I think this, and other takedowns of a chemical hunger, focus too mch on the lithium part.
They did a very convincing job arguing that the issue is an environmental contaminant. That part is not refuted anywhere I know of.
Then they listed all environmental contaminants they could think of, and decided that out of that list, the most likely one was lithium. And the takedowns mostly show that it's probably not lithium.
But that just makes it likely that the actual contaminant is something unknown.
They did a very convincing job arguing that the issue is an environmental contaminant. That part is not refuted anywhere I know of.
Then they listed all environmental contaminants they could think of, and decided that out of that list, the most likely one was lithium. And the takedowns mostly show that it's probably not lithium.
But that just makes it likely that the actual contaminant is something unknown.