Well, I hope that you're all hearing me at this stage. I can see that we have a lag in time, but I'm certainly hopeful that I'm going to be able to give you a presentation that will excite and interest you. With that regard, I'd like to start. In regard to Opthea, what I'd like to bring to your attention is that, first of all, we are reimagining and we're executing on a very powerful capability that has resided within Opthea for some years. We are now unlocking the work of many years on VEGF biology. I'll talk a little bit more about that. I'm very grateful for those of you who have come to listen to this. I believe that you'll learn something. We will show you where we are, and in that, we'll also show you what our plans for the future are. They're very exciting plans, actually. This represents an opportunity for us to take the work that's been done in Australia, the invention of something very special, and to deliver a product that's of great consequence, we hope, to patients around the world. As I do this, we are a public company, and I'd like you please to take note of this disclaimer. I'm obliged to provide this to you, but I take it very seriously as I do every part of this company. As we talk today, please consider the questions you'd like to ask. I may be limited in what I can tell you, but that will only be because I'm guided by what I can tell the public based on the disclaimer here. What we'll try and walk you through is a very clear picture which we first started telling everybody before we were relisted. That was how we were going to rebuild Opthea. I want to walk you through why we believe we have a very strong, actually compelling, scientific and commercial rationale for doing so. I'll walk you through our very, very rigorous and stage-gated clinical and operational plan. We want to point to something brand new that's in Opthea, which is the remarkable and new scientific leadership that we've brought together. Who have been brought together because they know what we're doing and respect the area and our approach. Lastly, I'm joined by my colleague, Hamish George, our CFO. He will walk you through some of the financials. We'll go into the Q&A. Thank you, Ryan. We'll now go into the substance of this presentation. First of all, in rebuilding Opthea, this was a really thoughtful process. We took a little time. I know some of you may have been frustrated, I'm glad for those of you who've bought the stock now that we're re-trading, that we will be able to deliver you high value. Our endeavor to do so is going to be focused around a rare disease company, which is built on the great strength that this company has developed in the area called VEGFR-3 biology. That's an area of a receptor, which we'll talk about in a moment, but its core capability is it is where we're focused is about how it affects the structure and function of the lymph system in the body. Now, the good news for us, and it's very good news, is that because of all the work in the past, we have a very, very substantial amount of materials from the OPT-302. We have a biologic with extensive prior human data. We have a understanding of it such that it allows us to now think about how can we transition it away from where it was and move it into pulmonary and lymphatic diseases. In doing so, we keep the same target. It's just that we're looking at a different organ now where we believe that there's very strong rationale for our molecule to work effectively. In addition to that, we've decided on a strategy which is rare disease, and I want to walk you through what that means in a moment. Rare disease companies have a very specific advantage over those that are looking at mass market. We took the step that we clearly were going to take, which was reinstatement and operational rebuilding, and that's underway. What we have now is a rare disease company, which is focused around how we apply the unique properties of OPT-302. There's a very substantial market opportunity, clear biological relevance, and in addition to that, something that we think is a need of great substance. We didn't do this in a vacuum. Not at all. We did this with a very thorough review of what we had in our company. We took apart everything we could, and we reviewed OPT-302. This taught us a lot. It wasn't a trivial analysis. It took a lot of time, and it confirmed some very key elements. Number one, we had a very high-quality clinical manufacturing and development package. Very high quality. The investment was substantial, and it showed the results. In addition, we have a great and significant safety and CMC and data integrity capability. In that, we did not find anything that concerned us. Now, disappointingly to me and to all of you who had invested in Opthea previously, the wet AMD outcome appears to be driven not by the biology of this particular system, but by unexpectedly strong control arm performance rather than anything related to the development, failure, or otherwise. That means the VEGF-C and VEGF-D biology retains the extraordinary importance that it has. In addition, there's been a substantial amount of information developed over the last 10 years since the company started in this area that allows us to feel confident that VEGFR-3 is a very important primary drive of a pathology of an area that we think we can now approach. The bottom line is we're going to be very, very thoughtful about this. The company's strategy is going to be very disciplined as to how we use our capital. We're going to look at disease opportunity, which I'll walk through in a moment, which we believe has a very substantial and near-term ability to show results with the assets that we have. In that regard, we have chosen to pick a disorder, which the acronym is LAM. This we're now going to talk about. Lymphangioleiomyomatosis, which is quite a long word, and is the acronym L-A-M or LAM gives us very, very clear opportunity and to deliver a focused path and a very rapid focused path to a clinical proof of concept. Does our molecule affect this disease? We're high confidence on that, and I'd like to share that confidence. First of all, LAM is a mechanism-driven indication. That means we know what the underlying mechanisms are that drive it, and that's what I meant when I said it had been unpacked over the last 10 years. Lots of publications, all of which were not present early on in the life cycle of this company and certainly of this molecule. Now we have a great basis to work on. It's a very, very clear rare disease population with a significant unmet need, and there is to help us in formulating how we deal with this. There's a defined network of organizations and patient clinics that's a network that we can approach when we want to recruit patients, which means we can do this rapidly. More importantly, the whole world of looking at patients has provided us now with new biomarkers and imaging endpoints, which allow us to have confidence that we'll be able to detect how this molecule works in this disease very rapidly. The key question for us was, you got to get it into the right place. The right place here is the lung, and in a moment, I'm going to walk you through why and you'll see it. It's very important that you get this drug into the lung where the major pathology exists. To do that, we wanted to do it in a very capital-efficient fashion, and we've developed a very clear strategy for doing that. I'd like to show you that because it represents a disciplined business approach to an incredibly important scientific and exciting scientific opportunity, but guided by firm business principles. Our view at the end of the day is by doing this, we will be able to rapidly deliver for our shareholders a biological validation of whether or not we do have something that is of great consequence, and we hope that we certainly do. Let me walk you through LAM. LAM is a progressive disease. Unfortunately, it is a disease which afflicts many women at the age of 35. Early on, it was considered to be quite rare, actually significantly so. There are about three to eight per million women. Now we're finding something different. In fact, we're seeing new publications which are coming out and showing that actually there are perhaps as many as nearly eight times that many patients. That's very significant. What happens in these patients is that effectively, cells migrate into the lymph system of the lung, and the lymphatic system begins to break down. The driver of this is the VEGF-C and VEGF-D biology that I mentioned. That system is intrinsic to the disease. The real question is, can you control it? Existing therapies, which is only really one, were developed some years ago and are very unsatisfactory. These include things like sirolimus. They were originally designed for some for cancers and some for autoimmune diseases. Thankfully and unfortunately, they do have an effect, thankfully. Unfortunately, some people cannot tolerate them, and in addition to which, they don't reduce the disease burden in many patients, and they are definitely not curative. The good news is that while these patients now have a therapeutic, they also have now a very defined clinical network. This has been because of that early therapeutic that was developed. Patients are now going to clinics. That means that we know where they are, who they are, how to get to them, and they're a very integrated and very educated group. This means that we'll be able to recruit well, it means that we'll be able to affect them, and frankly, we think that we have a real opportunity of great significance here. At the end of the day, what we mean is we'll have focus studies, we'll have biomarkers that will be able to detect what we're doing, and we believe that of the centers, we'll be able to recruit what we need, roughly 70 specialist centers globally. We won't need anything like that. We'll be focused much more on a small subset here in Australia and perhaps in America. We know that at the end of the day, we're going to be able to address the estimated global population of somewhere on the low end of somewhere around about 15,000- 30,000 patients. Remember, as you think about this, if we're able to do this, women whose lungs are affected, who previously would've had a problem, may not be stabilized, their only alternative is lung transplant. That's not a very good outcome for a patient with this disorder. We want to be able to not only stop the disease, but to reverse possibly the damage that's been done if we're able to do that. Why do we believe that we can do this? As I said to you, the science of this has significantly progressed over the years. If you think about these receptors as a lock and key, they're a system called VEGF, the VEGF receptors. They help the cells grow, and in particular, VEGFR-3 is responsible for the growth and guidance of the growth of the lymphatic system in the body. They rely on a normal functioning VEGFR-3, and it's on the surface of the lymphatic cells, and when they get a signal, they tell the cell to grow normally. However, when you have VEGF-C or VEGF-D, what they do is they basically cause a problem. They can bind to this receptor. They can change it. You can see it in this diagram here. What they do is they give a strong signal to it and tell the lymph system to expand and remodel, and in that regard, these lymph systems then start to get abnormally dilated. They start to leak, and fluid leaks out of the lungs. The lungs start to get destroyed, and that's a problem as you can imagine. What the bottom line is here is that if you had an agent that could trap the VEGF-C and VEGF-D, which we know we can do with OPT-302, which is terrific. Before they can get to activating the VEGFR-3, we would dampen that whole system and stabilize and hopefully slow and might even reverse elements of this disease. The bottom line is we're confident based on new science that we have the right agent to deal with the real mechanism of this disorder. The next question is, okay, how do we do this? Where do we go with this? What is our next focus? It's very straightforward. You can't do this with an undisciplined fashion. We are very disciplined in what we've done. We have built a very capital-efficient company. Our goal here is to unlock value for patients and shareholders, and we know exactly what we're doing here. What are the elements that we have to consider here? Number one, we have an advantage. We have a clinical-stage molecule with a historical investment of substantial amount, so we have deep knowledge of this molecule. Something else. That knowledge is not just real knowledge. It's the kind of knowledge that you can include in FDA filings. It's the kind of knowledge that we would build on if we wanted to think about how we might explore other, not just FDA, EMEA, Australian regulatory authorities. There's something else. Normally, when you have a biologic, you have to manufacture it. We don't. We spent nearly $120 million in building this biologic and making enough of it for the last clinical trials. That means that that is a tremendous advantage. It's already been invested, we have it stored, it's active, and it's appropriate to be used in all our clinical trials. For the foreseeable future, we're not spending money on manufacturing. We will have to do that several years from now, but not now. The third item we had to think about was, okay, we had a large company with a large number of employees. We streamlined that completely, and we work now with a very streamlined organization. We do this with as much outsourcing as we can, and it's a model which works very well. Others have done this. We're not inventing something new. We've just reduced the burn of overhead very substantially, both at the board level and within the company itself. We will take advantage of the R&D tax incentives. We have that ability. Oops, my apologies. Even though that that is likely to undergo some questioning. Hamish might be able to answer any questions on that later on. Our program will have showed whether or not it works well before we even get to the possibility of it being taken away in Australia. I'm very keen to take advantage of that, and I think we should salute Australia for putting that in place. It's an immensely important asset. Lastly, I think a couple things that you should be thinking about. Rare disease is very focused. It means that you have a very clearly designed program, its defined endpoints, and you get the opportunity to talk with the regulatory authorities in a very clear and simple fashion. It also means you have very clear stop-and-go criteria. At the end of the day, we've built all of this into a very disciplined value creation engine, which is focused on execution and very measured risk-taking. Where are we? We actually started on this, as we said to you, in last year, and at the end of last year, we made some commitments. We've kept them, and in addition to which, all of our preclinical progress is right on track. With regard to some of the items, you know obviously, there was a restatement on the ASX, effective 3rd of June. We will hold a general meeting, which is on the 3rd of July, to consider a resolution to change the name of the company from Opthea to Ceryvyn. This reflects the change that we think is important. This is not an ophthalmology company, and Ceryvyn is the name that we feel best reflects what we're doing, a rare disease company focused on disorder, which is an eye need. We've built an extraordinary capability in our engagement with rare disease specialists around the world. This has been something which has been quite difficult to do, but it's because these patients have never seen a new therapeutic for one year, and therefore, they were quite surprised to begin with. Now they're delighted, and they're engaging with us every day. It's a real pleasure to see that. In reflection of that, we have the world's leading expert now on our scientific advisory board, and I'll introduce them to you in a moment. We're not cash-rich, but we're not cash poor. We have substantial cash in the bank. Certainly, Hamish will go through this, but we have the cash that we need for this program. We're not raising capital. In addition to which, it's important to know there's some questions at some stage. As you know, Opthea in the past had debt. We have no debt. There is no debt in this company. This is a cash company with great asset, a tremendously good financial situation, considering where we could have been and where we will need to be, and we have all the elements that we need in our operating plan to execute. What have we done in our operating plan? I mentioned to you that we have certain operational steps. We call these gates. These gates basically say, if you do not pass the criteria for passing that gate, the program ends. There are three of them, and I'll walk a little bit further down them in a moment. Just to say, right now, we're right on track approaching Gate 1. This is the preclinical biology and inhalation capability of our new drug in large animals. This is going to be very exciting, but we're confident that we're making the right progress. We have excellent tox package. We're on track for developing our nebulized format, and we have substantially the right parties contracted for all our preclinical and nonclinical development plan. More excitingly, we have been able to file, because we are really the first in this field, a very substantial intellectual property capability, and that intellectual property will serve us very well into the future. Let me go a little bit further into the three-stage gates. I said to you that today we're approaching Gate 1. Gate 1 is the trigger for moving into humans, where we will then start looking at the pharmacodynamic and tolerability studies. We'll make certain that we have safety and tolerability, and we'll look for a biological signal. Stage 2 is really that will be the end of that. We will know we have that. If we do not have that, we will not progress. Once we have that, we'll start to work towards how it functions in the lung, the lymphatic outcomes, and the mechanistic validation. I think it's terribly important that you focus on this one item. We are funded through all of this. At the end of 18 months, we will have demonstrated that we have a molecule that has an effect on a LAM patient, and that LAM patient, therefore, we can consider what a final stage would be to get this turned into a medicine in a clinical development program. That clinical development program effectively overlays these gates. Each of these gates is a financial and decision operating moment. Where we are right now is in the preclinical stages. Once we pass through gate one, we will launch into a phase I-B/II-A, in the classical terminology, which will terminate in 18 months. We will know within 18 months whether or not we have a blockbuster drug or something that is okay, or something that doesn't work. If we have what we believe we are seeing to date, then we will have something very substantial. What might the I-B/II-A look like? I think that's very important for us to begin to discuss this. We've had a very substantial discussion, we're not yet finished. The important fact about the clinical trial that we're contemplating is that the results will come soon. In other words, the way we're looking at this, our objective in the broadest term is to say, "Okay, does OPT-302 add biological and clinical benefit to LAM patients?" Critical thing, that's the obvious. As we walk through the primary focuses, the official ones, the ones that we will be paying most attention to, safety and tolerability. Clearly, nobody's ever done this before. The nebulized product going into the lung where the problem is, delivering what we think is an incredibly exciting and very important new therapeutic. We'll look at the pharmacokinetics. We'll look at does it cause any immunogenicity. We want to be sure of that it doesn't. We want to know, do we have the targets that we want to engage? Key to this is not dragging this out. We want a therapeutic that you can see a result rapidly. We believe if this is going to be functioning, that we will likely, not certainly, likely see some indication that it's working at three months, and then at six months we'll confirm that. Our goal in this trial is to have a three-month look. That's three months, well before the 18 months is finished, and then six months later or three months after that to see has that progressed. What we'll be doing there is using some really interesting and quite important technologies that have developed over the last 10 years to look at the human lung and to ask the question, what is going on in the human lung when you give it a particular drug? We're not the pioneers in this. People like Vertex have used it in other rare diseases like cystic fibrosis. People use the technology, it's called hyperpolarized xenon MRI. It really gives you three significant measures. It basically tells you what's the structure of the lung, it tells you how gas is passing over it, and it gives you a sense of the pathology that's within the lung in one flash. It's a couple breaths. It's good technology. It's been seen and it's been validated in many different disorders at this stage, chronic obstructive airways disease being one, asthma in others, CF in others, very important. The older measures we'll also use, because I think it's important to at least have a baseline, that's FEV1, that's the forced expiratory volume. Traditional, not as good with this disorder because it requires you to expel your air, and that's difficult for some of these patients, and it can be quite variable. Unlike xenon MRI, it's not as objective. We want an objective measure plus the old measure, and then we'll use others like DLCO. We'll use a walk distance, oxygen desaturation, and we'll obviously be looking at serum biomarkers. At the end of the day, we also, because we're breaking ground here in a whole new way of treating these patients, we're going to have some exploratory measures. We'd like to learn. What else might we do? We'll be looking at quantitative CT. That's how big are the lesions themselves. That's different from MRI. We'll have some other quality of life measures. As I mentioned to you, sometimes when you have this disorder, you get fluid collecting outside of the lung, and that causes you to breathe poorly. We'll be looking at poor breathing, and we'll also be looking at pneumothorax, because sometimes the damage in the lung is such that they burst, and that's a real problem. A lot of different things, and we'll learn a lot from that. The reason why we'll do this is that that will allow us to get a very good measure in the future. Now, who will be looking at all this data? The data will be looked at by our scientific and operational leadership, which is now really deeply ingrained in this area. Let me introduce you to a couple of them. Frank McCormack is actually regarded as the father of this field. He ran the first trials in it. He has the most extensive number of patients in it, and he is now on our scientific advisory board and deeply engaged and will be in Australia later this year. Coupled with him is Deborah Yates, who may be known to several of you. A really prominent respiratory physician and our SAB Co-Chair. Then we have Beth Doherty, who's a most remarkable patient. She developed this disorder while she was pregnant. She then gave birth to a child and devoted her life to getting a PhD subsequently, and she is focused intensely on finding new ways of dealing with this disorder, and is one of our best advocates, and an advocate recognized across the field. We have a streamlined board coupled with a great scientific advisory group. We have a deep experience in biotech. We have rare disease development. I personally have been involved in many different development programs with CDKL5, Dup15q, Fragile X, Angelman's. These are important areas. We know a lot about them. They have the characteristic of being rare disorders, and they've been very, very important in our selection of this being a rare disease companies. That is something we all bring to the table, scientific expertise, clinical expertise, and knowledge about how you operate within this. We're delighted that we've been able to change the profile of the company now, not just in understanding the molecule, building a better business plan, we now also have the expertise that we need for it. What's this done for us? We are building a unique rare disease company. It will give us many advantages, and I don't want to go through them all, but I think one of the ones that you should not underestimate is that by doing this in the way we're doing this, which is highly focused, extremely scientific, but with a business background. We also will be entering into a moment when we're able to take all of the advantages that in the regulatory world of an orphan drug company, which is access to major jurisdictions, different pricing capabilities, different regulatory capabilities, and the ability to distribute in very clear ways in a commercial fashion, which quite frankly have built some very giant companies. Some of you have seen that in Australia. Neuren has taken advantage of this. Vertex in the U.S. has taken advantage of this. Ultragenyx has done the same. These are all substantive companies which have taken advantage of the fact that a rare disease company has a significant opportunity, even while having a smallish number of patients, that you can get terrific returns both for the patient and for the shareholders. Having stated that, I'd like to turn this over now just briefly to Hamish and ask him to walk you through the foundations of the financials of the company. Hamish, over to you. Thank you, Jeremy. Good morning, everyone. I want to briefly cover three financial points. The first is to highlight the company's strong cash position. As at 31 March 2026, the company had AUD 31.2 cash on hand. Secondly, I'd like to note that based on current cash flow assumptions, the cash position is sufficient to fund all three stage gates, which Jeremy previously discussed. Finally, I'd like to reiterate the point that Jeremy has also raised, the company is debt-free. The development funding agreement was settled and subsequently terminated on the 19th of August 2025. Further details in relation to the settlement are disclosed in the half-year financial report for the period ended 31 December 2025, also the ASX announcement, which was released on the 19th of August 2025, both of which are available on the ASX and Opthea's website. Thank you, Jeremy. I'll hand back to you. Hamish, thank you very much. Just so everybody understands, not only do we focus on the science, we also focus very much on the operations and financial stability of the company. By linking those two and focus on the rare disorder, we think we have created the right conditions for building something that is very special. As I've said to you before, just ask you to remember, we have a clinical stage biologic with a tremendously differentiated mechanism. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only such asset in the world. There are no others that at this stage are like this. That field is open to us. We know exactly what we need to do to build a rare disease company centered on VEGFR-3. We have the right people, the right asset, the right capital. Based on our experience, we've got very good indicators early, albeit, nevertheless, that we are going to be able to deliver an inhaled delivery product. If we're successful, this will be a first as well. We are very disciplined, and we won't pass any of those stage gates unless we feel completely confident that we've accomplished the scientific goals that we set for ourselves. Lastly, we're delighted. The company has changed. This is not the same company that was in the past. This is a completely fresh, new, exciting company, a biotech company with very strong scientific, operational, and governance capabilities which are in place. So, as I said to you at the beginning, we're rebuilding a new company, and we're well advanced in doing that. I appreciate greatly your interest in this, and I'm willing now to answer any questions that you'd like to pose. Jeremy, thanks, Hamish, and thanks to all those who have submitted questions in the chat. I'll remind you can do that. If you'd prefer to ask a question verbally, we're happy to unmute you just must simply put your hand up. I'll start, where there are some similar questions, I may use a bit of creative license and group them together, but ensure that we're answering substantively the questions. So we'll start on the clinical side. I understand that LAM has a standard of care drug with a lot of side effects, which is Rapamune, which seems to cost about $10,000 a year per patient. If OPT's drug can go all the way, what sort of ballpark pricing do you think is possible? Would the drug cure patients, or would it manage symptoms? Great question. No, it's not designed. What we have is some very good early preliminary results that show that if you overlay our drug on top of standard of care in cells, not in humans, in cells, you get a result which is, forgive me, which is much more substantive than any one of them alone. What we're hoping for here is that you go way beyond just simply another little small incremental change. I believe that we should hope for, but we cannot be certain, that we're looking for something that is disease modifying. That is our hope. I want to be clear. The early preclinical data speaks to that. Second point is what kind of pricing? We do know that many different orphan disease drugs are priced at a very high premium relative to other drugs, and that's because they have a result. That's why we're keen to have this result clearly displayed in our trials. That premium, in some cases, as you know, the genetics. Genetic therapeutics can be several million dollars. Orphan drugs sometimes are in the hundreds of thousands. That's in a whole different ballpark because that is what people can and do pay for the tremendous results when you get them. We're hoping for them, and I sincerely hope that all the evidence points that Opthea will create a blockbuster based on that. Thanks, Jeremy. I might open to, we've got one caller on the line. Let me just see if I can unmute. The question's from Dan Hurren at MST. Dan, your line should be open now. Good morning. Thanks so much. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Yeah, thanks. Look, I'm just wondering about communications from the company as we go through this. What sort of information you'll be providing as you pass through these gates, and obviously I just noticed that Gate 2 falls within the middle of the trial. What will we be able to say at that point at Gate 2? Well, Dan, there you go. It's exactly why we put them in place. Thank you for asking that. Let's take first of all the principle. This company is going to be probably more transparent than most companies you've ever thought about, okay? My view is we need to build confidence. We're going to do that, and the way to do it is by having you, the shareholders, know exactly what we're doing. For example, when we get to a, you asked for Stage 2. Let me just walk you through what I think no matter what we do, we'll do at Stage 1. The criteria in Stage 1, for example, it'll be this level of data. Do we have reproducible aerosol performance? Do we have appropriate particle size distribution, evidence of meaningful lung disposition that helps you think this through? Do we know that we can manufacture the aerosol in a way and that is stable? Do we have acceptable toxicology finding? Do we have acceptable exposure margins? Do we have early evidence of biological activity? Do we have overall feasibility of practical inhaled delivery system? That kind of granularity we're going to be providing. When we get to Stage 2, this is kind of interesting. That's why we want to have that interim look three months in. That's important, Dan, because that lets us see, are we seeing anything? Do we see some hint, or is this thing a dud? I don't believe we're going to have that. We'll look for gas exchange. We'll look for imaging that will provide is there any changes that we can detect. Three months is a short period, but we're hoping that this might be sensitive enough to detect it. I'm going to be relying on those biomarkers that we talked to you about to give us a hint. Xenon MRI, t hat data will be rich, very rich. Thanks. I guess, so Gate 2, could we think of that almost like a futility analysis? Is that the way to think about it? I didn't really think of it that way. You might be able to think of it that way. I think of it more as just being saying, have we got enough confidence that we continue this and that we give it to more patients? We may see very little, but on the other hand, even a little would be enough to say, do we have confidence that we're seeing what we want to see, or should we up the dose? It's almost like a futility, but not quite. Okay. Just one other question if I could. Look, the company is, to say the least, been stripped down. You haven't got a lot of horsepower there. For understandable reasons, I get the plan. This is an enormous amount of work. I'm just trying to understand how this can be achieved. That sort of workload can be achieved by what is probably the thinnest management team we've ever seen in Australian corporate history. Well, thin doesn't mean inexperienced. You're quite right. Sorry, not suggesting that, just in terms of numbers. We will most certainly have the right numbers. When you start a clinical plan, a clinical trial, you cannot do this as a stripped-down modality. You have to have the right people. We are engaged with the right CRO. We will have program managers within the company, and we most certainly will be having medical monitoring of the patients. You are right, there'll be some increment, but all of that has been accounted for in the budget that we have. Expect us to grow somewhat, but not out of hand. Oh, by the way, Dan, just to give you a sense of this, when you're talking about the scale of the clinical trial, we're talking somewhere between 15 and 20 patients. We're not talking about a huge trial here. That means that we can be reasonable, but not prolific in hiring people to look after the company. Okay. Thank you very much. Great. We'll go to the next question. We'll stay on the clinical side. Jeremy, how easy is it to measure the VEGF-C and D target engagement in the early clinical studies? It's going to be interesting because you're going to be relying upon the xenon MRI to do the things that it does best, which is essentially to look at gas transfer and to have assurance that we are actually getting the kind of engagement that should drive that. How easy is it? I can't say any of this is going to be easy. I will say that it's going to be a measured set of approaches. In addition to which we have biomarkers in the blood that we will be measuring. That is kind of easy, target engagement is going to be the one that's going to be reliant upon the scanning. Okay. What specific data outcome at Gate 1 would give you and the board genuine conviction to proceed to Gate 2 and commit the remaining capital rather than returning cash to shareholders? Oh, that's pretty straightforward. First of all, we would want to see that the particles in nebulizer are the right particles, that they got to the right spot in the lung, and that in addition to which that there is highly active drug in those particles. In addition to which that we feel that the tox package is complete and that we have the opportunity to now go to the clinical site saying, "We have an active drug, we can nebulize it, and we have no tox worries whatsoever." Okay. As an extension of that, what's the likely outcome for the company if any of these stage gates fail? Well, that's the whole point about a stage gate. At that moment, you make a very, very clear determination of what you want to do at that moment, which is not to continue. The stage gate says if it's not doing what you want it to do, don't waste money. We'll have a strategic assessment at that time. You can be assured we'll be very cold-eyed about that. Okay. Turning to commercialization, how long will it take to commercialize the product and pass a phase I, II, and III trial? Can you provide a timeline on that? I wish I could, it's going to be nothing like a long period of time. Phase I-B/II-A. If the result is resounding, then you have the opportunity within five years, is rough estimate, of being a commercial entity. This is not a long period of time. However, we need to wait to see the phase I-B/II-A to be able to fully determine that. Once I do that, ask me again and I promise you I'll give you an answer. Sure. Thank you. Then you made the comment earlier the company won't raise capital and is funded through this 18-month period. How much of the development does the company expect to fund before it needs to acquire additional capital? Well, I can turn to Hamish. Hamish, you've looked at the budgets, so why don't you take that question? Yeah, certainly. We've disclosed in the re-listing announcement a broad budget. Estimating approximately AUD 13.1 million in relation to the 18-month period, Which would leave substantial capital at the end of that period to fund further trials. I'm not going to comment on the cost of those trials at this stage. Certainly, from a cash flow perspective, that is I think a reasonable estimate, and we are continuing to take a very prudent, disciplined approach in terms of our capital allocation and management. Okay. While you've got the mic, Hamish, I might stick with you. Can you please discuss the accumulated losses of the company? Will they remain with the company even transitioning to LAM and no longer being an ophthalmology company? Absolutely. From a tax perspective, those losses will be able to be retained, and expect to be able to utilize the position where we're making a profit. Thank you. Back to you, Jeremy. The share price today is circa AUD 0.015 against cash backing of circa AUD 0.0228 per share. Even after the full 18-month LAM program spend of circa AUD 13 million, the residual cash per share is roughly what the share price is today. The question is ultimately, what is the board doing or going to do to close that discount? We're in early days. Don't forget, we are going through a process right now where the register is changing dramatically. During that period of time, there is obviously a disconnect. The board is first of all obliged, and I think it's the appropriate thing, we committed to register in time for the end of the year, and many people will reset. What we will do as a company is we will execute. We can't control share price, but what we can do is disclose everything that we're doing in a fashion that anything that is material we will disclose, and you will see that. If that has an effect on the share price, which we hope it will do, then we're on the right track. You are seeing the natural result at this moment of a massive change and a delightful change. Some people are going to be harvesting tax losses. There are others who are going to be buying into us who believe this story, and frankly they should, because this is a remarkable story. It's a very unusual story. It's one which very few companies could have done, and we're going to do it. This board is committed nevertheless to do that in a disciplined fashion, and hopefully our efforts will be rewarded and reward you for being a participant in it. Thank you. The next question and last one currently is could OPT pivot into other areas in the event LAM doesn't proceed past a gate? Could you assess other opportunities or would it be return capital to shareholders? Well, you pose a very important question. We will make that decision at the end of the time when we see it. When we went through this initial review, we reviewed three things. One, should we return capital and just close the company down? Two, should we acquire another company or allow ourselves to be acquired? Three, should we look at what our assets were and then endeavor to build on them if they were valid? We were very cold-eyed about that. Those three were very clearly of consequence to any shareholder. We took that responsibility very seriously. As it was, to our delight, we identified something unique within the company that wasn't expected, predicted or otherwise. We now feel that is without a doubt the best way to return value to shareholders. When and if there's an occasion that we fail in the stage gate, we will make a decision what exactly to do. We'll go through the exact same process that we went through before with the same cold-eyed determination, with the intent to advise, and to give whatever shareholder value we can. Now, I would say one thing. You asked a different question at the same time. You asked two questions. Should we not pass through a stage gate, what would we do? Well, that's really what we will do. The second was, are there other opportunities? We won't be going to running around trying to find things to do with the capital. I just want to make mention of one very important fact that most shareholders probably don't know. The fact of the matter is, VEGFR-3 has now been shown to be one of the more important areas of biology for a number of different disorders well beyond LAM. We're not going into those. We're focused on getting a result with LAM. The other areas are extremely interesting, extremely pertinent, and have great potential. We will not be going into them until we show that we have an effective drug, our stock has risen, and we have the capital to do that. Our focus today is on delivering on LAM, and we will do. Excellent. Thank you. That takes us to the end of the Q&A. I might hand over, Jeremy, to you for some final remarks. Yes. Thank you so much, Ryan, thank you, Hamish. Also I have with us Stuart Mudge, who's the COO, and Megan Baldwin, who is really pinning the company together at this stage. Thank you very much, all of you, for the support you've given. I'd like to address the shareholders for a moment. I greatly appreciate your interest. We are going to pivot this company. We have a significant opportunity ahead of us, and we acknowledge your involvement in that pivot. In order to do that, we'll be as transparent as we possibly can. I commit to you that transparency will be the hallmark of this company going forward, and engagement. In that regard, I asked Ryan to respond to all shareholder questions, and I personally will do the same if at all possible. This is a new company, a new opportunity, and one which we feel really exemplifies the exceptional nature of the science that emerges from Australia. Oh, by the way, we are a very typical biotech company except for one item. We're stronger and better. Join us on this journey, and I look forward to working with you in the years to come. Thanks all. Have a good day.