FWIW I've worked from the outside with three of the largest federal bureaucracies for 28 years. I find their motivation rather simple. Self serving survival, just like other institutions. That is on an individual employee basis as well at the agency, or division of the agency. At times the motivation may be as simple as just doing their job well. On the other side there may be outside, or inside, influences that motivate in other directions. Those influences may be political, financial, job security, or otherwise. The above can lead to a very complex variety of influences. Can industry/business heavily influence the agency? Absolutely! Do employees have their own biases. Absolutely! Do they all commonly just try to do the right thing? Absolutely! But individual and institutional survival is dominant.

The real key to working with any agency is the relationship. It is easier for them to accommodate those who are easy to work with, competent, and facilitating the goals of the agency and the individual in the agency. Nadar, et al, appear to me to have been the counter to all of that. We undoubtedly earned some obstruction from the FDA and provided easy opportunity for that obstruction. The FDA didn't have to go looking for it, CYDY provided it in quantity.

The above said, under current circumstances, BP has been playing the game for a long time and has well established relationships. They call, someone takes that call, and they talk about each other's kids and the great scotch they shared last Wednesday after work. They know how to make things easy for the agency and the individual they are working with. CYDY doesn't. Are we better off using the influence of BP? Absostinkinlutely! Does BP always use their influence in noncompetitive ways? Of course not! They use their influence to better themselves while still trying to maintain the relationship. No question CYDY will have a better relationship with the FDA if they are partners with BP.