Unknown Speaker 0:15
Well, hello. Hello, guys. You're listening to beauty bites with Dr Kay secrets of a plastic surgeon, and today I'm interviewing Madison Denny. She's from michaelsman and Robinson all the way in Houston. She is a powerhouse attorney, really like a high stakes trial lawyer, and she's trusted general counsel who really is operating at the junction of science, medicine, compliance and innovation, all of this, she's helping us in esthetics and health care and devices, kind of navigate all the legal and regulatory challenges that are coming up, and they're coming fast and furious. I think technology is changing at a rate that is way faster than regulatory is keeping up, and we're having to innovate, and maybe we are walking the line of the Wild West, but we're going to talk to Madison about all the kind of interesting regulatory dilemmas that we're seeing right now in esthetics, up to and including pdgf, platelet drive, growth factors, exosomes, polynucleotides, all kinds of stuff. Welcome to the podcast, Madison. Thank you. Dr Kay, thank you for having me. I'm excited to be here. I'd love to start with your story, and what kind of drew you first to the intersection of law and science and esthetics medicine? Sure. So out of law school, and actually during law school, I clerked for a law firm that specialized in healthcare litigation, meaning we handled lawsuits and trials on behalf of healthcare providers big and small. So the hospital corporations, the physician groups nationwide, practices and we did everything from slip and falls to what we refer to as baby cases. So brain damage baby cases, birth injury cases, high value, high stakes cases. So I started, I started my practice there got a ton of trial experience at that firm, and then I started taking in my own clients that that specifically were in the esthetic space. And so I was providing them outside General Counsel advice and also taking on lawsuits that they were hit with relevant to our space. So anything from injuries, from product liability as a result of laser injuries, to

Unknown Speaker 2:29
board actions that the med spas are, you know, open to. So then I went from that law firm, I built my own book of business, and I transitioned to michaelman and Robinson, which is a full service law firm, so we provide areas of expertise in most areas of the law, so corporate, transactional, kind of everything which gave me the ability to service my clients on a more broad spectrum. So I still do kind of generally the same in terms of trial work. I love to try cases. That's where I'm really happy. But I also love to be in a boardroom with my clients, giving general business advice and perspective from from the legal the legal realm and esthetics. So that's that's the long answer. I love it. And now I think you've come to the forefront of some of these discussions. I've been on a panel with you last year about exosomes and polynucleotides and like, what are the biggest pitfalls that practices are getting into and med spas in in esthetics right now? Like, what, where are we crossing the line, and where do we need to be careful? So I think in terms of crossing the line, providers are taking, maybe legal advice from friends and family and social media rather than trusted legal advisors. So one of the reasons I dove into the issue of pdgf, which will eventually talk about, is because I was attending conferences and speaking at conferences one of the only lawyers present, but hearing a lot of legal dialog and conversation, and it was a lot of very much speculative, very much confidently given, but maybe not by the right people. And so I wanted to figure out the answers and be somebody that could be trusted enough to give those answers, kind of on a wider scale, make people feel more comfortable about their practice, kind of introducing regenerative medicine into it, and how to navigate that. I think regenerative medicine in particular is the area where there is a lot of gray. And I think one big question people have is, What are you allowed to do? Can you explain the difference between off label and on label use of products, FDA approved products? Sure. And let me start by setting what I think is a really important foundation for this conversation, which is that the FDA regulates devices and products and drugs. They don't regulate the practice of medicine. And I say that because a lot of the conversation between providers is really rooted in the practice of medicine, and that's governor.

Unknown Speaker 5:00
By the standard of care and the board, right? So the FDA is really their their concern is making sure that manufacturers of devices and drugs are promoting them, that they are approved for both safety and efficacy, and that they are that they are put out into commercial use in the most safe, you know, regulated way possible. And that's just very different than the way that the providers use of those same things are are seen through the lens of standard of care and board. So back to the definitions and what we're concerned about with off label and on label use. So with both off label and on label use, the underlying drug or product has an FDA approval right now. That approval comes with what's called an indication. So basically, the reason why you're using it, and so if, for example, the indication is for, I don't know, soft tissue application or injection, that would be an on So, like a botox that would be an on label use if you were to inject it in the face, right? But then off label comes into question if you're using it like pre pre Botox approval, where it was expanded use to the face for esthetics purposes. It was first approved for, I believe it was an eye condition, right? And so that indication was expanded through clinical use when the clinical data showed that it was providing esthetic promise and data and results driven to an expanded use for for,

Unknown Speaker 6:31
for esthetic. So that's kind of how it evolved. And it's very typical to have an on label use kind of expanded through just kind of years of off label use and data derived from that?

Unknown Speaker 6:45
Yeah, I definitely agree, although I think a lot of people in esthetics are mentioning companies that are aware of product usage that's outside of normal realm of use, and like this definition of what's allowed in medicine and what creates creative powers can we use is kind of, I think, in a lot of ways, pushing limits, like, at what point do we need to ask industry to step up and do some testing to make sure that the manner in which people are using this product actually is safe?

Unknown Speaker 7:18
Yeah, no, I think that's fair. I think that pushing industry to do things the right way is absolutely fair. I think also, there's a reality where there may be an attempt to do things the right way that that industry can't always share right because it's either proprietary or strategic against competitors to make sure that it's done effectively and within the confines of the regulations. And so, you know, it is easy to say, let's, let's push the manufacturers and push industry to really guide us through and navigate these waters. But also, by the way, it costs millions of dollars and tons of data and lots of years. And so I think the best practice is to work together, right, and to do it in a productive way, and not kind of putting each other down in the process, but to build each other up. And there is a way to do that that I hope, that I hope today we can talk about and really shed light on, so that it's so that it's effective. There almost needs to be a task force to go to the FDA to ask them to evaluate these products differently and better, so it doesn't cost millions of dollars to even just do a pilot trial. You know? Yeah, I mean, I really feel like we're at that convergence point where the biotech has advanced so so fast, and we can't all do rare, rare disease indications for pushing through one drug at $5 million that's it's just gonna stop innovation in our industry,

Unknown Speaker 8:43
the interest. The other interesting thing is other countries have the power to use these products, and have been using these products like for last 10 years, safely and with published clinical studies. And it's interesting that none of that translates and comes over to the US market. I know I agree. And if you're an innovator of medicine and you believe in that, and you want to advocate for that, there is a forum for you. I mean, companies are always looking for opinion leaders that are interested in pushing forward innovation in a clinically sound way. And I mean, one of the examples I've been giving a lot recently is there is a way to leverage and utilize existing data, clinical data, that a lot of these providers on the pdgf issue, for example, have hundreds of patients that have already been treated with this drug. And you know, there's a reason why the FDA allows you to do like look back data and retroactive studies and chart review, because there is this acknowledgement that providers are using it safely and effectively in their treatment plans, and so you should be able to utilize that data and share it to you know, to the audience that deserves it, which is the FDA, so that we can move forward with innovation. And it's very important that some people that are out there that have platforms that are using the products actually take the.

Unknown Speaker 10:00
Time to do a clinical write up and even report, even if it's just a few case studies, each case we learn about is going to advance the cause and understanding of how to use it. What can we do in a practical sense, like, let's say I want to be cutting edge and I want to try use these FDA approved products in an off label manner? Are there some practicalities, like risk mitigation, insurance coverage or consent forms that I need to dive into

Unknown Speaker 10:27
answers here,

Unknown Speaker 10:29
I better.

Unknown Speaker 10:31
So I think you know, first of all, I would say, you know, if you are interested in regenerative medicine, I think first and foremost, you should have a trusted legal advisor that knows the space, especially if you want to delve into and explore new treatments that possibly aren't covered or approved by the FDA. So you're using treatments or products or prescribing drugs that are not approved at all. That's not off label use, as I explained earlier, that's unapproved use, which is still accessible to providers, but you just have to make sure you're doing it within the confines of the law. And so you know, obviously a trusted legal advisor to explain those nuances to you, and then a partner with your insurance company, whether that's a broker directly with the insurer themselves, to make sure that you are fully covered. I've heard rhetoric that that insurers are not covering pdgf, for example. And I know that to be false. I've seen policies that explicitly allow that. And I would say, if you you know, I think people lose sight of the fact that, as a provider getting men mal insurance and other types of insurance, you are the customer. You can dictate what broker you use, what insurance policy you buy, service, so make sure and utilize someone who can adapt the policy to your practice. Be honest with them. Be transparent with them, because if you're both, you know acting within the confines of what your your legal advisor tells you, and you're covered through insurance.

Unknown Speaker 11:57
And then lastly, you have buttoned up paperwork in terms of consent and, you know, full documentation, then you are much less at risk for, you know, the big, bad lawsuits coming your way. And I will just say that legal disputes, in my experience, having, you know, litigated them and created strategies to mitigate against them, they don't come from complications alone. They come from poor or completely obsolete documentation,

Unknown Speaker 12:24
and then obviously a deviation from the standard of care, which is set by a multitude of factors. Yeah, I think that's very accurate.

Unknown Speaker 12:33
If your insurance company shuts you down, your malpractice says, Oh no, we feel weird. We're not covering this, then are you just out of luck? Are you going to get a different malpractice company or so? I guess it depends on when they ditch you, right? So if you are facing a rejection of a claim, for example, then they won't cover costs associated with defending you in your case or before the board, which means you're out of pocket.

Unknown Speaker 12:55
In that instance, it's going to be really hard to find a insurer that will retroactively cover something because he wants to sign up for a known risk and a known issue. But obviously, you know that's why I think it's really important that you have a solid relationship with your broker and your insured to make sure that you're covered. Interesting. So would you suggest that practices should just have a list of like, I think I brought on 10 new products this year, whether it's exosome, polynucleotide, pdgf, area, essence, or other stuff. Should I just be sending a laundry list to my malpractice like, these are all the new products I bought on this year. I think, well, first I would make sure that you're and I'm planning to bring on this year. Yeah, no. Well, first, I would make sure that first and foremost, if you're worried about off label use, I would make sure that there's not a carve out in your policy that excludes coverage for off label.

Unknown Speaker 13:51
Honestly, in 2025 I think that you should be making sure that you have the ability, especially as a surgeon, to make that medical decision as you deem fit, as a reasonably prudent physician would. And so I would, I would definitely ensure you don't have a carve out for off label use. And then to the extent that you have a particular product that you want to use, treat, prescribe that is not FDA approved at all. Right, now I would be talking to your broker, your insurer, about giving getting that exclusion. I mean, not exclusion inclusion in your policy so that you're covered if an event were to arise as a result of whatever the treatment is. And again, don't be scared of the insurer this. This is not something that they're going to use against you, necessarily. It's a conversation you should feel free to have with someone you're paying money for a policy for Yeah, very true.

Unknown Speaker 14:43
Well, so medicine, in terms of informed consent, can, can a provider actually give an informed consent on a product that there is relatively new and that they don't know the track record of it, and they don't know, like the five year outcome, 10 year outcome on this product? So again.

Unknown Speaker 15:00
And I would say Transparency is key. The purpose of an informed consent is to inform the patient with what you know. And so if what you know is that you are providing them with a with a treatment or a drug or a product or a device that you believe is safe and effective for use for this particular patient, then what you can do is just also make them aware of the the known risks, which are that, you know it is not FDA approved, meaning it hasn't gone through the approval process, that there are certain complications that could arise, just like any informed consent. But also just know that while I do believe that informed consents are an asset, I will tell you dr Kay as a a, I would say, recovering med mal

Unknown Speaker 15:44
trial lawyer. Rarely did I have a case where there weren't informed consents, and rarely did I have a case where I won because there was an informed consent again, it's, it's one factor that goes into the analysis of of how the case shakes out and whether the standard of care was followed. It's not going to save the day, but it certainly helps in terms of the overall picture and mitigating risk.

Unknown Speaker 16:09
I think that that's true.

Unknown Speaker 16:12
And is it enough to be transparent to say, well, these, these are the logical reasons why this product should work and the scientific rationale of using it, and then these are my expected outcomes, but I can't promise you that outcome. Yeah, don't have a lot of data, but from the current small data that we do have, we think this is fair and safe to try and we would feel comfortable. Generally, informed consents are judged on one one time I had a jury, Judge informed consent, because, you know, there's no way they could have possibly been informed because the font was in size two font, and no one could have ever read what you presented to them, right? So it didn't even matter about the substance. It was really the reality of whether or not it could actually be read, or a patient could read it if they wanted to. I haven't had an issue where the informed consent didn't meet certain parameters and therefore was irrelevant to the case. Right? Generally speaking, as long as you are transparent and you identify the risks and complications, and you give the right informed consent for the treatment that you're doing that it's relevant for, it can serve as a tool and an asset.

Unknown Speaker 17:17
Well, recently, you published a piece in modern esthetic magazine, where I'm one of the executive editors, and it was a great piece all about the legal landscape surrounding pdgf or area since the platelet derived growth factor, what inspired you to tackle this topic? I brought this up a little bit earlier, but I wrote because I kept hearing non lawyers try to diagnose a very new, nuanced legal issue. And I watched as the audience, you know, was clearly very insecure in the answers that were provided, and that there was a takeaway from the conferences I went to where there were, there were, you know, large audiences, but still massive confusion about these issues. And I, you know, I just thought, What? What better person to take advantage of, what these confusion, whether where the confusion lies, and how I can try to help untangle this mess in a clear, kind of,

Unknown Speaker 18:14
very objective manner. And I think one thing that's been lost in all of this is, for example, my publication is, it's not opinion based. It is not an op ed. It is just very definition based. It is very factually oriented. It is not speak about a particular product. It just says, you know, these are the definitions for on label, off label. This is how you navigate through these legal processes and

Unknown Speaker 18:40
and I just wanted to clear up the misunderstanding over a lot of the terms being thrown around.

Unknown Speaker 18:45
So we've talked about a few different things. How do you think the bioregenerative products, like exosomes, peptides, polynucleotides? How does that differ from conventional injectables?

Unknown Speaker 18:59
So I think it differs, especially right now under the regulatory framework, because it, you know, obviously there's a huge light shed on the new regenerative medicine and the pathways to using it. I think it's an area that is innovating faster than the regulatory then regulation can actually keep up with. And so it's taking a lot longer to explain kind of the modalities and the sources for these products and the manufacturing process, and all of that is not aligned with the standard injectables that that for a long time just kind of stayed stagnant in terms of what was available to the market. And so it's just a new area. And I think with new comes, you know, fear and also education and trying to figure out how to introduce it in the market in a safe way, but to keep up with innovation is just a really hard task. Yeah, I think so, like people who want to bring peptides into their practice have.

Unknown Speaker 20:00
The added difficulty of like sourcing the products from legal and reliable manufacturer, compounding pharmacy like not I think patients listening should be wary of drugs labeled as research products, and they genuinely need to be only coming from compounding pharmacies that may manufacture things sterilely And with the proper ingredients that have been vetted. Because there have been actually people who've gone into kidney failure, liver failure, coma, respiratory failure, it's they are serious drugs. Yeah. And I think another difference

Unknown Speaker 20:37
that I think is is is known but maybe overlooked, is the fact that we're introducing this new area of medicine at a time where the spotlight is really on providers through the lens of the consumer, because they have access every day to social media to learn about what these products are and to also be fearful about what they could be. And there's just a lot of rhetoric out there that I think is maybe being misunderstood by both providers and consumers the like, and that wasn't true necessarily 10 or 15 years ago, right? With some of the injectables that we've known for a long time, they weren't on the stage that regenerative medicine is on right now, and it just makes it even harder to navigate.

Unknown Speaker 21:18
So All right, so I think if you could give every entrepreneur out there in esthetics a legal North Star to follow and keep in mind as they start doing things, what would that be?

Unknown Speaker 21:32
Just generally speaking, I think from a business perspective, to partner with

Unknown Speaker 21:39
with true experts in the field, whether that's through mentorship

Unknown Speaker 21:43
in clinical practice or mentorship in business practice. So trusted advisors both in I think that the initial inclination is to do it, you know, centered around clinical but center it around, you know, this being your business too. And so with that comes financial and legal risk. And I think it's just really important to find partners that understand partners that understand that and also sympathize with the business obstacles that you're facing that are unique to esthetics and different than other kind of segments and health care.

Unknown Speaker 22:13
Yeah, so maybe you find someone who's doing it right, who's been doing it for 20 years, then you kind of model your practice after that

Unknown Speaker 22:22
we were we were talking about peptides and the wild west of medicine out here in LA, I have crazy places that are influencers, like they work out at gyms where all the sports bros are shooting at peptides and hormones and and then they themselves just put an Instagram tag that they can get peptides for all of their girlfriends. And I was just like, horrified. I'm like, where is the medical board and all of this process, and who is protecting the patients, and do people even know what they're injecting? And yeah,

Unknown Speaker 22:54
feel the same way. I feel the same way with kind of legal advice and how it's being thrown around,

Unknown Speaker 23:00
and especially, like, there's a reason I told you I brought kind of this issue to light after going to these conferences, because it's the same, it's the same problem that I'm trying to solve for, which is that you have very sophisticated people that are taking advice and counsel from social media. And I think it's misguided and misunderstood.

Unknown Speaker 23:20
And, you know, I think it's a real threat to innovation as well, because, you know, the boards and the FDA, as proactive as they are, they also are very reactive. And so what do we want them reacting to the data and the studies and what we're submitting for approval or social media noise? So

Unknown Speaker 23:38
yeah, honestly, we need to be more vocal with like, putting out some scientific or clinical fact. So I think it's really important,

Unknown Speaker 23:48
one of the most what are some of the high stakes cases that you've been through recently that highlight practitioner risk?

Unknown Speaker 23:57
So from a practitioner risk perspective, I would say,

Unknown Speaker 24:02
I think that lasers have come a long way in terms of catching the eye of plaintiff's attorneys. And what do I mean by that? Well, you know, laser injuries for for most, in most instances, are minor, right, in comparison to other complications and other, you know, adverse events that arise from cosmetic and esthetic medicine. You know, it's not life threatening. They're not, you know, usually they're going to result in permanent disfigurement. That said, you know, the more cases that are being filed that plaintiff's attorneys can latch on to and get an understanding for who the experts are, in there on their side, and what the value of those cases are worth, the more you see popping up. And that's kind of true for everything Dr Kay in terms of trends for medical malpractice, and what issues I see coming up, is they take a little bit to gain traction, and when they do, it's easier to pick up plaintiffs along the way, which is also my fear for.

Unknown Speaker 25:00
Regenerative medicine is that a lot of this conversation and noise around it is only creating a playbook for plaintiff's attorneys and plaintiffs out there that maybe don't have a case, or don't have a worthwhile case, or it might be hard to prove a deviation of the standard of care, but man, certainly this noise is not helping, is not helping prevent that. You know, you're kind of setting the stage for them. Yeah, I would agree, but I do think practitioners have to be a little wary and careful, because people have, there have been arrests and jail time issued for treatments where I'm sure they thought they were doing the best interest for the patient, but it wasn't interpreted that way, according to the letter of the law. What, yeah, in a case would that be? Yeah, I think you've got to be really responsible. I think a lot of the concern coming from the legislation in the various state legislation trying to prevent,

Unknown Speaker 25:53
prevent some of the harm is really related to sourcing and not having an understanding of whether or not what product is being sourced is actually safe, or, you know, sourced responsibly. And that was where I think the early concern came from with the, you know, on the earlier side of exosomes and peptides and all of that was really, there's no way to regulate this because we don't know where it's coming from, whether it's, you know, coming from foreign places, or, you know, being prepared by a non professional compound pharmacist that is just maybe a person in their kitchen. So I think sourcing is really the underlying issue there. So pdgf, and this product is an FDA approved substance, and so it falls kind of into a different class than maybe exosomes as well as polynucleotides and peptides that are not FDA approved for use anywhere in the body. Is that right, right, right. So pdgf is unique to this conversation in regenerative medicine, and certainly around the regulatory framework, because currently there are four approved products by the FDA that have the component of pure pdgf. And the really important thing the distinction there too. And kind of what's unique to Ari essence would be that the founder and the inventor of that pure pdgf component is the same one for the other four that have been approved. And so this is a person who has had the clinical data has been through the rigorous, you know, approval studies, clinical data, FDA regulatory scheme to get those approved. And so with exosomes and peptides, for example, you know, they're still behind the mark in terms of having a component that's actually approved that they can track data with and clinical studies with. And so I think that does kind of make it a there's a distinction there. There's still unapproved use, but there's a distinction there that I think that separates it clinically, if that makes sense, from the safety and efficacy standpoint, if we're judging it on the FDA approval, yeah, I think that's a very important distinction, because pdgf has been through years of clinical testing and is safe, not only at the different sites where it was approved in the oromaxlofacial and alveolar bone and for diabetic ulcers and for joints and orthopedic use, but but the systemic result of using the products was tested and found to be safe systemically, which This is the gold standard of what safety is. So yes, we should probably have a little more studies in terms of, like, clinically, what dose and how to apply it, and how to, you know, optimize results. But also, I think there's a really significant amount of safety data that's available for it. So that's a product that, you know, I would feel very good about using in an off label manner. However, other things, like you said, the polynucleotides, it doesn't help me that 10 years they've been injecting it in Korea, because I'm still not allowed to inject it in the US. Is that right? Right? And yeah. I mean, unfortunately, the FDA does not hinge its decision making on what other countries are doing. Very American of us, but, but I do think in terms of medical malpractice and defending yourself, Dr Kay, I would say it is a factor that you could rely on to prove that you are well versed in understanding the science behind it. So it's not completely irrelevant when we talk about the use in other countries, but for purposes of getting it approved in the United States, it doesn't hinge on the use in another country, if that makes sense? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Unknown Speaker 29:25
And I see people advertising things like, come get your IV exosomes. Like very big companies here in LA

Unknown Speaker 29:32
are in this, you know, next, next health is one of them. And I'm just a little concerned, because when I see IV exosomes and it's usable for an investigational new drug designation study, but not consumer on the consumer menu. So, like, I'm kind of wondering, like, what's going on, right, right? And I think that it's fair to kind of be concerned about what's advertised and promoted, which is exactly why regulations.

Unknown Speaker 30:00
Exist kind of with an oversight principle to that. But I think it's fair to question whether or not that's appropriate, and I think it's also fair to do your own kind of due diligence for your own practice, and not assume that because it's being advertised or because it's being shared on social media is appropriate, that it would necessarily be appropriate for you. Every state's different. Every board has different sets of regulations, and so you just have to be very much aware. I mean, you're running a business, right? So you've got to be aware of what regulates that business and what doesn't. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right, but it just makes me worried for the whole industry. Like these exomes are a powerful tool. We want to be able to have that. We don't want some regulatory agencies shutting that down because somebody's advertising prematurely like, I think it's really important that they should go to a state where that kind of stuff is not going to be scrutinized as much as it is in Cal, yeah,

Unknown Speaker 30:51
right. And again, there's always a pathway to trying to figure out how to kind of participate. If innovating in that area is important to you and you feel passionate about it, there is definitely an avenue for you to pursue that and kind of be, be the one who sets, sets the standard of care with respect to Unity. What does it take to get an IND for a new drug designation? Is that a big, huge process, or can anyone who's scientifically interested try that? Well, it is a financial investment, so you have to be able to to pay for it, but it's not a total barrier of entry in terms of the financial component. Oftentimes, manufacturers or the drug companies themselves will help sponsor them privately and help you kind of pay for it as a physician. And so there are those options, but certainly I think, I think the cost prohibitive nature of it is probably what ends up keeping people out of it. And that's a shame, because I think again, the more dialog you have with the drug companies, more interest you show in advocating for the medicine, the better off you are in terms of cooperating and setting up the field for success. Yeah, I totally agree. I think you've brought up so many really great points. How can people find you if they want to reach out and do a legal consult or do a deep dive into how their office is set up and like, what are the parameters they need to adjust? Sure, so my firm, michaelman and Robinson, I'm online. You can search me. Madison Deanie with michaelman and Robinson, or you can email me. That's always appropriate. It's in Deanie at michaelman, I'm sorry at Mr. Llp.com,

Unknown Speaker 32:31
and show notes too. We'll put that in the show notes. Deanie is d i, n, i, it is okay, good. And if there was one thing you would be doing outside of practicing law? What would that be?

Unknown Speaker 32:45
Gosh, it's so hard. I'm a mom of three very little kids, so really, my time is completely taken by either the practice of law or my three kids and helping them grow up and just being there for them. I love that. Well, kids are and that's the most important thing we do in our lives, and then, but then it's great that you have your career, because then they grow up, and then you get to innovate and reinvent yourself again. Well, guys, that's it for now. Don't forget to find me. My Instagram is Beauty by Dr Kay, D, R, K, a y, doing amazing things with people's faces and doing all those next level bioregenerative treatments. So I'm trying to learn the law and stay within the guidelines of what's good and true and right for our patients, and we have to have resources like the brilliant Madison Denny, who's going to teach us the path. So I hope you learned a lot. That's it for now. Guys, stay beautiful. You.

Unknown Speaker 33:40
You.