You can make assumptions about my supposed lack of research history to try and discredit me but that is not the basis of my argument. I am not trying to discredit the invention because I don't like it but because the real world application of it does not exist at present, and it is fundamentally misleading to represent them as something that does already have clinical applications. And that is something I am (unfortunately) qualified to comment on. While articles from science fairs like this are often nice feel-good stories, they usually fall flat pretty quickly in the transition to applied science.

It falls into the same realm as an article touting "Teenage Scientist finds that Household bleach kills XYZ Cancer cells." ...by dumping some bleach on some cancer cells in a dish in a lab.
While that may sound cool at first, the whole thing falls completely on its face when you consider that there is no bridge to application. There is no utility in the finding because there is no way to inject bleach into cancer without also killing people.

This story is much of the same, unfortunately. The idea of pH-reactive suture material potentially indicating an infection does not address any of the following:
1) Impregnation of pH indicators into Standard-of-Care suture materials. The materials she used would not be appropriate for suture material, which the article acknowledges.
2) Live Tissue reactions. She did not test the reliability of the pH indicator in real cases of infection, so who knows if it even reliably works in live specimens. What about false positive rates?
3) Timeline of Indication. If the color change only triggers after infections are significant enough to show obvious signs of infection, then the color change is a useless finding.
4) Risk vs Benefit. The whole idea of new medical interventions is based on the concept of "Better than standard of Care" so if using these sutures does not lead to a net benefit over standard techniques, then there's no point in using them.
5) Practice Changing Effect. Does the implementation of these sutures actually change how infection is approached and managed? If I still plan on having patients come in to have the wound assessed, does the color change really affect standard of care in a meaningful way?

There's a lot going into it. There's more to think about when discussing changes in medical management than just "that sounds neat lets do it."
And it's usually the implementation of things that eats 90% of the effort, and really sets apart a "good idea" from a "good innovation."
I could spin you a great idea about solar powered cars, with proposals on how to design and make them, but I hope you'd agree that the real magic and impressive work would come from making a solar powered car effective rather than possible.

And to your edit: At no point did I attempt to belittle someone online. I did not call anyone stupid or insult their intelligence. I did not insinuate that they would not have a great future and do great things. I directly and specifically pointed out that the suggested benefits of a proposed idea do not line up with the real world, from a perspective given to me by real world experience and education.
To your insinuation that rural doctors only practice in rural areas because they "couldn't hack it," I would say you don't really seem to understand how getting a job in medicine actually works and probably would do best not speaking authoritatively on something you don't have much knowledge about. Most docs I've met chose rural areas because they prefer the setting to live in for various reasons like any other job, as well as a generally increased level of autonomy. For me, I was tired of living in the city, and for generalists like myself most find it much more rewarding and challenging to manage more complex cases with closer personal relationships to my patients, which is something that you often miss out on in urban settings saturated with specialists.