No, I think it was really an economical decision of how much R&D do we want to put into this when we're already capturing huge percentage of the markets, and it's already shown to work. And I think you're right, iterations are great, but at the end of the day, if you want to have a giant leap in this sort of change in technology - or as we describe it, this Pirouette in technology - you kind of have to start with a blank slate, which is what we did, and to go back to that human centric design that you were referring to, we love that. That's what we focused on from the very beginning. And I mentioned earlier, we did that in two ways. So the two ways we did that were - the first was by performing patient surveys. So we literally tried to contact as many patients as possible, who rely on these devices, who have used all the various types of existing epinephrine auto injectors, and we basically performed 1000 of these where we developed a survey, we went out, we tried to get them completed, and we said, you know, what device do you use? What do you like about it? What don't you like about it? Obviously, it was a lot more questions than that. But that was essentially the the basis of what we were looking for, right? What are your issues with existing devices? And then can we take that information and build that into our design requirements? And then start with a clean slate and say, how do we solve this problem? Not how do we make a little bit better device than this one that exists already. So we did that, and then we also brought a advisor on board who's a Board Certified allergist, who prescribes these epinephrine auto injectors on a on a daily basis. He often spends a lot of time training patients on how to use the device. He works with children, trains them on how to use it trains their parents on how to use it. So he sees a lot of the pitfalls with existing devices - what did they do wrong with it. So we worked with him to conduct a small study where he was basically handing a trainer device of the existing technology to these patients saying, okay, go ahead and perform the injection. And then monitoring if this was a real device, would they would have done it right, or they would have done it wrong, or if they did it wrong, here's what would have went wrong. And so we found a lot of information that we really hadn't thought about I mentioned we were sort of really focused on this portability piece making the device smaller, but we built out so much more than that when we really talked to these patients and found out everything that they were really thinking about. I kind of alluded it alluded to this earlier, but really what we discovered was along that entire pipeline from procurement, to maintenance -and by maintenance I mean, bringing the device where you maintaining it wherever you go - and then actual administration of that of that injection, along that entire process, there was essentially this overarching, what we describe as fear and anxiety. So patients were worried about how they're going to pay for it, how they're going to procure it, they were worried about how do I bring this with me wherever I go, what happens if I come in contact with it with an allergen like a bee sting, and I don't have it, what are the options for me there, and then I'm super scared to use this device. That was where it really started to dawn on us that like, okay, you may have removed the health care provider, but you really haven't made this mainstream, so easy to use, that you've removed that anxiety and fear, and there still is quite a hurdle that these patients have to overcome, to go through the process of performing an injection. And even if they overcome that hurdle, we see problems that arise even at that stage. And so from that usability piece, we really focused on two injury mechanisms that can occur during that process. So one of them is an accidental injection, where the device is used upside down, and they can actually get a needle into their thumb, for example. We also call that the lost dose hazard, because you're not necessarily going to be causing much health risks - you do have a lot of vasoconstriction, because of the epinephrine drug that will happen in that location, and you do have to oftentimes treat that thumb or other finger or other digit that gets that injection - but at the end of the day, what the what the scary piece is there is if you're, let's say a dad, and you're injecting your child who just got stung by a bee and you swing this thing, and you've got your injection into your thumb - and we call that the last dose hazard, because now that child doesn't receive a dose, and they still are in a life threatening scenario. So that's very scary. And now you basically have two patients instead of one. The other injury mechanism we looked at was lacerations, which is where you basically have these tall skinny injection devices, and you try and perform an injection, it's very hard to control the position of that injection. So if I show you my pencil here, right, this is typically how you're holding a pen injector, right? And so you're basically making this motion, it's contacting the injection surface, and the needle is then going down into the tissue. But you can see where my hand is several inches away from the injection site, and you have very poor control over the actual needle. What happens is, oftentimes, that injection system can slide and you're dragging a needle through tissue causing a laceration. And what we often see is a V shaped laceration, where the first cut happens, and you try and correct for it, and you actually cut in the other direction. So it's very intimidating, very anxiety driving, very fear driving, and all of these things add up to where when we were looking at our study of patients that were just using trainer devices, in a calm, clinical setting 15% of these individuals refused to actually try and perform an injection out of fear and anxiety alone. And this is something we never thought we'd find.