On the last question, one or the other but not both. The differences are that CDR has published the names and credentials of their membership that adjudicates the subcommittee of CED, the Ontario.... The new JODR does not. We don't know who they are.
CDR has published some information on why they made their decisions; the JODR successor doesn't. We don't have any reports from them publicly, of what led to their considerations. CDR was very poor in having expertise from oncology. JODR promises to have much more expertise, but perhaps not all the expertise they need. Neither committee looks at post-marketing surveillance of the drugs or at whether their decisions were actually, when they approved the drug, accurate and true, that they really did work.
So I would say that in the balance it's equipoise. The JODR is presently constituted. Notwithstanding what Dr. Sullivan said, those are promises; at the moment they're just promises. I think we need to make sure they turn into reality.