This article reflects an ongoing discussion about "Blue Zones." The paper discusses important considerations for longevity research (potentially). The author deserves credit for underscoring the role of extraneous factors that can artificially inflate regional statistics, providing a counter-perspective to the oft-described"Blue Zones" narrative. However, the article lacks a degree of methodological nuance and is, therefore, partial(ly balanced) - while it effectively critiques data errors and systemic flaws (that may be) found in large census ("aggregate") data, in general, it does not fully account for (and omits) the specific approaches used (nor the quality checks employed) by the researchers that the author critiques. Consequently, this area of study is claimed to be "debunked" (while providing incredibly limited space for a "defense"). A more balanced discussion may have emphasized the trade-offs that come with (any and all) varying research designs, statistical approaches, and datasets (and the - likely - complex interplay of processes across macro-demographic and micro-genealogical evidence bases). Overall, the article is accessible and well-written, emphasizing the importance (for all scientific work, including the author's) of data integrity, the need for methodological rigor and analytical precision, and the dangers of ignoring confound factors, overextrapolating beyond the data, and failing to consider possible biases across the research process.