but it had two in it.

Yeah.

Again, I go back to the, my original notion, which is that we're trying to find small differences, but these differences cannot matter.

It cannot.

If you need 35,000 patients and you still can't find a difference that's not different, it's not a strong chance that there's a real difference.

It's a very minimal chance that there's a, there's a, it's essentially no chance that there's a difference that matters.

And in addition, what about the flip side? Stop talking about the benefit without talking about the harm.

There we go.

Amazing.

And I don't really want to get into the article itself quite yet, but I want to back up a little bit and be a little bit contrarian about a few things.

So first of all, a few years ago, I helped the brilliant young ER critical care doctor, Sarah Krager, wrote an article about ultrasound, ultrasound making decisions about shock.

And I think the title of the article was something like, but it makes physiologic sense.

So when I heard you talk about the physiology, not only did my brain cloud over, as I usually try to make it do when I hear such things,

But it reminded me that it's

really important to think about clinical outcomes, not surrogate outcomes.

So what do we do with all this then? What does this mean? How do we take specifically this study and take anything from it?