I can no longer associate myself with an organization that is capable of making such an important decision so flagrantly on the basis of political influence, rather than the scientific and clinical evidence.

There wasn't any observable scientific or procedural reason for them to first decline and then further delay the decision, ... I had to make the inference this was a decision that was made on the basis of political pressure, and it seemed to me that was unacceptable.

This [examining submissions] could go on indefinitely and really doesn't change anything,

The refusal to choose is a form of choice; disbelief is a form of belief.

This decision was predicated by a deficit, but when you add another layer of expense, it seems that you've added to the problem instead of solved it. I'm not sure the solution matches the need.

We are continually assessing what the impacts are, and the decision to run a campaign or not and/or the scale of that campaign will depend on that assessment. If the story tends to blow over quickly, we may simply have the same marketing message that we already have on the books. If there's an impact on the business, we might assess that situation differently.