No, you're missing a key component here, and not taking the complete dataset into account.

We have multiple OECD-compliant studies showing that adverse effects are not significantly associated with exposure below the current limits.

This study claims that this isn't the case, but it does not have the statistical power to counter the ones that have the ability to test for causal effects.

Additionally, even the authors of this study concede that their results shouldn't be applied to normal pregnancies, and that their overall PoA is insufficient to account for a range of confounding and lurking variables.

As for your link, go through them and check if they can test for causation, or are just correlative assessments.

Your 15min at the U of Google doesn't quite equate to decades at the bench, and it's pretty obvious that you haven't actually taken a comprehensive look at the studies you elect to cite.

The number of studies doesn't really matter when it comes to topics like this, and the key metric is the design and strength of the studies involved.

Multiple weak studies, do not trump studies with a far greater PoA,.

Until you can wrap your mind around this fact, you will be doomed to see the scientific and regulatory communities reject your position.

Want to change things?

Commission a study with comparable statistical power to the OECD designs, and generate data that actually would be capable of countering the earlier studies conducted over the past 40 years.

Just make sure to adhere to the standards of this field in regards to experimental design and GLP in general.