Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Psilocybin, LSD, MDMA. We're talking about six to eight to 10 hours that a patient is sitting in a room. We landed upon a drug called five Meodmt. The experience is over within an hour, so the treatment is much shorter. That would be a much more scalable treatment.
[00:00:21] Speaker B: Well, Cosima, thank you so much for taking the time to have this conversation. Really excited to be learning a little bit more about you, your background, and the incredible work that you're doing in Beckley for the audience. Cosmo is the founder and CEO of Beckley Scitec, which is doing some incredible research in the psychedelic space, tackling treatment resistant depression, major depressive disorder, and alcohol and substance abuse. So, Cosmo, thank you so much for being on the show with us.
[00:00:46] Speaker A: Thank you. Looking forward to it.
[00:00:48] Speaker B: Before we get going here, maybe just give the, give the listeners a little bit of a thumbnail sketch of your career. How did you end up where you are today doing this research?
[00:00:57] Speaker A: I actually started, I suppose my career has been very narrowly focused on this specific area of research, so I was arguably born into it. So my co founder is in fact my mother, which is unusual and complicated, as you can imagine.
So she's kind of well known, kind of globally renowned, you could say, pioneer of. In the field of psychedelic science. She's been running a non profit called the Beckley foundation for 25 years. And so I've really grown up with this subject as the main kind of family passion for my entire life, really. And about eight, nine years ago, the Beckley foundation was really focused on conducting early stage academic research into how psychedelics work in the brain and how they might have potential benefits for patients in need. And this started back in the nineties, when this was a very, very unfashionable subject and was really kind of a major driver in what's now deemed the kind of renaissance of psychedelic science.
Going from a period where thered been very little research to suddenly a huge amount of excitement around the potential of these drugs. And Beckley foundation was one of the big drivers in that space. And then about eight, nine years ago, we decided that actually there was a next chapter that needed to happen and the next step, which was to build on the early academic research and actually turn this into fully fledged drug development programs. And to do that, it's a different set of skills, it's a different kind of level of capital intensity. So we started very targeted drug development businesses where we could bring on kind of experts in drug development as well.
So we actually co founded one business in 2017 or so, and I that was initially looking at cannabinoids, so doing a pharmaceutical drug development approach on cannabinoids, and we started a trial in advanced cancer pain, how we could use cannabinoids to manage advanced cancer pain. And then that company was sold successfully. And in the background, we had already started working on this company, Beckley Scitec, which is really the core passion. And the aim there is to develop psychedelics into licensed pharmaceutical medicines that can be made available for patients in need.
[00:03:45] Speaker B: And I'm just so curious. You described growing up around it. What does this mean? Like, over Christmas at the dinner table, and you're all talking about what's going on in the lab.
[00:03:55] Speaker A: I mean, not quite what's going on in the lab, but I mean, it's. Yeah, it's a kind of multi generational family passion, I suppose. So I was lucky enough to grow up around many people who are now considered the kind of godfathers of this field of science. And really, it was the main topic of conversation in the household. So it didn't take, I think, for many people, they have to go through some big event in their life to discover the potential of this otherwise stigmatized area of research. That just wasn't the case for me. I grew up where this was front and center for everyone's attention. It did not take a huge leap of imagination on my part to figure out that this was a really, really fascinating area with huge potential to make an impact for people. So I kind of started from that premise, and it was really like, how do I actually contribute to the movement rather than having to discover it myself?
[00:05:05] Speaker B: Now so many of us grow up and kind of reject, you know, the kind of shadow of our parents work, but you've kind of stepped into it and embraced it.
[00:05:15] Speaker A: Yeah, I know that. It is true.
It's funny, actually. I have an older brother, and he rebelled by becoming a kind of conservative politician. And so probably he did the rebelling for me, and it was easier for me to just kind of follow what was obviously a sensible path, which is seeing how exciting this field of research is.
And, look, I'm really lucky. I consider myself really lucky that the timing for my life is when this area isn't nearly as stigmatized as it was for my mother, for instance. So, you know, she was really kind of an outsider in trying to drive this forward, whereas for us, there's now so much momentum from a kind of regulatory perspective, from just the general public perception of this field and investor interests. So I'm very grateful for the hard work that had to be done by those people earlier on, where it was really a kind of outsider's job, and we got to kind of come in at a really exciting time where we can hopefully see it through to becoming actually available medicines for people soon.
[00:06:26] Speaker B: Sure, sometimes timing is everything. So eight, nine years ago, eight, nine years ago, you made this choice to go from the academic work to building commercial drug development organizations. What happened there? What were you seeing that convinced you that this was the right time?
[00:06:44] Speaker A: Having watched it for a long time, say, watched it over the last 25 years, there was a slow snowballing of some scientific evidence and momentum behind that and the interest growing. So I think that was the first thing, for instance, the first ever brain imaging studies on psilocybin and LSD that were done with Beckley foundation and Imperial College London, which really showed for the first time how these drugs were working in the brain and how they kind of reduce activity in what's called the default mode network and increased connectivity to other parts of the brain. That's this. And that really kind of underlined this idea that this creates this window of neuroplasticity that is an opportunity for people to make behavioral change that can last. And that's exactly what's needed, potentially, at least, for conditions like depression and addiction. And so there was a lot of kind of scientific validation for the space. And then what came along with that was an increase in interest from kind of entrepreneurs and investors. And the Beckley foundation was approached on a number of occasions about potentially partnering, because Beckley foundation was one of the few recognized and credible kind of institutions within this very, very small space at the time. And after a while, we thought, you know what? We think we could do it ourselves, and we'd rather continue to try and drive it ourselves. And what we wanted to do was really try and be a kind of ethical beacon for this new field of research and business, really. So the aim was always to really try and do it as ethically as possible and have a kind of really positive impact. And so we kind of took a leap into the unknown and were very lucky to have some really, really great partners along the way who knew a lot about the various areas of expertise we needed to learn about.
[00:08:59] Speaker B: Well, naming names, you've kind of mentioned this goal around being the highest ethical standard around this work.
Is there kind of a countervailing force that you're the trying to balance against out there that maybe you see as doing it unethically?
[00:09:15] Speaker A: No, I think. Look, I think with any field that becomes very kind of fashionable, and there's a lot of hype.
There's also the opportunity to kind of slightly exploit the hype for one's own gain, maybe. There was certainly know, say, five years ago, there was a real flood of companies, a bit like cryptocurrency and a bit like cannabis before it, where suddenly, suddenly out of nowhere, there are 70 companies that all have the buzzwords in their business plan. And I think when that's primarily driven for making a quick buck, then that's probably not. I think, a, there's a risk that narrative is overplayed. But also what we've seen from a kind of financial markets perspective since 2021, where the markets have been much harder, there's been a narrowing of the field.
And I think also it's been made very clear to people that it's not totally easy to make lots of money in this space. So you better really, really care about doing it for the right reasons. Otherwise, it's potentially not worth your time and energy kind of thing. So, you know, so I don't want to. Certainly don't want to disparage anyone else.
[00:10:41] Speaker B: Competition is an interesting topic here. You know, I think the, the kind of skeptical listener at home would go, well, like, how does this, how does this work? Aren't like a lot of these compounds just kind of generally available or something like this? Like, what's kind of special about the pharmaceutically, like, optimized versions of this that you all are pursuing?
[00:11:04] Speaker A: Totally reasonable question. And I think the first and foremost, there is a huge gap between a drug being existing in nature or a compound existing in nature that's currently, by the way, a prohibited drug. So a schedule one prohibited drug, and then that becoming an approved pharmaceutical medicine. So that is a very big gap there that needs to be filled. And that's what we're filling. Right. It's by no means a kind of menial task, that one, and the kind of steps that are required. It's about going through the pharmaceutical regulatory pathway that any other pharmaceutical drug has to go through. You know, that's regulated by the FDA and the US and other regulatory bodies around the world. The point there is that there are incredibly precise regulations about what is required to actually become an approved drug. And so, you know, firstly, you have to develop a drug, a specific formulation of a drug that you can show is manufactured to the appropriate standards of kind of good manufacturing practice. So Gmphead that are kind of reproducible, precisely reproducible, extremely pure, and then show that those, firstly, in preclinical data have no toxicology issues that then have a consistent delivery method and pharmacokinetic profile in humans, then to show that they are safe and effective in patients with a specific condition that is measured by recognized validated scales for whatever that condition might be. So for instance, in depression, it's the Madras scale, right? So you need to show a reduction in this. It's a very, very regulated and precise process that is very different to picking a mushroom and eating it kind of thing. So I guess that's the answer, I think.
[00:13:22] Speaker B: I'm fascinated. You kind of made this intentional decision to go after treatment resistant depression, which is far less prevalent than maybe some of your contemporaries, tackling major depressive disorder. You've also made a decision to go after using DMT instead of maybe some of the other folks going after psilocybin. Tell me about how you thought about triangulating which compound, which indications they're going to go after, in what order?
[00:13:45] Speaker A: What we were really lucky with from the beginning and what we kind of tried to do from the beginning of Beckley Scitec was to combine what Beckley foundation and its kind of history brought, which was like a really deep knowledge and expertise and network around psychedelic research. So specifically this kind of class of compound, what one already knows about the scientific research and the real world evidence for kind of this class of drugs, and then combine that with really experienced pharmaceutical drug developers. And there's two sides to that. There's the kind of regulatory drug development side, and then there's also the commercial and market access side. So the aim here is to develop drugs that not only get approved, but are accessible to patients at a large scale and are reimbursed. So they're covered by national healthcare in the UK, they're covered by health insurance in the US, et cetera.
So patients really get kind of equitable access to these medicines. And so from the very beginning we had to think about not just what would make these drugs, what's most likely to be safe and effective, but what's most likely to also be accessible. That's where really that was the kind of key other consideration from a triangulation point. And so, for instance, we were very lucky to have from the beginning, a key partner in this was a guy called Steve Wooding, who was previously the head of global commercial and market access strategy for Janssen, the kind of pharmaceutical division for Johnson, and Johnson who had developed Spravato, which is the kind of s ketamine drug. So that's essentially a ketamine analog and it got approved for treatment resistant depression. And in many ways, that's the forerunner for this whole sector. They've got. It was actually Johnson and Johnson, and they've got this drug that is a ketamine analog, approved as a treatment for treatment resistant depression that had actually got approved in 2019.
And so it was a really useful reference point. And I think there are notable differences between that drug and. And the drugs that we're developing. But what we had in front of us was spravato as ketamine. And then there was a lot of data in drugs like psilocybin, MDMA and LSD. What we can kind of consider the first generation of psychedelic compounds, and they all have really encouraging safety and efficacy data in a range of different disease areas. The challenge we foresaw with those drugs is the potential market access issue. So how accessible and scalable are these drugs? Because the way these drugs are delivered is they're delivered in a clinic, in a specialized clinic, under supervision for the entire duration of the subjective experiences of the drug.
For drugs like psilocybin, LSD, MDMA, we're talking about six to eight to 10 hours that a patient is sitting in a room in a clinic, under supervision by one, or probably actually two healthcare professionals. So while the data that comes out of that treatment is really encouraging, there's a scalability question, which is, well, if you think about how many millions of people are suffering from depression or addiction, and how many healthcare professionals it would require to sit with a single patient for an entire day, that becomes a kind of major potential roadblock in terms of how many patients can access this drug. And it also suggests a very expensive treatment as well. So what we were trying to think is, how could we improve upon that offering and make it more accessible to patients? And the logic for us was, well, if we could develop drugs that have a much shorter time in clinic, so the treatment is much shorter, that would be a much more scalable treatment. So that's where we started looking at thinking about drugs that were much shorter in duration. So we landed upon a drug called five MeoDMT, and that's a known compound. It's been used in the real world, but much, much less frequently than the kind of better known drugs. But what we know about it is it induces these very intense subjective experiences and very short, lasting subjective experiences. So, you know, normally the experience is over within an hour. And so essentially what the premise that we set out to kind of test is that if we can show that we can get similar levels of safety and efficacy that the first generation drugs like oral psilocybin are getting. But the treatment takes an hour or two rather than a whole day, that becomes a much more scalable and accessible treatment for patients. And so that's really been the focus ever since. And the reason why we looked at treatment resistant depression to start with is generally from a kind of regulatory perspective and a reimbursement perspective. There's a kind of risk benefit ratio for new drugs and a kind of cost benefit ratio kind of analogy that's done. And essentially we believe that the more resistant patients are those that are most at risk. They're also the ones that cost the most to the healthcare system. And therefore regulators are more likely to accept going into that more difficult patient population and insurers and state health providers, kind of payers for the drugs are more likely to pay for those treatments because those patients are a kind of more in need. There is a greater unmet need for those patients.
So the idea is that you actually start with the hardest to treat patients first, and then work your way down to kind of open up the funnel as time goes on.
[00:20:06] Speaker B: I love that. So it sounds like there's an element of, hey, let's start with the hardest to treat patients because most likely need the help, most likely to kind of get a kind of regulatory acceptance for, and most likely to get the kind of commercial pay or acceptance for it. And then it sounds like the decision around DMT in particular was one around the length of the experience driving the accessibility and maybe therefore costing. Did I get that?
[00:20:34] Speaker A: Yeah, you nailed it in a much more concise way than my rambling. So, yes, absolutely right.
[00:20:42] Speaker B: I wouldn't have gotten it if you hadn't explained it in so much detail.
So then help me understand some of these, let's call them first generation compounds, like you mentioned, much longer length of experience. And it sounds like. And DMT is a much shorter length of experience. It sounds like the length of the experience has nothing to do with the potential therapeutic effects. How do you think about that?
[00:21:04] Speaker A: I think, to be clear. So a couple of clarifications. Firstly, there's DMT and then there's five Meo DMT. And they're actually two different drugs, right? So they are molecularly quite similar, but actually the kind of subjective acute experience induced by those two different drugs are very different. So DMT is the drug that's known because it's used in, is the kind of active ingredient of a drug called ayahuasca, which is used in various religions and kind of shamanic, ritualistic use. And five muodmt is actually a drug that's naturally occurring in the Sonoran desert toad venom, and it's a different drug.
And actually the subjective experience is very different. So DMT is extremely visual the experience, whereas five meODMt is kind of markedly non visual in its experience. Generally speaking, of course, there's variability within different people.
So they're two different drugs. That's the first clarification. What they both have in common is that if they are consumed either kind of intranasally or inhaled or intravenously, they're very short duration. So they both have that characteristic.
And so five Meo DMT is a very short duration experience.
The question of whether the short duration matters for the therapeutic outcome is a hypothesis rather than a fact. Right. So it was the hypothesis that we set out to test, I suppose, was that it is not the duration of the kind of acute experience that really matters, it's more the quality and intensity that's a kind of correlate of what's going on in the brain to be the kind of biomarker for. For the neuroplastic changes, etcetera. So that's what we've kind of set out to prove so far. The data is very encouraging. So we recently published some data with an open label study on patients with treatment resistant depression with our intranasal five MeO DMT drug. So it's delivered intranasally, it's not orally bioavailable. And basically we showed that more than half of them, of the patients, they were after a single administration of the drug, within 24 hours, they were considered responders. So they'd seen at least a 50% drop in their depressive symptoms on this Madras scale. And that effect after that single administration lasted for three months. So that's, you know, that's really encouraging and that's very, you know, the data we're seeing so far suggests that the efficacy is comparable to the longer duration drugs like oral psilocybin. So far, it looks like our hypothesis is correct, but there's a long way to go still.
[00:24:31] Speaker B: Sure, that's super exciting. And that takes me into this next segment that I wanted to chat about. EPL zero, zero three, your five MeO DMT product is now in phase two. Bhdem. Tell me a little bit more about what's top of mind for you as you kind of get closer and closer to the DRSA finish line on development.
[00:24:54] Speaker A: Yeah, it's a very exciting and very nerve wracking place to be. Yeah, we're conducting this. It's a large multicenter. There are kind of 30 plus sites across six countries, US, Europe, Australia. And we are well along the way in our recruitment, but we're still recruiting. It's a blinded study. There are three doses. So there's a kind of very, very low dose, active placebo kind of thing, and then there's a medium dose and then a high dose. We're looking to show, you know, a treatment effect difference between the high dose and the active placebo. And we are aiming to complete recruitment this year. Yeah, it is very nerve wracking. So we have open label data, as I mentioned. So we initially did a study which wasn't placebo controlled in patients, so everybody got the active drug and that data, as I just mentioned, was really encouraging. So we definitely saw a rapid, robust and durable antidepressant effect with a single administration of BPL zero zero three. And it was well tolerated. Right. So if that kind of data is replicated in our phase IIB, we should be heading in the right direction when we get to the. Well, maybe not finish line, but at least the next milestone. Right. The next hurdle to clear. So we very much hope it is. Of course, there are lots of variables that. Well, you're an expert in this field, so there are lots of variables that one's trying to control as much as possible in terms of placebo and variability between different sites. So there's a lot of effort going to control that as much as possible and standardize everything as much as possible. But until the data reads out, we don't know for certain what are you.
[00:26:53] Speaker B: Most thinking about as you maybe get to the finish line on at least this phase, aiming to finish recruitment by the end of the year. Like, what are you, like, keeping your eyes on? Like, every single day right now, you.
[00:27:05] Speaker A: Live it as well. So one has a kind of, you know, half the time one spends thinking about everything that might go wrong, and half the time spends thinking about all the exciting things that one do if things go right. So, look, I think there's a lot of preparation going on in parallel with, you know, that's the other thing about drug development is there's not just the clinical trial, that's the one that's kind of everyone cares about. But of course, there's a huge amount of pre clinical data that needs to be generated for the end of phase two and moving into phase three. There's CMC kind of manufacturing work, finalizing the phase three formulation. There's all the commercial prep work. There's additional research that we're doing in parallel to the large phase two study, where we explore, potentially a second dose induction. So two dose induction models, ways to optimize the dosing model and the kind of overall treatment model, looking at the potential safety of dosing these drugs in combination with SSRI so that people don't have to be washed off their current standard of care antidepressants, and they can have it in conjunction. So there's a load of activity going on in parallel. And then, of course, just recruiting the study takes a huge amount of effort. I have to say I'm enormously impressed with the work that goes on by the team who are managing the clinical trial. Managing a business is complicated, but actually, you look at just managing a single large phase two B trial, and it's a equally complicated, if you see what I mean. It's just a kind of narrower scope, but so many different factors go into managing it appropriately. There's just a kind of awful lot going on, I suppose. And one hopes, of course, then the other thing that's always needed is more money. So drug development is, as they say, a capital intensive, pre revenue business. So that means that one's always needing to raise more money.
And so we need to kind of lay the groundwork now in anticipation of positive data with our phase IIB so that we can raise more money to move into phase three. And that obviously falls on my shoulders as well.
[00:29:27] Speaker B: Yeah. I mean, if I look at your pipeline, you've got knock on water. Phase three coming up, you've got another phase two in alcohol and substance abuse. You've got another phase two for different compound, Irely and MDD. How do you think about financing all of this? You got a partnership with Atai. How are you thinking about the financial backbone of getting this all through the pipeline?
[00:29:48] Speaker A: I guess going back to where we started, I suppose why we started BEcKLeY Scitec was, there's a broad belief that this whole class of compounds has huge potential.
We don't only believe in five meodmt. I think there's a whole class of compounds that I expect to get to market and make a really meaningful difference for patients in a range of different disease areas. And so I think treatment resistant depression is. Our lead program is five Meo intranasal, five MeODMT BPIO, three in treatment resistant depression in patients with treatment resistant depression. But as you mentioned, we think there's actually enormous potential for that same compound to be effective in substance use disorders. And the initial research, we're doing in alcohol use disorder is so far, it's a small, open label study, but I'm really excited to show people the data that comes out from that study when it's ready.
I really believe that's got huge potential as well. And so the potential applications for this whole class of medicine is, I think, very, very broad. And, you know, so it's a balance where we want to, as you're running the company, you want to hedge your bets to some extent, right? So we have, you know, the fact that we have a second indication with BPLO three in alcohol use disorder, I think gives it a twice the chance that at least it will succeed in one of those two options, treatment resistant depression or algae disorder. And then we have a second actual compound, which is IV psilocin. So, psilocybin, oral psilocybin, which, as we were mentioning, is the kind of first generation, it's the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, and it's really the one that's synthetic. Psilocybin has been really heavily researched, and a company called compass Pathways is currently in phase three developing that drug for treatment resistant depression. And in fact, Beckley foundation with Imperial College conducted the first proof of concept study with oral psilocybin in treatment resistant depression several years ago, and so very much believe in the potential of that compound. As we said, the kind of challenge there is, the long duration. So what's interesting about our drug, Le 101, which is IV psilocin, is that oral psilocybin, when ingested, breaks down into the body into psilocin. So that's the actual kind of active moiety of psilocybin. What we've developed is a stable form of psilocin that we can deliver intravenously, which means that we have much more control over the delivery. It's a kind of much more consistent and controllable delivery and a much, much shorter overall time in clinic. So we think we can take the kind of psilocybin experience, but condense it down into one to 2 hours. But that benefits from all the kind of leveraging all the existing safety and efficacy data from oral psilocybin, but in a kind of much improved, improved way of delivering that kind of active moiety. So that's, again, I think, a really, really exciting opportunity there.
And so we have that. We've done a phase one study in healthy volunteers. Through that, we selected a dose. We've now dosed a cohort of patients with major depressive disorder and are following them up again. Very excited to, to show that data publicly soon, and that's again, really, really exciting. So to go back to your point about how much money is needed, it really depends on the next stage gates of what data comes out and how much one wants to accelerate and or prioritize different programs as the data comes through.
[00:34:04] Speaker B: I sense the theme here between BPL zero zero three and ElI 101 around experience life being a core part of your hypotheses.
[00:34:14] Speaker A: Yeah, that's that exactly. They both fit that kind of overall hypothesis. And I think there's a wider and wider acceptance that that makes sense as well, as long as we can show comparable efficacy that the, you know, most clinicians, most patients, if they were offered the chance, like do you want to go in and have a treatment that lasts 8 hours and you're there all day and it's a very intense subjective experience, or one that lasts an hour or two, which would you prefer? And for a clinician, do you want to be monitoring a patient for one to 2 hours or do you want to be monitoring a patient for 8 hours? And for a clinic, do you want a patient to take up your room for a whole day or an hour or two? And for payers. So do you see it? There's a lot of logic to it and so that's. Yeah, that's very much the kind of premise that we're focused on, for sure.
[00:35:08] Speaker B: Super exciting stuff. Cosmo, if you don't mind, I have maybe two rapid fire questions for you before we wrap here. The first one is digital companions. What's the deal with this?
[00:35:17] Speaker A: Very good question, and I think the answer is still to be determined, but I think there's huge potential for digital support with patients, and I think that's, there are a few angles to think about here. So I think, again, one of the questions and the whole sector is kind of evolving. Its answer to how we deal with this is the support. Again, it's a relatively resource intensive treatment because patients are going into the clinic, they're under supervision for the duration of the experience from. And so there are, you know, healthcare professionals in the room with them. But also the generally held and accepted view by most people in the field is that patients will have a safer and more positive and useful experience if they have a certain amount of preparation before the experience and a certain amount of what's called kind of follow up, safety follow up, or integration afterwards as well. So again, how that is delivered is a question, and that's where digital interventions could really help to optimize the kind of efficiency and scalability of these treatments. So if a certain amount of preparation and follow up could be managed by digital support apps or digital therapeutics, whatever you want to call them, I think that's a really exciting potential and something that the field and we believe is definitely worth paying attention to. And then I think you could even go a bit further with that. There is already a separate, growing field of what's called digital therapeutics. So actual digital apps that are getting FDA approval to treat certain conditions, like ADHD or depression or whatever it is, in their own right. So they're showing that they can help treat these conditions. What's interesting is the potential synergies between the kind of class of psychedelics and these digital therapeutics. Because what we've shown and how it works with psychedelics is it creates this, as I mentioned, this kind of window of neuroplasticity. So what happens in the brain, it opens up kind of neurogenesis and creates this. This window of opportunity for the brain to form new patterns of thought and behavior that can last for the long term. And if one could, at the same time, integrate digital therapeutics during that window of neuroplasticity, it potentially could amplify the effectiveness of the digital therapeutics and, in parallel, amplify the effectiveness of the psychedelic treatment. So that's where there's a kind of real opportunity for synergy. Again, a lot of research will be required to prove that, but conceptually, it makes a lot of sense.
[00:38:23] Speaker B: Well, I feel like we could talk about that for a whole other episode, but maybe we save that for part two.
Cosmo, is there anything that we didn't talk about today that you usually want to talk about, or you usually want to be asked about?
[00:38:35] Speaker A: No, I think. I think we. I think we covered the bases. I think it was really enjoyable. Thank you for. For the questions. It was really fun.
[00:38:42] Speaker B: Of course. Well, again, hey, thanks for taking the time to have this conversation. I really enjoyed it.
[00:38:47] Speaker A: Likewise. Thank you.
