The only reason I removed my comment is because I determined that it wasn't worth continuing as it seemed you were 'arguing past me' about a different point tha

The only reason I removed my comment is because I determined that it wasn't worth continuing as it seemed you were 'arguing past me' about a different point than the one I was making. You hadn't yet replied when I deleted it. It seems you are continuing to argue against a position I never took up in this comment here. I don't care about the article, personally. And I don't think the article is 'scientific', even if they cite and follow certain 'science' aspects at different points. I never claimed that it was. So, I'm unsure why you keep arguing against a point that I am not making when I agree with you that the original article isn't 'science' and that science doesn't belong in the title. I had responded to your nitpick with one specific point where I think you are incorrect. There's no reason for the original authors to have to do anything at all related to additives. They don't need to test for additives, they don't need to cite that they are harmful. It's enough for them to state that they did not use them and why they recommend against them. Which they did. Additives are a completely unnecessary complication in the process of seasoning. Just as a contamination would be an unnecessary complication to a science experiment (please note again that this is an analogy and in no way means I believe the article is 'science-based'). There's no reason at all for the additives to be there. And no reason for the authors to test for them or cite anything related to them. The same as there's no reason to test or cite how well it works with the presence of dirt, salt, sand, baking soda, or moon rocks. That is the one point I was making. I will not be replying again as this is a poor use of time.