[MichaelZuo]

But the company has to submit in writing an application laying out their claims?

I'm not really sure why the lack of such a standard definition prevents people from writing that down and then being willing to back up their words?

I can see a time efficiency argument, cost reduction argument, etc., for standard definitions here, but at the end of the day, they're not necessary.

The companies that offer the most credible products, verified via third party testing, get FDA approval. Everyone else gets weeded out.

[iancmceachern]

>"But the company has to submit in writing an application laying out their claims?"

How so?

[iancmceachern]

I'm saying the written submission doesn't contain this, and even if it did there is no one reviewing it that actually knows the technical details enough to provide meaningful oversight.

It's similar to that quote from a Boeing insider that came to light "they (Boeing airplanes) are designed by clowns suprivised by monkees".

Note - these are not my words or opinion, just a quote from another guy

[MichaelZuo]

You don’t think they contain… written claims?

I’m not saying they contain foolproof technical specs, but broad claims certainly.

If you genuinely refuse to believe this is possible or is currently done by some fraction of folks, then I guess I’ll leave it at that.

[MichaelZuo]

Are you unsure about the meaning of submitting a written application?

Or is there some other confusion here?

[iancmceachern]

Please see my reply immediately above.