Greetings, and welcome to the Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Fourth Quarter 2022 Earnings Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. As a reminder, this call is being recorded. And I would now like to introduce your host for today's call, Michael Wood of LifeSci Advisors. Mr. Wood, you may begin.

Good morning and thank you for joining us. Earlier today, Brainstorm issued a press release with its financial results for the full-year 2022, including a corporate update. Before passing it off to the company management for prepared remarks, I'd like to remind listeners that this conference call and webcast will contain numerous statements, descriptions, forecasts and projections regarding Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics and its potential future business operations and performance, statements regarding the market potential for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders, such as ALS, the sufficiency of the company's existing capital resources for continuing operations in 2023 and beyond, the safety and clinical effectiveness of the NurOwn technology platform, clinical trials of NurOwn and related clinical development programs, and the company's ability to develop strategic collaborations and partnerships to support its business planning efforts. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond Brainstorm's control, including the risks and uncertainties described from time-to-time in the company's SEC filings. The company's results may differ materially from those projected on today's conference call and the company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements. Joining us on the call today will be Mr. Chaim Lebovits, President and CEO of Brainstorm; Dr. Stacy Lindborg, Co-Chief Executive Officer; and Alla Patlis, Interim Chief Financial Officer. In addition, Dr. David Setboun, Executive VP and Chief Operating Officer are also on the call and will be available to answer your questions during the Q&A session. I’d now like to turn the call over to Mr. Lebovits. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Thank you, Michael. I want to thank all of you who joined us to discuss our 2022 financial results and recent developments. Throughout 2022, Brainstorm had a number of important clinical and operational achievements, which we believe position the company for further success in the year ahead. Our priority in 2023 is to advance NurOwn through the regulatory process as expeditiously as possible. On this front, we are very excited to announce earlier this week that the FDA intends to hold an advisory committee meeting to discuss our BLA seeking NurOwn’s approval as a treatment for ALS. We held a conference call on Monday to discuss the planned advisory committee meeting. Given the importance of this news, as well as some of the follow-up questions we have received since then, I think it's worthwhile to summarize the key points and emphasize a few key points. First, the information we communicated on Monday is that NurOwn’s BLA is backed under review and the FDA has committed to an advisory committee meeting. The date of the advisory committee meeting is unknown at this time, but we know the FDA is actively working on it. We will share with you once we receive it from the FDA. I want to emphasize a few additional points from our investor call from Monday. Point number one relates to the review process for NurOwn’s filed BLA. Now that the BLA is under review, the review process should be the same as any other regulatory mechanism we could have utilized to get to this point. We look forward to working with them as we work throughout additional steps in the review process, including the regulatory response. There will be an advisory committee meeting guided by an agenda and a set of questions put forward by the FDA. These questions will allow experts at the FDA and Brainstorm to frame the efficacy and safety of NurOwn and ALS. Independent medical and statistical experts, members of the ALS community, and other key stakeholders will then have the opportunity to participate in an open discussion on the prospects shared by the FDA and Brainstorm, as well as the need for new ALS therapies. The agency will then render a decision on the BLA by a specified PDUFA date. We anticipate that we will have the date of the advisory committee meeting soon, and when we receive it, we will also have clarity on the PDUFA date. The next points I'll emphasize relate to the regulatory mechanism we utilized, which is formerly known as the File Over Protest pathway. Despite its name, this mechanism is a standard regulatory procedure and is not inherently flawed. In fact, we collaborated constructively with the FDA before the agency provided us with several regulatory options that would reactivate the BLA in order to allow NurOwn to be discussed as an advisory committee meeting. As mentioned on our call on Monday, this pathway was ultimately chosen over the other options, because this allows the fastest regulatory path to an advisory committee meeting. This was the driving factor in our decision-making; we recognize the urgency that patients deserve. Next, I'd like to remind those listening of the letter we received from the FDA late last year and speak about how we plan to address these points. The complete response letter included one item related to the trial not meeting the standard for substantial evidence of effectiveness or the primary endpoint and the remaining items related to chemistry, manufacturing and controls, in short CMC. Given our exemplary record of high-quality manufacturing, we are confident that we will be able to remediate each of these points in a straightforward manner. In fact, we already have conducted much of the necessary work in a short time frame and submitted an amendment to the BLA on March 7, 2023, which responds to the majority of the manufacturing items raised in the letter. We work to respond to the few remaining manufacturing items, which is ongoing and will be complete in due time. The only item related to our clinical data that will be the focus. That will be the key point of the discussion during our upcoming advisory committee meeting. We view the opportunity to discuss NurOwn’s full data set in the public forum offered by the advisory committee meeting as an extremely positive development for Brainstorm and the entire ALS community. This forum allows for an open conversation among agency reviewers, Brainstorm’s experts, clinical program investigators, and all other relevant stakeholders. Finally, I want to once again thank the FDA for their collaboration throughout this process that led them to this decision. Given our data set and the currently urgent need for novel therapies that can improve the lives of individuals living with ALS, we believe an advisory committee meeting is the most prudent and appropriate next step in NurOwn’s regulatory path. With this, I'll now turn the call over to my colleague, Dr. Stacy Lindborg.

Thank you, Chaim. Once again, I want to make the point that securing an advisory committee meeting has been central to our strategy because we have a robust and compelling data set that will benefit from a deep and thoughtful discussion at this public meeting. While our Phase 3 trial of NurOwn in ALS did not reach statistical significance on the primary endpoint, we firmly believe that the totality of evidence from the trial will ultimately support approval. This belief has only grown as we've continued to analyze the trial results and discuss our learnings with leading experts in the ALS community. Along these lines, I'd like to highlight a presentation that was made at the Annual Muscular Dystrophy Association Clinical and Scientific meeting, which was held in Dallas last week. As we've explained before, we now understand that the results from our Phase 3 trial were influenced by participants who entered the trial with advanced ALS and who fell victim to the floor effect of the ALS functional rating scale. A floor effect is observed when scale items reach zero, and ongoing progression cannot be measured on the queried items. The rate of ALSFSR decline appears to slow and plateau in many patients, despite further deterioration of the participants' function and health. While the floor effect is certainly a limitation of the ALS functional rating scale, the good news is its presence can be objectively measured, demonstrated, and accounted for. This is what we've done with various techniques, including with the new analyses presented at MDA last week. This analysis focused on trial participants who were not impacted by the floor effect at baseline, or in other words, participants who did not have a zero on any item of the ALS functional rating scale at baseline. The number of participants with no evidence of the floor effect at baseline in this trial was 106 out of 189, or just over half the participants in the trial. When looking at these participants, there was a significantly higher response rate with NurOwn compared to placebo on the primary endpoint, with 41% of NurOwn participants reaching this substantial definition of clinical response versus 23% of placebo, a difference of 18%, and this had a significant p-value of 0.035. Additionally, in these participants with no evidence of floor effect, we see significantly less disease progression on the endpoint average change from baseline in the ALSFSR to week 28. There was a difference of 2.31 with a p-value of 0.04. A copy of this presentation is on the events and presentation section of our website, and I would encourage those interested to read it. These important findings not only give us more confidence in our clinical data but also address an area where there appears to be a misconception among some observers. There's a perception that the Phase 3 trial had a higher-than-expected placebo effect, with approximately 28% of placebo participants responding on the primary endpoint at week 28. While it's true that we expected only 15% of placebo participants to be classified as responders on the primary endpoint, based on numerous post hoc sensitivity analyses, we can objectively say that this was a floor effect that impacted the primary endpoint and not a placebo effect. In fact, in the same trial, participants who had the highest rate of floor effect in the study, driving their ALSFSR scores to meet the criteria on the primary endpoint of clinical response, these same participants had the lowest SBC scores, the highest rates of pre-treatment decline, and the lowest baseline ALSFSR scores. And while I'm focusing on these analyses that control for the floor effect, which include these new analyses presented last week, let’s not forget that in a pre-specified group of participants with the ALSFSR score above 35, there was a larger treatment effect across all endpoints with NurOwn, compared to placebo with a statistically significant difference on a key endpoint to the average change from baseline in the ALSFSR. Lastly, in addition to these pre-specified sensitivity analyses, biomarker data collected during the trial also demonstrate the importance of accounting for the ALSFSR floor effects when evaluating clinical endpoints. These data showed NurOwn positively affected multiple pathways that are intimately involved in ALS, including those that were related to neurodegeneration, neuroinflammation, and neuroprotection. Importantly, the changes observed were consistent regardless of participant levels of disease progression at baseline, with positive effects seen in trial participants with less advanced ALS, and with those with more advanced ALS disease at baseline. One of the reasons we've been able to drive such valuable learnings from our trials' biomarker data is because we employed an extensive specimen collection protocol in the study. This protocol, which called for the matched collection of up to 7 serum and CSF samples from trial participants over a 20-week period, is to the best of our knowledge the largest longitudinal specimen collection protocol ever employed in an ALS trial. To maximize the value of these samples for the ALS community, we partnered earlier this year with NEALS to provide the public with access to samples from placebo-treated trial participants. This was done in connection with a $500,000 grant previously awarded to Brainstorm by the ALS Association and IMALS to support biomarker research in the Phase 3 trial. By providing the ALS community with access to these clinical samples, we hope to drive additional research that will facilitate the discovery of new breakthroughs for patients with ALS. I'll now turn the call over to Alla to discuss our financials.

Thank you, Stacy. It is my pleasure now to walk you through our full-year 2022 financial results. Brainstorm’s cash, cash equivalents, and short-term bank deposits were approximately $3 million as of December 31, 2022; this compares with approximately $22 million on December 31, 2021. Our research and development expenditures net in the year ended December 31, 2022 were $14 million, compared to $15.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2021. General and administrative expenses for the years 2022 and 2021, respectively, were $10.9 million and $9.3 million. Net loss for the year ended December 31, 2022, was $24.3 million or $0.66 per share, as compared to a net loss of $24.5 million or $0.68 per share for the year ended December 31, 2021. Now, I'll turn it back to Chaim to close the call.

Now, for Q&A, but thank you very much, Alla. And Michael Wood, please read the questions we have. Before we open the call for callers Q&A. Michael?

First question, can you tell us about the biomarker response to the trial versus what happened in the Expanded Access Program?

Very good question. Stacy, that's for you.

Sure. Let me start by summarizing what we've collected in the Expanded Access Program; we collected both clinical data and CSF samples and collected them on a schedule that was similar to the Phase 3 randomized clinical trial. As a matter of update, the second period of the Expanded Access Program has been completed, which now completes the program, and we've begun to analyze the clinical data. The final biomarker samples need to be collected from the sites, and then samples from all of the Expanded Access Program participants will be sent to labs, the same labs that were used in the Phase 3 trial for analysis. And we will present the data in scientific forums like we do with all new data.

Thanks. As a follow-up question, have you submitted your biomarker data to a public academic journal yet?

Yes, Stacy.

The manuscript is fully written and it's in its final stages of review with authors prior to submission. We're really looking forward to getting it under review and generating what we believe will be an important publication for the ALS community in the near future.

Regarding the timeline on the PDUFA date and the advisory committee meeting, can Brainstorm ask for or receive six-month priority review?

Thank you. We are waiting for the FDA to provide us with this information and that said, we will communicate when we have this information.

And then regardless if you're on a six or a ten-month review timeline, can you clarify when the clock started running? Does this happen at the time of the refusal of the file date or is it running anew as of last Wednesday's notice regarding from the FDA?

Good question. Thank you, so the BLA is back under review; it had to be back under review for the FDA to grant an advisory committee meeting. The timeline reads as follows: On February 6, 2023, Brainstorm notified the FDA of the decision to request the FDA to file NurOwn BLA for our ALS. The following day on February 7, we received confirmation from the FDA that the BLA had been re-filed. Therefore, February 7 is the date that the review timeline became active again. We made this point during our prepared remarks, but it's worth reiterating, we chose the procedure of File Over Protest because it allowed for the quickest path to an advisory committee meeting and started the clock again.

And one last question, this is a financial question. Has the company been active with its ATM in the last few days? And what is the capacity of that ATM?

Thank you for that. So no, we are not active, of course, at these prices; we have confidence that we'll be able to activate the ATM for a better return and less dilution. As we have disclosed, of course, we do have an ATM in place, sponsored by Raymond James and Leerink. We did do a single cross investment made by a single institutional investor, but we are not activating and we don't intend to activate the ATM at these current prices. Thank you for that.

And the capacity of the ATM?

$100 million.

Okay. That's the final question.

Thank you. Now, Holly, would you open the call for any questions from any callers?

Certainly. At this time, we will be conducting a question-and-answer session. Your first question for today is coming from Jason McCarthy at Maxim Group.

Sure.

Hi, all. Thanks for taking the questions. Just some clinical focused questions. First, did the floor effect impact the biomarker changes in the total Phase 3 trial population? And if not, can the biomarkers be used to show that while the floor effect impacted the ALSFRS score in the total population? Can you still see the impact of NurOwn just through the biomarkers? In particular, the NFL biomarker which came up as a big deal during the Biogen advisory committee meeting as a therapeutic marker?

Jason, thanks so much. The short answer is yes, but I will let Stacy elaborate.

Yes, Jason, it's a great question, and it is a really important point. Every time we've talked about our biomarker data, every presentation we've given in the public domain is focusing on all trial participants, so it's everybody that was in the trial we see the same biological response with NurOwn across all patients in the trial. And importantly, we also see no changes as we would expect in these same biomarkers with participants treated with placebo. So, there is a very important finding that is brought to this overall study that comes from the biomarker data. And it allows us to have even more confidence that the impact that we're seeing in the ALS functional rating scale is in fact due to a limitation of the scale and does not reflect on something further about these participants in the trial. We simply can't measure the decline in participants that progress to advance a stage of disease and to where the scale has zeros and can't measure differences. So that's a very important point. We specifically examined the participants' data, particularly the biomarker data from the thresholds that distinguish participants with a baseline measure from those without, and we observed consistent patterns across all our biomarkers. This will be clearly outlined in our manuscript that will comprehensively describe our biomarker data. I apologize for the second question.

No, no, sorry. Go ahead anything to interrupt.

You brought up neurofilament light, and I think there was a very broad and wonderful rich discussion at the most recent advisory committee meeting and a lot of confidence being displayed about the ability to and importance of this marker in a list of diseases, specifically with Tropicin, the mechanism of action with their products. What I would say is that when we look at our biomarker data and we want to understand the relevance of these very large changes that we see across markers of neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation in addition to markers of neuroprotection, we wanted to understand and appreciate how important they were to the clinical response that's observed. And this is something as a company, we certainly thought about well in advance; we knew it would be extremely important; we don't want to just change biomarkers, we actually want to know that there's a direct effect on the clinical outcomes. And so, this was the subject of a second analysis plan that was submitted to the FDA before we outlined our trial, where we outlined the proper ways to explore these questions. And these models that were pre-specified identified three markers that the knowledge of the changes that were observed in the trial and were important to predicting the clinical response that was observed in the trial. And one of those markers actually was neurofilament light, so the changes and the knowledge of baseline values are important to understanding the clinical response; they're very relevant to clinical response. In addition to a marker of neuroinflammation and neuroprotection. So, it's very important; we know that these three pathways are very central to our mechanism of action. We've also uncovered data that suggests that the ability to modulate these pathways are very relevant in the clinical outcomes that we observed in this trial.

Can you address the floor effect that contributed to the approximately 28% response rate in the placebo group in the total population in Phase 3? You mentioned in the 106-patient data presented a couple of weeks ago at the Muscular Dystrophy Conference that when accounting for the floor effect, the placebo response was 23%, while NurOwn was reported to be 40% or higher. The 23% was still above the 15% statistical benchmark set for the trial. Is this due to other factors, or could it be that the small sample size in a subgroup created some noise, making it appear higher than the 15% benchmark?

Yes. I would say that this falls within the range we anticipated based on historical data. In designing trials, we analyze past data and estimate outcomes based on other studies, natural history, and clinical trials. Considering the disease's variability and progression rate, all these factors can influence trial outcomes. We aim to gauge what to expect in a group of participants receiving a placebo. For the primary endpoint, we assumed a 15% response rate in the placebo group and a 35% response rate in the NurOwn group. These were our initial expectations. In this sample of about half of the data, the NurOwn responders were actually about 5% higher than anticipated, coming in at 40% to 41%, compared to around 20% for the placebo. We had expected a 20% difference in response rates, and that is reflected in the sample. It's important to note that small samples tend to show some variability.

So the last question briefly, can you just talk a little bit about the safety aspects of an autologous cell therapy being incredibly safe? I think it goes relatively unnoticed when everyone's focused on efficacy versus other types of therapies? And how something that's very safe like this could really impact to the good an advisory committee decision?

Yes, that's also a great question. And with every single study, we take very seriously the safety of the trial participants and we monitor safety very closely. We had a daily safety monitoring board monitoring the patient safety lives across the study. And we also go to great lengths to summarize what was observed in a trial, so we can certainly talk hypothetically as you're asking about the anticipated safety of an autologous cell therapy. But what's important is to also come back to the evidence and what we generated. We've summarized that very completely and thoroughly, and certainly, that will be summarized at our advisory committee meeting. This is a dimension that the physicians closest to our trial, including our Data Safety Monitoring Board, have continued to express that there were no safety concerns that existed in the trial or emerged from the profile of NurOwn, and that safety has been clarified to their complete satisfaction.

Great. Thank you for taking all the questions.

Thank you, Jason.

Your next question for today is coming from David Bautz at Zacks Small-Cap Research.

Thank you.

Hey, good morning, everybody. So, Chaim, you're going to have ADCOM date soon or PDUFA date soon, so when does the company begin discussions, say with third-party payers and maybe discussions about patient access? I don't want to get too far ahead of things, but at what point did the company begin to have those discussions?

So, we have started a bit and I would like to bring in our Chief Operating Officer; he's been working on this for over a year now. We are preparing for success. As you can imagine, David, you want to answer this question?

Sure. Thank you for the question. We've obviously been working on it for quite some time. We have, as well, the market access and pricing capability and expertise in-house, so we've been engaged with payers for quite some time now.

Okay. And I guess, kind of, as a follow-up, without holding you to any hard and fast numbers here. But how quickly would NurOwn be available say if it was approved? And then where does your manufacturing capability stand at this point for how many patients you could treat, say, in the first year or so?

Yes, that's a wonderful question. Of course, we're not going to go into hard numbers, but I will generally tell you that we have an outstanding partner with Catalent. The Princeton site is very dedicated to us, and we have additional sites here in Israel as well, so we will be able to treat patients immediately after approval. Of course, we'll have to enroll those patients, etc. But from the manufacturing capabilities, we technically are able to treat now if we were to have an approval, so thank you for that question.

Okay. And thanks for taking the questions.

Sure.

Your next question for today is coming from Myrrh Klingenberg, a Private Investor.

Yes. Good morning. As you know, my son Matt was in Phase 3 and received six doses in Expanded Access.

What was your name? Sorry, I don't need to interrupt. Yes.

You are breaking up.

Sorry, yes. I didn't hear the name.

My name is Myrrh Klingenberg.

Okay. Thank you.

You bet. I was wondering about my son Matt, who participated in Phase 3 and Expanded Access. We are very pleased, thank you so much. Matt's symptoms began over five years ago, and he's still walking, talking, eating, and breathing normally. He has not been trached. I would like to know if there is any information available regarding individuals in Expanded Access during the trial, specifically regarding whether or not they are trached and their life expectancy. Additionally, are you planning to release more information about this study, similar to the manuscripts and presentations you have shared before the advisory committee meeting?

Thank you very much. That's a very good question. We did speak about it before, but I will let Stacy follow-up and give you more specifics. Thank you for the question.

Yes, thank you very much for the question, and we're really pleased to hear your son is still doing so well five years into the disease, so it's quite remarkable. From the Expanded Access program, well, first in terms of trachs, we did not have any trachs during the Phase 3 trial. We just brought the data in-house and I actually haven't seen yet the rate of any trachs that were given during the expanded access programs, so I won't comment there. But this data becomes important to ongoing learning, and it will be something that we will want to present in not only scientific forums but also understand the body of evidence and how it relates to the approval of our product. So, we're working internally to analyze the data and then we'll proceed with discussions with regulators, as well as sharing data in the public domain.

Yes. Just to add, and again, I also want to commend the wonderful news you're sharing about your son; we're very happy to hear that. But in terms of manuscript wise, our next manuscript would be a biomarker manuscript. And as Stacy just said, even though your son probably achieved this quite a few months ago, we got the final data set just a few weeks ago and that's when we have to analyze, and I don't know how fast this is able to be published in a manuscript, because it depends on, as you know, the journals. And of course, we'll try to have it out as soon as possible. In our comments, we said in the opening, Stacy said that we will definitely find the platform to share the Expanded Access Program data and hopefully even before an outcome.

Thank you so much.

Your next question for today is coming from Candy Simons, a Private Investor.

Hi, good morning, everyone. I'm calling in on behalf of my son, who was also in the Phase 3 trial; he was 21 at the time of the Phase 3 trial and probably one of your youngest trial participants. He was diagnosed on December 10 of 2018, and he couldn't find a family, he was less prepared for this diagnosis, much less, who knew anything about any trial regarding ALS. We did not know that NurOwn was the treatment that everyone was seeking within the ALS community. We knew nothing about the Phase I conducted in Israel. We knew nothing about the Phase II conducted here in the U.S. What we do know is that our 21-year-old son is positive that NurOwn worked for him. We witnessed the benefits with our own eyes, as well as what he told us. However, we have basically been called buyers, like people, who can't seem to grasp that NurOwn does work. And despite having emailed Brainstorm twice requesting to be unblinded, we have never wavered in our advocacy for the approval of this treatment from day one. We have believed in it. Kate was not offered Expanded Access Program in round one or two, so sadly not being unblinded, we do not know with 100% certainty if you received it in the trial. I do plan on testifying at the advisory committee meeting, but it's been 3.5 years since Kate received his third and final trial injection with no ability to access more treatment and something that works for him. He's 25 years old now; he is still breathing on his own, despite being a lifelong asthmatic. He's still eating anything he chooses to eat. Obviously, he has declined since being in the trial, not being offered Expanded Access Program I or II, but it would be lovely to be able to speak with confidence. And I'm curious if you are planning to unblind any of the trial participants so that the data that I present at the advisory committee meeting is more believable, like it feels like Brainstorm and I'm not trying to be rude, has thrown us to the wolves to speak highly about a treatment that works, but then work called buyers, because we are not unblinded. So my question is, is there any intention to unblind?

Thank you for your question, Candy. I'm really glad to hear about your son's stability; that’s wonderful news. Just to clarify, we didn't have two Expanded Access Programs; it was the same program that was conducted twice for the same patient. Unfortunately, we couldn't include more patients, which we would have liked to do if possible. I apologize for not being able to include more. Our policy is firmly rooted in ensuring that we act in the best interest of the trial and the regulatory process, which is why we cannot unblind. I’ll have Stacy provide a detailed explanation on this, which I believe has already been communicated to your doctors. We genuinely want to prioritize the needs of ALS patients and aim to make this product available to them as soon as possible. We recognize the urgency of the situation. I understand your concerns about speaking strongly at the advisory committee meeting. However, we have to navigate conflicts of interest related to getting this product approved. Stacy, please share your professional insights from your 25 years of experience regarding the norms of trials.

Yes. Thank you for taking my questions.

Yes, Candy, thank you very much for sharing the background of your son, and we are encouraged every time we hear updates in terms of the stability of patients. So, I'm thrilled he's breathing on his own and able to eat. But let me step back and provide insights into the conversations that we've had and really what drives our position right now. So from the time that the trial, the Phase II trial completed, we have learned and have received requests from some participants requesting information about the randomization status. In some instances, as you're seeking to actually be able to describe what confidence the results that you've seen in with your son and the stability that he has experienced, which is unusual in a disease like this. For others, it's information that will offer peace of mind or closure on the trial. And we have to say that our first and strongest clinician is to honor these requests. The dilemma that we must confront comes with a desire to provide this level of data has the potential to be detrimental to the overall community. In the sense that it could interfere with the regulatory review. So, we believe this would be the case if we provided patient-level randomization while the regulatory review is underway. For this reason, we made the difficult decision to maintain confidentiality of randomization. We have evaluated the merits of this decision at multiple times since the trial completed, and we continue to believe that maintaining confidentiality of randomization remains the best decision until the regulatory review process is complete, as it facilitates discussion of the evidence at a treatment group level. We know this is an industry best practice, and I know perhaps it's confusing from the questions you're asking. But fundamentally, when we look back to the forefront and even the diverse in advisory committee meetings from very recently, there were important scientific benefits from preserving the confidentiality of treatment assignments as they did as well in the interpretation of future data as it reduces bias in the open label period of their study. These same parallels exist for us with the Expanded Access program, so I hope this gives you some insight; we are absolutely motivated by what is best and would be in the best interest of the entire set of people living with ALS who could benefit from an approval, and that is at the forefront of our actions.

Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate your explanation.

Thank you.

No, just thank you very much. Thanks, Holly, very well done this call. Thanks everyone for all the questions and have a nice day.

This concludes today's conference, and you may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.