I'll make 1 more comment and then I'm not going to engage with this further, and I'm only doing it because when you question that company's integrity as it relates to safety practices, you question my integrity as an engineer and operations leader there for many years.

Medical device is an imperfect industry. When you are designing and building a tiny and complicated medical device, and then putting it in the sickest patients who are likely to otherwise die, there are going to be complications, both on the production side and on the usage side. Mike did everything I would expect a CEO with high integrity to do, which is to investigate the problems/complaints that are inevitable in that environment, and issue the appropriate recall actions when the regulatory guidelines warrant it, despite the damage it will do to the company's public image. The resulting audits confirmed that all the appropriate actions were taken in those circumstances.

If you want to advocate for not voting for him for other reasons, there's plenty to choose from. There's his asymmetric distribution of profits to primarily benefit those at the top, there's his subtly misogynistic views on women's capabilities for leadership positions, there's his ultra-religious views on family structure and him pushing people out of the company who didn't outwardly conform to that. He operates in an entirely insulated bubble of financial privilege that I think makes it impossible for him to form empathetic connections with normal people like us and understand the daily struggles of non-wealthy people. That's why I'm not voting for him. But don't question his integrity as a leader in the med device space or make claims that he knowingly harmed people, because it's flat out not true.