Your dismissal is facile because you focused on parts of the report that are a part of the background, but you instead presented as germane to the report's overall credibility.

As one example, you started by dismissing the finding of adverse effect in fruit flies, as if the author was presenting it as being relevant to humans.

In reality, Lowe writes that the fruit fly result is a curiosity. The specific finding from human medicine that he is actually reporting on is far more relevant and concerning.

I posted Lowe's summary of the abstract because you preferred to focus on tangential minutia and ignored what is actually the novel and significant finding here.

I care that the report is by Derek Lowe because he has spent literally years convincing me of his scientific expertise, industry experience, and journalistic bona fides. You have done nothing to show that you have any of these, and your choice of what you focused on makes me think the opposite.