With respect, I do think we've heard from the other opinions. They're buried in the CDC's work and in others of our established science-based research groups that are looking at disease and taking new and emerging practices. As I said, the 2006 guidelines were reviewed in 2016 by three very significant authorities on disease tracking, management, and treatment.
I think we have a very strong science-based view, which is CDC's, and then we have a number of types of experiential evidence that is out there. I don't think that, as a committee, we can be in a position to judge the merits of research. I just don't think we have the skill set to determine what is the best research.
I think we can advocate for a process that makes sure that the patient voice and the provider voice are present with the research bodies so that there is a challenge of rigour in making sure the best diagnosis and best treatment processes or protocols are in place, and that the researchers and the scientists are looking at the new material regularly as it comes up. I think it's setting a dynamic process as to where the committee can best do its work, versus hearing from different research bodies about what it is.