 This time so we have to talk a little bit about discovery or development. Here's the good news about development and plus I hope you don't overreact. From a research scientist perspective, right, from a discovery scientist perspective development is a highly regimented and relatively prescribed process. It's well regulated by the FDA and so there are specific hurdles and specific groups and they're arranged in a specific pattern and you have to do. Okay, you either make it or you don't. It's that simple. Okay, regardless of the type of drug the steps and processes are nearly identical and they're basically broken into four types of questions. First, toxicity testing. Is the drug toxic in non-humans? Can't test it in humans. I have to show you that it's not toxic in non-humans and the FDA requires two species. We have some other rules. One of them may be a rodent, the other one cannot be a rodent and so there's some rules about what you can and can't do but you need two species. It would be a really good idea if those were species that are well understood to the tox community like rats and rabbits and dogs. It's not a good idea to do the testing in a species like a very rare animal where toxicology is not understood like a ferret. Okay, that's not, it's allowed by the FDA but it's not going to be accepted by the community. Phase one, the first time, I know you've been at this for five to seven years. First time you get to put your drug in a human. The only question you're asking in phase one, how do humans metabolize the drug? Is it different than what I've been studying for ten years and rats and rabbits and dogs? Where is it the same? What are the form of poconetics? How long does it hang around? How long will it be there when I give a dose? Okay, phase two, what dose of the drug is likely to be effective? And then the last, phase three. By the time you're at phase three, it is all downhill. Eighty percent of the drugs that make it through phase two make it into market. Okay, phase three, there should be, and this is a rule of thumb guys, if you ever see it just point fingers and laugh, there should be no failures in phase three. Okay, if anything fails in phase three, you're allowed to point and laugh because everything should be locked down by them. It's because people make bad choices or push through bad data. There should be no failures in phase three. And that question is, is that new drug more effective than the existing therapies? Am I going to actually make headway in treating that last five percent of the patients who have heart attack?