What's, What do you see the differences are, other than the fact that there's not two countries with political interests that are fighting each

other? Yeah, I think going to the military environment, I think, you know, for the breadth of kind of military history, there's been this concept of treating your colleague who's been injured at the point of injury really because you're probably still taking fire.

So this concept of tactical combat casualty care really evolved in the global war on terror.

It really got finessed.

But the prospect of providing care while under fire to an injured colleague who's a soldier fighting alongside you is now pretty routine in terms of training for soldiers across militaries in different countries.

And that's really where you'll see that soldiers are carrying tourniquets on their uniforms.

They have the ability to apply it to themselves or to their buddy who's injured.

It's like cardiac arrest, septic shock kind of literature where even the majority of that literature is now saying, look, 80 is better than 65 110 is better than than 80 um for systolic blood pressures and maps were uh actually i think those were the map number 65 80 100 and then the systolics were uh were another whole thing and uh the point being is that you know there's a there's a depth and there's a dose of shock that the patient can withstand right and there's there's depth and duration that we have to worry about so It comes back to the tactical situation of, okay, can I move this patient sooner? Am I going to be able to move them sooner? Where are they going to go? Am I just getting them out of this zone to the next zone of care? Are these the kind of considerations that you guys are trying to work through with this?