I'm actually glad you responded, "bob". It restores my faith in humanity...
Plus, I think we all have a MUCH better idea about what you were trying to say. Your original post was a tad hard to follow.
But defining yourself as an "industry insider", and then trying to cast doubt on the rest of us by implying that we all work for Sawyer (or whomever) is a bit irrational. Obviousy, by your own admission, YOU are the one working in the water purification industry. For all we know you work for Aquamira!
All that said, if you really can shed some light on this supposed 10% failure rate of microfiber filters BELEIVE ME all of us here want to hear about it. Does anyone disagree?
I'm certain that some of the other regulars here (who are more interested in this stuff than I am) are already researching this. But in the meantime if you can produce any documentation, brother, it would be appreciated.
And to be sure I understand, you seem to be saying:
1. The primary manufacturer of microfiber filters actualy suffers from a high rate of faulty filters.
2. Secondary manufacturers (like Sawyer) thus test the filters they get using live organisms, to weed out the faulty ones.
3. Well... I'm not sure what you're saying after that.
Are you implying that some of these faulty filters are STILL getting sold to consumers? I don't think you are. So if Sawyer et al are weeding out the faultty filters via in-house testing, what exactly are you warning us about? Or are you implying that the filters that were tested are dangerous, because live organisms were used to test them? (I would dispute that, if that is the case, and place you in my category #3, a few posts above.) Or are you just trying to create FUD about microfiber filters for some reason? Your "90% of the filters are good!" statement is disingenuous. It REALLY sounds like FUD.
Pardon me if I'm a little skeptical. But a little skepticism is a good thing, eh? If you work in a scientific or engineering field then you almost must agree with that. Please show us something we can believe. We, as consumers, truly would appreciate your efforts if you blew the whistle on something as egregious as a company selling 10% faulty products that are potentially a health hazard. But I'm far from convinced that you are who you say you are. I know- that is one of the classic problems with being a whistleblower, but it is something you've got to deal with.
If you are unwilling to produce any evidence then I'll change your status from "spambot" to "troll", since you do at least appear to be a real person. (Hopefully you are neither, and can provide some supporting documents- redacted, if you like.) It is pretty easy to leak documents anonymously. There is even a website dedicated to it. But for now I'm still filing you under FUD.
If I utterly misunderstood what you were saying, disregard the above, and please restate.