As one commenter posted. It is unreactive and it bioaccumulates in your body. Removing unwanted molecules from your body is done by means of chemical reaction. If a substance doesn’t react then what?

By your analogy, we should all be eating uranium because it produces clean nuclear energy. Yes?

No. My analogy doesn't say what we should eat. It only says that in spite of something having an association with something bad for you, it might still be just fine for you.

Here's another example. "Potassium explodes on contact with water! I think I'll pass on potassium in my diet, thanks!" That would not be a good reaction. Note the logical difference between saying "that's a bad reaction" and saying "you should eat everything that explodes." You're implying that I'm saying the latter. I'm not. I'm saying the former.

Okay Mr Logic. My response was tongue in cheek but this detracts from the main point.

I hope you’re not living under the DuPont shitstorm umbrella as appealing as it may sound.

Check out the 3M/DuPont Missisipi teflon lawsuits as well as the story of Robert Bilott, and his nationwide class action lawsuit for anyone with detectable teflon in their blood:

https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/news/taft-wins-class-cer...

https://theintercept.com/2018/10/06/dupont-pfas-chemicals-la...

More recently, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-08/how-cance...