Never once did they attack the technology but rather the potential for error or the consequences if the public "can't handle the truth."
The closest they come to calling her a "quack" is when they state "...We still do not have any assurance that the firm has analytically or clinically validated the PGS for its intended uses..."
The bigger question is why is the FDA having a seizure over this? Could it be the potential for added treatment and preventative healthcare measures that insurers vis a vis the Affordable Care Act and not looking forward to paying for? (Not a rhetorical question, just asking)
The closest they come to calling her a "quack" is when they state "...We still do not have any assurance that the firm has analytically or clinically validated the PGS for its intended uses..."
The bigger question is why is the FDA having a seizure over this? Could it be the potential for added treatment and preventative healthcare measures that insurers vis a vis the Affordable Care Act and not looking forward to paying for? (Not a rhetorical question, just asking)