It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. It depends what you mean by natural, I guess. Please read this in context, I am mostly talking

It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. It depends what you mean by natural, I guess. Please read this in context, I am mostly talking about early adopting radical lifestyle changes vs. sticking to the status quo your ancestors followed, and the effects of doing so when employing exclusively one or the other strategy to all the choices. That has not become clear at all, that is something people like to repeat, but is simply a misinterpretation of the recommendation that people "eat mainly unprocessed foods" to maintain a healthy weight. The recommendation is not due to some magical pixie dust inherent in unprocessed food, it is because processed foods are often very high in calories. Oh yes, ridicule what I said to make your point, introduce the pixie dust despite me basing most of what I say on at least some evidence, this will make your reply so much more valuable. You are also actually only partially right, it is the amount of calories and the absence of fiber and vitamins and micronutrients (while those are used up during digestation) that makes processed foods unhealthy. I don't see how any of this has to do with what I said. Except the article had no such attitude, and said nothing like what you are suggesting it says. ... It isn't ignored. It is studied, and if it is found to actually be effective, it is used. If it is found not to be effective, it is not used. The quack/fraud "medicine" crowd really need to grow out of lying about this. Scientists do not ignore old herbal remedies, they study them. I didn't say any of this, this was a comment on the general attitude of some people.