Corn is dangerous, unless it undergoes  nixtamalization.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization
Look at this picture of pellagra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellagra
When the Spanish found corn in the new world, they did not understand how important it was to treat the corn with something like calcium oxide (lime).  People around the world who do not treat their corn, still suffer from pellagra. Mexicans have it right, if you are going to eat corn, it should be processed. Which means cooking the corn in lime water. So then corn is not raw, and not paleo.
Just because it tastes good, does not mean it is good for you. Small amounts are not apparently harmful, but it should not be a large part of one's diet.
I think Mexico banned GMO foods, so buying Masa Harina (lime processed corn meal), from Mexico (not Mexican brands made in the US) would be the best bet.

Ray Peat is an endocrinologist, specializing in female hormones. He is the right person to contact for thyroid issues.

Yes, you understand what he is saying. To make one point that the Theory of Evolution is wrong - Just last week discovery of Neanderthal tools on Crete was announced - Crete as been an island for five million years. The conclusion is, Neanderthals were sailors.

The Upright Ape theory - upright part man part primate existed twenty million years ago - seems to blow the missing link theory out of the water.

My interpretation of general omnivore is a meat eater who occasionally snacks on berries. Lack of meat caused the apes to degenerate from the human branch. Not that a chimp is stupid as far as animals go, but they don't match humans. I guess apes are largely vegan - except for an occasional bug, or when they rarely get lucky and get some meat.

http://www.notadoc.org/node/110

Towards the bottom he says B6 is destroyed when meat is cooked. I don't believe in supplements, as studies show they often do more damage than good. Example, folic acid supplementation increases risk of prostate cancer by a factor of 3. American wheat products usually have folic acid added.

"Tryptophan metabolism requires heightened levels of pyridoxine (vitamin B6).  The highest sources of tryptophan are animal sources.  Yet the form of pyridoxine found in meat is very unstable to heat unlike the form of pyridoxine found in non-meat sources."

Not saying I agree with the site or the author in general, I have not read beyond this one article. Meat sources are the best source of  B6. 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/02/13/david-wolfe-interview.aspx

He has eaten raw eggs for some time, now he says he eats mostly raw food.

I accept there is evolution and natural selection. How humans developed is open for speculation. One author says humans ate raw fruit and damaged their/our brains when we started eating meat and cooking food. Others say eating meat is what led to the increase in the size of the human brain. There are many theories floating around.

Human bottlenecks explain human development? http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bottleneck.html
Some say as few as 1000 humans remained ~ 60000 years ago, other scientists say as many as 75,000 physically modern humans were in Africa. How could so few people have propelled the "Great Leap Forward", where humans transitioned culturally from apes to modern man, in such a short time?

Surprisingly more archaelogical evidence supports xeno or extra origin, such as asteroid or meterological, or xeno intervention, then evolution, evolution just another flawed nazi theory in modern science bleh

I believe the various large structures in Peru, as well as the Great Pyramid, were constructed by visitors ancient humans considered to be Gods. When Capt Cook first went to Hawaii, he was mistaken for a God and treated well. When he went back, he went at the wrong time of the year to be their God, so he was murdered.

I feel current theory of evolution has large gaps.

Most feel Neanderthals had speech. They had a gene for red hair. Their spear technology (stabbing only) was inferior to "modern man's" throwing spear technology. They may have been more intelligent, no one really knows for sure. They were much stronger, and needed twice as many calories a day, so they had to eat a lot of meat. This calorie requirement may have been a disadvantage in lean times.

Goodsamaritan,

Are you saying iron is made more, or less, bio-available when meat is cooked?

Do a google search on iron overload. Beef is iron rich. Raypeat.com has good articles on the subject, he recommends drinking coffee with meat to limit iron absorption.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=54
Cysteine is concentrated in the eye and liver, so maybe eating a lot of cysteine could change eye color.
"As a key constituent of glutathione, cysteine has many important physiological functions. Glutathione, formed from cysteine, glutamic acid, and glycine, is found in all human tissues, with the highest concentrations found in the liver and eyes."

This article suggests bone broth and tougher cuts of meat are better than tender cuts of meat. (tough meat has a lot of collagen).
http://raypeat.com/articles/aging/tryptophan-serotonin-aging.shtml
It goes on to say glycine, which collagen is rich in, is important for good health. Glycine + cysteine = more glutathione = better health. Probably the change in eye color is an indication of better health.

My oven only goes as low as 170F. My water heater can only be set as low as 120F. I did live in Arizona 5 years, and I know what it is like to be 120F in the shade. I understand and agree with the idea meat can be overcooked. Raw may be the absolute best. Consider however, paleo man did not have meat grinders or good knives. Good knives were not commonly available to humans until the British invented steel during the start of the industrial revolution. There are cases where Africans murdered Europeans to get their steel knives. Eating parts of an animal is quite easy raw. Eating parts of the animal raw is difficult, unless you spend many hours chewing. The thought crossed my mind, if slow cooking at 130F preserved most the nutrients of the tough parts of an animal, you can still eat the soft parts raw, it might be a reasonable compromise. Or maybe not, maybe it would be a step backwards. Evidently slow cooking at 130 F none of the protein juices are lost from the meat during cooking.

If you grind up your own meat, do you wash the outside of the meat first to kill bacteria? I see there is one chef now who uses a blow torch on his meat to brown it, then slow cooks it 10 hours at very low temp. If temp is low enough, would this be equivalent to eating raw?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/roastwingribofbeef_74821.shtml