Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thought pixie dust came with the job, but apparently not.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Thank you both for your papers. They're both very good, though maybe that's just because I agree with them.
I have a couple of questions, if I might.
Dr. Sanders, you have really already spoken to this, but I just want to reaffirm that I'm understanding it correctly. I'm pretty careful about this.
I want to follow up on what Mr. Fletcher said and clarify what I understand Dr. Sander's paper to say. You're actually making the suggestion at the bottom of page 4 that patient advocacy groups and all the others involved with clinical guidelines should disclose the nature of their relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. You have made that very clear in your paper as well--just so we get that out. That is what you intended.
Second, it may sound like an odd question, but one of the criticisms we've heard--and it seems a bit odd to me--is that while the makeup of the CDR review teams is made public, whether you have an epidemiologist, hematologist, or whoever, the names of the individuals are not. I don't very often see committees made up of people whose names I don't know, so from my experience in ministries and governments and so on, I don't know how to answer the question of why people's names aren't made public.