Agree totally chemic and had been thinking of posting similar thoughts. The FDA should be concerned only that the thing works as advertised and well within FDA safety guidelines. Whether it works as well as, far better than, or less well, than similar machines in terms of image quality, is entirely beside the point. That's a market issue, not an FDA issue. If the images are no good (which we are certain is not the case) who would buy the machine?
We already know that this is a one-of-a-kind technology that provides high res 3-D images comparable to none (save the behemoth Toshiba - 4 tons of machinery and what, $3 million to purchase - and not real time imaging). So, like you say, what's the FDA doing messing in that area?
By the way, anyone not convinced of the value of 3D needs to see Avatar. Great flick on many levels. The 3D aspect had me shaking my head at times as the audience almost becomes characters in the movie.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
