The article can be summed up by pulling and analyzing two of its sentences: "
One recent study found the Yanomami, one of the world’s most remote indigenous tribes living deep in the Venezuelan Amazon, hosts the most diverse constellation of microbes ever discovered in humans. The message is that washing less may not only be good for the environment – less water, fewer products – it might be good for us, too."
First sentence:
Spot on. In the study, the indigenous population was noted as remarkably diverse in skin and fecal microbiomes (and, curiously, similar to Western civilization with regard to oral microbiome), noting explicitly that: "Despite the small population of this village and the limited sample size of our study, they had significantly higher levels of fecal and skin diversity, both bacterial and functional, than any other human population reported so far."
Second sentence: Note the "may" and "might" weasel words present. This is because the study did not produce a conclusive cause, with cohabitation, greater exposure to the environment (i.e. less clothes), and diet all proposed as possibilities for various parts of the findings. Too many variables, not enough isolation. However if a senior editor of the Atlantic would like to be a guinea pig for one of those variables I suppose he's free to do so.
For my own anecdotal evidence, if I do not shower for longer than two days, I begin to have upper respiratory issues. If I still don't take the hint, I typically find myself the proud owner of a bacterial sinus infection.
Though application of this information cannot reasonably extend beyond myself, it's reason enough to me to keep up my hygiene habits.