The opposite is true.

"Factory salmon farms often confine hundreds of thousands of fish in highly restrictive net pens for all of their adult life. By one estimate, a mature salmon has the equivalent of a bathtub of ocean water. As one fish biologist remarked, "Within one sea loch we've got 25 times as many farm salmon as there are wild salmon for the whole west coast of Scotland."

Salmon farms, consequently, are ideal incubators for parasites and infectious diseases that are then spread to adjacent farms and to wild fish. These outbreaks are impossible to quarantine; mass escapes from salmon farms and the normal flow of tides and currents spread diseases and parasites to other fish over very wide areas."

source:
http://www.puresalmon.org/diseases_parasites.html

The rest of your post is full of errors in reasoning, "anecdotal evidence is still evidence" is like saying "superstitious thinking is still thinking". adjectives change the meaning of the words following them, they aren't "the same" in the sense that anecdotal evidence isn't near as concrete as some other kinds of evidence or reasoning just like superstitious thinking isn't hardly any good at all. Even double blind studies can be biased or narrow minded/misleading based on monetary incentives and such things, nothing in life is foolproof, the best bet has always been deductive reasoning of a trained mind, you have to train your own mind to think for itself rather than simply take in information from websites telling you things like raw food is good because it's "pure" or that governments are evil because they try to influence populations away from living off of potato chips with food guide pyramids, since they are not perfect entities, just forces to try and help maintain order.

That is the same defense used by all superstitious believers - "my idea is right, you are just too lazy or unwilling to investigate it for yourselves"

except there are countless ideas out there to investigate, in order for yours to warrant our time and energy instead of others, there has to be some glimmer of hope that it's logical to begin with.

Nobody expects unshakable proof about live blood analysis as that's unrealistic, just something more than "I read, heard, saw, and concluded without investigating alternative conclusions so therefore I believe."

Tylerdurden:

The anti-aquaticapetheory website you posted is just that, a view against it, what matters is if the website has any substantial claims (claims having logical validity). When I first viewed the website, long, long ago, I didn't find any. That's why when arguing, I prefer to use actual logical claims, rather than tell you to reference all of wikipedia or google in order to correct every flaw in your reasoning.

By using the childish act of merely posting an entire website to support your stance for or against something, you outline your inability to critically think for yourself.

Furthermore, what the aquaticape.org website does is single out every aspect of aquatic/semiaquatic ape theory and its variants and give alternative reasons/circumstances besides aquatic ones in which our adaptations could have happened/could have been caused by. If you single out every aspect of something like this on any topic, you miss the big picture and cannot connect the dots to see a relational model presenting the conclusion right under your nose. If there was only one feature that suggested aquatic history, then it would be far fetched. If there are a lot of features suggesting aquatic history, yet only a few people believe it, then it's not far fetched, just unpopular, as all non-far fetched ideas which challenge orthodox strongholds are in their infancy.

Similarly, there is no such thing as absolute proof in our world outside of imaginative constructs like math - that is what that website and all other websites which have the weakest possible defense to an idea relies on - since absolute proof doesn't exist, or you can't absolutely prove something to be right or wrong, then as long as I can divide and conquer each aspect of your theories then no one should give it a second thought. And thus goes the weak minded stance of bias, rather than deduction.

---
About cold adaptation without fur, you have not demonstrated that we can survive for long periods (thousands of years) in a quantifiably cold/harsh environment without relying on technology, which is all that I'm getting at. Without the aid of fire, or products of animals (whether it be grease or their furs), or other technological thinking, then we could not survive those environments. You have not shown, nor will you ever (since they don't exist) a people which have lived in these environments as anything more than a temporary necessity without the aid of technology.

All mammals have a natural habitat. No mammal can withstand every range of temperature or climate. All mammals can adapt to their climate over time, but what our body is currently and was most recently adapted to is not climates like the arctic or the desert (without technology), or in frequently freezing temperatures and wet climates without natural shelters (and without technology). The fact is, that we had to evolve on land somewhere without the help of technology in the beginning. Our bodies are still adapted to a climate such as a tropical savanna (with bodies of water) or similar, which means that if we did adapt to colder climates, it was after the use of technology rather than bodily adaptations.

Higher metabolisms are not the magical answer to everything you seem to think they are. If they were, every animal would just "increase metabolism" to combat everything. The problem is we live in a world where energy is costly, so you can't just "use super high metabolisms all day" without paying a high price in energy - which is why it makes absolutely no sense and if you lived somewhere as a species for a lengthy time (tens of thousands of years) you would adapt by making the energy expenditure much less with fur or feathers or something besides high metabolism, unless of course you had tools which allowed you to eat much more than is natural due to having unique advantages of killing/processing/cooking large amounts of food (or growing it). I would just love to see you chase down an animal to exhaustion without the use of tools, animal grease or fur or any clothing or technological aid, in the cold of winter, in a harsly cold environment, routinely, to feed your increased metabolism. By the way good luck outlasting a furred mammal when you're chasing it in the cold, and good luck exhausting it without weapons.

@TylerDurden

You are right that humans are much better adapted to cold when they are truly healthy (not just muscular or athletic). Some of the healthiest people in the world, true tibetan monks, can withstand such cold temperatures overnight with minimal clothing that it left scientists baffled.

The reasons this is possible is because:
Extreme health allows ideal CO2 levels, which dilates blood vessels and helps circulation
They have adapted their bodies to the cold over time via brown fat - a special kind of "warmer" fat that generates heat like muscle and is developed by subjecting bare skin to cold temperatures
They can relatively effortlessly raise their body temperature, through faster metabolism, in response to their environment, as many healthy animals do

However, due to our lack of fur, we have a remarkable ability to rapidly cool ourselves by sweating. Unfortunately, as soon as there is any rain+cold weather+wind, we will die soon when naked in freezing weather no matter how healthy you are. That is why animals like us either stay where it is warm, and only in rare cases do we need to take shelter in things like mud or water for rainstorms. (bodies of water for protection against wind chill)

@Sorentus if cooked beef makes your intestines inflame then you have a specific response to it which is not the norm. In this case you have environmental events in your body's life history that make cooked beef much more harmful than the norm. I said cooking may help some sick people, not all. Almost everything related to our diet is at least somewhat variable and dependent on circumstances. I used cooking as an example to show how something ridiculous even has it's potential uses. For example, cooking still has and had for thousands of years immense practicality in keeping food edible when there was not as much freedom for healthy raw beef or other raw food around (such as when standing armies were travelling).

1. Foods contain substances.

2. Substances have three potential properties which can be present simultaneously: beneficial, harmful, or neutral.

3. Composition of food properties is variable based on past environmental events and genetic properties of the human body.

4. Effects of food properties are variable based on past environmental events of the human body and genetic properties.

4. Environmental events are events that add, subtract, or alter something in the human body or in the food to be consumed.

5. Some typical environmental events are temperature changes, nutritional changes, physical adaptations and aging.

6. Environmental events have variables within themselves which modify their effect such as duration, intensity, synergy, and neutralization.

Due to all of these interrelated factors, the effects of foods can be variable from one individual to the next. What is ideal for everyone regardless of individual circumstances is to eat only as much as is needed for your intended use of your body. Overeating for chemical effects of the brain can only lead to harmful effects, although this may be so minimally harmful as to be negligent in some individuals. Duration and quantity of overeating is an important factor which correlates to the degree of harmful effect.

How much is needed for your intended use of your body is difficult to quantify due to a lack of reliable data.  Hearsay and opinion are not reliable data as what works at one time for one body may not have the same effect(s) on another body.

Sick bodies may fare better on cooked foods which have harmful effects compared to some raw foods because the environment of the body is different at that time, unable to digest as efficiently the raw food. The harmful effects of cooked food are not as harmful as the harmful effects of raw food straining the body at that time due to the temporary weakness of the body. However, some golden rules still apply such as only eating as much as is necessary. It is also a golden rule that you need to eat at least as much as is necessary, and since it is impossible to know what the exact amount you need is, it is important not to eat for feelings of comfort, but rather for feelings of hunger.

The final piece of the puzzle is that what is absolutely best for us is rarely what our brains infer us to do moment to moment. Therefore the practical reality is that every human exploits for their individual circumstance the practical balance of eating behaviors in order to balance emotional satisfaction and bodily well being. The healthier a body becomes, the easier it is to attain emotional satisfaction from a wider variety of foods. Therefore, correct methods of exercise and an active lifestyle and other healthy lifestyle factors directly correlate to the ability to eat more for bodily well-being than emotional satisfaction.

it's just another peddler of similar things like alexander technique. Of course they work if you spend hours doing them or combine them with physical exercise, eating healthy, etc, because athletic people have better posture through more healthy bodies naturally. However, if you work long periods at a computer like many modern people, you are not out hiking every day or spending hours doing exercises. That is hardly practical for the majority of people and that's why these methods sell books and chairs but very few people actually follow through meaning it very seldom actually works. Therefore, it's not easy enough to be practical for "everybody" like they claim. What is practical for nearly everybody, is simply purchasing a chair. Not to mention that website's chair has a lot of things wrong with it such as cushioning. It doesn't matter how many flashy trademarks they put on their text to convince you they know what they're doing, a hard surface such as wood naturally sends feedback from your nervous system (in the buttocks for example) to your brain telling your subconcious how to erect yourself - hold your back upright. The moment you sit on a cushioned seat, that communication line is dampened and slouching naturally results after some time in people who are not already healthy/fit. That is why their chair needs and utilizes the backrest 99% of the time. The backrest is there to substitute the correct posture that naturally happens on a hard surface, and this substition is no better than wearing crocks to walk on concrete when you should be walking barefoot on grass, or use better shoe technology (just as an analogy, feet are not as important usually as they are less of a problem for most).

after some research, it appears they harbor parasites so you have to cook them for safety

I'm not a healthy person, but I'm a very in depth and objective researcher. I usually post more questions than advice because it takes me further, but I noticed you have clued into something I found very interesting in other places on the internet.

The reason health is so dynamic and puzzling is because a persons specific healthy diet/lifestyle/ambient temps not only depends on the standard genetics, life history, and specific environment, but drastically on what health state they are at right now. Someone who is extremely healthy can just about eat any bacteria/rancid food they want and only  suffer diarrhea or vomiting. Someone who is sick fares better on cooked soup than raw food, because the mechanical ease of digestion from heat becomes more beneficial than enzyme activity, which is suppressed even if enzymes are present in raw foods, in sickly people.

However, the interesting thing is regarding ambient temperatures. For an unhealthy person, hot or warm temperatures (above 72 degrees fahrenheit) are by far more beneficial for them. Even though this results in breathing more volume and therefore depleting oxygen supply to all of their organs, this is their normal state in being unhealthy anyway, and cold temperatures shocks their body and taxes it with energy to keep warm which it does not have - thus the resulting need for blankets/heavier clothing or shivering. Coldness is miserable for sick people.

For a healthy person, hot temperatures that are comfortable or tolerable for an unhealthy person become either slightly irritating, or imperceptibly detrimental to their temporary health. For an average healthy person, too warm/hot body temperatures (due to too much clothing, no wind, etc) results in sweating, if there is no wind or very little exposed skin, it will become intolerable to not mouth breathe. Mouth breathing (like how a dog pants but less extreme) also evaporates heat, but also causes great losses in bodily carbon dioxide, which is absolutely necessary for oxygen to be delivered to organs (this is why you pass out when you hyperventilate, your brain shuts down due to lack of oxygen delivered to it, all the oxygen on the planet being in your lungs gets you nowhere by itself). 

For an extremely healthy person however, they can actually slow down their metabolism in adaptation to very hot environments (or too much clothing, etc), or speed it up in very cold environments, and can tolerate extreme temperatures that seem remarkable to science. Some true monks (not the jokes on youtube) have demonstrated this before, again the reason for their health is always because they practice breathing techniques, live a relatively traditional lifestyle with very little polution, etc. Unfortunately, extremely healthy people like this can tolerate just about any kind of raw/cooked diet, so it's hard to use them as a gauge for what is the best diet. It is also impossible to use sickly/chronically allergic people as a gauge for the best diet, because their best diet is determined by what doesn't shock their body, not necessarily what is the most all-around nutritious/least toxic per pound. Animal studies such as on capuchin monkeys are not relevant for many reasons but the prime example being that they live in a nearly perfect environment free of pollutions like electrical devices, smog, synthetic fabrics, and get plentiful exercise, sleep in the outdoors, etc, they are, by all standards, living an opposite life from modern humans. Nuts/plants with high defense mechanisms would be easily digested by such powerful stomach acid from such fit animals, and there in lies the problem with translating to us.

We also don't know how important things like freshness / the diets of our lower food chain are, or other factors. Of course it is easy to deduce that these things are valuable, but how much so, we have no clue really.

Statement: Pain and pleasure are poor indicators of what is healthy/unhealthy for us.

Logic: Modern food is engineered to fool our senses and create addiction. Cultural upbringing to modern foods or natural foods unnaturally processed/heated creates habitual pleasures that would otherwise not exist.

Closure statement: Obviously.

plastic doesn't seem like something bacteria can harvest, I don't see any common sense reason why they would like plastic..?
and the insides of most refrigerators/freezers are plastic aren't they?
I can see how the flexible plastic would be worse (like plastic wrap or ziplock bags) health-wise because of the stuff that's in the plastic to make it flexible is toxic and can scrape off into food, unlike firm plastic tupperware. Is the type of plastic you got sick from plastic wrap/ziplock type bags (flexible plastic)? Just curious.

So basically, not only do you eat unprocessed raw beef, you store it at fridge temperatures (not freezer temps?) without any plastic wrap..
I'm all for natural beef but there seems nothing natural in coating beef with fridge-bacteria.. regardless of whether or not anyone thinks or feels like it's healthy.
It's interesting though, I guess I'll just buy the unprocessed beef and use a saw to cut it into small enough portions to fit inside some Tupperware for my small freezer.