Sunday, July 11, 2010 10:46:41 PM
After a conversation with one of the FDA's Directors last year, Dean was assured that if he clarified his "intended use statement" his device would undoubtedly be approved. Please tell me, how could anyone have known that shortly thereafter that specific Director, the reviewer, and her boss were all to be among those that would be terminated? The terminations, by the way, were a direct result of bribes and payoffs that had been uncovered by the new head of the FDA which leads me to believe there is nothing nefarious going on behind the scenes at this time. In light of the terminations, the new personnel will no doubt tow the line for at least the time being. The 3rd party radiologist review was requested by the NEW team in order to make it easier for them to make a decision and approve the DVIS since they were coming in after the fact.
IMGGorBUST mentioned that he believes the new review team is treating this as a new submission and I tend to agree with him. This means Imaging 3 is most likely not on a "fast track" and the 90 days (for what it's worth) would end (as Dr. Polk suspects) on, or around 7/23. That would be 90 days from the last written request on 4/23. I hope this helps.
FEATURED Element79 Gold Corp Shares Further Advances With Chachas Community on Lucero Surface Rights, Provides Corporate Update • Oct 28, 2024 10:25 AM
VAYK Clarifies It Has No Business Connection to Persons Under SEC Charge • VAYK • Oct 28, 2024 11:59 AM
Vocodia Enters Medical Alert Industry with Innovative Emergency Response Pendant • VHAI • Oct 25, 2024 8:00 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for Third Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Oct 24, 2024 11:18 AM
VAYK Asserts Goal of Q4 Operationally Profitable and Projects Major 2025 Launch • VAYK • Oct 24, 2024 10:40 AM
CBD Life Sciences Inc. (CBDL) Positioned for Significant Growth Amid Nationwide Marijuana Legalization Push • CBDL • Oct 24, 2024 7:07 AM