 Thanks, Wendy. So now we'll open the floor up to any comments or questions about the discussions that we've just had from our four panelists. So, you know, listening to all the discussions in the past two and a half hours, I get a sense that for some reason there's angst, and I don't know why, because I think our mission is to, you know, basically integrate this deep phenotyping with multiomic analysis and be at the forefront of diagnostics and to drive the conversation and do great science, which is really, I think, what we're all doing. And all these other things will flow from that naturally. You know, whether we apply population standards or versus to the other end of the spectrum of ulterior disease where there's data but no evidence, again, you know, as we do the work it will fall out along the whole spectrum. You know, as we move towards personalized medicine, really what we're talking about is exactly what we're doing here, which is having data from all the different spheres that we're working on drive the best clinical management strategy. And it may never reach class A evidence. I doubt it ever will. And that's okay because, again, it's integrating science and the practice of medicine. So I guess I don't have the same level of angst that's being expressed at some level. Just also speaking from one of the clinical sites, I think, you know, Bill said it earlier that so much of this is not genetic and I think if you were actually at the clinical site when we do our weekly meetings, we spend so much time talking about metabolome, epigenome, immunome. I think sort of it's sort of going around today that it's just a glorified genetics project. It's not. This is not a glorified sequencing exome genome project. And so it's a lot more than that and I think we need to really focus on the back to the mission and go from there in the discussion. Any other comments? I'd just like to address what Paul mentioned about sort of advertising this. It's time for us to advertise in my opinion. I think you can tell all those folks, let the Coordinating Center deal with this. It's their problem. That's what they're paid for essentially and actually they, I think, agree that it would be fine to have people call. You know, again, our ratio is about four or five to one in terms of the cases that we have to, let's say the complete applications that we have to look at before we get one that we accept. But it takes us maybe an hour, maybe two hours on average. Some of them take four hours, but some only take 10 minutes or so to go through the application and determine whether it's an accept or reject. Actually none of them takes 10 minutes. But point is that that's a very small amount of time compared to the hundreds of hours that we spend on an accepted patient. So we're willing to invest that in four or five patients or now six patients or seven patients to get to the essentially really illustrative cases. I think it's time for you to open the floodgates and is anyone going to disagree with me? I'm not disagreeing with you, Bill. I'm actually glad that Paul brought this up because I was speaking to Anastasia that in fact I wanted to focus some of our time on how to better get the word out about the UDN. You said many patients weren't aware of it. Darcy here was telling me that, you know, you hadn't heard of it before you were pulled into this. So I think it is time for us to get the word out and so I'd be interested in some ideas about what are some good ways to do that. With that said, as far as I understand from Anastasia, our hands are sometimes tied in terms of using federal funding to get the word out. And so that's something that a challenge that we'll have to address as a network. So if you're really ready to advertise, it seems to me that you can go to appropriate professional organizations to help make that awareness broader. Certainly, the patients are an absolutely fabulous place to do that, but the professional organizations are the ones, I mean, to be exact, for example, I bet average pediatricians don't know this exists and some of them are sufficiently expert to at least go to their own local geneticists and say, say I have this patient and I heard about this, what do you think? If you're really trying to get the numbers of cases you review to get the pearls, then you have to go to bigger professional organizations and hit a little harder. And I think that those organizations would welcome the opportunity to share that information to improve care for all of the people that they take care of. Well just to put a plug in, the American Society of Human Genetics Meetings is meeting in Vancouver next fall and to have a booth at that saying we'll take all commerce seems very appropriate and then the next spring at the college. And I think being sure that all the geneticists in North America are aware could be appropriate. Now I want to say something that's really, I'm sure inappropriate to say, but I said it once already, so I'll say it again. The patients are the ones who can advocate for the continuation of the program. And Nord is a really big time active process of that. And it is not okay to advocate for yourself, but having Nord really say this has been an amazing thing, we're very supportive. Every one of the subgroups advocating is really important. I can say that because I'm from Canada. Yeah, so we will have an NHGRI booth at ASHG next year and well this year. And typically we do promote different programs at that. So we've had materials about the UDN in the past at some of our NHGRI and common fund booths. So we will have a presence at ASHG. We're thinking about what we can do for ACMG. We typically haven't had a booth there, but programs like this are really driving us to think about being able to have something like that at that meeting as well. But you've got to mention too that we submitted a symposium application. It was turned down by ASHG, so Jesus. And I would say that not all of us can come through genetics because in neurology, the vast majority of my patients do not get referred to genetics. It just doesn't have enough value add for a lot of my clinical practice. Where's Pete's neurology next year? It's in Vancouver. But I'm saying just a lot, and I don't say that being arrogant. I think that that's a mistake, but I think it's just one of those things where the specialties have diverged enough where for various reasons there's this disconnect between genetics and neurology. And you will miss a lot of neurology patients that are undiagnosed if you don't target child neurologists. It's also a volume mismatch. I mean, there are 750 new families a year per provider seen in our adult cardiovascular genetics clinic, so there just isn't the genetics capacity to see it. Any other comments? Okay, then we will move on to the priorities and recommendations.