Moving on then, Dr. Saladino revealed that he used to have eczema pretty bad, and he showed a picture. Except, you don’t see any eczema in the picture. Then, he said that at the time that his eczema was flaring that he was eating Organic Paleo. Then why the hell is he blaming plant foods when Paleo is Carnivore-light? It’s Carnovorish-ish, which is a term he uses himself. So, even though he was restricting plant foods severely, he still thinks that the small amount of plant foods he was eating were causing his eczema. And lo and behold, when he cut plant foods out of his diet completely, his eczema cleared.

My first question is: What does this have to do with me? I’m 70 years old, and I’ve been eating plant foods liberally my whole life. I wasn’t raised a vegetarian or a vegan, but my parents did provide us with a lot of fruits and vegetables. We ate pretty well. We didn’t have any soda pop in our house or potato chips. We were given fresh fruits every day, as well as green salads, cooked vegetables, beans in the form of lentils and chickpeas, and we had grains as oatmeal and rice and pasta. Now, we also had meat and dairy and eggs. Friday nights, we had scallops because we were Catholic, and back then, Catholics couldn’t eat meat on Friday. So, I had animal foods too. But, I was certainly exposed in a major way to plant foods my whole life, and then I turned vegetarian when I was 19. And at that time, lacto-vegetarianism was the way most people practiced vegetarianism.  And although I had no problem giving up meat, I did struggle with dairy. In fact, I struggled with it for years. It took me a long time to break the addiciton to cheese. But eventually I did, and it’s been out of my life for decades and I don’t miss it.  

But, the point is that he THINKS plant foods gave him eczema, while I KNOW that plant foods did not give me eczema since I’ve never had eczema. So, whose experience am I going to give more weight to? His or mine? Mine, of course. Now, did plant foods cause his eczema? I’ve never heard a dermatologist say that eczema is caused by eating common plant foods. And the vegan community is large enough that if there was a tendency for plant foods to cause eczema, there would be a lot of eczema among vegans. This is a Google search for “eczema among vegans”. If you click on it, you’ll see that there are more people claiming that veganism cured their eczema than caused it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=eczema+among+vegans&rlz=1C1PQHB_enUS777US777&oq=eczema+among+vegans&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30j0i390l3.3120j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So, I don’t know what was going on with Dr. Saladino at the time, but what I do know is that plant foods do not give me eczema, and I should dismiss his claim as anything I have to act on. 

Let’s move on. Next, he talks about the ideal human diet. He says it should have all the nutrients needed by humans; in the most bio-available forms; and with the least amounts of toxins/antinutrients. That has a nice ring to it, but it’s not as simple as that because there’s an overlap between “nutrients” and “toxins.” For example, iron is an essential mineral, but it’s also an oxidant. It causes free-radical damage. So, maybe the most bio-available form of iron isn’t such a great idea. Maybe it’s better if we get enough but not too much iron. Also, we need to distinguish between real toxins and theoretical toxins. We need to distinguish between real effects and exaggerated concerns. But, let’s keep going.

He says that we became human 2 million years ago with the genus Homo. But keep in mind that, he’s not talking about people like you and me. How long have biologically modern humans existed on Earth? He claims Homo Sapiens have been here for 300,000 to 350,000 years “looking pretty similar to how humans look.” That’s what he said. However, I read about this stuff too, and 300,000 years for homo sapiens is the outlier claim among paleontologists. Some of them think it’s as little as 100,000 years. And even that doesn’t necessarily include the belief that they were identical to us.

I hope you realize that this whole field of paleontology is very highly speculative. It reminds me a lot of virology that way. Paleontology is very involved with Evolutionary theory, which starts with tomfoolery: the idea that, in the beginning, inanimate materials became alive. If anyone tried to claim today that inanimate objects became alive, and I mean in the recent timeframe, meaning: lately; you would think they were crazy. If there is anything we know about Biology, it is that life comes from life. There is no reason to think that that was ever not true. The most plausible theory of biogony is that life came to Earth, and I don’t mean in spaceships. Dormant spores of life must have reached Earth, perhaps in meteors. And if you think it’s far-fetched, it’s not as far-fetched as the idea that non-living materials came to life. And no, I am not the only one who believes this. It's called Cosmic Ancestry or Panspermia.

 

https://www.panspermia.org/

Then, Dr. Saladino went on to make the preposterous claim that if you saw a Homo Sapien from 300,000 years ago, you might think that he looked normal, “like an MMA fighter.” That’s what he said, and it is pure wishful thinking. He likes the idea beause the longer he can claim that humans, like you and me, lived on meat, the more credibility it gives to his Carnivore Diet- or so he thinks.

I don’t think for a second that people like you and me have existed for 300,00 years. If it were so, then language would have developed much sooner than it did. The oldest extant language in the world today is Coptic Egyptian, which is less than 5000 years old. And it isn’t commonly spoken anywhere. Today, it’s just a liturgical language for the Coptic Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church, rather like Latin in the Roman Catholic Church. 

The oldest still-spoken language is Greek, which goes back 16 centuries before Christ. But, I think it’s fanciful to think that biologically modern humans, who had the larnyx for speech, and the developed brain capable of abstract thought, conceptualization, and other faculties to support speech and language- but just didn’t use it for 295,000 years, that people like you and I just grunted like apes all that time? Bull shit. I don’t buy it, and I don’t put any stock in what Dr. Saladino said.

Then, he goes on to claim that the record shows that the size of the human brain increased, as we headed toward biological modernty, and he thinks that it was due to hunting and the increased consumption of animal foods.

Dr. Saladino waxed on with his preferred way of looking at the primordial past, but I’ll repeat what I said in the first installment: that it’s all based on Neo-Darwinism, and there is no reason to regard it as anything but bias and bloviation. It's a waste of imagination. I am not disputing that our brains got bigger, but why our brains got bigger relates more to what drove the whole panoply of biologial changes from the beginning, rather than “we ate more meat, so our brains got bigger.”

It's really a very goofy idea, based on the fancifulness of Evolutionary Theory. Look: Dr. Saladino has only been doing the Carniore diet for a few years. I guarantee you that his brain isn't getting bigger because of it. He doesn't need a bigger hat size. And if a woman with whom he copulates gets pregnant and has a baby, the size of the baby's brain is going to be determined by its genetics. And if you stuff the kid with meat as he's growing up, there's no reason to think that his brain is going to get bigger than it would otherwise. 

 

Then, he ventures into the realm of comparative anatomy, and selectively cites things that he thinks bolsters his case. He thinks the rotator cuff anatomy of humans, which is less conducive to climbing but better suited to using tools, that that too came from hunting. Likewise, our hands and feet. Well, obviously, our feet were made for walking, but what about our hands? Have you ever thought about how well suited the human hand is for plucking a fruit from a tree? And what about our teeth with no incisors extending beyond the others  and compact molars to crush and grind plant matter? Look at the teeth of a carnivore. If you’ve got a dog, open his mouth and examine his teeth. Then look in the mirror and smile. You’ll see that you don’t have the teeth of a carnivore.

Then the white sclera of a human, he thinks that was an adaptation to group hunting because it shows the direction that a person is looking, and no doubt he was looking at prey. All this is just fanciful speculation that is completely devoid of anything bankable.

Then, he went on to the idea that our guts got smaller as our brains got bigger, again because of meat, that we didn’t need as much gut when we started eating a more concentrated diet of meat. He went on further with his Paleo-carniverous claims, but I’ve covered enough. I’m going to end this by pointing out that the most proven method of life extension is caloric restriction. It’s worked in numerous species, including mammals. It’s never been tried in humans the same way because you’d have to do it for a lifetime, and that isn’t practical or even possible to control a human’s caloric intake for a lifetime. But, substitute tests have been attempted, where they controlled people’s caloric consumption for a relatively short period of time, such as 2 or 3 years, and then evaluated aging markers, such as telomere length. And the results were impressive. There really is good reason to think that caloric restriction works in humans too.

And, that’s one of the advantages of plant foods, because they’re often high in water and fiber, which gives them lower caloric density. When people eat fresh fruits and vegetables abundantly, it tends to lessen their calorie intake- and painlessly. And again: this is not some theoretical evolutionary construct. This is something that has been demonstrated and proven many times: that lower calories means slower aging.

Take watermelon. It’s got all that deliciousness. What hits the spot better on a hot summer day than cold watermelon? People ask me about the hot summers in Texas where I live, and I tell them that they don’t bother me in the least and for two reasons: swimming and watermelon. I’m a happy camper all summer.

But, even though watermelon can be heavenly to enjoy on a hot day, it’s 92 percent water and only 6% sugar. That’s low even compared to other fruits. Watermelon gives so much eating enjoyment for so few calories- it’s like a gift. But, these carnivore folks don’t get to experience it. Poor saps. I pity them. Oh well: more for me. 

Read what it says about watermelon below because I want you to know that I’m not making it up: 92% water and 6 perent sugar. Plus: a host of nutrients, including being one of the richest sources of lycopene on the planet, which protects your lungs, and prevents prostate cancer in men. What a deal.

https://diabeticme.org/learning-center/diet-guides/is-watermelon-good-for-diabetics-sugar-content-and-health-benefits-of-watermelon/