https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6689887/Fox-Friends-host-says-washed-hands-10-years.html


Personally, given concerns re hygiene etc., I make it a point to wash my hands regularly with soap. I do NOT recommend the above behaviour unless you plan on suffering. Have a look  online at the practice of "logging" in tourists resorts and its effect on mass food-poisoning, for example.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6688343/Could-food-CATTLE-ease-symptoms-Parkinsons.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6682005/Muslims-China-forced-eat-pork-drink-alcohol-Lunar-New-Year-dinners.html

Note the Chinese government forcing them to buy raw pork. A truly "rawpalaeo" notion, except for the fact that  Muslims prefer cooking their meats.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6679525/The-fish-recognise-mirror.html

I've had issues before with various people claiming that we humans have innate rights over other species, so that, for example, it does not matter how badly we treat the animals we eat, as we are supposedly  ordained by God etc. to rule over them, because we are somehow  uniquely different. I have shown time and again, that there is no obvious set of  differences between animals and humans, that even plants are extremely complex in their behaviour, that it is very important how we treat animals as the result of sick, poorly-kept animals is always reflected in the poor nutrition of their meats/milks,thus affecting our own health etc.

Also, TylerDurden, when you say:
The idea was that the Inuit got botulinism from storing raw meats underground for too long

Could you explain what you mean by that?  Do you mean that it was their intent to get botulism? 

I understand from AV that all bacteria is good.  So why would we single out botulism? 

Thanks

The idea is that aerobic bacteria is good but anaerobic bacteria is bad. And, no, of course, the Inuit are not looking to get botulinism, it is just that there are some stories/studies about Inuit getting botulinism from eating raw aged meat stored underground, on occasion.

Sorry, fixed the issue. I got distracted.

The idea was that the Inuit got botulinism from storing raw meats underground for too long. I myself find that I cannot get a real effect from just 1 marble-sized portion of high-meat, so  I always eat at least a cubic inch of raw high-meat, and often even whole platefuls of the stuff. I do not agree with Aajonus on this issue. As regards the main question, I have often left  raw meats in vacuum-packed plastic in the fridge for several days(up to 5) before they went bad(generally after 7 days they turned toxic in taste and I avoided them thereafter. Outside the fridge, I have left raw meats buried underground in a hot Mediterranean summer  for 2-3 days at a time  without issue, but I always used reasonably large plastic boxes which had 50% of the contents  of the  box consisting of air.  Basically, if there's plenty of air with the high-meat and the temperature isn't too hot, it's not the end of the world, imo, leave high-meat out for a few days.

In  my early days when I still consumed raw dairy, I had no problem with salted raw dairy. After all, they want to prolong the product's existence somewhat. As long as one is not consuming other salted products, I don't see the problem. The trouble also is with various countries' laws - for example, the UK allows honey to be labelled raw as long as it is "only" heated for a short time to 80 degrees Celsius, which is ridiculous.

He also said most commercially produced so-called raw cheeses aren't really raw

That is partially true as some so-called "raw" cheeses  , such as "Pont-L'Eveque" are actually partially pasteurised.  But if one does one's research, one can find  genuinely raw cheeses.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6652409/Bangkok-citizens-cough-BLOOD-city-blanketed-smog-PETS-sick.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6644647/Neanderthals-Usain-Bolt-Mo-Farah-scientists-claim.html

The sheer low quality and pervasiveness of school food is a solid argument in favour of homeschooling.

Why wonder? Look at Pottenger's studies. It takes 3 generations.

Wrong, all pottenger's studies showed was that taurine was desperately needed by cats , so that supplementation of taurine corrected the problem. Incidentally, taurine is easily water-soluble, so , as long as the meat is coooked in water and the water also drunk, then the cat gets enough taurine.See the mercola article re  this below:-

Also cats fed on raw plant food would also suffer from taurine deficiency:-

https://www.petful.com/pet-health/taurine-deficiency-in-cats/

Note that dairy, however raw, is low in taurine:-

https://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2017/02/07/cat-taurine-deficiency.aspx

I was also referring to slight changes to the genome. For example, 10 generations of humans fed on a RVAF diet(minus raw dairy) might  lead to much higher fertility as well as far lower chances of birth-defects.