Rick, I know, I know. I'm still spluttering, mostly about our country being defined in terms of counting beans. Would Nathan Hale have given his one life for a country that analyzes possible cures on the basis of "cost-effectiveness"? If only they'd give it a nicer name, like "sustainable availability." But the corporation is treated as a person, with the same rights (if I understand what the lawyers say). Thus a person can serve as an employee of a big pharma during, say Vioxx development and marketing, and then leave the company to serve in of another company that's NOT developing, say, GDNF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the responsibility is legally the company's, and not that of any persons/leaders involved. I have to concede that pharmaceutical products are too complicated and their effects to far-reaching to be the responsibility of any one person, but-- but-- I feel so ignorant, not knowing how to change the way things are done, but at least they're being scrutinized now. Never give up, Rick, and I won't either. What was it we were trying to do, again?

Jaye