Typically the objections are voiced in a dialog where antivax (your word) folks change the argument/subject with every back and forth. They have very little hard science to back up their claims in the face of overwhelming hard science to the contrary.

Another key omission to the antivax (your word) argument is that mRNA vaccines have been given to hundreds of millions of people with side effect mortality commensurate or less than other vaccines.

But yeah, I'll bite: why?

Let me see, you're saying that a committee-driven new product with continuously evolving specifications that has to be ADA compliant, vandal resistant, hygenic, and some whole host of other requirements is going to be cheap? How cheap are you expecting?

If you want cheap, there is a low wall next to the $2M bathroom that would be sufficed, but missed most of the other requirements.

Get in on the competitive bidding process and rake in the dough.

It's a race. What's the finish line? What happens when some company wins 1st place? What happens when the 2nd place finisher crosses the line?

America "won" the space race and yet at least 4 countries have landed on the moon, made space stations, etc. Nobody but historians really care about the winner of that one nowadays.

You may be underestimating the motivation of "keep the change" when it comes to cashiers completing cash transactions under no-power or no-internet conditions.

The 2024 list (https://academyofinventors.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2.24.25-Top-100-WW-list.pdf) has Tsinghua University ranked at #16 with 139 utility patents.

Tsinghua must've been saving up.

As to why Bloomberg chose the US University comparison cohort, the question is why to include Princeton (#98, 38 patents) when there are dozens of other US Universities with higher counts. Maybe Bloomberg doesn't understand that Purdue (#7, 213 patents) isn't in New Jersey?

Paying for a report to undercut legislation that reduces profits to the payer is a standard business tactic.

Any Insights and Conclusions that do not further the goals of the payer would run counter to the business interests of both the report producer and the payer.

Read the stated goals of the legislation in the legislation. They are far more expansive than this report's tiny swath of scope:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/...

With a report so narrowly constructed, it's a wonder there aren't more that are also picked up my MacRumors or any other apple mouthpiece outlet.

You'd think a guy who can buy up hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Kauai could, ya know, get a permit from the city.

It isn't like he wasn't concurrently spending millions on real estate lawyers at that same time, so stop your apologizing for the guy. He can afford the pros.

Or you could use it as a proxy of economic capacity, which is what it looks like is happening here.

Couple that with the slope of the line and the question about overtaking today or tomorrow or yesterday is ridiculous. Which line? You choose. Find one that refutes it.

At least humans eat the watermelons? Get a load of alfalfa growing nearby--food for cows and horses, mainly.

What proportion of the population thinks they need to double-check *everything* an AI chatbot tells them? They're being sold "artificial intelligence" and receiving a reasonable looking product. If they had to verify every single detail what would be the point of using the service?

It ain't "stupid", it's "average human".

I'm asserting that no researcher would undertake a study on so small a question as to document even a single "case of a person becoming sick or dying from microplastics from IV tubes".

Sure, sure--keep telling yourself there isn't a meaningful difference between, say, artheriosclerosis due to molecule-by-molecule deposition and an agglomeration of microplastics.

It's like saying there isn't a difference in your sewer pipes between decades of buildup from minerals and that event you're out finding the plunger for.

"there hasn't been a single documented case of a person becoming sick or dying from microplastics from IV tubes"

Ha! No self-respecting researcher would ever attempt to document this, nor get funding to do so. It's like a drop in the bucket for exposures, and once the particle size is small enough they pass through cell membranes and (gasp!) into the bloodstream.

Otherwise, thanks for the muddled lesson in harm reduction.

Since a main concern is about cellular and biological uptake, how about identifying the number of adult humans it would take to fill each cell with one nanoplastic particle each? Or figure out how much plastic an average cell can hold and tell us how many average adult humans we need to pack full?

Ok, then what comes next?

Someone trying to convince us that one particle of today's microplastics will be a thousand particles of nanoplastics in a few years?

In respected journals, peer review is currently the best thing out there. Show us an alternative.

The flip side is non-peer-reviewed journals. We know how valuable that is.