Does this actually mean something?
As with any epidemiological study, the results only show a statistical association or correlation — not cause and effect. As noted by the authors, the clinical relevance of the findings is unclear, meaning that there is no claim that the children exhibited abnormal levels of anxiety, depression or hyperactivity behavior.
Matter of fact, boys' behavior was better......so should BPA be prescribed for boys, not girls?
As the authors noted, they made many comparisons and never applied the standard mathematical correction process for multiple comparisons, likely because none of their comparisons would have been significant if they had done so. In short, it is uncertain if any of the claimed statistical associations would have been significant if proper statistical procedures had been applied.
And the hammer goes down here:
[...] the most relevant human study, that of Teeguarden et al. (Toxicological Sciences, vol. 123, pages 48-57, 2011), which found no free (biologically active) BPA in the blood of 20 volunteers who consumed a diet that contained BPA at a level greater than the 95 percentile level of the US population as measured by the CDC NHANES biomonitoring survey.
The presence of BS does not necessarily indicate the presence of facts.