Right, I assumed we were talking about discretionary income. Why is a distinction between income and disposable income relevant given that taxes sometimes provide services that would otherwise be purchased and sometimes do not?
People not having kids or not buying a house because it is impossible are not more prosperous than in decades when the basics were more affordable but they have more disposable income if they realize there is no point in saving for now unrealizable expenditures.
Sure, people are happy at the moment with a diet they've been on for up to 2 decades..
Meanwhile, child development under this diet would be child abuse given how little we know.
We know that people who skip certain vegetables have heightened risk of cancers, those vegetables contain chemicals not in meat.
We can conclude from the study that a vegetarian diet is competitive with an omnivore diet, maybe a little better, maybe a little worse.
From this I would assume that vegetables themselves are an important factor that was a free variable in the studies with vegetarians getting more but not necessarily better quality.
Thus vegetables matter a lot to longevity, and meat is filler that may or may not have aspects directly killing you like all the other non vegetable filler and poorer nutrition portion of vegetables.
You can't get to absolutes with the low quality of nutrional studies or meta studies across them.. But you can get to a Bayesian estimate of how poor a gamble people are making on things like excluding a whole category where some reasonable conclusions occurred within the category.
> Furthermore, I can take your argument and use it the same. Eg Many people don’t eat vegetables, they only eat meat, and they are doing fine and many say they are doing better than ever. Let’s not make incorrect statements, vegetables are not key to anything
You've lost me here. If you want a short active life then mainly meat might be fine, if you want to live in a different situation than our evolutionary past then you are killing yourself early by skipping vegetables, statistically speaking.
You've completely changed the bar in your argument from what is good for preventing early death by today's standards for expected life time to other things.
It is not about "can diagnose" we refuse to diagnose more minor decline as dementia for social and political reasons.
The study quantitatively evaluates some of the costs of a political choice to limit medicine to treating only a decline well bellow the average (instead of the individual's peak) and bellow the ability to perform self care as a disease.