I've read a lot of comments about unsourced claims and the like. I expected that after reading the article, the tone is more matter of fact than it has a right

I've read a lot of comments about unsourced claims and the like. I expected that after reading the article, the tone is more matter of fact than it has a right to be based on it's citations. Or at least it didn't present a credible argument for a crowd like HN. Despite that, from my perspective, having long followed the research in fields that relate to health, almost all of the points are the most likely explanation based on what we know (which isn't enough). Backing that up is of course a big ask, big enough that you'd have to decide between spending a few hours on a post or spending weeks compiling sources, then writing a brief history of health policy and practice. I can understand going with option one. All of that aside, I think this point is important: >The default for evaluating some food that isn’t found in nature shouldn’t be that it’s “healthy until proven bad,” rather, bad until proven healthy. We've co-evolved with our environment for 25 million years (if you count from the earliest evidence of hominoids). It's hard to argue that it doesn't make sense to approach anything that falls outside of that evolutionary relationship with healthy skepticism.