I buy the argument. I understand where you're going. I think your analogy that dogs are being provided by the CNIB is good. What disturbs me is a certain rigidity, and correct me if I'm wrong, with respect to seeking empirical evidence for these kinds of alternate therapies. I know practising physicians are probably some of the most conservative people you ever want to meet, and frequently they do things because that's what they were taught in medical school, and yet the world has moved on. I'll leave that.
The second thing I wanted to talk to you about in providing direct therapy to soldiers and veterans now, is the uniqueness of your position, particularly when at one level you understand the people who are walking through your door in a way that no civilian physician could understand them. What is it about the warrior mentality, if you will, that requires unique therapy or whatever, when the warrior is injured?