Awesome. We're looking forward to that as well. It'll be my first time attending an investor conference in Vegas, but thanks for your questions. So let's talk about the Real World Registry first. I'll tackle them, and then I'll ask Tim if he has anything that he would add. Your first question was whether it's a similar patient population to Revitalize-1. And I'll say that it is a similar patient population, but it's a larger cohort of individuals than that. In Europe, our CE Mark covers patients who are inadequately controlled with Type 2 diabetes, who are failing at least one glucose lowering agent that affords us an opportunity to have an ability to treat people across the spectrum of medical therapies. And there are roughly 20% of patients with Type 2 diabetes who are on insulin. There's a little bit more than that who are on insulin who have entered the Revitalize-1 study. I don't have an exact number for you on how many of them are on insulin. And what is interesting about this is that we thought naturally that people with more advanced disease would be more interested in undergoing Revita. And as it turns out, there is interest that seems to be very broad based. People who are on one or two medicines seem just as interested in Revita as people who are on multiple medicines. And we might be inclined to think that this is like people are driven to choose a procedural therapy when they have exhausted all other medical -- all other medical options, but as it turns out, many people are wanting to try something that addresses a root cause even before progressing to what might be considered advanced therapies that are already in the guidelines. So that is an interesting learning for the market and speaks to the potential direction that Revita might go in Type 2 diabetes as it progresses in its development over time. You also asked about, how whether it might translate to the Revitalize-1 patient population in the results that we might expect to see. I think that our observation has always been that the hemoglobin A1c lowering, which is the primary endpoint in Revitalize-1 tracks with patients baseline hemoglobin A1c in our prior studies and in Revitalize-1 and does not seem to depend on their background medical therapy. And so in that regard, I do think that this provides good complementary evidence to Revitalize-1. We're optimistic about sharing data from both the registry as that matures plus Revitalize-1 with physicians, with patients and with payers as we think about a global launch in a couple of years. Your next question about the Real World Registry was about three and six months follow-up. Yes, we have provided that. You can see that there's sustained improvements in blood sugar and in weight, and that is observed -- we observe it within one month, and it seems sustained by three and six months so far. As we have said before, we're going to continue to give registry updates as the data set mature, and you can expect to hear more from us on that Registry data set in Q3 and Q4 as the year progresses. Whether that will translate to well, I think that it is very reasonable to expect that, HbA1c and weight results in the Registry would translate. I think Type 2 diabetes in Germany has a lot of the same features as Type 2 diabetes in the United States. One of the things that we are very keen to understand, as I'm sure you are too is like what is the durability of a Revita treatment? Will retreatment be appropriate and necessary? And what will that frequency be? And we're excited about the Registry to help us answer those questions as we have more patients with longer-term follow-up. Now moving to your third question on Rejuva, the obesity candidate and its similarities versus differences for Type 2 diabetes. What we have stated before is that, the RJVA-001 candidate for Type 2 diabetes has the human insulin promoter driving the human GLP-1 sequence. The human GLP-1 peptide has a very short half life in the circulation, and its actions on blood sugar are local within the pancreatic islet, as has been well described by a bunch of folks. So there's an opportunity to nominate a candidate for Type 2 diabetes that has high local activity and limited systemic bioavailability in order to be able to improve blood sugar, and, we're excited about data that we presented earlier this year that showed that a short half-life GLP-1 candidate can lower blood sugar in the db/db mouse model very impressively and that's led us to our Type 2 diabetes candidate. We anticipate that an obesity candidate would want to get serum levels that are higher than what would be required for a type 2 diabetes candidate. And so we will be looking to nominate a candidate that's optimized for weight loss in the RJVA-002. We anticipate continuing to leverage the platform capabilities and learnings from Rejuva-1 in the sense that we will be delivering, we anticipate delivering it in the same way, we anticipate using the same type of viral vectors to deliver them, the same plasmid backbones that would be applied to one would apply to the other, but the transgene sequences themselves may enable more optionality. We're also keenly interested as we think about the evolution of this platform, not a question that you asked, but we're keenly interested in multiple concurrent mechanisms of metabolic impact, such as the use of GIP and GLP-1 agonism together or other combinations that you can readily imagine in order to achieve differentiated therapeutic impact either in terms of efficacy or in terms of safety profiles. And that will be a lot of opportunity for exploration as we advance the program. Thanks very much for your question.