Good morning everyone, thanks for joining us today. We have a webinar with Microbix who just reported their Q3 results this morning.

Good results showing progress in the business. With me today I have Cameron Groome, CEO, Jim Currie, CFO, and Ken Hughes, COO.

I don't believe that we'll be working off a presentation, but this session will contain forward-looking statements. If you'd like to know more about those, you can find them on the company's presentation on their website.

The format today is going to be a quick overview of the quarter and some other key items, and then we're going to get into Q&A. If anyone has a question, feel free to enter that in the Q&A box at the bottom of your screen.

With that all out of the way, congrats gentlemen.

Thank you very much, Deborah. Appreciate it.

Cameron, I think I'll turn the mic over to you.

Sounds good, thank you. Thanks to everyone for joining us this morning for the call to review our results for the third quarter of fiscal 2026 in the nine months ended June 30, 2026, recalling, of course, that Microbix has a September 30 fiscal year.

In the Q3, we demonstrated, I think, solid year-over-year growth of 17% for the quarter, close to our goal of at least 20% year-over-year sales growth, really putting us back on track following the two client-specific setbacks in mid-year 2025. Antigen sales were up 20% year-over-year, and the QAPs sales were up 13% year-over-year in the quarter, with the balance being inbound royalties.

Gross margins also improved to 54%, up from 41% in the prior year Q3, reflective of some good manufacturing mix and discipline. We reported a controlled net loss that is reflective of some fairly strict cost controls that we put in place as we build back up on revenues.

Our outlook in Q4 is for continued year-over-year and quarter-over-quarter revenue improvements and continuing to move us closer to our engineered break-even point and reducing our net cash usage as we continue to execute on our mission, both with respect to growing our diagnostics-oriented business and advancing our therapeutic asset program back towards refiling and commercialization. I'll have some more comments about some strategic highlights in the quarter, but before we get to that, maybe I can ask Jim if he has any further information about the quarter or the outlook for the balance of the year that he'd like to share.

Great, thanks, Cameron. As Cameron outlined, we saw some really good growth year-over-year, 17%, and in both businesses business product lines, antigens and QAPs, we saw good good growth.

From gross margin standpoint, we also saw some improvement. A good chunk of that was product mix and the improved revenues and the absorption of the fixed manufacturing costs.

We continue to control operating expenses, were down from the prior year. We were in a continue to be in a good strong cash position with $7.2 million in cash.

We've been in continue to buy back our shares, for NCIB for the quarter, we bought back just under 800,000 shares at a cost of $209,000. For the year-to-date, we've bought back 2.3 million shares and just at about $571,000 for the year.

We continue to be bullish. We have said that we were going to continue to try and grow on our what was I guess our new base a year ago, Q3 last year, and as Cameron indicated, we're expecting to see some growth in Q4 against last year's quarter, certainly, and even against the third quarter of this year.

A good end to fiscal 2026 that we're looking at for the for this year. That's it, I think, Cameron.

Thank you very much, Jim. Let me speak to a few strategic developments during Q3 and some matters we continue to work on.

First off, I'll point to our poster presentation and attendance at the ESCMID Conference Europe, that's the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, a major scientific congress and trade show in the EU that we attend each year. At ESCMID, we presented data on synthetic controls we created for controlling tests for RNA-based organisms, specifically RNA-based viruses, and this really expands the range of safe synthetic controls that we can build and provide to different test makers and really gives us some greater coverage and greater abilities to support our clients and broader range of their diagnostics.

Very important development proving that and presenting that very well-attended presentations at the conference. In association with such developments, we continue some very intense pace of work with multiple major international diagnostics companies on QAPs-related projects.

That's really to support commercialization of new assays on existing or new instruments by those companies, and several such discussions are quite material in their potential scale and each of them is advancing. I certainly hope to be able to conclude some formal agreements and be in a position to discuss those over the balance of this year.

Of course, as we're working with clients, the timetable is very much theirs more than ours in terms of how that drives forward, it can only be advanced in collaboration with them, and is not entirely under our control from timing point of view. Speaking of timing, we also see Kinlytic advancing satisfactorily, and I'm sure Ken will want to talk about that a little bit more in his section, with the drug substance and drug product work both progressing.

We therefore believe Microbix and our licensee are very much on track for filing an sBLA and subsequently bringing that product back to market, with the timing for such still being reflective of what is in our Management Discussion and Analysis forward-looking information. The level of business activity has been very intense, and it's that level of support for clients, client visits of business and quality audit teams that have led us, in fact, to making fewer conference presentations and a little bit less announcements these past few months, is not reflective of a lack of activity in our business, rather reflective of a very intense pace of activity that is intense engagement with multiple clients that really have the potential to move the dial for us.

With that, Ken, maybe you want to take the baton and comment a little bit on some of the operational issues that you'd like to highlight.

Absolutely. I will talk about operational matters broadly and then focus in a little bit on Kinlytic, as I'm sure everybody wants to hear about.

From the operational side, everything is good at Microbix as it usually is. We're set up to satisfy all sales requirements and move forward.

As usual, I will compliment the operational staff in all departments, from manufacturing, R&D, QC, QA, IT, facilities, and others, et cetera, et cetera. The manifestation of the excellence of the operational team is described in how often we sail through regulatory and client audits, and we always do.

That's because we have an excellent team associated with that. As I say, we can satisfy the sales needs of Microbix and more going forward.

We've been focusing as well on increasing process efficiencies, implementing automation, reducing burdensome testing, exploiting new capabilities within the framework of our QMS, which is allowing to streamline processes as well, implementing new technologies. We've talked a lot about recombinant technologies and synthetic biology, they are already the go, have been implemented, and will be servicing and supporting our sales efforts going forward.

From a general operational perspective, everything is great. I will lead then into Kinlytic, which is also going extremely well.

The relationship with Sequel remains extremely strong, and the drug substance, the active pharmaceutical ingredient work has really taken off and is going extremely well. There have been some major breakthroughs in process development, which have increased yields and therefore will increase margins, and we're moving forward with that.

We're moving forward with engineering batches, leading into the GMP production batches of the drug substance, and we're in the process of developing the comparability protocols to compare the new product with the old product, which will be presented to the FDA. There were a few little things associated with supply chain and getting reagents in place, but they're being resolved and we're moving forward at a pace.

The drug product work is also going extremely well. At Sequel's contract manufacturing organization that's doing that work, the analytics are in place, we're putting together the finished formulation, and we'll be moving forward with that.

I think to illustrate where Sequel's heads at, they've just in the process of hiring senior executives in the drug product space, they've already got them in the drug substance space, and in the regulatory and quality assurance space. They're driving on very forcefully and vigorously, and we will be going back to the FDA, likely before the end of this calendar year, to discuss our comparability protocols and our comparability strategy to show that our new, updated, and superior process for production of Kinlytic is the same or better than the process for Abbokinase as was the original market incumbent and is what Kinlytic is in our regulatory file.

In terms of Kinlytic, everything is moving forward as it should. In fact, the process is probably better than we could even have hoped for based on the excellent work that's been done at Sequel's hired drug substance CDMO, and we're moving forward at a pace.

We expect to see the FDA this year and file the regulatory file, the sBLA, next year. There you go, ops is good, Kinlytic is good.

Thank you very much, Ken. I think that's a pretty good summary of the quarter from our perspective.

I can't think of too much that I would want to call out, unless we start naming names and violating CDAs. Which we would never do, of course.

Perhaps, Deborah, we can move over to the Q&A section. Thanks.

Very quiet, Deborah. I can ask that if anybody has any questions, to put them in the chat or the Q&A section, and then we can start to answer them.

Sorry, Cameron. I'm in a hotel in Boston and they have the worst Wi-Fi I have ever experienced.

If I cut in and out, I apologize to you three gentlemen, as well as the audience. We do have a question.

Why have your gross margins improved relative to fiscal Q1 despite similar revenues? Do you expect similar margins going forward?

Jim, why don't why don't you take that one on? Some of it can be mix of mix of the quarter, but it's an astute sales mix, but it's an astute question.

No, it's a good question. I think it is very much impacted by the product that is sold during the quarter.

We do have all of our, for instance, antigens don't have exactly the same margins. Some of them have much more significant margins than the others.

You will see quarters that benefit from it or go in the opposite direction sometimes. I think a good portion of it was related to the product mix.

We've also got I think on the absorption of the manufacturing fixed costs, the costs are down a little bit more this year versus that time frame, as Ken indicated. We're looking at efficiencies, and also we haven't been adding staff in the meantime.

As we've indicated, this is a better quarter, but losing $800,000 in a quarter isn't what we're here for. I think what we're looking for is to get the top line up and get it back to where it was about a year ago, and that's what we're targeting as we end the year and enter into fiscal 2027.

A lot of the manufacturing overheads, of course, are fixed, and those are allocated in the product based principally on the number of labor hours that are expended in manufacture of that product. That's a bit of that fluctuation that Jim can speak to, depending on what's sold in the quarter.

I think generally speaking, we're seeing good efficiencies being realized in the manufacturing, and as we get sales back up through our break-even level, we're going to see those efficiencies reflected in better gross and net margins with similar revenues.

When you talk about the different margin profiles of the antigen product, is that related to how big the batches are, that whether you're using roller bottle versus bioreactors, is it a volume metric?

No, I would not say it's a volume metric, to speak. It's not the materials that are being used.

I guess it's the process, more so. I think we've seen some strength and growth, and as Ken talked about efficiencies, there's one of our key products we've probably doubled our yield in the last two years.

That's also starting to come through and improve margins as well on the antigen side. Ken, I don't know

I think without getting too much into the weeds, it really depends on whether the product is large enough to justify investment in improving yields, if there's going to be a meaningful return associated with that. All the methods that we look at, we develop, and we do have continuous improvement as a really philosophy, but you have to make the investment case for whether it's justified to make those improvements.

We see those realized and we'd like to do that in areas where we see the potential for real product sales growth, and that's where we'll make the investments.

Each individual organism we work on, each technology is idiosyncratic itself. The processes are different, and some are more expensive than others, and some are more amenable to efficiencies going forward.

Obviously, we always want to make the maximum margin on each individual process, but cytomegalovirus is not the same as a flu virus, and you need to have different processes to do that by way of example. That goes for all our products.

We have a diverse portfolio. We have synthetic and natural biology brought to bear, each product has its own idiosyncratic process.

We're all driving through automation and operational excellence to maximize margins.

That's very much on the antigen side of the business. On the QAPs side of the business, there can be diverse set of raw materials that go into a multiplex QAPs product, but we're really looking to have a template-driven methods of assembling those products, conducting the QC and the QA release specs on those so that we've got something that's very efficient and very reproducible and very scalable for that genre of product.

Got it. Have you reduced your break-even point from $5.5 million a quarter, or is that an initiative that you're working on?

We've allowed some attrition of staff without replacing people to, as we've realized efficiency, our head count has come down from the peak levels we've had, but we've done this without degrading our capabilities in any way. There's really a minimum level of capability that's table stakes for being able to credibly be considered for major new projects.

We want very much to demonstrate a strong, robust, and resilient organization to our clients and prospective clients that they can rely on us for key deliverables. That's where we've not tried to cut our way into prosperity.

We're very much into growing our way into prosperity. The nature of business development discussions that we're having with different groups, in our proficiency testing, EQA programs, these are often starting in six-figure type new projects that can grow into seven-figure projects.

In the diagnostics support of new assays with QAPs, these go through a cycle where you're doing feasibility samples, then validation lots, and then going commercial. It takes two to three years to get full stride on some of these projects.

Those start at the six-figure level and can move into seven and eight figures in terms of the scale of those, and that's the kind of business that we're pursuing, and I believe pursuing successfully at this point. Until we have formalized supply and quality agreements and really reached that disclosure threshold, that's normal course business and doesn't require nor would it be appropriate to make formal announcements of those kind of projects until they really are fully gestated and delivered.

I think you answered the other question, and I don't know if you have any more that you want to add there. It was: is there a point in the development commercialization process at which you will be able to start disclosing large QAPs customers and the products you're working on, and is there a expected timeline for that?

Yes, I believe we should see the beginnings of such disclosures over the balance of this calendar year, calendar 2026. Just how granular we'll be able to get or choose to get is going to be a bit of a negotiation.

Customer may say great, we're happy to have you use our name, or not. They may say, listen, we understand your disclosure obligation as a smaller and public entity, but we rather you not describe what client and perhaps what instrument platform and what assay you're working on.

I think as we get a greater diversity of clients, that makes sense for us too. We don't necessarily want to be pointing our competitors in the directions of who exactly we're working with and on what projects either.

It makes sense for our shareholders as much as it does for our counterparties. I think in large part, you'll see disclosures made by us without identifying the client is going to be our bias going forward unless there's a real reason for doing so.

Makes sense. You talk about competitors, Cameron.

It's been a while since you've really laid out the competitive landscape. I know it would be product by product or line by line.

Can you talk a little bit about who you view as competitors?

There aren't that many in each of the categories. Our competitors are really the life sciences tools companies that would be described as, with an orientation toward the diagnostic space.

In the antigen business, we sort of talk if you want to buy a microgram or a milligram of an antigen, you'll call a scientific catalog company, and order it out of the catalog. If you want to order a gram of antigen, 1,000 to 1 million times as much, the number of companies you can call and where you can go narrows, that funnel narrows quite dramatically.

In the native antigen business, there might be three companies of any consequence globally that might compete with us. We're the largest, I think, in volume of our major products that we produce, by far.

In the controls business, there's a half a dozen companies globally that are deeply involved in the controls business. I think we are coming to be dominant in the infectious disease category and virology specifically around that area, with we have long-standing abilities in our antigens business that we're really driving that expertise in controls business, whether with native products or synthetic products.

Our bias is always towards controlling the whole process of the test and presenting the whole genome of the organism so that it's not a control designed against really a specific test, but rather a control that could work for any test. That's incredibly important for our proficiency testing and EQA, or external quality assessment, clients, that our controls really do represent a clinical sample and will work with anyone's assay.

When we get into in-kit controls, where our patient sample mimetics are included in with a kit of test cartridges, then it may be more customized to challenge towards the lower limit of detection, or the LOD, of the test for each of the channels, for each of the pathogens it's testing for. Is the test maintaining optimal sensitivity toward detection for each channel, for each organism it's called to detect?

That's a more custom product and has sometimes a different regulatory pathway as well.

Thank you, that's helpful. I have a follow-up question going back two questions ago about when you make announcements about clients.

Given the two to three year lead time on projects, where are you right now in the process with the largest clients?

With with our largest QAPs, our largest antigens clients, we are already embedded in their tests, and it's a we can't be unembedded unless somebody goes back to formula and completely is redoing a test from scratch. That business is very much ongoing and and stable.

We we see ourselves being included in new tests that are being manufactured from the native antigen perspective and perhaps recombinant, newer recombinant category as well. With respect to QAPs, for the PT/EQA clients, the agencies that do the quality checks on labs and accredit labs to do testing, we have ongoing sales and contacts with those companies, and we continue to add new programs or schemes with those companies.

Those are typically a two-year cycle. There's a first year where there's a pilot program, where a smaller number of labs, usually in the order of 20 to 50, will be invited to pilot a program, see if it it performs as as hoped to work with all the different instruments in use, and then that can expand to into well into hundreds of labs, potentially thousands of labs, in the second year or third year when that second year when that goes commercial and third year when it continues to get more labs accepting that.

For the test makers, we have multiple large test makers for whom we're providing feasibility samples currently and that they're testing. Then on the basis of those feasibility samples, that's what likely drives a formal contractual agreement, and those are things we're working on now.

Then in the second year, there can be validation lots or clinical lots if there's clinical work required on those, and then the third year, those can really hit full stride on global commercialization of an assay. Some of those test makers have thousands of instruments already in the field, in some case tens of thousands of instruments already in the field.

If a new, it's it's similar to if you think about a PlayStation or a Game Boy, well, if you if you have a many, many thousands of units out the field and you put a new game in to play on those and there's many, many of the consoles already installed, the uptake of the new game is much faster, and it's similar to what we see in the clinical assay field.

That's an interesting comparison, Cameron. When you say embedded, does that mean development is complete and the assay controls are now commercialized?

When we said embedded, I was meaning more our test ingredients in the core of a immunoassay, for example. We can be equally embedded in different aspects of our QAPs business where our reagents might be part of the internal controls of an assay, part of the chemistry.

We might be in the regulatory file for a control in-kit, where our controls are independent of the assays, but they're literally in a box of test cartridges and form part of that regulatory file. We're also seeing sales of our QuantyX product line.

This is the newest product line we launched last summer, which are reference materials. Those reference materials can actually be used for quality control release of tests and create an ongoing revenue stream on that basis, and are doing so, in fact.

Still small, still in the six-figure range, but I think we're quite satisfied with the early progress of that product line as it's really an earlier stage touch point for us with companies that are developing new assays. The QuantyX product line is proving, as hoped and expected, to be quite strategic for us.

Excellent. One last question here from the audience.

Regarding the RNA virus control you mentioned, is that a naked RNA or in-virus control? Ken, I think that one's for you.

I could tackle it, but Ken, why don't you take that?

Sure, I'll start by saying that we don't make oligos for controls, and whether it's an RNA oligo or a DNA oligo. I won't give any particular technical details unless Cameron wants to, but suffice it to say that RNA is armored.

It's encapsulated. It looks like the product that it's supposed to be testing for, as do all our QAPs.

One of the challenges for PCR-type assays, molecular diagnostics, is actually cracking the shell of a virus or a bacteria and getting to the nucleic acids. It's very important to validate that step of an assay.

As Ken said, all of ours are encapsulated. In the case of our RNA controls, we're encapsulating the shell of a type of virus called a phage, and then we put an RNA payload into that shell so that the extraction process, which is critical to the function of the assay, is likewise controlled.

Demonstrating that very sophisticated capability to take one form of organism and give it a custom payload so that it is a safe control that's fully representative of the workflow of the test. No, it's not naked.

These are very sophisticated.

Our stated kind of mandate and direction is to make our QAPs as close to a facsimile of a genuine patient specimen as it's physically possible to do. We challenge the entirety of a test, from extraction through fluidics and everything else, not just whether or not the PCR test reaction works, but everything that support it all so that reaction also works.

All our samples look like as best possible patient specimens.

Some good questions.

I know. I'm going to age myself, but feels like I'm in OAC biology class sometimes when I'm doing webinars with you guys.

Hopefully not bringing back any childhood traumas there. We won't ask you to do any square roots or anything like that.

I went to a French high school and I do not speak French, it's all

Yeah.

Another question. Are any of the QAPs products currently embedded in commercial-stage assays?

Yes.

Yes, some of them are.

If not yet, when do you expect to start to see the launches of assays with your QAPs? Yes, you already have them.

Some assays have already launched in association with our QAPs. What we've been working on and working with are some companies that have very large installed bases of instruments that, if somebody is launching a new assay on an instrument platform that has, again, thousands or tens of thousands of units in the field, those QAPs come out directly with the kits of test cartridges.

That's principally in that point-of-care field. That's very exciting for us, and that's something we achieved previously or were achieving prior to a major program cancellation.

We're getting back into that flow with now with a variety of companies to push through that and really remove our exposure to setbacks with any one particular client.

Got it. Is there any update on orders into China?

Has there been any progress or

There has been. China was running at a $2 million to $3 million a year portion of our revenues.

It shot up dramatically in 2024 and through mid-year 2025 before falling precipitously. We're now beginning to see a recovery.

China has moved back up into the six-figure range this year, and I think we're looking for back into the seven-figure range in 2027, although we've only just started our budget cycle for fiscal 2027.

Great.

One of the things I'll mention that's nice, and maybe Jim can provide a little color on this too, is our sales historically have been almost entirely B2B, business-to-business to diagnostics companies and proficiency testing and EQA agencies. Now we're seeing a growing proportion of B2C sales.

These are sales to end-user clinical laboratories, and that is a more diverse client base and a very much a recurring stream of sales that isn't dependent on any single client. Jim, did you want to talk about how the B2C side is growing in significance?

It has been growing quite well in its significance. Now it's on a smaller base, but it is growing very very well.

In fact, during the quarter, quarter-over-quarter, we saw a 35% increase. It's starting to become a more significant portion of the QAPs business, yes, it is doing quite well right now.

That's all Microbix-branded products, which is important, too. These are either under the PROCEED or red label product, depending on whether the use is RUO or IVD.

Again, a growing franchise directly with the clinical labs, which has become a seven-figure plus revenue stream growing at the rate that Jim has indicated, very satisfactory growth in that category.

What's driving the rebound in China? Is it inventories drawn down, or other?

Do you expect that biz to get back to the historic highs levels?

Barring another outbreak, I think it's difficult to see it jumping back to those elevated levels at this point, but I think we could see it return readily to a more normalized level in the $2 million to $3 million per year range is not unrealistic at this point. We're still gauging how much of that is inventory drawdown by end users and what a new normal looks like.

Okay. What's the concentration of your QAPs revenue?

Are you diversifying that revenue base and how long do you expect that to take?

It's an interesting question on diversifying, because if you're adding a bunch of smaller clients, you're diversifying. Suddenly, you land a huge client, you're less diversified again, but your revenues have shot up massive.

We're going to see some teeter-tottering between growth and diversification as that advances.

Two more questions. Can you provide an update on the NCIB?

Absolutely. Jim, you've got the figures most at hand there.

We continue to buy back about 15,000 shares a day, which isn't quite the maximum, but we're really balancing a little bit between cash consumption as we're still a net user of cash at the present level of revenues, and prudently buying back shares. That more than offsets any sources of dilution, but we're not aggressively chasing blocks right now.

Jim, what would we be in the quarter and year-to-date in terms of shares bought back?

As I indicated earlier, Q3, we saw 796,000 shares bought back at a cost of $209,000, and year-to-date, 2.3 million shares have been repurchased at a cost of $571,000.

As you track back towards profitability, will you ratchet that up towards the max level?

I think that's something we'll absolutely look at doing. The question will be just how we balance that.

One of the things we're looking at is just we have good capacity right now, but if some of the big chunks of business land the way we hope, that some of that capacity could be used quickly. We don't want to be in a position, even for the best of reasons, if we're ever approaching the markets for equity, we want to do it at a time of our choosing for expansion, not otherwise.

The question for us is just how much of our cash we want to use on buying back shares versus how much we need to have available for further scaling of production.

Okay. Then one last question, which I think is a really astute one.

Obviously, someone's been watching us, Cameron. Do you expect conference attendance and presentation to be at a similar cadence of the first half of the year?

I guess what this is getting at really is do you expect to increase your marketing and investor outreach efforts in the second half of the year?

There are two facets to that question. One is the scientific congresses and the presentations at those.

I think that's slowed down a little bit just because we've been so busy working closely with major prospective clients on projects, and responding to technical requests and revised proposals and pricing and quality systems audits and so forth. That's kept us really hopping and not as able to present about scientific innovations, but rather to support clients directly and work on business projects.

That's something. From an investor point of view, we've been fairly quiet or a bit quieter.

I was unable to attend Bloom Burton because it moved two weeks earlier and conflicted with the ESCMID conference. Ken and Jim were handling that investor side with you, Deborah.

We're going to do some more investor meetings this fall. I think we're attending the CEM, the Planet MicroCap, and what's the third one again, Deborah?

Centra.

Centra,

right.

In late September and through October. We'll be doing some investor outreach activities there.

With any luck, maybe we have a few fresh business things to announce by then. If not, we'll certainly be talking about the nature of what we're working on rather than potentially some deep specifics.

No, I think it's a good time to be getting out and telling the story. You've made good progress with the underlying business starting to grow again.

I think it's a good time for investors to be looking at the story. One more question just came in.

Are there any updates on VTM DXTM product line given we currently have a few confirmed orders in the pipeline? What's the plan for that assembly line?

I think it's already been retooled, hasn't it?

It's been used principally for what we call control elution buffer. This is where we're shipping a DTM, a similar reagent to VTM, out in parallel with the sample just to say, here's your swab, for example, with a control, here's the right elution buffer to use it, you don't have to go chasing around and finding that to run the sample.

That's what it's principally being used for. Government procurement continues to be a real frustration, and if anybody's interested, Ken and I recently co-authored an op-ed on the disconnect between the innovation support that governments give and the complete and utter lack of any procurement support that's provided and really highlighting that they're talking the talk, but not walking the walk if companies are really to be able to tap a domestic market.

Some similar comments made at a recent presentation from the Canadian Council of Innovators highlighting precise issue that Ken and I were identifying in our op-ed about the difficulties that domestic companies have in selling domestically. Canadian companies, we're a case in point, 95% of our sales are outside of Canada, and that's crazy.

A lot of the elbows up is very performative right now rather than helpful. I think hopefully we'll get a little bit more of that, but the quick answer is not a lot with government, a whole whole lot with private industry.

Got it. I don't see any other questions and you've answered my questions.

Any final thoughts, anything that you wanted to touch on that we didn't cover in the session?

Just, we're an open book. We're doing what we have said we would do, and that is recovering sales quickly towards our break-even point and then back through into substantial profitability.

I think our Q4 will be still considerably stronger than our Q3, and you'll see that continued movement forward. Then as we land and lock in some of these projects that we're working on, whether it is material agreements with major international diagnostics companies that we're working on or the advancement of Kinlytic, all of those are things we're executing on.

I think executing on well, and I hope our shareholders participating today see that and agree with us and encourage you to delve into our statements and our disclosures. Those aren't already up on our website, they will be and they're certainly on SEDAR.

We thank everybody for their ongoing trust and support.

Thank you very much for your time. Thank you to the audience for their questions and their time.

If anyone has any follow-up questions, feel free to reach out, or if you want a one-on-one meeting, I'd be happy to set that up. Congrats on the quarter and look forward to the conferences this fall.

Thank you so much. Likewise, and anybody, please reach out to us directly or through Deborah if you have any questions that occur to you later.

Again, happy to answer them and delighted to have your attendance today and your support. Thank you, everyone.

Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Deb.

Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Deborah.

Take care. Bye.