 Why would the company get away with charging so much more, so suddenly? Because it has no real competition, other epinephrine pens were rejected by the FDA. Competitors who want to come out with a similar type product have to invest money with this huge amount of uncertainty, A, whether they're going to pass FDA inspection, and B, whether they're going to potentially infringe on my lens patent. So there's this double whammy of having to overcome the FDA and the patent system, and I would call that cronyism. I would call that government deciding who wins and loses in an industry. And it's an invitation for sleazy dealings, for the company to instead of focusing on making a superior product, to focus on making friends in Washington. And we'll never know what happened with the EpiPen, why the competitors were pushed out, but it's interesting that the CEO of the company who paid herself $19 million is the daughter of a U.S. senator. Well, it is interesting, but this isn't a moment where you have both Trump people and Sanders people starting to come together on these kind of arrangements, and there's a lot of anti-FDA sentiment out there on both the left and the right, I would say that. But nobody wants to get rid of the FDA, they're just saying let more competition happen? John, I want to get rid of the FDA. Well, I want to get rid of it tomorrow. But none of these politicians are willing to go that far, are they? No, people want regulation, but they don't want cronyism, and those two things go hand in hand. We have to understand that as one grows, the other grows. And to be clear to the audience, when we're saying let's get rid of the FDA, we're not saying let all kinds of crooks poison you. We're saying market mechanisms would do it better, like underwriters' laboratory or consumer reports. Private testing groups would appear, and I wouldn't take a pill unless it's got approval from one of those organizations. Absolutely. The marketplace is the real regulator, including what should have been allowed to happen with the banks in 2008, the bankruptcy and liquidation process. Let them go bankrupt, and then the banks that made smart loans would do well, and the idiots who got bailed out wouldn't be even bigger today. Well, that's the difference between free market capitalism and state capitalism. With state capitalism, there's upsides for the parties involved, but no downsides. In real capitalism, there's both. Well, let's root for that. Thank you, Jeff Dice.