Jay here from the European team at Bank of America. It's my pleasure to be hosting Glaxo. We have Julie Brown, CFO, Tony Wood, Head of R&D, and then IR folks, Constantin and Mick in the front. We have about 40 minutes, and I'll aim to split it roughly half-half between Julie and Tony. Perhaps each of you wanted to make some introductory comments, and we'll get into questions. Yeah, sure. Morning, everybody. Good to see everybody. Obviously, in GSK, we're very focused on four major therapeutic areas. We've had a good year so far. We've upgraded to the top end of the guidance range for the year. Very importantly, the specialty business is driving a considerable amount of the growth. Oncology is performing extremely well, as I'm sure we'll talk about, together with respiratory, immunology, and inflammation. The HIV business is equally, with the new two-month long-acting, really performing well. We have got also long-term guidance out in the market, which is more than $40 billion by 2031 in terms of sales. We've had a really good track record. We had 13 phase III positive readouts last year. We're on track for five major approvals this year and four launches this year, with the major ones being Blenrep and also depemokimab coming at the end of the year for respiratory after that. I think in terms of overall shape, we're a growth-orientated company with a lot of ambition. Obviously, the longer-term guidance of more than $40 billion by 2031 has been upgraded from $33 billion just a few years ago. The company is generating real growth and real momentum. Tony, anything you want to say? Yeah, let me just build on that. Sort of an exciting and busy time in R&D ahead of us. Obviously, with 13 successful phase III readouts last year, which was a record for us, this year has been incredibly busy seeking to secure the five license applications that Julie mentioned. Ahead of us, you can sort of think of the portfolio in the key areas as follows. Very pleased with the progress we're making in respiratory, particularly in COPD and the long-acting formulations or medicines that we have there. Great start with Nucala and the COPD label in an area that is difficult for biologics, as I'm sure you'll appreciate as you've watched the landscape there in general terms. I think we're very well placed for long-acting options there across not only IL-5 as we move into phase III for depe in COPD, but also IL-33 and TSLP. I'm excited about what's coming alongside that in the fibroinflammation portfolio with the recent deal we did on FE and FGF21. Also, I think something you probably haven't looked at that closely in the liver portfolio is bepi, and the results we're going to get out of as well. In oncology, let's call it the world of ADCs. Obviously, we have Blenrep to finish off this year, but the opportunities that sit, particularly in B7, H3, and H4, I think lay out for an interesting next period ahead of us. I'm sure we'll get into more detail on those, so I won't go any further. That's perfect. Thank you so much. I'll kick off with Julie and MFN and policy. Industry response due by next week. What should we expect? What do you think the path forward looks like? Yes, it's been, I guess, a year that has not been expected, to put it that way, at the beginning of the year. First of all, with tariffs and then followed by MFN. It's difficult to know exactly because the proposals have been more sort of conceptual around the fact that there's a real desire for other countries across the world to pay for innovation. We do believe in this because innovation is the lifeblood of the pharmaceutical industry, and it makes a difference to human health. We're a big advocate of paying for innovation. Obviously, President Trump wants to see U.S. prices come down, but very importantly, particularly European prices and other country prices go up. We've done a lot of work in the area comparing prices. It's clear that the healthcare systems are so different that a like-for-like comparison is impossible. The U.S. is the only country with PBMs, for example. I think in terms of we've got a dialogue with the government going on, the U.S. administration. We will find a solution to this. I think, as you've seen with the work we've been doing on tariffs, as time's gone on and we've understood the challenge better, we've managed to mitigate, to a large extent, the risk that was coming from tariffs at the beginning of the year. With MFN, I think we'll have to just see how it develops. We'll get more detailed proposals, and we'll take it through accordingly. When you say more detailed proposals, is that what you expect the next step to be? The letter was basically MFN Medicaid, which in our perspective has been sort of manageable. New product launch is a parity prize. You can decide not to launch in Europe. DTC basically bypasses the PBM. If that was what was enacted, is that enough of a win for him? Do you think when we get to it, or do you think there's another round of letters and proposals coming? I think it's really hard to prejudge these different stages. As you say, it's multifaceted. The DTP could go ahead. Some companies have already started it. I think it's only going to apply to certain parts of the range. It's unlikely to apply to oncology, for example, more likely to apply to, we talked about the GLPs. It could apply to that. In terms of the, the other question really is around the mechanism that's used to implement. You've got the launches, and clearly you're looking, in fact, you were looking already because reference pricing was in place. You're always looking at the launch prices. You're always looking at the phasing of the launches. It's probably put heightened scrutiny on that right now. Then you've got the products that are already on the range, which is the third category. That's where there is already an existing mechanism through the IRA. We've got two products going into the IRA this year that affect 2027. I think we'll have to just see how this pans out. As we found with tariffs, after those initial announcements, it took a while to get to the actual tariff rates and the enactment of the tariffs. I think probably MFN may take the same, but we have to see. Can't really prejudge it. Sure. Last question on this. How are the RA negotiations going for you in this round versus the last round? They're going well. I mean, we've got two products going in, Trelegy and Breo this time. Obviously, Trelegy has been performing extremely strongly. We've been getting very strong double-digit growth rates, including last year when we had the Amcap industry issue. Net-net, we're really pleased with Trelegy. It's one of our strongest performers. In terms of the negotiation, it's going well. It'll be decided during the course of October with the announcement likely to be on the 1st of November, and then it affects our results from 2027 onwards. Net-net, I think it's nothing unexpected at this stage. Can I just, I'm going to push you and then feel free not to answer, but the last average price cut to net was 22%. There's been a view that this administration would push harder this time around. Are you experiencing that or doesn't sound like it? I wouldn't say it's been markedly different from our expectations. I think what we need to remember with the more mature parts of the range, like Trelegy and Breo, is that you've already got a rebate and a return adjustment that's going through before you reach the net sales position. That I think gives some degree of protection already just because of the nature of the product. Okay. I'm going to shift to where you kicked off, actually, the midterm guide. Your $40 billion consensus, a long way below that. I think on the 2Q call, you've talked about the next 18 months to years being an unlock. Perhaps you could just touch on which products or franchises you see the greatest variation, hopefully linking into what I'll get into in Tony, what data's coming that you think allows the unlock. Sure. There are two. At the moment, we're at more than $40 billion by 2031. Consensus is at $34 billion. There's a $6 billion gap. The major reason is oncology, and some of it is understandable because traditionally, the market will wait for the readout. There's usually a lag between a company's long-term guidance out to 2030 and where the market is. Usually, the gap is around 20%. In terms of the big gap, oncology isn't the number one. Within oncology, it won't surprise you that the biggest gap is Blenrep. If you look over the period of the five years from 2026 to 2031, half of that gap is actually centered on Blenrep. Tony will talk about the Blenrep inflection shortly. Very importantly, with Blenrep, we have got a number of rest-of-world markets already approved. Europe, Switzerland, U.K., Japan, Canada, and UAE are already approved. That's underway. The other difference in oncology really rests with Jemperli lifecycle, where we've got head and neck and rectal coming through, but also B7-H3, B7-H4, which are recent licensing deals that we did last year, in fact, performing so far really well. Tony will talk about that. The other difference is in respiratory, immunology, and inflammation. The main difference there really is there's a little bit with depemokimab, which is due for approval in December. The other difference is camlipixant, which is due for its phase III readout next year. Those are the big movers and shakers to keep an eye on to see. To summarize, half oncology, of oncology, bulk Blenrep, and then of respiratory immunology. There's a bit more than half oncology now because the Blenrep news affected it. The The oncology gap went up. Okay. Very clear. Yeah. I'll come to all of those assets in a second, Tony. That's all right. If I could just move forward, if we could then do 2026 pushes and pulls as you think about the strong business momentum you referenced, upgrading guidance, how much that can continue into next year? Yes, we're really pleased with how this year's performing, not only, I think, on the top line, but also we're getting good leverage in the P&L. As you've seen, our profit growth rate and EPS is growing considerably higher sales, largely driven by gross margin accretion because we've got a more push towards specialty. Also, very importantly, SG&A productivity is delivering really good returns. Looking into 2026, we've got a number of important launches. Nucala COPD with a great label is underway. Depemokimab we're expecting at the end of this year. Of course, Blenrep is already launched in a number of countries. We've got the PDUFA for data on the 23rd of October. Then we've got the readouts for camlipixant and a number of other bepirovirsen reading out shortly too. I think overall, it's an encouraging picture for GSK. You just come to R&D spend trends into next year. I think you touched on it briefly, but let's say you sort of called it out at 2Q. How is that going to grow next year relative to sales? Yeah. Because we've got so much faith in the pipeline and the fact that we're delivering strongly, we're actually allocating more of our capital towards R&D. You know, last year and this year, we've said R&D will grow at a higher rate than sales because we want to get these assets through to the market as soon as possible. In the case of B7-H3 and 4, a wide number of tumor types available. We want to, we've actually accelerated considerably the development of those two assets. I think net-net, I would expect us to continue to have R&D growing at a higher rate than sales. I'm not guiding any further than this year at this stage. We would expect, because the emphasis on, bless you, the emphasis on growing it as much as we can. Okay. Yeah. How do you think about depe and Blenrep consensus for next year? Obviously, Blenrep pending approval, but I think forecasts for both to me look conservative, but any perspectives you can give? I definitely think they're conservative. I agree with you. I agree with you. The difference in depemokimab is relatively small on the scale of things, but there is a difference. I think most likely consensus or the market will be waiting for the approval. We're anticipating it in December. Usually, they will see how the launch pans out. Depemokimab's got superb data, you know, a 72% reduction in exacerbations that cause hospitalization, which is major, and pulmonologists, over 80% are indicating intention to prescribe. This is a class that has a really low level of biologic usage, around the low 20% range, whereas rheumatoid arthritis is up in the 60s. There is an opportunity to really penetrate this market with biologics, and particularly depe because it's once every six months, which is a major change for the market. I would expect consensus to move as we get the approval and the early readouts. Blenrep, I think, will hinge largely on the rollouts in the rest of the world, but very importantly, the U.S. approval or PDUFA date in October. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think you have, and I'll say, have you given any color on the Blenrep U.S. versus ex-U.S. split of your $3 billion? Yeah, so we've guided Blenrep to be more than $3 billion, and we stand by that. Obviously, that doesn't include, we've got first-line trials running, DREAMM-10, and that doesn't include the first line. It's only second and beyond. In terms of, we haven't, the second part of your question was? Ex-U.S. split. Ex-U.S., yeah. The ex-U.S. split, in our normal course of business, our normal business is around 50% U.S. We wouldn't expect Blenrep to be significantly different from that. We've guided more than three, depending on the label and the guidelines. It could be potentially significantly more because the overall survival data with Blenrep is three years, which is phenomenal results. Here's, I just thought about this as you said, but do you think you can beat consensus next year just ex-U.S.? I think consensus is like [$150]. Let's see. Team two, we'll base on those. Let's talk again, obviously, following the PDUFA for this weekend. Even ex-U.S., that was the question we were on. Ex-U.S. What we've said, and I think it's really important, is that we want to go slow with Blenrep to basically ensure that oncologists treat the product in the way that we believe is the right way to treat it. We want to ensure oncologists have the right support network, and they are linked appropriately to ophthalmologists or optometrists. We want that to be absolutely embedded in the launch phase. Luke always talks about going slow to go bigger, and that would be the emphasis we would put on it. Okay. Yeah. I'll spend the last couple of minutes for you this afternoon on HIV for me. One of the events that you have talked about, you didn't mention in the intro, was the potential HIV event next year for Q6M. Yes. I'll ask a question this way. I often get asked, is Glaxo going to cut the midterm guide, Blenrep, [sorry], Arexvy, and you can provide your perspective on that. Perhaps you could touch on the opposite of potential to upgrade the guide should Q6M pan out. There's two aspects to that question. Yeah, Q6, first of all, with HIV, HIV is performing really strongly this year, as you probably saw, and we just upgraded from mid-single to high-single digit growth. The growth is really very strongly being driven by Cabenuva and Apretude, despite the launch with Lenacapavir from Gilead. I think what's happening is the prevention market is growing. It's good news. We've got some very important readouts for Q4M coming up next year. Therefore, we're anticipating launching Q4M for treatment and for prevention during the course of 2027. The prevention market is about 10% of the total, just to put it into perspective. The guidance of more than 40% includes Q4M. We've got Q6M, as Sashin mentioned. In terms of Q6M, we've got a whole series of options. The gold standard is an integrase inhibitor, and we've got a number of options relating to the combination that we use, whether it's Cabenuva, long-acting, VH-184, and we'll combine that with N6LS or [a capsid]. We've got a portfolio of options that Deborah will articulate the regimen selection around the middle of next year. We've decided to either meet the management in Q2 2026 to be able to show the progress of these molecules and the regimen choice for Q6M. In terms of dolutegravir patent expiry, it occurs between 2028 and 2030, and then between 2029 and 2030 is expected to be the more material loss of the dolutegravir franchise. You follow on, Q6M, is that in your $40 billion and at the event, could you therefore add it? I think we undoubtedly will, but we obviously only add assets, and this is really important, actually, what you're saying. We only add assets once they've got to a certain stage of development. The $40 billion, when we did the charts at the end of the year, you see the risk-adjusted, which is the $40 billion, and the non-risk-adjusted, which is considerably higher. As assets are inflecting, you move more towards the second number. Q6M, because we're still going through the regimen selection, we wouldn't put it in. None of the early phase, none of the BD is in. Sorry to belabor the point, that might change in the middle of the year. It should do. We have to see how we get the data panning out and the choice of the molecule and the combination. We do not want to prejudge it, but yeah, we would expect it to. Last question, the shape of HIV in your mind relative to consensus. Do you think that's a delta? Consensus has HIV sort of falling from $7-ish billion to $4 billion by the end of the forecast period. Do you think that's correct, and the shape of that decline, given the various launches you've got? Obviously, we wouldn't comment on an individual number within consensus. Clearly, we will go through the loss of the dolutegravir patent expiry patent, and we would expect there to be impact on the sales. We have got this strength of long-acting solutions, and the HIV market increasingly is moving to long-acting. Patients, 90% prefer long-acting solutions, injectables. We do believe it's going to, you know, the long-acting is growing very strongly. In fact, it's one of the major growth drivers of HIV at the moment. Net-net, we would expect some erosion. There will be erosion a little bit in 2028, some more in 2029, and then you lose the final set of patents, Dovato in the U.S. and Juluca at the end of December and July 2030. We'd expect it to be a gradual picture. I mean, we wouldn't comment on the shape of consensus, as you know. That's right. We're going to try next, Tony. Yeah. You know where this is going. Exactly. If we can, I mean, obviously, Julie's referenced Blenrep as important. A lot of interest as to how you feel conversations with FDA are going. Adcom was fairly clear, but you sort of noted discussions ongoing. Whatever color you can give. Yeah, and look, I appreciate people are very eager to hear more about this. You'll also appreciate that we're right in the middle of confidential conversations with the FDA, and I'm going to respect that position. I'd say a few things. You know, as we said at the time, those conversations are constructive. The major amendment was on the basis of new information that we submitted. We don't have too much longer to wait now. The PDUFA date is the 23rd of October. Try and create the sort of setting and understanding for what we'd see as being the basis of our confidence in Blenrep, I think is critically important. That is the fact that Blenrep still remains as the only off-the-shelf option in a second-line setting, particularly in the community, even in a hospital setting. People like Paul Richardson will tell you that probably 70% of his second-line patients are ineligible for anything other than Blenrep. We have a medicine that extends life by three years projected on OS, which is very unusual for a myeloma medicine with no life-threatening side effects. Now, as Julie mentioned, one of the key things that we have to do for Blenrep, not only in the U.S., but also ex-U.S., and it's not untypical for new oncology medicines, is to begin to understand and help treating physicians to manage the profile of the medicine. What I would say against the safety ocular side effects, just to underscore something there, is that this is an examination which is performed using standard equipment that you will find in an optometrist's office. It's a slit lamp examination. In terms of the, let's call it the significance of the side effects, the bilateral, we look at it from GSK looks at this from a standpoint of bilateral effects. Approximately 30% of the Blenrep patients experience a bilateral grade 3 event for about 10% of their treatment. I think our confidence is based on that unique benefit-risk profile. We're obviously working closely with the FDA, and I'll be able to say more post-October 23. I'll try a couple. You've kicked off with the community feedback, and we've also very clearly received that. It was clearly vocalized at the adcom. Yet you had the participants ignore it, but sort of give grid consult party of the debate. What's the mechanism for that community feedback to feed into an FDA process? I mean, typically, of course, there are a number of stages. It's not unusual for oncology medicines to have adcoms. It's not unusual for poor adcoms to still result in labels. The three stages that I look at are the adcom. Obviously, we were surprised by that. We're working closely with the FDA, as I've said. What then follows is the label and the associated REMS for that. Ultimately, the NCCN guidelines, all of which figure into the practice of prescription. Beyond that, there is, as we said, educating the treating physician, both in hospital settings and community settings, to ensure that they can take care of their patients in an appropriate way. Luke and the Med Affairs team are doing a lot of work to set that up. Just on that last point, can the guidelines look different to the label? They often do. My last question on Blenrep. The adcom, I felt, was very focused on the dosing work that may or may not have been done from their perspective. It almost felt as if they boxed you in by saying you didn't do it, they're not going to do it post-approval. Is that, how is that not a rate-limiting step to the extent you can comment? All I would say is that, again, it's not unusual for oncology medicines to be initially launched without a full understanding of the dosing and scheduling. It's typical that you might expect some post-approval commitments associated with that. We want to continue to do that in the context of the overall Blenrep clinical plan anyway. We'll be working closely with the regulator on understanding that in the context of dose optimization in the second-line setting. That becomes important for the first-line setting, as well as the appropriate choice of comparator and combinations. You'll appreciate this is a very quickly moving area. Just to finish the last component of that, so people are aware, a significant focus on the U.S. patient representation in those studies. Okay. Any more on this before I move on? There's a question in the back corner. Just wait for the microphone, please. We can't hear you. Sorry. Thank you very much. What about vaccine and Shingrix, so shingles. The last quarter was weak. Is it a trend that we should expect or there's a strong potential behind it? Thank you. I'll take that. Yeah, with Shingrix, we've got, I suppose, as we split two major regions, the U.S., we've got now, we're up to 42% penetration in the U.S. market with Shingrix. We're anticipating gaining about another three to five percentage points of penetration per year. Clearly, having reached this higher level of penetration, you're then dealing with harder-to-reach cohorts. Year on year, we wouldn't expect growth to be driven by the U.S. Where the growth is being driven from in Shingrix is all down now to outside the U.S. About now, 2/3 of the business is outside the U.S., and the penetration level in those countries is an average of less than 10%. There is a real opportunity. We just recently had a launch in France with the National Immunization Programme, for example. Europe, Shingrix in Europe is on fire at the moment, literally, because we're rolling it out with NIPs in different countries. I think the key thing is, you know, it's still a growing asset, but it's largely driven outside the U.S. The big sort of swing factor then is really relating to China. We launched with a partner, Zhifei, a couple of years ago. Clearly, the Chinese market's been under some pressure just for the macroeconomic situation. I think that's the one to watch, really, because as the China market improves, that could have a big difference to Shingrix. Very importantly, there are like 500 million people who could benefit from Shingrix in China, of which 150 million can privately pay. There's a golden market opportunity when the environment becomes more favorable. Can we do a couple of minutes each on the phase III readouts next year, Tony? Kick off with camli. I'll do it in two buckets. One, trial design, molecule differences versus the failed Merck, and then we'll get on to some of the endpoints and commercial. Yeah, sure. Let me just start to get everybody on the same page with trial timings within that as well. We're running two phase III studies, CARM1 and CARM2. CARM1 will be last subject first visit at the end of this year. CARM2, we're projecting the middle of next year. As with all of our parallel phase III studies, we won't read out the final result until we've seen the data from both. Everything is very much going according to plan. What we've been doing as we've been designing these studies is adjusting them to ensure that we take account of the variability that Merck experienced, that was, if you like, operational characteristics behind the CRL. I don't want to get into too much of the detail on that because you'll appreciate that some of those operational characteristics speak to how we deal with placebo effect and what have you. I don't want to risk unblinding studies in answering the question. I think it's important to say that with regards to the placebo effect, the detailed technicalities of the cough counting and the analytical treatment, and indeed the representation of the spectrum of coughing frequency, which goes from relatively low cough frequencies per day all the way through to 500 or more coughs per day. That takes you from the spectrum of, let's call it, stigmatization associated with coughing all the way through to the realities of incontinence or even organ damage caused by the consequences of high-frequency coughing. That has all been accounted for in the context of the CARM1 and the CARM2 designs. This is, as you'll appreciate from gefapixant in the phase III study, whose operational characteristics need to be considered very carefully. Importantly, the molecule itself is far superior to gefapixant. The key issue here, as I'm for people who haven't followed it, is that this is a target for which the closely related side effect comes from a subclass of the receptor. It's a P2X3 versus X2. If you hit X2, you get a very significant foul taste. That unblinds the study. It causes a significant degree of discontinuation. Merck had something like 60% of significant taste effects in their studies. For camlipixant, the number is 6%. We have a molecule whose characteristics are entirely consistent with the benefit we expect to see, both in terms of the patient experience, but also importantly, the blinding or unblinding of the study itself. We have a study which has been designed to take account of the placebo effect and difficulty associated with that. What I'm doing is making sure that we execute this effectively. You'll appreciate that rushing to get to the wrong answer is not what we're about with this. Very, very comfortable about where we are with camlipixant and the underlying characteristics of the molecule. The second study and timing relative to the first study, what drove that slide six months? It was the opportunity to begin to adjust the relative proportions of coughing frequency in the two studies. The pharmacology, which is associated with the upregulation of the receptors that I've talked about, becomes more clearly distinct at the higher end of the coughing frequency. That's trial design, trial outcome. What I've struggled with a little bit more, we talked about this a little bit earlier, is the actual addressable market as to how real that market is. I know it's more of a Luke question. Perhaps you could just touch on a number of patients, unmet need, ways thinking of positioning it. Yeah, if I answer for Luke, the sort of position he would take is that the funnel we see here is about 30 million patients in total, 9 million of which we feel ultimately are addressable through the differential diagnosis, 1.8 million who are currently diagnosed and sitting with pulmonologists. The cough frequency in that 1.8 million, just to give us some context. It will be at the higher end. I don't think we've disclosed that, but it will be at the higher end of the coughing frequency. Okay. Any more on camli? I'm going to move on to bepi, if I may. It doesn't come up as much. Obviously, data coming next year, so I'll just kick off high level. What do you think the promise of this asset is relative to what's out there? Yeah, and look, if you were to ask me what's the asset in our portfolio that is underappreciated, I would go to bepi. A few things about chronic hepatitis B. First of all, very poorly diagnosed and typically 10% or less. Despite that, the prevalence is still something like 300 million individuals. The majority of those, obviously, ex-U.S., but when Luke looks at the forecasting for this, the revenue is about the same in both U.S. and ex-U.S. What we have is a disease with significant long-term sequelae. Chronic hepatitis B infection often results in hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis. We have recent real-world evidence data showing that if you have functional cure, and functional cure is the ability to suppress both the HBV DNA and surface antigen marker below levels of quantification, that has a significant impact in the 80% region for reduction in risk associated with those late-life sequelae. There is a huge premium here for a molecule that can produce a functional cure for hepatitis B. I would expect diagnosis rates will then go from the 10% further north against the massive epidemiology that we talked about. Bepi is the only molecule that has shown effective functional cure in any clinical study. Interferon has in the past shown around about 5% - 8%, but the side effects associated with constant interferon use essentially make that a not viable treatment. Our phase II study showed around about a 10% effect in the broader population. What we did alongside that study, though, is very carefully analyze the system's pharmacology for effect and the phenotype for effect. This is a nice example of us using AI/ML. From that, we have a selection criteria that went into the B- Well study that we believe, based on projections, means we'll be in the 15% + range for the total population in B- Well. 15% is what's deemed clinically relevant here. Obviously, the lower your surface antigen goes, the greater the effect you'd expect to see. Following behind that, I think about bepi very much as a two-step process. There is an initial valuable proposition, both U.S. and ex-U.S. with the B- Well. I'm calling it monotherapy, but it's on top of existing nucleoside therapies. Excitingly, the DAP/TOM license that we secured, I think 18 months ago or thereabouts now, allows us to take that selected bepi population from the phase II study that I described and expand them still further because what DAP/TOM does is suppress a surface antigen. You can think about ultimately the sequential combination will take whatever we get for bepi, extend it to a broader ITT population, but also importantly, deepen the effect for everyone. You should see an increase in functional cure. Two steps, but the initial ability to shift from essentially no functional cure in a disease that carries significant sequelae into even 15% or 20% is a significant start. I'll just take one follow-up. We wrote on this last September note. Some of the feedback I've had, acknowledging that 2% goes to 15%, can you just frame why KOL seeing 15% is clinically relevant? What I get back is the Hep C functional cure rates are much higher and people are comparing and contrasting. Why in your mind is that not appropriate? I think we're back to the sequelae of not treating. You know, this is a substantial cost in terms of liver transplant on healthcare systems, for example. Okay. In the last couple of minutes, I'm going to jumble two bits together. What data do we get on Jemperli next year? I think Julie referenced that as one of the key deltas. What early data do we get on the ADCs that build out into some of the latest data? Yeah, let me try and do this in two minutes because it's quick. For Jemperli, the key studies are the AZUR and JADE studies. What you'll see next year is the first data appearing in the DMMR rectal setting. After that, locally advanced colorectal in the DMMR setting as well. JADE for head and neck comes in 2028, if I recall correctly. Very much on track with that. We're confident in Jemperli's efficacy in the DMMR setting. Just to bridge then into the other ADCs, the middle of next year with our partner Hansoh, you should see a lot more data emerging there. The way to think about this, B7-H3, first of all, and this is the broader of the two ADCs. Very much for us, the initial focus there is going to be on GI cancers. We'll also be looking at lung. We're in squamous cell. That's an important early indication. You'll see sarcomas as well. This is all about building the reputation of the molecule in the KOL setting. I expect that we'll also be extending our interests there into colorectal on the back of the position that we have for Jemperli. I look forward to telling you more about how we're viewing the landscape there for the future. GIGU for both B7-H3 and for B7-H4, sorry, for the GU setting as well. What's key there, again, is building on Jemperli's leading position in endometrial with both OS and PFS and recognizing that in endometrial and ovarian. I'm going to group them just to answer this quickly. There's opportunity in the maintenance platinum sensitive setting and opportunity in the platinum resistance setting. Ultimately, to be able to take either of those ADCs and swap out one component of chemo doublet in an early line. More on this as data develops. I think the headline for B7-H3 and H4 at the moment is that we're very much in signal identification territory. At the moment, the partnership with Hansoh is going fantastically well. Of course, in the context of signal identification, they're able to reach large numbers of patients and generate data really quite rapidly. I'm going to take one last one, even though the count has gone. You'd call that Jemperli as one of the deltas in oncology. If you could just frame the relative sizes, I don't know you get it exactly, but the relative sizes of rectal, colorectal, head and neck, like which of those three are the most important, or any rank order or color, as to which of the studies is most important to that ungating? Yeah, so rectal DMMR relatively small, DMMR colorectal relatively small, so low teens percentages. The key, of course, is can we expand the DMMR setting into the MSS setting, as it's called in colorectal. That's a little bit of understanding what are the characteristics there and how to position the molecule in combination, which is a piece that I don't want to get pulled on too much. Head and neck is a large opportunity, but again, a very heterogeneous tumor. Okay, I can keep going, but time's up. Julie, Tony, thank you so much. We have a lot of ground. Thank you.