The book "Clean" was a disappointment. I went in expecting for arguments that showering is superfluous, or at least should be done without soap or other substances that deplete oils.
And it delivers this mainly by examining the health industry. There are chapters devoted to the history of soap, the current marketing of said soap, the difference (or lack thereof) between major brands and more "indie" takes. It speaks of purveyors of boutique bacterial sprays to replenish skin microbiome, and ponders the implication of their medicinal uses creeping into mainstream skincare marketing.
The book spends far less times on the far more interesting aspects. How did dermatologists find out that Staphylococcus Aureus is implicated in eczema? How do patients inoculated with saline/other bacterial blends react? Does this work on atopic dermatitis? Does it help with hay fever? Is there a difference in treating adults and treating children?
Are there studies on not showering? It'd be hard to blind, but if the effect sizes are large, then it'd be possible to gain some useful signals.
Are there disproportionate tradeoffs between those with the gene for oily apocrene secretions (non East Asians) vs those without (some East Asians)? How does this affect their skin microbiome, and whether they should shower?
The book reasons about its recommended course of action, less showering, less soap use, with an alarming lack of focus on the object level. It only does so in passing, to establish that we know something of how the skin works, and that soap is likely unnecessary except for our hands. And then spends five times as long looking at the insides of companies or industries.
I don't think I'm meant to be employed. It really cuts into my goofy silly haha time. and it makes it nearly impossible to have any wow life is beautiful let me take it in time.