We will simply state what the study says, that is, there is no increased rate of cancer, from the study. Obviously if you're looking at safety and other issues, which is really with the regulations, we're only one input. This is a population study that is one input among others in terms of the very complex decision-making process.
There's more than just the issue of the long-term impact; there are other issues that we've discussed here. Basically, our position is from the population-based study, which is consistent, by the way, with other cohort studies. One of the things that are very important to note is that this one allows more statistical power because we have more women than in any other cohort study. In practice, it is important to say that in terms of looking at specific categories and subgroups it has more power to make some assertions.
Secondly, and it was mentioned by Dr. Zuckerman, when you're looking at long-term impact you have to have follow-up periods that are more than five years, particularly when you're talking about cancer. This study actually has a mean follow-up time of 15 years, some of which is even 25 years. In terms of this specific study versus other international cohort studies, we had more power and a fair follow-up period to be able to validate the other studies. What we're finding is very consistent.
When we discuss population health impact, it is going in the same direction. We are adding to that base of knowledge and we're adding it from a point of a view that has actually got more statistical significance, given the statistical power of the study.