If you know me, you know I use the word "rant" quite a bit...and very loosely. For the record you did write all of this:
"3. when western Europeans went through their age of exploration in the 15th - 18th centuries, one of the reasons that Europeans colonised and overran various places, both north and South America, Australia, India, Africa and so forth, is that they took with them various germs that killed the resident natives in huge numbers. the aborigines in these various places did not have these germs, so had not developed antibodies against them, so had no defence against tuberculosis, smallpox, measles, mumps and so forth, and were killed off by these diseases in large numbers. and we are not just talking ancient history here, as recently as 1880 a large population of North American Indians died in Saskatchewan from tuberculosis they caught from workers building the Canadian Pacific Railroad. these infectious diseases require populations of sufficient size to sustain them and are therefore known as "crowd diseases" and they are, in large part, transmitted to us from our domesticated animals. human tuberculosis, for example, is a version of a disease we originally caught from cattle, smallpox is a version of cowpox, influenza originated in pigs and ducks, measles is a version of rinderpest we caught from cattle. north American Indians did not have tuberculosis because they had no domestic animals. in time, we have developed vaccines against these diseases and tuberculosis is now largely a thing of the past. but it does cause me to ask who are the "healthy" people in this equation: the folk who developed a vaccine against a disease they caught from animals they live with, or the folk who never had those diseases in the first place? "
I'm not exactly sure where you were going with all that, but it came off somewhat as a kind of a tangent (and some could say, an anti-vaxx type of suggestion). We could also read into what you wrote as saying that you also could be against domesticating animals and living near/by livestock (i.e. factory farming and dairy etc)?
Finally with the Lancet report....of course people against plant based eating simply say" they cherry picked data." Us vegans can say that about pretty much all the "science" that supports eating a lot of meat/dairy and being "low carb". Again, we've seen populations that have thrived long-term on high carb (mostly plant based), low fat diets...especially in the past 100 years. We have not seen that with high meat eaters/carnivore people....because they usually don't live past the age of 60-70 and because it is more of a newer diet "fad" (keto-Atkins-Paleo etc).
Think of it this way: Sure, keto is a natural thing for the human body to go into....it is an evolutionary survival mechanism for when people are starving to death. One could say that "going keto" is really the last stage before death. Maybe it allowed our ancestors just enough energy to walk a 100-miles on an empty stomach and finally find food...but that doesn't mean being in ketosis long-term is a remotely healthy thing for a human at this day and age. The human body runs and operates much faster on carbs...and it is a great source of fuel for the brain as well. Why starve yourself of carbs when it is this ideal fuel source?