 I'm back and forth. I'm short. Okay. Can you just tell us who's in the room there? Yes, I can. I'm sorry. I'm Lindsay Wells. I'm the marijuana program administrator. The marijuana registry. Thank you. Yeah, we've got another story. Okay. Let's go around the room. Okay, sure. My name is Matt Myers. I'm the new director of prevention services at the Vermont Department of Health. Standing in today and I guess in the future for a while. I'm sorry. So you're here as a representative for Dr. Levine. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the public in the room? Yes, we do have two members of the public and myself. Great. Thank you. So, doctor, do you want to call the order and just take a quick role? Sure. Can I call the meeting to order? And then should we just all call off her role? Sure. I can just say Dr. Clifton present. Mendelia present, Jim Romanoff present. Sherman James Prepper in green hair present. And I'm sorry. I forgot. I didn't write down your name, sir, or Dr. Levine. Oh, yeah. Matt Myers in my ear. Did you know the gentleman's name in the room? Yes. Sorry. His name is Matt Myers. Matt Myers on behalf of Dr. Levine. And okay, we're ready to go. Okay. All right. Well, thanks so much for coming today. Let me actually pull up the agenda. I accidentally took the agenda down and apologies for putting that SOW on there. We were talking about just something that had to be done apparently with us rather than the entire committee. So I wanted to, let's see, go back to the agenda and just make sure that we have covered everything. Oh, I suppose our first step is the approval of the minutes. Has everybody gotten a chance and I apologize for not sending the minutes? Has everybody, until late that a lot, hopefully be the last time that I do that. Has everybody gotten a chance to approve them? Yeah. Okay. We'll get them. And I guess can somebody motion to approve and second the motion? Yeah. Motion to approve the minutes for last week. Okay. Second. Okay. Terrific. That's our first step in our agenda. And the SOW, as I said, was more of an internal issue. And then we're back to the list of questions about the possession and home grow that we were moving around on. I think we ended up on a possession of three ounces when you're outside of your house. That would be, you know, probably most consistent with what the adult use market is doing, mirroring the adult use market and allowing people to get enough medication so that they can move from the dispensary to their home. And so we can probably put that particular issue behind us. Possession. Okay. And the other, the other issue was this caregiver status and home grow status. And I think we needed to spend a bit more time on that. I know the last time we talked, we were, you know, worrying about caregivers versus growers. But then the guest person from the public that was here, Mr. Pascarelli from the Vermont Growers pointed out that if we change caregivers to growers, it'll take a grower, somebody representing that part of the industry out of a particular subcommittee. So we probably don't want to impact the names of those too much because we certainly want our growers represented. Mary, if I could just jump in for one sec. So there are no growers represented on the oversight committee program that we are about to make recommendations for the cannabis control board to ask the legislature to set up a new oversight committee for the future. And as I mentioned last week, we, so the issue separately, we're split on recommending that a small cultivator or a cultivator be on the committee. I supported it. We might revisit the issue tomorrow when we meet. But, you know, the question there and the logic was that, you know, cannabis is a plant-based medicine to the growers. At this point, I often have this bunch of information or more than anybody does. We don't have a lot of studies and science-based information that's coming in faster and faster. A lot of times at this point, information about the types of plants, you know, cultivars and pressing the grower. Number one was that caregiver, you are able to assign a caregiver to grow your cannabis for you if you can doing yourself. That could be in the current understanding of a parent, a guardian, or an assigned caregiver, a nurse, or anybody who's assigned. And at this point, people are interested right now the law says that you can have one caregiver under the medical cannabis card that you get. And so the intention of changing the definition is not so that the person in question doesn't have the care they need. In fact, we want to increase caregivers because a caregiver should be somebody, you know, divide the state and care of a medical patient. And the idea of separating out a grower, which is not to say that you couldn't still ask your, instead of yourself, you know, your parent, guardian, caregiver to be your grower, but separately address small growers growing for medical patients. And I just wanted to put that out there again that, you know, the question really is, I want to make sure that a medical patient can have more than one caregiver so that several people can administer the medicine or possess the medicine or pick it up. And it's just, it seems confusing to, in reverse, say a grower can grow for, you know, 10 people or a caregiver can take care of 10 people. It's about the patient and how many caregivers they should have and could have. So does that make it clear? Well, it's about the patient in both directions, as I see it, because if a patient needs five caregivers to provide them for an adequate amount of cannabis, that's fine. And if we have a grower who can provide for five patients, then that is fine, too. If they're, you know, I think a separate subcommittee is, you know, determining the amount of lab testing that has to be done for these small growers. But I mean, it strikes me as a perfect way to keep the cannabis industry local and keep the money from the cannabis industry local, you know, and in Vermont and supporting small businesses, which we, you know, know will consistently keep the money in the community better than working with large multinational companies. So I agree with you, like, five caregivers per person and then, you know, each grower growing for as many as five, maybe we would even want to go higher so that a grower could, you know, be allowed to provide for, you know, for an adequate number of people to also make the grow reasonable with the expenses and the baseline expenses that are incurred. I mean, if I may jump in here, it sounds like that's a small grower, not a caregiver. And I think, once again, we circle back to the concerns of safety for patients. If these caregivers are allowed to grow for multiple patients but are not regulated as any tier of grower, you know, who's there to enforce what type of lab testing is required, patient safety components, I just, I think that's pretty concerning. I also, I think that's slightly different than what Jen's suggesting. Jen, correct me if I'm wrong. Correct. This is different. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. I agree. I think that this... I'm suggesting, you know, multiple caregivers, not growers. Right. We can assign one grower if they want, just like I can ask my wife to grow for me as a private individual. But if growers want to grow for multiple patients, to me, that should be, you know, a cultivation and a cultivation licensing issue, rather than confusing it and labeling that caregiver as well, because that's been the big debate on the oversight committee, is that, you know, one of our members who's a medical doctor wants to know that a caregiver is defined in a way that has to do with the health care and medical care, rather than medicine making. Right. And that's a separate function. So last time, Dr. Whitwood was exactly here. We were in agreement and consensus on more than one caregiver as far as medically providing, not on the grower side. So don't... Right. Okay. That's correct. So I'm interested on more than one caregiver, but I think I want to expend a little bit more time exploring how many people a grower can grow for. Because if a grower can, in fact, grow for up to five people, then they could keep the costs down for those five people if they were unable to go to a dispensary. And they could also run all of the necessary appropriate labs, you know. I think that the labs in Vermont, you know, have had, or the lab testing in Vermont has been lagging behind a little bit of the dispensaries from what I understand with digging in a bit this week also. I understood. But before I let you go off too far, what Jim was also suggesting is the grower side is maybe probably, I think I agree with him, better left to the other subcommittee on cultivation, not for medical. Yeah. I think that's why everyone maybe dive into that topic. That's more of a cultivation issue than it is a medical. I feel like it's really a medical issue because if we don't make sure that patients have access to the medicine, then, you know, then, then they won't have access to the medicine. If they can't afford to go to the dispensary and we don't protect home grow in this subcommittee, then, you know, I can't be sure that cultivation is going to protect home grow. I think it's the job of this committee to protect home grow. I think it's the job of the subcommittee to consider medical patients and their safety. So I would agree with Tom that that is for a separate subcommittee, not ours. I think where we landed last time was still the one grower per patient and then add a medical caregiver, but not an additional grower. I agree. That is what I remember Meg as well. Again, just to quickly say that what we're looking at is being able to have multiple caregivers, a patient assign someone to grow for them, not change current home grow, which allows, in fact, we want to increase the amount of plants that you can grow. Definitely, you can ask someone else to do it. And if the cultivating subcommittee wants, and I hope they have encouraged them to set up something where small growers can work directly with a medical patient in one way or an individual, but certainly a medical patient. I think that's a great idea. What if the medical patient, let me just suggest what if the medical patient has more than one condition and the one grower doesn't grow all of the different products that that medical patient wants. Or what if the dispensary that the medical patient has assigned to has now been testing or has mold in their growth facilities and isn't following their own safe protocols. I mean, there's all those issues too. Can I have a question and audience? Thank you. I was wondering, sounds like you're thinking of creating a separate category for these folks and separating them from what has been sort of the concept around a caregiver, the loved one just because most of them fall in that category. Is that Lindsay? Yeah. Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure I was able to talk. Yeah, that's me. One thing that's missing in the new statute is like a definition of a caregiver. So maybe starting with think about how to define that and then you guys are talking about a different defined category of these growers and if that you want to send that to cultivation or marketing licensing or whatever for them to sort of just handle how what to do with folks who want to grow for medical patients and what that'll look like and the other issues related to that category. Yeah, I agree. I think that's so far what Jim and Tom and I have said is that we need that's not our subcommittee. I mean, we have not heard from any patients that this is, you know, something they want. We've heard only so far from the Vermont Growers Association, I believe that this is one of their priorities. And ultimately, I think last time we discussed having, you know, one caregiver growing from multiple patients could be a safety risk. Why could that be a safety risk? Well, we can caregivers are not subject to the lab testing and regulations that the dispensaries are. I'm sorry. I think two people were speaking. Are the dispensaries doing lab testing? Yeah, as a transparent with their lab testing. Yep. Yeah, so patients can go into the dispensaries and request any certificate of analysis for any of the products offered. Okay. I mean, it's not in this subcommittee's jurisdiction as I understand it to worry about the lab testing. I mean, my concern in this subcommittee is patients and patients getting access to the medicine. And my concern is if you only allow one grower for one patient, and that grower has a crowd failure or that grower, that patient requires more than one medicine, then that patient is just out. But if a grower isn't here. I don't think they have the money to be able to go to a dispensary. But if there's a different category for these growers, then they wouldn't be subject to the one caregiver to patient ratio. That's right. If you carve that out. So that would be a non-issue. Correct. And that would be up to the licensing or the lab section, right? Correct. Okay. So for a patient, for example, who has seizures or who has multiple conditions and maybe needs two or three growers, how is that patient protected? So that they can get their medicine at an affordable price? Well, I guess the question is how would you determine that a patient with multiple conditions needs multiple growers? You know, when, who is it to say that one grower can't supply one patient with what they need? Well, who is it to say that one grower can? Let's just theoretically imagine that there might be one patient in Vermont that can't get their medicine with one grower and that can't afford to go to the dispensary. What is that one patient to do? I don't think that's a real hypothetical because any grower who is a professional grower, I don't assume that's what we're talking about here, is somebody who should be able to grow the same strength. That's the only power the grower has to pick a plant, a clone, a seed and grow it. But the other powers lie within the hands of the processors and the retail market and the dispensaries to process the medicine. And it's more likely that what a patient needs is a concentrate that a grower is not responsible for, but it's going to be a processor. So I don't think it would happen that you would have a grower who's going to say, well, I can grow that strength, but not that in an open market. So I don't think the application won't be protected that way. I think where they won't be protected is that there's not a marketplace that will do processing and manufacturing. And at this point that is the dispensaries. So I don't think that growing, the current statute protects the patient in terms of their supply, if it's a homegrown supply. And if they ask their caregiver to grow for them, right now they can have one caregiver like anybody grow for them. And all we're saying is we don't want to muddy the term caregiver. We want to have multiple caregivers medically and health care wise take care of a patient. But that's because that's what caregivers do. Growers grow. We'd like the cultivation people to look at the growers and say, hey, if you guys want to grow for one patient or grow for five patients, let's work out the structure and the way we can test and monitor and do all that stuff. But I don't see why we would put it into, it's not going to protect the medical patient. It's actually going to harm them or risk put risk to them to put it into the medical law because all it does is muddy the term caregiver. A caregiver is the person taking, you know, rather than the medicine person. And I think that's really the issue. I just want to try to design a system here that is different from, you know, the Michigan system and the North, and the New York system where all of the medical patients or the Iowa system where patients come to me to get a card. And I don't do a ton of cards, but they come to me to get a card all the time. And then they say, you know, the dispensaries are too expensive. And so I just get it off of a secondary market. And I, but I need a card to protect myself, you know, I mean, in a lot of cases, a decentralized patient centered model with multiple growers available per patient is going to really optimize the availability of the product at the lowest price for the patient. And to also keep the money with Vermont, small Vermont growers, which is what Vermont is all about, all about these small businesses. You know, as I understand it, the patient dispensaries, the medical dispensaries are all multi-state organizations, you know, owned outside of Vermont. And none of that money is going to be maintained in Vermont. As I understand it, I don't think that there's any focus on patient care. I'm not aware that they're doing any particular education. So there's really no caretaking role being done in the dispensaries. And I don't think that the workers are particularly trained to where they have a, you know, I mean, I hired a gal to help me with my email marketing portion of my company. And I've been training her for almost a year now. My impression is when you're training people for a dispensary job, it's, you know, a couple of hours of training, mostly on the business side. So I'm just not sure that the dispensaries are the best answer for most patients. So I want to make sure that most patients have good access to, you know, small cultivators where they can get their products. So if I may jump in here, I'm not sure. I'm not sure about the amount of training in other states. My understanding is that there are generally statewide programs that employees have to go through. But I know I can speak for the dispensaries here that it's not just a couple of hours of training on the business side. You know, employees usually go through essentially a two week training program with a lot of observation, learning about products and all of that. On the other hand, I think, you know, a lot of what you're saying, despite the fact that the dispensaries in Vermont are in alignment with multi-state operators, their commitment is to the medical program here. And I think last time it was requested that we get someone in here from the dispensaries to speak. So I would ask that we invite someone from the dispensaries to speak to us on Thursday because I think they could address a lot of your concerns. Yeah, I was going to also ask that we have somebody from Washington State or Hawaii with a patient-centered, decentralized process in place that's been very successful that the medical patients are using so that we can also talk with them about what they're doing. I thought that you guys were both, I mean, Jim, you're a patient representative from the same dispensary that Megan is employed by, right? Well, I don't consider myself a patient representative. I've been on the committee for five years and I was, my name was given to DPS by them and we've never talked since then about it. And there is no definition of what each member and person does on the committee. I'm the chairman right now. You're appointed by the medical dispensary that Megan works for. You're appointed by that dispensary? I think each dispensary would be appointed by that dispensary and they did give my name and you can say they appointed me but there is no relationship or coordination with them. And on top of that, I'm the chairman of the Oversight Committee. I speak for the Oversight Committee and represent that. That's my fiduciary responsibility for this year. And to clarify, I am, yes, employed by CeresMed but I am also employed by Vermont Candidates Crisis Ablusion for the three dispensaries and they are separate roles. Doctor, to put a bigger picture, just get the broader picture, what we were talking about the first meeting was to ensure access to patients. And that's why, you know, I want to make sure we dedicate some time to the concept of what we talked about the first time, developing that baseline of products that we can ensure that from happening. But I mean, the other thing that will be happening here is as adult use also comes onto line and we have more cultivators, it is going to be dominated by the small cultivator market. That's just the way Vermont is comprised, right? And so there was going to be a transformation and there was going to be access to small cultivators. They're looking at that in the separate subcommittee about what that market looks like and then in another subcommittee we're looking at cultivation. And so that's why we're saying when you're talking about growers and giving access to the medical patients, that's what those other subcommittees are dealing with. And I don't think anyone on this committee can say determinatively it's going to stay one on one with a grower to medical patient or it's not. But I think you've got to take those other factors into consideration because it's going to be a different marketplace and we can't operate under the assumption here that the medical supply is just going to come from the existing MSOs. So I highly doubt that it will. Okay. Does that make sense? Yes. Yes. Yeah. So that's why when, again, to get back to our baseline question here was the, let's identify the problem. The problem is the definition of caregiver is one to one. I think we're all in agreement. It should not be that way. It should be expanded for caregivers as far as the definition of a medical care provider is going. And as Lindsay correctly articulated, what we need to do is leave the definition of the grower. That needs to be, I think what we're saying, that needs to be a separate category, but not necessarily defined by the members of the subcommittee in this medical subcommittee advisory group. I mean, my concern is that the needs of the patients or the concerns of the patients are not being properly addressed by this committee. You know, I wonder if we could do a couple of things with that. I'd like to attend the line stay subcommittee with you, Jim, and just listen to the patients with you. And then I wonder if we could open up guests so that they don't, since everybody else here is virtual, could we allow virtual guests in this subcommittee also so that if people are unable to travel to be present, they can also present virtually. The opportunity for public comment is multiple avenues, but virtual appearances is not one of them. Is there some reason for that decision? Do we know why we came to that decision? Yes. Yeah. Yes. I don't understand. Because I'm here virtually, so I just need to get an understanding. You know, this is James Pepper, the chair of the Canada's Board. We have a stretch very thin, just as NACB is stretched pretty thin, and by this process, and we have about 30 to 40 people that join every single one of our calls and we just don't have time or the resources to manage the kind of flow in and out of participating. We are complying with the overmeeting laws, and we are having people give a physical location with members of the public. You know, Jeffrey Pizzatullo has attended on behalf of the caregivers, and we really just don't have the resources to manage the process of kind of, you know, inviting anyone to participate in these. It wouldn't be just limited to Vermont, of course, and, you know, what we do is a board is we record these and we post them to our website and have people come and we have a weekly wrap-up meeting. All of the board talks about what happened in these meetings and allows people of the public, including patients, caregivers, anyone involved in the medical program, to comment at that virtually. And there's also, obviously, the written comments that anyone can submit, although we haven't had that many to the medical subcommittee yet, but... Okay. Okay. Dr. Clifton, you know, if you don't mind me stepping in, I know this is not my subcommittee. Like, this is part of the advisory committee. I actually think that we are all on the same page. We just don't know how to kind of get to where we're going, which is that we want folks to be able to access their medicine. And we want people to feel confident that that medicine is of the highest clean quality. And I think that the question is, is if you're going to expand the patient to caregivers, and I'm not going to use that term caregiver because it seems to be confusing, the patient to designated grower ratio, then how do you ensure that the products that those people are growing are quality products? I think what Jim and Meg are saying is, well, push them to the kind of cultivation license, because there will be lots of rules and regulations around that, which don't currently exist for caregivers in the medical side. So to me, the question is, okay, well, what rules and regulations, if we are going to expand that ratio, what rules and regulations do we need for designated growers to ensure that they're providing their patients a clean product? Yes. I mean, I think that, I think that, you know, we should make sure that there is some testing, you know, I mean, and make that testing available potentially subsidized with maybe with the money in that, in that one particular fund, the Medical Marijuana Fund, or something, but make it possible. Yeah, for growers to be tested at whatever frequency you would determine. I think that recommendation makes a lot of sense to me, is that, you know, I think there should be subsidized testing for the medical program. But, yeah, I think for me that's where this kind of the linchpin of this conversation is, but I could be wrong, and I hate to kind of interrupt the flow of the conversation. No, no, I really appreciate you coming in. I just want to make sure that for patients, you know, with these disabled, you know, patients that are, you know, probably at or near the poverty level, these grows really represent the only way that they'll be able to get their medicine. And I want to stand with those people, you know. I understand what you're saying, Dr. Clinton. I appreciate you clarifying, Chairman Pepper, this, you know, we do have members of the public coming and giving testimony to the effect that, you know, the kind of idea you're talking about would be good. But I have to say, because, and this is not going to make me popular, but just because we have testimony doesn't mean it's the case for all of the patients. We don't have data that says how, you know, most patients are coping with what the cost of medical cannabis is. We can assume everybody thinks it's high and that adult use market is going to affect that. But what I would hate to see happen, and this is for the patients, this is as a chairman of the oversight committee of the medical program, is to take a part of the law that exists now that clearly is very confusing. We're all confused about it, about this term caregiver in relation to a designated grower and make it worse. We can maybe envision a whole new law. I think, you know, we don't know what the case will be, whether the dispensaries as they exist now will be a viable business and they'll want to continue it. I don't know. We do need to look outside the box, and we do need to look at new ways to make sure that the medical patients get the best product and best treatment. And that's not going to ensure it by taking the law that exists now and muddying it more. It would ensure it by putting it through all the levers and channels that we're setting up in the state, like growers and cultivators being undergrowing and cultivating. Those are the experts and caregiving and medicine being under health care and wellness people. And I think that's the main thing we're asking. Small grows and home grows really fall under medicinal though, because small grows and home grows are designed to support the sick and the disabled and the poor that can't go to a dispensary. So we really do in this committee, in my opinion, have to take some time to make sure that we protect those things for our patients. I'm not here to protect anybody but the patient. And I would say you're protecting the growers. Yeah. Well, I mean, because a patient who's got, you know, a patient who has got all the resources is not going to have an issue with going to a dispensary. But a lot of patients, as I've repeatedly said, are disabled and low mobility and low income capability and their poor and they utilize the dispensaries. We know that the majority of patients in the programs utilize the dispensaries and the dispensaries have every intention of maintaining the medical dispensaries that is at their roots. They, you know, don't want patients to have to wait in lines. They want patients to have lower cost, etc. And in the. But they're for profit organization men. Excuse me. I mean, there were for profit organization, right? So originally they were nonprofit and because federally we were not able to be recognized as nonprofits. Just operationally you can't continue like that just financially it wasn't viable. Through a series of lobbying that you were able to move from nonprofit to profit. Okay. I'm not. Okay. We're not we're not debating the MSO versus the small growers and home growers in this community. I'm just not going to let that continue. Okay. Too much to do. I think everyone understands everyone's viewpoint on it. But let's just try and let's focus again. Okay. Stop talking for the agenda is caregiver. Do we. And I think we had an agreement last time. So I'm not. I mean, it's important to revisit this, but let's just hammer down. The current definition of caregiver one to one is inadequate. And we have consensus that that should be multiple as far as it is concerned medically. Yes. Okay. And Dr. Clifton, you agree with that as well? Yes. Okay. And then here's here's where we're taking a jump to it. But as far as as growers are concerned and whether or not we dedicate that to a separate subcommittee. Dr. Clifton, that's where you say, no, we should tackle that here and everyone else is saying that belongs with with cultivation and market licensing. I do think we have to make sure that we protect our least protected people. I mean, that's what we're here to do as a medical subcommittee. I think it would at least be reasonable to have some experts from, you know, patient centered programs and other parts of the country come to the Thursday meeting. And maybe present about how they work with, you know, with home grow and small growers and all of the definitions of all of those different people, how many plants and everything. Maybe they could give us a bit more advisement on how to put together a super successful patient centered program. I mean, is that reasonable? Does that seem like something that we could do? I would just say that I am okay. The committee is I am okay with allowing witnesses that we, that the advice subcommittee wants to hear from, attend remotely. It's really just when you open it up to the general public that we have concerns about whether or not we can staff. Sure. The flow of people in and out. But I would defer to the folks that are here on this subcommittee as to whether who they want to hear from and what they want to hear. Thank you, Jim. Hey, thoughts, comments. And then we can move on. And I'd like to bring one or two experts in to talk about patient centered programs that have been successful in other states. And try to see what they're doing as far as, you know, grower cultivator home grow to patient ratios, numbers of plants. Just try to learn a little bit more and maybe share that learning with everybody else. I think having one expert. Perhaps I'm just knowing that we are still limited in time and if we're going to have a representative from a dispensary on Thursday as well. Maybe limiting the patient representatives to just one. Okay. Meg, you know, if you don't mind me jumping in, I apologize. You know, one thing that I have committed to as the chair of this board is maintaining continuity of services to the patients. And to me, what would be very important, I think it was spoken about. Jim, I think you mentioned it in an early subcommittee meeting is trying our best to put together a list of the products that people are purchasing from the dispensaries. Because at a bare minimum, you know, I need to make sure that those products are still on the shelves and sufficient numbers for the patients when this transition happens. So it's just a point that I didn't want to lose before public comment. But that to me, it would be a very important document for this committee. And Jim, just so you know, we mentioned that last, I mean, that's what I'm referring to, the baseline of products. And that's why we are having the dispensary representative and Meg are working with them on that list. Yep. Thank you. All right. I appreciate you guys going down that rabbit hole with me. And then so let's see. Next, I think we're basically down to assigning tasks and public comment. Because we've covered all the other goodies. But let me, because I didn't want to put that. Jim and Meg, as far as that baseline is concerned, have you had additional conversations or information gathering to kind of advance that at all? Or are we going to kind of work through that with the dispensary representative? So we will submit that. The dispensaries are working on kind of a letter, just commitment as well as that baseline. And then we'll make sure to get that in before Thursday's meeting. Okay. And who will be there attending? I will need to reach out. I believe it will be Shane Lynn. Okay. All right. And since they will be allowed to attend virtually, I take it. Yes. Okay, great. And you can email us who you have for Thursday's meeting as well from the patient group. Okay. You bet. All right. And then we'll set the agenda based on those two presentations. Okay. Is there anything else we need to put on Thursday's agenda? I mean, if we can, I'd still like to work down our list before we start to assign the drafting tasks. Okay. I mean, we just go ahead. I was just going to say we have on the list homegrown possession and, and, and, and, and caregivers, which I, so I feel like we had pretty much gone through those with this conversation. And then the next thing we have is assigning tasks and public comment. So I don't think that, so I think we're good on the agenda. Well, what I will have Thursday's meeting, the oversight committee is meeting on Wednesday. And I'm hoping, you know, things go well. We will have a draft document that will be in the, you know, public comment period, either way, whether it's ready for that, I can, I'll share it before Thursday. This is going to be the recommendation that the oversight committee is giving to the CCB about the makeup and mechanism of future candidates for symptom relief oversight committee. Perfect. Are we ready? And for, I'm sorry, Tom. Go ahead. Are we ready for public comment then? I don't have anyone here in the room who's, who's here to give public comment today. All right. So then it looks like we're ready to adjourn. I'm ready. Motion to adjourn. All right. Thank you. Okay. See you Thursday.