Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Novavax PREVENT-19 phase III Final Data Announcement Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal the conference specialist by pressing star then zero. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question press star then one on your touch tone-phone. To withdraw your question press star then two. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your speaker today, Silvia Taylor. You may begin. Good morning. Thank you to everyone who has joined today's call to discuss our PREVENT-19 phase III final data results. A press release announcing our results is currently available on our website at novavax.com, and an audio archive of this conference call will be available on our website later today. Please also note that we have posted the slides that we are using during this morning call at novavax.com/events. Joining me today for discussion and a Q&A period are Stan Erck, President and CEO; Dr. Gregory Glenn, President of Research and Development; Dr. Filip Dubovsky, EVP and Chief Medical Officer; and John Trizzino, EVP, Chief Commercial Officer, Chief Business Officer, and Interim Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin with prepared remarks, I need to remind you that we will be making forward-looking statements during this teleconference that could include financial, clinical, or commercial projections. Statements related to future financial or business performance, conditions, or strategy, and other financial and business-related matters, including expectations regarding revenues, operating expenses, cash usage, and clinical development and anticipated milestones are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Novavax cautions that these forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties, which change over time. I'd now like to hand the call over to Stan. For those of you following on the accompanying slides, please turn to slide three. Stan? Thank you, Silvia. Today is a great day for Novavax. This morning, we were talking about the exciting results of our PREVENT-19 phase III study in the U.S. and Mexico. This work follows a successful phase III trial in the U.K., a successful phase II trial in South Africa, and a successful phase I/II trial in the U.S. and Australia. These trials taught us a lot about our vaccine, and from the early clinical data and even the preclinical work before that, we are encouraged about the potential of NVX-CoV2373 to play a significant role in combating the global COVID pandemic. With each analysis, our trials prove that we're on the right track. Today, the safety and efficacy that are consistent across all studies, our PREVENT-19 results reaffirm our strong belief in 2373. All this work has been made possible by the participants who volunteered for our trials and the research and clinical staff who conducted the studies. We are grateful for all these contributions. We're also thankful for the support of the U.S. government and CEPI. For more on these results, I'll turn it over to Dr. Filip Dubovsky. Thanks, Stan. We can go to the next slide. I'm really pleased to present these results to you today, and I think we're all going to be excited when we see these results. Slide four has the design of the study. As you remember, this study included 30,000 adults greater than 18 years of age, and it was randomized 2:1. Where we are with the current study is we've crossed over the adults, so the people who received placebo got active vaccine, and the people who got active vaccine got placebo. Additionally, we've expanded this study to include adolescents 12- 17 years of age, and we've completed enrollment of that age group. The data we'll be describing today is data in the adults only, and that's from when they were randomized to when they crossed over to receive their crossover vaccine. This will include both safety and efficacy data. Next slide five. On this slide, what you see is a time course of the variants that occurred in the U.S. in the color diagram on top. You can see that we gave dose one from December 27th to February 18th, and dose two from January 18th to March 26th. The blue box indicates a window in which we captured efficacy endpoints. What you can see in the bright orange is that there was an emergence of B.1.1.7, which was first identified and described in the U.K., a large portion of the strains in the U.S. There's a very small sliver in bright red in the bottom, which accounts for 1%- 2%, and that includes cases from B.1.351 variant, which was first described in South Africa. We conducted the study, the efficacy evaluation period, during a time when variants emerged in the U.S. Next slide. We're talking about slide six. Just to remind you that one of the features of this study is we had a big push to enroll diverse populations, and that included previously underrepresented racial and ethnic subgroups. You can see in the chart that we did very well in enrolling Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans, as well as Asian Americans, and we had a broad location of the trial sites in the U.S. and a handful in Mexico. Next slide. We're on slide seven. Slide seven highlights the demographics of the population we actually enrolled, and you can see the randomization worked well. All of the key categories were well-balanced between the vaccine and placebo group. I want to call your attention to the bottom line, which is medical comorbidities of 37%. These are high-risk medical conditions that we tried to enroll to make sure that we had a population that was representative, including people who would most benefit from the vaccine. Next slide. This slide is a very high-level review of the safety that we saw, and you can see both serious adverse events and SAEs were infrequent and they were balanced between the two age groups. The graph didn't project well but the bottom three lines with adverse events of special interests and deaths, those all had a rate of less than 1/10 of 1% and were also balanced. No adverse event was reported more frequently than 1% of the participants. This is very consistent with the previous data we captured in the U.K. as well as South Africa. Next slide. Now we're on slide nine, and slide nine shows the reactogenicity profile of the vaccine. Let me orient you to this slide a little bit. On the left-hand side, we have the local reactogenicity symptoms, dose one and dose two. On the right-hand side, the systemic dose one and dose two. In gray is the placebo group, and in blue is the vaccine group. You can see if we focus first on the local side, that we had an increase of local reactogenicity events after dose two, which was completely expected. The most common ones were pain and tenderness, and these were all short-lived, occurring both median and mean less than three days. You can see the grade three response in the gray bar was very low indeed. On the right-hand side are the systemic side effects. Once again, a few more after dose two, once again expected. The terms that were most common were fatigue, headache, and muscle pain. These were also short-lived, less than two days, median mean, and the number of grade threes was low. This is very consistent with our previous studies. I think it may be important to look at fever rates, which were very low, including grade threes. The safety profile we just discussed was reviewed with the NIH DSMB, and they agree with our evaluation of this data. Let's turn to the next slide 10. Slide 10 shows the primary efficacy endpoint. You can see that in the vaccine group, we had 14 cases. In the placebo group, we had 63 cases. I want to remind you once again, this is 2:1 randomization. This resulted in a vaccine efficacy of over 90% with a lower bound of 83.9%. As a primary efficacy endpoint, this had a statistical success criteria which we achieved handling. This was above 3% with a lower bound. It's important to note that 82% of these cases were caused by Variants of Interest and Variants of Concern, and that these are the definitions defined by the U.S. CDC. I think another notable feature is that all the cases in the vaccine group that broke through were in the mild category. We have a secondary endpoint which looks at moderate and severe later in the deck and can focus on that then. Next slide. Now we're on to slide 11. Slide 11 is a detail about the variants that we were able to identify in the study. As you saw previously, a total of 77 cases in the per-protocol population. We have sequence data available on 54 of those cases. We may get some subsequent, further sequencing, but these are the ones we had in hand for the primary analysis. What you can see is that as far as Variants of Concern, 65% of all the cases fell in that category. The vast majority were 117, which was first identified in the U.K. You can also see B.1.429, which is California, 351, which is South Africa, and P.1, which is Japan and Brazil. 17% of cases were Variants of Interest. These include from the top going down, U.S.A., New York. You have the India Delta variant, but that's a 617.1, another more severe one, as well as Brazil. Finally, in the screen category, you can see that 19% of the cases were Variants not of Concern or Interest. These are cases that have not been identified as worrisome by the CDC. In this category, I think it would be more like prototype, including Wuhan strain would fall into this group. Let's turn to slide number 12, please. We identified as a key secondary endpoint efficacy against Variants of Interest and Concern. The reason we did this is that this most resembles the max strain that the vaccine was built against. The prototype or fitness category as with the virus was first identified in Wuhan. As you can see, we had 10 cases in the placebo group and zero cases in the vaccine group, yielding an efficacy of 100%, lower bound greater than 80%. As a key secondary endpoint, we also pre-established a success criteria in the statistical analysis plan, and we beat that handily. There are a number of cases that we were not able to sequence, in fact, 23 in all. Of those, 21 were mild, one was moderate, and one was severe. You can see that all the cases in the node that occurred in the vaccine group were in fact mild. This makes some scientific sense that mild disease likely had lower viral loads, so it's harder to get enough virus to sequence the data. This all holds together from a scientific perspective. Let's move to the next slide 13. Slide 13 is the flip of that analysis, that's looking at efficacy against vaccine Variants of Interest and Variants of Concern. This is an exploratory endpoint, you can see that we had a total of six cases in the vaccine group, 38 in the placebo group, yielding a vaccine efficacy of 93% with a lower bound greater than 80. This I think is remarkable. It shows that if you generate antibodies of a very high quality, they are actually able to impact both Variants of Concern and Variants of Interest. Next slide, please. One of the predefined secondary endpoints was efficacy against moderate and severe disease. In this analysis, you can see that we had no cases in the vaccine group, 14 cases in the placebo group, giving a vaccine efficacy of 100%, lower bound of 87%. We additionally had a post-hoc analysis looking just at severe disease. You can see once again we had 100% efficacy against severe disease with a 95% confidence interval starting at 35. Remember, this is 2:1 randomization, so you can think of this more like zero versus eight cases. I think additionally, we had six hospitalizations with COVID, and this included one patient who succumbed to their COVID disease. These all occurred in placebo group. These were not included in the efficacy analysis because by the strict rules of the protocol, the PCR had to be done by the central lab, and because these patients were hospitalized, they were unable to submit samples. We're going to be conducting a post-hoc analysis which includes all severity, including hospitalizations. That should be coming up in the near future. Next slide, please. Now we're on slide 15. Another predefined secondary endpoint was efficacy in the high-risk population. This was defined in the protocol as those who are greater than 65 years of age and those who had medical conditions such as obesity, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease, and Type 2 diabetes, or were living under life circumstances which increase their risk to severe disease or getting COVID, including things like crowded living conditions as well as working in packing plants. You can see in this analysis we had 13 cases in the COVID group, 62 in the placebo group, yielding a VE of 91% lower bound, once again greater than 80%. I'll go to the last slide, and I can sum up the results. This is now slide 16. Overall, the primary efficacy evaluation yielded a vaccine efficacy of over 90%, and this was in the face of a predominance of variants of interest and concern over 83% were VOIs or VOCs. Additionally, when we just looked at those that were variants of concern or interest, we had a vaccine efficacy of 93%. Once again showing if you generate high levels of quality antibody with this vaccine, you're able to impact disease caused by variants. We had 100% protection in this analysis against moderate and severe disease. Furthermore, we had 100% protection against variants not considered variants of concern or interest. Once again, this is where the original prototype strains would fall into. It's a good benchmark about how this vaccine technology could perform against matched strains. All the hospitalizations occurred in placebo group, and all severe cases, including deaths, occurred in placebo group. With this, I'm going to conclude my remarks, and we can go back to Stan. Well, thank you very much. Great data. Absolutely. All right, we're going to open up to Q&A. Operator if you could organize that for us, that'd be great. We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question press star then one on your touch-tone phone, if you are using a speaker phone please take off your headset before pressing the keys. If anytime your question have been addressed then you like to withdraw your question press star then two. At this time we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. The first question comes from Charles Duncan with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please go ahead. Good morning, Stan and team. Thank you for taking our question and congratulations on these very good data. Quick question regarding the number of infections. I think the data speak for themselves, but I'm wondering if you could provide a perspective on how to interpret the data relative to data sets that may have higher numbers. Do you believe that the numbers that you have here and the stats have clear predictive value for efficacy of the vaccine when more patients or more people have taken it? I'm not 100% sure specifically what you're asking, let me answer two questions. One of them is if we think about the high numbers in toward a matched vaccine strain, that's why we pre-specified the efficacy analysis against variants not of Concern and Interest. This is a number which we think would be similar to results we'd get if we were doing this just against Wuhan or the [third- type strain]. As far as the broader analysis, the primary efficacy analysis, that actually included vaccine efficacies against all variants, and 80% of those cases were variants. I think this very much is going to represent what we can hope to see when this vaccine gets deployed. I guess I'd like to point out that the overall vaccine efficacy was only different by about half a percentage point from what we saw in the U.K. We're getting very consistent results against both variants as well as with non-variants. Okay. Thank you for that. Did that answer your question? Yeah, it did. I was just referring to 77 infections versus, say, something like 150. Do you have confidence in this data? The second thing is, was there any geographic grouping in the observation of infections? For the latter question, we don't have that data yet. As far as the robustness of the data, I think it speaks for itself. Our lower bounds in all these analysis were above 80%. That shows a very consistent and very robust response. In the ITT analysis, which we don't have in hand yet, we have well over 250 cases. If you remember what happened is the epidemic slowed down just as we were entering the efficacy evaluation period. Where we lost the ability to have many cases, what it gave us was the ability to have many variant cases. I think in the context of what's happening globally, efficacy of variants is going to be a very key feature. Last clinical question is regarding the side effect profile. You mentioned fever, and I'm wondering if you can speculate on, call it, the technology platform versus some others that are out there. How do you interpret the fever observation as being fairly low? I think your notion is right. Each technology is going to have a different safety profile. We've tested this obviously with many different antigens, including our NanoFlu product, and it's always been favorable. In this case, you have extremely low levels of antigen, five micrograms. That's just a tiny bit, and it's really in conjunction with adjuvant that we get such high levels of efficacy, high levels of neutralizing antibody with a very broad spread of epitope identification. I think those do matter. We are aware that there's going to be some data coming out soon from the U.K., where they're doing mix and match studies, and that will continue to build our efficacy profile. Okay. Last question for Stan, probably your favorite question, and that is, how do you feel about being able to produce vaccine, and can you provide some, call it quantification, if that's important, or other measures of success that you anticipate in the near term? Sure. I think that we're not changing guidance that we gave a few weeks ago at the end of the first quarter earnings report. We are filing this on a global basis. We'll be filing all the data now that the remaining CMC data, which is the long column 10, is being put together now. We expect to file with the U.S. FDA, with the U.K. MHRA, with the EU EMA, and also importantly, I think in India and Korea. All of these filings, we intend to have those filings done in the third quarter. The different agencies will take different times to evaluate it. A lot of them are working on it right now because we've had rolling submissions, and our goal is to manufacture all of the plants. We have been successful with all the plants globally, these eight manufacturing sites, to produce product at commercial scale. We haven't had the raw materials to produce them at commercial scale consistently throughout the first half of this year, but we expect to be able to do that starting in the third quarter. Our goal is to be up at a capacity of around 100 million doses per month by the end of the third quarter and 150 million doses per month by the end of the fourth quarter. Perfect. Thanks for taking my question. Congrats on the deal. Thank you. The next question comes from Kelechi Chikere with Jefferies. Please go ahead. Good morning. Congratulations on a much anticipated data here. These data clearly position Novavax in 2373 as one of the premier players in the space. I guess my first question is, where are you at in the process of completing your CMC requirements versus where you were in early May? I guess more importantly, how much risk would you say is there with you actually completing those CMC requirements for your Q3 filing? I guess my second question is just similar to Charles, just if you could help us put into context your level of confidence in reaching your vaccine production goals in Q3. Is there a particular supplier coming online, the Biden administration lifting the embargoes? Any data points that you can cite to have basis of your confidence would be extremely helpful. Thank you. Yeah. It's a process, and the process involves developing assays for your product. We make products in eight different plants in eight different countries, and we have to make sure that the process allows us to make the same product. When we make a batch in the Czech Republic, that it looks exactly the same as Korea or the United States. To do that, you have to develop a set of comparability assays, potency assays, purity assays that show the product is the same. That's what takes time, and we're in the middle of that validation process. We've taken one of the most important assays and qualified it. Now you validate it, and that basically just means you have to run it just a ton of times with every varying condition and show that it works the same way. We're doing that, and it takes time. I think we're going to be successful in meeting our timelines. With respect to one of my concerns about being able to scale up that requires raw materials, I think that one of the things that's constrained us in the past is not being able to ship materials across certain borders. Now the borders are opening up, and all the manufacturers have been trying to increase their capacity, whether it's for filters, whether it's for 2,000-liter bags or media. This is an industry-wide problem, and we're getting better availability of product. It's still tight. In normal times, you'd want six months worth of raw material inventory in a production plant, and we don't have that, but we have weeks at least, and before we had a week, it's getting better. That's helpful. Thank you. The next question comes from Mayank Mamtani with B. Riley FBR. Please go ahead. Good morning, team. Congrats on the stellar data here, and thanks for taking our question. Two quick ones on the data. Filip, on the dropout rate, just please comment on what you sort of reported here relative to what you had expected. In terms of follow-up, how much you have in terms from a safety standpoint, and what more you think you need to, if you had to file for an EUA, putting the assay requirements aside, how much safety follow-up you have at this point? Yeah. Maybe the second question first. We timed the closing of the database and the efficacy evaluation to match what's required by the FDA to keep EUA. That was a median of safety data for two months after the second dose. That's captured, and that is the data that you got a read glimpse of now. This is an ongoing process. We just have top-line results, but we'll be getting the rest of the safety data, which we'll be summarizing, writing it up into a clinical study report, and submitting it to all the global regulatory agencies, including the U.S. IND. As far as dropouts, we had, at the end, approximately 5,000 people drop out of the study in all. They dropped out at different rates, slightly higher in the older people who had easier access to EUA vaccine early on, and slightly less so in the younger folks. Be that as it may. As you saw, we obviously had adequate cases to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine, and we're going to have more than enough cases in the [security database as well]. Great. On the unsequenced 23 cases, is there reason to believe that there's a higher proportion of Delta and Beta variants in there, just given the relatively, again, everything's relative, so a low VE number there? Yeah, that'd be really speculative. I think one thing you can feel confident of is if there are some hiding in the vaccine group, they're mild disease. When we run the primary analysis, including even those you couldn't sequence, and all the disease that did break through was mild. We hope to have some additional sequencing. Based on that, we're taking different approaches to sequence it, and that will be cooked into a post-hoc analysis where we can evaluate that as well. We may be getting some more information. We just don't have it in hand right now. Awesome. You obviously have had a lot of other publications come out since Friday, the three preclinical studies, and then also the co-administration study with flu, a sub-study part of your U.K. cohort. Maybe just touch on how you're thinking about variant-specific vaccine versus single booster, given that you're seeing such strong efficacy here against the VOI, VOCs. Just maybe comment on what we should be watching out for the Com-COV study data coming out later this, I guess, in July at some point. Yeah. First of all, as far as the variant work, the real question I believe you're asking is do we really need a variant-specific vaccine? Or if we give just this vaccine or this vaccine with a booster, would that be adequate to achieve very high levels of protection against the variants? Right now, the data we have from this study are quite reassuring. As you know, in our phase II study, we are giving six-month boost dose, so we'll be able to quantify their level of immunity, and we can try to, in the lab, see those can neutralize whatever variant is emergent at that time, including Delta. That's one feature. Of course, we're also working on constructing our variants vaccines, and maybe Greg can touch base on what they just published. Yeah. As you know, this Friday, we put out a manuscript on the Beta variant we made, and we tested that in three different animal models. It was very effective at preventing matched virus as well as drifted virus B.1.1.7, the original prototype strain. I think Filip is right. This data is really encouraging, suggesting that our vaccine against variants we're seeing in the U.S. works extremely well. We're still on track to evaluate the South African variant strain in the trial because we want to be ready. Also in that paper, you saw we boosted non-human primates who had been primed with the original strain with our South African variant strain, and we got extremely high immunity. Reaching back and reaching forward. Our goal right now is to generate the data. We're watching the very ominous third wave, for example, in South Africa, and we want to be ready if there's a decision made or a need to go to the variant. Right now, I think this data speaks for itself, very strong against the variants we've seen circulating, certainly in the U.S. Just back to the Com-COV data, that immunogenicity data will be available at a later date. As you know, for the Com-COV, the initial one, their initial study where we did not participate, they published their efficacy profile as a letter, and we're hopeful that we're going to have a similar treatment to Com-COV2, where we did participate. Perhaps that data will be available in the near future as well. Just to touch base on the study that perhaps you were referring to in your question, we have a manuscript which is available on medRxiv now, which included an influenza sub-study in the U.K. study. There we demonstrated that we had equitable reactogenicity when we co-administered our vaccine with influenza. We did not impact the immune response to flu at all for all four strains in the main group. Most importantly, we maintained a trend toward efficacy of 87.5% in the people who received flu vaccine at the same time as our vaccine. This really compares favorably with the overall endpoint, which was 89.8%. I think we do have a path forward now to thinking about vaccinating people in the wintertime when they need both influenza as well as COVID vaccines. Great. Thanks for the comprehensive answer and appreciate you taking our questions. Congrats again. As a reminder, if you have a question, press star then one to be joined into the queue. The next question comes from Eric Joseph with JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yeah. It's Eric Joseph with JPMorgan. Thanks for taking the questions. Just one on sort of the timing of the data release this morning. Congrats on the efficacy. Great. Just given that you basically kind of accrued all the events by the end of April, can you just sort of help us understand sort of the lag in timings between having essentially those cases in hand and the fuller data set detail today? On the regulatory plot, if I remember correctly, the demonstration of comparability with large scale manufacturing with 2373 was needed to start the phase III trial. Can you just clarify how the CMC requirements for submission to you differ from those to start with the 19 and can we anticipate a relatively more swift process with respect to an EUA package here in the U.S.? I'm not 100% sure I understood the first part of your question. I'll take a crack at it anyway. Yes, we finished accruing cases at the end of April. I think your question was why did it take so long to get the results? In that regard, we had many steps we had to take, including cleaning all data for 30,000 people, since we need to have a clean safety database as well as the efficacy database. We also need to sequence those strains. Finally, all the severe cases were adjudicated by an external adjudication committee. They had a lot of work to do to make sure that they all lined up and all the classifications of mild, moderate, and severe disease lined up. Essentially that's the process we undertook. We just got the results now. Did that answer your question? I wasn't sure on the back half there. Maybe there's one piece also. Now we have strong efficacy data with a scaled-up manufacturing process. During comparability of our other processes, we will anchor a lot of the work to the comparability to this lot. It provides a very good anchor for the CMC to have a lot that's gone through efficacy. I think that's what you're referring to. Yeah, Eric, this is Stan. I apologize, but could you redo your question about CMC issues? It was my understanding that comparability with this large scale manufacturing, large scale lot was what you need to demonstrate or satisfy with AWS to start with the 19. Are the requirements for CMC meaningfully different to satisfy EU regulators compared to what was required to start the phase III trial here? I guess given that you essentially used products manufactured under a large scale process here for the 19, sort of more swift, do you basically have the validation assays already in hand to support the CMC requirements for an EUA in the U.S.? Yeah, I think that the answer to this is that the process of getting these assays in place requires developing them and then qualifying them and then validating them. We have gone through the qualification process in particular, and are in the middle of or hopefully the tail end of validating these, which is a time-consuming process. Then you run all the assays on the various lots and show comparability. It's just a time-consuming process. We've got lots of people working on it. We've got eight different plants that we're trying to demonstrate comparability on. Having said that, the work is going on, and we'll get there. Maybe just a final question. I get a lot of questions from investors on how you're thinking about pricing, particularly sort of whether the anticipated pricing model differs for a vaccine that is used sort of in this pandemic period versus one that's used more as a booster in an endemic setting looking next years following? Yeah, that's a great question. The answer in the short run is the pandemic, we have a pricing scheme that's got a tier for the low income and upper middle income and high income countries, and it's pretty much in line with some of the other manufacturers. In fact, it should be noted, and I think this is a good thing. It should be noted that given that we've got a commitment of 1.1 billion doses with COVAX, along with our partners Serum Institute, a lot of our first doses are going to go into low and middle income countries, as they should. Then, in parallel, we have Advance Purchase Agreements with four or five high-income countries that we will be supplying those as well. In the very early days, it's going to be low-, middle-income countries. Throughout 2022, I think it's going to transition from satisfying the $1.1 billion dose commitment all of our APAs, and eventually it's going to transition into a booster. We haven't determined what the pricing scheme for that would be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't follow a tiered pricing again by country that we sell it to. I think particularly in the U.S., our vaccine is going to be probably most importantly used as a booster, but that's going to be true. Actually, in the U.S., we've got a lot of prime boost doses to get out there. There's a lot of people that haven't been vaccinated yet. Even as we work our way through those, there's going to be a need for boosting. We know there's a need for boosting, and I think that's pretty well accepted in the industry. The studies that are going on right now are going to show how our vaccine is effective at boosting and has a safety profile that's favorable. Okay, great. Thanks for taking the questions and congrats again. Sure. Okay. This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to management for any closing remarks. I'm sorry, was there one more question? There appears to be one more question. Yes, we actually had somebody just join in as I was saying that. We have Vernon Bernardino with H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead. Hey, Vernon. Hey, Stan. Thanks for squeezing me in and congratulations on the whole process and the successful positive results. It's been a long journey, and glad to have been there with you. Thanks for squeezing this question. The other comments you just had brought a question that I didn't think of until then, and that is, what have you looked at so far as far as a market study that you could perhaps expect in the future? How are you looking at it as far as market share when you get to the vaccine being a participant or having a role in a market where it's all a booster shot in the U.S.? Yeah. We have been looking at it, and I think that what we see is not a pandemic vaccine that just goes away once we get everybody vaccinated. I think we look at this as an ongoing large market, much like characterized maybe by the flu, where you have a changing virus and have to have a booster. Whether the booster has to be an annual shot or something different from an annual shot time will tell, but we see this as an ongoing market. When you transition from pandemic to the more commercial aspects of the market, then you have to look at product advantages more carefully and market share and pricing will probably follow those characteristics. We're confident in our vaccine with the characteristics we have, the safety profile, the stability and ability to ship at standard refrigerated temperatures is going to be an advantage of ours. That's how we see that play out. There's going to be also an opportunity to combine our vaccine with our NanoFlu vaccine. We know the results that we have from our phase III clinical study earlier last year. We just published actually a paper showing that in animals now that our combination NanoFlu COVID vaccine does very well. The combination, adding COVID to flu or flu to COVID doesn't change the immune response that you get to either. We actually challenged the animals with COVID and got 100% protection against COVID challenge. We're optimistic that we can bring this along as well. Perfect. That's an environment I'm looking forward to and congratulations again and thanks for squeezing in my question. You're welcome. Okay. I think we're done, and I'd like to thank everybody for listening in. This is a huge milestone for the company and hopefully for the world of vaccination. We expect to bring our platform forward into people's arms around the globe as soon as we can. The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.