They don't even have a clear hypothesis, just a spew of possible connections to every condition under the sun and population level correlations with no thought

They don't even have a clear hypothesis, just a spew of possible connections to every condition under the sun and population level correlations with no thought as to controls or study design (or as they call it "compelling correlation data".) This is not a serious attempt at science, this is a gish gallop designed to foster alarmism by known crackpots. > You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, or CFCs. Except there are specific clinical links between lead/asbestos and particular, well identified conditions. On the other hand, your argument is the same used by the anti-vax and "alternative science" crowd since time immortal. > It's possible it's not related, but it probably is. You are right, though "damning" and "urgent" are subjective, and depend on how much you care about preventable cancers and birth defects. It must also depend on your definition of "probably"; typically, people use the word to mean "very likely" or "more likely than not", but I see you've developed your own definition here.