And how can you confirm that when you didn’t read far enough into the article you linked to realise it didn’t actually say what you’re trying to cite it as?
As @BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip said, a child incidentally ingesting dirt while playing outside is very different from intentional Geophagy.
Conflating the two and acting like everyone else is stupid for pointing that out doesn’t look good on you.
In any case, if you want to discuss an article that is actually about Geophagy, and gives a fairly balanced and objective look into Geophagy and its potential health benefits and risks, I’ll give you one.
Certain types of Clays (not just everyday soil) are believed to be able to provide real medical benefits when consumed, mostly in the realm of relieving GI tract conditions ranging from stomach irritation all the way to parasitic infections.
However, that is not the same as saying that regular Geophagy is healthy.
Again, certain types of clays can contain minerals in high quantities of Macro and Micro nutrients that the body cannot naturally produce.
But there is a good reason why the cultures where Geophagy is most prevalent are also cultures where there either is or was a high level of regular food scarcity.
The bioavailability of these minerals is generally quite low compared to organic sources, and these mineral rich clays often contain an unsafe level of heavy metals to boot - which can cause many, many issues with chronic consumption.
TLDR: Acute consumption of uncontaminated dirt definitely won’t hurt you, and can in some cases may actually carry medical benefits - but chronic Geophagy is not the health kick anybody should be looking for - ranging from sort-of harmless to potentially very harmful over a long enough time period.
Assuming other people haven’t read an article because you’re having trouble understanding it is kinda funny.
maybe you guys can start a reading group with each other rather than trying to make things up or put words in others’ mouths; nobody else is having the comprehension problems you share.
I was trying to give you benefit of doubt that you didn’t do enough due diligence when grabbing an article to link - hence I tried to throw an olive branch in the form of an actual article on geophagy to discuss.
But seeing how impolitely persistent you are that this article says something that it plainly does not makes me think that you’re actually a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect and that you simply do not understand that the article title “Should we let kids eat dirt?” Isn’t literally what the article is about.
Which is to say that if you’re so confident that everybody disagreeing with you is wrong, please give us any quote in where it even just implies that eating dirt healthy for children?
And as for everybody agreeing with you?
You should really check the like:dislike ratio on your comments before saying that, because they tell a very different story. Literally your only comment with a positive ratio was the first one, and I’d be more than willing to bet that was from people who scrolled by it, felt your comment affirmed their belief, then left without actually reading the article.
It’s fine if you and other people disagree with doctors, scientists and myself, who scientifically assert that exposure to uncontaminated soil is not dangerous and I could not care less about a “vote ratio”.
Your votes are worth nothing, zero. 100 times 0 is 0, my illiterate friend.
I understand you’re having trouble understanding the article(and all of the complementary articles that state the exact same thing), but I can read it and understand it. I care as much about your reading disability as I care about your downvote.
Mate, I literally said two entire comments ago that I agree that incidental consumption of uncontaminated soil is not dangerous or harmful.
But let me say this loudly enough for you to hear this time…
ACUTE INCIDENTAL CONSUMPTION OF DIRT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CHRONIC INTENTIONAL CONSUMPTION OF DIRT.
The former is not dangerous =/= The latter is healthy.
If you can’t wrap your head around that then there’s no helping you.
And while the votes might not mean much to you, saying that everybody agrees with you whilst the public display of who agrees with you clearly shows you’re full of shit is plain disingenuous.
Anyways, I’ve got better things to do than argue with a brick wall who’d rather call others stupid than actually stand behind their own argument - so I’m gonna leave it here.
INCIDENTAL CONSUMPTION OF DIRT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CHRONIC INTENTIONAL CONSUMPTION
Agree with me louder, though.
saying that everybody agrees with you
Now now, stop playing pretend, I didn’t say “everyone”. Scientists, anthropologists and doctors agree with me that incidental oral exposure to soil(eating dirt) is probably not harmful and potentially-to-likely healthy, not “everyone”. You, for instance, seem very anti-science/illiterate about the whole thing.
And how can you confirm that when you didn’t read far enough into the article you linked to realise it didn’t actually say what you’re trying to cite it as?
As @BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip said, a child incidentally ingesting dirt while playing outside is very different from intentional Geophagy. Conflating the two and acting like everyone else is stupid for pointing that out doesn’t look good on you.
In any case, if you want to discuss an article that is actually about Geophagy, and gives a fairly balanced and objective look into Geophagy and its potential health benefits and risks, I’ll give you one.
Certain types of Clays (not just everyday soil) are believed to be able to provide real medical benefits when consumed, mostly in the realm of relieving GI tract conditions ranging from stomach irritation all the way to parasitic infections.
However, that is not the same as saying that regular Geophagy is healthy. Again, certain types of clays can contain minerals in high quantities of Macro and Micro nutrients that the body cannot naturally produce.
But there is a good reason why the cultures where Geophagy is most prevalent are also cultures where there either is or was a high level of regular food scarcity. The bioavailability of these minerals is generally quite low compared to organic sources, and these mineral rich clays often contain an unsafe level of heavy metals to boot - which can cause many, many issues with chronic consumption.
TLDR: Acute consumption of uncontaminated dirt definitely won’t hurt you, and can in some cases may actually carry medical benefits - but chronic Geophagy is not the health kick anybody should be looking for - ranging from sort-of harmless to potentially very harmful over a long enough time period.
Assuming other people haven’t read an article because you’re having trouble understanding it is kinda funny.
maybe you guys can start a reading group with each other rather than trying to make things up or put words in others’ mouths; nobody else is having the comprehension problems you share.
I was trying to give you benefit of doubt that you didn’t do enough due diligence when grabbing an article to link - hence I tried to throw an olive branch in the form of an actual article on geophagy to discuss.
But seeing how impolitely persistent you are that this article says something that it plainly does not makes me think that you’re actually a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect and that you simply do not understand that the article title “Should we let kids eat dirt?” Isn’t literally what the article is about.
Which is to say that if you’re so confident that everybody disagreeing with you is wrong, please give us any quote in
where it even just implies that eating dirt healthy for children?
And as for everybody agreeing with you? You should really check the like:dislike ratio on your comments before saying that, because they tell a very different story. Literally your only comment with a positive ratio was the first one, and I’d be more than willing to bet that was from people who scrolled by it, felt your comment affirmed their belief, then left without actually reading the article.
It’s fine if you and other people disagree with doctors, scientists and myself, who scientifically assert that exposure to uncontaminated soil is not dangerous and I could not care less about a “vote ratio”.
Your votes are worth nothing, zero. 100 times 0 is 0, my illiterate friend.
I understand you’re having trouble understanding the article(and all of the complementary articles that state the exact same thing), but I can read it and understand it. I care as much about your reading disability as I care about your downvote.
Mate, I literally said two entire comments ago that I agree that incidental consumption of uncontaminated soil is not dangerous or harmful.
But let me say this loudly enough for you to hear this time…
ACUTE INCIDENTAL CONSUMPTION OF DIRT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CHRONIC INTENTIONAL CONSUMPTION OF DIRT.
The former is not dangerous =/= The latter is healthy.
If you can’t wrap your head around that then there’s no helping you.
And while the votes might not mean much to you, saying that everybody agrees with you whilst the public display of who agrees with you clearly shows you’re full of shit is plain disingenuous.
Anyways, I’ve got better things to do than argue with a brick wall who’d rather call others stupid than actually stand behind their own argument - so I’m gonna leave it here.
Agree with me louder, though.
Now now, stop playing pretend, I didn’t say “everyone”. Scientists, anthropologists and doctors agree with me that incidental oral exposure to soil(eating dirt) is probably not harmful and potentially-to-likely healthy, not “everyone”. You, for instance, seem very anti-science/illiterate about the whole thing.