disallowed link/investment-news/telix-on-track-to-deliver-400-million-plus-sales-ceo/152451?v=1097576
Christian Behrenbruch, the CEO and co-founder of Telix Pharmaceuticals, tells Alan Kohler how sales of prostate cancer diagnostic tool Illuccix will help the company deliver more than $400 million in revenue this year - and his plans to build sales to more than $1 billion in three years.
Alan Kohler here and I’m talking to Dr Christian Behrenbruch, who is the CEO and co-founder of Telix Pharmaceuticals. I spoke to him about a year ago when they launched their prostate cancer diagnostic tool called Illuccix and now the share price has popped up from $7 to $10, partly because they have just made $100 million in the quarter from selling Illuccix and also because they’re making some progress with a new therapy for soft tissue sarcoma, which they’ve licenced from the American big pharma company called Ely Lilly. Basically, Telix attaches radiography to molecules, antibodies or other molecules, and they target the tumours, both to diagnose and hopefully, in future, to kill them.
The sales of this prostate cancer diagnosis tool are going quite well, obviously, because they’ve made $100 million and they expect to make $400 million this year. So the company’s now capitalised above $3 billion and doing quite a lot of work. They’ve got something on kidney cancer, brain cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, prostate, obviously, and they’ve also got a partnership in China. So, very interesting business.
Here he is, Dr Christian Behrenbruch, CEO of Telix Pharmaceuticals.
Audio version: https://omny.fm/shows/ceo-interviews/dr-christian-behrenbruch-telix-pharmaceuticals-ltd
Table of contents:
Repurposing Olarotumab
Developing a Niche Area
Eli Lilly Licensing Deal
Back to the Beginning
Drug Development Tool
Directed, Precise Radiation
Illuccix Making Revenue
Kidney, Brain Cancer Pipeline
Partner for China Market
Aiming For $1 Billion-Plus
Christian, you just announced on 17 April, some success with Olaratumab – did I say that correctly?
Yeah, Olaratumab.
Olaratumab, okay. Now, this is a monoclonal antibody that was developed by Ely Lilly, taken through phase three trials and then failed – well, it didn’t work, so they kind of dropped it and you licenced it from them in 2022. So, you’ve what’s called radiolabelled it, right? Just explain to us, what you’ve done to this antibody to make it work for you? Or at least it looks like it might be working.
Yeah, so basically Lilly developed the antibody as a naked antibody, just as a standalone drug. So, you know, you’re probably aware, because I think you’re a pretty well-read sort of guy, that antibodies are the things that direct your immune system. So, when Lilly developed this thing, it was a standalone immunotherapy, basically…
And what were they trying to treat?
Treated a type of cancer called sarcoma.
Yeah, that’s what you’re focusing on too?
Yeah. So, what they showed, is that in the phase two trial, when they combined this immunotherapy with chemotherapy, they got amazing results. In fact, the results were so good compared to just chemotherapy alone and it was in a fairly good-sized study and randomly controlled. What they showed the FDA, was that they got a really significant efficacy boost, but when they ran that phase two trial, they ran it in a very narrowly construed patient population and then what they got was, on the basis of a phase two, because the data was so good, the FDA gave them a conditional approval. That is, they allowed them to start selling the drug, there was good safety profiles for the product, so they allowed them to start selling the drug in parallel to completing a confirmatory phase three trial.
How was the drug administered?
It’s an intravenous injection. And so, they completed the phase three trial and what they did for the phase three trial, was they expanded fairly significantly the patient population and the inclusion criteria and it turns out that the target that this particular antibody hits, although it’s present in patients with more advanced disease, it doesn’t necessarily have a therapeutic effect. And so, it’s one of those situations where you have a target that as the cancer evolves, the role of that target in controlling the cancer, basically changes over time. And so, as a consequence, their phase three trial failed because of the broadened criteria that they ran the trial, failed to get over the line, failed to meet its primary end point. They voluntarily withdrew the product, right?
But, however, the antibody itself is a very good protein, it targets the target that’s present, whether it’s signalling or activated or it does something, for our purposes, doesn’t matter. What matters, is that the antibody gets to the tumour…
And does it get to it wherever it is?
It does, yeah, that’s right, exactly. And so, what we know is that this is a great target in sarcoma, it’s a great target for delivering a payload and because we develop radiopharmaceuticals and our goal is to use that targeting agent to bring a radioactive payload to the sarcoma, we can take a drug like that and we can repurpose it as a carrier of radiation. All of the benefit of the development work of Lilly, all the safety data that they have, all of the patient experience, of course the manufacturing package, we can leverage all of that to develop a drug very, very quickly that’s carrying a radioactive payload instead.
And so, that’s the strategy and look, honestly, we’re at the stage now as a company where those are the sorts of deals that we really like to do because we get to leverage – I mean, it was more than a decade of research and hundreds of millions of dollars – and by the way, a very successful commercial launch, they sold half a billion dollars’ worth of drug in the first 18 months. So, we also got a validation that there is a commercial case for that therapeutic. It really does address an unmet medical need if the radiolabelled variant is more effective than the naked antibody drug that Lilly developed.
So, what do you bring to the party? Is it because your ability to radiolabel the antibody is patented, or because nobody else can do it? I mean, how come Eli Lilly wasn’t able to radiolabel its own antibody?
It’s a niche area. Not all of big pharma has the capability to do radiopharmaceutical development. It’s a highly specialised area of drug development, which is one of the reasons why we’ve been able to grow a business so quickly, right? I mean, we’ve just put our quarterly financials, we’ve done our first $100 million revenue quarter. We’re developing products that are well understood clinical concepts, but you have to know how to develop a radiopharmaceutical and you have to know how to manage the supply chain behind it, because these are very short shelf-life products. There is both a development challenge there and a kind of engineering and logistics challenge of how you deliver a product all around the world every single day that has a shelf life that can be as short as a few hours up to a few days.
And so, it’s just an area that big pharma mostly, with rare exceptions, there are a couple of big pharma, but it’s not an area where they have necessarily focused and also big pharmaceutical companies have scores of assets sitting there in various stages of dormancy or suitability for out-licencing and so, not every asset that sits in a pharmaceutical company gets airplay, right? So, I think really good companies say, look, ‘We’ve got all this technology,’ or, ‘We’ve got all these things, somebody should be developing it…’ And in our case, we were able to negotiate with Lilly to take on the development of that program and we consider ourselves to be very fortunate to have been able to do that.
This is a side issue, I guess, but I don’t understand why Eli Lilly didn’t just buy you. I mean, they’re more than 100 times your size, I mean it would have been a snack.
Well, I couldn’t speculate one way or another, but we are at this stage as a company where we have a lot of very positive attributes. We are a commercially viable business, we’re self-funding more than $100 million of R&D on an annual basis, for a small company we’re doing a lot of drug development. We’re able to show that we have traction with key clinical customers and we’re changing the lives of thousands of patients every month, every week we’re changing… You know, we’re at the stage now where we’re managing the prostate cancer, we’re contributing to the management of probably 2,000 prostate cancer patients a week around the globe. So, yeah, we are starting to have impact and the field of radiopharmaceuticals is starting to garner commercial interest.
But you have to understand that in the pharmaceutical domain there’s dozens of new fields of endeavour and generally, big pharma is a pathway to market for smaller pharma, you know, it’s a consolidation type of model. Most companies get to a certain stage and then they get acquired and integrated into a bigger pharmaceutical company. This is a relatively new field, it has new momentum and I think that there’ll be some watching and learning for a period of time before some of those big commercial moves take place. But there’s no doubt that good data and good drug development activity solves all problems, right?
So, can you tell us how the licencing deal with Eli Lilly works?
It’s just a bog-standard licencing deal. We’ve licenced the assets and the intellectual property and the patents around it…
How long for?
Well, subject to us…
Into perpetuity?
Yeah, subject to us making – we have to obviously deliver against performance milestones, so we have to run clinical trials and we have to invest in the asset, but it’s a very bog-standard industry licencing agreement and it does include, as we’ve made in our public disclosures, it does include that Lilly continues to develop that asset in some non-oncology indications, so we will also be providing back some imaging capabilities, if they want it, to support their ongoing activities. I think you’re probably aware of the vast majority of technology in the biotech industry is transferred between commercial organisations and even from academia via licencing agreements, right?
Yeah, of course.
So, you know, 99.9 per cent of valuable drugs ever produced were developed under licence. That’s a standard way of moving technology around and we’re very lucky at Telix, we built the company entirely through licencing and M&A, you know, as a company we’re not particularly excited about doing basic drug discovery. Basic drug discovery is super-expensive and you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince. Our strategy as a company is we like to take things that have well-established, well understood clinical data, safety efficacy, and then focus on the development pathway as a radio pharmaceutical, that’s what we’re mostly interested in doing. Drug discovery is kind of a dirty word for us.
Fair enough. Speaking of that then, with your development of Olaratumab, do you get to skip phase one because it went to phase three already, or do you have to start again?
No, we have to start again, we have to go back to the beginning. In fact, we’ve just finished all the preclinical work, so now we’re getting ready to do first clinical studies which will happen in the 2H of this year. But we get to go much faster, because we understand a lot more about the biology, we know that the antibody itself has a very good safety profile, it’s very well tolerated by patients. We understand the tissue and the tumour biology around the target very well because it’s had a decade of study in patients. So, we definitely get an accelerated development pathway and I think what we also have is a very clear understanding of what the commercial endpoint looks like, right? Because they’ve got there.
So, you can imagine a lot of disappointment from patients and patient advocacy groups when Lilly pulled a drug which, in that particular cancer doesn’t have a lot of drugs and there’s not a lot of solutions available and so we get to pick up that dialogue about what is the medical unmet need for that particular patient population and that gives us a lot of momentum, it gives us a lot of understanding of what the commercial landscape looks like. So, certainly we get to build on the shoulders of giants for this program and as a consequence, this is a program that, from a development perspective, can go extremely quickly. You know, probably this is a drug that can be developed at least two or three times faster than starting from scratch.
What does that mean in terms of years? What have you got in your mind?
Well, you know, a typical drug development pathway, in reality, is a 10-year exercise, right? From preclinical development, all the way out to completion of a phase three trial at a product launch. It means it’s a product where you can be starting a pivotal trial within three to four years, rather than a decade of getting to that endpoint, right?
Can you tell us exactly what you announced the other day? It was a proof of concept using this antibody to deliver, was it both diagnostic and therapeutic radiation?
That’s correct, yeah, so we don’t develop any targets at Telix without doing both, because what we know is that both regulators and clinicians want to see that scan, they want to know that in that particular patient that the disease is able to be elucidated with whatever target you’re going after. So, really, really important and in fact, we just got a label extension to Illuccix, our commercial product, for selecting patients for therapy, that’s how important that concept has become and I think regulators really see that as important. By the way, payers do as well, because you’re going to be giving a patient a very expensive therapy and you want to make sure that there’s evidence that that therapy is worth giving to that patient, right?
Cancer is a very heterogenous disease and you want to make sure that that therapy is the correct therapy, so that’s why we always do imaging as a necessary part of drug development. But it also accelerates the development as well because an image is so powerful. I mean, we’ve never had the ability before in drug development to literally look at on a millimetric basis, everywhere where the drug goes over time in your body. I mean, it’s a phenomenal tool in drug development.
How is the image delivered? How does it work?
Basically, you have your targeting agent, your antibody, that’s linked to a particle of radiation, radioactivity, and if you dial in a low amount or you use a diagnostic radionuclide that has a certain emission profile, you can put a patient into a thing called a PET scanner or a SPECT scanner, these are standard bits of hospital equipment, every major cancer hospital has these, even minor cancer hospitals have these pieces of equipment. What that does, is it allows you to image the patient everywhere from your toes to your noes where that targeting agent goes. You can look at it over time, so you can inject the patient and then you can say, okay, where is the drug at 20 minutes after injection, an hour after injection, 24 hours after injection and you can literally see in every organ in the body down to a millimetre level of resolution where the drug is going.
Yeah, but does it light up when it sees a cancer, when it hits a cancer or something?
That’s right, yeah, it does, that’s exactly it. You literally see a spot where the drug accumulates. So you can measure quantitative limits. What we care about when we’re developing a drug, it’s not just how it targets the cancer, but what we also care about is where else does it go in your body, right? You know, if it’s a small drug, it’ll clear out through your kidneys, if it’s a bigger molecule it’ll clear out through your liver, you’ll poop it out instead. But we have all of these different mechanisms by which your body metabolises a drug and so we can see that process as well, we can see whether it goes into other organs, we can see whether it goes into your brain or if it goes into your spleen or if it goes into your bone marrow.
We can measure all of that activity and so we not only get an idea for the therapeutic of what the targeting effect is going to be, we can literally quantify, we can draw a circle around the spot on the image and we can say how much of the percentage of the injected does of radiation did we get into the tumour and we can calculate whether there’s going to be a anti-tumour effect when we dial in the therapeutic radiation. But what we also can predict is how toxic it’s going to be. So, we can predict, okay, are we going to get a lot of radiation to your bone marrow or your heart or some other part of your body where you don’t necessarily want the drug to be retained.
So, it does deliver toxic radiation, I mean it is to some extent dangerous?
No drug that delivers a therapeutic benefit is a benign entity, you’re injecting something into your body that’s going to have a biological effect, right, when it hits its target. And even the effect of – if you’ve got a patient with advanced metastatic disease and let’s say you have a drug that’s perfectly tuned so that it only attacks the cancer. Just the process of your body clearing out – like, a prostate cancer patient with advanced metastatic disease, they have a couple of kilos of tumour in their body, so you’re going to have to clear that disease burden out, that’s toxic as well. So, the bottom line, is you can’t modify a patient’s biology and not have a side effect profile associated with that. And yes, we do deliver radiation, radiation has an overall adverse effect on your biology, but the goal of course, that’s why we use targeting agents like antibodies and the goal is to make that radiation as directed and is precise for a cancer cell as possible.
And I presume the diagnostic dose is less than the therapeutic dose?
Yes, that’s correct. Generally, when we develop diagnostic drugs, we don’t expect to see a side effect profile. A typical side effect profile that we see with a diagnostic imaging agent, is sometimes we see an injection site reaction, which is just normal because you’re injecting something into your arm. Sometimes patients have a hot flush or nausea because a lot of patients don’t like being injected and you’re injecting a volume of fluid into a patient. But we don’t expect to see serious adverse events from imaging agents, because otherwise you couldn’t deploy them in routine use if you had to provide support for a patient every time you went with an imaging procedure. We dosed close to 100,000 patients with Illuccix so far globally and we just don’t have a side effect profile because the radiation dose is very low and the targeting agent is very benign.Yeah, so let’s talk about Illuccix, you launched that about a year ago, you made $100 million revenue in the quarter, which is your first $100 million and you’re cash flow positive now, which is remarkable, really. So, you’re making money. Is Illuccix, so far, entirely diagnostic?
Yes, that’s correct. Again, as I said before, all of our targets that we work on, we develop an imaging agent and a therapeutic, the imaging agents tend to go faster because they are easier clinical trials to run, they are far more benign products, so they have a faster clinical and regulatory pathway. Typically, if you look at our pipeline, our imaging agents are like one phase ahead of our therapy programs. So, prostate cancer imaging is launched and prostate cancer therapy is in phase three at the moment, so we’re ramping up a global phase three trial with a therapeutic drug in prostate cancer. But, yeah, that’s the short answer to your question.
How much have you made so far in total? How much do you make per dose? How does it work?
Yeah, so there’s published price reporting in the US, but Illuccix and competitors, because there’s a class of products out there, the dose price is about $5,000 a dose at the moment and it’s a very large and growing patient population. Prostate cancer is one of the major cancer indications and we continue to develop new clinical data to show the utility of that product in different patient settings. So, yeah, we did $160 million last year and it was basically six months’ of sales because we got reimbursement on the first of July last year and most of the time you don’t sell a lot of product, obviously, until there’s a pathway for somebody to get paid for using it. So we achieved full reimbursement in the US, middle of last year. We did about $160 million in sales for the year and that business is growing very fast for us. As you noted, we did $100 million this last quarter and analyst consensus is we’ll do somewhere around $400-450 million in sales this year, I think we’re on track to deliver that sort of revenue level.
Did you say there’s other companies doing the same thing?
Yeah, we have a couple of competitors around the globe, we certainly have a clear value proposition for our product and we have quite a bit of product differentiation. Our product, based on the clinical evidence, has the best clinical performance and we have a superior level of supply chain availability, particularly in the US. Our business model is quite unique in terms of how we make the product very proximal to customers…
Tell us how you do that, explain that to us.
Our product is not centrally manufactured like our competitors are, we produce our product under practice of pharmacy, in a nuclear pharmacy very close to the customer. We had 195 nuclear pharmacies, I think, as of this week in the United States that are dispensing our product and what that means, is we don’t have to travel very far with our product, you know, typical driving distance is 20-30 minutes at most to a customer, we go up to an hour but typically it’s a short ride, sometimes we’re even in the backyard of the customer. And so, we offer – and the reason why we’ve had such a successful ramp up in the US, is because we offer a lot of scheduling flexibility around the availability of our product. Our supply chain model is just really unique and so, as a consequence, we have a very close relationship to our customer. So, that’s bode well for sales.
As I said, it’s been a very successful product launch and very unusual. We did our IPO in 2017, November of ’17, with basically four people and a filing cabinet in North Melbourne and we had a post capital raise valuation which is just about $100 million, just over $100 million Aussie, and so five years later, to be doing $100 million in a quarter, I think is great growth trajectory for the business.
Oh yeah, it’s not bad at all. Tell us about your pipeline, you’ve got one for kidney cancer, another one for brain cancer as well, right?
Yep, just like the prostate cancer, we’ve finished development of the kidney cancer imaging agent, we have beautiful data. In November, we just reported our phase three results and I have to say, our clinical team’s had a fabulous year so far this year, attending all the conferences and all of the clinical events, talking about our data. We smashed it out of the park for all of the primary and secondary endpoints, all endpoints of the phase three trial for renal cancer were met and this is an important market opportunity and it follows Illuccix, it’s the same customer base which is essentially urology, so it’s a natural follow-on product to the Illuccix product and so our sales team is really excited to have a second product to sell. So, middle of June, we have a pre-submission meeting with the FDA to go through the roadmap for submitting that and we expect to submit that product for approval this year, with a launch in early next year.
We also have a brain cancer imaging product. Again, we are developing the therapeutics for both of these products as well, but the imaging always goes faster. We just had our pre-submission meeting with the FDA, it was very successful and so we expect to also submit that application towards the end of Q3 or early Q4 this year as well. So, two more drug approvals to follow on with Illuccix and of course, we continue to make great progress on our late-stage therapy trials as well. There’s a lot on. We have basically four things to do this year, we’ve got to continue to grow the revenue from our prostate cancer imaging business, we’ve got a kidney cancer imaging agent to file, we’ve got a brain cancer agent to file and then we’ve got to really get on top of our phase three therapy study in prostate cancer, we’re expanding that to the US and potentially some European sites later this year. Each one of those things are big tasks, but in aggregate, that’s what our growth is going to involve this year.
You didn’t mention the soft tissue sarcoma one?
Well, you know, it’s an early-stage program. We’ve got about 300 people in the company now as a commercial stage company and it’s probably 5 per cent of our resource is developing an early stage program like that, so the majority of our expenditure is in our commercial stage programs and our new drug approvals and of course, a big chunk of our R&D, close to 65 to 70 per cent of our R&D budget is around getting that late-stage prostate cancer therapy program to market. It’s an important program, but it’s not the major expenditure for the business.
When do you think you’ll start killing prostate cancers?
We’re already treating patients every week, we’re getting a lot of experience with the product and we think that it has a very big differentiation compared to competitor products out there. We will have an interim readout, we plan to have an interim readout from our prostate cancer therapy study around the middle of next year, that’ll be a really key datapoint as to whether or not the patient efficacy that we’ve seen to date really does stack up in a randomised trial. And if that readout is successful, that will catalyse commercial partnership around that asset. And, you know, it’s probably from that point, another two years or so, before we’ll be in a position to apply for a marketing authorisation. Therapy programs have definitely a much longer timeline.
Right, but I presume they have a higher price attached to it?
They do and also, I have to tell you, our market cap right now is purely based on selling Illuccix, it’s a multiple of Illuccix sales and what’s going to be really important for the company, is that as we start to really get great clinical data coming out on our therapy programs and we have multiple data readouts this year and next year around our therapy programs, that’s going to build a ton of value in our pipeline and the fact that we can show that we are able to commercialise products, take them to market, get regulatory approvals, get reimbursement, I’m really looking forward for our shareholders to be able to unlock the value of the rest of that pipeline. Because today, you know, it’s been a speculative valuation, right?
Yeah. Finally, just tell us what’s going on in China with your partnership with Grand Pharmaceutical Group?
Yeah, we did a webinar this last week which was really gratifying to do. The China market is a really complicated market, particularly for radiopharmaceuticals and so to have a partner on the ground is absolutely necessary. We have two phase three trials and one phase one trial running in China right now, with Grand Pharma covering both diagnostic and therapeutic indications, we expect to be able…
Sorry, for which cancers?
Prostate, renal and brain cancer.
Right.
So, yeah, they’re a great partner to work with, it’s been a very successful relationship. Obviously, we signed the deal in 2020 in the midst of a pandemic and that was a bit of an unusual timing to do a deal, especially since they were a Wuhan based company, so the irony should not be lost on you. But we certainly have enjoyed the relationship, it’s been successful, they’ve done very well out of their relationship with Telix, both in terms of their pipeline expansion, as well an investment that they made in the company. I think it’s been really a win-win relationship and just a very high energy and pleasant organisation to work with.
Is there much going on in China about molecular radiotherapy?
Yeah, a lot. One of the hallmarks of this field, is that it’s very cost effective because the imaging makes sure that patients aren’t getting unnecessary therapies and overall, so far to date, the therapies themselves are very effective.
So there’s a lot of people doing it, are there?
Well, there’s a lot of momentum behind this space academically and governments have realised that if they don’t invest, they don’t back the infrastructure – because, you know, a lot of these isotopes are coming out of the nuclear infrastructure and some of them are made in cyclotrons and nuclear accelerators, but some of them are coming out of nuclear reactors as well. There’s a role for governments to play in supporting the backbone of the industry and of course, no innovation makes it to market unless there’s reimbursement for it. In a lot of these countries where – China’s a classic example, where it’s a binary market, right? You’re either on a critical drug list or you’re out of pocket, from a patient perspective.
Governments realise that these products can have a very big impact on cancer care and so they’re backing it. China’s central government has now got major investment policies around nuclear medicine and of course, we through our partnership with Grand Pharma, we benefit from that.
Does the government own Grand Pharma?
No, it’s a Hong Kong-listed company with a very transparent corporate lineage, I would say. I’m certainly aware of the sensitivities around that. But look, we’re a healthcare company, our focus is on human health and I think that human health should transcend borders and politics, frankly.
Do you have in your mind when the best time to sell the business will be?
Well, I didn’t start the company to flip it, I could’ve sold the company several times along its journey, from private company up to public company. The goal was to build a revenue-generating company and I have to tell you, it’s exciting to go out and raise capital and it’s exciting to deal with investors and to be a public company, but you know what’s more exciting? Is spending money that you’ve earnt and there’s a very big difference between a cheque somebody else writes and a cheque you have to write yourself.
So, you’re starting to do that now, I mean this is an unusual thing for a biotech.
Yes, that’s right. I’m energised by that. I would like to see, as a standalone company, that we take our first therapeutic product to market. Probably, our first therapeutic product is going to be our brain cancer program because it’s going very fast. I mean, obviously, if someone comes along and offers us a 100 per cent premium for the company, I’m going to have to, probably on the balance of probability, I’m going to have to take that to shareholders. But, speaking as the largest shareholder in the company, I want to see the company grow and thrive and we can see a pathway where we’re going to do, on a flatline basis, ostensibly we’re going to $400-million-plus in revenue this year. With the introduction of two more products next year, I can see a pathway for us to grow the business to $1-billion-plus revenue within three years.
I can see us continuing to fund a great pipeline that’s having a significant impact on human health, so that’s all good. And I’m personally not motivated by money, I get out of bed every day to solve medical problems. I’m very fortunate, I had a couple of good pay days in my career, so I have a pretty good quality of life, I get to live in the world’s most beautiful city which is, you know, it’s a gorgeous day outside today and I have interesting work to do that has an impact on patients. I think, you know, it’s all about getting the company to its natural endpoint and I think that’s as a revenue generating therapeutics company and we’re a couple of years away from doing that.
Well, I’m especially interested in your business because my father died of soft tissue sarcoma, so more power to you, get there fast!
You know, it never happens fast enough but that’s always the goal and that’s, in theory, what small companies are supposed to do, right? We’re supposed to be more nimble so I think certainly we have a very patient-centric team, it’s part of our corporate values that the patient is the centrepiece of everything that we do. I personally – and I’m about to head off on the road tomorrow to the US for three weeks and a good deal of my time will be spent walking the corridors of medical institutions, talking to our clinical stakeholders and understanding how they feel about what we’re doing. That’s the greatest joy for me, when I’m looking for inspiration, I don’t get it from looking at a financial statement, I get it from looking at an unmet medical need.
Good on you, Christian, thanks very much.
Thanks for your time, Alan, much appreciated, always appreciate the opportunity.
That was Dr Christian Behrenbruch, the CEO, managing director and co-founder of Telix Pharmaceuticals.
(20min delay)