Okay, let's kick off our discussion with Pfizer here. My name is Chris Shibutani. I'm a member of the Goldman Sachs Healthcare Research Team. Thank you so much to everybody here for joining us for this conference and for this discussion. Super pleased to have Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, to join us here and sit down and have a conversation. Extremely timely, so many things to cover. I think your team had wanted you to be able to just sort of kick off with a couple of opening comments, maybe to contextualize our discussion, and we'll go from there. Yeah, of course. Thank you very much for being here, everyone. 2023 was a difficult year for us when it comes to stock performance. We were very disappointed to see that happening. We tried to understand the reasons and tried to make sure that we have a plan to bring it back. Then we announced our plan earlier in the year in 2024, and it was based on five points. The first point was we need to make sure that we integrate Seagen in a way that we develop oncology leadership. I think that is going very well. We presented our first quarter results, but saw that not only the Seagen and oncology business in general didn't go down, which is the expectations in the first six months of every merger because people are changing brands and people are changing customers and bosses and all of that. Actually, we had a growth, which was very impressive. Then in ASCO, we had significant presence of the pipeline, which is the second priority that we have to make sure that our pipeline continues to evolve. Oncology is a very big part of it, but not only. We have right now a lot of results that we expect by the end of the year. The third priority was to make sure that all these new launches that we have done will perform well, that will maximize the performance of the new launches. We did an unprecedented number of new product introductions in basically last year, and we're not that happy with the way that all of them went commercially. We took some measures in the commercial operations to make sure that that will work well, and that's a priority for us. Capital allocation is a very clear priority. dividend, we said multiple times, this is a sacred cow, so this is number one. Second, of course, de-levering our balance sheet and paying down debt, and of course, increase EBITDA to deliver. You need to do both to be able to deliver. Then, of course, investing in the business and buybacks. Those were the fundamental things that we said that we are going to do. We are, I think the Q1 was quite good. We had good progress towards all of them, and I'm looking forward to present to this discussion to start with and then to present our results of the second quarter at the end of July, I think beginning of August. Okay, terrific. I think that really captures a lot of the key points that we'll try and get across in the next half hour here. A lot of structural change and signals and adaptation of your strategy to the difficulties that you had in 2023. I do want to bring up, because we're in front of a Wall Street audience, that there was a point person who was brought in recently. Many of us know Andrew. I was a client myself 10 years ago. Andrew's probably on the live webcast. How's it going, Andrew? Talk about the appointment of his position within the company. And I think from a timeline standpoint, actually, you made some decisions about structure, oncology, U.S. and international. So to a certain extent, he's coming in midstream as we're ramping towards executing on this new strategy. What's that going to be like to have a whisper like him with you, and how do you think about that? Yeah, talking about Andrew, I think it's extremely important for me to have him be my thought partner and the head partner of the leadership team of Pfizer. He's someone that is uniquely qualified to do the job that Aamir Malik was doing before, which is head of strategy, business development, capital prioritization on pipeline, which products are getting funded and not the overall strategy of the company. So he has a medical background and he has a very good financial background, so he combines those two. He is extremely well respected from all investors because he's very thoughtful, and this is what I appreciated on him. He was not the most positive on Pfizer, as we all know, but I think that's first of all a demonstration that we are not looking to bring a yes man. We are looking to bring someone that can bring fresh ideas to our business, and that's what he's supposed to do. Also, of course, you should ask him yourself, but if he accepted to come, most probably he saw something that was correcting his name with. Excellent. I think it'd be very constructive to have someone who always has a little bit of a critical tone to a certain extent. How should we measure his performance? I just think about when Amir joined, he was very quick to come out and say, you know, we're going to put through capital deployment, M&A, $25 billion in revenues in the year 2030 based upon all the deals we're going to do between now, mark my words, watch me go. He did accomplish a very significant amount. What's the right cadence to think about the impact of this? Because I think you reset a lot of the pillars of the business. You have some folks in place who are relatively newer in their roles. What's the right way to measure? Because I get the sense that investors are a little bit in sort of watchful waiting, not wanting to give you too much of the benefit of the doubt mode at these levels. The Pfizer that Aamir found when he came is a very different Pfizer, right? Way much bigger. I remind you that in the pharma division, which is the one that we have, we had $37 billion of sales in 2019. Now it's $60 billion of sales, so it's way bigger, right? We have just completed significant acquisitions of these $25 billion revenues that they are all there, and they are all about to be executed. But that also found Pfizer in an inflection point of going very, very high in terms of reputation, revenues, stock price through the COVID period, and then when COVID subsided, losing significant part of that. So we are trying to find our next wave of impressing the investor. So how we're going to measure his success, I think all the success of all of us would be measured on the stock price. Frankly, the things that Andrew is doing are things that are influencing significantly the stock price because pipeline in a pharma is the most important driver of stock valuation. This role really significantly controls which projects we are investing and which we are not investing. Andrew is going to be the chairman of, as part of his job, of the total, the most senior governance body that makes the decisions of these capital allocations. Business development is an extremely important thing. Commercial development is an extremely important thing. Stock price, I think eventually is what we need to be looking for all of us. Focusing on now sort of the center of gravity for the company, oncology is really put to the forefront. Interestingly, you structured its oncology as the therapeutic area for that business. Then you have U.S. and then international. So oncology really getting highlighted here. We're coming off of the ASCO meeting. Maybe highlight for us what you think is going to be something that we can really spend our time focusing on. Clearly, the Seagen legacy was across antibody drug conjugates. We have Padcev as a notable success from recent late-stage data. But in particular, what's the right measuring stick for the progress with this oncology business coming out of ASCO for you guys? The way that oncology stood out in the way that you organize the business is because we organize the business to make sure that oncology will get the best chances to be successful. The acquisition of Seagen was the largest acquisition of the last decade for Pfizer. And it is not only the amounts of money that we are investing on that, but it's more important, I believe, that has the potential to become the most successful acquisition that the company has ever done. The acquisition of Seagen was a bet on a technology, which is ADC, and on a company, which is Seagen. Both of them, since we made the decision, have made significant strides to believe that these were the right decisions. The ADC has become, after we announced it, the hottest M&A commodity right now. Everybody's trying to find an ADC, but no one can find something that we found with Seagen, which is a whole platform of four products already in the market at early stages of their launch. So they have a lot of potential going up, plus 13 late stages, let's say, development programs, plus a significant amount of pipeline, plus an infrastructure of people. So the presentation following acquisition tells us that probably we make the right big company acquiring a small company like Seagen and biotech, the most common is that you take the company and you castrate it. You cut the innovation, you bring it into your bureaucracy, and that can reduce dramatically our value. So the entire effort from the day we announced was to make sure that that will not happen. That's why we created an integration team from the two companies. I selected the person that I felt not only has the Chris Boshoff, I'm talking, not only has the scientific depth and range to do some job like that, but he's also a good manager, someone that people will follow, somebody who will like, and someone who makes decisions based on meritocracy, not based on legacy. Most of Seagen people told me I want him. So that's why we did all of this work. The integration was completed extremely successfully, and then Boshoff took over the entire thing to lead. The first months are very, very, very impressive. So I'm very optimistic about the future of this acquisition. Yeah, and you're referring obviously to Chris Boshoff here. And it's interesting because his responsibilities are both sort of guiding the ultimate portfolio, the pipeline, as well as on the commercialization side. And I listened at ASCO. He participated in a conversation where there was this question about whether he has to talk himself into certain things. And so when you think about oncology, where do you think the higher priority is? Is it on pipeline and on the come, which I get kind of a sense for if I think back to the end of February when you did your oncology day? A lot of folks were paying attention to the entire scope of the presentation. And there was a fair balance of phase two as opposed to talking about the commercial products. So with Chris having to wear both of these hats and kind of debate within himself, where would you say we should focus? Is it more on the pipeline? Is it on the commercial side where you have a pretty clear footprint? Just a sense for what makes sense. You can't differentiate. You need to focus on both. You need to make sure that your current inline products are performing very well, and you need to make sure that you have a pipeline that will come. Oncology, the commercial part of oncology, is very different than the commercial part of vaccines or primary care or even specialty. It is extremely, extremely data-driven. The sale of oncology, the selection of a brand compared to another has nothing to do in oncology with the brand equity or if your ad was good on the news, which affects how you communicate data in a way that compels. But yes, that's the solution. So from that aspect, I don't think for anyone that lives in oncology for that many years, it's very difficult for him to pick up some of the nuances of payers and some of the nuances of rebates. But he is focusing on, I have seen him being better in commercial, many commercial leaders in the past. But keep in mind, that's not what he does day in, day out, right? What he does day in, day out, it is managing the entire vision of the oncology. We have Suneet, who is doing the commercial, and then we have Roger Dansey, who is doing all the development as Chief Development Officer. And then we have Jeff Settleman that he's doing the early development. Chris is supervising all of them, and he's the right person. Thinking about the footprint, obviously having a bicoastal kind of presence, you talk a lot about how, actually, Chris talked about how the Seagen business was relatively similarly sized to the legacy Pfizer business. It was a little bit more of a merger of equals, and you're keeping the management teams roughly equally balanced. How sustainable and relevant is it for you to be acting in Seattle? I'm old enough to remember Genentech, Roche, and sort of the thinking about how that was across so many time zones and became a little bit of a tactical sort of struggle here. But then I also think about Pfizer deals historically, Array and Boulder, Rinat in San Francisco. There is a longstanding tradition of large cap pharmas acquiring smaller entities, having some initial process of capturing value, assets, talent, but then not necessarily having a footprint there. When you and I are sitting here four years from now, knock on wood, should we expect to see Seagen in Seattle and that being a success formula for you to have that footprint there? Absolutely. We are highly committed to the Seattle side, and we will develop it even further. The examples that you gave from Boulder and Rinat in San Francisco, those, they were a rounding error in terms of size compared to Pfizer at that time, right? So it was a small group of 150 people in Boulder or in Rinat, right? And we have thousands of scientists. As Chris told you, in R&D, the size of the Seagen organization was equal to the size of the Pfizer organization. So really, we doubled our resources and we doubled our budget and we doubled our pipeline. Commercial, they had one third of the whole, so we were double than them. So if we are two thirds now, they are one third in terms of commercial reps. And of course, they were not international, so we are international. But the R&D, which is what Seattle is all about, is a very sizable organization and has tremendous value for us. So we are going to develop it even further. Question again about pipeline prioritization, how important it is. It seems to be in oncology to be best in class, even if not first in class. And I think about some of the areas that you're quite relevant, but it's competitive, for instance, in breast cancer. You have pipeline of some efforts around CDK4 as opposed to just the legacy of Ibrance there. Anything about how that realm will shape up and where Pfizer wants to be, particularly where you already have such a franchise, but it's competitive and thinking about best versus first in class for the next generation? Breast cancer is the most common cancer of the female gender. And by the way, prostate cancer is the most common cancer of the male gender. In both of them, we have current significant products that they are the product leaders, Ibrance and Xtandi. But in both of them, we have tremendous pipeline. Let me focus on the breast that you just spoke about. Clearly, we have the CDK4 that it is presenting a significant opportunity to bring the next generation. But we are having right now also a lot of ADCs that are targeting breast cancer. And we have also a protein degrader that it is also on breast cancer. Actually, the protein degrader we're expecting data this year, right, from phase 3 study, which I hope will be positive. Then, of course, protein degraders can be used also with ADCs, and we have a lot of ideas on how you can combine it with ADCs, not combine as two drugs necessarily, but I'm talking also about putting as the drug part of the ADC conjugate. So breast is very important for us. We have a franchise on Ibrance that we are going to defend commercially as we go. By the way, there is a study also on Ibrance, which is about HER2 positive, Ibrance. Breast is a very big part of what we are going to continue doing. You brought up a lot of different modalities. Maybe I can ask you to touch upon what the firm's view is on thinking about some other modalities. Radio pharmaceuticals, for instance, another very highly topical, active, engaged realm from a business development standpoint. What's the Pfizer house view on radio pharmaceuticals and your interest? We are looking at it with high interest. It's not that we have made our decision to enter into that space. We are focusing right now on three different modalities when it comes to cancer. ADCs, of course, big priority. Small molecules, of course, CDK4, very big priority and power strength of Pfizer, and bispecifics, antibodies, right? So Talvey was one of them. So those are three modalities that we are focusing on the therapeutic areas that I told you. Urothelial with prostate and bladder cancer included, breast, thoracic, and blood cancers, lymphoma, leukemias, et cetera. But this doesn't mean that we are not staying close to science as it evolves. The moment we feel that we can make a difference with a new, including what you said, we will jump into it. Got it. Let's move on to a little bit some of the other therapeutic areas and businesses, obviously the COVID portfolio and more broadly vaccines. We're actually seeing an update from your competitor today and their combined COVID and flu. Update us on where you guys are with your efforts and how we should be thinking about whether or not if we see similar data, which appears to show that the combination actually gives you a more maybe advantaged profile; will this possibly help the sort of penetration in the U.S.? What's your view currently on the outlook? I know that you have some data coming as well. Yeah, we were very vocal that we believe a combination of COVID with flu will probably accelerate the COVID penetration because flu, it is way more administered than COVID right now. Huge difference, right? So particularly in young population, the difference is dramatic, right? People are getting flu vaccine, 50%, but very few of them are getting COVID vaccine in the younger age, although they're all in the population, 50% compared to 13%. So the convenience of being able with the same visit that you are doing in the pharmacy to get your flu vaccine also with the same injection with zero copay, nothing of your money to cover it also for flu and COVID, I think will drive several people to also opt for this choice. So as a result, we are working on that as well. And that's why also Moderna is working on that. We have our study, which is on the 18-64 that is on a trivalent vaccine, the flu, which is the new recommendation. I think the Moderna's data that they released was a tetravalent. So probably they will deal with that later. But we are waiting the data. I'm optimistic that the data will be good, and we are waiting to see them. Last year was a difficult year in terms of thinking about the forecasting of the COVID revenues. It ended up being the actual delivery disappointed, and there were several set points. I would say that most of the investors that I speak with thought about the final set point that happened kind of at the end of the year into this year seemed as if the pendulum had swung quite securely to the point of, well, they can't miss this number. When I say that, how do you feel about that? To a certain extent, it feels as if that would be very important. Last year, it was a disaster the way that we forecast it. We thought that COVID will go. We hit everything else. When we speak about the non-COVID business, we were on our initial guidance. But COVID was a huge difference. Just a statistic to make sure that we all understand. During my tenure as CEO, we have done 21 earnings releases, right? 21 earnings releases. Five years, times four plus the first one of this year. 19 of the 21, we beat EPS of Bloomberg. 19 of 21. So it's not that we are used to miss, just to make sure, because people's memory sometimes is driven by the latest and not necessarily by the facts. Now, your question, are we going to make our numbers? Yes. I am very confident that we will make our numbers. We gave the COVID numbers particularly, or very confident because that was also the specifics of your question. Keep in mind, we said it multiple times that 90% of the vaccines that are respiratory driven are coming in the second half of the year, right? That includes not only COVID, includes RSV, includes so we expect 90% of the sales to be on the second part of the year. And by the way, I see that a lot of the analysts still, you have it right for the second quarter. When I say you have it right, you are forecasting that the second quarter in your estimations is small in COVID and then third and fourth is very big. Not everybody, I think, have noticed that we repeatedly have said. And also, that's the trend that is happening. Paxlovid, we already had a phenomenal start, right? Paxlovid is highly, highly correlated even today with the COVID cases. So when I see the weekly sales of Paxlovid going down, I know that the surges of COVID is down. When I see going up, it's very, very inelastic. It's very correlated, highly correlated. We will make both numbers. You mentioned about the RSV, actually one of the more compelling products when you think about what the street has for 2025, 2026, it really becomes material. You were somewhat brutally honest in terms of what the early commercial performance has been, which has some mixed components to it. So now we're going to have potentially a third entry here, which everyone has been anticipating. So how can you win in RSV? In the RSV, we were surprised positively with the market. Everybody basically became bigger than what you think. So as a result, in RSV, we did more than what we had in our budget. I'm very honest. But I also was very honest to say I was very disappointed because this better-than-budget performance, not because we had better performance in the market, it was because the market was bigger. GSK took two-thirds of the market, right? And we have one-third. And that's not something that we are settling with. We should be better than GSK, not one-third, two-thirds. Now, the reasons why that happened, when you have these discrepancies on market shares, one can say maybe the products are not equivalent. Actually, we don't have data to have comparative data between Moderna, GSK, and us to see which one is better. Based on the profile that all companies have published, we are clearly a superior product. We are the only ones that we have A and B. We are having very high numbers in the first year, and we had extremely high numbers in the second year when others were fainting. So we are a very, very good vaccine. The reason why we got and in the physicians' offices, we had the lion's share of market share. With RSV, though, the biggest part of last year's sales were not in physicians' offices, it was on retailers. And GSK had earlier approval than us and had already signed a lot of contracts last year with retailers that gave them it was not a choice of the people. It was that's what is available in the pharmacies. We, from the beginning of this year, started renegotiating all our contracts. And by the way, the product is also rolling out outside the U.S. But in the U.S., all our contracts, and I don't want to speak about it. We'll see what the results will be. But all the contracts are one year. So whatever happened last year was until basically the second quarter, right? Starting from the new flu season, which is basically August, September, October, November, December, and then going to next year, it's going to be new contracts. And I hope we'll have a better position than what we had last year. Okay. Let's touch on some other areas. Metabolic disease, obesity, very logical from a Pfizer standpoint, the house of Lipitor going back a decade ago, a difficult journey with the pipeline assets that you've had at this point. What is your appetite for still being in there? Very high. The reasons are very, very simple. One, the market is real and is big. The classes that we start seeing, they have some disadvantages, but they look very good so far, right? The GLP-1s, that it is the first class that is coming. And it's just scratching the surface of what we will see in obesity. And Pfizer, as you said, has a very long tradition in metabolic diseases and in, of course, primary care commercialization. So it is an area that we are investing and we will continue investing and we'll be part of it. Now, we had a first choice that unfortunately failed back in the day, I mean, a year from now, a year ago almost, right? That was the lotiglipron. Failed because it had safety issues with liver enzyme elevations, which happens in drug discovery. So we killed it. Things would be extremely different for us if we didn't have those liver enzymes because we would be the first one probably to come with an oral obesity or together with Lilly at worst if we didn't have that setback. Not an asset in the clinic right now, phase 1, but are you comfortable with what you actually have in-house that's currently in the clinic? There's a little bit of a time race here versus how acutely are you paying attention to what's happening around? Because there are plenty of small companies that are popping up with demonstrating some data that looks like they could go to the next level, so. Absolutely. We are looking at all of them and we are having also our own efforts. What we have in hand in the clinic right now, there are three different molecules, as we have said. One of them is danuglipron that we presented data and then we said that we are going to first wait to see if we can convert that to once a day. We said mid of the year. So mid of the year is June, July. That's basically the time frame that we should be having data on that. So we are waiting to see. Hopefully, we'll come on time. Then we have two other ones that we haven't disclosed the mechanism, but they are in the clinic right now. We have a lot in the pipeline. Also, I want to say that the injectables are the ones that are having most imminent competition, right? From everyone who has something presented so far that is coming by 2026, 2027, it is injectable. Orals, there's only Lilly right now, and then us, and then AstraZeneca. But I think we have at least two years difference. It's one of us. So us being in the middle, AstraZeneca being two years later than us, and if we do danuglipron. And then Lilly being two years earlier than danuglipron, if they are successful. All of that is if. Then help me reconcile. So Aamir's goal of $25 billion in revenues by 2030, I think based upon everything that was done, whether it's Seagen, you add $10 billion, $10 billion plus, Array, Global Blood, everything put together still gets you to about $20-$21 billion. The priorities to pay down, so your capacity to do business development, and this is intentionally linked over to obesity, metabolic disease, just because it is such a hot area. We also talked about radio pharmaceuticals. Should we expect you to do more token acquisitions, or is this a little bit of a breathing period because of the priorities, the way you rank them for capital? It is a breathing period, not because we need to pay debt and we don't have the capacity to do business development. We can do both, right? It's not that the problem. What it is, the strategy is that we have just invested $70+ billion in the last 18 months, right? In acquiring things. Very important investment for the company. We need to catch our breath and make sure that we execute well on those that we have right now. So that's the priority. All four of them, right? Now, I'm very optimistic in all. And probably that's good. We can even exceed the projections that we have made without changing the numbers that I have committed. But I think Seagen is surprised us very positively with data and the performance and the integration. And I think Nurtec will surprise us very positively going forward. So all of that, I think they look good. But that's the reason why I don't foresee ourselves going and buying something sizable now, because I don't want to disrupt our commercial operations, our research operations, as they are doing manufacturing operations, as they are doing the work that they are doing to execute. Smaller things that they are coming just the intellectual property with it, like an obesity molecule or here and there. Yes, we are looking oncology the same. We are looking at them. And will happen probably this year as well, but these are smaller things. And for 2025, let's say that is by year 2030. There are a lot of years. Yeah. No, you've got some time in there. I mean, it's been pretty consistent with that. In the last five minutes, I want to take advantage of the fact that you are a CEO of one of the prominent companies here and to talk about a bigger picture issue, and that would be the IRA process as it's unfolding. Two topics that investors seem to care about. How's it going? I know you and your partner, Bristol, are involved with Eliquis, and to the extent that you can give us side eye or give us an eye roll or something. I think when we were talking to our D.C. policy consultants, it's been kind of an interesting first year, but no one's really smiling. And then secondly, Medicare Part D redesign, 2025 implications. So maybe let's start on the second question. How should we think about what the house Pfizer view is about the redesign impact on kind of the revenue forecasting? Because some companies have sort of been optimistic and then pessimistic. I think it's not about the revenue forecasting the next few years that I worry, because there are drivers that are pushing it down and drivers that are pushing it up. So I don't think that's the problem. I think the main problem of the redesign of Part D, it is that they are having this nonsense of the penalty of the pill that is going to create disadvantages for oral molecules compared to large molecules of the long term. And by the way, disadvantages in both because they are putting that cap. But the things are more intense in the small molecules. So that will force a lot of us to make strategic moves, not based on where the science is taking us, but based on where IRA is taking us. I mean, one of the reasons why I was hesitating zero to write a $43 billion check for Seagen is not only that they were the technology I wanted and the company I wanted, but also they are large molecules. So basically, they don't have these problems of the small that Ibrance could face. Now, going back to the negotiations, and first of all, I have to say that we were lucky as Pfizer. Why I'm saying that? Because there were more products that could be selected because they were fulfilling the criteria, Xtandi, Ibrance, Xeljanz, and only Eliquis was selected. Now, of course, they may be selected in the next year, but even if all of them would select in the next year, it's very small the window of patent life remaining anyway. The NPV that we are going to lose because of the price reduction of that is small compared to the discussions on Eliquis. They are ongoing. Our partner is the leading in the negotiation, but they do that in very close collaboration with us, and basically we agree everything. And I can't comment because it's ongoing. And then immediately after the framing of the IRA was done, everybody was thinking about the next derivative. It's like, oh, this is going to impact clinical development strategies, or everyone's going to shy away from small molecules versus biologics, et cetera. Then you get a couple of laps around the track and people get to calm down. Some people still believe that that's very critical towards ultimately being in your planning war rooms and deciding where you're going to go and when you're going to go earlier, et cetera. How relevant is that in your mind, the fact that the IRA seems to be moving down the track here? Look, I mean, looking historically, I can see and see that the large molecules are winning in general because they have longer duration. It's very difficult to make biosimilars. Actually, in ADCs, it's almost impossible to make biosimilars because there are three biologics over there. I don't think it's regulated how one can make biosimilar. And it's the contrary to the so you can see that large molecules that they are successful products, even they have life even after they patent cliff. And clearly, the IRA is giving you a very clear difference between the two. So yes, we are looking to more favorably large molecules. Keep in mind that in our oncology, we have right now 95% small molecules, 5% large molecules. Within five years, we will be 60% the large molecules or 65%. I'm not sure the number I have it right, but it is this, the magnitude from 5, right? So it's very clear that we are moving there. Great. Two last questions. Do you get the ultimate sign-off on that Super Bowl commercial? Yes. Are you a Freddie Mercury fan? I am, but I consider that a lot before I give the final sign-off. I liked it a lot. The spot was fantastic. My concern was at the times that our stock price was down, do I want to sell to investors? You look, we spend money in Super Bowl. So I consider that a lot if I should do it or not. I made the decision that it's so important to show the world that we are moving to oncology because that was just after the Seagen acquisition, and that was speaking about everything. It was the 175 years of the company. And even more importantly, from a commercial point of view, I have repeatedly seen market research repeatedly that the brand equity of Pfizer is extremely higher, the recognizability of Pfizer. Everybody knows Pfizer. Everybody may know if you're an investor, Lilly, but the recognition of the Lilly or any of these fantastic companies. So the fact that you want brand equity for Pfizer, for products that you can make a choice, vaccines, primary care products, the consumer plays a big role in that, clearly creates a difference. So for us, that was an investment in brand equity of Pfizer that paid actually, I saw the results following, tremendous. It was tremendous the success on that front. Okay. Well, a very happy 175th anniversary to Pfizer for a year of execution. Year of execution. Q1 is water under the bridge, but Q2 is coming when we are focusing on it until the last day. And then Q3 and Q4, and hopefully we will turn the corner. Great. Albert Bourla, thank you very much. Thank you.