On the speed issue, I just want to say that you're either dragging your feet just to drag your feet because you want other countries to actually try it on their populations first and experiment, or you're going to say that you want to have something in the pre-market trials that will tell us, really, what the benefits and risks are on real diseases, not on intermediate end points. It seems to me that we should be pretty clear about what we really want. I don't think that's an excuse for saying we won't do post-market assessment of the drugs. You have to do post-market assessment of the drugs. I think it's a huge problem that you license it and then say, “Okay, you're good to go, and I don't want to see you again.”
The progressive licensing component, to me, was to say that there is a need--there has to be a need--to actually assess this drug, even if you were able to actually get international collaboration to look at end points, such as diseases, and not at intermediate proxies. Even if you could do that, is it still going to be used in populations of people on which it wasn't tested, and will there be rare outcomes that could never be identified in the pre-trial studies? You have to have both, in a sense. I would hope that we don't toss out the idea of progressive licensure just because we're worried that it's going to be fast-tracked.