because with als biomarkers are very different from other diseases where if i have the flu i'm going to take medicine and then i won't have the flu anymore and i can see that my headache's gone away my fever's gone away i don't have a runny nose my stomach doesn't hurt anymore whereas with als you're tracking people not getting worse, right? So are you with biomarkers looking at things getting better or at things not getting worse? And you have to look at where in the timeline that is.

Yeah.

So, I mean, biomarkers have lots of potential functions.

And so it was really important to understand how you're using that biomarker, you know, in the context of use.

Um, and so you mentioned a few different sort of things in your last statement.

So in, With biomarkers right now in ALS, yes, we're looking at, can we demonstrate whether or not we're slowing disease progression? To your point you just made, these are the biologic underpinnings.

It's not something that you can easily sense outwardly.

So when you look at what worked for that and it doesn't work so much for another group of people with ALS, whether it's a different mutation or sporadic, does that help tell you something about that other group? So if this works for here and it doesn't work for here, does it kind of give you an indication of Why or even give you new questions to ask?