I ask that question because we've had a number of presentations over the course of the study, and we're not always informed about what's behind some of the groups' recommendations. I always get a bit suspicious when I hear a very unequivocal support for the government's present system by those groups that don't seem to have connections to big pharma. It seems to be very worrisome.
To start with, Colleen and Carol, you've clearly raised some concerns and you have no funding from big pharma. What is your sense of the government's plans with respect to post-market surveillance?
Even though we're involved in the study, a parallel approach is being carried out by the government. According to the department officials themselves, it will shift the focus from pre-market review to this continuous assessment of risks and benefits. This has been tried before by previous administrations. It's always been defeated because of concerns about products getting onto the market without necessarily being safe, without the precautionary principle having been practised.
I want to know what you think about that plan, because in fact it gets at the heart of our discussions.