I'll follow this with a more substantive comment. Science is a machine. To get papers published, pass your dissertation, win grants, and get tenure, there's an easy road and a hard road. The easy road is: "in conclusion, we found that lead correlates negatively with IQ, in support of the prevailing view on Pb neurotoxicity at low lead levels." The hard road is: "in conclusion, we found that lead correlates negatively with IQ, but correlation doesn't imply causation and the consensus view has some serious issues."

The article that the OP was written about is case in point. One calculation they do in their paper is the sum of all IQ points lost due to Pb exposure, which comes out to some absurdly large number. Sums of IQ points don't mean anything. It's just a sensational marketing gimmick. And it worked! It got them a national mainstream news article. Reporting their findings on lead exposure without the sensational IQ point calculations and commentary probably would not have gotten them a national news article.