All the more indication that it's bought and paid for.
Not at all. Indeed, there is now a large amount of increasingly mainstream scientific evidence supporting the idea that cooked foods are very harmful to the body. The Hygiene Hypothesis is just one more nail in the coffin as regards the notion that cooked foods are beneficial. What is interesting is that this is all happening despite the fact that the mainstream view of the population is, like your own view, extremely paranoid and phobic towards bacteria and parasites. So, science does not always kowtow to mainstream views, despite your claims.
What is truly sad is that those of us RVAFers who disdain "mainstream science" often end up believing in dud, easily disproven "alternative" theories such as the mercury-in-fish theory, or in the supposed absolute "necessity" of freezing raw meats for a whole 14(!) days in order to get rid of parasites. Such a tragic waste of time and this notion often leads to the unnecessary exclusion of very useful food-groups as well.
Long term is relative, we'll find out the answer to that when you see how gracefully you do or don't age.
That's just paranoid. Whatever the case, I have not experienced any "aging" as a result, no appearance of white hair or whatever nonsense you are suggesting. Plus, I experienced no negative symptoms other than that one temporary, freak accident. It is also telling that tapeworms are frequently reported in the scientific literature as being harmless. Simply put, if those tapeworms had been truly harmful to me, then, obviously, I should have felt, at the very least, slightly healthier, before and after than during the episode - no such thing happened.
At this stage, I am not surprised that you are, more or less, using william's extremely lame "argument", which he used for the mercury-in-fish claims, that if scientific or anecdotal data show no negative effect at all, that the effect must be so small that it is undetectable, and that "long-term" effects will occur in a few decades. But that is an absurd notion. Plus, highly amusingly, there is an effect called "hormesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesiswhereby small amounts of a toxin, if below a toxic threshold, often lead to a definite beneficial effect rather than any negative one on a person.
Yes, obviously I'm suggesting that a chemical with endocrine disrupting effects is a great anti-parasite. Nailed it.
Hmm, before you were being all "alternative" and praising herbal remedies against parasites. Quite a turn-around. As for triclosan, given that bacteria and parasites routinely become adapted to every new chemical used against them in time, it won't presumably remain a wonder-drug for long. Also, given triclosan's similiarly harmful effect on bacteria, anybody taking it regularly will presumably harm his/her gut flora. So it's best only taken when one has definite proof of parasites re symptoms.
Incidentally, are you a devotee of Hulda Clark's cult-like following? Her belief is that parasites etc. exist everywhere in the human body and that one must undergo frequent cleanses to get rid of them. A real quack:-
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html