::: Yes, i do agree that she's made mistakes of that kind, of course. I am committed to Wikipedia reflecting reality. That claim in the article is perfectly fine. The issue is that there is still a standing claim that is very different, specifically "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been dismissed by experts in science and medicine as incorrect or exaggerated." This is simply not correct and not supportable with that source, and it remains a claim that is subject to MEDRS requirements as well, for good reason.  
 ::: If we are to parse out the language of that claim, "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous" is a general sweeping statement that would apply to all chemicals that she has said are risky and yet happen to be in some product that she's recommended, which is a small subset of all chemicals that she has talked about, and is still incorrect as we've agreed regarding aluminum, for one. It is not true that her claim that aluminum presents risks for human exposure has "been dismissed by experts in science and medicine as incorrect or exaggerated." So, if we can amend the article to point out that she has recommended some products that contains some chemicals which she has recommended avoiding, then we're fine. But if we leave that statement in the article, it is not sufficiently sourced, and it's also incorrect.