 Dr. Figlent, the checkpoint inhibitors, can you just come in a little bit about what's known about the durable response? Like do they stop working after a certain amount of time, are they curative, or what happens like after? Yes. So what Alan and Ed pointed out, thank you, is the process by which we study cancer drug development. And it is a process. And drugs often get approved or not approved early in the course of things with more information coming later. So what we know about the checkpoint inhibitors is that there's a subpopulation of kidney cancer patients that benefit. We know that of that subpopulation that benefit, some of them have responses that are now lasting for several years. Most of those patients have not had discontinuation of those drugs. The drugs have been continued. So we haven't answered the question of whether you can stop and watch. Nor do we know whether those will be responses that exist a decade from now. So the key to clinical research is being committed and to understand that you take things in a stepwise fashion and that not all the answers are available in the beginning. Now that complicates things for patients and for doctors. We would all like to know all the answers at the moment that we have to address a patient. But oftentimes we don't have an insufficient data set. So what we do is we await FDA approval, which is based upon a set group of criteria, and then those patients are followed extensively over time to see what happens beyond. So the questions that you've asked are good ones. The questions that you've asked have no answers. And yet we are all enthusiastic about answering those questions with that class of drugs. The difficulty I'm about to demonstrate as I try to put this question together is probably reflective of all the questions we patients struggle with, sometimes not even knowing what the question should be. But I was trying to understand a recent report which indicated, as I understand it, the BAP1 and PBRM gene expressions more or less, some over-express, some under-express gave some guidance as to which is a way to separate out more, I guess, more responses to drugs. And obviously that's not much of a question, but kind of a bewildered look at what's happening. Can you clarify that for what that whole idea perhaps encompasses? Ed, you want to address that? Yeah, so what you're reading about, I think, is really great. And Dr. Kim actually touched on it a bit also. So while we do a lot of these clinical trials, we've actually been trying to collect tissue and blood samples from patients to answer some of those questions that are implied in the way you're asking your question. We would love to know which patients we should put on which particular drugs, or even just by the genotype, as Alan slides were showing, which genetic factors will kind of say, well, yours is a really more indolent cancer. And so we really shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves, whereas your cancer, though it's tiny, actually is kind of a nascent sports car. And if we don't stop this thing now before we blink too much, this thing's going to be all over the place. These types of genes that you're hearing about are amongst a large list of candidate biomarkers for helping us to distinguish those cancers. And I think Dr. Figlin at the start of today's talk had already implied that what we'd like is for our language to evolve while it will probably still include clear cell, papillary and whatnot, to actually start getting into PBRM positive or negative tumors and include other markers met and whatnot that might help us to distinguish these things. So I would say post it. There's a lot of information out there, and it's important. And we are, and I can tell you, this is a very deep-seated interest here at Cedars. So I think the challenge for cancer patients and cancer doctors, I'll try and divide into two pots. There's an enormous amount of information that is constantly bombarded to the cancer patient without any filter of what's important and what isn't important. So generally what you need as a cancer patient, in my view, is a team that's managing you that can help figure out what's noise and what makes sense and what's important. For the cancer doctor, there are cancer doctors like the three of us that spend our lives thinking about things that are not yet ready for primetime, and there are cancer doctors that are waiting for primetime before they think about anything. And what you have to decide as consumers is what serves you best to participate and navigate through your own care. Similarly, if we had simple answers, we would just put them out there. There's no effort on any of our parts to hide or not make available information that could help you be managed better, and anybody that's ever been to see me or Allen knows if we think your care is better served because of your specific tumor that would be better served someplace else in our city or in the country. We just tell you about it. So I think that what you've identified are genes that came out of the TCGA analysis whose implications are now biomarkers for prognosis, but as yet have no targets for therapeutics and are clearly not the whole story. Hello. So we hear lots of things about the FDA. Some people think that they are doing a great job protecting us, and other people think that they're slowing down the process sometimes and not allowing drugs that might be helpful to come to market sooner. Are there other drugs available in other countries that people take that haven't made their way through the FDA here in the United States? Yeah, so I'll give you my perspective on that, and that is that all great drugs come through the United States first, period. There's nothing that I'm aware of in cancer that has come through another industrialized country, a second world country, or a third world country that justifies its use that hasn't been vetted and studied in the United States. Thank you. Okay.