The issue with this topic largely has to do with political & financial interest. (1) who benefits financially? (2) who benefits politically from the finances

The issue with this topic largely has to do with political & financial interest. (1) who benefits financially? (2) who benefits politically from the finances & who’s potentially at legal risk? (3) who’s career is advanced / harmed? Ultimately, with this topic (as with many others), there are no neutral observers. There are multiple camps competing for influence - which these studies benefit. Recall doctors and studies were supporting tobacco and cocaine as good for you. They even had doctors / PhDs advertising and publishing it as such. Many argue the same with climate change (lots of political & financial interest), Covid, etc. Study of PFAs have a similar challenge because it was heavily & widely used. Similar to DDT, it takes time for these things to roll through and change. PFAs are generally understood to be toxic & lead to endocrine disruption. Most of the papers I’ve read conclude as much