Good morning. Thank you all for joining us on the call today as we announce the initiation of a phase I-B study evaluating our Beta variant eVLP vaccine candidate, VBI-2905, as a 2-dose regimen, as well as a potential single-dose heterologous booster in previously vaccinated individuals. We will also be discussing encouraging new preclinical mouse and hamster challenge data from VBI-2905 and our trivalent candidate, VBI-2901. Joining me on the call from VBI are Jeff Baxter, President and CEO, and David Anderson, Chief Scientific Officer. We do have slides to accompany this call, which you can access through the webcast portal or by going to the investors' page of our website under the events presentation section. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that this call will contain certain forward-looking statements. Specifically, I would like to remind everyone that all statements other than statements of historical fact included in this presentation are forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the assumptions made and expectations represented by such statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that a forward-looking statement contained herein will prove to be accurate. Given these risks, uncertainties, and factors, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements and information, which are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement and are made only as of the date of this presentation. For additional information and detail, I refer you to our SEC and Canadian filings. I would now like to turn the call over to Jeff Baxter, President and CEO of VBI Vaccines. Okay, great. Thanks, Nicole, good morning, everyone. Thank you for your interest and support for the work that we're doing on VBI. On Slide three, you can see that we broadly have a two-pronged product development strategy to manage this current pandemic and the future for potential variants, plus the second prong being the potential for another Betacoronavirus to make the human-to-human leap. Just to expand on that, firstly with 2905, in the near term, providing broad protection against ancestral Wuhan strain, plus the current variants of COVID-19. Secondly, 2901, protecting against the potential for new human-to-human novel strains of Betacoronavirus that may or will very likely emerge at some point in the future. I say broad protection because chasing variants or trying to retrospectively develop vaccines to protect against emerging variants once they've emerged is not an effective or sustainable approach to leading humankind out of this pandemic. We need to anticipate and protect against future variants of COVID-19 and against future strains of Betacoronavirus. Our pipeline and our product development plan focuses on those two broad prongs, finding ways to broaden protection in the short term against COVID-19, the current pandemic, with VBI-2905, and future novel Betacoronaviruses with VBI-2901, i.e., trying to anticipate the fourth Betacoronavirus to make the human-to-human transmission route after SARS, MERS, and of course, more recently, SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19. On this slide, you can see caricatures of our two lead monovalent candidates. VBI-2902, the ancestral strain first emerged from Wuhan, studied in a phase I-A. The initial data read out in June. David will talk to that data and that candidate in a moment. Excitingly for the future, VBI-2905, the Beta variant first seen in South Africa, which is a candidate which is just about to be assessed or is currently being assessed in this newly launched and newly initiated phase I-B study. We have, against this second broad prong against novel Betacoronaviruses, VBI-2901, which contains the spike proteins or the antigens of the three human-to-human transmittable coronaviruses that humankind has seen to date that I mentioned earlier, i.e., SARS, MERS, and SARS-CoV-2, i.e., a broader approach beyond perhaps SARS, pan-COVID-19 to a pan-Betacoronavirus. As part of this development work, because people are probably wondering why we haven't started this human study, we are also evaluating the potential for the inclusion of other new, as-yet un-human-to-human transmitted Betacoronaviruses to really understand what the true breadth of protection we could achieve with 2901 and anticipate perhaps the next strain of Betacoronaviruses, which could make the leap to, say, bat to bat or pangolin-pangolin transmission, but to human-to-human transmission. Investors and the public should understand that our first priority, particularly with CEPI and Health Canada and our other partners, is to tackle the current pandemic. We are not out of the woods yet with the current pandemic, and therefore, if we can broaden protection with VBI-2901, which David Anderson will elaborate on with data and the scientific concepts behind, we can anticipate using 2905 as a single-shot booster or third dose, if you will. That will be a significant contribution to us getting out of the woods with the current pandemic. The new preclinical data we're going to discuss today demonstrates that breadth of immunogenicity across all these three candidates. Let me hand over to David Anderson, VBI's Chief Scientific Officer, to walk you through the data. Dave, over to you. Thanks very much, Jeff. Now on Slide four, I think before discussing the new preclinical data that we have to share related to the candidates VBI-2905 and VBI-2901, I'd like to take a moment to emphasize the significance of the recent clinical data observed with our candidate VBI-2902. Now, before I do so, conceptually, there are really kind of two ways to develop a very potent vaccine. You can either have a very effective, optimal way to present the vaccine antigen to the immune system, or you can use what's called an adjuvant, which really kind of gooses up and revs up the immune system. What you can see here is using a very safe, well-established adjuvant, we've demonstrated with these eVLPs tremendous potency. If I direct your attention to the left-hand panel and focus your attention on what's shown in the blue, these are individuals in the study that received two doses of VBI-2902a at days and 28. What you can see is that a month after the second dose, at day 56, every subject had a neutralizing antibody response using a fully validated assay, the same type of assay that's been used to assess all the other vaccines currently in use. What you can see in the red is a reference panel of sera from individuals that had been infected and recovered from COVID-19, what's called convalescent sera. You can see there that the vaccine-induced titers a little over 4-fold greater than what's seen with naturally acquired immunity. Now, to help put that in context, if I direct your attention to the right-hand side, this is a recent study which tried to benchmark many of the different vaccines that are being investigated or being used right now, looking at just that. How much more potent were they relative to convalescent sera, and how did that translate to efficacy? What you can see in that graph on the right-hand side is that with our vaccine being about 4-fold greater, that puts it on par with the type of efficacy and potency that's been seen with the mRNA-based vaccines. Clearly, this is a very potent vaccine modality and candidate. I just want to emphasize again, this was done with a very low dose of antigen, 5 ug. By contrast, the Moderna vaccine uses 100 ug. We're using an adjuvant, again, called alum, which has literally been used in tens of millions of individuals over many, many decades. A tremendous safety and tolerability profile. We now move on to Slide five, what you can see here, it's a very complex slide, and I think that just summarizes the increasing diversity of COVID-19 variants that are emerging. I want to take just a moment to explain why we've chosen the Beta variant, our candidate 2905, to try to address all these circulating variants. I think to help, a soccer analogy might help, thinking about the two different goalposts. If you think about the ancestral strain and then the Alpha and Delta variants, those Alpha and Delta variants acquired a mutation highlighted in orange, which allowed them to be more easily transmitted, but they were still very well recognized by vaccine-induced immunity against the original ancestral strain. That represents conceptually one of the goalposts. If you think about the Beta variant, it accumulated a different mutation, which allowed it to avoid vaccine-induced immunity. You can see if you move further to the right in this chart, that all the more recently emerging variants have that same mutation. The Beta variant represents, if you will, the other goalpost, and really captures between those two all the different variants that you can see here on this slide. If we move to the next Slide six, this is some new preclinical data, which really emphasize what I just mentioned. If I direct your attention to the left-hand panel, this is looking at neutralizing activity, which again, is the presumed correlate of protection for COVID-19-based vaccines. What you can see is that VBI-2902 induced very high potency, very high neutralizing titers, close to 2,500 against the ancestral or Wuhan strain. Those antibodies were very poorly neutralizing the Beta variant. You can see a titer only of 94, so a significant reduction, hence why we developed 2905. You can see in the middle panel on the left-hand side, 2905 induced more balanced immunity against both the ancestral strain as well as the Beta variant. What was interesting to see is that in a heterologous boost setting, meaning a single dose of 2902 or a single dose of immunity against the ancestral strain, followed by a single boost of 2905, you saw also very balanced immunity. If you extended that further to look at the currently circulating Delta variant, and this is now shown on the far right, you can see that a prime boost using 2905 as the boost, induced the most balanced response against both the ancestral Beta and Delta variants. If we move on to Slide seven, I just implied that neutralizing antibodies were the presumed correlate protection. We wanted to assess that for ourselves, and we did so in an animal model in golden hamsters where they were challenged with, in this case, the Beta variant virus. What you can see, one way to measure efficacy is to try to protect against weight loss. You look on the far left, on Slide seven, what you can see is that animals that received placebo or saline lost about 15%-20% of their body weight by about day seven. You look in the red, these are animals that received two doses of VBI-2905, again, specific to the Beta variant, and you can see very minimal weight loss, and certainly no weight loss at day seven. This is a very clear evidence of the efficacy of this candidate. What's shown in the blue is immunity and the efficacy seen after vaccination with 2902, again, against the ancestral strain. Clearly, animals did better than if they had received a placebo, but not nearly as good as if they received 2905. I think this really captures what we're seeing in the real world. Namely, the current vaccines are less effective against variants like Beta that have mutations that allow them to avoid vaccine-induced immunity. Now again, what's interesting is on the far right in green, this is data based on animals that got a single priming dose of 2902 and a second boost then of 2905. What you can see is that that single boost of 2905 induced protective immunity equivalent to what we saw with two doses there in the red. I think this really does confirm the antibody type responses we've seen, and we're in the process now of doing another challenge study with this heterologous prime boost concept challenging against the Delta variant. Finally, if you move on to Slide eight, you can see some very exciting data based on the trivalent candidate. There's a lot of data here, but let me try to simplify it for you. You can see immunity-neutralizing titers against the ancestral strain elicited by 2902, 2905, or 2901. 2902, the immunity induced was a titer of 831. If you look against the Beta variant, that dropped though to about 239, so about a 3.5-fold reduction, consistent with what we've seen before and consistent with what we see in the real world. You can address that, of course, by trying to make a vaccine specific to the Beta variant, and when you do that with 2905, the titer is now about 678. You've addressed that. What you can see, and this is what has us so encouraged, the 2901 candidate essentially anticipated this Beta variant, because you can see the neutralizing titer of 1,014 was every bit as good as if you'd made the vaccine specific to Beta. Only the vaccine didn't contain that particular sequence. It effectively broadened the neutralizing antibody response. The next few columns towards the middle of your screen, again, we use a different type of neutralizing assay, and again compare 2902 against 2901. In every case, whether you look at the ancestral strain, the Delta variant, or even the Kappa variant, there's about a 3-fold improvement in neutralizing activity achieved with 2901. This really does emphasize a broadening of immunity because none of those variant sequences were contained in the vaccine. It's better than what you would expect with currently based vaccines against the ancestral strain. As Jeff has alluded to before, we're actively looking at what's the extent of breadth of protective immunity that we can see. As an example, we are using the same types of assays to assess neutralizing activity against novel bat and pangolin coronaviruses. With that, let me turn it back over to you, Jeff. Great. Thanks very much, Dave. On Slide nine, this is a subject that we're just kicking off now. The first subjects have already been dosed in this phase I study, which will comprise of 80 individuals. It's a phase I-B. Investors and others are probably wondering why we're only doing 80 subjects and why this is only a I-B and not a phase II. As people will realize, if you have a new candidate and a new construct, you are kind of required by the regulators to do a phase I study where the primary endpoint has to be safety and tolerability. It's powered to the extent, in this case, 80 subjects, you can assess the efficacy and immunogenicity of this candidate as a secondary endpoint. I'll say more about that in a moment, but it's a three-arm study. It's being conducted across sites in both Canada and Mexico. The first cohort will be a one-dose booster or third vaccine in previously vaccinated individuals who will have received one of the two authorized messenger RNA vaccines, i.e., Pfizer or Moderna, at least four months before. That study, for obvious reasons, will be primarily conducted in Canada, and that study is underway. This is a placebo-controlled study. The third active arm will be five micrograms, two doses in unvaccinated individuals. That study arm will be, for obvious reasons, largely conducted in Mexico. This study is being supported by CEPI, and we are absolutely delighted to be able to contribute, although not large in numbers, but a very important study in Mexico in unvaccinated individuals. In terms of the secondary endpoint, we will be assessing the neutralizing antibodies, i.e., the level of protection that could be expected across all of the major circulating variants. As I mentioned earlier, and most importantly to the regulators, safety and tolerability are the primary endpoints. We do not expect, based on the results seen to date, both preclinically and in humans, with other eVLP candidates, but more particularly in 2901, the ancestral Wuhan strain human study that was announced in June, then we would expect the potency, safety, and tolerability of this eVLP vaccine technology to be as we expect, i.e., highly potent, but extremely safe without any side effects, and well-tolerated at 5 ug. Moving on to Slide 10. We, as a vaccine company, and more generally in the public health realm, we are acutely aware across humankind and the global challenge to achieve community or herd immunity. There's no doubt that vaccine hesitancy driven by side effects is undoubtedly a contributor to this hesitancy. As Dave mentioned earlier, and as I just reiterated, the low dose at 5 ug and the use of a very straightforward adjuvant, such as alum in these eVLP candidates, means that we do believe that these candidates can prove a meaningful role in the greater adoption of vaccines around the world, whether it's as a third dose, as a booster, or two doses for the previously unvaccinated. That leads me to describe on Slide 10 what is essentially our strategy. It's a three-pronged approach broadly. Two doses of 2905 in parts of the world that have not received adequate protection, either from the availability or lack of efficacy, as we're seeing with some of the vaccine candidates that are approved in some parts of the world, of the ancestral Wuhan strain vaccination. In other words, you would boost with two doses of 2905 on top of perhaps previously vaccinated subjects with perhaps just one or two doses of a less efficacious vaccine. Probably more relevant in the major markets around the world that have been vaccinated with either Pfizer or Moderna or perhaps J&J or AstraZeneca. The heterologous booster of one dose of our 2905 vaccine on top of two doses of the ancestral Wuhan strain. We believe, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of vaccine hesitancy, the low dose, the use of a straightforward alum, the fact that this is extremely well-tolerated, both in the clinic at the point of vaccination, time point of vaccination, and the lack of injection site reactogenicity in the arm, and the lack of short-term side effects. This can become a major asset in overcoming some of this vaccine hesitancy and be viewed as a safe and perhaps preferable third dose or booster for populations in the major markets going forward. As I mentioned, a very important but perhaps a slightly low priority, just because we need to get out the current pandemic, the trivalent or multivalent VBI-2901 to tackle perhaps and predict the next strain of pan-beta-coronavirus. This will be important. It could have potential in terms of stockpiling for governments. It could have the potential, for example, for military application or perhaps for those people that travel extensively that could be exposed to slightly different variants or one of the current three pan-betacoronaviruses that have made the human-to-human transmission. Of course, it could be very important should the clinical data prove out to be a vaccine to protect against future emerging strains, particularly on a geographic basis if we see the emergence of a new strain. On slide 10, we detail our partners. We are proud and very grateful to be doing this work in partnership with CEPI, and the Government of Canada, the National Research Council of Canada, Resilience, our manufacturing partner, and VIDO, the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization. Of course, when I say proud and grateful, I'm not only talking about the financial support that we receive from them. We also receive considerable scientific expertise, subject matter expert input, to help guide us down this path. We're very excited and proud to be working with them. Looking ahead in terms of milestones, we would expect data from this current study of 2905, the phase I-B, through now in early Q1 2022. That, of course, is subject to some third-party collaborators running assays, so that's not always in our hands. We anticipate, given the dosing schedule and the current recruitment rate into this study, the data being available in Q1. People are asking for what's the next phase, assuming that we achieve safety and tolerability, so primary endpoints, and the efficacy that we're anticipating as the secondary endpoints in this phase I-B study. This could lead rapidly to a phase II or an adaptive phase II-III study. More likely the latter, because it would become a rolling II-III study to get the numbers necessary to measure efficacy against one of the currently approved vaccines across all variants. Also expected to initiate the first clinical study in the first half of next year will be our multivalent pan-betacoronavirus vaccine, 2901. This is a very exciting candidate, and it's very important to us, and I outlined the potential opportunities for humankind with this vaccine. As I say, 2905 and protection against the current pandemic to get us out of these woods is really the priority, which is why we're pushing forward with 2905 now. 2901 will follow. We believe these clinical development plans and priorities reflect the reality of both the situation today and in the future. Just before I sign off, I'd like to thank you all again for your interest and support of VBI. I'd also like to particularly thank our partners, as I mentioned earlier, and also the principal investigators, and those adults who participate in our clinical studies. With that, I'll hand over to the operator to open up for questions. Thank you. At this time I will be conducting a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question please press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star two if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star key. Our first question comes from the line of Steven Seedhouse with Raymond James. Please proceed with your question. Good morning. Thanks very much for hosting the call. I'm interested to hear your perspective or expectations currently for the path to registration, perhaps in Canada, but particularly in the U.S. and Europe. Specifically, do you think you'll need to run an efficacy study with an event-driven analysis similar to sort of the first-wave vaccines, or would a smaller immunogenicity study be sufficient? Also on path to market, I'm curious if you think you can run just a booster study. It seems like it's going to be harder and harder as we go forward to find motivated unvaccinated trial participants. On the immunogenicity study and on the booster study, I'd be curious to hear your perspectives there for path to market. Yeah, Steven Seedhouse, good morning, thanks for the questions, both great questions. To be brutally honest, I wish I knew the specific answers to them. I will give you what I believe is the likely scenario. There was a very significant call a couple of weeks ago where the WHO convened a number of regulators from around the world, who talked and challenged what the future path forward was. I'm sure you listened to that. It was clear that in unvaccinated individuals, there will not be a need to conduct the big 20,000, 25,000-person prevention of disease type of studies, the incidence study as you described it. In that case, in unvaccinated individuals, you could run a registration study perhaps in, say, 4,000 individuals and prove non-inferiority to one of the currently approved vaccines, emergency use approved vaccines. The problem is, Steve, in some parts of the world where clearly we want to roll out these vaccines and perhaps run a 2-dose of 2905 registration study, is that there may not be the availability of a suitable vaccine to be used as a comparator. I think, where we're seeing Vanguard 4, AZ, J&J, Pfizer, and Moderna being rolled out, you can clearly run a non-inferiority study against those vaccines. As you said, Steve, likely in the major markets around the world, you will not find unvaccinated subjects to be able to run that non-inferiority study. Outside of the top 10 markets of the world, where largely populations have been vaccinated, that leads you to the booster, which I'll come to in a moment. In the primary setting in Mexico, for example, you probably could find sufficient unvaccinated people if you can find sufficient supplies of a comparator vaccine. That's the kind of rest of the world. In the top 10 and specifically in the U.S., as you mentioned, and in Canada, VBI-2905 as a third dose or as a booster could be particularly important in terms of breadth of immunity. As Dave described, providing if the Pfizer, Moderna vaccines provided the one goalpost, providing the second goalpost or third vaccination to provide protection for all known variants and perhaps variants that emerge within the boundaries of those goalposts. The WHO, the FDA, and others have not been clear on what the regulatory path to the registration or approval of a third dose could be. Of course, they're pushing forward with a third dose vaccination recommendation in over 65s or immunocompromised, really based upon the current safety and efficacy of those ancestral or Wuhan-based vaccines in the case of both Pfizer and Moderna. That's why likely the route for us, and we don't know this yet, but what I am anticipating, and that's a big caveat because this logic needs to flow through with the regulators, that we would do a third dose registration study in, say, 3,000 to 4,000 people and use as a comparator a third dose of either Pfizer or Moderna. You would have to prove non-inferiority against not only the ancestral strain but obviously against the major circulating variants of concern. That's our anticipation, Steve. There's a big caveat there because that route has yet to be defined by the FDA, Health Canada, and the European Medicines Agency. Yeah. No, I appreciate that, Jeff. Obviously, it's an evolving situation, but I appreciate the perspective. Just wanted to ask another question. It looks like 2901 is frankly your best vaccine candidate against virtually any strain that you test and presumably against future variants, as you noted, based on its design. I just wanted to understand maybe the finer points on the timeline to that getting in the clinic. What else do you need to do there from a manufacturing standpoint? Do you think that path through phase I, II, III will be quicker than 2905, just given sort of the learnings that you've had so far navigating this? We could have jumped into the GMP manufacturing and clinical study supplies manufacturing earlier on 2901. It would have meant sacrificing manufacturing slots of 2905. As I say, the priority for the CEPI, Health Canada, and the public health priority has been to get out of this pandemic. As you say, I think 2901 is a really exciting candidate based upon this data. Once we start manufacturing and once we start studies with it, we have to make sure we get the inclusion of certain antigens right. Otherwise, we have to keep resetting the clock and going back to phase I. That's why we're taking a little bit longer, so that we can, as Dave described, include some of these novel, Well, testing for these novel, as yet, are not human communicable type of coronaviruses, so that we can actually test the concept of whether or not the three antigens that we currently included could anticipate the next strain, i.e., the goalpost of SARS and MERS, to go back to the soccer analogy, is that wide enough or do we need to make it even wider? That preclinical work is ongoing. As you say, this preclinical data does demonstrate that if we had have had this vaccine 2901 on the market or available three years ago, it would have anticipated SARS-CoV-2, and it would have anticipated the variants thereof, although, of course, we wouldn't have had the definition SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 is very close to SARS, as you well know. I think that's a long and pretty kind of non-specific answer, which I apologize for. Other than to say it's a very important candidate, but we need to get it right from the get-go, and that takes some time. As to what the clinical development strategy could be, Dave, do you want to elaborate on that? Yeah. I think it's likely to be immunobridging, as Jeff said. We'll want to see that titers are non-inferior to some of the variants that it should protect against, and then we'll just try to extend that to new variants. I think there's a lot of comfort around the neutralizing antibody assay. There are many different groups now that have it fully validated. There's a WHO reference standard. I think we've talked about this for quite some time now. I think in the near future, you're really going to be able to benchmark using the same reference standard across all these different studies. Different candidates against different strains will be in a very good position. I think it'll ultimately be like flu. Something arises, you just test your sera and see does it work against this novel coronavirus. If it does, great, we're good to go. It will be immunogenicity, though, not any kind of efficacy study. Okay. Great. Well, thanks so much, guys. Appreciate the question. Thanks, Steve. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Kelechi Chikere with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question. Yes. Thank you. A question here from me. I'm trying to understand exactly what are the gating steps to entering the clinic with 2901. Is it more manufacturing, or is it the preclinical work? I guess if it's the latter, when and how do you make the decision that, hey, this is good enough, 2901 is good enough, the candidate that we have and the composition of it is good enough to enter the clinic? Any color there would be extremely helpful. Hey, good morning, Kelechi. Thanks for your question. Yeah, I think it's a little bit of both, Kelechi. To answer the first question on manufacturing, we have been reluctant to sacrifice manufacturing slots at our GMP clinical study manufacturing partner, Resilience, for 2901, given that the current pandemic, and the work with CEPI, to get us out of this pandemic, is obviously our priority. Before we do work on trying to anticipate what the next Betacoronavirus is. With regards to the preclinical development, I'll hand over to Dave. It really is a question of trying to define the candidate at this stage and testing it. Dave, over to you. Thanks, Jeff. Kelechi, I think it's important to emphasize that I think a lot of people have liked this concept that using this trivalent candidate, we might be able to anticipate variants currently circulating and new coronaviruses. We really didn't have a lot of data. This data that we shared with you this morning, it literally has been generated in the past week or so. I think now we really have the data. As Jeff said, we want to extend it a little bit further to some novel coronaviruses at pangolin. I think it's taken a while to get to this point, but now we have the data, we're excited about the candidate. We've got 2905 going now into the clinic, and we are absolutely turning our attention to manufacturing now that we have this preclinical data set. Got it. Thank you. I guess in respects to 2905, once you have that data in hand and by all accounts, it should be positive based on the data that you have for 2902, how quickly do you think you'll be able to move into a phase II, III as you suggested earlier? Kelechi, it's a great question. We, obviously a big caveat here, but as you say, based upon previous data, we anticipate success. Accordingly, we are manufacturing clinical study materials in Q4 with our partner, Resilience, to facilitate that rapid roll into a phase II and then III study. Those materials we will manufacture at risk, as it were, clearly, anticipating success. Once we see the data, and obviously the data has to come first in early Q1 2022, we can rapidly roll through. What I would say is that support from Health Canada and discussions we've had with the other major regulators around the world, and of course, the support that CEPI have provided to those discussions has been incredibly positive to allow us to move quickly. Our discussions, just for example, with Health Canada on protocol amendment, have taken days to move positively forward and collaboratively forward, rather than weeks. We would anticipate a pretty quick roll-on, Kelechi, into a late Q1, Q2 start of that phase II, III. Got it. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our question- and- answer session. I will now turn the conference back over to CEO Jeff Baxter for any final comments. Great. Well, not too much from me to add. I think the questions have been just elaborating on some of the points that we detailed, we didn't cover necessarily. I just want to say finally, thank you to everyone on this call, and not just on this call, but thank you to the people that will listen to the recording of this webcast. Thank you for your support as investors, but also thank you for your broader support for the work that we're doing at VBI, which we believe not only in coronaviruses, but also across hepatitis B and glioblastoma, are very important solutions for some very significant and critical unmet medical needs. Once again, thanks very much and have a great day, everyone. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.