 than I will, as for sure. Thanks. I'm happy to be here and learn more about the network even after the webinar beforehand. Actually, most of us have avoided talking about the first question, and I'm going to follow that line of not talking about it, although I may come back to it. But we talked about the second one, which is probably the only place I might have something to add to this conference. How do you recruit other people to do this? And I'm going to start with something that may sound provocative. And I don't mean to dismiss the many wonderful ideas that people have had here today, but I'm going to argue that this organization is an example of mission creep. We've heard about all sorts of different ways that this could go, and my argument's going to be that unless this organization focuses on understanding the genetic basis of these disorders and then dissecting the molecular mechanisms of it, it will fail as an organization. It's going to do a wonderful job of diagnosing individual patients, and that's a great thing. It may even promulgate some information about how to do that better among practitioners. That's a great thing. But what patients particularly want is something actionable, not just a diagnosis, but a treatment. We know that it's not going to always be true, but it should always be the goal, in my opinion. So to understand the mechanism with a long-term goal of creating a treatment or some really definable outcome or something actionable based on that diagnosis. So if that's going to be the goal, if this is at least partially accepted as a goal, then you've got to get more people working on this. And in fact, you've got to get people who probably aren't paying attention now. The ones who pay attention to what's going on in the UDN, but who are working all different other types of disease mechanisms, they're the ones you want because they're the really accomplished people they're already well-funded in their laboratories. They're going some direction on whether it's lysosomal storage disease or whatever it is, they're already headed that way. And they're not going to pay attention to some new finding about a mutation in a gene that might be relevant to their work. You're going to probably have to attract them better than is happening now. And I know that there are various mechanisms, supplements, but I have an example from one of my own scientists who's a very accomplished, very well-funded, knows a lot about glycosylation and intracellular trafficking and that. Well, one of our geneticists was collaborating with a clinical geneticist. They found a mutation. Just by chance, somebody said, well, you know, so-and-so used to work on that, right? Got interested in it. And it's a little side project in his lab now. He can't really apply for a supplement because his current R01 funding, his three of them are in different topics. They're not really relevant to this. Even though he has the background to do it, they're not germane to this. And I don't know if he's applied for an R21 or not, but I think the current mechanisms, I think, aren't widely enough known and may not actually be the right tools for attracting the people that you want to this. Donna, I talked to her today in a conference called, I have another example of a scientist, a friend of mine, who did apply for an R21, the first round of them, and the complication there was that he and his colleagues thought they were perfectly aligned with what the RFA said, but then the review came back and they thought that the reviewers weren't aligned with what the RFA said, right? And I gather that's been at least partially corrected now, but I think those are issues that need to be addressed if you're gonna try to enlarge the circle to get these mechanistic scientists who aren't as bought into this model as all of you. So my solution of how to do that is work on funding mechanisms to answer the question that somebody brought up earlier, what's in it for me? There better be something in it for them, some funding and some way to get in this game. And then I was also gonna task, Rachel was developing some kind of database communication system that will search current grant funding and go find those people you want. And right now I think it happens in an ad hoc mechanism as far as I can tell. Now I know somebody and give them a call. And finally, to standards of care, for the last one that David talked about, I think there are two answers to that. One is a pretty immediate one. For standard of care, as far as it goes, the diagnostic pathway, I think you already have a lot to add there and to make sure that that sort of information is communicated back to the current practitioners. By that I mean, for example, medical genesis who aren't in this network and who would be receptive to the information but just need to be kept up to date. And so we've heard earlier mechanisms about that and I think those were good ideas about expanding the education, communications mechanisms, advanced education mechanisms so they know. But for the long term of improving standard of care, I'm gonna, David and I were on the same conference call and we share the same views. I think it means understanding the mechanism disease at a detail level and one hopes, finding therapies now and then, maybe even with genome modification, but at least getting to that stage where there's gonna be something actionable based on this. And I think that should be the main goal over the next five years to define success for the UDN. I'd go and back to, again, I'm not trying to be confrontational here. We've heard a lot of interesting ideas about environmental exposure and epigenetics and so forth. This group's too small to study that. The patient court's too small. I mean, that's an epidemiology study basically, right? Unless you've got some surrogate marker in there and it might be RNA or something like that, I think it's a waste of time and effort to go after environmental influences in these disorders. I think the same is true of outcome studies. There's not enough patients here to get meaningful data on outcomes. There are enough patients to describe the natural history of a one-off disease and that will be important if we start doing these one-patient-type treatments. So I think the emphasis should be in those areas, defining that that you can with a patient at a time and focusing on mechanistic insights. Thanks.