From the article: "clerical errors, natural disasters, and pension fraud were better explanations for the proportion of centenarians “discovered” in these discrete regions of the world."
That was discovered in Japan around 2010.[1] The Tokyo municipality sent out people to visit everyone over 100 to find out what they were doing right.
What they found was that about 80% of them were unaccounted for, but collecting benefits.[1][2]
To be clear, your quote is not a claim the article makes. That sentence in the article is paraphrasing Saul Newman's claims. The article itself explicitly disavows the claim, treating Poulain and Buettner generously and giving them paragraphs upon paragraphs to respond (Newman got two paragraphs; Poulain and Buettner get twenty). The article's actual position, like the headline, is that "twenty-five years after the first blue zones were identified, it’s impossible to say whether they were ever real or not."
(I happen to agree with Newman and probably you -- it seems like there is a very clear answer to whether blue zones were ever real or not.)
Another suspected issue is dodging the draft during WW2 by pretending to be too old. In rural areas with shoddy record keeping you can get away with pretending to be your dead uncle.
> Dr Newman showed that the highest rates of achieving extreme old age are predicted by high poverty, the lack of birth certificates, and fewer 90-year-olds. Poverty and pressure to commit pension fraud were shown to be excellent indicators of reaching ages 100+ in a way that is ‘the opposite of rational expectations’.
I can't tell if it's a feature or a flaw of academia that some topics can so be thoroughly proven/disproven, and yet so many researchers continue to devote their careers to it. Should more effort be given to enforcing existing knowledge and consensus, or is preserving intellectual freedom more important? Granted, I understand Blue Zone stuff is mostly due to marketing incentives...
It seems like Buettner in particular had a bunch of for-profit business ventures tied up in blue zone marketing bullshit, so that is a sort of non-academic motivation to keep the music going.
It depends on how you think the limited resources to perform research should best be allocated, and whether scientists should become more like doctors or lawyers so far as centralization of credentialing and professional gatekeeping goes. Doctors and lawyers have boards that can actually revoke your ability to practice for falling outside accepted standards. Science deliberately doesn't. Is that good or bad?
They should be allocated towards intellectual freedom biased towards randomness.
Existing knowledge is preserved implicitly and be the public, and well-trodden ideas are furthered by industry. Academia is the best place for experiments, which are necessary to avoid stagnation, because there’s only so much obvious (low-hanging) research which isn’t experimental.
My point is that the scientific establishment is already basically like those boards that can limit your ability to do research unless you have a license.
The "license" is a PhD (from a reputable institution) and publications in a select list of high profile journals.
> The "license" is a PhD (from a reputable institution)
Maybe I'm biased as someone who has attained a PhD, but a PhD or master's is definitively not a license. It's almost necessary to have an advanced degree to be taken seriously, but that's not for reasons of normativity, but rather basic competence and a signal of investment. Your degree will not be revoked for the same reasons a doctor's or lawyer's license may be revoked (Francesca Gino lost her tenure, but not her degree). And IMO, your alma mater matters only as a proxy for your academic network; few in the academic world care if you went to MIT per se, but for the connections you made there.
I don't think there's an argument that the scientific establishment rejects many high-value contributions from uncredentialed/undercredentialed individuals.
> publications in a select list of high profile journals
Yeah, this is a serious issue. Although I don't know what it has to do with the question of whether the body of scientists proper should deliberate to establish consensus and distribute resources and prestige. If anything, Elsevier et al. have demonstrated that it can't be worse than letting the free market insert itself so insidiously.
Independent research by non PhD’s does occasionally get published, but it’s really difficult to meet the appropriate standards without a lot of very specific training.
There’s many objects discovered by amateur astronomers for example.
The most amazing part of Blue Zones, IMO, is the staying power of a few mythological health Shangri-La places.
Debunked or not, people will repeat this idea for a generation or two until, ironically, anyone that's read the book has shuffled off this mortal coil.
> Buettner himself says he oversaw the blue zones frozen meal initiative
This really captures the reality of longevity, at least in US culture. Whether or not blue zones are verifiable or real, the ingredients to statistical longevity are well understood to minimally include: eat better and maintain a level of fitness.
Those are not easy to do when laziness, sedentary device time and fast food options are just so easily available. So instead, we end up with frozen meals that almost certainly don't contain the same nutrients and definitely don't include the same effort as having to prepare a meal by hand while walking about the kitchen.
Medicine has extended longevity, but the relative ease of our senior years is perhaps robbing us of the quality of that bonus time.
> the ingredients to statistical longevity are well understood to minimally include: eat better and maintain a level of fitness.
I went to a talk recently where someone who did longevity research listed high-impact things vs low-impact things for a long life. They claimed things like (numbers are from memory)
* eating legumes - live 2 extra years
* eating vegatables - live 3-6 extra month.
* walk 5-6km a day - live 2 extra years
* run several km several times a week - live extra 3 months
I'm not going stop eating veggies and I'm not going to stop exercising but it did make me wonder if their research was true.
Blue zones were always just eat healthy, exercise, and having friends.
I believe that these things almost certainly help longevity as a number of independent studies into each of these show that, and it’s intuitively obvious
It sounds so simple, yet incredibly controversial when we go into the details.
The people actually living up to 100+ years usually have been drinking/smoking or doing some other drugs to some extent, and that alone is a whole can of worm in the current climate.
> having friends
They are many unreported elderlies living alone in the middle of nowhere minding their business. I remember a documentary about a guy growing mushrooms (Shiitake) in the forest and only getting down to the town every 6 months to give them to his wife, and he'd get back to being alone until the next time.
It is just good advice. I follow this fairly closely, not so much for life span (although that would be nice) but simply for health span.
Knowing my luck some hyper cancer will just come out from somewhere and take me out in a few weeks or I just slip down the stairs one day. But I try to sway the odds.
No, they were fraud. Eating healthy, exercising, and having friends is great advice for statistical longevity, but is distinct from the concept of "blue zones," which were just pension fraud.
It is, in fact, highly debatable whether blue zones exist at all. That is, it is highly debatable whether there are any places in the world where longevity is statistically significantly longer than anywhere else.
Newman says (and insists) that the answer is "there are none". Buettner insists "there are". One of them is wrong.
Because people are interested in whether they, personally, could find a way to live longer. And so if you find places where you have bubbles of people who seem to cross a threshhold not really crossed in other places, you might tell yourself "maybe there's something special there".
The median life expectancy means you're only in the top half! But well... simply being well off means you're going to be more likely to hit above average there.
Median life expectancy is affected by a much larger number of variables, and is also susceptible to just as much (if not more) number fudging and statisitical nudging. Maybe the country also has a large subset of obese alcoholics for example. If someone lives to be over 100, that in and of itself is a pretty valuable data point
My doctor always says “There are three little things that will give you the best chance at living a long and healthy life. Eat a little better, move around a little bit, and get a little more sleep”
This is basically not true. The particular makeup of the calories you're consuming matters. E.g., it is likely (but not proven) that dietary fiber is causal for reducing rates of common cancers. And also likely that dietary saturated fats cause various kinds of heart and artery disease. Similarly protein is important for muscle mass which is associated with longevity. Additionally, people who are already underweight should not reduce their calorie consumption.
Okay but surely there must be areas which have better longevity on average? It is probably tied mostly to social culture and walkability, is my guess.
Speaking entirely anecdotally – I have come across a lot of really old but still active Sicilian people. People that, at their age, would be immobile and in a nursing home in America, but instead go for walks daily, see friends in the town, etc.
Yes and no. The article does not go into the full history of the phrase, but it goes back to the work of Dr Ancel Keys, who was a fascinating genius of a man, with an equally talented wife. He did his crucial work on nutrition in the post-war years and this included a massive study of what people ate around the world, for longevity.
In his findings, the Okinawa people scored highly but they were Japanese and Japan was not liked that much by Americans after the 1940s for some reason. The Mediterranean folks scored highly as well, so the advice was to follow that rather than the Japanese diet.
Ancel Keys did his work before the Boeing 747, affordable cars and the shipping container came along, so people in the so-called Blue Zones were not exposed to international cuisine or the Standard American Diet.
The sad fact is that the Standard American Diet (processed food) does tend to wreck many a blue zone, or even a high standard of cuisine. Also, from the article, good old capitalist greed gets in the way too. The Adventist community did well in the original studies because they were not eating meat, or most of them were not. They were vegan before the word vegan was invented, or at least the 'strict vegetarian' members of their community were. Nowadays it sounds like 'Adventist' + 'LLC', an unholy alliance, you just know it.
Despite blue zones no longer being real, all of the original research by Ancel Keys is legitimate. He had no ideological axe to grind, his work is just exceptional science, albeit easily knocked down by social media nutrition influencer types that happen to get funding from the beef and dairy industries.
Hence the clickbait of the article, times have changed, no longer do people live in communities that are spared from the Standard American Diet (processed food) and yet the OG Ancel Keys work doesn't get a mention.
Longevity research is the most overhyped, commercially driven scam and fraud hotspot in modern science. Anti-aging docs and researchers print beaucoup bucks milking the rich narcissistic boomer cow who doesn't want to age, can't accept their mortality and is willing to spend a fortune trying to stave off the inevitable.
> In 2021, Adventist Health used the blue zones brand to market a $600 million Miami luxury tower that, in addition to boasting a “blue zones center” combining longevity medicine and advanced diagnostics, featured on-site cosmetic and plastic surgery.
Anything that promises anti-aging, better looks, making money, finding your soulmate, total safety and security, etc., is going to lend itself to outrageous marketing. Because these are some of the chief desires of humanity.
It was writer Bill Porter who said it best "The single best thing to increase longevity is to reduce stress.". This was in response to an anecdotal observation that a lot of Chinese hermits that lived in the mountains had exceptional life spans.
I mean they are fairly active, eat fairly lean meals and don't have much constant stress, so they are ideal conditions for longevity.
For people like me first time hearing aout blue zones:
"Belgian demographer Michel Poulain and Italian physician Giovanni Pes coined the term “blue zone” in the early 2000s to refer to the converging ink dots on the map they were using to validate longevity claims in Ogliastra, Italy."
Blue zones have been utterly, thoroughly debunked. There’s no reason to still ask this question in 2026 unless a new/unusual population or lifestyle is emerging.
Blue zones do exist for sure. That's where you can park your car for 2 hours and have to place a blue card underneath your windshield that tells the time you left it there.
I didn’t read TFA because it’s paywalled. The question asked by the headline is fair, but the next sentence is too credulous and is actually false. There’s a reason this was published as “opinion”.
Why would it be my personal opinion? Do you think I was the one who did the research debunking them?
If you're too lazy to Google it for yourself, here's a history of the Blue Zone research, how the original "researcher" is profiting off of it, and the careful work that has been done to debunk it: https://www.science.org/content/article/do-blue-zones-suppos...
I think you misunderstand. You think blue zones are "thoroughly debunked". And it might be even true that blue zones aren't real.
But I am not seeing any evidence that the general public is aware of this. And thus we need more of the articles "asking" this question so that more people are aware of the issues on it.
FYI, the article you linked basically tells the same story as the topical article. Are you too lazy to read it before commenting?
A) I can't read the article because it's paywalled.
B) Regardless of what story it tells, the article is an opinion piece by a journalist and a cardiologist, not authorities on the topic, and has a misleading title: that "answering [the] question [of whether Blue Zones are real]" is harder than ever. It's not.
You didn't miss anything. There aren't any new facts in the article. It treats the original blue zone researchers very generously, waves its hands about drawing conclusions on whether the original blue zone research was due to pension fraud or not, and generally blathers on for dozens of paragraphs talking about various things tangentially related like that some blue zone areas no longer have many centenarians or various bullshit marketing claims using blue zone language by Buettner, etc, etc.
You keep saying that you "can't read the article" rather than that you choose not to. Are you philosophically opposed to clicking the archive link in this thread: https://archive.ph/cgUxZ?
Which is fine, although I personally wouldn't use "can't" to describe this stance. In any case, I think the discussion might be smoother if you were willing to review the article under discussion.
From the article: "clerical errors, natural disasters, and pension fraud were better explanations for the proportion of centenarians “discovered” in these discrete regions of the world."
That was discovered in Japan around 2010.[1] The Tokyo municipality sent out people to visit everyone over 100 to find out what they were doing right. What they found was that about 80% of them were unaccounted for, but collecting benefits.[1][2]
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11258071
[2] https://www.npr.org/2010/09/20/129992827/tracking-down-japan...
To be clear, your quote is not a claim the article makes. That sentence in the article is paraphrasing Saul Newman's claims. The article itself explicitly disavows the claim, treating Poulain and Buettner generously and giving them paragraphs upon paragraphs to respond (Newman got two paragraphs; Poulain and Buettner get twenty). The article's actual position, like the headline, is that "twenty-five years after the first blue zones were identified, it’s impossible to say whether they were ever real or not."
(I happen to agree with Newman and probably you -- it seems like there is a very clear answer to whether blue zones were ever real or not.)
Another suspected issue is dodging the draft during WW2 by pretending to be too old. In rural areas with shoddy record keeping you can get away with pretending to be your dead uncle.
A 2024 Ig Nobel was awarded to work debunking Blue Zones.
IMO the whole concept is one of those Occam’s razors that proves especially sharp.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2024/sep/ucl-demographers-wor...
> Dr Newman showed that the highest rates of achieving extreme old age are predicted by high poverty, the lack of birth certificates, and fewer 90-year-olds. Poverty and pressure to commit pension fraud were shown to be excellent indicators of reaching ages 100+ in a way that is ‘the opposite of rational expectations’.
Blue Zones absolutely destroyed.
I can't tell if it's a feature or a flaw of academia that some topics can so be thoroughly proven/disproven, and yet so many researchers continue to devote their careers to it. Should more effort be given to enforcing existing knowledge and consensus, or is preserving intellectual freedom more important? Granted, I understand Blue Zone stuff is mostly due to marketing incentives...
It seems like Buettner in particular had a bunch of for-profit business ventures tied up in blue zone marketing bullshit, so that is a sort of non-academic motivation to keep the music going.
I can't tell if you think academia is "enforcing existing knowledge and consensus" or "preserving intellectual freedom"...
My personal take is that academia is doing very well on the former, and not much on the latter.
It depends on how you think the limited resources to perform research should best be allocated, and whether scientists should become more like doctors or lawyers so far as centralization of credentialing and professional gatekeeping goes. Doctors and lawyers have boards that can actually revoke your ability to practice for falling outside accepted standards. Science deliberately doesn't. Is that good or bad?
They should be allocated towards intellectual freedom biased towards randomness.
Existing knowledge is preserved implicitly and be the public, and well-trodden ideas are furthered by industry. Academia is the best place for experiments, which are necessary to avoid stagnation, because there’s only so much obvious (low-hanging) research which isn’t experimental.
Related: “Can random experimental choice lead to better theories?”, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26339137261421577
My point is that the scientific establishment is already basically like those boards that can limit your ability to do research unless you have a license.
The "license" is a PhD (from a reputable institution) and publications in a select list of high profile journals.
I'm very curious why you'd think otherwise.
> The "license" is a PhD (from a reputable institution)
Maybe I'm biased as someone who has attained a PhD, but a PhD or master's is definitively not a license. It's almost necessary to have an advanced degree to be taken seriously, but that's not for reasons of normativity, but rather basic competence and a signal of investment. Your degree will not be revoked for the same reasons a doctor's or lawyer's license may be revoked (Francesca Gino lost her tenure, but not her degree). And IMO, your alma mater matters only as a proxy for your academic network; few in the academic world care if you went to MIT per se, but for the connections you made there.
I don't think there's an argument that the scientific establishment rejects many high-value contributions from uncredentialed/undercredentialed individuals.
> publications in a select list of high profile journals
Yeah, this is a serious issue. Although I don't know what it has to do with the question of whether the body of scientists proper should deliberate to establish consensus and distribute resources and prestige. If anything, Elsevier et al. have demonstrated that it can't be worse than letting the free market insert itself so insidiously.
Independent research by non PhD’s does occasionally get published, but it’s really difficult to meet the appropriate standards without a lot of very specific training.
There’s many objects discovered by amateur astronomers for example.
The most amazing part of Blue Zones, IMO, is the staying power of a few mythological health Shangri-La places.
Debunked or not, people will repeat this idea for a generation or two until, ironically, anyone that's read the book has shuffled off this mortal coil.
> Buettner himself says he oversaw the blue zones frozen meal initiative
This really captures the reality of longevity, at least in US culture. Whether or not blue zones are verifiable or real, the ingredients to statistical longevity are well understood to minimally include: eat better and maintain a level of fitness.
Those are not easy to do when laziness, sedentary device time and fast food options are just so easily available. So instead, we end up with frozen meals that almost certainly don't contain the same nutrients and definitely don't include the same effort as having to prepare a meal by hand while walking about the kitchen.
Medicine has extended longevity, but the relative ease of our senior years is perhaps robbing us of the quality of that bonus time.
> the ingredients to statistical longevity are well understood to minimally include: eat better and maintain a level of fitness.
I went to a talk recently where someone who did longevity research listed high-impact things vs low-impact things for a long life. They claimed things like (numbers are from memory)
* eating legumes - live 2 extra years
* eating vegatables - live 3-6 extra month.
* walk 5-6km a day - live 2 extra years
* run several km several times a week - live extra 3 months
I'm not going stop eating veggies and I'm not going to stop exercising but it did make me wonder if their research was true.
Blue zones were always just eat healthy, exercise, and having friends.
I believe that these things almost certainly help longevity as a number of independent studies into each of these show that, and it’s intuitively obvious
> eat healthy
It sounds so simple, yet incredibly controversial when we go into the details.
The people actually living up to 100+ years usually have been drinking/smoking or doing some other drugs to some extent, and that alone is a whole can of worm in the current climate.
> having friends
They are many unreported elderlies living alone in the middle of nowhere minding their business. I remember a documentary about a guy growing mushrooms (Shiitake) in the forest and only getting down to the town every 6 months to give them to his wife, and he'd get back to being alone until the next time.
It is just good advice. I follow this fairly closely, not so much for life span (although that would be nice) but simply for health span.
Knowing my luck some hyper cancer will just come out from somewhere and take me out in a few weeks or I just slip down the stairs one day. But I try to sway the odds.
No, they were fraud. Eating healthy, exercising, and having friends is great advice for statistical longevity, but is distinct from the concept of "blue zones," which were just pension fraud.
Community is the one that I feel is most under threat these days...
I think you've missed the entire point of TFA.
It is, in fact, highly debatable whether blue zones exist at all. That is, it is highly debatable whether there are any places in the world where longevity is statistically significantly longer than anywhere else.
Newman says (and insists) that the answer is "there are none". Buettner insists "there are". One of them is wrong.
Why not simply use median life expectancy, which is more robust to fraud and outliers, instead of "number of centenarians"?
Because people are interested in whether they, personally, could find a way to live longer. And so if you find places where you have bubbles of people who seem to cross a threshhold not really crossed in other places, you might tell yourself "maybe there's something special there".
The median life expectancy means you're only in the top half! But well... simply being well off means you're going to be more likely to hit above average there.
Median life expectancy is affected by a much larger number of variables, and is also susceptible to just as much (if not more) number fudging and statisitical nudging. Maybe the country also has a large subset of obese alcoholics for example. If someone lives to be over 100, that in and of itself is a pretty valuable data point
because that's generally not enough to separate lifestyle from genetics and environment.
My doctor always says “There are three little things that will give you the best chance at living a long and healthy life. Eat a little better, move around a little bit, and get a little more sleep”
Its even better to have a government pension that sends checks to your address as long as you are alive.
For the statistics though, it's even better if those checks continue after your death.
Alas, the easiest advice is the hardest to follow short term but the best to do long term.
Eat fewer calories. Consume as little added sugar as possible.
You don't have to eat much better. You can trivially supplement. It's far more important to eat less.
This is basically not true. The particular makeup of the calories you're consuming matters. E.g., it is likely (but not proven) that dietary fiber is causal for reducing rates of common cancers. And also likely that dietary saturated fats cause various kinds of heart and artery disease. Similarly protein is important for muscle mass which is associated with longevity. Additionally, people who are already underweight should not reduce their calorie consumption.
Okay but surely there must be areas which have better longevity on average? It is probably tied mostly to social culture and walkability, is my guess.
Speaking entirely anecdotally – I have come across a lot of really old but still active Sicilian people. People that, at their age, would be immobile and in a nursing home in America, but instead go for walks daily, see friends in the town, etc.
Yes and no. The article does not go into the full history of the phrase, but it goes back to the work of Dr Ancel Keys, who was a fascinating genius of a man, with an equally talented wife. He did his crucial work on nutrition in the post-war years and this included a massive study of what people ate around the world, for longevity.
In his findings, the Okinawa people scored highly but they were Japanese and Japan was not liked that much by Americans after the 1940s for some reason. The Mediterranean folks scored highly as well, so the advice was to follow that rather than the Japanese diet.
Ancel Keys did his work before the Boeing 747, affordable cars and the shipping container came along, so people in the so-called Blue Zones were not exposed to international cuisine or the Standard American Diet.
The sad fact is that the Standard American Diet (processed food) does tend to wreck many a blue zone, or even a high standard of cuisine. Also, from the article, good old capitalist greed gets in the way too. The Adventist community did well in the original studies because they were not eating meat, or most of them were not. They were vegan before the word vegan was invented, or at least the 'strict vegetarian' members of their community were. Nowadays it sounds like 'Adventist' + 'LLC', an unholy alliance, you just know it.
Despite blue zones no longer being real, all of the original research by Ancel Keys is legitimate. He had no ideological axe to grind, his work is just exceptional science, albeit easily knocked down by social media nutrition influencer types that happen to get funding from the beef and dairy industries.
Hence the clickbait of the article, times have changed, no longer do people live in communities that are spared from the Standard American Diet (processed food) and yet the OG Ancel Keys work doesn't get a mention.
I wrote a short story about life expectancy last year.
https://github.com/jaronilan/stories/blob/main/Base%20Rate.p...
Inspired by some random HN comment.
As the joke goes, birth certificates kill.
https://archive.ph/cgUxZ
I still believe that minimally processed, varied foods and limited red meat are good for health.
Longevity research is the most overhyped, commercially driven scam and fraud hotspot in modern science. Anti-aging docs and researchers print beaucoup bucks milking the rich narcissistic boomer cow who doesn't want to age, can't accept their mortality and is willing to spend a fortune trying to stave off the inevitable.
> In 2021, Adventist Health used the blue zones brand to market a $600 million Miami luxury tower that, in addition to boasting a “blue zones center” combining longevity medicine and advanced diagnostics, featured on-site cosmetic and plastic surgery.
Anything that promises anti-aging, better looks, making money, finding your soulmate, total safety and security, etc., is going to lend itself to outrageous marketing. Because these are some of the chief desires of humanity.
It was writer Bill Porter who said it best "The single best thing to increase longevity is to reduce stress.". This was in response to an anecdotal observation that a lot of Chinese hermits that lived in the mountains had exceptional life spans.
I mean they are fairly active, eat fairly lean meals and don't have much constant stress, so they are ideal conditions for longevity.
The page immediately reminded me of that "What is a Dickover" post :)
Maybe not but anecdotes are
For people like me first time hearing aout blue zones:
"Belgian demographer Michel Poulain and Italian physician Giovanni Pes coined the term “blue zone” in the early 2000s to refer to the converging ink dots on the map they were using to validate longevity claims in Ogliastra, Italy."
TLDR areas where people live longer
Blue zones have been utterly, thoroughly debunked. There’s no reason to still ask this question in 2026 unless a new/unusual population or lifestyle is emerging.
Blue zones do exist for sure. That's where you can park your car for 2 hours and have to place a blue card underneath your windshield that tells the time you left it there.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkeerschijfzone
Tell me you didn't read TFA without telling me.
And in fact, TFA is pretty sympathetic to your position, but not as absolutely certain as you are.
I didn’t read TFA because it’s paywalled. The question asked by the headline is fair, but the next sentence is too credulous and is actually false. There’s a reason this was published as “opinion”.
No paywall visible here (uBlock Origin, maybe?)
This is your personal opinion or general consensus?
Why would it be my personal opinion? Do you think I was the one who did the research debunking them?
If you're too lazy to Google it for yourself, here's a history of the Blue Zone research, how the original "researcher" is profiting off of it, and the careful work that has been done to debunk it: https://www.science.org/content/article/do-blue-zones-suppos...
I think you misunderstand. You think blue zones are "thoroughly debunked". And it might be even true that blue zones aren't real.
But I am not seeing any evidence that the general public is aware of this. And thus we need more of the articles "asking" this question so that more people are aware of the issues on it.
FYI, the article you linked basically tells the same story as the topical article. Are you too lazy to read it before commenting?
A) I can't read the article because it's paywalled.
B) Regardless of what story it tells, the article is an opinion piece by a journalist and a cardiologist, not authorities on the topic, and has a misleading title: that "answering [the] question [of whether Blue Zones are real]" is harder than ever. It's not.
You didn't miss anything. There aren't any new facts in the article. It treats the original blue zone researchers very generously, waves its hands about drawing conclusions on whether the original blue zone research was due to pension fraud or not, and generally blathers on for dozens of paragraphs talking about various things tangentially related like that some blue zone areas no longer have many centenarians or various bullshit marketing claims using blue zone language by Buettner, etc, etc.
You keep saying that you "can't read the article" rather than that you choose not to. Are you philosophically opposed to clicking the archive link in this thread: https://archive.ph/cgUxZ?
Which is fine, although I personally wouldn't use "can't" to describe this stance. In any case, I think the discussion might be smoother if you were willing to review the article under discussion.