This comment does not merit wide attention. You've cherry-picked a quote from the abstract in a highly misleading way. The adjusted p-value is <0.01, which is a

This comment does not merit wide attention. You've cherry-picked a quote from the abstract in a highly misleading way. The adjusted p-value is <0.01, which is a perfectly reasonable confidence interval. Odds ratio is 4.6 ffs. >Associations with PFOS in the first/only samples were weak and not statistically significant. The "first/only" samples were controls, they had generally very low levels of perfluorinated sulfonic acids and so no correlation was detected. >Elevated concentrations of perfluorononanoic acid were inversely associated with TGCT Only perfluorinated sulfonic acids were associated with testicular cancer. Perfluorononanoic acid is a carboxylic acid which is likely used as an alternative — i.e. those who were exposed to it were likely exposed to fewer perfluorinated sulfonic acids. >whereas results were null for other PFAS. This is the most dishonest part of your comment — you left out the preceding sentence about positive association of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid with TCGT, and by omitting that context you made it look like there were no associations.