The article "lies" by omission, if you want to accuse it of doing so, but here are some omissions to consider:
*Sunscreen isn't needed for one, because you can just wear clothes to cover up. A lot of people who work outside would just wear long pants and sleeves. Or in the middle east there is the common image of people wearing clothes that cover the whole body. The fact this is seldom mentioned always strikes me as curious as it's a viable alternative to sunscreen, even assuming one must avoid sun on the skin. There are even clothes that have SPF ratings like sunscreen.
*Article says "any sunscreen is better than no sunscreen"... which is a pretty dramatic claim as I could envision there being toxic sunscreens you should avoid.
*Article fails to mention a little direct contact with sunlight, which sunscreen blocks or disrupts, is important for Vitamin D production; vitamin D being important for general health and well-being.
*Article fails to mention a prevailing theory that diet influences one's susceptibility to being sunburned (particularly "seed oils" have been thought to increase one's ability to be burned; this may indeed be incorrect, but the broad idea of diet relating to possible sunburns sounds worth considering).
This would be a good example of why people struggle to take seriously articles that strongly denounce "misinformation" as well as various "authorities" who seem to peddle "misinformation" they purport to be combating.
Any other thoughts on avoiding toxic sunscreens and the like?
That’s the third variable effect in action. Sunscreen as a product does not cause cancer, but the TikTok and Instagram morons convincing people it does (who just so happen to sell products that actually protect you, don’t ya know) absolutely do harm your health.