Thanks, Phil. Regarding the PEP label expansion program for oral TPOXX as a quick background update. Earlier this year we noted that the company met enrollment targets for both the immunogenicity trial and the expanded safety trial. For the expanded safety trial, the clinical trial results recently became available. As expected, we did not see any drug-related serious adverse events. For the Jynneos plus TPOXX postbox immunogenicity trial as a quick reminder, the goal of this trial was to show that TPOXX did not reduce the immune response to the vaccine. This is supplemental and separate to our current approval for the treatment of small pox. In the preliminary analysis of the trial data, we do not see a meaningful difference between the immunogenicity of those that received the Jynneos vaccine while on placebo compared with those that received the Jynneos vaccine while on TPOXX, which is consistent with what we expected. For reasons, we don't currently understand, the number of volunteers that had a measurable immune response to the Jynneos vaccine in both the placebo and TPOXX groups was lower than expected. At this point in time, pending further investigations into the effects of the lower the number -- lower-than-expected number of responders is that we currently do not have sufficient numbers or data points to make the non-inferiority statistical determination as originally planned as the primary endpoint of the immunogenicity trial. We're investigating why we saw a lower overall percentage of volunteers, generating an immune response to the vaccine. To be clear, we're investigating the immune response levels of volunteers to the vaccine. The analyses are not about the efficacy or safety of TPOXX nor are they about TPOXX's impact on those individuals who are showing an immune response. In terms of getting the maximum and most timely benefit from immunogenicity trial, in the context of stockpile expansion conversations, with the government. It's worth the extra time and effort to fully investigate reasons for the overall lower-than-expected response rate. We plan to work through a review of the data, clinical trial processes and provide an update on the next investor call or when data becomes available. As contextual comments before I shift gears, I'd like to note that in regard to the PEP program, we believe that the totality of the studies and trials that have been conducted, including the immunogenicity trial as well as previous animal challenge experiment and clinical trials are supportive of the use for TPOXX in PEP, pending discussion and review with the FDA. In the case of an orthopox epidemic, be it Mpox or smallpox, use of TPOXX for PEP will be important to reduce the morbidity and mortality in the population. With respect to Mpox trials, five randomized controlled trials as well as multiple observation studies continue to enroll patients and collect data. For example, as of August 4 the NIAID STOMP trial had enrolled 117 patients and the NIAID PALM trial being deducted in the DRC had enrolled 188 patients. While the Mpox case count this summer has been mild in comparison to last summer, we will continue to coordinate with government agencies on the act of RCTs and observational trials. As noted in the last investor call, RCTs are contemplating an aggregation of their data as it is unblinded, with the idea of potentially reaching sufficient subject numbers for regulatory evaluation. While the short-term path of the Mpox outbreak is uncertain, what we continue to believe is that there is a high probability that the United States and other countries across the world, will have to deal with the Mpox cases in future years. It's just unknown as to the ultimate magnitude of the cases. The scope of the cases across different communities, and when the case levels become consistent or where the case levels come and go periodically. We believe that in most scenarios there will be a need for TPOXX. At this point, I'd like to turn the call over to Dan for a financial update.