That's a great really specific question. I think the amendments I envision would certainly capture negative results, although I think some very careful thinking would have to be done in defining what a negative result is. I'm trying to capture all results, but if you don't have a result per se because they stopped the trial, when does that become reportable?
I think there would probably need to be some kind of specific time period that would have to be surpassed for the results or whatever was done before the trial was stopped to be reported, but I think what would capture the really worrisome examples would be if there was an adverse event of some kind, even in the context of a study. If they stopped it because there were very serious safety concerns, not just for commercial reasons or strategic reasons they didn't want to pursue that particular study, that should be reportable.
I think it can be done. I'm not sure the very specific wording I gave captured it exactly, but hopefully that could be defined by regulations.