Okay, great. Well, good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. My name is Matt Dellatorre, and I'm a biopharma analyst here at Goldman Sachs. We're really excited to kick off the conference this morning with Teva Pharmaceuticals, where I'm joined by Richard Francis, the company's CEO. Richard, thank you for being here. My pleasure, Matt. Good to be here. Maybe just to kind of kick us off, give us an overview of where Teva stands today, including your core franchises, both branded and generic, your key pipeline priorities, and just how you're thinking about the outlook and strategy for the company over the coming years. Yeah. Well, thanks for that question. The outlook and the strategy for the next coming years is more of the same. We sort of go back to the foundations of Pivot to Growth. The four pillars, deliver on our growth engines, step up innovation, create a generics powerhouse, and focus the business, which is all about capital allocation. We've been executing that religiously for three and a half years, and I think you've seen the results of that. Specifically, I think the way for people to think about it is when you talk about the branded business, if you think about delivering on growth engines, we have, I think, put AUSTEDO on a clear path to more than $3 billion of peak sales, which I think was something which took a bit of time for people to realize was possible, and now people see that. We had good growth last year, good growth this year, good growth in Q1, we're on track for our full-year guidance. UZEDY continued to grow that extremely well, both on TRX and on revenue. AJOVY, the one that everybody forgot about, we've now said it's going to be a billion-dollar product. I think we have those, soon to be joined by olanzapine, our long-acting product for schizophrenia, which is based on the same long-acting technology as UZEDY. Excited to bring that to the market in Q4. If you think about those first three products, AJOVY, UZEDY, and AUSTEDO, they've been growing our innovative business over 30% last year. Soon to be joined by olanzapine. Next year, we're going to be launching ecopipam, our product for Tourette's, that we did our business development and the acquisition of Emalex. Those two are another growth drivers. Obviously in 2028, we have DARI dual-action rescue inhaler, as well as potentially emrusolmin for MSA. From a branded point of view, you can see just some fundamental good foundations for growth. We'll talk about the pipeline later, what could be added to that. If you just think about those, that's good. The step up innovation, the pillar two, I think we've really re-energized the pipeline, we'll probably talk about duvakitug, Anti-IL-15, emrusolmin for MSA, and the multiple indications we have on duvakitug in our target, as well as right in Anti-IL-15. We're really excited that we continue this growth beyond 30% into 40%. That's the sort of the branded innovative business which people didn't realize that we had three and a half years ago, everybody's seen the potential of it. On our generics business, we've turned that around from a volatile and somewhat declining business to a growing business, we've significantly increased the amount of biosimilars we have. We now, I think, have 10 in the market. We have the third largest portfolio in the world, I think we'll soon be the second. We have a clear path to creating a generics business which has a significant amount of biosimilar portfolio within that. The final thing is, which you didn't really ask, but I'm just giving you a bit of a monologue here, I apologize, Matt, is focus the business. Capital allocation to drive that has been really a core capability that we've built, whether it's the acquisition of Emalex, whether it's some of the partnerships we've done with Blackstone or Royalty Pharma to accelerate our pipeline, or whether it's making sure we grow our in-brand products with the right sales and marketing. I think we've shown we can do that in a very disciplined way. Obviously, we did announce in Q1 that we're going to have the potential to do buybacks in the future because as and when we see the good return on capital, because we think that's a good thing for shareholders. Great. I want to dive in on capital allocation in a moment. Maybe before we do that, though, the stock has doubled since we were here last year. You speak with investors regularly. In your view, what do you feel is the most underappreciated part of the business still, if any? Well, yes. There's no if any, I think. Look, I'm pretty measured, so I'm sure don't discount this too much, but I think it's all undervalued. Let me break it down because that feels like a trite answer, and it doesn't mean to be. If you think about our generics business, let's start with that. We've taken that to stable over the last-- Well, actually grown over the last three years, and we've changed the portfolio and we're bringing biosimilars into the U.S., bringing biosimilars into Europe. Not only bringing in, we're actually becoming market leader in many of the biosimilars we bring. I'd just remind everybody that SIMLANDI, our biosimilar HUMIRA, will, I think, soon be number one biosimilar in the U.S. We launched that two years late, and I think we are 11th to the market. That just shows timing's good, and I'd always want to be first, but it's how you manage that very complex market and what capabilities do you have, what scales you have. I think our generics business, because the surge of biosimilar portfolio coming through, I think is probably underestimated as an opportunity for not just stability, but value creation in the future. The more obvious one is, I think as people have caught up with the innovative story at Teva, it's sort of moving so fast they can't quite catch up. The AUSTEDO, we had the IRA overhang. That got taken away, and then people had to sort of ground themselves on this $3 billion, which we'd told them about before. I go, "Okay, $3 billion, greater than $3 billion." I think, if I just talk about AUSTEDO, UZEDY, olanzapine, AJOVY, and ecopipam, those five products, because in our hands, the amount that they can grow, I don't think they're valued with that growth trajectory on them by anybody out there. Maybe by you. By many people out there. I think what we've shown at M&T is we can execute regardless of the product profile, whether it's competitive area like migraine or schizophrenia. I think that part really still has some valuation. Probably the sole biggest is I don't think there's any value in our pipeline. Or not enough. I think if you look at DARI, which is a super high probability of success, but we'll know that at the end of this year, look at Anti-IL-15, look at duvakitug, and you look at emrusolmin. I mean, we have seven readouts this year. I think this will be the year that people start to go, "Okay, tell me more about this pipeline." I'm already hearing a lot of people wanting to talk about Anti-IL-15, duvakitug new indications, because I think people are starting to realize we're very good at picking the products to move into the clinic, and we're very good at engineering antibodies. Because of that, I think people now need to know a bit more about it. Those, I think, are drastically undervalued. I think those are the elements of it. Look, I'm comfortable with that. I used to be quite uncomfortable with being undervalued. It's, as you say, we doubled from here from last year, we'll see where I end up next year. Our stepping stones in the execution we know we need to do to continue to create growth, top and bottom line EPS, and create shareholder value is very clear in our minds, we know what we need to do. Even if you risk adjust some of that, I think we still end up in a very good place. Great. Maybe going back to capital allocation. You highlighted this a moment ago, this has been a major theme for you all in the first half. You had the announcement of the Emalex acquisition. You all did two funding deals with Royalty Pharma and then Blackstone for your kind of innovative products. A month ago, you announced investment-grade credit rating, the first of, I guess, three more, potentially two more coming up. Also the potential authorization of a share repurchase program with earnings. Clearly you guys are taking a diversified approach to capital allocation, you've been making a lot of progress. Maybe, I guess, the question here is just walk us through maybe the underlying strategy that kind of ties that all together. How should we think about the next few years in terms of that strategy? Does it evolve? I think you mentioned a moment ago, more of the same. How should we just think about how that kind of stuff's going to look over the coming years? Yeah. I think I'm really proud of our approach to capital allocation. We talk about capital allocation at Teva all the time. We don't talk about resources. We don't talk about budget. We talk about capital, and that capital has to work for us. That was really important because when we started this journey three and a half years ago, we couldn't increase our OpEx. We had to reallocate capital, and we reallocated it based on it could give us a return. Where we took it from was not going to give us a return, and maybe that gave us a negative, so we had to balance that out. We became very clear about if we do something, we do it meaningfully. Only things in Teva that have capital, they have to earn the right to have capital. That's everything. That's a different mindset than I've ever experienced at any other company, and that's on purpose. When we think about the things you said, if you just think about those. We have not really increased our percentage of revenue OpEx since I've been here, yet we've transformed our pipeline, the funding of our pipeline. We've transformed the funding of our innovative products, and yet we haven't changed that. That's capital allocation, because we have to take it from one place, and we have to put it in another. We do that, and we do it in pretty big numbers. I mean, it's not a little bit here, a little there. We move big amounts of capital. We did that while we religiously played down debt. We were playing down debt. People forget that. Now we're investment grade, which is for one of the rating agencies nearly two years ahead of when we said we were going to do that, right? These are pretty hard markers, these rating agencies. I think in the next quarter or two, we'll get the other two. That shows when they look under the hood and they really evaluate the vital signs of the patient. They're saying, "This is on a good trajectory." I think we've done that. Then we've made the decisions around partnerships. To get partnerships, by the way, which I think are on good terms. The partnerships we have with Royalty Pharma, the partnership with Blackstone, I think they're really good terms for us and in good terms with Blackstone. Nobody got a good deal from Teva. It was a fair deal. That's because the quality of our assets and the quality of our strength of our positioning and our finance at that point. I think that's one. Then the Amylyx Biosciences deal we did. I just remind people, we said we're going to do a deal like that between $500 million and $1 billion, de-risked asset that had its phase III results that we could put into our machine, and we could make it a great success. We don't want to put capital at risk with the turnover of phase III results. We did what we said we were going to do. I think that's going to be a really good return on capital. We have done a lot. Going forward, I anticipate a bit more of the same, we're constantly looking at our long-range plan, how we allocate capital. We do want to make sure we're building our pipeline. We've got a lot of indications with duvakitug, Anti-IL-15, to push those through. You also see some potential deals like Amylyx coming through again. They've got to be right. They've got to be the right risk profile for us. We know that our balance sheet is improving quite dramatically over the next few years, and our cash flows have improved dramatically. We're planning for what that means, which is also why we talked about potential buybacks. We've got to think about this capital's coming. Let's not have it when it arrives and go, "What do we do with it?" We're planning for what money we're going to have and how we're going to allocate that now, which mainly means we can do it in a more controlled fashion. I hope people will see we're so disciplined in the past. As we go forward, it'll be more of the same, but in a really disciplined way. We have to get a return on the capital we deploy. We always think for long-term value creation, I think we're very mindful of the fact that long-term's becoming shorter now. For Teva to keep proving us to be a rising star, we want to keep showing that we can give a good return on capital short term. Great. I think you kind of answered this, we'll talk about the Amylyx deal a little bit more in detail, how are you thinking about kind of the cadence type and size of maybe further BD going forward? Are you guys seeing a lot of opportunity like Amylyx, which maybe went a little bit under the radar, when you guys announced it, people are like, "Okay, this is highly strategic for you guys." Fits that kind of mold that you highlighted. Is there a lot more opportunities out there like that? There are. Look, I always joke, you've got to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince. I tell you, I was kissing a lot of frogs. Although it was well received, we have been looking at many companies in the last three years. I can tell you, we've been in situations where we haven't been able to get to a price. Once again, going back to our discipline on capital allocation. We won't pay something that we don't think is going to be a good return on that capital and good return for shareholders' capital. There are a lot out there. As a team, we work incredibly well. It's myself, Eric Hughes, head of R&D, Evan Lippman, head of BD, obviously Eli Kalif, CFO, and then depending where it is, it could be one of the regional heads, often Chris Fox, who's based in the U.S. We're very tight. We take BD at the executive level. That's not delegated. We do it because we see the importance of it for driving value. Yeah, I think there's more out there, but it's got to be the right price. There's so many times that I have boards who think their asset's worth more than it is, or their company's worth more. Actually, of the things we have looked at that I have a different value, none of them have transacted. Maybe I was more right than they were, I think it's a tough world we live in, and to get a return on capital, commercializing products in the U.S. and Europe is really hard, man. Really hard. I think biotech companies need to really think about can they really compete in this very challenging commercial environment, very challenging payer environment. What return can they give their investors on their capital, and how quickly can they do it? I think I try to help them understand that, and it's not too easy. We keep looking, we're constantly talking about it, and hopefully we'll be able to do some more. One, we've got to be mindful of how much we can take in. Because commercially, we're launching a product every year. Often these are synergistics, that's good, like ecopipam will be. At the same time, you can't literally plan it. Some deals come along, you get three together, and sometimes you go through a period where you just can't find the right one. Great. Maybe switching to the pipeline. You guys are entering a busy catalyst period starting mid-year, we're going to see, I guess, the IL-15 data probably in the coming weeks in vitiligo. I think there's a lot of excitement around on the pipeline. Maybe kind of just working through that pipeline chronologically in terms of the next launches. The next one is long-acting olanzapine. Yeah. Where there's a lot of excitement in terms of pent-up demand in that market for a long-acting option for that molecule. You all have a 4Q PDUFA. I guess, what are you guys most focused on from a commercial readiness perspective, given you have UZEDY already on the market? Kind of given your latest interactions with the FDA, how are you guys feeling on the regulatory side in terms of the label being clean and potential AdCom or something like that? Yeah. Yeah. Just thought. I'll do it in reverse because it's quicker. From the FDA, we're still in a part of the process where there's not a huge amount of communication. I think the bit we had has gone well. I wouldn't necessarily read anything into that because it's sort of more the administrative tie. I think now we're entering the period where it gets a bit more interactive. We feel really confident about the dataset, the quality of the data. Over 4,000 patients have now been injected, and there is no PDSS. I think we feel very comfortable. They have a really important product for a very needy patient population. There's probably more to come on that, Matt, as we now enter the period where there will be more discussions. From a readiness, this is one of those where we've spent a huge amount of time and effort on it. We have UZEDY, which is in the market. We're talking to the same physicians, we're talking to the same nurse practitioners, the same formulary committees in hospitals, the same payers. It's Medicaid and Medicare predominantly. We're in these every single day, and we built a huge amount of credibility. We've done really well with UZEDY because we're very credible when we go to all of these different stakeholders. I think we're now considered to be one of the top three psychiatric companies in the world. Right. From only a few years ago. I tell you that because as we launch olanzapine, that's very different when we launched UZEDY. Now we're launching olanzapine with all of those relationships, all of that understanding, and we clearly know there is a lot of enthusiasm around olanzapine. Don't forget there are a lot of phase III sites in the U.S. as well, so people have practical use. That capability we have in that team I think is exciting. We are working hard to make sure from day one we create access to olanzapine. I think the one thing I'd say is, and I've made sure people understand this, there's not going to be any meaningful revenue this year because there'll be a bit of stocking. Even next year, I think H1, I wouldn't anticipate too much because first we need to get into the Medicaid. We need to go on all the Medicaid. Some will adopt it straight away, and some have time lags, and so we need to get through that. On Medicare, we think that's going to be, as it was with UZEDY, and still is, a long negotiation. The reason why I tell people about that is that doesn't mean I don't think we'll get a lot of prescriptions. I think we'll get a lot of prescriptions. We'll get a lot of sampling. I think people will use this a lot. To the point where it becomes a real revenue driver will be a bit later because we won't agree to deals that are not in line with the value and the premium we place on this product, which is important for long-term value creation. We did that with UZEDY. We showed we had discipline. I'm really excited about olanzapine for a couple of things. One, there's obviously it's going to help us create a $1.5 billion-$2 billion franchise. Also, when you speak to psychiatrists and when you speak to nurse practitioners, there is a patient population so in need of a long-acting. Don't forget, these patients, when they have an episode, their brain is slightly damaged, and the ability for that molecule to work as effectively as it did before goes down. Every episode you need to stop because the long-term ability to have an efficacious treatment would decline otherwise. There's a real need here, and I feel very privileged to be in a position that we can launch something where physicians know the molecule, they think it's the most efficacious, they want to use it, they just don't have a long-acting. I'm really excited about that launch and the potential that can to create this $1.5 billion-$2 billion franchise. Great. Maybe think about it kind of taking off mid 2027- Yeah second half 2027. I think we've got credibility. We saw what we did with UZEDY. We did not do any deals with Medicare. We did think they valued the product. Maybe they will this time and be like, "Okay, this one in, and we'll come to the table." I think they'll take time, I think that just means we have to grind through it. We do know physicians will go through a prior rule. They will demand the product because they demanded UZEDY, and olanzapine has a far bigger unmet medical need. there. That's the right way to think about it, yeah. Okay. Great. I guess simultaneously you'll be launching ecopipam from the Amylyx deal in Tourette syndrome. It seems like base case assumptions are probably like a mid 2027 launch or. perhaps late 2027 launch. You all have highlighted clearly synergies with your existing neuro franchise. You'll add a pediatric sales force, though. I guess maybe kind of walk us through the broader how we should think about synergies with your existing commercial infrastructure, and then how do we think about the indication expansion strategy? I think there was potential that it could be used in stuttering. Just kind of high-level thoughts on longer term opportunities. Yeah. That's another one I'm really excited about. The unmet medical need in Tourette is huge. There's 100,000 pediatric children who have Tourette's, 50,000 are on therapy, so half are. The ones on therapy don't stay on it long because you tend to end up on an antipsychotic, which I think we're both parents. If your child has Tourette's, you don't necessarily want to put them on antipsychotic to deal with Tourette's. They may start on them, but they don't stay on it. They drop off very quickly. We think there's a real unmet need here for a safe and efficacious product. As another one, I feel super excited about the fact that I can, as a father, bring something to what is a very destabilizing condition for people in their formative years with a real unmet medical need. If you think about it, 100,000, 50,000 on therapy, not very good at staying on therapy. That feels a bit like AUSTEDO. That feels like the muscle we built with AUSTEDO. Under-penetrated. How do we create awareness? How do we make sure patients start and stay on the right therapy? That's something which we've built that muscle up really well in AUSTEDO, which I'd say is hard, probably harder, because they have schizophrenia. They also have AUSTEDO. They also have tardive dyskinesia. We've got that capability. I feel we can make a really big impact on this. There's a lot of synergies, but we also do want to have a good launch. As you say, we're having a pediatric team put together. For the other indications, just to let everybody know, from a deal perspective, the deal was done on Tourette's. Right. Anything that comes through that's stuttering or others, that'll be an upside. I didn't model that into the case from a capital allocation or return on capital. We'll definitely look at that. We'll also look at lifecycle management. Is there a way we can even for Tourette's improve the product offering for the children? Great. Maybe switching to DARI for asthma, which kind of flies a little under the radar. This could be another, I guess, potential launch next year as well. It'd be late 2027, early 2028. Probably early 2028. Early 2028. Seems highly from a clinical perspective, you all have highlighted a differentiated device and broader label than the current competitor product from AstraZeneca. It creates kind of an attractive commercial setup. I guess, assuming we see positive phase III data in early 2027, walk us through, I guess, the key points of execution from a commercial perspective and how confident you are in achieving that potential, I think, $1 billion in peak sales you all have highlighted. Yeah. We have the potential to have some data this year, the phase III will finish. We could have some data this year. I think it's just a question of, it's an exacerbation study. If that's all done, it'll be finished this year, whether we have it, I'd like to think that we could announce something. We'll see. I think we're thinking about deadlining it all together. I think I sort of conceded to the fact that it's probably 2028 that we'll launch this. Okay. Mm-hmm. We'll see. In a way, it's interesting, when you're launching olanzapine this year, ecopipam next year, DARI the year after might not be a bad little cadence. Yeah. We could have emrusolmin for MSA in 2028 as well. Not that I do it like this, if they come along, we'll launch them. That spread might not be too bad. Going back to your question, this is another one that's a really unmet medical need. I think over 5,000 people in the U.S. die every year because they don't have a dual-action rescue inhaler. This is really serious. I think AstraZeneca out there forging the market, creating the market. I think it takes a lot to change a market, to change prescribing behaviors. I think, I'm glad we're following them. They can put the muscle in. They're a good respiratory company. They have a legacy there. I do think the fact that 25% of patients are pediatric patients, and we will have the pediatric indication, and we have a very simple device. For me, the way I get to, I think I've said up to 10 million patients in the U.S. There's nowhere near that now. As that starts to come through, the pediatrics will come on us, if we get 25% of that market, I think you're between $500 million and $1 billion. Then we'll probably start to encroach into the non-pediatric because we just have a very simple device. Good. I think in asthma, the simplicity of the device in many indications has been shown to be very important. I think DARI to me is one of those that will just, I think it won't be a spiked launch. I think we'll have some excitement around the olanzapine and icatibant and potentially emrusolmin and duvakitug. I think DARI will be slow and steady, but it'll go on for a long, long, long time. Be one of those maybe a bit similar to AJOVY that just keeps on giving, and becomes sort of your hardworking portfolio opportunity. That's the way to think about it. We're going to have to put a bit of resource behind that because it's not synergistic with any of our neurology or immunology. You could argue there's a tiny bit of pediatric overlap with the icatibant. I don't think so. I don't try to be too precise on synergy there. I want to make sure we get the right launch. That's also where I think we look at building around the DARI to make sure we have the right sales and marketing share of voice there, but being thoughtful about how much money we put behind it, knowing that it's one that's going to take time. Great. Maybe switching to TL1A, your crown jewel in some sense of the pipeline. The data to date, both induction and maintenance in IBD suggests a potentially best-in-class profile, particularly in Crohn's disease. I realize this is a highly competitive space and you all are making limited disclosures ahead of potential developments. You did recently announce the $400 million Blackstone funding deal, and you're expected to disclose additional phase II proof of concept studies indications later this year. Maybe, without spilling all the details, give us a sense of maybe what's happening behind the scenes. Yes. How we should think about the pace and the breadth of this development over the next, say, two to three years. Let me start. It's an important question because, firstly, ourselves and our partners at Sanofi feel that duvakitug has massive potential. Let me be really clear on that. That doesn't mean just in IBD. I think we both think it has significant potential there, but we think across multiple indications. The good thing is we're very aligned on the fact that we think this is a pipeline and a product, and we want to go after it like that. We will be announcing, excuse me, two new indications this year and starting them this year. That is the A. We'll have more indications to come. Excuse me. That just goes to show that we believe, like some other companies who have a TL1A believe, this is a multiple indication asset. I think just the ambition we have around this with Sanofi is very much aligned, and I really see us pursuing this in many indications over multiple years. The good thing about it is, okay, we believe it's very efficacious in IBD, but if you look at its safety and its tolerability, it's excellent. If any product you're going to move into multiple indications, it's a product with that profile. As I speak to Sanofi about it, they have a very similar product in DUPIXENT, which is efficacious and very safe, and that allowed them to go into other indications. I think we have a partner who understands this. The ambition is there. You'll probably start to see some news flow on that. Let's not have any question about the ambition of it. I just remind you, in IBD, the market when we launch is now predicted to be between $35 billion and $40 billion. Right. That market is super unsatisfied. You can talk about efficacy, but I think we'll come out, and I think we'll still have either a leading efficacy, in both the Crohn's and UC, but we'll definitely have the best safety profile and tolerability. We won't have monitoring and we won't have black box because I think there's already been so many thousands of patients treated with the TL1A. People are probably discounting where TL1A fits in the treatment path. I think it'll be a lot higher up a lot quicker than people think. Just because it's efficacious and it's safe. Why would you not use something that doesn't require monitoring and it doesn't have concerns about a black box? I just remind people in IBD, I think about the size of the market when we launch in 2029 and think about a profile like that. Great. There's going to be a number of readouts this year. Yeah competitors. Maybe most notably, Merck will have phase III data in UC, and they're also supposed to share phase II proof of concept data in SSc-ILD, which could give the field insights in terms of, I guess, the impact on fibrosis and maybe open up another category for the class. I guess, how important are competitor readouts to your guys' development program and strategy, is there anything that you guys view as particularly important for your program? Look, I like the fact that they're all doing the work they're doing. I suppose I think about it, I'm not a scientist, so this will probably make Eric cringe a bit. I think about our competitors are doing these proof of concepts. I believe categorically we have the best TL1A, but by design. It's by design. It's not just emotional. It's by design, and the level of potency, specificity, neutralizing antibody, so it's fact, and that's why you saw the difference in induction and maintenance in UC/CD. Because of that, I look forward to the data being turned over because those proof of concepts, in a way, are our proof of concepts. As soon as we see those, Just to let you know, we have listed out, I don't know, 10-15 indications for DUPIXENT, that have the potential scientifically. Whether they all come up, they don't because other things come out, other targets come out and are more relevant. Things move around a bit, but there's real scientific rationale. As these turn over, I think it'll give us a real insight. Maybe that allows us to think about moving to indications where we know we have the best TL1A. That TL1A has good data. We know we're the best TL1A, so that gives us. An interesting opportunity. Great. Maybe now switching to IL-15. You all have your proof of concept vitiligo data in the coming weeks. Yeah. Celiac disease in second half following your $500 million funding deal with Royalty Pharma. Clearly, you and Royalty have seen positive results in vitiligo already. Maybe walk us through how differentiated a profile we should expect here relative to some of the current treatments in vitiligo, the oral JAKs, for instance. I guess what drives your level of confidence in celiac? Look, touching on vitiligo. I haven't seen any of the data, so we're going to have it in a few weeks, so we'll see that. The sort of the product profile that we have, the TPP is, there's rationale to think we'll be more efficacious, but let's just say we are in the boundaries of efficacy that's out there. We're an injection that's once every three months. If we have what we believe we'll have is a very good side effects and safety profile. We're not a topical that has to be applied twice a day. We're not something which has to be monitored or something that may come up with black box. We're every three months. We're safe and tolerable and the same efficacy. Now, will the efficacy be better? I don't know. If you just put it like that, I think for a dermatologist and a patient, it's a bit of a no-brainer. I've sold products that are less differentiated than that, and there's a real opportunity. On the celiac, I think we'll see that data in the second half of the year. I think that'll be really interesting to see whether this is an opportunity to sort of modify the disease and not just to treat the symptoms. I think people are now starting to understand how big the celiac market is and how big the opportunity is. I think that data will be really important. It's amazing as we've run that study, the level of interest has increased significantly because people don't understand the severity of celiac in the severe patients and how that really destabilizes their life. I think this is another. A bit like vitiligo. No one knew about that market, and now they see that as a multi-billion dollar market. I think celiac could be a lot bigger. We'll have that data in the second half of the year, and I think that'll be some really high-quality data with some endpoints that I think will really stimulate the market. I would add that in between that, we have a futility analysis on emrusolmin for MSA. No news, but if it keeps going, there's some news there. We have the phase III readout of DARI towards the end of the year. We have the PD-1/IL-2 readout in oncology, first in human data, the dose escalation study at the end of the year as well. We launch olanzapine. We'll launch two more indications in DUPIXENT. We have sort of seven readouts and two more announcements. I think from a reposition, we've always said we're transforming Teva from a pure play world-class generics company to a world-class biopharma company. I think that's already happened. When I look at your notes and other people are already saying that. I think this year will be the actual, the final paragraph that underlines this is a world-class biopharma company, and now how do we think about it from a value? How should we value it? How should we value the multiple? What multiple should it be on? What is its earnings going to be top and bottom line? What is cash flow going to be in 2030? Those things change dramatically with Teva in the next few years, and I'd encourage people to look at that. Great. Well, with that, Richard, thank you for joining us. This was really exciting, and we'll look forward to all the updates in the coming months. Thanks, Matt. Really appreciate you hosting us. Thank you very much.