I think we need to begin to use specific names when talking about approval processes, rather than just lumping everyone under the same "FDA" brand. E.g. Are certain people in the organizational structure have a history of fraud being detected, drugs being recalled vs. others who were involved perhaps at every step of oversight and 0% of the drugs approved with their involvement have never had recalls?<p>Not being specific with language appears to, whether purposefully done or due to a lack of discipline, add a prominence or add a label or brand on top of a pedestal - maybe deserved to be done so by some of an organization's people - but then others new to an organization with unknown track records, their work then will ride on the coattails of an institution with a certain reputation (whether accurate or not, whether deserved or not).<p>Edit to add: Have a contrary opinion worth anything? Prove it by sharing it in writing.