Good afternoon. I'm Chris Schott at J.P. Morgan, it's my pleasure to be hosting a fireside chat today with Albert Bourla, Chairman and CEO of Pfizer. Albert, happy New Year. Thanks for joining us. Happy New Year. Thank you very much. I know you wanted to make some opening remarks, and then we can jump into the conversation from there. Yes, I can do that. First I want to say that the last time we met was in this place, the two of us. Yes ... just before COVID. How many things have changed since then? Really amazing. Yeah. It's unbelievable. Which sets also the stage for some opening comments that I want to do. What I want to discuss, it is what is the future of Pfizer in the post-COVID crisis. Mm-hmm. I'm using on purpose the post-COVID crisis era because I don't think that COVID is stopping this year. In fact, I think that COVID will remain for the next multiple years a serious health issue, and as a result will be a big part of our R&D line that we are going to invest, and is going to be an even bigger part in our revenue line. Although our revenues from COVID in both treatment and vaccines will go down, clearly will remain both of them, each one of them, the two largest products of Pfizer in the, in the long run. The business clearly has two components, and the only distinction between the two, it is that one is way more predictable, which is the non-COVID business. This is a business all of us, you, everybody there, can model way more, is way easier because we have benchmarks, we have analogs. Then there is the COVID, which is more uncertain because the assumptions if the disease will exist, what will be the treatments rates, they don't have a precedence. I'm going to try to isolate the two and the 1st and only slide, if I can have the next slide, please. Please read all of this in our website. Then we can speak. I'm going to start with the non-COVID business, and this is a graph that more or less we put out during our last quarter's earning. Mm-hmm. This is basically the growth strategy of Pfizer and why I believe that is going to be a very strong growth strategy. In 2020, we set a goal that our business will grow at 6%, starting from 2019 as a baseline. If you see the midpoint of our guidance that we gave for the end of 2022, we will give the real number in few weeks. Mm-hmm. We must be around $44 billion. This is the midpoint. The $44 billion in constant exchange rate is exactly 6%. Mm-hmm. This $44 billion of non-COVID business, which is exactly at 6%, will continue growing at 6% all the way to year 2025. Mm-hmm. We are very confident about it. Which means that if you do the math, that in year 2025, the non-COVID business, excluding business development, should be at $52 billion, which is the 1st graph that you see there. Most of the analysts were in line with this expectation. Some were saying it's $5 billion, some were saying it's $6 billion. Now I think everybody goes closer to the $6 billion. The challenge that we're raising was that after 2025 you're facing a very big cliff of LOE that basically will take away all the growth prospects that you have. That's why we try to build this graph to demonstrate how the situation will go. Indeed, in between 2025 and 2030, we estimate that we are going to lose $17 billion because of products that will go LOE. The analyst expectations about this number is pretty much the same. They think 18. We think 17. The consensus that I'm reading is 18. In the next 18 months are the most important 18 months in the history of Pfizer because we are going to do something that has ever done before. We are going to launch 19 new products and indications. Most of them are new products and some of them are indications, new indications of existing products. Those collectively, starting from now all the way to the mid of 2024, we estimate that we'll produce revenues of 2030 of approximately $20 billion. Mm-hmm. The analyst expectations from that is, surprise, slightly lower, so they are at $16 billion from that. There are not huge differences between the two. Following that, we made a commitment. We put a goal out there that we are going to purchase through the extraordinary firepower that we are having. Mm-hmm projects and science that will deliver eventually products that will deliver $25 billion of incremental revenues by year 2030. Far from this goal of 2025, we have achieved 40% of it in the 1st year of implementation. We have approximately with the four acquisitions that we did, $10 billion. The analysts think that the 10 is 8, by the way. It's the same thing. They are all hardly cutting it a little bit. Post that 18 months of launches, we have an entire pipeline that is maturing and is going to give launches that will occur in the 2nd half of 2024 and in the year 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028. Products that are included in this box over there, which we call X, are GLP-1 and it is the gene therapy portfolio. We have three projects that are in this X category and, we are, just announced results from one. We have the vaccines against Lyme, we have the vaccines against shingles, we have all the combination vaccines between COVID and flu, COVID, flu and RSV, flu and RSV. We have multiple oncology launches, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We have made estimations occasionally for each individual products, but they don't quantify it here in this box how much those are because they are a little bit earlier. I'm sure that the difference between us and others will be even bigger. What is the punchline here? Mm-hmm. If we will be able to execute in our plan of delivering $25 billion of revenues, $20 billion of business development, and $20 billion of risk-adjusted revenues through the launches that we are doing, we should be reaching a situation that we will have a growth that will exceed the 6% benchmark that we set in the beginning of 2020, all the way to 2025. Our revenues should go comfortably between $25 billion and $30 billion at the 6%. Based on the success of the pipeline, could easily exceed the 10% mark. Those are the numbers. Of course, if we make 6% from $52 billion all the way to 2030, that means $70 billion. If we make 10% from $52 billion all the way to 2030, $84 billion. This is the growth story of Pfizer, and I believe it is pretty well de-risked. The $20 billion, they don't have any technical risk other than the flu product that we haven't seen yet, significant results. All the other big components of the next 18 months launches have been de-risked. Mm-hmm ... technically at least, so there's only the commercial risk. The $25 billion, we have invested so far $26 billion to buy revenue of approximately $10 billion, which gives us a very good value for money and a good rate of 2.6x revenues through our acquisition. With that, I feel that the non-COVID business is very, very solid. Mm-hmm. You want to discuss that then we go to COVID? Let's do that. Absolutely. A lot on COVID. As one of the questions I have, I mean, this framework's very helpful to, I think, help contextualize not only your organic business, but how you think about putting capital to work. I guess I always get concerned when I see a company putting a revenue target on acquired assets, and that it, you know, I just like, you know... This idea of, like, how do you ensure attractive returns on the business? Now, so far, I think we've certainly liked the deals you've done. It seems like the Street like the deals you've done. How do you think about the risks that get introduced by incentivizing the organization to be looking at a revenue target versus just looking at returns on transactions? More or less you gave the answer to that, but I will elaborate on that. Mm-hmm. It is, many people advise against setting a goal about that. One, it is because that makes you accountable, and then you need to deliver, so be careful before you set a goal. Yeah. I feel very comfortable that we plan, and we will deliver, and we wanted to be accountable against it. The 2nd was exactly what you said. Many people will say if you put a goal, you give the impression to the street that you are after a number. In order to make your number, you're not going to be disciplined in allocating the capital. I knew this risk. Mm-hmm. I took it, and indeed, people talk to me like that. However, then we did one after the other. The three big acquisitions that we did following this announcement, because ReViral was very small, in each one of them the stock went up. In each one of them. Each one of them received the confirmation, if you want, of the street, that this is a good allocation of capital. We like what you did. This is less of a concern now. Still I think it is there. I'm sure that everybody of you will be looking at us next year, this year actually. Yeah. We will see how we deploy what will be our next moves. Yeah. We will see how much of that $25 we can achieve to start with, and what is the means of achieving it. Is it $2.6, or it is different numbers? Is it good value for money? Mm-hmm. Everybody will be judging us on that. If we wouldn't put that number there, people wouldn't have this discussion that we're having right now ourselves. Yeah. That you need to count when you value Pfizer's stock, the firepower that the company has developed, that it is a different league than basically any other pharma company right now. Mm-hmm in the industry. Which it's a significant advantage that is not counted unless if you translate it to something tangible, which is billions by 2030 revenue and CAGR. Yeah. On the BD front, if I think about those three bigger deals we saw in 2022, is that a good proxy for how you'd envision capital allocation for Pfizer going forward? I guess the question, you know, is, you know, were those kind of unique assets, or can we think about either deals skewing larger or smaller? I'm just trying to get a sense of, you know, kind of what's your sweet spot right now. Yeah ... for M&A. First of all, sizes, we are agnostic to size. Yeah. We can execute big. What we don't want is to execute big business development of the typical we buy another pharma company. Yeah ... and then we give a high premium to the shareholders of the other company, and then we cut costs so that we can justify the premium. That is not going to happen. Why? Not because it's bad strategy in general, right? Mm-hmm. It is a bad strategy for the time of the company. Mm-hmm. Look at that. In the next 18 months, we're launching 19. In the next 18 months we are having a significant R&D pipeline. Mm-hmm It is developed. Do I want to shut down research centers, shut down manufacturing sites and reallocating reps because you are reducing the field force? No, I don't want to do it. It's not good for the company right now. If it is a biotech- Mm-hmm of large size, it could be part of that. Okay. When you see the targets out there, I would say that there are three distinct groups. Mm-hmm. One, it is some usual suspects, few big biotechs. Usually they have few products and a very big pipeline. Usually they're very expensive. Yep. They are very expensive because there's a lot of value in the platform, the mRNA platform, for example. Mm-hmm. Something like that. This is a lot of money to get a company like that, has the benefit. That it comes significant chunk of revenues in one transaction. Mm-hmm. Also is very expensive with things that comes with a lot of R&D costs. There's the middle level, which is companies like more or less the ones that we did, which is they have in one leading asset that it is quite developed, maybe before registration, maybe just after registration, and then a follow-up molecule that looks very promising. Mm-hmm. Arena was the same, Biohaven was the same. They are coming with less R&D expense, which doesn't affect your leverage as a result. They are immediately accretive in most of the cases. The question is if you get them in a good price so that you can add value, either through your bigger commercial presence, your ability to manufacture, your ability to develop the follow-up molecule faster. There's the 3rd, which are smaller in size biotech. They don't have any product yet, but they have platforms. Mm-hmm. Those are very cheap to buy compared to how much you pay in terms of molecules. See, everything is relative in America. It's relatively cheaper. I don't think that to make the 25% and then also continue growing further. Mm-hmm ...we can do it by focusing only one or the 2nd or the 3rd quarter. Okay. It's going to be a portfolio of all three. Mm-hmm ...with different, of course, size. So far was mainly the middle level. It's going to be a portfolio that will de-risk it as a result, and will likely aim non-risk adjusted more than 25%, so risk-adjusted will be 25%. Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Maybe just on the core business growth itself. I know you're targeting 7%-9% top line growth for 2023, ex your COVID business. Can you just elaborate on what are the biggest drivers of that growth we should expect this year? If I kind of break it into how much of that's core, how much of that's new launch, how much of that's acquired revenue? Yeah. Is coming, you are right. We almost gave guidance 75- Mm-hmm ...9% for the non-COVID business. We are going to give the official guidance in, but will not be any different number than that, right? Yeah. We are not going to change our mind in a month. The driver, it is approximately 1/3 of this, let's say, at 9% growth, comes from already launched products. Mm-hmm. One-3rd comes from business development acquired products, 1/3 comes from newly or about to be launched next year from our own pipeline products. It's almost 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. If you take out That's very indicative. If you take out the business development. Mm-hmm ...the remaining is exactly 6%, as we have promised. Always will be, which means the in-line products plus our own pipeline that we are launching. Right. I think with that, you talked about OPEX stepping up and that you're making investments to support these new launches. Should I think about this as a multi-year increase in expenses, or is this more of a one-time kind of rebasing of OPEX, and then we can think about maybe slower growth going forward? I would say it's rather the 2nd. Let me explain. Okay. Look, we are in a unique situation. Mm-hmm. No other company, including us- Mm-hmm ...have ever launched 19 products in 18 months. Yeah. It's a very big thing, and you need to do it right, because the future of our company is how successful we are going to execute. Just look at these bars. Clearly, in order to support, excuse me, the $20 billion expectations of new product launches, we will have to make sure that we have enough SMA. Already we restructure months ago our commercial operations, so they are ready and better aligned with this new portfolio that is coming, and we are going to over-resource those launches. I'm not going to take any chances. Yeah. Let's go to the last one, which is all these products that they continue now with R&D. We have very high expectations for those products. Mm-hmm. I just said some of that, in addition to all the flu and mRNA type of things that are happening, they are not included there. R&D needs to go up to support again this point there. Mm-hmm. The 3rd it is, of course, we are going to progress from the 10% that we are now, let's say, I don't want to give a number, but we are going to progress significantly towards the goal of 25%. That could come with more or less R&D expense, because we are not buying just products, right? We are buying also projects. With all of that in mind, to support this plan next year and the year after, especially next year, you're going to have a significant number of expenses that should not be needed in the way of post those launches, which is where the vast majority of the expense goes when you launch new products. we kind of have this window where that steps up, and then as top line continues to grow, we can think about that investment. Actually, they should diverge. The top line should continue grow. Yeah. Because exactly, we did all of that at one big chunk. You should expect big top-line growth because 19 products is driving, not three or four. Mm-hmm. Also big, also more stabilization of expenses in the outer years because you are out of this extraordinary situation that you are investing to support 19 launches altogether. Yeah, that makes sense. I know you hosted a broad late-stage pipeline day in December. I guess just maybe taking a step back, just the thoughts on the overall state of the pipeline at this point. I think it's something we're talking about ahead of time of how much this company's changed going back from last time. We're sitting here in 2019. It's just kind of, you know, it's a lot of progress. Just talk a little bit about how, you know, the R&D portfolio as a whole and just R&D within Pfizer has changed over the years and how comfortable you are with the business here today. Yeah. To assess that, you need to assess it, 1st of all, with some of the current benchmarks metrics that we are using to assessing this. As you know, all of us, all the companies participate in benchmark studies. We are giving very detailed numbers of our R&D productivity. There are coming the results. We are standing out as one of the best, most productive R&D machine right now. Mm-hmm. We are having the best success rates. Our success rates end to end, from 1st in humans all the way to approval, is around 22%. That's five years rolling, right? It's a difficult to change measure. The same measure for the industry in this benchmark is 11. Mm-hmm. We're double the success rate. When it comes to time to complete from 1st in humans all the way to approval, we were able to take out almost three years in the last three years. Wow. 2.6 to be accurate. Mm-hmm. Right? We were at nine point something, and we are sixpoint something now in terms of how long it takes, and we are very pleased about that. That's why we are so encouraged to keep investing in our R&D machine so that we have because we believe the return will be very high. Now, you don't measure metrics, you measure revenues. If we arrive that that will give us $20 billion, it's a very phenomenal productivity of R&D. The fact that we are launching 19 products in the next 18 months says that we did something well in the last four years. In general, I believe that we are in a very good state. As I said, the next 18 months is not everything we have. I just listed the things that they are not included there. Yeah. There are multiple projects that are triggering the attention of everyone. I feel very good about our R&D productivity. When I look across the pipeline, what are you most excited about when you think about what's coming to market, and what do you think is most underappreciated in the portfolio? You know, I 1st of all, I try to understand what is the most unappreciated. When I see we have 20, they have 16. Mm-hmm ...what is going on? a lot of that comes that a lot of the analysts, they don't forecast all the way to thirty- Okay ...frankly, right? We have a number. If you, for example, I think you go all the way to 27 mostly- Mm-hmm in your numbers, right? We're getting there. You are not. You want to be accurate. Yeah ...and everybody's way more accurate and more, let's say, professional when he can defend what he says. Mm-hmm A lot of the discrepancy comes in that outer years. Okay. Right? Yeah. Now there are some that we think is more than others. Mm-hmm. The one that I think is the most underappreciated, it is the elranatamab- Yeah which is our lymphoma. Mm-hmm. I believe when we see the data that it is best in class and we are coming, of course, now early next year. Early this year, I'm sorry. We change the year. Yeah. With a new launch for a category of triple refractory- Mm-hmm ...which is a smaller indication. We have six indications in eight people that study is running right now. I think that's could be a double-digit blockbuster, right? Okay. Now, we will see- Mm-hmm ...how things will evolve, but that's one clearly one. Clearly stands out, yeah. GLP-1, clearly everybody's excited about that. Mm-hmm. I believe that it is something that could. We said that we think it could be a $10 billion product for us in a market that could be $90 billion. It's not part of these calculations, but it is a major upside if we get it right. We think that will be very few players that will play in the oral GLP-1. Mm-hmm. Us and Lilly, clearly, we are going to be one of them. Yep. We think the data should show which one has better profile. We believe and we hope that we will have. No matter what, it's going to be so big market that, it's going to be very big product for both of us, I think. Yeah. Yeah. also the mRNA vaccines. Mm-hmm. Of course, we speak about. I was hearing Stéphane before speaking about the potential of mRNA, and I agree with everything he said that can have on flu. Also how that can unlock the combination products, flu and COVID, flu and RSV, and how can unlock dramatically the utilization of COVID or of RSV. Mm-hmm ...because with a combination product you can immediately rise it to the flu utilization, which is 50% Yeah ...in these countries. Very, very big. These are some of the very exciting opportunities. Yeah. Can I ask a different one? RSV, you had some very interesting data as we had the 2nd half of last year. How do I think about that market developing as kind of a, you know, a new kind of vaccine coming to the space? There's obviously a lot of RSV in the news these days. Talk a little bit about market development of that asset. I don't think it's rocket science. It's very standard, and we have seen these type of markets developing with other diseases like Prevnar, like Pneumococcal. Mm-hmm. I think there is a component which is a pediatric component, how to protect the infant, and we have come with a very revolutionary way, which is maternal immunization. You, let's say you immunize the mother and it's passing the protection to the baby in the very six months. The results were very good, so we are expecting approval based on that. Then there's another market, which is the adult market. The adult market in RSV is going to be look more like flu rather than Pneumococcal, because Pneumococcal creates immunity almost for life. Mm-hmm. We have it's once in lifetime in the adult. Mm-hmm. Although we are looking at it right now to see if after five years you need... It's very long, right? Sure. I think COVID is very short, flu is very short, and RSV likely will be the same. A combination product of the three, particularly when in this country there is no co-pay for any vaccines by law, based on the new IRA that was voted effective January 1st, no matter in which plan you belong, if you are commercial or Medicare or Medicaid, if the vaccine is recommended by ACIP, then there zero co-pay for patients. People will be going to get their flu shot and they will be presented with the option, "Do you want flu and RSV and COVID?" The question will be how much it costs. They will tell you zero. I think you will do three. Yeah. Yeah. It is very clear. They kinda build on each other as you. I think that's why I said it's very important because right now if you see the booster market of COVID, it's stabilized around 30% utilization. Right. Around 30% of the people did booster. Let's go with if it's, let's say, last. Yeah the 4th booster. Yeah. The Omicron or not Omicron, but 4th booster, right? Mm-hmm. If you take that as a goal, I don't think we need to go to crazy calculations, but a 30% booster with between one and 1.5 doses like per individual... Mm-hmm ... because some adult people will do two or three during the year, is giving you a certain number. If you combine it with flu, this 30+ will go to 50. Okay. It's a step growth- Yeah that would unlock significant value. Yeah. That's an interesting opportunity. maybe one last one on the... You mentioned oral GLP-1. Just talk a little bit about the competitive landscape there. I think we're all kinda... It's all early days, but No. It's early days, but I wanted to be very respectful also to competitors. Particularly, I don't want to speak in the absence of competitive direct study. Sure ... comparisons. Right? I would say that this is a market that will grow to $90 billion altogether. Mm-hmm. We are very confident on that given the current size of the market and the current growth rates. Mm-hmm. Very big part of the value and the ability to grow to $90 billion I think will be the introduction of oral medications. Okay. In all the market research that we are doing, we see that there is a preference in the diabetic population for an oral compared to injectable. Mm-hmm. When it comes to obese population, this is what really unlocks the market. Okay. It's significantly more important, the oral in the obese market, than it is in the diabetic population. Even diabetic there's a preference. The question is, are the oral products going to deliver the same efficacy with the injectables? Mm-hmm. If the answer is yes, then I think this market will be very big, and at least $30 billion- Yeah ... of the $90 billion. In this market there have emerged three competitors right now, right? Us, Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Mm-hmm. Lilly and us particularly were slightly real, or we don't have any diet restrictions, et cetera, when you take them, the oral medication. Let's say three are there. Will depend on the profile. We believe, based on what we have seen, that we have way stronger profile. We believe we are a full agonist. We see that there is a dose dependence, so the more we increase the dose. Mm-hmm ... the better the efficacy in our molecule. We haven't seen that with the other molecules. They plateau after a certain point. Okay. We believe that by titrating appropriately, we will be able to take the dose to higher levels. Our studies that we are running now are at way higher dose levels that we think will yield better results. Okay. In the event that you're, let's say, in the same zip code as competition, certainly if you got a, you know, premium profile, it's a huge opportunity. As a 3rd entrant to the market, is there still a big opportunity for Pfizer to, you know? Let's just say you're at parity with where Lilly is as an example. First of all, I wouldn't sign that we are 3rd entrant to the market. Okay. We have done in eight months what others did in eight years. Okay with COVID, and this is the same clinical development machine, so I wouldn't underestimate that. Sure. The studies are moving very fast. We will try to come, if not 1st, the same time. Mm-hmm. I can't promise that, right? This is our goal. Okay. This is right now. Secondly, I truly feel that even if the profile is not... Mm-hmm ... as good as, Lilly's, that, the market is big enough, so the product will be a multi-billion dollar product. Yeah. Yeah, it's a big opportunity either way, so. Yeah, it's not that it will be $10 billion. Yeah. It will be two basically, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Pivoting over to COVID, you've talked about 2023 being a transition year for the business. Can you just elaborate on the dynamics that are contributing to that? Absolutely. What I think will happen in the COVID, one, there is a fundamental question: Is COVID going to continue? Mm-hmm. Our scientists answer to that, in the foreseeable future, yes, it's going to be flu. They can't make a scenario that COVID disappears from the world. It's all over the places. The virus keeps mutating. The virus, irrelevant if it is a natural infection or a vaccine, creates very short-lasting immunity. Mm-hmm. You get COVID today, forget if you are vaccinated, you get COVID, you can get the same strain after six months. Mm-hmm. Right? This indication says that the virus will be there for the years to come. Sure. This is our planning assumption. Mm-hmm. If this is correct, how I think things will play out. Social distancing will disappear. Mm-hmm. Already has been disappeared. Look at us. We are enjoying life. I see a couple of people with masks. Yeah. I don't think we will see many of them. Yeah ...as we move forward. Mm-hmm. Vaccination rate, as I said, will stabilize to way lower levels than the levels that we saw when we launched, the product. First dose, 80%. Second dose, 75%, right? That's the prime. In the booster we went down to 50%, 60%. In the 2nd booster, the 4th dose, we went down to 30%. Mm-hmm as I said. I think we'll stabilize somewhere there. Okay. This is not enough. Mm-hmm because as the population as time passes, the population will be less immunized, less current. As a result, the waves that will be coming will come in by, with higher. The clinical manifestation of these waves will be more severe disease. Okay More hospitalization, basically. Mm-hmm. That will drive higher level of treatments. Mm-hmm ... demand. Mm-hmm. That, on volumes, how we see that happening. Mm-hmm. What I said that our assumptions is now we stabilize at around 30% in the U.S., and hopefully, we'll make it bigger. Will it change dramatically if we bring a flu COVID combination? Sure. Right. That would come, it comes in 2025. That comes, let's say, a step. What is why... That will be the same utilization, I think, in 2023, 2024, 2025, going forward, right? As it is with flu. Why 2023? What is the characteristics? In 2023, we have very specific things. It's the year that we are transitioning from governmental purchases to commercial market. Mm-hmm. This means that at the center. We believe that for both products, this will happen this year. Based on all our expectations, this year will happen to both products. In order for it to happen, we need 1st to absorb the stocks that the government has purchased. There are significant stocks here and in other places, right? Mm-hmm. That needs to be absorbed... Mm-hmm ...this year. Once you start launching, there's a different price, right? We have announced our price for the vaccine. Mm-hmm. We haven't announced the price for COVID, but the governmental price for Paxlovid was based on gigantic commercial contract. Yeah. Right? It's not going to be the retail price. 2023 will be impacted by that. It's difficult to predict because you don't know when the transition will happen. Also, you don't know if the government will take any stockpiles or not, strategic stockpiles. I believe likely they will, but I don't know. Mm-hmm. I can't speak about that. All of that needs to make sure that this year, 2023, will suffer from both too. Mm-hmm. The utilization though will be the same. It's just that we are using the stocks that we sold, $56 billion- Sure. Yeah ... of revenues in 2022 of those two products. Significant number in the U.S. We will go to the remaining of the year, we will set a new price. 2024 will be the same utilization like 2023. Mm-hmm. We don't see any difference. All will be paid at the new price. Mm-hmm. That's the difference. I expect 2023 will be the lowest ever because it's the only one that will be affected by this transition. Okay. Then as we go to 2024, we kinda normalize and then. Correct ...with rationality. Correct ...it's kind of the flu combination. I think 2024, normally, if I'm right. Yeah ...and not big changes are happening... Yep ...you know, should be 2022 and 2023 together divided by two more or less, right? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's fair. On Paxlovid, there's been a lot of headlines, I think, around China and what's happening in China and the role that Paxlovid could play over there. Can you just talk about your approach to that market and maybe just, you know, comment on some of the headlines we've seen over the last few days in terms of, you know, what's happening with, you know, either negotiations or just the Chinese government's willingness? Correct ...to kind of engage with you? Let me tell you what's happening and also what are the two headlines that I read. Sure. Right. One was that Pfizer is in discussions to give a generic version- Mm-hmm of Paxlovid to China. This is not correct. Okay. We are not in discussions to give a generic version. We are not in discussions, we have an agreement already for local manufacturing of Paxlovid in China. We have a local partner that will make Paxlovid for us, and then we will sell it to the Chinese market. That's already signed. Mm-hmm. This production is gearing up. They haven't produced yet. We were calculating that this will take us all the way to the end of the year to be able to have local manufacturing. With the progress that I see and the effort from the Chinese authorities to clear the production, that will happen way earlier in the 1st half of the year. Okay. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes three, four months. Right. Mm-hmm. That's one. Yep. There was a 2nd that we applied for, to be in the list basically. Sure ...of the reimbursed products, and we were rejected. That's correct. I will give you all the elements about it. The Paxlovid was registered in China months ago. Mm-hmm. They used very small quantities. Because they are opening, there is a lot of treatments need. Mm-hmm. Now we are trying to bring to China products from all over the world, and we are very successful. Already, in the whole 2022, we supplied few thousands. Mm-hmm. Now we have supplied already in the last weeks of December, which counts next financial year for us in China, and the 1st days of January, in the millions, not in the thousands, right? We are bringing Paxlovid to Chinese market. The tender of all, let's say, this, This- governmental, let's say, listing is for April 1st and go beyond. Mm-hmm. Indeed, we gave them the price that we have, which is the you know, we have a price for high-income countries. Mm-hmm. We have a price different, a tier pricing for middle-income countries, and that's 60%-70% lower than the price of the high-income countries. We have a price for the low-income countries, which is at cost. Okay. That's how we do vaccines, and this is how we do Paxlovid, the same equity principles. They want it lower than the lowest of the middle, and we didn't agree. Okay. They are the 2nd highest economy in the world. Mm-hmm. I don't think that they should pay less than El Salvador, right? Which is a poor country. This is where we are. Now, what are the consequences of that? All the way to April, nothing. We will continue selling. When this is applicable in April, unless something changes, which is one of the possibilities, We are back in discussions with them. We will continue with the private market in China, which is significant. Okay. That's still... Can that be like a billion-dollar plus market on the private side? Can you put any numbers around what that would look like? I can, but I don't. Okay. Stay tuned on that, I guess. Yeah. Yeah. Nice effort. We tried. A couple other ones just on the vaccine side. As the market moves to a commercial market. Mm-hmm Is there an opportunity for Pfizer to gain market share in terms of the capabilities you have and the scale you have? I was listening to Stefan saying that- Yeah they are building their capability. Yeah. That will be difficult to get-. Yeah. Yeah. More market share. I don't count on that. We will try. Okay. Right? In my projections, I don't count on that. We have right now globally 70%, in the U.S. 63%- Mm-hmm ...of market share. Basically it's 2/3, 1/3, the market, and I assume that that will continue for both of us. Hopefully we can get more, but I don't count on that. Okay. Another thing about the ex-U.S. market for the vaccine, does that at some point go commercial as well, or will that always be kind of a government contract set of business? The thing is that ex-US, the government has multi-year contracts. Mm-hmm. In the US, they purchased just for the next season. Several purchases. Mm-hmm. They purchased now for Omicron. I don't know what is their final decision, but I doubt they will purchase another one. Okay. In the U.S. However, in Europe, in other places, we have contracts, but they are already signed years ago. Sure that they cover 2023, maybe 2024, 2025, that we are discussing now with them because they have too much. We're discussing maybe to spread it over a year. Okay. This is the situation outside the U.S. Okay, great. before that happens. Mm-hmm ...I don't think before their stocks are exhausted, we will be able to go real commercial. Great. Maybe just in the last minute here, just, not to give the specific numbers, but how should we think about Pfizer kind of helping the Street understand the dynamics around this business? Should we expect from a guidance perspective, Should we expect a wide range of revenue for this year on the COVID business, or how are you thinking about approaching that? No, frankly, we're still discussing with David, with David, who is sitting in front of me, our CFO, how to best in the midst of uncertainty explain that to all. Yeah. I think the fundamental with COVID is not what will be the revenues, because the assumptions that I told you, everybody will agree. Mm-hmm. Well, it is 30%. You think we'll continue 30%? Yes. At 30%? Yes. Do you think that the price will be accepted? It is. Mm-hmm. We are signing already. Okay ...the contracts, right? With the price. All of that are very predictable. Yeah. Right? I think what is the doubt in the minds of many, it is it going to in 2024 disappear, COVID? Yeah. There is no COVID, so you stay. There is no scenario that COVID is the same, and instead of 30%, only 1% will do the vaccine. Mm-hmm. That I cannot resolve those that they doubt. Sure. They cannot put their. Yeah finger on the whole of my palm, right? It is a scientific belief. It's scientifically almost impossible for a virus with the same characteristics to sunset, to disappear, right? Mm-hmm. Will come back, coming back as I described. This is where we are. Right. We will try to do our best to explain, but people eventually will have to put their assumptions into test and see if this is a revenue stream that needs to be given one time multiple or a revenue stream that needs to be given the normal multiple that everybody's getting. Sure. Well, we're about out of time. Obviously, tremendous progress the company's made over the last few years- Thank you. ...congrats on all that and, thank you for joining us today. Thank you very much. Yeah.