[simpaticoder]

I find this kind of argument tiresome. If indeed you confidently know that a claim is fear mongering in bad faith, then the onus is on you to support your claims. Otherwise you're just adding to the noise. To wit, a perfectly reasonable response to you would be, "just another ignoramus claiming the result of a study is bad-faith fear-mongering without evidence". Or, another way to put it, is that precisely the same sentiment you express about the OP can be expressed about you, and the fact that you don't anticipate that makes your comment inherently suspicious to me.

BTW I don't know anything about the subject, so I mainly look for internal consistency and specific, accurate factual claims as evidence for credibility.

[roflburger]

My comment about engagement farming wasn't directed to the OP but rather the groups publishing and funding such studies. Perhaps that's not even really the right term, but clout chasing also doesn't fit and I can't think of much else to describe it presently.

I'd much rather they focus their energy on the more ubiquitous sources of exposure to endocrine disrupting materials in our environment (plastic packaging, plastic bottles, can linings, mattresses and clothing for example).

There's no harm in sharing information and any awareness gained is always worthwhile. We're all free to draw our own conclusions at that point.

Apologies for the confusion on that aspect.