Ultimately, with respect, it appears that the expert panel has done their best to provide you with what they think is correct, and they're entitled to their opinion. My response is that, at the outset of their report, they rejected the idea that we need to ensure that the harms don't outweigh the benefits before going forward, and that deeply concerns me. That's not what we do in medicine. We didn't do that, for example, with vaccines. We waited pretty much a whole year after the vaccine was available before administering it to make sure it was safe, because it could have been a disaster if it had been unsafe.
Why not do that in this instance? In that sense, I disagree with them.