 Now, I have the great pleasure of introducing the penultimate event in this summit, but as I was just mentioning to Stelios and Albert, it's the ultimate in terms of content. It's our last fireside chat with Dr. Albert Borla, a commanding figure in our industry who requires no introduction, but I'm sure Stelios, you'll still provide an introduction. I get the chance though, Stelios to introduce you, Stelios Papadopoulos, who will be conducting the fireside chat. Stelios has been a leading figure in our industry for many, many years. He's also been a great supporter and advocate for the USAIC and a board member for its entire existence. Stelios is a scientist and an investment banker. Stelios has held very significant positions on boards, chairing, as we all know, the Biogen Board, the Axelixus Board and also the Regulus Board. He's been a really deeply thoughtful contributor to our industry. And I'll say one thing I've learned about Stelios over the years is he's also an historian. He really focuses on history. And I think, Stelios, you mentioned to me that you tracked before the internet every IPO in the biotech industry. And I think you mentioned also that you have a file that has paper copies of every S1 that was filed in front of every IPO. So someday we'd love to visit your museum, your home on Long Island, if you'll invite us. And with that, Stelios, I will hand it over to you. Thank you, Andy, and thank you, Karun. Albert, welcome. Thank you. Maybe I should say where did you suggest that about Albert? Albert and I shared the unique distinction to have been born in the same city in Greece and we share our affection for our city called Thessaloniki, which is the second largest city of Greece, but by far the most important, exciting and charming city in all of Greece. Albert grew up in Greece, as I did. He started at the universe of Thessaloniki to see if he's undergraduate, doctorate degrees from there and then joined Pfizer in a variety of roles until the last few years, he's come to the title of CEO and chairman and uniquely and importantly, he led the company and the world in that regard during the COVID crisis. So I'll actually, I wanna begin with a little bit of introspection. Most of us would remember that roughly three years ago, last month or two, we started hearing about this unusual new malady called COVID. I for one, when people asked me back in February of 2020 about COVID I said, don't panic, but be careful. Little did I know we should have panicked and been a lot more careful because it's gonna be a big problem. But in turning to Albert, in this last three years, you've made some extraordinarily important decisions. You decided immediately to get the company in the COVID race. You decided to develop vaccines and antivirals. You decided to choose the mRNA technology as the way to go. You committed to manufacturing, infrastructure, supply chain, transportation systems well before you knew you had a product. You refused to take any government money. These are extraordinarily gutsy decisions and they reflect your leadership style. And I know in many instances I don't wanna make a commercial here, but if you have not read his book called Moonshot, you should because it's a fascinating story of what transpired within Pfizer, within the world in the past three years with COVID. But you've actually spoke a lot over the years in your thinking, your way of leading, leading with a purpose. So I wanna start the conversation by asking you to just comment some more about this. Thank you, Stelios. First of all, in addition to our love for our country, Greece and our city, we are sharing also the love for our sports club. The score now is four two, 79. They are playing right now and Stelios is keeping me updated always. I think we know very well from a lot of statistics from and studies of business schools that companies that stay true to their purpose, they perform better than companies that they don't do that so well. And I think that's a clear reflection from the fact that when you have a compass as an organization, when you know that if my role is to provide markers that change patient's lives, for example, or if my role is to bring information to the fingertips of whoever, doesn't matter. But when you make it very crucial focal point for the thousands of the people that are working in the organization, then you create without even wanting a very good coordination. Everybody's efforts are aiming at the same point. And that makes a very big difference. The ability of these companies to execute. Now, when it comes to our industry, when our purpose is not to make life easier, is not to provide to people things that they would like to have, it is saving lives of people. Our industry makes the difference for a father or mother to live long enough to see the graduation of the daughter of the wedding of the son. Then, in addition to creating, when you lead with this purpose, which is a patient-centric purpose, in addition to creating a good coordination of all the company aiming to the same direction, you create an emotional boost that makes everyone willing to give more. And I think that happened in COVID. In COVID, clearly we had not hundreds, but thousands of people in Pfizer working on this project that they had to work many times day and night. That was the only way that we were able to accomplish it in eight months rather than in eight years. But they did that because they had a sense that what they are doing is not for Pfizer, is not for them, is not for us, is for the world. And I think this is what was for me a very, very big lesson that when you inspire people and you give them a cause, which is a good cause of doing things, I think they will be surprised how much more they are willing to give and sacrifice. So that was the first one. The second is that a clear appreciation of one very simple fact. People don't know what they can and what they cannot achieve. And if anything, they have a severe tendency to underestimate what is achievable. Because that's the natural self-preservation reaction of everyone that gave us the famous, better under-promise over delivery. That's a problem though. And the one who best said that is another co-pattern of ours, Stelio, which is a bit more famous, Aristotle's is the name, who said that our problem is not that we aim very high and to image. Our problem is that we aim very low and to hit. And this is what creates the mediocrity. The false impression that you are successful, not because you were able to achieve something great, but because you were able to convince everyone to lower the bar. So in COVID, we didn't ask, or I didn't ask, the same was with Moderna, so the same was with ZNJ. We didn't ask them, instead of eight years, make it in seven or in six. That by itself would be very, very difficult. But we asked them, made them in eight months when we came to manufacturing. Pfizer was manufacturing 200 million doses of vaccines per year for all vaccines around all the diseases, all manufacturing sites in the world. I didn't ask them to make 300 millions of the new vaccine. We asked them to make three billion doses of the new vaccine. The bar was really, really very, very high. And the first reaction is, cannot be done. The lesson for me was that if you hold the four, if you do not give up to the request, let's lower the bar. And you insist that this is the bar, just go find out the way to do it. You will be surprised how much your people will be able to achieve. So that's the second lesson, and I will pause maybe here. For me, one, that having a purpose in your life, particularly when it's a noble purpose, gives to your organization extra fuel to go the extra mile and setting higher very thinking unthinkable goals will help you achieve way more than if you're setting low, easy to make goals. You know, the total quotation, I hadn't known it until I read your book and I saw it plastered around the pages. I think it's great. I think all of us should take second lesson from there. Let me change the subject a little bit because we have some distinguished members of our community on the call who are eager to ask you questions. In particular, Dr. Trehan is patiently waiting in India to participate in discussion. So when I change the conversation a little bit toward collaborations, partnerships, and what potentially can be done between large conglomerates, large multinational farmer campaigns like Pfizer and India. So Dr. Trehan, if you can remove your mute and ask your question, that'd be great. Thank you. Good afternoon to all of you and good night to me. This is, thank you, thank you, Stelios, for this opportunity. And Albert, quick question is, as you know, India is investing heavily in the biotech industry, especially from COVID times onwards. The government has partnered with private industry to actually achieve the development of vaccines and other things. So it's become now very clear to the country that India has the ability to be able to take large strides in the biotech industry. So under the current prime minister, Mr. Modi's administration, they have enacted several policies to drive innovation and bring much needed investment into the country to make it an R&D leader. What sorts of considerations does a company like yours make when it wants to enter into research and development partnerships around the world? And how can India accelerate its quest to be seen as an innovation powerhouse in the biopharma industry? Dr. Thank you for your question and also thank you for staying late up in the night to participate in this discussion. First of all, let me say that I truly applause the Modi's government aim to build biotech ecosystem in India. I think it is a very, very good decision. And if I may say, I think it's coming even late. I think India could claim their, let's say, fair share of the biotech happenings in the world even earlier. Why is that? One, it is that India has already world-class industry when it comes to life sciences in terms of manufacturing, when it comes to contract research organizations, ability may not have a global-scaled, let's say, innovative big pharma company coming from India, but they are having tremendous expertise in all the areas that you need to be successful in terms of capabilities if you are a big pharma. It's not by chance that Pfizer and many other global pharmaceutical companies, they are having affiliates in India that they are doing work for the world, not only for India, mostly for the world. Not only in manufacturing sites, but we are having highly specialized statistical centers and we have highly specialized farm science centers and recent centers and we're having studies. All of that are happening. The talent is number one, I think, that you need to be able to build biotech ecosystem. Academia is number two and capital is number three and every hub in the world that was able to make a successful presence of biotech they had all these three in one place. They had academia slash hospitals, then they had tremendous amount of talent and then we had a lot of capital that flew. Capital from people that are ready to risk their investments 100 times before they see one of these projects being successful and this is what you need. I also think that the times that the research was happening in the big either scientific institutions like the Harvard's of the world, the Stanford's of the world or in the big farmers laboratory like the Merch's of the world, Pfizer's of the world, the Biogen of the world are over. Right now science is very, very diverse. In 15 years before or 20, we knew only a fraction of the biological targets that we know right now. And for each one of them, we knew very few modalities that we could use to attack them right now. So which means that singular beds within some big institutions could make sense. Right now we are knowing thousands of biological targets and we have hundreds and hundreds of modalities that can be used to attack them. So it doesn't make any sense to have singular beds within one company. What makes sense is to do what India is doing has 6,000 biotechs right now as startups and aiming to make them 10,000 biotechs. Most of them will fail but that's the nature of the beast. Those that will be successful are those that will save the world. So what is now the role of the big farmer in this ecosystem to come closer to your question? I think they are much needed to catalyze the system. I think that the biopharma can do what our collaboration with another biotech for example, BioNTech did in the COVID era. A wonderful technology of mRNA that they were very good at mastering. In our hands was able to develop it in record time to manufacture it at scale, to be able to commercialize a scale. There's a result of the impact that we had in the world. The same can happen with many, many biotechs around the world and mainly in India. So what we are looking as we are looking to invest. For us something that it is extremely important. It is the, it is a pivotal for our survival is an existential issue. It is the intellectual property. Everyone who invests in this space in life sciences, the only thing that gets in return is not something which is really physical. It is an intellectual property. It is an algorithm. It is a molecule. It is something that you have proven and you have 10 pages of data that demonstrate that this molecule is doing something. That's all that you have. So the respect of this intellectual property is a necessity for someone to invest. And that's the only way that you can incentivize local and international capital being invested in biotechs. It is if you know that whatever they will produce, they will own it rather than anyone else can come and take it. So that's a fundamental, very, very big. So I think this is what we are looking and I think India is making strides on that. I think they need to reinforce that very quickly if they want to become a leading global player in the biotech in life sciences because they can become. They have the capacity to do it. The other, of course, it is access. You want the medicines that are invented to be used. You don't want to invent something in a country but using your products. And when it comes to India because of economic reasons, it's not going to be always that easy to give broad access to modern medicines to the entire population. But again, strides towards this direction are making it a way more friendly environment for someone who is working on life sciences to invest. So if I can just follow it up, if I have your permission. Please, please, of course. So at a fundamental level, Pfizer is doing a lot of work even with our organization with Vedanta. Now we have five hospitals. We are running some trials for you. It's beginning, but you have specifically talked about IPR. So if that's one thing that I would request, Karun to actually gather all the concerns that may be existing with Big Pharma and actually bringing it on the front burner with our counterparts in India. And to show, see where we can take it because this is very well clearly outlined by you that the ingredients are there already, except the participation of Big Pharma tonight, today as it stands has some concerns about the intellectual property. So that is enough of an indicator to us that we want to move the needle quickly or in a substantial way, we'll have to address this issue. So good enough that you have expressed this and this is a message that we would like to take back to the regulators to say, these are the concerns and whatever is reasonably resolved we should do ASAP because this is an opportunity for India and it's an opportunity for the rest of the world also to leverage what is available in India, a very broad gene pool, a lot of science talent, a lot of IT and all the things that can accelerate. So thank you very much for clearly spelling out what the three ingredients are and I think that this will help us. But Karun, maybe you can take this extract from this conversation that I've had with Albert and we can address the issues because there is huge interest especially today, we are the country that is holding the G20 and G20 gives us an opportunity to actually address these issues much more urgently than we would otherwise. So thank you very much Albert for pointing it out, thank you Stelios and if you will give me permission I've got to operate in the morning so I'll go cozy myself and bed. Thank you very much and look forward to interacting with all of you with some new sort of movements that we've been able to make. So are you visiting Albert and Stelios? Do you visit India? I have never been to India as I've told people many times, I'm afraid to go because I'm gonna fall in love with the country and then I would wanna go, there are many, many times and I just don't have enough bandwidth. But don't forget, we have very close ties because of Alexander. Absolutely. And Alexander, see if you look at India, India has the more huge diverse pool, gene pool because of Alexander and Jengi Khan's armies from the North East and Alexander from Northwest. They were very, very generous with this firm. So they created a whole new Northern India which is quite different in this gene pool. So we have that advantage but maybe take this opportunity of inviting you and Albert myself, I was able to honor the memory of Alexander. I visited many, many times India. It was a very frequent destination in my career for doing business. And at the same time, I fall in love with the culture and what you can see there, Stelios is right. You can be easily seduced there. I haven't been since COVID broke out. So now I'm resuming my trips internationally in the post COVID. So I hope that in the short, not very distant future I will visit once more India. But I have been all over India, North, South, East, West. So you'll be my guest in Delhi and your fellow Greek you have to bring with you. Of course. Since you're joined at the hips from the same birth place. Let me let just Dr. Trehan if I could. First of all, thank you for your comments. I just wanna make a stronger point regarding intellectual property. We all applaud and respect innovation but let's face it with a systemic problem India where many, many companies in India as their business model are continuously challenging otherwise fundamental patents of multinationals and tying up the companies in years long litigation, looking for settlements. That's a cultural change and a business model change needs to take place. If India wants to be part of the innovative world in biopharma, one is to look very carefully at this. No, I appreciate it very much because we cannot move forward if India wants its place in the sun. We need to deal with the issues and that's why I was requesting Karan to concise it. We'll take it to the powers to be. There is a lot of- I'll come with a delegation with Karan's leadership to India to argue that point. Okay, that's a done deal. We'll arrange that. So let me change the subject a bit since we're still talking about alliances and other activities. I wanna talk about the Accord for a Healthier World and how that all relates to India and Pfizer and my good, good friend Mira Chatterjee is on the call with us and maybe she would like to comment on this and ask your question. So, Mira? Yes, thanks so much, Stelios, for allowing me to ask the question. Dr. Borla, again, this really, my question relates. Pivot's a little bit from the earlier conversation into health equity and access. India sometimes referred to as the pharmacy of the world. It exports a significant number of its locally produced drugs to developing companies. Now, of course, most of these drugs are generics, but it does help to play a role in narrowing the health equity gap. I know this is an issue that's important to you and Pfizer because you recently made a major commitment to enable equity, equitable access to your medicines and vaccines through the Accord for a Healthier World. So can you tell us a little bit more about how and why this effort came about and why you see this as a breakthrough for lower income countries, not just India? Thank you very much for all the introductory comments and let me explain first of all what the Accord is that we pledged that we are providing at cost all our medicines. Let me clarify what it means at cost, what it means all our medicines. At cost means only the cost to manufacture and ship, not loaded with any administrative expenses, loaded with legal, R&D, et cetera. It is just the cost, bear cost to manufacture and ship. And when we say all our products, all we started with all the patent protected products and then we extended to everything that we have in our portfolio, which is 500 products, as long as we have the global rights or the rights to these countries, the commercial rights to these countries. And free, as I said, at cost to 1.2 billion people living in the 45 poorest countries of the world, the way that we selected the 45, it is based on the classification of the World Bank that includes all the low income countries and includes all the countries that graduated from low income into upper classification in the last 10 years. So if, so give them, let's say, if they were in the low income country in the last 10 years, they are eligible. So this is how that was developed. So this offer is up now and we have circulated to the countries. They are aware of the list of the products and the cost of manufacturing so that they can purchase them. But we have realized during the COVID crisis that being able to provide medicines at affordable cost is not enough to overcome the equity gap. During the COVID, pretty soon within, let's say the first six months, the first six months there was very skater of the availability of vaccines because countries that we were manufacturing wouldn't allow to export from these countries. But then that was lifted after June. And we were able to provide to the low income countries one billion doses completely free. That was an agreement that we did with the US government. We sold those doses to the US government at cost. So we didn't make money, we didn't lose money. The US government donated those doses completely free. You could ship into your airport. We had to destroy most of them. So the doses were not absorbed by those countries. Why those doses were not absorbed by those countries for multiple reasons that clearly didn't have to do with availability or cost affordability. There was hesitancy way more than other places because there was not enough education because this information was circulating easier over there. There was lack of infrastructure so that they can organize mass vaccinations in these countries as they did in other countries in India for example, they had mass vaccinations for the population. They weren't able to do that even if it is as simple as setting up a tent with a refrigerator and some people to do the vaccinations is not given that it is that easy to be done in places like that. Maybe in New York you need to walk 10, 15 minutes to the next vaccination center or drive 10 minutes. In Africa maybe you need to walk one day to vaccination center or seven hours to be able to get vaccinated. So there are fundamental issues that they are standing in the way between the best medical innovation available to you cost that was completely free by the way of vaccines and you couldn't use it. So for this reason, after we did this accord we are also trying to work with some of the governments that they are getting the issue in Africa to try to understand what can be done so that those products will find the right use. It's one thing to give the most prescribed breast cancer medicine right in Africa. Women in Africa they do have breast cancer but first we need to diagnose it. If you don't, you won't be able to use the medicine. So what can we do to be able to improve diagnosed rates in Africa so that they can use those medicines? You need to have logistics operations that they are holding medicines not necessarily other goods that maybe they are more skillful. So there's a lot of work that is happening right now and even some countries may not be able to afford the cost of goods because those could be for their financials quite expensive and then we are working on finding through global organizations ways to also finance this. So if we resolve all of those issues then I think we can say that we made a difference in global equity and I hope that we will be able to demonstrate that by just moving the needle in mobility and morbidity and the death rates and the health indexes in the country and that should be the outcome is what should dictate if it was successful or not. And so given these, I'm sorry, just one follow-up. Please go ahead, Mika. Just given these challenges that you're facing how far along are you in your objective? How many countries are you in now? How many do you hope to include? There are five, no we included 45 and all 45 can order. We have five countries of the 45 with which we are working on the ground right now by organizing seminars in physicians how the products can be used. We are sending nears that they are spending some time in the country to organize logistic centers, et cetera, et cetera. Thank you. And Rwanda it is the one of the five that it is the most advanced right now. Let me take one more question from Anita Ayer. Let me preface it by saying we began this conversation with the question of how does one lead to innovative solutions a large, expansive research rich company like Pfizer. But of course, if innovations to take place we need young leaders to run the smaller company. So Anita may have a question to ask you on that front. Yeah, thanks Telyos. First I wanna congratulate the organizers for putting this information rich event. It's been a privilege to be here and thanks for making it accessible to all. My question for Dr. Burla today is, for early stage life scientists such as myself, what core competencies should we have in this technological age and what sort of steps can we take to become the next generation leaders that can positively impact communities like yourself and others up high during this COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Thank you. Anita, thank you for the question and I'm not sure if I have the wisdom to provide advice on that, but clearly it's, I will start with the basic, the table stakes that you need to do. Most of that are highly scientifically, technically skillful, let's say operations and jobs. So you must clearly master that, you must master the science, but a lot of people are mastering the science, many are good at that, fewer are becoming very successful entrepreneurs. And I think what, when I try to understand what is the common ingredient among those that they're successful, there is one thing that I always find to be present and that's passion and love for what they do. It's not a necessary, it's not enough as a condition. So I have seen people that they have passion and don't necessarily make it, but I've never seen the opposite. I've never seen someone who succeeded without loving what she or he was doing. And I think that's something that I clearly advise, go to a field that you really, really, really like working with. And then like everything in life, leadership, you will have to make decisions and you will have to convince others to join you, to follow you, to go to the direction that you want. And that's the definition of a leader. They want the ability to engage others in her or his vision makes all the difference. And so, that's the third thing that I would say that you need to have, leaders. And by the way, I'm looking at you and I'm sure you have all three. If I would add my two cents on this issue, because I think a lot about this, it's very important to have a vision. It's also important to be a pragmatist. You need to start by really identifying what is the problem you wanna solve. And if I were to capture in a short sentence, what I tell young people is it's important to dream, but it's even more important to dream with your eyes open, because you need the right balance of vision and pragmatism. And that's the critical thing. The clock is ticking down to the last few seconds. So I wanna thank Dr. Burla and all our guests for participating and in closing, just to say great quarter, great top line beat, great bottom line beat, keep at it. So thank you, Karun and thank you, everybody. Bye-bye. Thank you very much. Andy, we're back to you. Great, thank you very much, Stelios. And thanks for ending us with an investment mind around the quarter, appreciate it. Once an investment banker, always an investment banker. So great. So let's bring up our next polling question, please for the audience to respond to. And I'm just gonna enlarge it on my screen so I can read it to everybody. Great, so second to last polling question, mRNA will become the major anti-vaccine technology for all infectious disease. You either agree or disagree. I know my answer, but we'll see what the audience. Let's see the results of this last, second to last polling question, if we could pull it up, please. Again, I have my answer. All right, well, pretty consistent with my answer that mRNA vaccine will become the major anti-vaccine technology for all infectious disease. Actually, that wasn't my answer. I thought it would become part of the arsenal, but we'll see if that plays out. I would have been in the disagree column, but thank you very much, everybody for participating.