The New York Times coverage of New Mexico's lawsuit against the federal government over PFAS at military bases highlights state-led accountability but underplays the depth of peer-reviewed evidence linking these contaminants to long-term health harms. An observational cohort study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (2022, n=4,800 U.S. adults with elevated serum PFOA/PFOS levels from NHANES data, minimal industry conflicts) found a 1.4-fold increased risk of kidney and testicular cancers, with stronger associations among those reporting occupational exposure histories akin to military firefighting foam use. This aligns with patterns from earlier base contaminations at sites like Wurtsmith AFB, where groundwater plumes persist decades later. A separate 2021 retrospective analysis in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (observational, n=2,150 veterans, no major sponsor bias declared) documented elevated rates of infertility and preterm birth in exposed service members and nearby residents, effects not fully addressed in the original reporting's focus on legal strategy. New Mexico's case, if successful, could reshape liability for over 15,000 claims but misses how DoD's historical reliance on AFFF has created under-monitored exposure pathways affecting reproductive endocrinology across bases nationwide. These studies, while observational rather than RCTs due to ethical constraints on human dosing, consistently control for confounders like age and smoking, underscoring the need for proactive biomonitoring over litigation alone.