Thank you, Ruud. The the U.S. political environment, I mean, we've talked a lot about it. And this issue has been long coming in my opinion. Because, if you go back 20 years or so, there was limited difference in pricing between the U.S. and Europe. Let's talk about Europe for a second, really. And over time, what has happened is, there's been a growing difference mostly because in Europe, we've been facing price cut, clawbacks, a whole cottage industry of price reductions and control of access. And if you look at healthcare costs today, well, 20 years ago, I guess, healthcare, 20%, 30%, 15% of healthcare costs were dedicated to pharmaceuticals, innovative pharmaceuticals in particular. Today, you are at 7%, 8%, 9%. And one of the lowest is the U.K. with 7% of healthcare costs dedicated to innovative pharmaceuticals. And you got to ask yourself, I mean, what can you do with 7%? Not much. It creates limited room for innovation and innovation that can save lives, but also reduce healthcare costs by delaying or delaying things like dialysis, saving patients' lives and in cancer, et cetera, et cetera. So, I think there has to be a rebalancing. Because the U.S. for the last number of years has been really paying for the cost and the risk associated with innovation. We should never forget the risk. Everybody talks about the cost, but there's a massive risk. I mean, we have a portfolio committee. And very often, we spend several hundred million dollars in one meeting. And if those studies fail, it's a lot of money in the rubbish bin. We've been lucky. This year, we've had almost 90% success rate with our Phase III, but it's -- that's not the norm, right? So, people have to realize innovation is expensive, but it's also very risky. So, I think there has to be a rebalancing, and Europe has to cover a little bit more of this innovation by increasing budgets allocated to innovative pharmaceuticals. And finally, I would say that if you look at innovation, it's happening in the U.S., very rapidly now it's happening in China, and there's not so much in Europe. So, it would be great for everybody, starting with patients. If Europe was also innovating a lot in our industry, it will also attract investment from companies and drive economic growth. Now whether we are able to show the benefit of these investments to governments in Europe is still to be seen, but there's clearly benefits to patients, of course, but it also benefits to healthcare cost as innovation can drive healthcare costs down. And there is also economic benefit as the Life Sciences sector can drive economic growth like we see in the U.S., we see now in China. So, whether we succeed or not, I don't know, but the danger for Europe is that a lot of these new technologies that we are talking about, they need new capacity, new manufacturing capabilities. And right now, this is going to happen in the U.S. And so, the risk is in 15, 20 years, Europe realized that they have lost control of their supply chain for some of those most important innovative technologies, because they are manufactured in the U.S. and in China. So more to come, and of course, a lot of convincing to try to achieve, but we'll see whether we are able to do that or not. So, we see. I'll move to the next question, Mattias Häggblom at Handelsbanken.
Mattias Häggblom: Mattias Häggblom, Handelsbanken. Two questions, please. Firstly on Farxiga, following the validation of the pattern in U.K. and subsequent generic launch, remind me why this loss would not encourage generic companies to explore similar challenges elsewhere in Europe prior to pattern exploration in '28. And why the situation in the U.K. was unique? And then secondly, for Sharon, Marc will present Phase III data for its oral PCSK9 inhibitor this weekend. Once we get the detailed data, what in particular will your team be studying to better understand its clinical profile and how it compares with your own small molecule PCSK9 inhibitor currently in Phase III?