So it's not like it's not without a downside, and there may be people where that downside is unacceptable or, you know, just too risky.

Interesting.

Interesting.

So we've been talking about- Companies that have largely been looking to, you know, displace or replace the IO backbone that is PD-1, PD-L1, largely with PD-L1 VEGF.

I'll call it another company that I think is doing something a little bit differently than a Keso or BMS or BioNTech, which are really, as of right now, looking to displace the current incumbent in Keytruda, and that's AstraZeneca.

You know, from what we've seen with AstraZeneca, they're taking a more nuanced, I'll say, approach, looking to really establish tumor-specific wins with various modalities, trying to really match, whether it be an IO, ADC, targeted therapy, to specific tumor types.

So if this were to prove successful, it would look a lot different than what we're seeing with the, with BMS, for instance, or Akeso, where they're just trying to displace.

[chuckles] It's a way off if it is, but-

Been working in oncology for around 30 years.

To a certain degree, Keytruda has come out on top as the key winners of the IRAs, and now we wanna look to the future and think about what will the next 10 years bring.

Who is going to own the immunotherapy space in oncology and supersede and take the crown from Merck and Keytruda? So with that in mind, Alex, as our chief medical officer-

You know, many tumors and for many people who get them.

Thanks.

What's been fascinating is, of course, if you go back in time, it wasn't obvious that Keytruda would be the winners or the leaders in this space.

There was a time where it looked like BMS and Opdivo as the first to market and the first PD-1 therapy to get a couple of indications was very likely to be the leaders, with Keytruda being a follow-on asset.

Now, of course, we have the benefit of hindsight being 2020.