I got this far:
Animals inhabiting their evolved, ancestral environment are healthy β by default.
or theyβre dead. Because, in the wild, animals die. A lot. Especially ones that get at all unhealthy. Whereas we humans - social creatures who have resource abundance, knowledge, and skill to be able to carry our sick and unhealthy well past a time when theyβd have died in the wild - die less. At least, from being unhealthy. We donβt always use these resources wisely, especially in some countries, but from premature births, to congenital diseases, to severe cases of autism, these humans have a far greater chance of surviving infanthood than any such defects in wild animals. Heck, merely being the smallest of a litter is enough to doom you, in the wild.
The article might have been well-informed and factual, but starting with such an absurd premise, I couldnβt maintain interest long enough to find out.
The article might have been well-informed and factual
Like many substacks purporting to give health information, its a massive link dump filled with unsupported suppositions in between. Reading all the links provided would give much more accurate information.
In the final paragraphs his insistence that everyone should be keto and not use any form of sunscreen gives away the fact heβs a crank.
So basically you are poopooing an article you didnt read because you got bothered by one decontextualized pull quote.
βThe article might have been well-informed and factual, but starting with such an absurd premise, I couldnβt maintain interest long enough to find out.β
why bother commenting if you havenβt read it or even knowing if the βabsurd premiseβ is even in fact a premise required to support the rest of the thing?