FDA Direct Ep. 8: Priorities for a New FDA

All right. We can keep talking.
We're going to keep talking.

Thank you, Alex.

We got Alex here
helping out with the camera today.

We're back with FDA Direct.

FDA Direct and Bigfoot is still here.

For those of you who might be concerned,
Bigfoot is here.

Good to see you.
Thanks for your help setting up today.

So we were just talking about this, piece
in the

Journal of the American Medical Association that we
have out titled “Priorities for a New FDA.”

Have it right here. Hot off the press.

Congratulations, you two.  

Thanks.  So, I thought I was telling Sanjula
maybe we could chat a little bit about it.

Let's do it.

You know, you're you're
you're a different FDA

Commissioner in some senses,
because you have a very aggressive agenda.

You are firing on all cylinders
in all fronts.

You're not just popping into the office

and then popping out to play golf, Marty.
That's not how you're rolling.

Look, I think there's just a lot of great
ideas that come from people at the FDA.

And we've been going around asking
scientists and reviewers and core staff,

what big ideas do you think are, important

to consider
that you’ve not really been able to do

that we should consider?

And so we've been getting great ideas,

and we were doing the same
with the industry, asking the sponsors

and the developers and scientists who
invent some of these drugs and products.

What big ideas do you have for regulation?

And we're learning a lot.

So we've got this is amazing right now.

There's no shortage of giant ideas.

So we've been doing this inventory
for a while.

We're going to keep going
and keep listening.

But there are some general parameters
that I would say

define our priorities at the new FDA.

And I would just add,
I think one of the ways

that you're soliciting these new ideas
is by challenging everyone to challenge

these long held assumptions, right?

And ask these tough questions. Right.

And so in this paper, you're

you start off by saying,
why does it take more than ten years

for a new drug to come to market? Right.

Which sounds like a simple question,
but it's a really important one.

And so what are you thinking about
with some of these new ideas?

There is, by the way,
a science to soliciting ideas.

If you get people in a room
with their bosses and you say,

you know, how are things going, what ideas
you have there, they’re like things are great.

But if you get them alone
and you give them, anonymity

and you keep it
confidential with them and that,

then you just let them open up.

You start hearing amazing idea

after idea after idea,
and you think that makes so much sense.

Now, some of those ideas
are not good ideas,

but when you hear them again
and again from different people,

you really doing
an inventory collection of ideas

that is so much different from, say,
a town hall or, something

where their boss is in the room.  
No, I'm not disparaging their bosses.

We are great people here
leading at the FDA,

but you get these great ideas
from the front lines, from people

on the ground doing this
hard work of product review.

Every day.

You're having a dialog,
and a lot of people have told us

that they haven't
been asked these questions before.

And so I think that's a lot of kudos
to you for asking the questions.

And so I think some of the ideas
you have come up with are organized

in some thematic areas.

Maybe we can go through
each of the themes.

Yeah.

I just wanted to say so this, this paper
that we've put out in Jama, it's

an amalgam of,
I think things that matter to you, parties

that matter to you, ideas
you've heard from people out there,

and we're trying to put them
in some big buckets.

And so
maybe you want to run through the buckets.

Yeah. Let's go through the buckets.

I think the first one is accelerating
cures. Right.

That's a big one to unpack.

Yeah.

Look, this big assumption that we've had
where it takes more than ten years

for drugs to come to market,
we've got to challenge,

the processes that result in that long.

If you have the cure for breast cancer,
do we really think it should

take ten years or even six years
for that product to come to market?

At the same time,
if you lower the regulatory hurdle

to have no, barrier whatsoever,
that is, you have no process,

then you have snake oil out there
and you have people who pay a lot of money

for false hope,
and you do a lot of damage.

You've said many times
that, the FDA brand is it means something.

It means something in this country
means something globally.

And when we talk about accelerating
products, we're not talking about

watering down the brand.

We're talking about speeding
effective products to market.

You know, we're not talking about
lowering the standards for what.

Cutting the unnecessary steps,
the red tape, the steps that people

are very clear,
like people here are very clear, like

we don't need to be doing this
in this way.

People on the outside saying,

we're submitting this stuff
and nobody is using this information.

It's unnecessary information.

So we want to keep the integrity
of the scientific process, but

we want to see more cures and meaningful
treatments for the American public.

And the FDA, as you
said, is an amazing brand,

one of the best brands
of any brand in the world.

I mean, my grandfather, overseas, he
relied on that FDA brand as a clinician.

And so,
he was a pharmacist, clinical pharmacist.

So, I think there's a lot we can do.

And one of the cool parts
of being in leadership with the FDA is

you get to see things in the pipeline
that are, they look amazing.

I mean, we can't say they're amazing,
but they sound promising.

They have plausible mechanisms.

They have incredible pre-clinical data.

And so when you see something like that,

especially
coming right out of a clinical setting,

you think, oh my gosh, like,
what can we do as a, as,

you know, the human race to try to ensure

this to be available and accessible
in a way that we can safeguard

public safety, to keep to our charge,
to prove things as safe and effective.

So something you both are talking about,
right, is to accelerate cures.

You have to maintain that rigor
in that standard.

And so maybe unpack a little bit
some of the strategic principles

you outlined of
how do you reduce that time. Right.

You talk about things like animal testing
and these process inefficiencies

in these long applications, right.

That those are all steps
as part of this. Right?

Yeah.

For so, so,
so I mean, we talk about animal testing.

We talk about
perhaps a priority review system

where we can shave even more time off
the review, where the bulk of the review

is looking at parts of the application
that don't pertain

to the pivotal trial results.

So let's do that work while we're waiting
for the pivotal trial to result,

so that we can pivot very quickly
when the pivotal trial results.

And that's most of the application,
that's most of

the application is not the final readout
on the clinical trial.

In the phase three portion.

I think one of the points that's made here
is we write to reinvigorate innovation,

we must become a user friendly FDA

that partners with industry
rather than takes a receive only posture.

You know,
we're going to be partner with industry,

but we also write such a

we also write that at the same time,
the FDA will guard against

a cozy relationship
that is characterized the agency.

In the past and led to allegations
of industry capture.

For this reason,
we recently removed industry members

from the advisory
committees were statutorily permitted.

And in a recent VRBPAC meeting,
which is the vaccine and related

biologic products,
meeting that that I oversee,

we actually did not grant section
waivers, which is a

a a certain type of potential conflict
of interest for panelists.

So we're taking conflict of interest
seriously,

but we are going to be receptive
to the industry.

We're going to try to do
both these things.

And, you know,
we hear a lot of great ideas and

a lot of these ideas that we're hearing

make me think, can we create a pathway

by which companies
can submit the bulk of the application?

That includes a lot of the stuff,

minus the clinical trial endpoint readout.

And so if we could get going on that
CMC portion

now, right now there is something
I think it's called a rolling submission,

where you can go in and start filling out
parts of the final application,

before you submit the final application.

But let's be honest, people have not been
looking at it at the FDA, right?

They're busy.

And so people have not been saying, oh,

they pre-submitted parts of the CMC
application.

Let's go in and look at that
ahead of the final submission.

So it's not really doing much right.

So you're basically suggesting
a rolling review

to pair with that rolling submission.

You sort of split

the application into the CMC portion

and the other portions that do not include
the final clinical trial readout.

And then, you know, another part of the
application is the clinical trial readout.

So next item on the list unleashing AI.

So this is something that you're doing
in-house.

We have unleashed a pilot program for AI.

But you're also talking about a few things
that, maybe people

should know about, which is that right now
we use a lot of animal testing.

We write quote,

we have developed a roadmap
to reduce animal testing using AI based

computational modeling to predict toxicity
leveraging chip technology.

So we're not saying that,
you know, we're % there yet,

but we are aggressively moving
in the direction where a lot of this

toxicology stuff
perhaps can be shifted to other platforms

that are more efficient
and also less wasteful of of animals.

Yeah.

So this is a big area of medicine
right now in sort of the drug development

space, is can you use computational
modeling, organ on a chip technology

where you've got the cytes growing
in a culture medium, and you're actually

testing the drug and looking at its impact
on these liver cells

and other organ system cultures
and organoid technology.

Now, you can grow some organs
in a laboratory.

So you put all that together.

You actually have predictive information
on, say, toxicity that is sometimes

as good or better than animal studies,
which are not very good.

% of drugs that get through
animal studies on toxicity

end up not being, found to be safe and,

you know,

nontoxic and effective in humans.

So it's not a very good predictive model.

You're really modernizing the various
methods that we can leverage around.

And if you can reduce animal testing,
not only is it good for the,

you know, Easter bunnies and all that,

you know, the animals out there,
that's a reduction in animal cruelty. Yes.

But also you're reducing R&D costs, which
could translate into lower drug prices

a big priority for this administration
and shortening the time.

Right,
because those animal studies take time.

Absolutely.

So the next theme that you outline,
I love this line, the FDA will restore

focus on the F in FDA
and providing healthier food for children.

So food is a huge priority here.

Healthy food for children.

You saw our action on the nine
petroleum based food dyes.

You saw our roundtable on talc
which appears in food

and candy that children consume.

You're you saw some companies, including,
can I say Mars?

I'm just going to say Mars. Mars.

announced they're taking titanium dioxide
out of Skittles.

Titanium dioxide is sort of used to coat,

things so that they can put

that covering on top of it be it a color
coloring or artificial food dye.

These are steps forward
and it is meeting consumer demand.

The consumer is getting increasingly
educated on these things.

And of course
the big one is our dietary guidelines.

So the Secretary has asked us to work
on the Dietary guidelines.

The old food pyramid is out.

We are redoing all of that.

And we're going to use the best available
nutrition science scientists

and common sense, because you can't just
say grains on the food pyramid.

You have to say what types of grains
you've got to talk about grains

as super ultra processed grains
versus whole grains.

You talk about

taking an inventory of substances
that are banned in other countries,

but permitted in this country
in our food supply.

And also we're going to take a look
critically,

those those products,
those ingredients, as well.

Yeah, I think we said in

there something about the chronic disease
epidemic rates are skyrocketing.

This is not the fault of children, right.

This is a byproduct of what they're
consuming and their exposures.

Right.  Okay.

So then the next area you talk a lot about
is harnessing big data,

which
I think really is the connective tissue

with a lot of what
you've already talked about.

Yeah, I mean, we live in an era

where we have tons of data here,
but there are huge, massive data

sets, and a lot of people are interested
in how you can leverage these things.

And I think the st Century Cures Act
actually gives us the statutory

mandate to leverage
real world evidence and real world data.

And we're going to be thinking
very critically about how to do that.

Real world data can inform our decision
making in a number of ways.

We've already piloted things like, target
trial emulation, these sort of modern,

sophisticated techniques
to try to make sense of real world data.

But real world
data can be useful in our applications.

And we're going to apply it,
you know, as broadly as we can.

And I think it ties to a lot of your big
focus on post-approval monitoring.

Right,

as a way to also accelerate getting cures
and meaningful treatments to market.

It's good for the FDA and the world

to have eyes on a new drug or new device
after it's approved.

So we're not learning

nearly five years later that vioxx
may have killed Americans,

or that OxyContin and the other opioids

may have killed a million Americans.

You know, years later,

we should be having eyes on products
as soon as they're approved.

And if we can do that,

it also gives us a little assurance
as we review the applications, knowing,

we're not going to be just looking away
once it's approved

and we haven't been able to do this
in the past.

Right.

This is not the fault of any prior

Commissioner for not, implementing this.

It's just now big data and cloud storage
and the consolidation of big data

has enabled good, rich electronic health

record data,
not just claims data to be searchable.

And so in the
old days, I say the old days,

five years ago,

when we were students or,
at any point in clinical medicine

in my lifetime,
if you wanted to run a good trial,

you needed to run
a randomized controlled trial.

Where do you find the control group from?

The reason we had to run
randomized controlled trials is because

the only way to get a good control
was to randomize

within your center or institution,
or you parse together a couple institutions.

When you have million plus patients

in an electronic health record,
you can match people really well

in amazing case control studies.

You can match them by their AC,
their body mass index, their height,

their kidney function, their hair color,
whatever you want, what any.

And you can do incredible controls.

And you can also do in silico controls.

In my in my group in CBER right now,
you know, literally as we're talking,

we are exploring a number of
and I can't say exactly what they are,

but we're exploring a number
of potential safety signals

for vaccine products very aggressively
using large real world data.

And this is something
that you'll never see.

I mean, we are big proponents
of randomized studies,

and everyone knows that for the Covid
vaccines that we've in fact,

tasked the manufacturers
and they have agreed to complete

very important studies
by the spring and summer of

So we will start
to get some readouts then.

So we believe in them,
and they do serve a valuable purpose.

But you will never get a study
to find a in

in rare adverse event.

You're not going to get a randomized study
capable of doing that,

because the sample size
calculation to prove it has a benefit

is inherently smaller than the sample size
calculation to find a

in safety signal.
So how do you find that.

So right now on a number of potential
and some maybe more plausible

than other safety signals,

we're running the exact type of analyses
that Dr. Makary is talking about.

Very well matched controlled analyses.

Looking for these safety signals.

When we find these safety signals, if
and when we do, if they are sufficient

to warrant regulatory action,
it will be incredibly swift.

And here's a shameless plug.

Some people may know
that, last week in Jama,

there was a particular vaccine
that we placed a pause on.

It's a vaccine for chikungunya, a live
attenuated vaccine that is being rolled

out in the French island of La Reunion,
where, there is currently an outbreak.

And we've detected a rather concerning
safety signal that we are exploring.

And in the meantime, we put a pause on it
for a certain age group, and up.

And we wrote about that in Jama last week,
and now we're back again this week.

So we're going to keep writing an article
in Jama every week now. So

that's great.

You don't sleep very much.

But you know, speaking of safety signals,
I think we talked a little bit

about this before,
but in the spirit of big data,

we're also thinking about

or you're also thinking about adverse
event kind of reporting systems

and reducing that clunkiness and kind of
pairing some of that self-reported data

with some of these other real world
data sources.

If we if we can get eyes
and big data on FDA products,

we can start by, say, going back
over the last year, all FDA approved

products, including,
once we get a universal device identifier

more standardized in electronic health
records, maybe even claims data.

This is something
we're talking to CMS about.

Yeah.

Then you can understand,

how they're working in the real world.

You can develop synthetic controls.

You can ask whether or not a drug
we approve on surrogate endpoints

also is associated with increased
overall survival, whatever question

you want to ask. And so that is powerful.

But in monitoring safety signals
it is much better than these clunky

adverse event self-reporting databases
where people self-report.

And you can you can make zero inferences.

If we're being scientifically

and methodologically honest,
you can make zero scientific inferences

about rates of adverse events
with self-reported data.

Well, yeah.

And that's one of the things
that people don't appreciate.

Although we have a number of

safety systems in place,
they suffer from two fundamental biases.

One is that people see a side effect,
an adverse event and fail to report it.

And then the other bias

is that sometimes
people report an adverse event,

but it's actually not
causally linked to the product.

And so you get both types of errors.
And there's a third piece.

You have people.

You have people
that want to report something

but then give up reporting
because it's so difficult.

Now you're going to scoop us because we're
running some analyses internally.

I've been meaning to ask you
how that analysis.

We're working on it.

Yeah, you're working on it.  But I think that you're absolutely right that,

you know, reporting it 
shouldn’t be.  We all get surveys.

And if the surveys got pages
on a survey, I ain't going to finish it.

You know, ask me one question.
I'll give you one click.

But I can't do pages.  
Click fatigue.

It's like alert fatigue.
It's actually doctors suffer from both.

Yeah alert fatigue.

it wasn't that long ago just last month
that I was in the EMR every single day.

And I'll tell you I was
oh totally fatigued with that EMR.

Yeah.

So it appears, it appears that most people

who log on to our FDA adverse event
reporting databases

don't get through it and actually are able
to report that adverse event.

That's something that we're taking
a closer look at.

Yeah.
And we're going to report right that up.

So these adverse event reporting
databases are not very good.

I mean they can give us a signal

to look at with a more proper
methodological study in big data.

But we can make zero inferences
about rates.

And so we need to do better.

And also why do we have so many separate
adverse event reporting databases.

Why do we have a separate one for devices
as we do for drugs,

as we do for vaccines,
as we do for other products?

We can

just have a

question at the top, you know,
what is this adverse?

This is a chronic bias thing. Too.

Right? Right.

Good.

Well,
so then the kind of final thematic area

you've noted
here is around financial toxicity,

which I think was interesting to see
because you say that

although the FDA, per statutory law,
will not consider price in the benefit

risk calculations,

the FDA will use its power
to address costs in other ways.

You want to elaborate on 
those other ways?

Well, we got to have lower drug prices
in the United States,

and we want to both encourage investment
in new products.

But at the same time, we don't want
to be ripped off in the United States.

So other countries
have to pay their fair share.

And so it's just like with anything else,
be it NATO membership fees, we cannot be

carrying water for the rest of the world
when it comes to research and development.

Now research and development
is roughly to % of the, spend.

It's % of the revenue,

of many of the large
pharmaceutical companies.

And just as a benchmark, their,
their marketing and advertising budget

is about to % ballpark.

I mean, something in that range.

So that's a little, you know, comparison.

But we have got to have other countries
pay their fair share.

So it makes no sense whatsoever.

The drug can cost over $
in the United States

and $in London or Germany or France.

And, this president, does not like
to watch Americans getting ripped off.

And this has been
one of the great American rip offs.

We need to come up
with some sensible solution.

We can't consider price directly
in our calculations,

and we won't for novel products,
but around generic drugs and the

and the approval of generic drugs
around biosimilar drugs, people say,

what's a biosimilar?

Biosimilar is a generic
for a, biologic product

like a monoclonal antibody or,
eventually they'll be

there'll be a biosimilar gene therapy
when as time goes on into the future,

we need to be very agile in facilitating
these biosimilar approvals.

We can't, adhere to a you need to do
seven randomized controlled trial

non-inferiority studies in a different,
you know, all these different subgroups.

I mean, I think we find already
that a lot of those, are not giving us

new information and they're kind of
stifling biosimilar drug development.

The more biosimilars
you have on the product,

I think there's elegant data
that shows for each additional entrant

on the market, roughly a % price
reduction from brand price reduction.

So it takes many entrants to really drop
prices.

And again,
we're not doing that because of price.

That's not our primary consideration.

But it has that nice added benefit
by being an aggressively,

aggressive FDA in that space.

Financial toxicity
is a medical complication.

And while we don't use price
in the approval decision making process,

it's a real thing for many Americans.

And the lack of affordability
of some drugs is also an access

problem in the United States.

So there's a lot it's
a very complex topic.

It involves, PBMs.

It involves,

the markups at the provider level,
something that's not often discussed.

And, the countries sometimes are getting

sweetheart
deals negotiated and, you know, we end up,

get paying
a lot more for some of these drugs.

So I learned a lot.

I learned a lot about this in The Price
We Pay your book,

because you explored that years ago.

So this is something
I've written a lot about. But,

so to be clear,
the FDA does not set drug price policy.

The FDA is not involved in
drug price policy.

But there are some things we can do.

First of all, we can ask companies
to have more affordable prices

for Americans
relative to the price of the same product

in OECD countries, that is other wealthy
countries around the world.

Second thing we can do

is increased competition
and bring more drugs to market.

Yeah.

And another thing is, increasing generics
and biosimilars, as you said, you know,

biosimilars have a, lengthy process
for approval.

That process is a pretty tried
and true process

because sometimes the manufacturing
of a biosimilar is the the drug.

Right?

It has to have an impeccable
manufacturing process.

But at the same time, do we need
a confirmatory trial for a biosimilar?

We don't do that for generic drugs.

We don't say,
oh, you have a new generic drug.

In some cases, in some cases,
multiple confirmatory studies

for a biosimilar.

But, you know, another thing I get asked
often is, is

and this is kind of a wonky point,
which is does accelerated approval

of one product in a space
preclude subsequent accelerated approvals?

And it is my personal view that it does
not that there can be other subsequent

accelerated approvals.

And it has two, I think, really
relevant policy considerations.

One it, it it gives 
us some safeguarding, in case

there's supply constraint

if one manufacturer, has a problem
in the supply,

there's another product out there

for people to get
that can be incredibly important.

It provides a safeguard
in case there's a safety concern.

One product has a safety concern.

There's a there's a rival product.

And it may have benefits in terms
of negotiating price on the back end.

So we are going to encourage
that competition.

And even in this subgroup of, you know,
if an accelerator approval is granted,

for a number of societal benefits,
and also because that's, I think,

our interpretation of the statute.

And I think just to connect the dots
back to something you said earlier, Marty.

Another piece
of how you're going to address

the toxicity point is reducing
the cost of the actual R&D part, right?

What the animal testing
and some of these.  

And time is money.  Shave a year off and 
you shave off potentially billions of dollars

in regarding the expenditure. 
Absolutely.

I mean, do you look at the value of
a quicker decision

say take for example
some of these priority vouchers, right.

So that if the standard time is 
to months depending on some factors,

then getting it down to six months
with a voucher priority voucher,

which by statute
they can be sold or transferable.

So the value of that voucher
sold on the open

market tells us a little bit
about the value of an earlier.

And it's like to 
to million, something like that.

You know, it's like for a voucher.

A few years ago,
there was that hospital that,

I think was going bankrupt,
and they sold the residency.

And then each residency position
sold for not the salary that they pay.

A resident was like 
for like but per resident.

But what it tells you is the real value
of a resident for the hospital system,

which is very valuable
because residents, we,

you know, we know, work
very hard and keep hospitals going.

Similarly,
the real value of a priority review

voucher for the company is
what another company would pay to get it.

And that's if I get those numbers right.
Is that your understanding?

I mean sold? Yeah.

My understanding was even hundreds
of millions of dollars

that the priority 
vouchers were sold.

But it's been a while
since I've last seen that price.

I think. Initially was in the hundreds.
And then and it came down. Like.

But there have been, I think, over 
of these vouchers issued over time.

So as the market has more supply
and demand.

Yeah, I think it's roughly $million.

If not, there'll be people
that reach out to say, we got.

And attorneys.

Starting in two minutes.

So I know
we're we're hitting up against time.

But there's one more point
that I did want to flag.

So although it's not a kind of

bucket listed in the paper,
you conclude by mentioning effectively

that you plan to achieve these goals,
kind of all while rebuilding public trust.

And I just want to call that out
because I think you're already doing this.

And I think that that is a big piece
of what you're trying to bring,

whether it's conversations like this
and just being out,

you know,
with the industry, with staff here.

But I think that's an important
kind of priority that you do have.

Yeah, I, I also add one thing on that,

I think what we've done with the Covid
policy framework is exactly that.

It's rebuilding public trust.

We are coming
in, I think, with a very nice solution.

We've talked about it
so much on this podcast.

I won't get into it again, but I just

I think, yeah, one of the other virtues
is in building public trust.

I think these videos build public trust.

I think our articles build
public public trust.

And I think having those open town
hall meetings that we are televising on,

you know, YouTube and X, build
public trust and what were you going to say?

You know, I'm thinking, you know,
we'll we'll put something out there.

I mean, there's risk with it, right?

You put something out there,
you put an idea out there and people say,

that was a great idea
or that's a bad idea.

And here's three reasons why. Good.

That's what we want to hear, right?

That that's how actually you move.

That's how we actually move the needle.

And so if we just say like
this is a system, this is the monograph

recipe for infant formula,
we came up with that in

It's perfect.

You know we just added selenium once.

But otherwise this is how we do it.

Nothing happens.

You don't need don't advance
Western civilization that way.

Right.

We're not moving
the agency. We're not modernizing.

So we want to put ideas out there
and we'll do it on camera.

And I think people don't recognize this,
but in a big bureaucracy

with lots of attorneys
but a big bureaucracy.

And you come in
and you want to do different things.

There's always a bunch of people here
who have had those ideas for years,

but there's also some, you know,

institutional pressure
not to make those changes.

And I think it does take leadership
to say,

despite these concerns to the contrary,
we've got to make changes.

We have to keep innovating.

We can't just be the same stagnant FDA
we've always been.

Yeah, you're encouraging discourse.

So you know, speaking of discourse,
I have to say on a different topic,

there was some commentary on both of your
kind of fashion on on these discussions.

So I have to check for the public here
if you are wearing a,

if you guys have exchanged socks
or wearing appropriate color socks.

So what,
somebody didn't like the color of our sock?

Apparently you were wearing mismatch
color socks on one of our.

I wear black socks every day.

So, you know. It's gotta be one person.
It must be.

Well, somebody didn't like.
I think, the tailoring of my suit.

I'll be perfectly clear.

I'm not going to pass
workwear standards.

You know this guy?

I'm not going to pass this because.

Because I'm a professor
and and a government employee, okay?

I'm not in the fashionable suit business.

But having said that, you know, our focus
is, being professional,

but I think getting the job done.

Yeah, hair’s looking good, man. 
The hair I had to correct.

Because this guy, this guy ripped on me
the whole first video.

That Einstein hair. Yeah.

It wasn’t a criticism.  It was a compliment.

I think Einstein was a genius. Well,
guess what?

You know,
I corrected my official portrait as well.

Oh.
I had that wild hair.

But on, I think on Wikipedia,
they refused to correct it

and they put that wild hair out there.  

The most imbalanced website I’ve ever seen.

Well, I'm glad the socks check out.

Thank you both for taking the time to
to write this.

I think it's a really important thing
to commemorate

and looking forward to helping you know,
you achieve this agenda.

Thanks so much, Sanjula.
Good talking to you.

We said we'd do this in five minutes
and here we are probably minutes it.

But it was fun. Good discussion.
Thanks so much.

All right
folks, we'll do it again. See you later.