I stated that it was a guess and requested they correct me if I was wrong about it being religion. It sounded religious, I'm not a fan of being slow and unresponsive, I'll leave that to the government.

Hv repeats what he says many times, and I'll repeat what I say many times (even though I'm addressing individual concerns and not really repeating, it's just the solution is so simple it sounds repetitive). The reason you have a problem with what I'm saying is because it's new and it isn't 'screened' to be okay in your mind. Much like what Hv says, or anyone else you value, has more weight for anything they say (this concept is called bias). I don't really have time to teach you all of the concepts in communication, as my main goal here is to help people get healthier, so hopefully you'll think more deeply and logically on your own.

I'm sad to hear you don't buy it, for mysterious reasons you left out yet you'll gladly speak of things that don't matter and don't make sense like how I'm repeating myself. Why leave out the only thing that matters, which is why you don't buy this theory? Is it because it has no logical basis, or because you're afraid it will be shown to be illogical and your mind won't be okay with that? Or is it perhaps because you're trying to make an imaginary point to support your position rather than contribute meaningful information and feedback...

My evidence is quite different than what I sense you're used to, I move too fast through my mind to search out studies and reports to back up the things I say, and rely instead on the core of all human intelligence, skills of reasoning in logic. Here's a simple explanation of how this is more powerful than the foremost method of understanding niche concepts. (some things, the big things, are best left to scientific studies, but not everything can be expediently studied, obviously, so it's impractical and ridiculous to request it happen).

Write down a list of the names of all the animals there are in the world that consume uncooked food without the intervention of humans.

You're hand will probably get tired, or your mind will give up in sight of the task.

Write down a list of the names of all the animals there are in the world that consume cooked food without the intervention of humans.

I'll do this second part for you: there are none.

Is this a scientific study? No. Did I go out and watch the animals individually to see if they cooked? No. Does that mean the point is unclear? Again, no.

I'm sorry that you personally require these menial 'study tasks' in order to believe something, but that method is just too slow to find out the truth. Hopefully my efforts will spark someone with more time to waste to do this for you, but without my efforts and others that have come to the same logical conclusion spreading the information where it is needed I don't know how you expect this slow-formed 'evidence' that you deem so valuable.

In case it's not painstakingly obvious to you, this logic-train of thought supports that cooking is unnatural for animal nutrition, whether humans can do it or not. This does not support that cooking is harmful however, I couldn't encompass that simple fact as I would be writing pages and pages to spell out all the things you should have learned to read that's implied. It's not too hard to see however, and find your precious studies, that animals taken from their natural habitat and diet, and forced to eat cooked food, soon develop the same problems humans have today at the unnatural advanced rates and percentages they happen at in the human world.