So, the undertones are not so strong in this article, but I have to say already the choice of topic is pondering to a certain crowd. As a good scientists she should know what she doesn't know, and her understanding is clearly limited.
She also clearly plays with the uncertainty. First stating that yes she doesn't believe there is an issue, but then starting a discussion about the quality of the publications. Now quality of health impact studies is an interesting discussion, but I don't think it's relevant here. Moreover, the way she summarizes the shortcomings in the studies is somewhat selective/misleading, the full quote is:
> Our meta-analysis showed that the bulk of the studies had a quality score lower than 2 out of a possible 5, with only one study achieving a maximum quality score of 5 [9]. The meta-analysis further showed that studies with a low quality score were more likely to show a greater effect.
I think leaving out that last sentence gives a misleading impression.
Another quote from her video/post:
> So scientists say there’s nothing to worry. Well, they also said that smoking is good for you and alcohol doesn’t cross the placenta and that copies of you live in parallel universes.
If you actually follow the link to "they said smoking is good for you" you find it links to the The Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (SRITA) collection. That's advertising, not scientists who said that smoking is good for you. Again a misleading quote/citation.
And this is not the first time she does this. They are always somewhat plausible deniability kind of sentences, but the repetition of these memes makes me suspect she is purposefully pondering to a specific audience.