Good afternoon, and welcome everyone to the GeoVax First Quarter 2021 Conference Call. I am Debbie, with Chorus Call and will facilitate today's call. With me are David Dodd, Chairman and CEO; Mark Reynolds, Chief Financial Officer; and Mark Newman, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer. After today’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Jules Abraham of CORE IR, who will provide a forward-looking statement regarding this call and information herein.

Thank you, Debbie. Good afternoon, everyone. Please note the following certain statements in this presentation may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may differ materially from those included in these statements due to a variety of factors, including whether: GeoVax can develop and manufacture its vaccines with the desired characteristics in a timely manner, GeoVax's vaccines will be safe for human use, GeoVax's vaccines will effectively prevent targeted infections in humans, GeoVax's vaccines will receive regulatory approvals necessary to be licensed and marketed, GeoVax raises required capital to complete vaccine development, there is development of competitive products that may be more effective or easier to use than GeoVax's products, GeoVax will be able to enter into favorable manufacturing and distribution agreements and other factors, over which GeoVax has no control. GeoVax assumes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements and does not intend to do so. More information about these factors is contained in GeoVax's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including those set forth risk factors in GeoVax's Form 10-K. It is now my pleasure to introduce Chairman and CEO of GeoVax, David Dodd. David?

Thank you, Jules. Good afternoon and thank you for participating in the 2021 first quarter update call. We're pleased to have this opportunity to review and discuss our continued progress and accelerating our priority development programs towards clinical development and continue to secure significant resources and support for GeoVax growth and development. During the first quarter, we strengthened our cash position, while advancing towards important data milestones related to several of our programs. We remain focused on delivering meaningful results and value milestones over the next 12 to 18 months, advancing our priority program related to COVID-19 and immuno-oncology, developing increased value for shareholders, stakeholders and public health worldwide. Increasingly, variants of the SARS-CoV-2 are emerging, presenting further pandemic threats to health worldwide. As a result, the NIH and SAFI have issued requests for proposals for pan-corona vaccine development projects, specifically seeking to fund preventive vaccines able to provide broad and durable protection against coronaviruses, specifically SARS-CoV-2 and others with pandemic potential. Indeed, there is increasing evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus will continue to evolve, requiring expanded variant coverage, otherwise required annual reconfigured vaccines. Some are necessary relative to influenza vaccination. In other words, it is questionable as to whether the current vaccine will be adaptable against variants that might emerge. Most of all, rather than chasing the evolving viruses, it will likely require various competitive technologies. Our goal is to provide a single-dose safe, durable, universal coronavirus vaccine that provides immunity against a number of potential variants before they emerge. Our technology allows for minimal or no refrigeration, providing a potential major advantage over other technologies. In January, we announced receipt of NIH funding in support of our universal coronavirus vaccine development programs. Our program is currently in animal testing to determine which candidate we will select for progressing into clinical development. We remain in contact with NIH, BARDA and other entities, and we will review our results, hoping to receive sufficient funding to accelerate our vaccine into clinical development. Dr. Mark Newman, our Chief Scientific Officer, will discuss our programming approach a little later. Following the announcement of the NIH grant in support of our COVID program, we have the opportunity to further increase our cash position, successfully raising over $10 million. We also added over $3 million resulting from warrants exercises. Today, we have a cash position of over $20 million. We expect to further strengthen our balance sheet as opportunities present to increase our capital base on favorable terms. In summary, we are well capitalized to advance our priority program in clinical development over the next 12 to 15 months. This remains our focus. As noted in previous corporate updates, we continue to strengthen our Intellectual Property portfolio. Now having over 70 granted or pending patent applications spread over 20 patent families, with additional applications occurring during the first quarter. We are confident that we have a strong IP position providing an increasingly more competitive position. In addition to our universal coronavirus vaccine program, we continue to progress other initiatives. This includes our advancing plans relative to immuno-oncology, where animal testing results have been encouraging and supportive for progressing into clinical development. Also, our Lassa, Sudan, Ebola, and Marburg vaccine programs are currently completing animal testing through non-human primate evaluation supported through federal government non-dilutive funding. In summary, we have a compelling pipeline focused on major medical needs, providing significant commercial market opportunities with near-term value milestones. Included in our development portfolio are six indications that qualify for the FDA priority voucher program. Our priority focus remains on advancing our COVID-19 vaccine program and our immuno-oncology developments while these other programs will advance requiring minimal resources and distraction from GeoVax. Now, I'd like to turn the call over to Dr. Mark Newman, our Chief Scientific Officer.

Thank you, David. So, as we've noted previously, the GeoVax vaccine approach is based on the use of modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara, denoted as MVA, as the vaccine delivery vector. MVA was developed as a smallpox vaccine for use in the elderly and immunocompromised individuals with a focus on increased safety. MVA will infect cells after infection, but it will not replicate itself. So, it is safe and ideally suited for use as a vaccine vector in the general population. The primary advantage of MVA is the genetic coding capacity, which allows us to include genes for multiple virus proteins in a single vaccine, which routinely encode viral proteins needed to support the formation of virus-like particles within the vaccinated person as a means to accurately mimic the structure of the actual infectious viruses and to induce the correct immune responses being both antibodies and cellular immune responses, and ideally this works with just a single dose. Experimental COVID vaccines are designed to take advantage of this MVA-VLP technology. They encode the S protein, which is the basis for all the first-generation products in use today, and the target of neutralizing antibodies. This is used in combination with the membrane protein and the envelope E protein. The E proteins provide the structural components required for the virus-like particle formation in the body. They also serve as additional targets for the cellular immune responses. This design represents a critical step towards a COVID vaccine that we expect to reduce broadly specific immune responses that are not significantly impacted by the variants that are arising as the S protein evolves within the population. We are working with this approach specifically to get ahead of the evolution of COVID rather than chase the new variants with modified vaccines, which is commonly done now with flu vaccines on a yearly basis. We’re involved in small animal testing with three experimental vaccines. These include testing in transgenic mice and in hamsters, and all include infection challenges. The product design that proves to induce the most protective immune response will be the basis for the initial clinical development. Additional designs will include the incorporation of other coronavirus structural proteins and non-structural proteins based on data being generated within the population and immune responses from the current pandemic. The goal is to expand the induction of immune responses beyond the S protein, and this is the basis for our efforts to develop a universal coronavirus vaccine. We believe the MVA-VLP platform is also well suited for inducing immune responses to selected tumor-associated antigens. So, the virus-like particles are produced within the body of the vaccinated individuals and are composed of a structural protein from a virus, but also a tumor antigen, tumor-associated antigens. These present the immune system with concentrated forms of the tumor-associated antigen to increase the potency of the vaccine and to induce both antibody and T-cell cellular immune responses. Our approach will be to combine a vaccine with a potent anti-tumor agent, such as a checkpoint inhibitor, resulting in immune responses that contribute to the regression of existing tumors and or prevent the development and expansion of metastatic lesions. Our initial focus is on the MUC1 tumor-associated antigen, which is a well-studied target for both antibody and cellular immunity. But there are actually multiple tumor-associated antigens, which we intend to investigate with this approach. We've constructed an MVA-VLP MUC1 tumor-associated antigen vaccine and we tested it in combination with two different experimental peptide vaccines and the checkpoint inhibitor in transgenic mouse models, which allowed for the evaluation of the vaccine effect against humanized tumors in a humanized mouse. In the treatment model, we have shown that using MVA plus the MT1 peptide, the combination induced responses that decreased tumor growth by 57% when the animals were immunized with both the MVA MUC1 and the tumor-associated peptide. This was compared to control animals. In combination, this was superior to using either the peptide alone or the checkpoint inhibitor alone. In a prevention model, designed for a cancer treatment setting, the GeoVax VLP MUC1 vaccine plus a MUC1 peptide induced immune responses that provided almost 100% protection against tumors from reoccurring. These results have encouraged us to proceed quickly towards initiating the clinical development program, starting with manufacturing consistent with GLP regulations. We believe that the GeoVax MVA VLP combination provides an exciting and promising basis for additional and novel efficacious vaccine immunotherapies. The COVID vaccine pandemic has brought the need for modern and large-scale manufacturing capabilities to the forefront of both the vaccine industry and the general public. MVA can be grown in avian cells, Chicken Embryonic Fibroblasts, which are recovered from eggs and have historically been used for production. While the production of vaccine materials using Chicken Embryonic Fibroblasts has a long history, the limitations of using eggs as the basis for manufacturing are numerous and rather obvious; this is pushing the industry to produce vaccines in avian cell lines that grow continuously in laboratory culture. This process is best developed for producing influenza virus vaccines, which are used in a simple flu shot, and we are applying the same technologies to produce MVA. We're using a two-step process to transition to modern manufacturing while simultaneously moving our COVID and MUC1 vaccines to clinical testing. So, specifically, we're using Chicken Embryonic Fibroblasts to produce manufacturing cell banks and vaccine materials for early clinical stage testing in Phase 1 and Phase 2, while also validating the use of cell lines of duck and chicken origin as future production substrates. These parallel development tracks will merge prior to the initiation of advanced clinical testing and pivotal trials, so all aspects of the vaccine production are being included in evaluations. These include upstream production, downstream processing, formulation, stability, and storage. Currently, there are three lines being evaluated in conjunction with methods and CDMO capabilities to produce MVA vaccines, with a goal of selecting a single partner in the near future. I'd now like to turn the presentation over to Mark Reynolds, GeoVax's Chief Financial Officer.

Thank you, Mark. So I'm going to start with a financial review of our balance sheet since that really sets the stage for progress moving forward. Our cash balances at March 31st were $20.8 million, as compared to $9.9 million at December 31st. We had working capital of $20.5 million, as compared to $9.4 million at the end of 2020. The increase in our cash balances is due primarily to the February overnight offering that David mentioned earlier. That brought in net proceeds to us of $9.4 million, and in that offering, it was a clean deal; we issued 1.6 million common shares at a price of $6.25, with no warrants, no other bells and whistles on that deal, straight common. During the quarter, we also received $3.2 million from the exercise of warrants that were issued in connection with our stock offering last September. As a quick recap, those warrants are publicly traded under the symbol GOVXW. They have a $5 exercise price and they expire in September 2025. They were issued with an original five-year term. So after this quarter's exercises, there are still $1.9 million of these warrants remaining outstanding, which, if exercised in full, would bring in an additional $9.3 million. Turning now to the income statement. Our Grant and Collaboration revenues were $110,000 for the quarter versus $716,000 in 2020. Now, the 2020 period primarily relates to our grant from the US Army supporting our Lassa Fever vaccine. There were no revenues reported for that grant in Quarter One, as the activities have mostly shifted to external subcontractors for the manufacturing work and preparation for non-human primate studies. There's $165,000 of grant funding left here that will be reported in the coming months related to manufacturing work. But it's important to note that there's another $850,000 in funding support that won't show up on our financials. This is direct funding to US Armed forces for the conduct of our primate studies. The $110,000 revenues that we did report for this quarter are related to our COVID-19 SBIR grant from NIH. There's $190,000 remaining on that grant that we will recognize over the remainder of the year, and we intend to seek additional funding for this program supported by the data forthcoming from our ongoing small animal studies. R&D expenses were $603,000 in 2021 versus $809,000 in 2020, with a decrease associated with the timing of the grant expenditures as I just mentioned. General administrative expenses were a little over $1,000,000 in 2021 versus $502,000 in 2020. A large portion of the increase here relates to our annual Delaware franchise tax, which has been minimal in the past due to our low capitalization. We had a significant increase up to the cap of that tax, which is $200,000, so we will experience that going forward. Other increases relate to patent costs, legal fees, consulting fees, and personnel costs, generally associated with preparing the organization for a higher activity level following our capital raises. Overall, our net loss for the 2021 quarter was $1.6 million, or $0.29 per share versus $596,000 in 2020, or $2.54 per share. The variance in the per share amounts also partially results from the dilutive effect of our September 2020 and February 2021 stock offerings. Our net cash flow from operating activities during Quarter One was nearly the same as our net loss for the quarter, at $1.6 million. Although the first quarter includes some outlier expenditures like the Delaware franchise tax I mentioned and payoff of December 31 accrued payables, I do expect that will remain reasonably consistent at this level through the remainder of 2021, perhaps even a little bit lower. However, we will be adding to our scientific staff, investing in laboratory infrastructure, and incurring incremental external costs for advancing our development programs. So in general, we expect our current cash resources to sustain our operating plans at least through the end of 2022 and probably well into 2023. Our cash burn rate for core operations such as personnel, facilities, lab operations, etc., is less than $5 million annually, but our incremental program spending will increase as we progress to clinical trials. Finally, a summary of our capital structure: we currently have 6.3 million common shares outstanding, 1.9 million of the GOVXW warrants outstanding, which are exercisable at $5, and there are an additional 1.5 million of other stock options and warrants outstanding with an average exercise price of $4.26. That's it, but I'll be happy to answer any questions about our financing during the Q&A session. I'll turn it back now to David.

All right. Thank you, Mark. My colleagues and I will now answer your questions. Therefore, I'm turning the call over to Debbie from Chorus Call for instructions on the question-and-answer period.

We will now begin the question-and-answer session. The first question comes from Jason McCarthy with Maxim Group. Please go ahead.

Hi, everyone. Thanks for taking the questions. It seems things are going really well. Can you elaborate on the mRNA vaccines, particularly in relation to "chasing variants" around the spike protein? I'm curious about the mRNA methods and the current limitations in T-Cell immunity concerning long-term protection. Also, how does MVA provide broader T-Cell memory, possibly allowing for a single-shot solution like we've seen with smallpox? Could this approach be applicable to COVID as well?

Sure. Thank you, Jason. I’ll ask Mark Newman to discuss, and he may also want to include some points relative to the Adenovirus. So, Mark?

Sure. So that's an extensive set of questions, obviously. Let me address the kind of the T-Cell immunity and the memory responses first. Yes, this is a smallpox vaccine. And it was designed, as we said, for safety, but also it was developed in a way that lost a lot of its so-called Immune Evasion capabilities. So, it's a very potent vaccine and induces immune responses. Viruses always grow and evolve with the ability to evade the immune system somewhat, and because MVA has been growing in eggs, it's not its natural source, it has lost that. So, it's a very potent smallpox vaccine, as you said, and that also makes it a very potent vaccine vector because when we immunize a person, we're essentially immunizing them against smallpox, but that immune response to smallpox actually boosts in a non-specific way the COVID response or the anti-tumor response, whatever else you're including in the vector. So, we're very high on the concept of using the vector and believe it really will add something different. Now, as far as chasing the variants, I think we've all heard that the mRNA products, people are already queuing up for the next variant or the next seasonal variant, just like you would see with flu. What is circulating now is different than what was circulating six months ago, and we're trying to predict what will be the dominant variant circulating again in six months, and these will be the booster immunizations that we're hearing about. What we're trying to do here is to induce immune responses to non- or less variable parts of the virus. These are structural and non-structural proteins in the virus. They're the things that make coronavirus, a coronavirus, whether it's a cold coronavirus or an animal coronavirus. These things are more conserved because they are coronavirus specific. So, if you can induce responses to this, we're expecting to see a lot less variation within the population and a lot less evolution because the virus can change these. If it starts changing these structural proteins, then it becomes a non-coronavirus, which means it won't replicate, won't grow well, or won't infect well. So that’s the logic. It's not just designed to target the binding factor or the infection factor, which is the S protein, but to target these more structurally conserved products, and induce cellular immune responses against parts of the virus that can't be changed. And that's a long answer. I hope that covers it.

That covers it as well. And then can you talk a little bit about some of the other programs around here? Hemorrhagic fever viruses like Ebola or Lassa. Those programs have been “quietly active,” but are very much could emerge as drivers for this company. And again, you know, on that MVA kind of backbone approach, the government that funds these types of programs has experience in stockpiling smallpox vaccine with MVA, right? So, are you guys looked at as a go-to for them, possibly for these types of hemorrhagic viruses?

I'll let David answer that one.

Sure. Thank you, Jason. We recognize the value of being in the government's stockpile program, specifically the biodefense stockpile program, of which the hemorrhagic fevers are at the top of the list. I mean, they have fatality rates of 50 to 90%. And we should always point out, we shut down the world for a virus with a fatality rate of 1% to a little over 2%, like COVID. So, these are very deadly viruses and are recognized as potential weaponized infectious threats. We know that there are people trying to develop those in other unfriendly nations. When we look at the value of the stockpile programs, when we look at the smallpox value, it was a ten-year deal for $2 billion in initial funds; the first payment was $177 million. So, these are very lucrative, high-margin contracts because you have no marketing or commercialization costs for doing it. They are very important. And because we already have the Ebola vaccine completed, we have demonstrated 100% protection in a single dose, while the approved product for Merck requires multiple doses. So, with the data we have already shown and now that they are in testing through non-human primates, as you might expect, we are in discussions with federal government authorities. They reached out to us about it to discuss with us the opportunity and their interest, depending obviously on the results that we see going forward. I would just say that from the discussions we've had, it's not so much of a prediction, but based on the discussions we've had and what we've seen thus far. Our anticipation is that should the data for the Lassa and Marburg, Sudan be as strong as we saw with Ebola, we would expect to be funded through the clinical development and for that leading into the vaccines as part of the stockpile program again through a non-dilutive manner. So, a very, very strong opportunity, but again, that does not require any resources on our part at this stage. We've developed the vaccines. They're being tested on our behalf right now, without costing any funds for ourselves or our shareholders. So, we're quite interested in this area.

Do you have any comments on the discussion Joe Biden is having about patent protections for coronavirus vaccines and the possibility of waiving those protections? Do you think this could impact GeoVax as you continue to develop your COVID vaccine?

Well, I don't know that we do have comments. I actually spoke on a television interview today about this. Our opinion is reflected in the statement in the letter from BIO to President Biden that was delivered, I believe, yesterday. We think it's not a good idea. We think it has the potential for inhibiting, obviously, innovation and risk-taking. We believe, and we all know, that companies are going to ensure that there is full coverage throughout the world. Now, there are certain technologies out there that make that more difficult to deliver on, but that’s where our type of technologies come in. And I would say that there are assurances certainly on my part, as a member of BIO's vaccine task force and their Advisory Committee related specifically to COVID, that there would be no problems with access and distribution. The biggest challenge will be the performance or the requirements of various vaccines to be able to be distributed to populations in certain parts of the world. But that's why we need more than just one technology out there.

Okay. Last question. And I don't know if I missed it on the immuno-oncology side. The MUC1 antigen program with the University of Pittsburgh, I believe, when is that expected to move into the clinic? And if so, would it be in combination with some checkpoint, either PD-1 or PDL-1, or would it be a model therapy in a kind of a basket study of advanced cancers?

The start of the trial will largely depend on the manufacturing schedule, which we are currently addressing. We anticipate that it will begin around the middle to late next year, specifically targeting the end of the second quarter or early in the third quarter. This will not be a monotherapy study, as it is not ethical to introduce patients to a treatment without considering standard care. Instead, patients will receive their usual treatment initially. Afterward, they may undergo surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, and then become eligible for a trial where they would receive a medication like KEYTRUDA or Opdivo, which are checkpoint inhibitors that would already be applicable to the patient. We would then introduce the vaccine as an additional treatment. In the realm of cancer immunotherapy, we view this as an enhancement to standard care rather than a replacement. I don’t foresee a scenario where standalone vaccines could substitute existing standard care in cancer treatment.

Great. Thank you guys for taking all the questions.

You’re welcome.

The next question comes from Kumar Raja with Brookline Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions. First, regarding the virus-like particles, how long do they last in the body? And how does that impact the durability of response? Second, in terms of the viral antigen, is there any difference between where these genes are positioned and how much expression you get from these?

Yeah, as far as the virus-like particle, to be perfectly honest, we don't know how long they last. I don't anticipate a long time because they look like a virus. If you look at the COVID virus-like particles, they have an S protein on them. So, they're going to bind to the S2 receptor, but we won't actually mediate any infection or anything. But these aren't something that are going to circulate a long time. They will be recognized by the immune system and rapidly phagocytosed and cleared from the system or be bound to tissues through normal receptor mechanisms and then be cleared. But inducing an immune response is something where you require a long exposure to the antigen. A lot of your peptide dendritic cells and things, those peptides are on the dendritic cell for a matter of seconds before they're degraded. So, it's getting the signal, getting the correct cells the signals to the cells to induce the immune response. Where the virus-like particle adds to the benefit is that it mimics a virus in terms of structure. It's not a soluble protein. It's not just something that floats around and we hope it gets where it needs to be, but this looks and behaves like a virus in terms of its overall three-dimensional structure. It's just not infectious and won't replicate. This is designed to really induce the most authentic type of immune response, something you would see in natural infection. It's going to give you the virus target in a more concentrated form because it's a particulate. I didn't follow your second question.

Yes, it was with regard to the open reading frame, where these different genes are inserted, whether that makes a difference in terms of expression of these antigens.

The MVA has six naturally occurring deletion sites, which are genes lost during its replication in eggs, leading to the attenuation of the virus. Typically, we look at one of those six sites, and while we have our preferred options, you can choose any site that is open in terms of intellectual property. Within these sites, different promoters can be utilized, including medium, strong, or weaker options. The combinations of promoters can be varied, particularly when aiming to create virus-like particles. It’s essential for the structural proteins to be produced in the right ratios to facilitate the formation of these particles; an imbalance can hinder this process. This is often a trial-and-error method, but there is substantial flexibility regarding the promoters and multiple locations available for insertions within the MVA.

Okay, great. Thanks.

We will now move on to the next question. The next question comes from Jeffrey Kraws with Crystal Research. Please go ahead.

Thank you. David, several of the questions were answered, but as a focal point and then a couple of follow-ups. There's so much attention being spent on COVID-19 and as you mentioned, talking about the patents and the government not desiring to enforce the patents so they can get more dosages out there, which I concur with you would be a big mistake because it does stymie innovation. A couple of things are missed. And one of the things is the virus has a lot of variants, and everybody's so focused on this, but the reality is with a 99.875% or wherever it is now, survival rate, the other diseases that you're going after, whether you're talking about Ebola or any of the other ones, have much higher death rates for the people who are infected. Are you finding the government's response? You touched on it a little bit, but what's everyone just focused on COVID, are you finding the government's response in the other countries to still be significant and then having a very high interest because, you know, as far as death rates go, those other problems are actually having a much higher death rate for them right now and a lot of that has to do with undeveloped countries? That’s the first thing. The second thing is, and it was touched on I think by Mark a couple times and it was answered in the questions, but I think the key is with the VLPs mimicking the viruses in training your body's immune system to recognize the virus and you having that advantage, even if you do have to get a couple injections, since this is going to have a variant, your big advantage is you avoid the purification issues associated with the in-vitro production of VLPs and the fact that once your platform is established, you should be able to have that body's immune system trained to recognize and kill those infected cells and control the infection, reducing the duration, I think, much quicker than some of these other vaccines that are having a lot of issues associated with them. Could you touch on those two?

Thank you, Jeff, and I appreciate your responses. Over the past year, we have seen a strong focus on COVID-19, and while the survival rate is encouraging, especially for those under 70, it remains a significant concern for public health. This focus has diverted attention and resources from other important programs, which have faced delays or suspensions as the government prioritized COVID-19 efforts across various areas, not just in vaccine development. Meanwhile, other regions, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, are dealing with pressing infectious diseases like Zika, dengue, and chikungunya, with Zika still presenting a major threat. We are actively engaging with potential partners in these regions to address Zika, having previously shown complete protection with a single dose in animal testing without risks associated with antibody-dependent enhancement, a concern for other vaccine candidates. These discussions are progressing, and given the significance of these diseases in South America and Africa, we expect to continue our engagement. Furthermore, we have been approached by the federal government to discuss the stockpile program, exploring various opportunities based on our anticipated results. There is a growing acknowledgment of other significant threats that require attention, which aligns well with our portfolio. We recognize that MVA has historically had concerns regarding its manufacturing yield and scalability compared to other technologies. During an epidemic or pandemic, the ability to produce large quantities of doses is crucial, and we have concentrated our efforts on overcoming these challenges. We are currently reviewing three continuous cell lines and will select one, while also identifying a strategic manufacturing partner. Our aim is to demonstrate robust manufacturing capabilities that can meet the demands of epidemics and pandemics effectively. We strongly believe in the advantages offered by the MVA opportunity, as previously outlined, but it's essential to translate that potential into the quantity and timely delivery of products, ideally in single doses to enhance vaccination efficiency and minimize the risk of non-vaccination, which has been a challenge even with COVID-19 vaccines.

Perfect. I agree. Thank you.

You're welcome.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to David Dodd for any closing remarks.

Sure, and thank you. I think you can tell from our responses to those questions that we get rather passionate about our beliefs in this. We will look forward to keeping you up to date, but thank you for your continued and supportive interest in our progress and our transformation of GeoVax. We have several near-term data milestones, which we look forward to updating you about. We remain focused on developing a highly valuable company, contributing to improved health options against various infectious threats and cancers. We anticipate issuing updates regarding near-term data milestones as we continue to progress with our development program. We're never satisfied with the pace and timing of results. We're always anxious and want to get them faster and faster. But we have to wait for animal results and then be able to move it forward and have discussions. Thank you for your continued support and our commitment to these goals. As always, I certainly want to underscore and acknowledge and thank our GeoVax staff and the many other parties that continue to support and assist as advisors toward achieving success. It is truly a great pleasure serving our shareholders and being part of this team. Have a safe and enjoyable afternoon and evening. We'll talk to you next quarter. Thank you.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.