They don’t have sources, because the available scientific evidence strongly suggests that they’re wrong.

The classic study on this used pythons to measure the energy cost of digestion. Cooked meat was significantly cheaper to digest than uncooked meat: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109564330...

Another study on mice measured metabolic changes following a diet of cooked vs uncooked food. Again, mice did better with cooked meat than with uncooked (they lost weight on both as a pure meat diet is not a perfect food or mice, or humans for that matter): https://www.pnas.org/content/108/48/19199

The source you're linking doesn't reference its sources either, it's just the same thing we can find everywhere (raw meat is "dangerous" etc., when raw meat dishes are so common across cultures), again unsourced.

B vitamins are water soluble and heat will evaporate water...

Likewise for vitamin C.

The other is personal experience. Try eating tartare and then some cooked meat and compare digestion & satiety. With raw meat I reach satiety much quicker. Perhaps an experience closer to most is raw fish as sushi etc.

B vitamins have a different boiling point than water. Certainly won’t go flying somewhere. The reason you feel satiety sooner is because it’s harder to digest. Do you eat to feel satiety or to get nutrition? As someone who loves a good tartare or sashimi, it’s good to eat every once in a while but I tell you you’re going to run into issues with a raw diet. It might take years but if you’re not careful they might be hard to fix

Here's another: there is noticeably less residue compared to cooked meat, with equal quantities.

What kind of issues do you think would arise?

What do you mean by 'residue'?

Less fecal matter.

Can you please stop posting your anecdotal experience and framing it as fact? For someone asking for proof from everyone who disagrees, you don’t seem to be living up to your own standards.