Agreed. I thought about this before. Perhaps leronlimab was a victim of its own success having efficacy in both m/m and s/c. The FDA wanted to "save" the valuable and finite resource (leronlimab) where it was needed most and not "wasted" on folks that would probably get better on their own. The other MAB's, having failed their s/c indications, were (unfairly) rewarded with EUA for m/m.