> why would we prioritize your pet cause (ie. PFAS) above all others? Because it's the best available theory and even if it's wrong we're eliminating known tox

> why would we prioritize your pet cause (ie. PFAS) above all others? Because it's the best available theory and even if it's wrong we're eliminating known toxins from our environment? What other theories have an established mechanism of action and established population-scale exposure? That's why this one should be prioritized above others (at least any that I'm aware of?). Which other theory has these? Another reason: if any portion of decline is due to these, the damage builds across generations. If this is any problem at all, it will grow to a big problem. We’re talking about future generations not just getting poisoned during their lifetimes, but being born poisoned, too. This is either not a problem at all or it should be extremely high priority, and I think the former position is completely non-viable at this point.