 I would like to, before opening the floor for question, make some comments about the link of technology in healthcare and the link with technology in general. All innovation have to go through a three-point checklist. First, it has to be socially acceptable. That's the point number one. If it's not, it will never happen. And we've seen how difficult it is in the healthcare space, the divergence of interest. But that's one of the screening and probably what makes technology adoption, innovation adoption in the healthcare very difficult because this is the social acceptability. That's point one. The second thing, it must be economically viable. Anjar presented the challenge of matching supply and demand, the infinite possibility of supply but also the infinite needs from very rare diseases and others and how you're going to organize this match, the lack of visibility on future return, the temper. So I think this is a second test. And the third is the technical feasibility. And here, paradoxically, this is where we see less problem. I think we're not sure of ideas on how to do things, on how they could be done. But I think here in healthcare, we struggle in particular with the first two. And these are the challenge, I think, even from a technology standpoint where we should focus. Looking at this, and you look at the evolution of how technology has been designed, we started by product-centric design. That's how it has been done. If you think of information technology, processor, the Intel is Eve at our technology era, you do the product. We heard yesterday from François about Moore's Law and that was a product-centric design. I have to produce and I will figure out the demand and I will create the demand. This era is over and we moved with the rise of the internet to a people-centric design. Unfortunately, so far, it has been a very consumer-centric design where when you are the object, you have to wonder what it means to you. But that's a reality. And here in healthcare, we have this duality that has been expressed by my colleague on the panel, is a patient or consumer, certainly not from different aspects, but certainly, yes, from many other aspects. But we have, while still in this paradigm of consumer-centric design, we know, we sense it, but we have not moved yet, that this time is over and we need to move to a planet-centric design. We heard it from Mr. Siegel this morning in the previous session, the importance of there is no healthy, no healthy environment. So that was clear. I'm not the expert, I believe, in it as a patient. But what does it mean? And if you look at the adoption of technology and how to evolve, include these parameters from product to consumer to planet-centric, there is one very interesting aspect to approach it that I like personally is to look at the question of the negative externalities, because it's known in economy. This is a parameter that is not taken into account. This creates huge distortion on the debate around climate. And I can only recommend the book by Professor Christian Gaulier from the University, the School of Economics in Toulouse called Climate After the End of the Month. And that's a very interesting thing about also the paradox on, okay, I have this long-term equation that is impacting me short-term, but it doesn't materialize at the end of the month as well. So because I still have to pay my bill, I think in France in particular, we see it again with the price of energy. And this is a very difficult conversation. But I think including negative externalities in the equation of technology design is a must just period. You have to do it, find a way, because if you don't move it, the old paradigm of consumer-centric will lead us into the world. It's leading us currently by the way. The last point is of course performance. So you've noticed this four piece of product, people, planet and performance. We love acronyms in technology. And I think Jacques evidenced the problem. It's the visibility on the return, but also the acceptability of the return. I mean, when you have a breakthrough in technology, when you look at the GAFAM, these are very high amounts. Some would even say insane amount of profit. That gives you, when you have Mr. Zuckerberg welcoming Prime Minister Modi and say this is the third and the fourth largest state in the world meeting, you wonder if really Facebook is a state. But he said, yeah, I have 1.3 billion users. So I mean, it's almost as big as India. That creates some distortion and rejection of the population about the technology evolution. And I think what the face right now in our society, and this has been evidenced by another professor of economy, Carlotta Perez, on the economy, the financials of technology that shows there is always a cycle where there is this huge development that is understood only by a few that makes a lot of money. And then there is a crisis, a crisis of trust. We have the question. And then society needs to reappropriate technology because they have, as I often say, bigger problem to solve than the ego of some of the big tech CEOs. I didn't mention one in particular. So that's the thing. And I think that's the perspective on technology. So the parameters are here. But it's a complex equation. But I think what is good is we've learned a lot, we've built assets, and now we understand the parameters. So if we get together with some more of a holistic views, we should be able to map some ways forward and anticipate that this was said before and prepare for the future. So I'm rather on the not utopian, but optimistic side of the technology.