I had several groups of questions:First had to do with p-values:What level of p-value was considered significant?How many metabolites were measured and how many were significant?Second had to do with drug use:What percentage of the patients were recruited from Dr. Gordon's practice as compared with elsewhere?(If all or almost all of the patients came from Dr Gordon's practice, then don't bother with this question: ) Did you compare patients from Dr. Gordon's practice with those from elsewhere, and were there any differences?Were patients who used opioids excluded from the study?If not, was opioid use measured (or queried)?If so, was opioid use correlated with any of the metabolites which were measured?Third:Where and how are patients for the second trial being recruited, and how is this different or similar to where and how patients were recruited for the first trial?If it has not already come up, I would ask when they hoped to publish their follow-on results.Fourth (and this one is completely optional, really tense, but maybe the most interesting):Do you think it is a conflict of interest for someone to edit a scientific paper, which was written by a doctor who is actively treating a close relative of the editor at the same time the paper was written and edited?(If I were going to do it, I would ask that last question, if possible, after the talk had been given, when the speaker is just hanging out answering questions from individuals. It's a reference to the correction that PNAS published to his paper. It will not make you any friends, but it is an interesting moral question.)