4 ms·
I think he's referring to the fact that some people react to nightshades. It can cause weird inflammation-like responses for those that are susceptible.
by fouc 5y ago
I think he's referring to the fact that some people react to nightshades. It can cause weird inflammation-like responses for those that are susceptible.
- bumby 5y agoI think this is the error in the OP’s claim. A relatively rare case (allergic reaction in <1% of the population) is generalized as being applicable to the population at large.
- fouc 5y agoNot really, they were giving multiple examples to point out that plant-based food can and do cause inflammation.
- bumby 5y agoI think you’re misunderstanding. While true, their point is only applicable to a vanishingly small amount of the population. For example, soy allergies are only listed as a 0.4% rate of prevalence. I don’t think that’s enough for an absolutist claim that applies to the other 99.6% of humans. It comes across as cherry picking, bad faith, or just not understanding the data. If I cherry pick the first Google scholar link that is showing a 2.3% seafood allergy, would you conclude that all people should abstain from fish? It’s not a question of whether a particular food (let alone an entire group like plants) can cause inflammation, but whether it’s prevalent enough problem to claim people should completely cut it from their diet. You alluded too this with the caveat “in those who are susceptible”. We shouldn’t generalize a rule for those who are susceptible to be applicable to those who are not.