<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Medical Device Courses | chk9 | Activity</title>
	<link>https://medicaldevicecourses.com/members/chk9/activity/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://medicaldevicecourses.com/members/chk9/activity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for chk9.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2026 01:01:56 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
	
						<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">db42330fb87abbb885f149a7eda018f6</guid>
				<title>chk9 replied to the topic  &#034;FDA biased?&#034; -</title>
				<link>https://medicaldevicecourses.com/activity/p/58818/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 19:50:19 -0400</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand everyone&#8217;s thought that FDA is biased toward companies that pay them for expedited review, however, I think there are several misconceptions and also poor structure setup that attribute to this notion that &#8220;big pharma&#8221; or major corporations run&#8230; &nbsp; <a href="https://medicaldevicecourses.com/forums/regulatory-basics-for-medical-devices/fda-biased/#post-24227" rel="nofollow ugc">Read more&raquo;</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">86790fe8b89ea578dc58cc6f4a7d940c</guid>
				<title>chk9 replied to the topic  &#034;Medical Device Classification&#034; -</title>
				<link>https://medicaldevicecourses.com/activity/p/58816/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 19:10:44 -0400</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[quote data-userid=&#8221;35393&#8243; data-postid=&#8221;24219&#8243;] One thing that I think could fit under this category are certain diagnostic tests that are currently listed as Class III. I think over time, some of these tests should be reconsidered to join Class II. This&#8230; &nbsp; <a href="https://medicaldevicecourses.com/forums/regulatory-basics-for-medical-devices/medical-device-classification/#post-24226" rel="nofollow ugc">Read more&raquo;</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">cb0eb547ee873251e21bb5cf837dbecf</guid>
				<title>chk9 replied to the topic  &#034;Can Product Claims Make Things More Complicated?&#034; -</title>
				<link>https://medicaldevicecourses.com/activity/p/58814/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 18:33:40 -0400</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From my experience in industry I think making as little claims as possible is the ideal way to go. Anything that doesn&#8217;t support the main claim or function of a product should be avoided and wording is key. For example,&#8230; &nbsp; <a href="https://medicaldevicecourses.com/forums/regulatory-basics-for-medical-devices/can-product-claims-make-things-more-complicated/#post-24225" rel="nofollow ugc">Read more&raquo;</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">886382b4d88402f8a2579af364ed9e3f</guid>
				<title>chk9 became a registered member</title>
				<link>https://medicaldevicecourses.com/activity/p/56987/</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 15:39:12 -0400</pubDate>

				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>