As long as I can think (and speaking purely about my circle of family and friends), there seems to have been some stigma associated with liver (and possibly other organs, as differentiated from muscle flesh) and cooking times/temperatures. I.e., some people I know are fine eating steak done rare, but would not touch liver that hasn't been cooked through almost to shoe-sole consistency.
Is this founded on some real fact about the likeliness of liver carrying a higher amount (or more dangerous) pathogens, or is this more of a popular prejudice, maybe correlated to my assumption that liver was in the past probably somewhat of a "poor man's" food?
If you wish, as a secondary aspect, you could expound on whether the answer depends significantly on the type of liver (beef, pig, poultry, ...)
To focus this question a bit, I am not asking about the issue of whether "bad stuff accumulates in the liver" or whether liver in itself (i.e. it's iron content or other natural components) is to be considered healthy or whether it tastes better cooked in a certain way or other, or anything adjacent like that. I am strictly asking about anything that needs to be killed or neutralized by cooking. For the purpose of this question, assume a source animal kept and slaughtered to the highest standards of health and cleanliness, and an uninterrupted cold chain. Also assume a perfectly healthy consumer with no immune system deficiencies or anything like that.