pushing my luck, I'm looking for bacteria and parasites as my goal.

 

[Zeekie]

They do, otherwise they are killed by my body's internal processes which recognize which parasites are good and which are bad, the same is with bacteria.

You know, it is estimated that humans started cooking their food about 1 million years ago, that timeline also conveniently lines up with the period on which the human brain experiences some of the most significant cognitive developments that may have allowed our species to thrive the way it does now, this is why it's theorized that the discovery of cooking actually allowed the human brain to develop beyond previous capabilities because of better nutrient absorption and calorie acquisition (meaning we had more resources to allocate to the brain).

The earliest of our ancestors which we can consider thinking and rational humans (somewhat) were cooking their food, beyond very faulty logic around your gut microbiome, what's the purpose behind taking a step back in the evolutive process and reducing yourself to barbaric pre-civilized human ways?

Cooking wasn't a convenience, it made us what we are today. I do not agree with your statement about parasites and bacteria, anyone with a background in microbiology or medicine would cry by reading that statement, but I assume if we touch that topic we would be debating over conspiracy theories and hypothesis rather than actual validated scientific research and statistics, not my cup of tea. But from a philosophical/evolutionary/anthropological standpoint, what you do doesn't make sense, it's regressive and literally shreds us off our humanity, you're no different from any other mammal, how shameful

 

[Claymoreboy0118]

Can we talk about your avi please

 

[KindMaster1]

You know, it is estimated that humans started cooking their food about 1 million years ago, that timeline also conveniently lines up with the period on which the human brain experiences some of the most significant cognitive developments that may have allowed our species to thrive the way it does now, this is why it's theorized that the discovery of cooking actually allowed the human brain to develop beyond previous capabilities because of better nutrient absorption and calorie acquisition (meaning we had more resources to allocate to the brain).

The earliest of our ancestors which we can consider thinking and rational humans (somewhat) were cooking their food, beyond very faulty logic around your gut microbiome, what's the purpose behind taking a step back in the evolutive process and reducing yourself to barbaric pre-civilized human ways?

Cooking wasn't a convenience, it made us what we are today. I do not agree with your statement about parasites and bacteria, anyone with a background in microbiology or medicine would cry by reading that statement, but I assume if we touch that topic we would be debating over conspiracy theories and hypothesis rather than actual validated scientific research and statistics, not my cup of tea. But from a philosophical/evolutionary/anthropological standpoint, what you do doesn't make sense, it's regressive and literally shreds us off our humanity, you're no different from any other mammal, how shameful

All debunked by Aajonus and Weston A. Price.

We evolved because of uncoupled mitochondria allowing us to survive and thrive in cold latitudes, which both Neanderthals and Africans physically cannot do, it's impossible. This is Jack Kruse.

By another theory, we evolved because of using rocks to split open skull and bones to get raw brains and raw bone marrow (including fermented ones in long dead animal carcasses), and because of hands allowing us to use technology to unlimitedly hunt fish (which land animals cannot do because they don't have hands), both of which give you DHA, fermented DHA, and various rare and valuable for brain nutrients.

If you want to evolve your brain, eat naturally.

If you want to eat ethically, do not denature your food.

 

[KindMaster1]

Can we talk about your avi please

This is art.

 

[Deleted member 111567]

I enjoy life better with cooked food, thank you.

Now, raw meat? Pretty dumb, but fine, I suppose. Raw chicken or pork? Even more stupid in my opinion, but raw fucking fish?! Basically all fish have some sort of parasite living on them at any given time, if it is possible to get food poisoning from raw meat, imagine how it is for fish.

Y'all have officially lost it

just freeze raw fish and ur good, been eating raw tuna since i was little, i might have a brain worm making me dumber by the day but no fish parasites are in me

 

[KindMaster1]

You know, it is estimated that humans started cooking their food about 1 million years ago, that timeline also conveniently lines up with the period on which the human brain experiences some of the most significant cognitive developments that may have allowed our species to thrive the way it does now, this is why it's theorized that the discovery of cooking actually allowed the human brain to develop beyond previous capabilities because of better nutrient absorption and calorie acquisition (meaning we had more resources to allocate to the brain).

The earliest of our ancestors which we can consider thinking and rational humans (somewhat) were cooking their food, beyond very faulty logic around your gut microbiome, what's the purpose behind taking a step back in the evolutive process and reducing yourself to barbaric pre-civilized human ways?

Cooking wasn't a convenience, it made us what we are today. I do not agree with your statement about parasites and bacteria, anyone with a background in microbiology or medicine would cry by reading that statement, but I assume if we touch that topic we would be debating over conspiracy theories and hypothesis rather than actual validated scientific research and statistics, not my cup of tea. But from a philosophical/evolutionary/anthropological standpoint, what you do doesn't make sense, it's regressive and literally shreds us off our humanity, you're no different from any other mammal, how shameful

JFL at believing in pharma industry.
Go eat an antibiotic for a month and become depressed forever, then I'll see how you respect them.

 

[SussyBakaBoi]

yall think raw meats gonna help u ascend?

yall are torturing yourselves

 

[KindMaster1]

just freeze raw fish and ur good, been eating raw tuna since i was little, i might have a brain worm making me dumber by the day but no fish parasites are in me

Most fish sold is already frozen. Why do you refreeze it.

Freezing is retarded if you can avoid it. You are doing an equivalent of cooking.

I eat frozen not because I want to, but because there is no choice.

 

[KindMaster1]

yall think raw meats gonna help u ascend?

yall are torturing yourselves

For guys in puberty it's guaranteed.
The only reason for descension is grains, and other scams (lean meat, well done cooking).

For people after puberty, it's about anti ageing.

 

[KindMaster1]

yall think raw meats gonna help u ascend?

yall are torturing yourselves

What is sussy in sussy baka.

 

[SussyBakaBoi]

What is sussy in sussy baka.

as in suspicious

 

[Deleted member 111567]

Most fish sold is already frozen. Why do you refreeze it.

Freezing is retarded if you can avoid it. You are doing an equivalent of cooking.

I eat frozen not because I want to, but because there is no choice.

i mean if someone were to process it themselves, i also just buy it then eat it considering you cant get it raw from the beach near me, thats the best shit

 

[KindMaster1]

i mean if someone were to process it themselves, i also just buy it then eat it considering you cant get it raw from the beach near me, thats the best shit

I have no idea what you wanted to say here.

 

[Zeekie]

JFL at believing in pharma industry.
Go eat an antibiotic for a month and become depressed forever, then I'll see how you respect them.

No, I'm all in for probiotics, love my daily kefir, yogurt, and unpasteurized sauerkraut, but JFL at getting anisaki in your digestive track and thinking they're forming a "symbiotic" relationship with you. Very little parasites form symbiotic relationship with any animals, they're biologically considered parasites for that reason. This isn't about the "pharma industry", it's basic biology and science humans figured out a long time ago for a reason.

 

[KindMaster1]

No, I'm all in for probiotics, love my daily kefir, yogurt, and unpasteurized sauerkraut, but JFL at getting anisaki in your digestive track and thinking they're forming a "symbiotic" relationship with you. Very little parasites form symbiotic relationship with any animals, they're biologically considered parasites for that reason. This isn't about the "pharma industry", it's basic biology and science humans figured out a long time ago for a reason.

Aajonus says otherwise. He made his research. Parasites eat a material and excrete 50 percent smaller waste, whether it's toxins or nutrients, helping us digest and detox. It's better to let an army of parasites die, then your microbiome, so they're great detox protectors.

Give me any links that disprove this.

 

[LooksMaxsterAwesome]

I enjoy life better with cooked food, thank you.

Now, raw meat? Pretty dumb, but fine, I suppose. Raw chicken or pork? Even more stupid in my opinion, but raw fucking fish?! Basically all fish have some sort of parasite living on them at any given time, if it is possible to get food poisoning from raw meat, imagine how it is for fish.

Y'all have officially lost it

JFL you are the most egotistical brainwashed person on this forum. Complete denial of ideas. Drop your ego. Trying new things can easily transform your life for the better but the first step is admitting you are brainwashed. Everything that's in this realm of existence was perfectly designed by god you simply need to learn to understand and accept nature and it will reward you greatly.

 

[LooksMaxsterAwesome]

KindMaster1 is 100% CORRECT AND FACT CHECKED TRUE BY TRUE ARYANS

 

[Zeekie]

JFL you are the most egotistical brainwashed person on this forum. Complete denial of ideas. Drop your ego. Trying new things can easily transform your life for the better but the first step is admitting you are brainwashed. Everything that's in this realm of existence was perfectly designed by god you simply need to learn to understand and accept nature and it will reward you greatly.

Egotistical? Absolutely
Brainwashed? I think you're projecting buddy

"Learn to understand and accept nature" My way of understanding nature is through actually validated scientific research, your whole idea of "understanding" revolves around believing whatever bullshit the latest primal guru is spewing on TIKTOK or YOUTUBE, if you actually wanted to understand and "accept" nature as you claim you would read properly validated scientific research (probably hard for you tho, you likely don't even know where to find those ) or would try to research anthropology.

I'll deny however ideas I like as long as they do not agree with CLEAR AND CONSISTENT SCIENTIFIC TRENDS, or even stuff fucking medieval peasants new, fuck, humans have been cooking for around 700k years, we had almost 1 million years for our digestive systems to adapt to cooked foods.

You have ZERO evidence for what you claim, it contradicts all common sense and well-established medical understanding that dates back... I don't know, since humans can fucking think? And you ask me to "drop my ego" and "stop denying ideas" holy fuck, you're truly moronic, and I'd bet your IQ is definitively in the single digits.

You know I'm not even trying to convince of anything, your brain is beyond rotting so any logical and evidence-driven discussion with people as stupid as you is pointless, so I'm just blatantly insulting you at this point because I can, and hopefully, so people don't fall into retarded mindsets such as yours.

Go primal boy!

 

[Zeekie]

Aajonus says otherwise. He made his research. Parasites eat a material and excrete 50 percent smaller waste, whether it's toxins or nutrients, helping us digest and detox. It's better to let an army of parasites die, then your microbiome, so they're great detox protectors.

Give me any links that disprove this.

Aajonus has no background or studies in any relating to the human body, whatever he says means jackshit. Anyone can claim shit and say it works, just like there are other millions of morons claiming the vegan diet does miracles, cured their cancer or whatever the fuck, your stupid beliefs have no more weight than theirs, it's all anecdotal bullshit. You want research? Fine. I'm gonna just copy paste exactly what I told some other dude promoting this exact bullshit, he never responded by the way.

 

[Zeekie]

(AGAIN THIS IS DIRECLY RIPPED OUT OF ANOTHER CONVERSATION I HAD, SOME POINTS ARE OUT OF CONTEXT AND UNRELATED, I WASNT GOING TO BOTHER FORMATTING IT EITHER AS EITHER WAY YOURE UNLIKELY TO EVEN READ IT OR ANALYZE THE RESEARCH, SUCH IS YOUR NATURE AND WE ALL KNOW IT)

"Bacteria / Parasite Psyop"
This isn't a 'psyop', these threats are real and have proven deadly. For instance, the 2011 listeria outbreak linked to cantaloupes killed 33 people (cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/cantaloupes-jensen-farms). Listeria, can also be found in meat.

I quote: 'Most (58%) illnesses were caused by norovirus, followed by nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. (11%), Clostridium perfringens (10%), and Campylobacter spp. (9%). Leading causes of hospitalization were nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. (35%), norovirus (26%), Campylobacter spp. (15%), and Toxoplasma gondii (8%)' (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21192848/). Cholera, which is mostly contracted from contaminated seafood or water, also continues to cause death around the world... (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14738797/).

You also speak about "harmful compounds created in cooking", but ignore that bacteria and parasites do the same thing. They cause immune responses because they damage cells and, most importantly, release toxic byproducts. For example, Clostridium botulinum produces a deadly neurotoxin, and Trichinella spiralis can invade and damage brain cells.

"What Bacteria Is And Its Importance"
This is your worst claim. You've made points about the gut microbiome's importance for longevity and health, and yes, a good gut microbiome is beneficial.

HOWEVER, the idea that 'bacteria and parasites are our friends' is just plain wrong. 'Bad bacteria' absolutely exist in food, E. coli is one of the most common! While many microorganisms are good for your gut, harmful strains like E. coli are NOT. So, how do you explain flesh-eating microorganisms? Are they our friends too? Should we just let them into our bodies? Hell no.

Epidemiology of <em>Escherichia coli</em> O157:H7 Outbreaks, United States, 1982–2002​

Running title: Escherichia coli O157:H7 Outbreaks, United States

"Bad bacteria are not naturally occurring but are manmade laboratory strains."
This isn't an argument or a fact, it's a literal conspiracy theory. We've known about E. coli since the late 19th century. If you have any knowledge of the history of biology and genetic engineering, you'd know that back then, we barely understood what a bacteria was, let alone have the technology for genomic alteration. We still struggle to insert even a single gene into a microorganism. Do you understand the difficulty and astronomical cost of creating 'bad bacteria' in a lab, especially over 100 years ago?

Your point about antibiotic resistance in medicine is completely out of context. Yes, it's a growing medical concern that our abuse of antibiotics drives bacterial evolution helping resistant strains pass down their genes. But you're ignoring the fundamental reason we began using antibiotics in the first place. Microorganisms caused severe illness and death long before we even understood antibiotic resistance, we didn't start using antibiotics 'just because', it was to combat naturally occurring pathogens causing issues.

"Parasites are apart of natures cleanup crew"
Parasites are beneficial in only a few cases. If you become infected, your body will almost certainly have an immune response to eliminate them. Do you understand why this occurs? It's because parasites actively harm the host.

Using wild animals as a health guideline is also pretty dumb. Firstly, a wild animal usually lives to the age of, I don't know, 30 years? And often much less because they suffer from parasites, injuries, and chronic hunger. Secondly, many animals have mechanisms to combat parasites, whether through consuming specific anti-parasitic plants or forming symbiotic relationships with other creatures that remove them. This is proof that even in nature, parasites are often an issue and not a benefit.

Nature is optimized for survival, not for health or longevity. Contrast this with modern medical understanding, which has dramatically reduced mortality from diseases like smallpox by 100% and polio by 99, while raising the average human lifespan from approximately 30-40 in medieval ages (when parasites and bacteria were the real issue) to over 70-80 globally today.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)14117-7/abstract

Liver Fluke Induces Cholangiocarcinoma​

The authors discuss the molecular pathogenesis of opisthorchiasis and associated cholangiocarcinogenesis, particularly nitrative and oxidative DNA damage and the clinical manifestations of cholangiocarcinoma.

journals.plos.org

"The Problem Of Sterilization, Cooking And Pasteurization"
Setting aside incongruent claims about 'food rotting in your stomach' which is based on... nothing, we can talk about food preparation. Yes, food safety techniques denature proteins, destroy some enzymes, and reduce certain beneficial bacteria. However, their primary and life-saving purpose is to eliminate harmful bacteria and parasites that pose a threat to human health.

It is also true that cooking can reduce water-soluble vitamin content. Yet, this destruction is only partial with a significant amount remaining, so the nutritional loss is never as severe as claimed by raw diet followers. Also, deficiencies in vitamins like B1, folate, or vitamin C are VERY rare in populations with varied diets because countless other foods contribute to meeting the RDI for these vitamins. So even with all their food cooked people will rarely be deficient in water-soluble vitamins, most deficiencies actually occur in fat-soluble ones, which aren't affected by cooking.

"Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs) (TOXIC BYPRODUCT)"
It is true that Milliard reactions from AGEs in food, but it's an exaggeration to say that dietary AGEs are a concern. Your own metabolism generates AGEs endogenously, and these internal processes contribute far more to your total AGE levels than food ever will.

It's like the stupid argument that "milk consumption is bad due to its estrogen content" when the mere presence of an estrogen isn't necessarily bad when we consider the quantity and bioavailability. Research shows that the estrogen in a glass of milk has negligible effects on hormone levels, you have to consume unholy amounts of milk to get a 1% change in your estrogen. Just like this dietary AGEs are not absorbed in biologically significant amounts to change systemic AGE levels.

Also, the relationship between AGEs and disease is correlational, not of direct causation. I quote:
"Direct causation hasn’t been firmly established, and it’s unclear whether moderate intake of dietary AGEs in the context of an otherwise healthy diet is a meaningful independent risk factor for chronic disease."

"Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs) (TOXIC BYPRODUCT)"
You're correct that HCAs are formed when muscle meat is cooked at high temperatures, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) acknowledges that they're an issue. Here's the issue though, most studies linking HCAs to cancer are in rodents fed unrealistically high doses and epidemiological studies in humans show weak correlations between well-done meat and cancer risk.

In any case, no health guidance suggests consuming charred meat. Moderation and varied cooking methods are important here...

I'd love to cite research about it but I just couldn't lol. Some papers say "Yeah, it causes cancer" but then not even a paragraph later say "it was difficult to account for individual lifestyle and that it is true that individual with lower HCA also tend to generally live healthier lives, exercise, etc." And studies that claimed HCA was not of primary concern were not that convincing to me. HCA is a carcinogen, that's true, but the degree to where that's an issue is probably very small given the very inconsistent evidence, but then again, no one is suggesting you eat charred meat.

"Acrylamide"
This is a non-issue just like the other two, the dose makes the poison. Exceedingly high doses of certain chemicals can cause effects in rodents but this is irrelevant in conservative quantities humans consume through their diet.

Coffee is literally charred beans and is high in acrylamide which as you said has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the IARC (based largely on animal studies). But despite its acrylamide content research consistently links moderate coffee consumption to a reduced risk of various diseases, including heart disease, Parkinson's, and certain cancers. Coffee has a wide array of benefitial compounds (like antioxidants) which can improve health outcomes, overriding the potential negative effects of a single chemical in low concentrations.

"Lipid Peroxides and Trans Fats"
We agree on this, oxidized lipids are harmful, and I also avoid cooking with highly polyunsaturated vegetable oils and limit high-PUFA meats.

However, the key distinction is that under normal cooking conditions, with appropriate fats and temperatures, these harmful compounds are not produced. If you're not cooking with certain fats, and not reusing them, this isn't an issue for you.

"Denatured Proteins"
This point isn't supported by any research.

1. 'Cooking proteins mutates them.' This is just me being pedantic, I get what you meant, but it's always good to make corrections. Cooking causes proteins to denature which unfolds them and breaks their 3d structure, but it doesn't mutate them. Mutation is a change in genetic material.
2. 'These damaged proteins cannot be used by the body and become waste or inflammatory triggers.' This is completely false. Cooked proteins are broken down into amino acids by our digestive system, just like raw proteins. In fact, studies show that cooking significantly improves protein digestibility and bioavailability (PMID: 23593443/PMID: 33375299). Our bodies utilize individual amino acids, not whole protein structures. Also I found ZERO evidence to suggest that cooking makes them inflammatory.
3. 'Cooked proteins are nutritionally empty and harmful, building up in joints and tissues causing pain and stiffness.' This is just a baseless claim. No evidence on it at all.

Your sources
Let's now address your sources because I appreciate the effort, a true improvement from common carnivore diet followers who spew claims without actually citing any research all while contradicting common medical understanding, at the very least you had the decency to back up your claims.

FIRST SOURCE:
Aajonus Vonderplanitz is not a credible source. He is not a qualified nutritionist, and he has made some pretty crazy claims about his magical diet without showing a single shred of evidence for them, word of mouth =/= evidence. The fact that bacteria help digest food is true (thats mainly done by digestive enzymes anyway), but that does not give a free pass for all bacteria.

Regarding the comment on "bacteria digest dead cells and waste in the body," this is just wrong. Our bodies clear dead or damaged cells through macrophages and other immune cells. The only place where bacteria help "clean waste" is in the gut, they do not perform this function in our blood or tissues. Plus, do you actually think bacteria or parasites can differentiate or care about what's living and what isn't?

SECOND SOURCE: PMID: 24336217
This is where I question if you truly analyzed the studies you're citing. This study says nothing good about this bacteria. In fact, it openly states: "Increases in the abundance and activity of Bilophila wadsworthia on the animal-based diet support a link between dietary fat, bile acids and the outgrowth of microorganisms capable of triggering inflammatory bowel disease." This contradicts your point.

THIRD SOURCE: "Persistent Asymptomatic Human Infections by Salmonella enterica Serovar Newport in China"
Out of 290 strains analyzed, many adults and children suffered from diarrhea, with only a small minority being asymptomatic. The study says that non-pathogenic strains exist, but that doesn't negate the existence of harmful ones. The results actually make emphasis that harmful straints exist (EHEC, EPEC, Salmonella enterica) cause foodborne illness.

The study is about gut microbiota and dietary interventions reducing pathogen colonization, it isn't about pathogens being harmless. Your conclusion about E. Colli and Salmonella being good because some dudes in a study where asymptomatic is pretty funny, especially if we consider that the same study also says that most of the subjects got diarrhea.

Apparently, "if some strains of a pathogen don't cause issues, then surely none of them do!" that's a great conclusion...

FOURTH SOURCE: PMID: 35403275
This is just a general overview of the limitations and potential of human microbiome research, nowhere in the text does it suggest that eating raw meat is safe or advisable. "Microorganisms are beneficial" is true and is the general sentiment behind this paper, but this definition does NOT extend to all microorganisms.

OTHER SOURCES: PMID: 37239009 ; PMID: 31196177 ; and the other two
I won't give an answer to them because it would just be me repeating myself. These studies do not say that all microorganisms are safe, they speak about of gut health and microbiota diversity, but I'm sure that if you asked the publishers of this paper about it they would tell you that this doesn't mean that "everything entering your gut is good for you."

My comments
Honestly, I've said enough. You're fear-mongering about chemicals that have only shown harm in studies where rats were practically poisoned to death. If I wanted to play that game, I could bring up heme-iron in raw meat breaking down into N-nitroso compounds that can damage cells and cause cancer! But I won't, because I recognize the real-world impact is negligible, just like the compounds you're highlighting. Overdosing anything, even water, will cause harm. When we look at realistic human intake, the science often becomes inconclusive or contradictory, because the concerns just don't hold up.

I made some claims which I didn't really cite studies for, mainly because they're common knowledge (and because scrolling PubMed for studies, then actually reading them is a pain in the ass), but if you want me to I can expand upon them.

 

[KindMaster1]

"Bacteria / Parasite Psyop"
This isn't a 'psyop', these threats are real and have proven deadly. For instance, the 2011 listeria outbreak linked to cantaloupes killed 33 people (cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/cantaloupes-jensen-farms). Listeria, can also be found in meat.

I quote: 'Most (58%) illnesses were caused by norovirus, followed by nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. (11%), Clostridium perfringens (10%), and Campylobacter spp. (9%). Leading causes of hospitalization were nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. (35%), norovirus (26%), Campylobacter spp. (15%), and Toxoplasma gondii (8%)' (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21192848/). Cholera, which is mostly contracted from contaminated seafood or water, also continues to cause death around the world... (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14738797/).

You also speak about "harmful compounds created in cooking", but ignore that bacteria and parasites do the same thing. They cause immune responses because they damage cells and, most importantly, release toxic byproducts. For example, Clostridium botulinum produces a deadly neurotoxin, and Trichinella spiralis can invade and damage brain cells.

33 people ate a plant and got killed. Who cares? Millions drink raw milk and have no issue. I've eaten raw meat for 9 months and have no issue.

VIruses are not alive, never proven.
If you actually researched Aajonus, you'd check his workshop on Youtube where he explains basic biochemistry and biology, explaining how a lot of things are complete myths, including viruses and hence the need for vaccines.
If there was a virus, it means that the body could not eliminate a toxicity with mere lymphatic system or bacteria, and needed a solvent (virus) to dissolve it.
My best guess is that the cantaloupe got pesticides on it, and it poisoned people. And it's expectable, this is how they produce those popular fruits at such mass scale to be cheap, and available all year round. Also, cantaloupes have relatively thin skin, so it could penetrate.

Bacteria and parasites sure might have bad byproducts, but, it is a necessity of life, because we can only digest because of bacteria and parasites, we have trillions of them, take antibiotics to kill them, and you could not digest anything nor produce any hormones, and you'll die quicker than you could say "those pesky bacteria".

"What Bacteria Is And Its Importance"
This is your worst claim. You've made points about the gut microbiome's importance for longevity and health, and yes, a good gut microbiome is beneficial.

HOWEVER, the idea that 'bacteria and parasites are our friends' is just plain wrong. 'Bad bacteria' absolutely exist in food, E. coli is one of the most common! While many microorganisms are good for your gut, harmful strains like E. coli are NOT. So, how do you explain flesh-eating microorganisms? Are they our friends too? Should we just let them into our bodies? Hell no.

Without E.Coli in your colon you'd become permanently depressed. Try enemas for a month and see for yourself. People eat fecal transplants, to cure their depression, for what mechanism? To restore E.Coli.

E.Coli from the "outbreaks" are your detoxxers, and also just automatically swept away bacteria from the colon (because they live there, of course they could be swept away), from diahrrea, which is a detox, from toxins you ate (like plants, pesticided plants, cooked grain fed vaccinated meat, processed meat).

Microorganisms caused severe illness and death long before we even understood antibiotic resistance, we didn't start using antibiotics 'just because', it was to combat naturally occurring pathogens causing issues.

There was no illness. People died because of deadly animals, hard labour exercise stress, eating plants, drinking toxic water.
Part of no illness came precisely because we ate millions of bacteria purely for hydration, being raw milk. But then because of bacteria theory, we started ruining milk, giving people antibiotics, and their health worsens, and people die in their 50ies if they're a labourer from being so weak as an organism.

Nature is optimized for survival, not for health or longevity. Contrast this with modern medical understanding, which has dramatically reduced mortality from diseases like smallpox by 100% and polio by 99, while raising the average human lifespan from approximately 30-40 in medieval ages (when parasites and bacteria were the real issue) to over 70-80 globally today.

Medieval ages is Christian slavery of grain eaters which lack over 15 micronutrients, smith's metal fumes (which are mercury), indoor firewood burning (which from charcoal is mercury), hard labour of farming worthless grains, etc.

Really bad standard of comparison. Find another one.

Nature is bad because of deadly animals and lack of shelter.
Society is bad because of toxins.
We need symbiotes and other special means (like raw milk) to detox.

Liver Fluke Induces Cholangiocarcinoma​

The authors discuss the molecular pathogenesis of opisthorchiasis and associated cholangiocarcinogenesis, particularly nitrative and oxidative DNA damage and the clinical manifestations of cholangiocarcinoma.

It must be a toxin.
Tumours are there because your lymphatic system is clogged, so it isolated toxins into a bag of tissue, instead of allowing it to continually damage a functional tissue (in this case, liver).
Parasites do eat on dead cells, just like microbes, and this is a proof of a toxin being stuck there and damaging the tissue, thereby creating dead tissue.
This is vaccines, pesticides, lack of fat tissue which is the protector against toxification (because instead of functional tissues it goes into fat tissue).

"The Problem Of Sterilization, Cooking And Pasteurization"
Setting aside incongruent claims about 'food rotting in your stomach' which is based on... nothing, we can talk about food preparation. Yes, food safety techniques denature proteins, destroy some enzymes, and reduce certain beneficial bacteria. However, their primary and life-saving purpose is to eliminate harmful bacteria and parasites that pose a threat to human health.

It is also true that cooking can reduce water-soluble vitamin content. Yet, this destruction is only partial with a significant amount remaining, so the nutritional loss is never as severe as claimed by raw diet followers. Also, deficiencies in vitamins like B1, folate, or vitamin C are VERY rare in populations with varied diets because countless other foods contribute to meeting the RDI for these vitamins. So even with all their food cooked people will rarely be deficient in water-soluble vitamins, most deficiencies actually occur in fat-soluble ones, which aren't affected by cooking.

Bro, it destroys virtually 100 percent of both enzymes and water soluable vitamins, unless you talk about seared red meat, but it's basically a vast majority raw diet and most cooked food eaters don't eat that (they eat chicken, bread, pasteurized milk, etc.).
It's the other types of nutrients which are denatured "slightly", those you mentioned get eliminated, and they are the most important ones (because it is very exhausting to digest food, and every cell in your body leeches enzymes to help digest every cooked meal because you need to get enzymes from some place and your producing enzymes organs are not sufficient in the moment).
Try eating pasteurized homogenized dairy for a decade, if you're already past twenty, your arteries will become clogged and visible, guaranteed.

I've drank over 205 liters of raw milk and had 0 issue. In fact, it gave me energy, and was delicious.

"Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs) (TOXIC BYPRODUCT)"
It is true that Milliard reactions from AGEs in food, but it's an exaggeration to say that dietary AGEs are a concern. Your own metabolism generates AGEs endogenously, and these internal processes contribute far more to your total AGE levels than food ever will.

It's like the stupid argument that "milk consumption is bad due to its estrogen content" when the mere presence of an estrogen isn't necessarily bad when we consider the quantity and bioavailability. Research shows that the estrogen in a glass of milk has negligible effects on hormone levels, you have to consume unholy amounts of milk to get a 1% change in your estrogen. Just like this dietary AGEs are not absorbed in biologically significant amounts to change systemic AGE levels.

Also, the relationship between AGEs and disease is correlational, not of direct causation. I quote:
"Direct causation hasn’t been firmly established, and it’s unclear whether moderate intake of dietary AGEs in the context of an otherwise healthy diet is a meaningful independent risk factor for chronic disease."

Glycation is not only about disease but also about ageing. You don't want to glycate cells of your tissue of your skin of face.
So, we should not eat plants because of carbs, and we should not glycate our food by cooking.

When it comes to disease from cooking, it would be based on release of toxins stored inside of fat of muscle meat, because majority of people eat inorganic vaccinated medicated grain fed meat. So, instead of neatly stored in fat molecules toxins, passing throuhg your intestines undigested, and raw fat helping your to immediately detox toxins which were released a little bit, you release 100 percent of the toxins, and absorb a shitton of them, and there is no raw fat to immediately detox.
So, cooking does cause disease for inorganic eaters, just not from AGEs.
Disease equals toxification, because your tissues of organs don't function with toxins stuck inside.

"Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs) (TOXIC BYPRODUCT)"
You're correct that HCAs are formed when muscle meat is cooked at high temperatures, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) acknowledges that they're an issue. Here's the issue though, most studies linking HCAs to cancer are in rodents fed unrealistically high doses and epidemiological studies in humans show weak correlations between well-done meat and cancer risk.

In any case, no health guidance suggests consuming charred meat. Moderation and varied cooking methods are important here...

I'd love to cite research about it but I just couldn't lol. Some papers say "Yeah, it causes cancer" but then not even a paragraph later say "it was difficult to account for individual lifestyle and that it is true that individual with lower HCA also tend to generally live healthier lives, exercise, etc." And studies that claimed HCA was not of primary concern were not that convincing to me. HCA is a carcinogen, that's true, but the degree to where that's an issue is probably very small given the very inconsistent evidence, but then again, no one is suggesting you eat charred meat.

Brown crust is charcoal, so you do ingest carcinogens chronically if you eat cooked meat. Unless we talk about boiled meat, but it loses super much nutrition and taste and wastes money if you're gonna eat it for taste, so people don't eat it.

"Acrylamide"
This is a non-issue just like the other two, the dose makes the poison. Exceedingly high doses of certain chemicals can cause effects in rodents but this is irrelevant in conservative quantities humans consume through their diet.

Coffee is literally charred beans and is high in acrylamide which as you said has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the IARC (based largely on animal studies). But despite its acrylamide content research consistently links moderate coffee consumption to a reduced risk of various diseases, including heart disease, Parkinson's, and certain cancers. Coffee has a wide array of benefitial compounds (like antioxidants) which can improve health outcomes, overriding the potential negative effects of a single chemical in low concentrations.

Coffee is just a very powerful drug and a big interest of millions of users, so therefore it is widely researched and funded and sold and resold in every store.

Coffee is so toxic, it cuts 20 percent of blood flow to your brain. This cannot be not damaging, because you use over 20 percent of oxygen and nutrients just to feed the brain, it is very intensive organ, we cannot undersupply it without damage.

Coffee is so toxic that no other drink can compare in terms of creation of adrenalin, which is a stress hormone related to cortisol.
It ages you. It cannot be good for health if it's bad for looks.

"Lipid Peroxides and Trans Fats"
We agree on this, oxidized lipids are harmful, and I also avoid cooking with highly polyunsaturated vegetable oils and limit high-PUFA meats.

However, the key distinction is that under normal cooking conditions, with appropriate fats and temperatures, these harmful compounds are not produced. If you're not cooking with certain fats, and not reusing them, this isn't an issue for you.

I agree, becausa saturated fats are more stable compared to polyunsaturated fats (so beef vs chicken are different in terms of health when cooked).
And, it's not much of an issue for seared meat eating.

"Denatured Proteins"
This point isn't supported by any research.

1. 'Cooking proteins mutates them.' This is just me being pedantic, I get what you meant, but it's always good to make corrections. Cooking causes proteins to denature which unfolds them and breaks their 3d structure, but it doesn't mutate them. Mutation is a change in genetic material.
2. 'These damaged proteins cannot be used by the body and become waste or inflammatory triggers.' This is completely false. Cooked proteins are broken down into amino acids by our digestive system, just like raw proteins. In fact, studies show that cooking significantly improves protein digestibility and bioavailability (PMID: 23593443/PMID: 33375299). Our bodies utilize individual amino acids, not whole protein structures. Also I found ZERO evidence to suggest that cooking makes them inflammatory.
3. 'Cooked proteins are nutritionally empty and harmful, building up in joints and tissues causing pain and stiffness.' This is just a baseless claim. No evidence on it at all.

Whole raw proteins contains digestive enzymes inside of it, because enzymes are proteins.
We cannot digest food because of lack of enzymes, and this is what creates gout arthritis, undigested food particles through leaky gut getting attached to joints (to get them the fuck out of the blood supply damaging adjacent cells of organs), and then they get digested to the end through uric acid, because body knows that joints can withstand uric acid unlike anything else in the body.
Cooked proteins cause inflammation which you can observe if eating 1 kilogram of boiled chicken, feeling very sluggish afterwards, but feeling nothing if eating 1 kilogram of raw chicken thighs, which I know and observed from my own experiences of eating both in my life. This happens because we cannot digest cooked proteins, and it drains entirety of your cells from enzymes and nutrients to digest and detox it. .

FIRST SOURCE:
Aajonus Vonderplanitz is not a credible source. He is not a qualified nutritionist, and he has made some pretty crazy claims about his magical diet without showing a single shred of evidence for them, word of mouth =/= evidence. The fact that bacteria help digest food is true (thats mainly done by digestive enzymes anyway), but that does not give a free pass for all bacteria.

Regarding the comment on "bacteria digest dead cells and waste in the body," this is just wrong. Our bodies clear dead or damaged cells through macrophages and other immune cells. The only place where bacteria help "clean waste" is in the gut, they do not perform this function in our blood or tissues. Plus, do you actually think bacteria or parasites can differentiate or care about what's living and what isn't?

People try the diet for a month and usually see results for themselves, if they are already healthy and their hormones are already synthesized at normal / average level. Only if you are hypogonadic or otherwise ill or old you could not see immediate improvement. Everyone else fixates on raw carnivore diet because they see results immediately.

THIRD SOURCE: "Persistent Asymptomatic Human Infections by Salmonella enterica Serovar Newport in China"
Out of 290 strains analyzed, many adults and children suffered from diarrhea, with only a small minority being asymptomatic. The study says that non-pathogenic strains exist, but that doesn't negate the existence of harmful ones. The results actually make emphasis that harmful straints exist (EHEC, EPEC, Salmonella enterica) cause foodborne illness.

The study is about gut microbiota and dietary interventions reducing pathogen colonization, it isn't about pathogens being harmless. Your conclusion about E. Colli and Salmonella being good because some dudes in a study where asymptomatic is pretty funny, especially if we consider that the same study also says that most of the subjects got diarrhea.

Apparently, "if some strains of a pathogen don't cause issues, then surely none of them do!" that's a great conclusion...

Asymptomatic equals good, nothing is neutral, it's either damaging or utilized as a symbiote.
Artificial microbes are bad because we are unadapted. For example, ferment pasteurized milk, it's gonna have green and yellow mold on it everywhere. Ferment raw milk, it's gonnd be perfect kefir, even healthier than milk, and yet, there are trillions of bacteria in there, hence clabbered curdles forming from those bacteria.

My comments
Honestly, I've said enough. You're fear-mongering about chemicals that have only shown harm in studies where rats were practically poisoned to death. If I wanted to play that game, I could bring up heme-iron in raw meat breaking down into N-nitroso compounds that can damage cells and cause cancer! But I won't, because I recognize the real-world impact is negligible, just like the compounds you're highlighting. Overdosing anything, even water, will cause harm. When we look at realistic human intake, the science often becomes inconclusive or contradictory, because the concerns just don't hold up.

I made some claims which I didn't really cite studies for, mainly because they're common knowledge (and because scrolling PubMed for studies, then actually reading them is a pain in the ass), but if you want me to I can expand upon them.

People age like shit rapidly and permanently, this is not normal, wild animals don't age.
Do not underestimate chronic impact of toxins, it accumulates, and in 10 years you age 30 years as you would in the wild.


I would advise people to try it for a month themselves to feel the difference and confirm every claim as probably true from positive experience overall receieved.
If they're hypogonadic and cannot do it, I would recommend them to eat organic liver, testicles, and raw thyroids, to cure the issue, and then try the one man experiment after that, because you wouldn't feel anything if you're hypogonadically diseased.

 

[Zeekie]

33 people ate a plant and got killed. Who cares? Millions drink raw milk and have no issue. I've eaten raw meat for 9 months and have no issue.

My stepfather has been a smoker for 50 years and hasn't gotten cancer, does that mean smoking doesn't cause cancer?

VIruses are not alive, never proven.

I don't think anybody claims viruses are alive, they lack basically every basic function of life.

If you actually researched Aajonus, you'd check his workshop on Youtube where he explains basic biochemistry and biology, explaining how a lot of things are complete myths, including viruses and hence the need for vaccines.
If there was a virus, it means that the body could not eliminate a toxicity with mere lymphatic system or bacteria, and needed a solvent (virus) to dissolve it.

...What the fuck? I'm not really gonna try to debunk that one, I think that goes against any single piece of medical understanding in existence, which is obviously problematic.

My best guess is that the cantaloupe got pesticides on it, and it poisoned people. And it's expectable, this is how they produce those popular fruits at such mass scale to be cheap, and available all year round. Also, cantaloupes have relatively thin skin, so it could penetrate.

Pesticides are pretty bad for you, but basically all of the human population eats fruits with pesticides, for example berries. Were pesticides to be as toxic as you claim they are and:

1. We would've found out about these harmful effects a long time ago, instead you're just making a hypothesis about it. Do you think doctors are stupid enough to have missed something like this since the invention of pesticides?
2. There would be a lot more similar cases, again, almost every plant-based food has pesticides.

Bacteria and parasites sure might have bad byproducts, but, it is a necessity of life, because we can only digest because of bacteria and parasites, we have trillions of them, take antibiotics to kill them, and you could not digest anything nor produce any hormones, and you'll die quicker than you could say "those pesky bacteria".

The microbiome is very important for proper digestion, that's true, but where your argument goes out the window is in suggesting that basically all bacteria are beneficial. I'm not even gonna mention parasites, because every single parasitic organism is detrimental to the human body.

Without E.Coli in your colon you'd become permanently depressed. Try enemas for a month and see for yourself. People eat fecal transplants, to cure their depression, for what mechanism? To restore E.Coli.

E.Coli from the "outbreaks" are your detoxxers, and also just automatically swept away bacteria from the colon (because they live there, of course they could be swept away), from diahrrea, which is a detox, from toxins you ate (like plants, pesticided plants, cooked grain fed vaccinated meat, processed meat).

Diahrrea is a "detox" in a way, it's your immune system trying to fight off a dangerous agent inside your guts, not from "toxins". 99% of the human population eats plants, and grain-fed meat, yet none of us have those problems. If you get food poisoning by eating something that's literally your body freaking out and trying to get whatever's in there out because it is causing harm.

Also, certain STRAINS of E. Coli are beneficial, but others certainly aren't. This plays into my argument, not all bacteria is good for you. In microbiology some bacteria are divided into "pathogenic" and "non-pathogenic", non-pathogenic bacteria and microorganisms are usually good for you, pathogenic ones are NEVER good for you. And certain strains of E. Coli are indeed pathogenic.

There was no illness. People died because of deadly animals, hard labour exercise stress, eating plants, drinking toxic water.
Part of no illness came precisely because we ate millions of bacteria purely for hydration, being raw milk. But then because of bacteria theory, we started ruining milk, giving people antibiotics, and their health worsens, and people die in their 50ies if they're a labourer from being so weak as an organism.

There's just so much wrong here:

1. For most of human history WE DID NOT DRINK BACTERIA OR RAW MILK FOR "hydration". Milk wasn't even a thing until we started to domesticate certain animals, so what was going on before? Where were we getting the milk from? And even then, for a good portion of history the only population who consumed another animal's milk were Caucasians and European, that practice wasn't at all done in other parts of the world, in fact it was taboo in many parts of Asia, how did Asian people survive for that long then?
2. We do not give people antibiotics unless strictly necessary, but why do you think we started using them in the first place? Just because? Use your brain and realize that antibiotics emerged as a scientific breakthrough to solve a particular issue, innovation never occurs unless there's a need for it, and it specially never stays unless it is proven to be useful.
3. "People die in their 50s", the average lifespan is higher now that it ever was.

Medieval ages is Christian slavery of grain eaters which lack over 15 micronutrients, smith's metal fumes (which are mercury), indoor firewood burning (which from charcoal is mercury), hard labour of farming worthless grains, etc.

Really bad standard of comparison. Find another one.

Nature is bad because of deadly animals and lack of shelter.
Society is bad because of toxins.
We need symbiotes and other special means (like raw milk) to detox.

My point wasn't to say that their diet was good, it was that even THEN, even when there was no concept of modern medicine, we at the very least had some notion that eating raw shit wasn't good for you. Otherwise, it would be normal practice, and it wouldn't be true that regardless of what age period you're in if you tell people to eat their meat raw, they wouldn't look at you funny.

It must be a toxin.
Tumours are there because your lymphatic system is clogged, so it isolated toxins into a bag of tissue, instead of allowing it to continually damage a functional tissue (in this case, liver).

No comment.

Parasites do eat on dead cells, just like microbes, and this is a proof of a toxin being stuck there and damaging the tissue, thereby creating dead tissue.
This is vaccines, pesticides, lack of fat tissue which is the protector against toxification (because instead of functional tissues it goes into fat tissue).

Yes, parasites eat both dead and living organisms, that's the issue.

Bro, it destroys virtually 100 percent of both enzymes and water soluable vitamins, unless you talk about seared red meat, but it's basically a vast majority raw diet and most cooked food eaters don't eat that (they eat chicken, bread, pasteurized milk, etc.).
It's the other types of nutrients which are denatured "slightly", those you mentioned get eliminated, and they are the most important ones (because it is very exhausting to digest food, and every cell in your body leeches enzymes to help digest every cooked meal because you need to get enzymes from some place and your producing enzymes organs are not sufficient in the moment).

No? Man where the fuck are you getting this from? Look at the actual scientific data, cite me ONE paper that suggests any of this. Cooking does damage some water-soluble vitamins and denature a few proteins and enzymes, but depending on the cooking process this effect is either minimal or greater, but never "100%".

Try eating pasteurized homogenized dairy for a decade, if you're already past twenty, your arteries will become clogged and visible, guaranteed.

I get my blood tested every year or so, ideal parameters every single time.

I've drank over 205 liters of raw milk and had 0 issue. In fact, it gave me energy, and was delicious.

No comment.

Glycation is not only about disease but also about ageing. You don't want to glycate cells of your tissue of your skin of face.
So, we should not eat plants because of carbs, and we should not glycate our food by cooking.

So about this point is where I stopped reading anything else, because your points have no scientific basis, they're just some crazy man's opinions based on NO RESEARCH AT ALL, in fact, contradicting some research, and trying to make up some bullshit excuse why people get sick on what you do to avoid admitting you're wrong.

Anyone can make opinions. We're on the same level as claiming the earth is flat, actually I wouldn't be surprised if you actually believed that too. You would be surprised with the amount of sciency sounding bullshit flat eathers can come up with and even when presented with the strongest bodies of evidence or even visual or historical denials of their claims, they won't budge one bit.

Guess what? There are also tons of conspiracy theorists vegans claiming that their diet works, for another bunch of bullshit pseudo-scientific reasons, but that makes them as right as you or Aajonus, I've even heard of one guy claiming he cured his cancer through fruit juices.

My point wasn't to try to convince you of anything, once you're this far gone and in complete denial of reality, history, science and at odds with society, the other thing that can get you out of it is a serious medical visit. My objective here was to try and avoid people from falling into your bullshit, but I'd like to think that's unlikely to happen if anyone reads what you say.

 

[Zeekie]

My stepfather has been a smoker for 50 years and hasn't gotten cancer, does that mean smoking doesn't cause cancer?


I don't think anybody claims viruses are alive, they lack basically every basic function of life.


...What the fuck? I'm not really gonna try to debunk that one, I think that goes against any single piece of medical understanding in existence, which is obviously problematic.


Pesticides are pretty bad for you, but basically all of the human population eats fruits with pesticides, for example berries. Were pesticides to be as toxic as you claim they are and:

1. We would've found out about these harmful effects a long time ago, instead you're just making a hypothesis about it. Do you think doctors are stupid enough to have missed something like this since the invention of pesticides?
2. There would be a lot more similar cases, again, almost every plant-based food has pesticides.

The microbiome is very important for proper digestion, that's true, but where your argument goes out the window is in suggesting that basically all bacteria are beneficial. I'm not even gonna mention parasites, because every single parasitic organism is detrimental to the human body.


Diahrrea is a "detox" in a way, it's your immune system trying to fight off a dangerous agent inside your guts, not from "toxins". 99% of the human population eats plants, and grain-fed meat, yet none of us have those problems. If you get food poisoning by eating something that's literally your body freaking out and trying to get whatever's in there out because it is causing harm.

Also, certain STRAINS of E. Coli are beneficial, but others certainly aren't. This plays into my argument, not all bacteria is good for you. In microbiology some bacteria are divided into "pathogenic" and "non-pathogenic", non-pathogenic bacteria and microorganisms are usually good for you, pathogenic ones are NEVER good for you. And certain strains of E. Coli are indeed pathogenic.


There's just so much wrong here:

1. For most of human history WE DID NOT DRINK BACTERIA OR RAW MILK FOR "hydration". Milk wasn't even a thing until we started to domesticate certain animals, so what was going on before? Where were we getting the milk from? And even then, for a good portion of history the only population who consumed another animal's milk were Caucasians and European, that practice wasn't at all done in other parts of the world, in fact it was taboo in many parts of Asia, how did Asian people survive for that long then?
2. We do not give people antibiotics unless strictly necessary, but why do you think we started using them in the first place? Just because? Use your brain and realize that antibiotics emerged as a scientific breakthrough to solve a particular issue, innovation never occurs unless there's a need for it, and it specially never stays unless it is proven to be useful.
3. "People die in their 50s", the average lifespan is higher now that it ever was.

My point wasn't to say that their diet was good, it was that even THEN, even when there was no concept of modern medicine, we at the very least had some notion that eating raw shit wasn't good for you. Otherwise, it would be normal practice, and it wouldn't be true that regardless of what age period you're in if you tell people to eat their meat raw, they wouldn't look at you funny.


No comment.


Yes, parasites eat both dead and living organisms, that's the issue.


No? Man where the fuck are you getting this from? Look at the actual scientific data, cite me ONE paper that suggests any of this. Cooking does damage some water-soluble vitamins and denature a few proteins and enzymes, but depending on the cooking process this effect is either minimal or greater, but never "100%".


I get my blood tested every year or so, ideal parameters every single time.


No comment.


So about this point is where I stopped reading anything else, because your points have no scientific basis, they're just some crazy man's opinions based on NO RESEARCH AT ALL, in fact, contradicting some research, and trying to make up some bullshit excuse why people get sick on what you do to avoid admitting you're wrong.

Anyone can make opinions. We're on the same level as claiming the earth is flat, actually I wouldn't be surprised if you actually believed that too. You would be surprised with the amount of sciency sounding bullshit flat eathers can come up with and even when presented with the strongest bodies of evidence or even visual or historical denials of their claims, they won't budge one bit.

Guess what? There are also tons of conspiracy theorists vegans claiming that their diet works, for another bunch of bullshit pseudo-scientific reasons, but that makes them as right as you or Aajonus, I've even heard of one guy claiming he cured his cancer through fruit juices.

My point wasn't to try to convince you of anything, once you're this far gone and in complete denial of reality, history, science and at odds with society, the other thing that can get you out of it is a serious medical visit. My objective here was to try and avoid people from falling into your bullshit, but I'd like to think that's unlikely to happen if anyone reads what you say.

So yeah, let's agree to disagree. No matter what you say, I will still think you're beyond the point of madness and have fallen too deep into the pseudo-scientific conspiracy bullshit rabbit hole

And likely no matter how many peer-reviewed studies or fact that you can find within any history or medicine book (as opposed to your claims), you're gonna keep denying them and probably talk about some "big pharma conspiracy" or saying that I'm a sheep and that the government "wants us all sick" or some crazed up shit like that.

We cannot find any common ground, because that doesn't exist, our viewpoints operate in different ways. As I'm okay not having these fuckers in my guts:

or these in my brain:

 

[low1sd]

yall think raw meats gonna help u ascend?

yall are torturing yourselves

idk but i find raw fish very tasty ngl if i had the opportunity to eat it everyday id do it no hesitation, raw ground beef idk i never tried it

 

[KindMaster1]

...What the fuck? I'm not really gonna try to debunk that one, I think that goes against any single piece of medical understanding in existence, which is obviously problematic.

Fuck you're retarded and have 0 open mindedness.
You're also wrong. 100 percent of disease comes from toxins. 0 percent from natural microorganisms.

Pesticides are pretty bad for you, but basically all of the human population eats fruits with pesticides, for example berries. Were pesticides to be as toxic as you claim they are and:

1. We would've found out about these harmful effects a long time ago, instead you're just making a hypothesis about it. Do you think doctors are stupid enough to have missed something like this since the invention of pesticides?
2. There would be a lot more similar cases, again, almost every plant-based food has pesticides.

What hypothesis? What doctors?
Doctors are practitioners, not researchers.
It's not a hypothesis but a fact that pesticides are made of petroleum and other antibiotics, hence bugs and rodents and weeds get killed, that's their purpose. You have too much arrogance for such unintelligence.

What fucking berries? Majority of population eats bread and macaroni, which are grains, absolutely filled to the brim with pesticides, to protect the crop by killing any life that touches it. What fucking berries? You live in your weirdo hypothetical land, it seems to me.

What similar cases? 100 percent of all disease comes from pesticides, vaccines, and other toxins. What cases? All of them are based on it

Diahrrea is a "detox" in a way, it's your immune system trying to fight off a dangerous agent inside your guts, not from "toxins". 99% of the human population eats plants, and grain-fed meat, yet none of us have those problems. If you get food poisoning by eating something that's literally your body freaking out and trying to get whatever's in there out because it is causing harm.

Where did I suggest that we are supposed to have daily diahrrea?
I'm saying sometimes you eat a super toxified food, like pesticided cantaloupe, or inorganic organs (where cooking masks their insanely toxic taste). Then you're gonna have diahrrea, and bacteria will be swept away, because sudden liquid sweeps them away.

1. For most of human history WE DID NOT DRINK BACTERIA OR RAW MILK FOR "hydration". Milk wasn't even a thing until we started to domesticate certain animals, so what was going on before? Where were we getting the milk from? And even then, for a good portion of history the only population who consumed another animal's milk were Caucasians and European, that practice wasn't at all done in other parts of the world, in fact it was taboo in many parts of Asia, how did Asian people survive for that long then?
2. We do not give people antibiotics unless strictly necessary, but why do you think we started using them in the first place? Just because? Use your brain and realize that antibiotics emerged as a scientific breakthrough to solve a particular issue, innovation never occurs unless there's a need for it, and it specially never stays unless it is proven to be useful.
3. "People die in their 50s", the average lifespan is higher now that it ever was.

1. Don't care. When we did domesticate them, and ate it, there was no illness, because of that. It's a superfood.
2. It just stops symptom of detoxification of most potent toxins, like metals, the same is true with vaccines, exercise. You mask the problem, while you age like shit, and feel like shit.
3. Myth. Those Island tribe that Aajonus interviewed, lived to 120 years old, looking like they're 40. All they ate was raw fish and coconut water.
You blindly trust statistics from grain eater surf period to now, as if it's full

My point wasn't to say that their diet was good, it was that even THEN, even when there was no concept of modern medicine, we at the very least had some notion that eating raw shit wasn't good for you. Otherwise, it would be normal practice, and it wouldn't be true that regardless of what age period you're in if you tell people to eat their meat raw, they wouldn't look at you funny

Cooked meat tastes better because of Satan.
You should be more ascetically minded, eat bland raw meat, and embrace sauces and raw milk if you want taste so much

No comment.

Fuck your disrespect and close mindedness, you're a retard.
Again, if you watched his workshop, you would know basic biology and biochemistry.
You deny a basic fact of life, this makes you look incredibly retarded.

No? Man where the fuck are you getting this from? Look at the actual scientific data, cite me ONE paper that suggests any of this. Cooking does damage some water-soluble vitamins and denature a few proteins and enzymes, but depending on the cooking process this effect is either minimal or greater, but never "100%".

Aajonus.
I don't care about studies, because they will appear eventually.
I don't know how to research studies, at this time. I am more practically oriented, trying different things and seeing what works and what doesn't.

I get my blood tested every year or so, ideal parameters every single time

Don't care. Continue eating 0 enzyme homogenized cauterized minerals turned radicals milk products for another decade, you won't need any tests, you will see with a naked eye, visible green atherosclerized arteries on your arms and legs and everywhere.
I see them appearing on children's heads now. It's obviously pasteurized milk and seed oils, no other reason.

No comment.

Retarded. Personal experience when it comes to risks is important. I said I drank raw milk for half a year. And zero issues happened. Are you really saying my luck is at extreme level, and I should go buy lottery? That's childish as fuck.

So about this point is where I stopped reading anything else, because your points have no scientific basis, they're just some crazy man's opinions based on NO RESEARCH AT ALL, in fact, contradicting some research, and trying to make up some bullshit excuse why people get sick on what you do to avoid admitting you're wrong.

Go ahed and continue harming your looks, you childish retard.
Everyone is talking about AGEs is terms of ageing, not about disease.

My point wasn't to try to convince you of anything, once you're this far gone and in complete denial of reality, history, science and at odds with society, the other thing that can get you out of it is a serious medical visit. My objective here was to try and avoid people from falling into your bullshit, but I'd like to think that's unlikely to happen if anyone reads what you say.

0 open mindedness and genuine dialogue.
Continue being wrong and ageing like a retard, I'm happy for you.

 

[KindMaster1]

So yeah, let's agree to disagree. No matter what you say, I will still think you're beyond the point of madness and have fallen too deep into the pseudo-scientific conspiracy bullshit rabbit hole

And likely no matter how many peer-reviewed studies or fact that you can find within any history or medicine book (as opposed to your claims), you're gonna keep denying them and probably talk about some "big pharma conspiracy" or saying that I'm a sheep and that the government "wants us all sick" or some crazed up shit like that.

We cannot find any common ground, because that doesn't exist, our viewpoints operate in different ways. As I'm okay not having these fuckers in my guts:
View attachment 3909298

or these in my brain:
View attachment 3909297

We are supposed to eat 0 grains and 0 petrolum in nature, yet my government funds with my taxes production of grains, sprays all of them, and mandates vaccines to all animals in all factory farms.

Never in a million years will I be naive like you.
100 percent of my problems in life come from government.
Stay sheeping. I'm just laughing seeing your herding by your masters.

 

[KindMaster1]

idk but i find raw fish very tasty ngl if i had the opportunity to eat it everyday id do it no hesitation, raw ground beef idk i never tried it

100 grams per day is enough, as long as it's from northern place and high in DHA.
That will be a multiple times the amount of DHA as compared to DHA / omega 3 / liver oil supplement capsules per day.

 

[Zeekie]

We are supposed to eat 0 grains and 0 petrolum in nature, yet my government funds with my taxes production of grains, sprays all of them, and mandates vaccines to all animals in all factory farms.

Never in a million years will I be naive like you.
100 percent of my problems in life come from government.
Stay sheeping. I'm just laughing seeing your herding by your masters.

You just validated my point, like word for word, verbatim. Conspiracy theories have the base fundamental mindset regardless of what they believe in.

Also, I can kinda see where you got your conspiracy theory bullshit from, but this is where I draw the line regardless of how wrong you are

Animals get vaccinated out of decency, if you've ever seen the conditions of an industrial meat production factory you'd understand why. Otherwise, lots of animals would be in a lot of suffering and constantly dying, of course they vaccinate them so they do not die and don't lose money, but it's also an ethics thing.

 

[Zeekie]

What hypothesis? What doctors?
Doctors are practitioners, not researchers.
It's not a hypothesis but a fact that pesticides are made of petroleum and other antibiotics, hence bugs and rodents and weeds get killed, that's their purpose. You have too much arrogance for such unintelligence.

What fucking berries? Majority of population eats bread and macaroni, which are grains, absolutely filled to the brim with pesticides, to protect the crop by killing any life that touches it. What fucking berries? You live in your weirdo hypothetical land, it seems to me.

I'm not gonna bother answering of the other stuff you said, we have already established this conversation is futile, in fact you literally said why, you're "practically" oriented, which is short for "I'm scientifically illiterate and I suck up to whatever conspiracist slop makes sense in my flawed view of the world".

That side... "hypothesis" You in fact made a hypothesis, surprising you didn't catch it, you likely don't even know the bare basics of the scientific methods, did you go to primary school? And obviously, pesticides are made to keep pests away, where you made a hypothesis is in claiming that they were the cause for the health issues proposed in the papers, that's a hypothesis.

Do you lack reading comprehension? I mentioned berries as another example of food heavily sprayed with pesticides and with even thinner skin than cantaloupes, they take up pesticides as a sponge. Supposing you were right, wouldn't people eating non-organic berries would get sick constantly? That just invalidates your HYPOTHESIS.