allowed to do is look at the studies the FDA did these are the two studies the two US studies that they relied upon in order to remove the in person visit. They admitted that the studies do not themselves. This is ROA 834 that the studies themselves do not remove support removing in person, they acknowledged that removing in person would increase ER visits. The only other thing they looked at was the fair's data. But as we've discussed, an estate panel athlete laid out, it's an ostrich in the head asteroids in the sand head approach to say that we're going to eliminate reporting requirements, and then justify removing even more requirements based on the absence of data. So I think if you look at the 2021 decision, not only is there clear harm flowing from that decision, we've got an increase, essentially doubling of emergency room visits from the two studies that the FDA itself relied on. In addition, that decision is absolutely unsupported by the record. At a minimum, the FDA has to explain its decisions. Here, it relied on the three things as our brief laid out, none of those are are persuasive. The first eight is not persuasive. The reporting from Damco is not persuasive because it was based on the FERS data. And these two studies were not persuasive. If we're going to talk specifically about the 2016 procedure. And the 2016 major changes affirmatively harmed plaintiffs here in a number of ways to begin, there's no dispute that with each increasing week of gestation, there are more complications, again, to turn to the current medication guide. And this is in the record. And at table four of the current medication guide. There is a 5% increase from week seven to week 10. In incomplete abortions, there's nearly a 3% jump in surgical procedures, point three to 3.1. This definitively shows that the 2006 major changes, harm plaintiff doctors, as well as the patients they chose they treat, get them