Did that self-administered plant-based treatment have an orangutan-FDA EUA authorization? What does the Cochrane study on wound-treatment with leaves say? Was there publication bias on successful trials of wound leaf treatment? Was the funnel plot of orangutan wound-leaf treatment studies asymmetric or symmetric? Was the relative risk less than 1? Is the orangutan p-hacking (were there 19 other orangutans who applied the same species leaf to their wound with no effect, and this orangutan kept them from the BBC's cameras)? If the orangutan was basing its experiment off animal-model studies of _homo sapiens_, how well should it expect those studies to carry over to Pongo pygmaeus? Did a supplement manufacturer fund the orangutan's trial? Wasn't it dangerous for the orangutan to self-administer based on some non-peer-reviewed preprint (s)he probably read online somewhere? Why were preprints allowed to be viewable by it, given the hazard of self-administering that viewing posed? The orangutan should have left its wound untreated until it, its peers, all the orangutan organizations offering standard-of-care wound treatments, and their regulators had completed analyzing all the results of all the independent clinical trials in one comprehensive meta-study. (If there had been any clinical trials undertaken while the meta study was being analyzed, then make that two comprehensive meta-studies, and hope they don't result in a tie. If the leaf treatment worked, we wouldn't be calling it a leaf, we would call it medicine.<p>Pssh total pseudoscientist orangutan stuck in some institution-distrusting online subculture bubble.