 The reason for not having so many clinical trials is that basically we are not recognized as so-called experts in the world of hematology. Knowledge is not the problem. So being in contact with the literature on the subject every day practically, we're following what is coming out new and what are the recommendations, guidelines and everything. We simply don't have the means to implement everything that is in the guidelines. In this way, we are not very recognizable for publishing any kind of data because we mostly have clinical data. Also, the prices for publishing in the renowned journals and the ones that mean something in the world of hematology have very high prices for our standards of living. So we know what we need to do. We can publish what we are doing, but it is very expensive for us to do. And then in exchange for that fact, we're not being recognized as experts. So the international community doesn't really have any means to get in touch with us and to try to establish a clinical trial where we are included or where our patients are included. This is also due to the fact that we're lacking either very advanced technology or very new drugs for implementing in the clinical trials. I know that if we do have a clinical trial, we would have access to the drugs on accounts of the trial. But as I said before, we have to be in touch with the people who would like to perform the trial. So monitoring of the trial would be a problem for the organizer as well because the monitoring would have to be performed by monitors coming to our country. This is not a thing that is already under European legislation. So if monitoring should be done, then there would be someone from outside of our country who would come in here and do the monitoring of the data and the results and everything else. Also what we are lacking is a good department for biomedical statistics which is not developed here and this is something different than normal statistics. I mean survival curves and stuff like that are not a normal part of statisticians education. So this is somebody that needs to be educated in the sense of biomedical statistics. I know that the community does have doubts about the accuracy of the data that we provide meaning that as countries or as a region we have some kind of maybe a bad reputation about so to say fixing results to match to the aim of the study. This is a subjective view. Everything I have said until now is only my opinion. It doesn't necessarily need to be true but this is the view I have on why we are not including the clinical trials as much as we can be. We can provide a significant number of patients for inclusion in the trials but I don't say that only from one country but from the region as well. So we are trying to connect in a different manner as is the establishing of so-called Balkan experts groups. So far we have done that for myeloma which is a very prominent association on these in this region and it has been associated to experts which are readily recognized in the scientific world. So I think this way in this manner if we do Balkan coordination and getting large numbers of centers and patients we might probably pursue a breakthrough in acquiring some more than the present status of clinical trials. I do think that some of the reasons might be hidden in the difference in legislature regarding clinical trials because as you know we are not a member country of the EU we are a candidate for a very long time but the thing is we need to synchronize the legislature so that the patients could enter such clinical trials in not a very complicated procedure. So ethnic committee, ethical committee approvals would be normal and that is something we are even doing now but as far as concerns over patient rights or anything else that is included in the European legislature probably should or could be synchronized as we are advancing towards becoming a member country of the EU and I think that this affects the other countries in the surrounding as well.