> I respectfully disagree, this was a commonly cited technique for measuring microplastics, which is why it calls into question many studies.

What exactly was a commonly cited technique and where is this citation?

Regardless, you said "invalid methodology due to not recording baseline microplastic levels" when that was not the case and wasn't the letter's objection to the study's methodology.

> Thanks for calling me weird :) I guess the suggestion though is I'm paid by big plastic or something, no infact I'm just a guy reading papers who is scared of death like everyone else.

I said the trend was weird, but feel free to pick another adjective. Self contradictory, for instance. Sick of people overextrapolating from these "bombshell" microplastic papers, I will now overextrapolate from these "bombshell" methodological papers.

Look at the publications of the author of that letter and Cassandra Rauert, the lead author of the paper on detecting plastics in human blood that you linked below. Both of them have several publications on the almost universal contamination of the planet with microplastics and are clearly worried about the impact of this. Them insisting on and helping with better science from their colleagues is not laying the question to rest, it's a call to more rigorous action (literally[2]). It is scientific malpractice to call that "growing evidence that there is much less to worry about on microplastics".

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48133269

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00702-2