Kenneth “Kenny” Raymond has built one of the most detailed patient-facing catalogues of Charcot-Marie-Tooth genes and subtypes on the internet, but there are a lot of things it gets wrong. While specialists are moving toward naming the clusters of neuropathies under the CMT umbrella by the gene that causes them, Raymond’s “Experts in CMT” website stretches the old CMT catch-all umbrella wider. It presents contested classifications as settled fact, and it cites his own employer, the CMTA, as an authority without disclosing that he works there. A charity whose brand is CMT benefits from the widest possible definition of the disease. Raymond, the CMTA’s Head of Communications, promotes exactly that definition, and readers deserve to know it. They also deserve to know that his public biographies don’t agree about his training: his CMTA profile says he “is currently pursuing a master’s degree in genetics from Arizona State University,” while his LinkedIn profile lists a master’s in communication in progress.

The support Raymond cites for the broad definition comes from his employer and from a consortium his employer funds.

Raymond was diagnosed with CMT1 in 2002, at 29, and genetically confirmed with CMT1A a year later. In 2020 he launched a website called “The Cryptid Sloth,” a moniker he used then to describe himself. As the sloth, Raymond identified himself as a blue-collar type of guy who made sense of complex neurological subjects for regular folks with plumbing and mechanical analogies. By January 2023 he had renamed it “Experts in CMT”, a site meant to explain CMT genetics to people who aren’t scientists.

Nothing in Raymond’s public record shows that he is a physician, a clinician or a credentialled geneticist. That hasn’t stopped him from writing three CMT reference books, one of them distributed free by the CMTA, moderating the CMTA’s Facebook community, hosting a podcast, and becoming the CMTA’s Head of Communications.

No doubt there are many useful things Raymond has written. But a lay advocate who brands himself an expert, claims to curate the “definitive” CMT reference, and speaks for a major CMT charity has taken on a kind of authority that is long overdue for a close review.

Full Disclosure

I have a stake in this argument and should say so up front. I live with a CMT2-like neuropathy that genetic panels have not explained, and I have argued on this blog since 2021 that the CMT type system rests on misleading distinctions. In 2023 I predicted that gene-based naming would slowly displace “CMT,” and that charities wedded to the brand would resist. Parts of that post didn’t hold up, and parts of it did. I made corrections on while researching this article on Raymond.

I also know Raymond, and our history isn’t neutral. In 2020 he wrote a few posts for this blog at my invitation and left of his own accord after I edited small typos in his writing here. What followed on Facebook is something I experienced as online harassment: when I blocked him, he used his role as a CMTA page moderator to demand continued access to my personal pages. I complained to the CMTA in writing. In my view it handled the complaint badly: Raymond was kept in the loop, and the outcome was that I was removed from the CMTA’s Facebook group. I let it go at the time, and I retell it now only as a disclosure. I mention it because of what I see as a larger pattern since then, documented below, of Raymond and the CMTA promoting each other in ways that don’t serve the best interests of people who live with or study neuromuscular disease.

None of the argument that follows depends on my opinions or feelings toward any individual. Every claim I make about Raymond’s work and the CMTA is tied to their own published writing and to public records.

What Raymond gets right

Raymond saw a gap and filled it. By his account, when he was diagnosed almost nothing about CMT genetics was written for patients, and he built his gene list from a spreadsheet he kept while answering their questions.

Several parts of the “Experts in CMT” website hold up well:

Its classifications page calls CMT3 archaic and abandoned, and it favours gene-specific diagnosis.
The gene and subtype records I checked cite the original discovery paper, and Raymond has published a separate bibliography of those papers.
A variant-mechanism browser organizes subtypes by gene and molecular mechanism, which is the direction the field is heading.
An explainer on why genetic testing so often finds no answer addresses something clinicians rarely explain well.
He has worked with specialists. His article on CMT and breathing is co-written with pulmonologist Ashraf Elsayegh, and he was first author of a 2025 Peripheral Nerve Society poster surveying CMT genes, with geneticist Stephan Züchner and two CMTA executives.
The pages I read carry a clear statement that the site is not medical advice.

If “Experts in CMT” were presented as one patient’s annotated reading list, there would be little to review.

Raymond’s taxonomy runs against reform

Specialists have proposed retiring CMT’s numbered types in favour of names built on the causal gene, and Raymond is enlarging the umbrella those types sit under. That is the central problem with his work.

What the reformers propose

In 2015, Mathis, Magy and their colleagues argued that the old CMT numbered system could no longer absorb new genes. They proposed names built from inheritance, nerve pathology and the causal gene, so CMT1A becomes AD-CMTde-PMP22dup. A 2018 follow-up noted that no room was left to add new CMT2 forms.

Magy et al. (2018) then surveyed the more than 300 specialists on the international CMT consortium’s list. Of the 107 who answered, 65% said change was needed and the proposal improved on the historical system. That is roughly 70 people out of more than 300 asked, so it signals direction rather than consensus. But the direction is visible: GeneReviews, the standard clinical reference, now incorporates the Magy classification into its CMT gene table, alongside the historical labels.

A broader proposal goes further. Biesecker et al. (2021) argued that every Mendelian disorder should be named “GENE-related phenotype,” as in “CFTR-related cystic fibrosis.” It drew a published rebuttal objecting that variants, not genes, cause disease and that the names get unwieldy. Neither proposal is a universal standard. The table below compares the three approaches.

Condition	Experts in CMT	Mathis/Magy proposal	Dyadic form (illustrative)
PMP22 duplication	CMT1A	AD-CMTde-PMP22dup	PMP22-related demyelinating neuropathy
Recessive GDAP1 demyelinating	CMT4A	AR-CMTde-GDAP1	GDAP1-related neuropathy
PMP22 deletion	HNPP, “a CMT1 subtype”	Classified apart from CMT	PMP22-related HNPP
Distal motor-only neuropathies	dHMN, one of 13 CMT classifications	Classified apart from CMT*	GENE-related distal motor neuropathy

*GeneReviews, by contrast, treats dHMN as a form of CMT, following evidence that the same genes cause both.

The reformers kept the letters “CMT” for the core motor-and-sensory group. What they got rid of were the numbers and letters, and they placed HNPP and distal motor neuropathies in a separate table from CMT proper.

Where Raymond goes the other way

He inflates the umbrella, only partly with cover. His platform divides CMT into 13 classifications, plus an unclassified group, folding in distal motor neuropathies, distal spinal muscular atrophy, hereditary sensory neuropathies, giant axonal neuropathy and SMA-LEP. On the motor side he has support: GeneReviews treats dHMN and distal SMA as CMT, citing evidence that the same genes cause both. But GeneReviews lists hereditary sensory neuropathies as a differential diagnosis, distinct from CMT, and France’s national expert consensus treats them as a sibling group. Classic giant axonal neuropathy also damages the central nervous system, as Raymond’s own page notes, though milder GAN-related neuropathies overlap with axonal CMT. Where that line falls is exactly the kind of judgment a patient resource should flag as unsettled.

He states contested placements as fact. His site says flatly that HNPP is a CMT subtype, classified under CMT1. Calling HNPP a form of CMT in the broad sense is common. Filing it under CMT1 is not settled: the reformers class it separately, GeneReviews lists it among the other hereditary neuropathies to distinguish from CMT, and the clinical literature describes PMP22-related neuropathies as a spectrum of distinct phenotypes from one gene. That gene-first framing is the reform. Filing HNPP under “CMT1” works against it.

He overstates the system’s coherence. His site says each CMT subtype name maps to its genetic cause, assigned by discoverers under established criteria. No criteria are cited, and his own explainers on CMT1F/2E sharing a single gene and on the CMT2A1/2A2 tangle document the disorder reformers complain about. GeneReviews also notes that nerve conduction speeds can land in the demyelinating range for one family member and the axonal range for another. A gene can’t always be pinned to one side of the CMT1/CMT2 split, which his framework treats as definitional.

None of this is a fringe objection. GeneReviews and a 2020 review in the AAN’s Continuum both emphasize the causal gene. A patient resource that presents the numbered labels and its own broad umbrella as settled is handing people a hand-drawn map while the professional mapmakers are still redrawing the terrain.

Raymond has considered the reform. In “The Story of the 2A Confliction,” he cites Magy et al. and argues that explaining a name like AR-SH3TC2-CMT is “a huge ask” for patients compared with CMT4C. That’s a fair point about usability, and it deserves an answer. But the answer to unwieldy codes is plain-language gene-first names, such as “SH3TC2 neuropathy,” not presenting the numbered labels and the widest version of the umbrella as settled. His main classifications page doesn’t mention the proposal at all, so most readers never learn the debate exists.

The uncredentialed “expert” problem

No public biography I found for Raymond lists a degree or clinical qualification in genetics, genetic counselling or medicine. What his biographies do say about his studies are in conflict with themselves. His CMTA staff profile says he is “pursuing a master’s degree in genetics from Arizona State University,” and the author note on his own breathing article says he is “currently pursuing an MS in Genetics, Cell, and Developmental Biology” there. His LinkedIn profile, as of October 2026, lists something different: a master’s in communication, expected in 2027, a concurrent bachelor’s in communication, expected in 2026, and a completed undergraduate minor in biological sciences (genetics, cell and developmental biology). It also lists a 2007 associate’s degree in engineering. These profiles don’t show which description is current or why they differ, and readers can’t tell from them what graduate training he actually has. The minor is real coursework, and it’s to his credit. But it isn’t a degree in genetics, and it isn’t training in interpreting clinical test results.

Lay expertise is real, and patients often know their disease better than their doctors, at least in terms of the lived experience and sometimes even the current expert literature. I strongly sympathize with this. The problem is the branding. A site called “Experts in CMT,” a book on CMT subtitled “The Definitive Guide,” and an HNF author bio calling Raymond a “CMT-related respiratory impairment expert” all imply a professional standing his public record doesn’t show. The CMTA’s own announcement of his hire was more candid: it called him a “self-taught genetics expert.” His Amazon author bio says he served on the CMTA’s Advisory Board “as a CMT genetics expert,” but the CMTA’s own page says that board exists to advise on “important, but not neurological, issues.” Its listed members are therapists, orthotists, genetic counsellors and patient advocates.

The branding matters most where it meets individual patients:

A January 2023 profile reported that Raymond, a moderator of the CMTA’s Facebook group since 2020, was meeting one-on-one with patients to analyze their genetic results, free of charge but with donations accepted.
In April 2023 the Hereditary Neuropathy Foundation introduced him as a “genetic expert” and hired him to transcribe and curate patients’ uploaded genetic reports, including variants of uncertain significance, for its GRIN research registry. HNF’s Fall 2023 newsletter lists him as its GRIN Genetics Data Curator.

The HNF role was research data curation, and HNF pointed patients who needed testing to a genetic counsellor. I’ve found no evidence that Raymond has sold diagnostic services, and I don’t claim he has. The one-on-one sessions are a different matter, because they dealt with individual results. GeneReviews advises clinicians to refer people with CMT to a neurogenetics centre or a specialized genetic counsellor because CMT test results are so complex to interpret. Where those sessions happen may matter, too. Raymond’s website gives his location as Detroit, and Michigan licenses genetic counsellors under a 2018 law, Public Act 624. It defines the practice to include “explaining to a client the clinical implications of genetic laboratory tests and other diagnostic studies and their results,” and it bars unlicensed practice beginning a year after the state’s licensing rules take effect. In Canada, where I live, genetic counselling is largely unregulated, and Alberta does not regulate it at all. I don’t know what was said in those sessions, whether they continue, or what disclaimers or oversight they had, and the page that once described them is no longer online. I’m not suggesting he broke any law. The question is one of scope and disclosure: a resource branded “Experts in CMT” should state plainly where general education ends and the interpretation of one person’s results begins, and send people to qualified specialists for the latter. The charities that billed him as an expert share the responsibility for drawing that line.

The closed loop and a clear conflict of interest

Raymond’s classifications page says CMT has become an umbrella for any inheritable neuropathy, even with no gene identified, and it attributes that view to the CMTA and the Inherited Neuropathy Consortium. The INC does use it: its study of new causes of CMT calls CMT “an umbrella term that covers any inherited peripheral neuropathy.” That usage has a real research rationale. Families with no identified gene need a place in the studies that might find one.

But it doesn’t get Raymond out of the loop. The INC’s own homepage says it “is funded by the Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association (CMTA).” It is also part of an NIH research network, and its investigators are real specialists. Even so, the support Raymond cites for the broad definition comes from his employer and from a consortium his employer funds. And a research consortium’s working umbrella is not a clinical classification: GeneReviews and the French consensus draw narrower lines for diagnosis.

Raymond is the CMTA’s Head of Communications, its press contact and the editor of The CMTA Report, and the CMTA distributes his genes guide. Yet his site’s About and Founder pages don’t mention that he works for the CMTA. The Founder page links to the CMTA-hosted guide without explaining the connection. When a CMT charity’s head of communications cites that charity, and a consortium it funds, on where CMT’s borders lie, readers deserve to know who is speaking.

The stakes aren’t purely scientific, they are financial, and donor money buys influence. An umbrella that covers every inherited neuropathy also maximizes the patient population a CMT charity can claim, count and fundraise for. I can’t show that this shaped Raymond’s choices, and he may believe every word he writes. But it is exactly the kind of interest a disclosure exists to flag. A reader who commented on my 2023 post, herself diagnosed with CMT-SORD and researching the field, described her own experience bluntly: researchers she asked could not say what counts as CMT, and the answer kept coming back to money.

Raymond’s book

CMT-Associated Genes and Their Related Subtypes: The Definitive Guide was released in August 2021, according to the CMTA’s 2023 announcement of his hire, and the CMTA distributes it free. As a gene list with original citations, it was a genuine service to patients when little else existed in plain language. But it hasn’t kept up. The CMTA’s download page now gives it an “original release date” of August 20, 2025, and still describes it as “a complete up-to-date accounting” of CMT subtypes and genes. The file behind that link is the unrevised August 2021 first edition, which counts 120 genes. The CMTA first posted that same file in 2021 at another address, which now returns “410 Gone”; the current copy was uploaded in August 2025.

Its reception, though, comes almost entirely from inside the advocacy world that distributes it. HNF called it groundbreaking; a patient-news outlet profiled its author. The only endorsement on Raymond’s 2022 follow-up, the paperback Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease Gene and Subtype Discovery: The Complete Bibliography, comes from Katherine Forsey, PhD, the CMTA’s Chief Research Officer, who calls the guide “an essential reference text” and both books her “personal go-to guides.” I could not find a named independent review, journal peer review, or citation of the guide itself in the clinical literature. The closest thing is the 2025 Peripheral Nerve Society poster, in which Raymond, two CMTA executives and Stephan Züchner presented a systematic review of CMT genes. That is real scientific collaboration, but it isn’t a review of the guide.

Raymond’s book’s own summary promises to show readers and clinicians how each non-CMT-named type is CMT, “as determined by the CMT experts.” Which experts, it does not say. Where it does give reasons, some loop back to its sponsor. The guide argues that giant axonal neuropathy is CMT partly because the CMTA “has launched a GAN initiative,” which it says “further supports GAN as a subtype of CMT.” A charity’s funding choices are not evidence of where a disease belongs. A reference work that tells clinicians how to classify, on unnamed authority, should have outside review before calling itself definitive. Five years on, I can’t find any sign it has had one.

Verdict

“Experts in CMT” is a sincere, hard-working patient project that has outgrown its accountability. Its catalogue is useful, its explainers are often good, and its author clearly cares. But it presents a broad, contested CMT taxonomy as settled while specialists debate and redraw it. Its branding implies an expertise its author’s public record doesn’t show, his biographies disagree about his training, and it leans on the authority of the charity that employs him, and a consortium that charity funds, without saying so.

If Raymond or his employer, the CMTA, care about their credibility, there are some easy ways to improve it:

Rename “Experts in CMT,” or state plainly on every page that its author is a patient advocate without clinical training in genetics.
Make Raymond’s public biographies agree. His CMTA profile and his breathing article describe a genetics master’s; his LinkedIn profile describes a master’s in communication.
Disclose Raymond’s CMTA employment, and the CMTA’s funding of the INC, wherever the site cites either.
Present the Mathis and Magy proposal and the dyadic approach to disease classification as live alternatives, and mark the placement of HNPP and the sensory neuropathies under CMT as contested.
Drop “Definitive” until Raymond’s guide has had independent expert reviews.
If one-on-one reviews of individual genetic results continue, state their scope and oversight, and route patients to certified genetic counsellors.

The CMTA and HNF have the most to answer for. They took a dedicated patient volunteer, billed him as an expert, and promoted his catalogue without the independent review a reference that calls itself definitive should have.

Patients deserve advocates, and advocates deserve better than to be oversold. They also deserve to know which voice is the advocate’s, which is the specialist’s, and who is paying whom.

Sources

Raymond and his platform

“About.” Experts in CMT (Internet Archive). October 10, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20261010085340/https://expertsincmt.org/about/.
“About.” Experts in CMT. n.d. https://expertsincmt.org/about/.
Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association. “CMT-Associated Genes.” Accessed October 10, 2026. https://cmtausa.org/publications/cmt-associated-genes/.
Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association. CMT-Associated Genes and Their Related Subtypes: The Definitive Guide. 1st ed. 2021. https://cmtausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CMT-Associated-Genes_Definitive_Guide_8-23-2021.pdf.
Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association. The CMTA Report, Summer 2024. 2024. https://cmtausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Summer-2024-CMTA-Report.pdf.
Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association. “CMTA Welcomes Science Writer Kenneth Raymond to the Team.” April 26, 2023. https://cmtausa.org/press-release/cmta-adds-science-writer/.
Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association. “Kenny Raymond.” Internet Archive. October 10, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20261010084948/https://cmtausa.org/profiles/kenny-raymond/.
Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association. “Kenny Raymond.” Accessed October 10, 2026. https://cmtausa.org/profiles/kenny-raymond/.
Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association. “Media Room.” n.d. https://cmtausa.org/newsroom/media-room/.
“CMT Classifications.” Experts in CMT (Internet Archive). October 10, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20261010085234/https://expertsincmt.org/genetics/cmt-classifications/.
“CMT Classifications.” Experts in CMT. Accessed October 10, 2026. https://expertsincmt.org/genetics/cmt-classifications/.
Hereditary Neuropathy Foundation. CMT Update, Fall 2023. 2023. https://curecmt.org/legacy-uploads/2023/09/CMTupdate_Fall-2023_WEB.pdf.
Hereditary Neuropathy Foundation. “CMT-Associated Genes and Their Related Subtypes: The Definitive Guide.” Internet Archive. July 11, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20260711060237/https://www.hnf-cure.org/patience-resources/newly-diagnosed/cmt-associated-genes-and-their-related-subtypes-the-definitive-guide/.
Hereditary Neuropathy Foundation. “HNF and Kenneth Raymond Join Forces to Clarify CMT Genetic Reports.” Internet Archive. April 17, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20240417131939/https://www.hnf-cure.org/grin-patient-registry/hnf-kenneth-raymond-join-forces-to-clarify-cmt-genetic-reports/.
“Kenny Raymond.” LinkedIn. Accessed October 10, 2026. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kenny-raymond/.
“Meet the Founder.” Experts in CMT (Internet Archive). May 15, 2026. https://web.archive.org/web/20260515081720/https://expertsincmt.org/founder/.
“Meet the Founder.” Experts in CMT. n.d. https://expertsincmt.org/founder/.
Miller, Hawken. “One Man’s Mission: Translate the Science of CMT Disease for Others.” Charcot-Marie-Tooth News, January 18, 2023. https://charcot-marie-toothnews.com/news/one-mans-mission-translate-science-disease-kenneth-raymond/.
Raymond, Kenneth. Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease Gene and Subtype Discovery: The Complete Bibliography, Fall 2022 Release. Independently published, 2022. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B8BGW1LW.
Raymond, Kenneth, and A. Elsayegh. “CMT Respiratory Involvement: What It Is and What It Is Not.” The Dorsal Root, Experts in CMT. October 22, 2021. https://expertsincmt.org/dorsal-root/cmt-breathing-mythbusting/.
Raymond, Kenneth, Katherine Forsey, Stephan Züchner, and Suzanne Bruhn. “The Genetic Landscape of Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease.” In Peripheral Nerve Society Annual Meeting 2025, Edinburgh: Abstract Supplement (poster P068). 2025. https://account.pnsociety.com/files/2025%20PNS%20Annual%20Meeting_Edinburgh/2025_PNS_Abstract_Supplement_Final_2June2025.pdf#page=79.
“The Story of the 2A Confliction.” The Dorsal Root, Experts in CMT. April 10, 2022. https://expertsincmt.org/dorsal-root/2a-confliction/.

Classification Literature

Benquey, Thibaut, Emmanuelle Pion, Mireille Cossée, Martin Krahn, Tanya Stojkovic, Aurélien Perrin, Mathieu Cerino, et al. “A National French Consensus on Gene List for the Diagnosis of Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease and Related Disorders Using Next-Generation Sequencing.” Genes 13, no. 2 (2022): 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13020318.
Biesecker, Leslie G., Margaret P. Adam, Fowzan S. Alkuraya, Anne R. Amemiya, Michael J. Bamshad, Anita E. Beck, James T. Bennett, et al. “A Dyadic Approach to the Delineation of Diagnostic Entities in Clinical Genomics.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 108, no. 1 (2021): 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.11.013.
Bird, Thomas D. “Charcot-Marie-Tooth Hereditary Neuropathy Overview.” GeneReviews. University of Washington, Seattle. Revised November 20, 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1358/.
Cesaroni, Carlo Alberto, Laura Caiazza, Giulia Pisanò, Martina Gnazzo, Giulia Sigona, Susanna Rizzi, Agnese Pantani, Daniele Frattini, and Carlo Fusco. “PMP22-Related Neuropathies: A Systematic Review.” Genes 16, no. 11 (2025): 1279. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16111279.
“Genetics of CMT, Modifiers of CMT1A, New Causes of CMT (Study 6602).” Inherited Neuropathy Consortium. Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network. https://inc.rarediseasesnetwork.org/research-study/6602.
Hamosh, Ada, Joanna S. Amberger, Carol A. Bocchini, Joann Bodurtha, Carol J. Bult, Christopher G. Chute, Garry R. Cutting, et al. “Response to Biesecker et al.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 108, no. 9 (2021): 1807–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.07.004.
“Inherited Neuropathy Consortium.” Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network. https://inc.rarediseasesnetwork.org/.
Klein, Christopher J. “Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease and Other Hereditary Neuropathies.” Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology 26, no. 5 (2020): 1224–56. https://doi.org/10.1212/CON.0000000000000927.
Magy, Laurent, Stéphane Mathis, Gwendal Le Masson, Cyril Goizet, Meriem Tazir, and Jean-Michel Vallat. “Updating the Classification of Inherited Neuropathies: Results of an International Survey.” Neurology 90, no. 10 (2018): e870–e876. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005074.
Mathis, Stéphane, Cyril Goizet, Meriem Tazir, Corinne Magdelaine, Anne-Sophie Lia, Laurent Magy, and Jean-Michel Vallat. “Charcot-Marie-Tooth Diseases: An Update and Some New Proposals for the Classification.” Journal of Medical Genetics 52, no. 10 (2015): 681–90. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103272.
Opal, Puneet. “GAN-Related Neurodegeneration.” GeneReviews. University of Washington, Seattle. Revised October 14, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1136/.
Vallat, Jean-Michel, Meriem Tazir, Laurent Magy, Gwendal Le Masson, and Stéphane Mathis. “The Classification of Charcot-Marie-Tooth Diseases, a Never-Ending Story: CMT4?” Brain 141, no. 9 (2018): e70. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awy207.

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Shark Tooth: The CMTA’s Stake in a Board Member’s Biotech

Who Is Behind the CMTA?