Good afternoon and welcome to the Mind Med second quarter 2025 financial results and corporate update conference call. Currently, all participants are in a listen-only mode. This call is being webcast live on the investors and media section of MindMed's website at mindmed.co, and a recording will be available after the call. I would now like to introduce Stephanie Fagan, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer of MindMed. Please go ahead. Thank you, Operator, and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us today for a discussion of Mind Med's second quarter 2025 business highlights and financial results. Leading the call today will be Rob Barrow, our Chief Executive Officer. He will be joined by Dr. Dan Karlin, our Chief Medical Officer, and Brandi Roberts, our Chief Financial Officer. After our prepared remarks, we will open the call for Q&A, and Matt Wiley, our Chief Commercial Officer, will also be available for questions. An audio recording and webcast replay for today's conference call will also be available online as detailed in the press release announcement for this call. During today's call, we will be making certain forward-looking statements, including without limitation statements about the potential safety, efficacy, and regulatory and clinical progress of our product candidates, our anticipated cash runway, and future expectations, plans, partnerships, and prospects. These statements are subject to various risks, such as changes in market conditions and difficulties associated with research and development and regulatory approval processes. These and other risk factors are described in the filings made with the SEC and the applicable Canadian securities regulators, including our annual report on Form 10-K and our Form 10-Q filed today. Forward-looking statements are based on the assumptions, opinions, and estimates of management at the date the statements are made, including the non-occurrence of the risk and uncertainties that are described in the filings made with the SEC and the applicable Canadian securities regulators or other significant events occurring outside of Mind Med's normal course of business. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which are made as of today, July 31st, 2025. MindMed disclaims any obligation to update such statements, even if management's views change, except as required by law. With that, let me turn the call over to Rob. Thank you, Stephanie, and thank you, everyone, for joining our call today. I'm very pleased with our overall performance and execution through the first half of the year. We are currently on track with enrollment with our three pivotal phase III trials for our lead asset, MM120 ODT, which is being evaluated in patients with generalized anxiety disorder, or GAD, and major depressive disorder, or MDD, the two most common psychiatric disorders in the U.S. We took a strategic approach in selecting GAD and MDD as the initial indications for MM120 ODT, driven by the unmet medical need, clinical development feasibility, as well as the large commercial opportunity. Targeting both indications potentially provides us with the broadest label possible and enables us to reach a wider patient population. In the U.S., more than 60 million people live with GAD or MDD, and notably, more than 50% of patients with GAD also suffer from MDD. This creates a meaningful opportunity to address both conditions with a single therapeutic approach, particularly considering the limitations of current treatments. We believe MM120 ODT has the potential to offer a differentiated, novel, best-in-class treatment option for these patient populations. MM120 was granted Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA based on the results of our phase II-B trial in GAD, which showed an effect size of 0.81 in the 100-µg cohort, more than double that of standard treatments. As a reminder, a single dose of MM120 demonstrated strong clinical remission rates with 48% of participants in the 100-µg cohort achieving remission at week 12. Our phase III trials were thoughtfully designed to build on the strong foundation of these successful phase II-B results, while also positioning MM120 ODT for real-world implementation. The key advantage of our approach is the efficient single-visit treatment model, which we believe aligns with existing reimbursement pathways and supports full session coverage. This approach not only streamlines delivery but also reduces the administrative burden on sites where MM120 ODT may be delivered. Commercial opportunity for MM120 ODT is significant, supported by strong provider interest. Our market research shows that 78% of interventional psychiatric providers believe the availability of psychedelic therapies will transform the treatment landscape for GAD and MDD. We remain focused on advancing our pivotal trials with urgency. Across all three studies, Voyage and Panorama in GAD and Emerge in MDD, enrollment trends remain strong with continued enthusiasm and engagement from clinical sites. As our pivotal trials continue to progress, we are actively laying the groundwork for commercial readiness. This includes building our organization and making strategic hires to support both near-term execution and long-term growth, ensuring we're well-positioned to capitalize on the opportunity ahead. We are incredibly excited about the leadership we've been able to bring to the company, including most recently our new CFO, Brandi Roberts, who joined our team last month. Brandi brings over 25 years of life sciences financial leadership experience and is uniquely positioned to lead our financial strategy during this critical growth phase. Most recently at Longboard Pharmaceuticals, she successfully led the company through its IPO and multiple financings, culminating in a $2.6 billion acquisition by Lundbeck. Her proven track record of scaling operations, supporting clinical development, and managing strategic investor relations brings tremendous value to our organization. On behalf of MindMed, I'd like to welcome Brandi to our team. In summary, with three of our pivotal phase III trials well underway and top-line readouts for each of these trials anticipated in 2026, we are anticipating a catalyst-rich year as we progress MM120. With that, I'll turn the call over to Dan for an update on our clinical programs. Thank you, Rob. As you mentioned, we continue to be very encouraged with the enrollment trends we are seeing for our pivotal phase III studies. Starting with our GAD studies, Voyage and Panorama, we remain on track and continue to expect top-line readouts from Voyage in the first half of 2026 and Panorama in the second half of 2026. As a reminder, each study consists of two parts: Part A, a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group period assessing the efficacy and safety of MM120 ODT versus placebo, and Part B, a 40-week extension period with opportunities for open-label treatment designed to provide important long-term data on the durability and response patterns with MM120 ODT. In Voyage, we are targeting enrollment of approximately 200 participants who are being randomized one-to-one to receive MM120 ODT 100 µg or placebo, while in Panorama, we are targeting enrollment of approximately 250 participants who are being randomized two to one to two to receive MM120 ODT 100 µg, 50 µg, or placebo. We modeled these phase III studies after our successful phase II-B study of MM120 in GAD. The primary outcome measure is the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, or HAM-A, which was the outcome measure used in our phase II-B study and was the outcome measure used for the approval of currently available GAD therapies. In our phase III studies, the primary endpoint is the HAM-A change from baseline to week 12. In our phase II-B trial, we observed an almost eight-point HAM-A improvement for MM120 over placebo at week 12. We designed the phase III trials to have 90% power to detect a five-point improvement over placebo based on certain statistical assumptions. To ensure our actual statistical power is maintained, we are using an adaptive design in our GAD phase III studies, which includes an interim blinded sample size re-estimation that allows for increased enrollment of up to 50% in each trial if necessary. This approach helps to adjust for any unexpected variability in nuisance parameters, specifically dropout rates and pool variance of HAM-A response, maintaining statistical power and enhancing the interpretability of our results if needed. Just like our GAD program, our MDD program will consist of two pivotal clinical studies. Our first study, Emerge, is comprised of two parts: Part A, a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group period assessing the efficacy and safety of a single dose of MM120 ODT versus placebo, and Part B, a 40-week extension period during which participants will be eligible for open-label treatment with MM120 ODT subject to meeting eligibility requirements. In Emerge, we are targeting enrollment of at least 140 participants with a primary diagnosis of MDD randomized one-to-one to receive MM120 ODT 100 µg or placebo. The primary endpoint is the change from baseline in Montgomery- Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, or MADRS, at week six between the groups. We continue to anticipate top-line data from Emerge in the second half of 2026. In conclusion, our MM120 clinical development program is well-positioned for success. The FDA's breakthrough therapy designation underscores the potential of this innovative therapy. We continue to have productive engagement with FDA and appreciate the division's collaboration and responsiveness. Our phase III studies are well aligned with FDA guidance. Further, these studies have been designed to demonstrate standalone drug effect. To increase our chance of clinical success, these trials closely mirror a positive phase II-B study, which demonstrated substantial improvement over current therapies. With that, I'm happy to introduce Brandi to discuss our second quarter financial results. Brandi. Thanks, Dan, and thanks, Rob, for the warm welcome and introduction. I'm thrilled to be here with you today, having joined MindMed at such an exciting time. The opportunity to work with an experienced and passionate management team, especially with their deep drug development expertise, was a huge draw. Additionally, the chance to make a meaningful impact on mental health, an area with significant unmet need, really resonated with me. I'm excited to bring my experience to support our path to commercialization, which includes potential billion-dollar market opportunities. I will also be focused on enhancing our investor communications and leading our financing strategy to ensure we're well-capitalized to execute our priorities and create long-term shareholder value. As Rob and Dan mentioned, I'm also pleased that we are conducting our phase III studies with remarkable efficiency, which is a testament to the thoughtful and strategic approach taken by our team. From a financial perspective, I want to underscore the significance of this efficiency. By optimizing our study designs and regulatory pathway, we are not only maximizing the potential for clinical success but also ensuring the thoughtful use of our resources. This approach enables us to allocate capital in a way that drives value for our shareholders. I'm confident that our strategic and fiscally responsible approach will enable us to deliver sustainable growth for years to come. Now to review our financial results for the quarter ended June 30th, 2025. We ended the quarter with cash, cash equivalents, and investments totaling $237.9 million. Just a reminder that when looking at our balance sheet, this total comes from three line items: cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments, and long-term investments. Based on our current operating plan and anticipated R&D milestones, we believe that our cash, cash equivalents, and investments as of June 30th, 2025, will be sufficient to fund our operations into 2027 and at least 12 months beyond our first phase III top-line data readout for MM120 ODT in GAD. Research and development expenses were $29.8 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $14.6 million for the second quarter of 2024, an increase of $15.2 million. The net increase was primarily related to increases of $14.5 million related to our MM120 ODT program, $1.5 million in internal personnel costs as a result of increased headcount, and $0.2 million related to preclinical activities, offset by a decrease of $1 million in MM402 program expenses based on the timing of studies. We anticipate that our R&D expenses will continue to ramp up for the remainder of 2025 due to the costs associated with running three pivotal phase III studies. General and administrative expenses were $11.1 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $9.8 million for the second quarter of 2024, an increase of $1.3 million. This increase was primarily related to personnel costs as a result of increased headcount to support corporate growth and prepare for commercialization. With that, I'll now turn it back over to Rob for our closing remarks. Thanks, Brandi, and it's great to have you on board. In closing, 2025 is a critical year of execution, and I'm extremely proud of how our team is delivering. Our three ongoing pivotal trials remain on track with strong clinical site engagement, underscoring both the significant unmet need and the transformative potential of MM120 ODT. We've built a high-caliber leadership team with the expertise to execute our strategy and drive long-term shareholder value. With 2026 expected to be a catalyst-rich year, we remain confident in our ability to deliver on our mission of bringing a differentiated, best-in-class, novel treatment option to the millions of patients who desperately need it. Thank you for joining us on the call today. The team and I are now happy to answer your questions. Thank you. At this time, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from the line of Marc Goodman with Leerink. The floor is yours. Hey, how are you guys? Rob, there's been a lot of data that's come out by other psychedelic companies. I was just curious your thoughts on what you've seen so far and how you think about that just relative to your programs. Yeah, thanks so much for the question, Marc. It's an exciting time for the field, and certainly as we get into 2026, an especially exciting time. We have the three pivotal readouts from GAD and MDD next year. One of the things we've been really excited about with our data from phase II, and obviously it would be great to see replicate as we progress, is the magnitude and the significance of the change that we've been able to demonstrate that is also durable for many months. That's something that we haven't yet seen from any other drug in the class or any other program so far. I think as we've engaged with physicians and payers and everyone, we've been particularly excited by the reception of those data and by the promise of a drug that has such a significant impact and such a durable impact on patients and one that we again hope to continue to show strong evidence of efficacy and safety in the pivotal study. Certainly, again, excited for the field, excited for our programs, especially as we get into the phase III readouts next year. Thank you for your question. One moment, please. Our next question comes from Pete Stavropoulos from Cantor. The floor is yours. Yeah, hi, Rob and team. Congratulations on the progress. Brandi, nice to hear you, and congratulations on your new position. For the Voyage and Panorama studies, can you just discuss the powering assumptions and the assumed dropout rate or study discontinuation rates? For the phase II-B, I believe there was a 25% dropout rate. Can you expand on steps you're taking to drive better retention and how much of that is attributed to the open-label extension design or higher probability of active treatment? Yeah, thanks so much for the question, Pete. I'll cover the first part of that and then turn it over to Dan. The powering assumptions are consistent across both Voyage and Panorama, which is we assumed 90% power to detect a five-point difference between those groups. It's important to note that while a power analysis is incredibly important, we also look at the minimum clinical difference that would need to be observed to get a statistically positive outcome. That, by nature of the maths, is almost always lower than the powering assumptions. While we're powered for a five-point delta at 90%, and that assumes a 10-unit standard deviation and a 15% dropout rate, we certainly would anticipate that we wouldn't necessarily need to see a five-point difference between the groups to get a statistically positive outcome. I'll turn it over to Dan to talk about patient retention and how we're thinking about that in phase III. Yeah, thanks, Rob, and thanks, Pete. I think you actually identified exactly the features of the study that are going to control that dropout rate. Obviously, having more folks in an active treatment arm yields less dropout. You identified, I think, what we look at as the absolute key feature, particularly for folks who aren't feeling better after their first blinded dose, is that knowing if they hang in there for that full 12-week observation period that we will provide the opportunity for open-label treatment is a real encouragement for people to stick around for the entire double-blind period. We're optimistic about that dropout rate and optimistic about the ability to provide those open-label treatments during the extension phase. Thank you. One more question, if you don't mind. I guess assuming positive phase III data and MM120 is approved, what do you expect from real-world use and commercialization? What I'm sort of asking is how are the phase IIIs and the OLE designed to generate real-world treatment patterns? Yeah, I'll turn that one over to Dan as well. Yeah, that's another really exciting part of the extension phase, is that, as we've said before, the extension phase gets us the ability to watch long-term, over that full year of observation and even beyond, what the effect of the double-blind treatment is. For folks who do progress to the extension phase and then are able to get open-label treatment, we intentionally set a limit of four treatments per year, thinking that that is more than folks would need because we don't want to limit those data. We want to actually get at, exactly as you say, real-world treatment patterns. Given the availability of those open-label treatments, with a threshold that's below the threshold for enrollment, the threshold set for retreatment being right at the threshold for mild to medium illness. What we think we'll see in the extension phase is very much what we expect to see in the real world. Given that threshold for treatment, given the fact that it's open-label, given the fact that we have the clinical trial sites closely engaged with patients, we think that we'll be able to establish the range of treatment patterns that are to be anticipated in real-world treatment and be able to describe those as we come out of that study and the results of the extension phase. All right, thank you. Helpful and congratulations once again. Thank you for your question. Our next question comes from Brian Abrams with RBC Capital Markets. The floor is yours. Hi there. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. Congrats on the continued progress and congrats to Brandi on the role. Two questions from me, I guess. First, just kind of thinking about the enrollment trends for the Voyage study. It sounds like those are going quite well. I'm just sort of wondering if you're at the point where more than 50% of the trial has enrolled and an interim analysis would be taken to determine whether you'd expand sample sizes. Secondly, I'm curious about the degree of commercial preparatory work that you might start to do at this point and what your sense is from just operationally the study, the execution of the studies, what the key areas are that you're going to need to focus on or want to focus on first in the launch with respect to site education and awareness. Thanks. Yeah, thanks so much, Brian. To your first question, we have not given exact numerical updates on enrollment. As a reminder to everyone, the interim analysis would be conducted after about half of the patients have completed 12 weeks of the study. We've yet to give a precise update on numbers and certainly are excited to get through that milestone and get through to data. In terms of the second question, I'll turn it over to Matt Wiley as well for our Chief Commercial Officer to answer. Yeah, thanks for the question, Brian. As we have spent the last several months working through a number of key strategic elements of the plan, first and foremost, the market access. We want to understand the different pathways to reimbursement. We're anchoring our market access strategy into practice economics. We want to make sure that clinicians not only have access to the drug, but it's not a loss-making opportunity for them. We have spent a lot of time examining the industry progress, the different pathways that are used in interventional psychiatry. We've also spent quite a bit of time breaking down the targeting methodology for GAD. We want to ensure that we're targeting those facilities out of the gate that have the highest volume of GAD patients, those that are probably most appropriate for MM120 right at launch. We have gone through that process. We've built out a targeting apparatus that we think is pretty tight. Now we know where our patients are and where the clinicians who manage them are as well. That's where we've been focused. Over the last month or two, we've really zeroed in on our product positioning, and we're working on our messaging platforms and market conditioning efforts as well. As we move through our process over the next several months, we'll have more to update on our pre-market conditioning activities and also more on our market entry strategy. It makes a lot of sense. Thanks so much. Thanks. Thank you for your question. Our next question comes from Arabella at H.C. Wainwright. The floor is yours. Arabella, the floor is yours. We're just going to continue on. One moment, please. Our next question comes from Jay Olson of Oppenheimer. The floor is yours. Oh, hey, guys. Congrats on the progress and thanks for taking the questions. Can you just talk about your expectations for the durability of efficacy beyond 12 weeks, and when do you expect us to see that longer-term efficacy data? Yeah, thanks so much for the question, Jay. You know, in phase II, and the highest quality data we have to go on, we didn't continue observing patients formally in a structured manner beyond 12 weeks. We certainly also didn't see a trend where there was a loss of separation or a trend back towards baseline for patients who received 100 µg. If those trends were to replicate, they would certainly suggest that durability could last beyond a 12-week period. We do have some evidence from prior studies, from collaborators who have conducted prior studies to suggest that in anxiety disorders, the effects can be quite long-lasting. In the event, and not uniformly distributed either, of course, where sometimes a second administration can have an even further prolonged extension of that durability. It'd be premature to make assumptions about exactly where those data would fall out, but we're certainly very eager to get to those data as we progress in the studies. We haven't given the specific guidance around when those data would be made available, but again, we would certainly be very, very excited to get those data and share those as they do become available. Okay, great. Thank you. If maybe I could ask one follow-up. Assuming that your phase III study results confirm the initial observations from phase II, what would you expect the dosing interval to be in terms of number of doses per year in a real-world setting? Yeah, I'll turn that one over to Dan. Yeah, it's a great question, Jay. Obviously, we're working in a somewhat speculative space there. As Rob pointed out, we did not see loss of efficacy in folks who had a strong response to a single dose in phase II. We expect that will be the case for many folks in the phase III as well, and of course, in the real world. What we anticipate for the use of this drug is not so much predictive intervals where we can pre-specify for any individual, though you're likely to need to take this every six months or every year. We expect that different people will have different response patterns. Those response patterns will range from the best possible response, someone who takes the dose and goes into remission and has a sustained period of remission such that if they ever were to need a subsequent dose, we could almost think of that as a new development of the disorder, all the way through to, on the other end, folks who do need some sort of regular re-dosing. Given that we were seeing efficacy out to 12 weeks in phase II and that very likely proceeded longer, that interval could be six months. It could be a year. It could be three months in some cases. Unlike daily drugs today or unlike other drugs that have a requirement for a pre-specified interval because they lose efficacy either when off drug or shortly after taking drug, we think real-world treatment patterns will be quite a bit more variable with our drug. Great. Super helpful. Thanks for taking the questions. Thank you for your question. Our next question comes from Elias Georgas from Canaccord. The floor is yours. Hi, this is Elias for Sumant. Thank you for taking the question. I was just thinking about, with your discussions with the FDA, can you provide any color on what maybe the design of the second phase III MDD study would look like? Are you going to be required to use the 50 µg dose as you had to do in your GAD studies as well? Yeah, thanks for the question. We haven't yet disclosed the design of that study, and we've continued to have a lot of progress with both the GAD and MDD programs. Obviously, there's been a historical discussion around expectancy and functional unblinding and different approaches to try to mitigate that in these studies. We always refer back to the reality that every drug in psychiatry deals with functional unblinding. It just so happens that this is based on the qualitative nature, kind of the first time that programs are widely being asked to go an extra mile to try to control for and look at this. We certainly see some utility in inclusion of a dose such as that, which is, of course, why we included it in our second GAD study. When the time comes and we're in a position where we're able to share study design, we'll certainly also want to be sharing and talking through rationale for any of the choices we've made in terms of how the second MDD study is designed and how we're executing it. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Our next question comes from Patrick Trucchio from H.C. Wainwright. The floor is yours. Hello, everyone. This is Luis in for Patrick. Thank you so much for taking our questions and welcome, Brandi, to the team. I would like to ask a little bit about the strategic collaborations that you've already established with interventional psychiatry treatment centers. You mentioned that you have grown your partnerships and that your payer discussions and reimbursement strategy align along with the deployments of your treatments in this network of centers. Can you give any updates with respect to the services, specifically monitoring time and time in the clinic? Thank you so much. Yeah, thanks for the question. One of the elements of our phase III program is to, you know, as we approach development generally, is to really try to have a pre-specified and a thoughtful approach to understand all the dynamics of treatment, whether it be real-world-like re-dosing in the extension phase of the study or the dynamics of a single administration of the drug. We are monitoring that and have a structured way of doing so that we've talked through and presented with the FDA in prior discussions. Defining that timeline and what it is for individual patients and on average and the various summary statistics you can come up with that could be suggestive of how long patients need to stay in a clinic is something we're very focused on and certainly thinking about as we analyze the data from the phase III study. As we engage in that and have additional clarity we can offer, we can certainly be in a position to share that at some point in the future. Are there any updates on how reimbursement would fit the current Medicare plans? Yeah, it's premature to talk specifically about reimbursement. We have continued to have strong engagement with payers and feel confident in our approach going forward, but it's certainly premature today to say anything precise around the dollars for reimbursement. Great. Thank you and congratulations on your partnership. Thank you for your question. Our next question comes from Chris Chen from Baird. The floor is yours. Thanks for taking my question. I just had one on enrollment. I know you've previously talked about the synergies between, you know, the GAD trials and Emerge such that if a patient is screened for GAD but turns out, you know, they're diagnosed with MDD, they can roll into the MDD trial. Can you just confirm that? If so, can you comment on whether some of the sites are seeing this happening? Yeah, thanks so much for the question, Chris. That certainly was our intent in designing the studies and running them in parallel and making sure that we have as much efficiency in the conduct across both of the indications. As these studies have progressed, we've seen that play out exactly as we had hoped, where we're getting nice retention. For patients who do have a depressive episode, we have an easy path to move them into a depression program if that ultimately emerges in the screening process. Great. I did have one more follow-up. Just in terms of the treatment visit itself, can you kind of add a little more color? Is there a healthcare provider in the room the whole time during that dosing? If so, what guardrails are in place to avoid kind of crossing that line between providing psychotherapy versus just assisting the patient? Thank you. Yeah, thanks. I'll turn it over to Dan to answer. Yeah, thanks, Chris. It's a great question. There is a provider in the room. There's also always another person watching the conduct in the room. We're very explicit on what folks are allowed to do in that room and where their focus needs to be. Their focus is on assistance and, for the most part, not engaging with the participant. Most of the time, participants are in the room. They're engaging with their own internal process, and the monitor is doing just that, monitoring. Through that process of training and monitoring of the conduct in the room, we stay on the side of monitoring and away from psychotherapy. Great. Thank you, and congrats again on the progress. Thank you for your question. Our next question comes from Rudy Li from Chardan. The floor is yours. Hi, thanks for taking my question. Congrats on progress and welcome to the team, Brandi. It's good to hear that the timeline for the 12-week primary readout was confirmed. Could you remind us what additional data are required by the FDA and what will be the rate-limiting stats for filing the NDA for GAD? Thanks. Yeah, thanks so much for the question, Rudy. Certainly, the studies have been designed such that the primary endpoints at 12 weeks and the double-blind, pseudo controlled parallel group portion of the study, Part A of both Voyage and Panorama, are studies we expect to have completed before we'd potentially be moving forward with an NDA. All eyes are on that top-line readout, which would drive the path forward from there. I do have a quick follow-up question because you mentioned that you're exploring additional programs, including potentially any external collaborations to expand the pipelines. Can you provide additional color on your overall strategy, like what kind of product or indication that you look at? Yeah, it's a great question. We're incredibly excited about all that we have in our pipeline, you know, with three pivotal studies ongoing. Of course, a lot of focus gets put on those studies. Certainly, MM120 is an asset. It's one of the best-known drugs in the entire class and one so far that seems to have provided some really standout activity in our phase II-B program. There is certainly much more that our team is working on and that we're capable of bringing forward into the future. As we look at the landscape, we feel incredibly confident in the organization we've built and the team's ability to execute, and the scope of what we think we can accomplish long-term to really drive meaningful change for patients and meaningful shareholder value is something that we are always focused on. Certainly stay tuned because we're excited about MM120. We're excited about everything else we're doing as well and excited to share that as time progresses. Cool. Very helpful. Thank you. Thank you for that question. Our next question comes from Michael Okunewitch from Maxim Group. The floor is yours. Hey, guys. Thanks so much for taking my questions today. I guess just to kick things off, I'd like to see if you could talk a little bit about your IP position and strategy and how important that this might be in the context of any discussions with potential partners or pharma. I bring this up now because I'm sure you saw the report from a few days ago regarding Gilgamesh and AbbVie. Yeah, thanks for the question, Michael. We're really confident in our IP strategy and with the patents we've been granted and continue to file. The team we've been working with for many years advances our approach and makes sure that we're filing applications on real meaningful innovations and delivering a product that is targeted to be optimized for patients and that is also something we can protect. That continues to play out and we continue to progress with our IP strategy and filing. We feel very comfortable with that position and are also comfortable that anyone looking at it would feel similarly. All right. Thank you. We have seen a lot of enthusiasm behind psychedelics come out of the FDA. Even earlier today, Compass mentioned that it's exploring opportunities for an accelerated pathway. Is this something that could make sense for MindMed, or is it a bit of a different situation with your two phase III readouts being so close together and generalized anxiety versus treatment-resistant depression? We have breakthrough therapy designation, which already offers some avenues for, of course, greater engagement, but also opportunities for acceleration. It's always something we're looking to do is be as efficient and execute and deliver on time and then expedite the path from there. We're certainly exploring all avenues and all options to do that. The timing of the readouts, we also feel it's important to provide robust evidence and a comprehensive program that would stand up to any degree of scrutiny at any point in time under any review timelines. We're eager to get to our readouts next year. Having both pivotal readouts in the same calendar year gives us an opportunity to be, I think, in the strongest possible position with the GAD program. All right. Thank you very much, and congrats on all the progress you're making. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Our last question comes from Sumant Kulkarni from Canaccord. The floor is yours. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. I'd like to welcome Brandi with a question. How are you thinking about the appropriateness of the financial resources that are available given so many pivotal trials are running right now at MindMed? Yeah, thanks so much, Sumant. It's great to have joined the team. This is such an exciting time for the company. I think when you look at that, I'm really impressed with how we've put our phase IIIs together so that there are efficiencies built in there, like we've just talked about, with being able to use sites that are enrolling in our GAD and our MDD studies. I think that that's really helpful. I also think we've been really prudent as we've grown, and we will continue to do that and really analyzing when we need to add resources and making sure that those are all responsible in terms of the timelines that we're adding people and adding activities to it. I think that's been really our focus. I will say that we really do like to make sure that we have flexibility as well. This quarter, we did amend our debt agreement with K2, and that provides us with additional flexibility if we need to. There are things that we think would enhance our programs. As we stated in the call, we feel very comfortable with our cash position and guidance getting into 2027 and 12 months post our top-line GAD readout. I feel like we're in a good position to execute and are looking forward to next year. I'll squeeze a commercial question in. Nowadays, investors seem to be kind of jumping to a conclusion on the perceived fact that less time in the clinic is potentially always better when it comes to psychedelic therapeutics. How are you thinking about your MM120 in the context of that kind of thinking? Yeah, thanks, Sumant. I'll take this one. We remain incredibly convicted about both the activity and the dynamics of MM120 in relation to both approved products and the potential there, but also in the broader field of drugs with similar mechanisms of action. I think it tends to be an easy assumption to fall back on what is already being done. Like any real meaningful innovation, those precedents and assumptions can only serve anyone so far. We, again, remain in all of our discussions and all of our planning. As we think about the landscape, we're incredibly encouraged by those discussions and by the dynamics of MM120. I think there's some other dynamics as we progress and share more about commercial strategy that can also highlight some dynamics. Certainly, the SPRAVATO model is one that exists. It emerged in response to the availability of a treatment, which in SPRAVATO, that is, which we're now, again, if phase II data are something we can replicate, we feel really confident about being able to stand out in the field in terms of the kind of magnitude and durability of response that we've seen so far. As we think about every dynamic from practice economics, as Matt alluded to earlier, to patient and provider preferences and the desire to make sure that if a patient is going to have such a durable effect, that their providers have the opportunity to navigate that with them and really support them throughout their overall care journey, not just the administration of our product. We feel really, really good about the dynamics of our program and our product and are eager to show the world how that plays out over the long term. That's very helpful. Thanks. Thank you for that question. There are no further questions, so this does conclude the question and answer session. At this time, I'd like to thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program, and you may now disconnect.