Good afternoon, everyone. We're here with the second live session of the day. My name is David Baley. I'm part of the Australian Healthcare Team at Morgan Stanley. Before we get going, I just have to read this out quickly. For important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. Welcome, Dr. Christian Behrenbruch, CEO of Telix Pharmaceuticals. Maybe just for those who are a little bit less familiar with your company, just a bit of an overview, a bit of background would be great as a starting question. Yeah, thanks, and thanks for the opportunity. We're globally active. I guess you'd call it a pure-play radiopharmaceutical company. We are a commercial stage company, a little bit unusual in the sense that we have a deep pipeline of products, and I'll talk a little bit about that more in a second. We are commercializing our products as well in the major markets we serve. We're clinically and commercially active in 26 countries. We have sort of three pillars of value creation in the company. We have a portfolio of products that target what we think are exciting targets in cancers and rare diseases. For every target that we go after, we develop both an imaging agent and a therapeutic because we think that that precision medicine strategy is extremely important. In fact, it's the whole point of radiopharma. You know where your drug goes because you can measure it. You can put a patient in the scanner, and you can see everywhere from your toes to your nose where the drug goes. It's terrible alliteration, but anyway. The second pillar of value creation is we're a vertically integrated manufacturer of products. We rely heavily on a partnership distribution model in almost every market we serve. We also see that the future of therapeutic drug development and radiopharma is very infrastructure intensive. We've made about $500 million in investments over the last couple of years to really make sure that we are, along with select partners, in control of our destiny. We think that's critically important. The third thing, as I mentioned before, is that we're commercially self-powered. We go out and sell our own products, even for a major indication like prostate cancer, which is where our lead programs are, because we think that selling radiopharmaceuticals to oncologists is a unique thing. It's a very content-rich sell. You're not just selling a vial or a blister pack. You're selling an entire clinical service from, you know, how do you manage your practice? How do you dose patients? How do you calibrate cameras? How do you do waste management? We think it's really important to be part of the care team. We take a really service-oriented viewpoint. That's why we put ourselves out in front as the commercial partner. Those are the three parts of our business. This year we'll do about $800 million in sales. We fund about $200 million in R&D off earnings. Over the last few years, since we commercially launched in 2021, we've become a cash-generative, profitable business and really focused on now extracting the next value inflection points from our pipeline. That was a bit of a long-winded answer, but it is a bit of a complicated business, and those are the key parts of it. No, it's a good introduction, a good segue to my follow-up question. You mentioned 2021, 2022. It's been very rapid. You're at the stage now where you are generating cash flow and reinvesting into the business. Just for, you know, what does that look like over the next couple of years? Part of your R&D day presentation, there's a pathway to profitability and balance sheet position. How do you sort of see that evolving over the next couple of years? Yeah, so you know, we're lucky because we really are a classic biopharma company in the sense that, you know, our sole focus really is to build out the value in our pipeline. We've got an incredible pipeline of molecules. We've got basically 14 molecules across our diagnostic and therapeutic pipelines. Those are our clinical stage programs, not even counting things that are sneaking in behind in four-legged patients instead of two-legged patients. Our latest stage therapeutic program is in phase III. We've got a couple of other phase III trials kicking off. We've just had a run at two drug approvals for two more diagnostics. We had some minor setbacks with the FDA that we're in the process of rectifying, but there's some real unlocked value there coming up. What I'm talking about there is pipeline, pipeline, pipeline. It just happens that we are able to invest in our pipeline ourselves from our earnings. Sometimes we get mistaken for being a healthcare company. We're not quite there yet. I think that 2027 is our pre-commercial launch year. In 2028, we hope to be selling our first therapeutic drug. We're a couple of candidates to kick off in 2028. That's when we really start to see that the cash generation ability outstrips our immediate R&D needs. Until then, it really is about, albeit with some cash buffer and some contingency management on the balance sheet, it really is about all in on the pipeline and to have as many programs as we can in late-stage development. To you, Clay, it's still funding as opposed to looking for partners. Just to be clear, in terms of your business model, it's the cash you're generating from the approved products reinvested back into the pipeline. That's right. I mean, we have conversations all the time with potential partners. I'm not ruling out the possibility at some point. The value proposition of partnerships tends to be around manufacturing, supply chain, and commercialization. As I sort of said, we think that manufacturing and supply chain is unique in this industry. It's not something that you can go to a brown brick pharma and solve. We think that the commercial interface to the patient is also really unique. We just don't see that as a value proposition that you're going to immediately get out of a pharma partnership. I'd say, of course, there's been a lot of transaction activity in the space, and big pharma is certainly interested. Again, medium-sized pharma is interested in radiopharma and should be because I think it's going to be one of the key pillars of cancer care and other areas, frankly, in the future. Understood. Maybe just onto the PSMA imaging market. Just an overview of the current approved products and maybe just sort of what you've been seeing in the market more recently from a competitive dynamic or market perspective. Look, there's no doubt. I mean, the PSMA, you know, opportunity, I don't think anybody really imagined how big it would be. I mean, even I'm fairly ambitious. My team's fairly ambitious, and it kind of, it's bigger than, you know, than everybody expected. It's also going to get bigger because it has had such a profound impact on prostate cancer care and across the patient continuum. That's really the first time that we've seen molecular imaging just show up all along the patient journey for a given disease. You know, longitudinal imaging hasn't been that big a part of cancer care in the way that it has been for prostate cancer. That's just because the decision-making that you get at each point is so unique. You know, you've got a high-risk patient. You want to know, do they have disease? You've got a patient that's being staged for surgery. You want to know how far to cut. You've got a patient that's had a surgery or radiotherapy and has a rising PSA. You want to know where the disease is. You have a patient that's on an expensive drug regimen. You want to know, are they still responding? These questions are so distinct, and yet it's the same product that can give you that information. We're sitting at about an 80% penetration of a $3.5 billion market. We see, in the U.S. alone, we see the opportunity for that market to double over the next two or three years through indication expansion and label expansion. It is a maturing market. Now there are four approved products in the market. We do expect to see five and six and, you know, maybe seven come to market over the next couple of years. It's also clear from the current competitive dynamic that it's going to be harder for new entrants to get in. They're going to have to catch up on label. They're going to have to catch up on distribution infrastructure. They're going to have to catch up on, I think, unless there's a profound clinical value proposition, it's going to be really hard to compete. We always have to remember that it's a $3 billion market, right? It's with a product that sells for an ASP of, call it, $5,000 and has gross margins of 60%, right? The impetus to get into the space in a very, it's a very specialist space, I think, is not the same as for a therapeutic drug. I think it's a specialist market. I think the distribution infrastructure is specialist. It is becoming more commercially competitive. We have seen some price erosion, but that's just to be expected in a maturing market. What I also believe is that in order for us to reach the potential volume of sort of 2 million scans for PSMA, you've got to have a different price point anyway. It's one of those things where to achieve, to realize the full market, probably going to need to have a slightly different price point anyhow. It's a volume game. Clearly, the firms that can scale are going to win because it is a volume game. This is not a rare disease indication, right, where you know you're going to service 10,000 patients a year and that's it. This is a large-scale, mass market indication. We'll move on to the potential expansion of the market in a minute. Just maybe just talking through your existing product portfolio. So Illuccix and Gozelix, two slightly different products there. Just talk us through the slight nuances between the two and then how you're seeing the opportunity for Gozelix last quarter this year and into fiscal 2026. Yeah, so it's clear from a reimbursement perspective that we are now, you know, because of the way that you get pass-through and your HCPCS code, we're in a cyclic innovation environment. That's not uncommon. I mean, it happens in other parts of pharma as well, right? Essentially, ongoing product, you know, incremental improvements are going to be necessary. There's going to need to be innovation to get new product reimbursement. I think that's good broadly for customers as long as we continue to do clinically, you know, added value innovation. Gozelix is a significant improvement on Illuccix. It offers a couple of things. One is about a three times longer shelf life, which means that when we manufacture it, when we compound it in a radiopharmacy, we can drive it further. We can serve more customers from our pharmacies. It also means that we can do very large-scale production of gallium-based products and deliver that into the hospital environment, which has been traditionally a kind of strength of F-18–based cyclotron products. Cyclotron-based products have purported to have that edge. I'd say that in some academic environments, it's an advantage. We can go in now and we can solve that problem. The third thing that we did with Gozelix, which really has huge implications for the industry, was we were able to convince the FDA that we can go from solid target production of radiometals like gallium and zirconium and copper-64 straight into the nuclear pharmacy. Now, when we had this conversation with the FDA five years ago with Illuccix, it was no. You have to bombard your target. You have to do the dissolution and produce your radiometal. Then you have to do radionuclidic profiling of your radiometal before it goes into practice of pharmacy. That's a big deal. That just basically pushes you into GMP manufacturing territory, like a classic cyclotron-based approach. With Gozelix, we go straight from cyclotron to pharmacy, which means that, you know, it has a big implication for cost of goods structure, the volume of demands you can satisfy. It really changes the model for cyclotron usage. All of this then wrapped up in a new reimbursement code because we are delivering clinical innovation, we're delivering better scanner throughput. We're delivering to patients that are in radiopharmaceutical deserts that aren't being serviced right now. Now we think about 15% of the market. It's never, you know, 400 PET scanners have never tasted PSMA of any kind because, you know, the planes, trains, and automobiles that our competitors have to take to get a dose to a patient prevents it from happening, right? At least happening cost-effectively, and that's what Gozelix gives us. You know, the TIFS-PICS code goes into effect first of October. We're expecting to get pass-through, and it's a big advantage to patients. We're really excited about that. It's a volume gain, potentially move into markets you haven't played in before, but then also distribution into places that haven't actually received your products in the past. From a volume perspective, have I got that right around? Yeah, and it's pricing as well. You know, the Gozelix, we will seek value for the improvements that we've made in the product. It has a little bit of a dosing dose price strategy that's different as well, which confers an advantage to the product in the reimbursed setting. Yeah, we expect Q4 to be a significant event for our PSMA franchise overall. How important is transitional pass-through pricing? I know it's relevant to a subset of the market, but is that something that's kind of important, material, impactful, or is it more the fact that you've got a product you think you can price a little bit differently relative to Illuccix that's more important for the overall revenues? I think historically, there was a lot of focus on pass-through because, you know, when pass-through was finished, you went into a bundled procedure code, and it was perception that there was this kind of Armageddon event. In practice, what you did is you sat down with your customer and you segmented, you know, the components of their CMS, their 340B, their commercial, you know, patients, and you came up with an average pricing that kind of made them whole. The net result is it was a price erosion, you know, not a catastrophic price erosion, but it was a price erosion. The CMS reform that happened at the end of last year, which is now that, you know, diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals above a certain price threshold have standalone pricing, has kind of taken the importance of TPT away, not completely, but mostly. You know, the fact that you have a new HCPCS code means you have a reimbursed product, which means that you essentially get all the benefit competitively. The TPT confers one last advantage, which is that, for the proportion of Medicare patients, and not all, but it's a proportion, the copay is eliminated under TPT. You know, it doesn't apply to Medicare Advantage. There are plenty of patients that have co-insurance on that. I know for us, it's a single-digit proportion of our business that's really ultimately benefited. I would say that it's, I describe it as a kind of a hygiene factor. When you go to a customer that you're trying to competitively acquire and you have TPT, it's a good kickbox. It does help with customer acquisition. We hope we get it. If we don't get it, and I'm not implying that we think we won't, we'll find out in the next couple of weeks. We meet all the criteria for it. The most important thing is that we've got our HCPCS code that opens the door to that market segment again. In terms of lifecycle management in this space, I'll move on to BYPASS in a second, but you made an announcement recently of another potential product. Maybe just talk us through that one a little bit more, of how that's kind of different. Yeah, so we think that there is, we believe that physician preferences exist, and it's something that, you know, new entrants into the field will also have to think about. We worked really hard to establish gallium PSMA. You know, a lot of people thought gallium PSMA would never be successful. I had major key opinion leaders in the U.S. say, you know, it's a European thing. It'll never take off here. When we do PET, we do F18. There was a fairly entrenched thinking around that. If you look at physician workflows, and I'm not an armchair CEO, I really love to get out into the field. I spend a lot of time, in fact, I see some of my business partners even in the room. I spend a lot of time out talking to our customers and visiting our customer sites. When you go into a large, busy hospital, efficiency and workflow is really important. When you're doing FDG scans all day and then you want to weave in a little F18 PSMA in between, it's really convenient to not have to change your scanner calibration settings, don't have to change your windowing and your workflow on your workstation. It's just conducive to volume. Also, I don't remember which analyst it was that made the analogy, but in the academic centers, Telix tends to be the morning espresso, you know, and then at 11:00 A.M., the big bucket of Starbucks coffee arrives from Lantheus. I like that analogy because Starbucks coffee tastes like shit, but you know, anyway, the Starbucks coffee arrives at 11:00 A.M. Academic centers love that because there's a volume of material there. They know it's there. They're not waiting on scheduling throughout the day. It's different for an IDTF. They don't have a dispensing nuclear pharmacy. They're receiving doses all day. They're used to that. In an academic center, it's different. Because of these workflow considerations, I do think that there are some users that do just say, look, your product is great. They may even buy into the fact that we have the best sensitivity and specificity and the best interreader variability, but they kind of just like what they like. The Alflur product, when you, it turns out when you react aluminum, or aluminum as it's known in these parts, with the F18 or with fluorine, you get a molecule that looks and behaves exactly like gallium 68. The drop-in replacement for gallium 68 can have the same targeting agent, same chelator, same formulation, same lyophilized vial. You can just drop a big blob of aluminum fluoride into it. You can dispense Illuccix, basically, but flavored as F-18. That enabled us, through the nuclear pharmacy infrastructure that we built, to, at a cyclotron site, very efficiently produce aluminum fluoride under a drug master file, then drop it into a pharmacy, and then dispense an F-18–based dose. It really has a lot of the same advantages that Illuccix and Gozelix have. It's, again, part of our ongoing lifecycle management. It's about thinking, you know, three years ahead. We have a phase III trial that we acquired as part of the IP that includes intra-patient comparison between Illuccix and aluminum fluoride. We've taken that to the FDA. We have advice on what does the bridging study need to look like. We'll do that study next year, or we'll complete that study next year, and hopefully be in a position to file an NDA for that product at the end of next year. That'll be then, I guess you can think of that as Gozelix version 2.0, but just minty flavored. That's great. Moving on to the potential expansion of the market. The approvals in the prostate detection space, staging, BCR, and RLT selection. Maybe just help us understand what, you know, you sort of mentioned the dollar number there, maybe the number of scans if you can in the U.S., but then also moving on to the BYPASS study and what that could do in terms of the number of scans, a potential market opportunity there. Yeah, so it's about a 700,000 scan, $3 billion odd. You know, everyone's terms vary slightly, but I think that that's sort of ballpark, right? Defensible number was sort of 80% penetrated, that number right now. That's the current market opportunity. The growth areas really come, I think, from a couple of specific things. You know, we are seeing continual guideline evolution that does flex a little bit the interpretation of what's a BCR patient or a high-risk patient. You know, and as we learn more, you know, the great thing about PSMA imaging is we're just learning a lot more about prostate cancer and prostate cancer risk. You know, we used to think that a Gleason, you know, six or seven patient was a high-risk patient. Now we see Gleason four patients with certain histologic subtypes that are metastatic. You know, so we're learning more, and that sort of flexes the appetite, I guess, in the existing indications that we have. The other thing is that on the therapeutic side, I'm not just driven by Novartis's success in radioligand therapy, but many other prostate cancer drugs, including ones that are in clinical trials. We service a lot of those clinical trials because we're one of the few people that can deliver a dose globally. We see a lot of that trial activity. We're seeing PSMA being really used in longitudinal management of patients. It does make sense. It's going to get to the point where, you know, let's say you're doing an expensive radioligand therapy and it's six cycles of therapy. You're going to want to know after your second or third cycle, like, are you getting patient responses? I think, you know, payers are going to want to know that information. There's going to be more and more use of longitudinal imaging there. That's a multi-imaging time point opportunity, and so that will increase market size by, I don't know, 20, 30%. The other opportunity is really at the front end. We just launched a phase III trial called the BYPASS study, as you mentioned. This is not about eliminating biopsy. This is about making sure that when you biopsy a patient, that you should be biopsying a patient. We do about 1.2 million scans a year, sort of 1.2 million biopsies a year in the United States. About 800,000 of them don't really add value. The idea of the BYPASS study is to use PSMA imaging on top of the MRI to stratify whether a patient should be scanned and done. There's no reason to biopsy a patient based on cumulative PSMA and MRI information or scan and one. Give them a focal targeted biopsy, minimum number of tissue samples, use the image guidance to really sample the correct part of the prostate and be confident and grade better. If that's all sort of ambivalent, then go into a template biopsy. We think we can stratify patients that way. That can add another 750,000 to 800,000 scans. It's also strategic because there's a truth that when a patient is first scanned with a particular flavor of PSMA, they tend to want to continue that flavor in time so that you can get like-for-like comparisons. It's also about strategically moving upstream. Whoever can move upstream the furthest ultimately kind of wins the overall prize. What is the timing around that one? We started the study. It's going to be a pretty fast recruitment. It's only 200 patients. It's something that academics, there's actually a couple of wonderful studies that have been done in academia that show this as a proof of concept. There's appetite to do it. When we've got great centers recruiting, it should take us, you know, maybe six months to recruit it. Probably, it's another, there's a follow-up period just to make sure that we're not introducing false positives, false negatives into the decision-making tree or to be able to characterize what that risk is. I imagine that, you know, we should be able to file that as a label extension next year. That'll then come into effect in 2027. Again, part of that sort of two-year, you know, lifecycle management plan. Maybe just moving on to therapeutics. Can you just give us a bit of a sense as to the pipeline and what you're really focused on at the moment? Yeah, so we'll have kind of three concentration areas in the pipeline. We want to have a long-term stakeholder relationship with urologic oncology. That's obviously cornerstone by the prostate cancer program, but we also have a very late-stage renal cancer program. Imaging clinical work is done. Therapy, we're hoping to take that into phase III this year, as a monotherapy in advanced metastatic patients. We're just going backwards and forwards with regulators right now on the protocol for that and trying to decide whether we need to get more data from our second, you know, our phase II trials or whether we have enough data to move ahead. There's principally the issue of safety, obviously, to have enough safety data. That's very exciting. Our IPEX Bright study in glioblastoma is just kicking off. That's a pivotal trial, starting at ex-U.S., and then hopefully adding U.S. patients as a cohort expansion just because the standard of care is a little different in the U.S. than it is in other parts of the world. We're excited about that. Neuro-oncology is really an unmet need. We've shown some really encouraging data. We've shown prolongation of life even in recurrent glioblastoma patients. We've seen good evidence of anti-tumor response. We see that as a second potential area, aside from urologic oncology, where the company can do well. We have a, I boldly call it a musculoskeletal franchise. It's around things like sarcoma, osteosarcoma, and bone metastases. This used to be a very well-serviced part of nuclear medicine. It used to be an area that nuclear medicine did a great job in. We've sort of lost the art a little bit. There's the need for some improved products given the number of patients that are getting radioligand therapy will ultimately progress with advanced bony metastases. There's a need to transition those patients into palliative care without pain. We see a really interesting opportunity there to sort of bookend the radioligand space and use that as an entry point for the business. Those are the sort of three main areas. We acquired a FAT program last year, or early going into early this year. That's got a lot of patient data, patient data in hundreds of patients. We think that can go quickly. Just a lot of things that are in advanced development that have good clinical data underpinning them. The one that looks most advanced is probably the Prostate Global. Could you just give us a bit of a sense as to, you know, where we're at now? I think it's part one's fully recruited. Just what that looks like versus the second part, and then how you think it's different to approved products. Yeah, so Prostate Global took us a bit of extra time to recruit that we hadn't anticipated. The reason for that's kind of twofold. First of all, it's a full safety dosimetry study, so it's multi-time point SPECT imaging. It's really demanding on the patient and the site, and actually not a lot of sites have the sort of physics chops to do it properly. We actually limited recruitment to a small number of sites to try to do the study well. We just didn't have the recruitment volume. Like I said, it's more of a science project than a medical oncologist referral sort of, you know, dream, right? Now that it's done, we're expecting to read that data out in a couple of months' time. It's fully recruited. The docetaxel arm has a slightly longer, kind of observation period than the RP arm, so it'll come a little bit later on. Before the end of the year, we expect to read out that part one. That's a gating study for the FDA. They want to see that the safety profile across the three proposed treatment arms, so enzalutamide, abiraterone, and docetaxel, that they're equivalent in terms of safety profile. Ex-U.S., we don't have that challenge. The study protocol is approved in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Turkey, China, Japan, and I'm forgetting one, Singapore, I think we got last week. We've got Europe planned later on this year as well. The part two, the randomized part of the trial, it's a much more vanilla study. It's pretty straightforward. Two shots, 14 days apart. Just conventional imaging for patient selection. It'll be a pretty fast study to recruit. We're expecting to have about 60 sites, 70 sites up and running by the end of the year. We expect to substantially recruit that study by the end of next year. Certainly the futility analysis, which is based on 90 events, we would hope to have that done by the end of next year or maybe early, early 2027. That's the timeline on that. A ton of investigator engagement on the trial. The value proposition is really compelling for medical oncologists. It's a very simple dosing regimen. It's two shots, 14 days apart. That's the entire course of therapy. High patient compliance, essentially a single toxicity event, which is, you know, the challenge of doing competitor radioligand therapy is it's, you know, essentially with all follow-up and everything, it's about 40 weeks of therapy. That's a long time in the life of a metastatic patient. And compliance, you know, does tend to fall off after a few doses. We don't have salivary gland uptake or dry eye. Patients don't feel as banged up. The amount of radiation that we inject over the course of therapy is about one-tenth of the current approach. That has all kinds of consequences around ambulatory patient management and injection characteristics. Don't need toilets for radioactivity. Don't have to worry about radioactive vomit. You know, tend not to have the gastric reaction that the small molecules have. The downside is we do have some cytopenias. You know, it's very typical of using an antibody-directed therapy, but they're predictable and they're manageable. You know, it's about 15% of patients have a grade 3, grade 4. You know at day seven whether you're going to need to give a platelet transfusion at day 21. It's not an acute event. You know, it's a predictable event, and you know, it's transient and it's recoverable. These are clinical AEs. No patient goes home to their partner and says, you know, my neutropenia is acting up today. These are things that physicians have to manage. Because we're targeting our product at medical oncology, medical oncologists, you know, we've had tremendous success in radioligand therapy when it's been used in the last line setting. Now, as it moves, we all want radioligand therapy to move into earlier lines of therapy. It should move into earlier lines. It's very synergistic with patients that have the clinical capacity to respond. I'm confident we're going to see, you know, synergies with checkpoint inhibitors. We're going to see synergies with PARPs, with even taxanes. Taxanes are a great radiosensitizer. I'm excited about the docetaxel arm in Prostate Global because I think it's important for many parts of the world where that is a standard of care. That's going to be really important to show benefit for patients. The challenge is that when a course of radioligand therapy is managed by a theranostic center or by a nuclear medicine department, you know, that's essentially the medical oncologist handing over the patient to another specialty. It's not everywhere a limitation to adoption, and properly integrated cancer models will allow it. In a lot of places, there'll be a conflict around patient ownership. We've seen it happen in nuclear medicine before. We've had products fail in nuclear medicine because med oncs will not refer patients to another specialty. What we believe is that the best way is to develop very focal, very condensed timeline therapies, intense therapies, high patient benefit, that a medical oncologist can send the patient to nuclear medicine for a couple of weeks, and then they'll come back, and they'll continue their taxanes, their PARPs, their RPs, whatever. It's just a more effective prescribing model. We've got about 45 seconds left. I do have a few more questions, but the final question I might just ask you is what do you think that the market, us as healthcare analysts, investors, are not paying enough attention to? Everything except the Illuccix business. I'm kind of bored of talking about prostate cancer imaging. You know, I didn't actually start the company to do prostate cancer imaging. It just sort of happened along the way. I'm glad it did, so don't get me wrong. I think our, you know, our market cap is kind of below the enterprise value of Illuccix right now, and I think we all know why. It's a challenging environment. It's also, you know, we're a very ambitious company. You know, we have three drug approvals planned for this year. We got one over the line. We've got two more to come, and they will come. The challenge with radiopharma is it's a totally new area, and everybody's learning in real time, including the FDA. You know, no one's ever submitted a biologic-based PET tracer to the FDA before. There's some definite learnings there. Really, the upside in our pipeline is just huge. I think, you know, the entire commercial dynamics around the business and the investor appetite really today is just focused on prostate cancer. I think if we can just get a few of these other products over the line and maybe regain some trust that, yes, yes, we can deliver other products to market, then I think we'll be in really good shape. That's what the market's missing today, is the potential of that pipeline. Understood. That does push it on. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon. Thank you. Thank you for joining me. Thank you, Dr. Behrenbruch. Cheers.