Peter Mantas: The Biotech Bubble Whisperer

All right, another day, another Peter Mantis interview my healthcare biotech savant as I think nobody calls me. It's very kind. But you should go about that nickname. I think that's interesting. I have this view that and this will probably be proven wrong in time because timing is, you know, trying to time markets is hilarious, but I have this view that healthcare has bottomed. relative to other opportunities out there and biotech. So it's like, I think healthcare is bottomed. I also think biotech is going to be this next like massive wave of AI capital. As if I look at flows, it's first it was the data centers, semiconductors, then it's space and robotics. And I think eventually like that flow finds its way to medicine and biology and biotech. And so I'm willing to be totally proven wrong. I'm, you know, I'm probably going to be wrong in a lot of that directionally, but I want to know from you, like, I guess the first thing is how do you sauce the real biotech AI capabilities versus vaporware? Because that's like, I think a very pressing issue for me as a generalist. It's like, there's a lot of exciting biotech companies that say that they're doing stuff with AI, but how do I know what's legit and what's not? Yeah, so thanks for having me on again. A subon's a very kind word. I don't think I'm a, I don't think I'm any god or didey or anything like that. But you know, if you were to pick out all the sectors in the market, I'm just talking about from market perspective. And you say like, what truly has the greatest secular tailwind that AI can provide? Right? AI tangentially or peripherally is kind of the threat to everything else, right? Like whether it's software, whether it's services, whether it's payments, whatever. But biotech truly is the greatest AI is one of the greatest talents. But I want to contain it to more on the discovery side because the, the bottleneck that AI faces is the regulatory capture piece. You're still going to have to go through trials. It's still going to take a long time to test for humans. There's still safety issues. So, you know, you might be able to cut off time on a preclinical acid a little bit, but you still are going to have very expensive drugs because of the of the fact that they are regulated. Right? And that is where the mode is in biotech. It's you are creating many monopolies, whenever drug rights approve that it's in many monopoly. So, will it exhilarate drug discovery or molecule design? Yeah, sure. Absolutely. Will it, will it mean that if you can get a gene therapy to market in two years and a way? So I think it's more than a temper expectations on that front. And I'm just high level. I'm more of a capital cycle biotech investor. And what I mean by that is like I'm my strength is more about identifying identifying a left tail. Like I live in the left tail. Yeah. And when I look for investments, I don't need it to go to the right tail. I just sometimes need it or not need it, but I just evaluate, okay, maybe it just gets out of the left tail. Maybe it goes to the mean. And sometimes when you get that, that's that's very easy money, very easy sort of IRR. And if something goes from the left tail to the right tail, yeah, you might have a 50 bag or a hundred bag or whatever. But going from the left tail to just marginally outside the left tail, to be a patriple, 5x or mean, could be, you know, even more. So biotech went through this capital cycle that was really deep from 2021 to 20 25 basically. And a lot of it was very high rates from inflation biotech funding drying up. We've talked about the Zednazian. Yeah. COVID overhang, right? Like COVID was a biologic wave and created a lot of orders for the life science tools. And they're just going after bad comps. And like the life science still is different from the actual biotech. But you know, it's still, you know, these guys have to make money from drug companies. And at the same time, you also had just a lot of preclinical assets coming to the market in the fall of the 2021. So they couldn't prove out what they had. And so if I was to prepare for this next bubble, I would say that the next bubble is not one of recovery. It's one of discovery. It's one where you want to look for things where you're going to create the next gen therapy. Right? And the ones that came public in 2021, they were just more like science projects. But this is, there's actual, now they're coming, they're coming to the end of that cycle. Right. Something that was phase two or phase one, let's say 2021 is now phase three. And so if those comes to market and they have really good data and they're on the induction cell therapy or gene therapy. It's like, wow, we've discovered a cure for epilepsy as an example or something like in that realm, that's where that narrative becomes bubble less. If that makes sense. Yeah. So that's what I would frame that is. That's what I've missed like the platform, what I'm trying to find. So what does a science project look like versus something that's legit? Right? So I open up an investor presentation from some biotech company, ABC. How can I tell what are what are some giveaways that a company is just a science project? It's like, it'd be like if you and I had a preclinical model, like a monkey model or mouse model or pig model, and we raised a bunch of cash and we were like, okay, we're we're about to enter the clinic. We're not even in a clinic, we're not even testing on humans. When that happens, like in 2021, you had that at billion dollar evaluations. And so now some of them or you know, they had one patient. Some of those have now become like robust, robustly tested in humans. And so they have now gone through the cycle and you're seeing data come out from some of these quantum code science projects that are like, wow, or just some real, real elements for them. And that's what I find interesting about this bubble where it's not about, when I say bubble, bubbles are born on the darkest days, like pessimism, no one believes it, right? Yeah. When I mean by bubble, I don't mean like bubbles die on froth and optimism. I don't mean that they're, they're like fake science or anything. It's more just holy cow, we're finding new cancer drugs that we've never seen before, pancreatic cancer drugs that we've never seen before. Like cancer used to be a death sentence now, it's like an annoyance. Like those are, that's where how bubbles are born. Yeah. So that's more how I try to evaluate you know, the capital cycle. And I think that's where we are here. I think this is more like the most, I think we'll see the most real bubble that we've, like the most real biotech bubble that we've seen a long time. And I remember you telling me a couple, I think it was maybe the last podcast or the one before that you said something like, you know, a real bubble in markets doesn't exist unless biotech plays along unless biotech really has a run. Yeah, that's right. That's why I still think we're early. And remember, biotech doesn't need low rates. You don't need rates to go to zero. They just need stable rates. Like race to come down a plastic fly. Like that's the best environment for biotech is because it's predictable. And for a lot of venture capital funding, when you're investing in biotech, it is really, really hard because you can get drugged at any time. Your science can fail. Even if your science is good, you might have a follow up data point where all of a sudden a patient gets cancer, you know, I mean, in three, five years down the line and you are done. Like you can't do anything about that. So yeah, your stock takes 50% in a day or 60% in a day. And so the diligence on the form of VC perspective is very high. Like you, you know, if you're ever on a call with venture capital, venture capitalists and biotech, I mean, they're having a chief medical officer, chief science officer. It is like really intense stuff. It's not pie in the sky. Here's some safe, you know, or term sheet for some seed route. And that is based on fluff. It is real diligence. And you know, where the funding comes back is stable rates where there's available the ability of capital approvals. You need to have a gold medal winner. You need to have someone win the race at the end of the like finish get to the finish line. Does it happen perfect? Just to get to the finish line. You need robust funding. It's like research markets like NA right now in a H is seeing budget cuts. Right. So it's not you're not in that stage yet. And you need robust policy right now. China is really exhilarating. The US is starting because more seriously about it, but not there yet. You don't even have an FDA head right now. You still have walls of worry in the market. That's how you get long-bow markets. This is just continued and walls of worry. Do you have insights on the private side that you think haven't translated yet to the public markets? And I guess what I mean by that is you've seen the rise. There's been an increase in biotech funding. It's still troughed from the 2020 level, but it looks like it is recovering. And have you noticed a shift in where investments are being made in the private space that may show up in the public markets? And whether it's oncology, whether it's weight loss, whether it's cardiovascular or musculoskeletal, what are the buckets of investment spend that you're seeing? So from-- I don't think there's a bubble in private. I was at a private VC conference. And the valuations are reasonable, I would say. Maybe slightly expensive, but they're all expensive, private. But it's not like high-and-sky craziness. The things that come up a lot are, again, like next-gen self-therapies, gene therapies, anything longevity. There's a lot of money being thrown at longevity. I'm not driving those. You started to see some copycats in psychedelics a little bit. Copycats are-- Just they're taking an utility patent from a psychedelic tweaking it a little bit and say, OK, we can apply it to this market within-- this subset market of depression. OK. So you can think about depression as an example. It is one of the biggest marks in the world. But there's certain subsets of depression, like super severe depression, PTSD, love of depression, like there's just all these different subsets where different mode therapies can be applied. So I've seen it seeing that oncology is always going to be hot. It's always going to be relatively well-funded. I'm seeing more very specific things, like retinol or hearing or deer loss, eye loss, or it is starting to pick up. I would say those are the big areas and funding space from a capital cycle perspective. So where do you think is still the most exciting if you had to drill down to that theme? Like pick a theme. You could only invest in one theme in biotech healthcare, where would it be? Like in the public markets? Yes. I would say gene therapy and cell therapy. OK. Because there's still so much-- there's two things that is holding back gene therapy and cell therapy. Well, gene therapy specifically. It's-- you haven't found a massive blockbuster yet. Like that's still yet to be discovered. And the second thing is no one trusts gene therapy. I think it's new injectant poison. Not only see poison, but you're modifying a lot of-- you're modifying DNA that can cause cancerous things like that. And I think that will be disproven this cycle. I'm not saying that gene therapies can't cause those issues. Yeah. But I think that there will be drugs out there where you will have as close to a cure or symptomatic cure as possible that is a gene therapy that will not cause those same health risks. We haven't had that yet. So that's where I think is the most interesting area. To focus on. What about genomics? I've heard genomics is kind of this buzz word. And the arc genomics ETF actually looks like it's trying to put in a bottom. And then genome, global genomics, and biotech ETF also looks pretty good. Is there anything in the genomics space? You mean the tools or like gene editing? Like arc gene things mostly tools like twist and TXG and I mean those those are different companies. Those are more like compounding companies where like they you know that revenue goes up gross margins go up gross problems go up. So if you look at our G, I think she's got 10 x genomics and twist biocyancin and I don't know what else she's got in there. But you know there's a lot of companies in her ETF or those ETFs that are seeing AI tailwinds like twistes and the I tailwinds that the narrative is that's a lot of you nailed twist. Yeah, I mean that was just through diligence and valuation. I'm like this doesn't make any sense valuation given what the business is at or it's inflicting where I see NGS growing where I see I didn't even need the AI stuff. It was just more this is ridiculous. We're getting we're getting there's a point in biotech where you overshoot so much it's laughable. A laughable. So which twist that's kind of why I started my sub stack which is when I started it. This is the time when like you could literally start to abort and like this is nuts. Yeah, nuts you stuff. So with twist, what was what was the laughable part about that because I don't know anything about the company. It was just how to value. A something like two to two and a half times enterprise value sales for a company that is growing 20% a year for a really long time. That is effectively I don't say single source supplier, but a very strategic supplier to the entire NGS diagnostic community. The gear they are arms dealer to your personalist, to your billionaire one to your Neteris, to your all these guys need twist. And so if the biggest knife fight in diagnostics is oncology diagnostics, right? Like go look in the terrace charcoal, I mean, the terror was his biggest position. Yeah, so if you look at all these coming to just in a massive knife like garden health, they're all in massive knife. It's grail, not knife fight. The biggest the arms dealer to all that is twist. And if you believe that that data will be valuable for AI tools like tempis, then twist is like the arms dealer to AI. It is these single source. Now the second piece is they're getting orders from hyperscalers. I mean, hyperscalers want a bunch of DNA, right? So they can run their AI models through them, or what lab through them. Yeah. And you know, the narrative with twist was, my capital cycle perspective was here's this commodity producer, it just makes DNA, since this is DNA on a chip they call it. Well, it happens to be a commodity that no one can replicate. Okay, so how does that work? And so that's why trade, especially in the vulnerable, and incredibly low valuation was this during a time when people wanted to see cat backs come down or op X come down, you want to see profitability. The famous word profitability, I want to see EPS gap. Like the moment these things print EPS gap gap EPS, it's done. It's 250 a share, like 300 share, like it's game over. Like that's not anyone who's anyone who knows the space knows like the moment you're printing gap EPS on any of this stuff, the trade is over. The IRR is going from 50 to 40 to 15 to 20, and now the generalists have come in. Hmm, and so then you just buying like, well, would they miss on the quarter and then maybe you get a shot there, but the trade's done, trade's done. So it was just at a comical valuation when it should be trading at a much more premium secular valuation. Is this narrative shift from cyclical to secular? Yeah, those are the kinds of left tail like investments that can generate really high returns. And the story's not done. Like I think we go to triple digit on twist. Wow. So yeah, narrative shift and valuation can be very powerful for something that is effectively a one of one in the United States. So what about something like a 10X genomics, which I know you've written about, I'm just going through kind of your, yeah, that one's more, that one's a bit more, you know, you start off with twist. That's like TX, like the next layer of like you, as you go up these layers, right? They start to sort of cascade. It's in that same vein. It's more capital capital equipment cycle a bit more for that one. Okay. So you might get a little more torque, but you might get a little more violence on the downside. I would say that twist is a bit more quality. It's like the fran, interim franchise value. But, you know, if you go from TX to you, even if you talk about some of the diagnostics, they start to become more knife fighting and cause them to press and knife fights. And so you can get air pockets, you can get drawdowns that are pretty severe. And I don't like it. So. - And when you say layers, what's the best way to like take something like a twist? And then go up the upstream and then downstream to kind of get this holistic view, right? So someone like myself, that's a generalist, like I take twist and like I'm able to cover a lot of ground. So like how would you, how would you go about that process of like, okay, let's start with twist, like and then use twist to get to know as much as you can about the entire genomic space. - Yes, I wrote a piece on genomic space and on the blog, just covering kind of generally. the whole ecosystem. I think that's another secular tale when it was AI was, I think you're going to see a lot more generalists come in because you basically have a biotic analyst in your pocket now. Yeah, like go in there and get a good version of it and just talk about what is the ecosystem around? Twist, TXG, Illumina, Grail, blah blah blah, list all the names and it'll map out massive ecosystems around you. And you know, these research tools, you know, that AI provides is just incredible for learning a lot very quickly. And I'll just show you sort of a layer of how they interact with each other who supplies what, and like. So how are you using AI in your process? Like has that changed how you analyze stuff, and find new ideas, research things. Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, what is AI brings the cost of knowledge to zero? Right? And the biggest input to biotech is knowledge. I guess the biggest cost, right? So I don't know every single drug in the world. Like I'm not a, you know, not a god or I think. So yeah, you might see, I might see, for example, a drug company that I haven't heard before or maybe I don't know what just but I don't remember why I had watched this and it's down a lot. I'm like, what happened? Walk me through the data or wise it up so much. Walk me through this drug and it'll tell me like, so I'll learn a pretty quick one. In terms of like what is going on? My style of investing, I take a very concentrated approach and I, I, it's, it's just my style. I'm very, I'm kind of in that Charles Munger phase where it's just, I get really concentrated. I'm like a horse of blinders. I get super obsessed into the weeds with like three to four names. And so I sometimes could ask, Hey, this cancer drug is, is down. What do you think about it? And honestly, I, I don't know, like I couldn't tell you. But for people wanting to learn, I'm really quickly, yeah, I can provide a pretty good synopsis with what exactly is going on. Why it's down. What are the risks here? Is it overblown? I think they're pretty good at doing that. So I remember we had one podcast about unique here and just this crazy ride. So that's the, in my opinion, that's the big kahuna. That is, that is, if you want to see what comes out of a bubble and blows your mind, that's it. Like every biotic bubble creates monster biotic companies. Like I don't care what people think. Regeneron, Vertex, Gilead, all these companies, their products of bubbles, their products of secular stories that were well financed that have hit platforms that only exists if you have the right conditions, the right mix, at a right, the right time. Okay. And in my opinion, here's the big good one. That is the poster child for this bubble. Why? Yeah. That's right. So they are, this is again, my opinion based on the insane amount of research I've done. I've gone down a rabbit hole that I cannot even tell you to begin with. Like I'm actually traveling this week to the, to DC was an epilepsy conference because they are presenting here. But the companies that become really valuable or companies that have very high rates of R&D productivity, that's equivalent of a rising row, in a quality compounder. Okay. So the best of the best, the king of the castle for R&D productivity is Lily. They take one GLP or GLP one, they package it up for a bunch of different modalities like cardiovascular, Alzheimer's, dementia, breast cancer, melanoma, you name it, right? So you're doing one drug from multiple applications, same manufacturing, very synergistic, right? And then they upgrade and they upgrade that cycle constantly. That's a platform company. That's platform. You get on same thing, Elm Nilem same thing, one R&D technology, five drugs in the first five years. Okay. Here is that they are this M RNA gene therapy company. There's different sort of buckets to it. There's Lin Kierab here, Mike here. And right now, the big one is their Huntington disease drug aims, he won 30. What do they do with this gene therapy? Well, they go in and they silence the gene, right? So typically when you think about gene therapy, you're changing your DNA by adding something, you're adding an instruction. What this is doing is removing. Okay. So there's no, there's no risk like cancer, as an example. Yeah. You're removing instruction. You're telling it to quiet. And so this works for things like Huntington disease, which is toxic Huntington protein turn, turn the pipe off, like shut the pipe. Epilepsy, severe epilepsy, right? The the standard care for severe frontal epilepsy, drug use is an epilepsy is brain surgery, they literally snip piece your brain off or they burn it with a laser. Okay. What this does is it turns off that instruction. Okay. So epilepsy, Huntington, theoretically Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, okay? And so if you look at all these potential drugs, and you go down their patent, their their their their pool of patents, it's all related to A, B, F, A, V's manufacturing process process and gene therapy is the most that's where you get that's how you become big in biotech is fortifying the most and the patting IP portfolio around the process because the process is the source of your R&D productivity. And that's how you become a platform. That's how you become a railroad. The car goes almost irrelevant. The drugs are almost irrelevant is the railroad and the railroad can only be developed through a robust IP portfolio around manufacturing processes, eight, eight, five, things of that nature. And so imagine a platform company that has a anchor therapy for Huntington's an anger gene therapy for epilepsy, for drug use and epilepsy, the anchor therapy for Fabri's disease. And you just these are massive, massive, massive markets. And those therapies will then just redevelop this is think about the iPhone one, right? And there's iPhone two, three, four, five, all the way to 16, then they make development and fusion and they've made develop a pill and then you go down the list, it becomes a cold, so you have truth, which is this drug works, right? There's enough clinical evidence, reasonable clinical evidence should be approved. There's what the story is right now. Their epilepsy drug seems to work. There's therapy. It's like you have enough proof clinical proof that you might have a anchor therapy, running pins and anchor therapy for drug versus epilepsy. And those are the the sense or the taste of what you need for something to become a very large company. That's how you become, you don't become a less from fake science or you know, pionist guy science fiction stuff. Yeah. There has to be proof. And that's why I say this you have to buy discovery, not recovery, discover you've discovered a silencing treatment and anchor therapy for huntingman's you have discovered an anchor therapy for epilepsy. Like that is game changing gene therapy. There is no gene therapy that solves Parkinson's right now or epilepsy or like a million patients have epilepsy in America alone. Yeah. So you don't have that. I think that's where the next platforms are going to be developed in neuroscience and neurodegenerated diseases. That's where you get to 100 billion dollar biotech. That's how you get to 70 billion dollars. If I look at unique, unique yours chart, for those that don't know what happened in September, October of last year and then what happened the month after in November where it went from 17 all the way up to 70 and then back down to today where it's at 27. There's an old saying matriote for sure if I might like look at a stock charts past to give you a glimpse to its future. Right. And what happened there was these guys have a therapy for Huntington's disease in team of 30, which had fairly robust data and previous alignment under Peter Mark's FDA like Peter Mark C. Which is a Biden C. All of sudden, new FDA comes in because of the election and this FDA is implanted by sort of people who are more on the Arnold Venture side of things in the Mohammed movement. So they they the Arnold Ventures Infiltrator, the Maha movement basically in the FDA and that kind of Arnold Ventures approach is very much anti-bearing disease, anti-gene therapy to a degree. So why? Because these things cause a lot of money. And so they basically said to them, we don't agree with the alignment that you previously had our previous FDA. And so we recommend that you do a face-to-face trial, which is bad for a drug company because they have to burn cash. Yeah. Typically. So the cash is no good, no, no good, right? Now, they don't have to do an empty, they don't have to do face through trial, right? Like, I think this sort of people, if I'm in New York City and you tell me that my restaurant, I have to hire a server or a waiter for $50 an hour, you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna close up the restaurant, I'm gonna go to Jersey, I'm gonna open a restaurant where I hire people at a more reasonable wage and then I'm gonna advertise in the New York Times. And that's how I'm gonna do, right? So that's why the stock's down because they got rugpulled and we don't know what, you know, investing in biotech don't like mind political bets, they don't like being in that, they don't know, they can't assess that. And so in a lot of times of biotech, you wanna buy when an asset's been D-Rist, it's been D-Rist if you get the proper FDA and you get the proper results, the meeting is proper alignment, they can submit the BLA, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, right? So biotech invested like really like the spoken scientific diligence. And so what happened with Union Care was you're in this political tug of war where, you know, you have the previous FDA saying, we don't agree with how everything was done, you gotta do phase three, advocates rose up and wrote to their senators and wrote to their congressmen and eventually got, you know, presided out, head of the FDA's out, everyone from one of the dentures who was there was out and you are now waiting, you have interim leadership and waiting for eventually a permanent head. And so that's still the headwind technically, you don't know what the decision's gonna be, are they gonna be allowed to apply for a accelerated approval? Who's gonna be the new FDA head? Who's gonna be the new C-BRE head? Who's gonna be the C-BRE head? We don't know, these are all just dark clouds over the FDA right now. The FDA has a credibility issue, you are denying patients with no standard of care, a therapy that reverses the disease or rather slows it down, right? So if you're like, you're not doing this for a haunting tense, what are you gonna do for Parkinson's? What are you gonna do for Alzheimer's? What are you gonna do for some of these other drugs? We don't trust you, there's a credibility problem. And so until that's resolved, there'll always be an overhang on the stock, which is why now I sort of like, no one's like that. - Yeah, that's amazing. So when you bet, so when you bet concentrated like this, and you say it's probably one of the biggest setups in biotech, but then you also have this weird overhang, how do you position size for something like that? - You position size where you say, the way I do it is I position size where I'm always, again, my framework is I live in the left tail. I've lived through the worst and I'm living through the worst. So in a, my bare case is the trade set up becomes a double, like that's my worst case, why do I say that? Because I don't need the US for this thing to be valuable. Right, they're gonna get a little bit approved in the UK, they're gonna prove it in Australia, they're gonna prove in Japan, they're gonna prove in the EU. I go down the list of like the cascading effects of what all this means. From an aeronautical perspective, they get a fairly valuable company, like on its own, and then I add up like a sum of the parts. Like a second, what's the favorite word? What's epilepsy word? What's cash and balance sheet? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't need the US approval to, you know, get the green light here in terms of like what my upside could be. If I get a US and everything else, yeah, okay, then you have something that's very, very, very violent. But the way I've set up the trade is more just my downsides protected, I've seen the dark side of everything. I was there when the thing dropped from $25 to $8. Like I've been there, right? But that kind of stuff doesn't phase me if I have very high confidence based on my own work that, oh, like the UK government, the UK approval is worth X, and EU approvals are worth Y. Australia approvals worth Z, the Gulf states are worth, you know, A, you go down the list. And so I've, you know, this is not a scenario where this goes to zero. This is scenario where you're buying a pre-commercial asset for a science-project evaluation. Hmm, that's the framework. Yeah, and those are easier to, those are easier bets to make because I'm not necessarily betting on biology. This is not a biological bet. I don't like concentrating in biological bets. I don't like concentrating in the ability for, to get rug on whether the drug works. I don't like that because it's too risky. So, well, that's how I feel like in mining, right? It's like you're buying a pre-discovery play that's like they, you know, they're like an explorer that's trying to drill into the, into the earth to see if there's anything there. It's like, I don't want to do that. I want, like I'd much rather have a company that's got a bunch of drill results that have drilled, you know, 20,000 meters and you know something's there. Maybe you can define a resource. 'Cause that's always kept, it's always kept in your mind's with biotech. You could think of your mining example for Unicure. We like imagine you had a mining company that found one of the greatest deposits you've ever seen. But for some reason, the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, has slowed down their ability to approve work on this mine. The mine's there. There's value in the mine, but the government has stopped it from pursuing-- Basically like Teble. Yeah, it's a Teble mine. So yeah, right, exactly. And so, you know, those kinds of setups, I can size it a bit more because it's really just betting on political wins and political wins change very often, especially when you're dealing with people's lives. Yeah. I'm not betting on, oh man, I really hope this drill result works. And I really hope it comes back with a positive readout. Like those are-- Those are-- I don't like that. The go-sets. Right? There's a company I like right now called Caravus, CRVU. I'll give you an example. So these guys have-- They were sort of by a student or with Jennifer Dundee. Jennifer Dundee is the founder of CRISPR. And so she had all these offshoots of these companies. They're students at Berkeley. And so, Caravus, one of them. They have a drug called CB, I think it's like 001 for my Loma. The results are outstanding. Right? I mean, a negative 91% MRD. MRD is minimal residual testing, basically. How much of the cancer can we detect in your blood? Yeah. The standard of hair, which is Johnson, Johnson, multi-billion dollar drug, is like 75%, 80%. These guys are printing 91%. OK? So that is like, levels above. OK? But the stock is trading below enterprise value. Like the cash is more cash from balance even than what the enterprise is worth. And part of the risk there is, well, we want to see durability. It's only been around 15 months. Can we see 24 months? OK. We don't know the dilution. Is it going to have to dilute more? OK. Yeah, sure. So there is an example where like biologies robust. But we want to see durability. We want to see continued efficacy, continued safety, and possibly dilution. Those are harder setups, despite the fact that the data is good, and the results are good to size up. Because it's not that you're buying a science project. You're just buying something that hasn't fully de-risked. And I don't like making those kinds of biological bets. Unicure is very simple. The drug on its merits today should have been approved on an accelerated approval. But you had a rogue seabird head who is going to face and the FDA who are going to have problems with Congress who are going to be in trouble who might get sued. That didn't apply proper administrative procedure and procedural law for a drug that is a one-of-one. And that's OK. The UK is coming, because the UK will approve it. Yeah. And so once that gets approved, then you have a big problem. How can you say it's an American that you are beating China by a ticket canning with the UK? So those setups are easier to size. Now, is there a risk? Sure. Can I continue to have a rogue seabird head who is going to force them to face three trials? Sure. Does that mean that they have to do a face-to-trowel? No. But can there be pain still? Absolutely. I mean, it's biotrically. It was soon getting a nuts kicked. But it's very different than trying to bet on whether the drilling results are correct and or whether patients follow it has a problem. They're sending it without a fact. That's an incredible data. But the moment that you get a sniff at one patient over a number of months might get cancer, stop drops to the percent of the day. Yeah. Right? I don't like those setups I don't really do. Yeah. So that's why I'm trying to find stuff that honestly just has revenue. I'm just filtering it. I want something that's got revenue, even if it's a low base, because it shows me that you've got a product that you're selling to market. And the way I'm going about it now with creating this biotech basket is I'm really just looking for stocks that have had bombed out charts, looking at the 5 to 10-year chart and seeing what's been super bombed out but what's like moving? over a short period of time. So like what are the one to three month winners in like the worst 10 year charts? And I'm finding a lot of interesting things. And like just off the cuff, like, you know, TGTX, TG Therapeutics, I don't know if you've looked at them. - Not mostly. - Yeah, but they do, you know, seven and a half billion dollar company. They're in, you know, they do novel treatments for B cell and autoimmune diseases. And it's got, you know, it's got a product pipeline. They're trading at, you know, 17 times earnings, growing revenue. It's, you know, it's, it's one of those things where it's like, oh, like that chart's super bombed out. I'm also looking at like a very standard, like West Pharmaceuticals. Like I really like West chart. And, and then I also look at things like you mentioned the UK, novo Nordisk a couple days ago, just got approved for its Wigovie pill in the UK. And I look at novo and it's down 70% from its highs. And like to me, that seems super fascinating. And, you know, I just, I just, I guess to pick your brain, like with novo, like, I look at novo and then I look at lily. And lily stock has just crushed it. It's crushed everybody. So like why can't, like, what did novo do wrong? That lily got right if they're both kind of in the same GLP one theme. - Yeah, I mean, a lot of that stuff is really just about the label and having the next gen and extending your patent. So we'll go be, I think is the buy here because they have a very unique label that lily doesn't have for a short period of time. So I think it could catch up to lily. I would say that I'll just go back to your original point, which is what you're trying to find is it really depends on kind of game you're on play. So if you want to, if you want to say to me, what are like things that are absolutely going to go insane and above? Okay. And let's stick with like life science tools, for example, life science tools are not biotechs. Like those are things with revenue, gross profits, they grow, they're secular. Okay. So you need to start with, I'm honestly, it's, you got to go through RQG. Like if you really, you got to go through that kind of, those kinds of profile companies that lose money, I know it's really bad to say, but this is, I had to joke with a friend. It's shit co-season. It is time to buy the optical shit co's, which are money losing, SBC driven companies, because those are the first to move. That the smart money goes there first. The stuff that moves last are your West, Dan Erich, and Daniels. That's your last. Like the moment those are moving, you get out of everything you're about to relate it. Because those were generalists are, and generalists in this space are, the generalist funds are, I like to say, the dumb money. In this space. Yep. And so now you could theoretically buy Dan Erich here, is I think it's at near and all time low, or maybe should cover a little bit. And that should proxy for how early you borrow in this biotech bubble. Like the fact that it has not moved at all, is a good sign. Okay, and that should be your proxy. There's like, well, you know, when you're asking, I think it's actually gonna rip. It's gonna be like a twist, your TXG's, it's gonna be your primes, your caribou, your sandals, those are more biotech, but they're still like, again, you're buying discovery, you're auxileras, AVCL, like platform companies that are having next-gen therapeutics that can lend in license things, can out license things. They're very nimble organizations. They have next-gen technology that, you know, have incredible science that they're building other things around. - Mm-hmm. - Again, I go back to the word platform. You want to buy platform companies in biotech, okay? And then on the tool side, you want to buy things that are indispensable, again, growing very high, having during franchise value, high gross profits, that are kind of in that 2015 to 2020 IPO vintage, 2021 IPO vintage. - Cool. - Because those are the next-gen companies that can do fairly well. Like take Peter Teel's billion to one, BLLN. - I did, that's so funny. I literally just looked at that this morning. - So that one, I went to road about it, so that it was probably buying a 60s, but it was, you know, they have next-gen technology when it comes to, you know, cancer detection, as an example. - Yeah. - And so, you kind of want to buy those kinds of companies where they can really start to move. And the IPO that I'm seeing in the market, like Billion Teel ones real, this is a science project. The IPO's you're seeing today in healthcare, life science, biotech, are real, they're real companies. The moment you're seeing science projects is when like, okay, the easy money's been made, so to speak. Right? But if you're like, park and ride, like park and ride, okay, yeah, you got your shit coast from Margie, as I call it, I'm just gonna label them, high level. We'll show you a twist for TXGs, anything in there. Rapid biosystems, RPIDs and other one that I like, that's again, optically money losing shit go but an actually good business. And then if you want to go move more up into the sacred zones or play, that are more general's compounders, replgins, are notorious, are the other two. Those are pure plays, right? The pure plays come next. Those are the bioprocessing companies. And then eventually over time, you get to the general of the editors. The general of that, there is like a shopping mall, it's a shopping mall for pharma. Eat everything on fire. You need low rates, you need a good FDA administration and head, you need an NIH budget on fire, you need an administration who's like serious about science. You need everything at once all at once, biotic funding at record highs, pharma spending, they're cash like crazy. Everything's on fire, okay? That's how I would probably do it. It's Staminados and other ones. Staminados is a good company. Similar to West, smaller STVN. Oh, I just found, yeah. So I mean, if you really want, like I want a compounder sleeve, I don't really have to think about, and I could do 15 IRRs for like a real long time, that go buy, replgins, staminados, or even satarians call it a day. If you want, I want a bubble basket of things where like what is going to like rip my face off? Okay, or that kind of level, it's an I wrote about this is like, with the term platform that has an element of truth to it, prime editing, PRME, personnel can do something like that. Abselara, AVCL, SANA, S-A-N-A, caribou, CRVU, and then the big Kahuna, which is cure. Yeah. And the drug companies, they're like your oil, shale, discoverers, your mining companies. They're going to get the majority of the unit economics. Right, like, unique cure has a cure for Huntington's or for epilepsy or whatever, you know, they're going to see 90% of girls margin and 50% net margins with an R&D productivity that's through a roof on a platform. Yeah, path into manufacturing processes. Yeah, that's the whole mark of a 50 billion plus biotech company. It's a 50 bagger, right? The life science tools or more attacks on that. Right. I think about it. I mean, clear point is a good example where great company, excellent management team, can that get torqued in a bubble? Yeah, there's only 20 million shares outstanding or 20 million shares outstanding. That's a tax on unique cure's Huntington's drug, but the unit economics are different. One makes 20 grand for procedure. It makes 3 million for procedure. Yeah, so, you know, but if you put the chart, if you put their charts over, it's the same trade. It's the same thing. The unit cure needs, the clear point needs unit cure to get over the finish line for the rest of their call options, their drug companies to be valued fairly. So, you know, and I would put clear point again, money, quote unquote, money losing, shit, co, ha, ha, ha, like in that basket, like get a bunch of those, get some compounders and get some platform biotech call it a day. All nylon is a platform biotech. I think that's the safer company. ALNY. Oh, nice down. It's actually down. I mean, this thing has been unbelievable compounder. So, I mean, yeah, the things, I'll say this thing's been cut 43%. That's interesting. Yeah, they like a margin uptick on pricing on the next three years and they have some good, a very strong pipeline. So why, so why do get cut so much? Well, there's been some issues with like, you know, the comp this year on some of the drugs that they currently have, like growth slowing down. I guess it's also 10 times sales, right? Yeah, I mean, that's platform company. One that's so platform so like 10 times sales would be a median valuation for these platform companies. You think median valuation for mature biotech mature again, they're talking about five to 10 drugs off one technology, which no one can circumvent and they own the railway, right? They have the manufacturing process for it. Yeah, process is the most in selling generically. And like just look how good that look up well they perform since what, 2011, 12, 10 like, you know, so that that's one, our gen X or ARG, ARGX, it's another platform. I like that one too. Again, those are more like, I guess in the four 15 to 20 IRRs maybe 25 maybe 22 for El Nile Yeah, depending on how you want to want to factor it in can more compound arrest biotech like the the the The common Not I guess the common like sentiment around people is like you can't have compounders in biotech. That's just not true Yeah, I just El Nile Vertex Argenics crystal K.R.Y.S. like go look how those things have done over less five to ten years Yeah, I mean this thing I mean crystal I peered at 12. It's at 325 Yeah, last one platform those are platform companies So a lot of people like play drug readouts Which is like oh binary coin flip-s kind of thing And El Nile am used to be that back in the day back in 2009, you know, it was a $10 stock Money losing again money losing shit go back in 2010 or whatever it was 2012 I think it was mm-hmm now it's 300 dollars a share, but it was 500 dollars a share not too long ago So you know these companies can become platform and platforms is how you compound Yeah, yep, no, I think and that's that's kind of like how I'm thinking about this basket is like You know, you get maybe your The picks and shovels plays like the West Pharmaceuticals Replication things like that But then you also have on the other end of the barbell like you know your Your genomics plays your higher torque stuff Have you looked at As a as like another kind of model that I'm thinking about is The downstream effects of GLP ones and how that affects like health care and biotech and one of the areas To me that seems interesting is like the aesthetics Industry and like you know, so obviously like you got your breast implants cosmetics Botox Things things like that like how do you how do you view those opportunities as GLP wanted Jason through GLP one beneficiaries long term I typically stay away from that tech stuff just because I know what I know and I know what I don't know I mean, so when I say that it's not like I understand meant tech. It's just It becomes a massive modeling assumption which I just don't think the ROI is there of my time. I'll give you an example So if you will with all these new Regretitude, I think it is called like the new weight loss drug How how will that impact knee replacements? So you got to go and you got a model like well, how's it can impact boss scientific and metronic and striker and like all these different companies And maybe it doesn't and that's why the software all down. I mean How much would it impact prostate surgeries prostate cancer? I mean maybe some right yeah So you know surgical is gonna come down a lot like the multiple is gonna get re rated And you just go down a list like orthopedics and hip surgeries and knee surgeries and toe surgery sleep apnea with resmed Dexcom is you know, they don't have problem insulate pod pODD is gonna problem So you go down the list of all these like S&P 500 S Medtech companies And you're like I have to go through a massive modeling assumption scenario to figure out what the IRR would be and I figured oh shit the IRR is maybe 20% from year or 35% from year like the IRR is not that great Yeah, and so I typically try to avoid it. GLP wanted you just adjacent things I like to go to places where I think Are a little bit harder a little more untouched and that's really the like I said the cell and gene therapies Anything that's a tax on biologics like replagen stebinato west All the diagnostics even are effectively and maybe they're a bit more removed taxes on With the function of the gene gene editing gene therapies cell therapy like that's The those in the areas that are gonna talk the most yeah, that's what the highest growth is So Like you know you go back to chemimetic as an example like I was another one that we talked about a while ago That was just sell counting Right if they ripped like crazy on the advent of biologics right um And so I think those are those are the areas where you can probably do okay if you if you have a basket Approach to all this What about um You're like what what what do you think is like the most Contrarian play in biotech here like you've talked about stuff that you really like that you think is gonna Work and and maybe some of that's a little bit like not consensus, but definitely not contrarian like do you have any contrarian takes In biotech that you don't see anyone else having I mean like my take on unicure is very i'm in the minority, you know, I mean I am not uh I'm not the majority. I mean that's why the stocks where it is yeah So I mean like I just I think one thing I would caution is people think from about like AI is gonna be this massive Tailwind to biotech and it will but on the discovery side not on that clinical side like you still have to go Fantastic on humans you still have to um, you know run clinical trials It still takes a really long time for these things to get developed so you know a lot of people are maybe don't like the You know Charles rivers or You know companies that historically we're doing some pre clinical research or outsource pre clinical research But you know those guys are gonna eventually start to move into the clinical trial stuff and they already are there I might do contract manufacturing Which again is what you're gonna need like they the valuable companies and in advent of AI are gonna be the companies that can show process And those are gonna be like your platform companies and companies that um You know That have the capacity to manufacture at scale like a lawns-a So I get from a contrarian perspective I don't really have anything overarching yeah, I would say that I'm right now in one of large contrarian trade Um, and I would just temper You know people who are not in the left-science or biotech space Thinking that AI is gonna be this massive Uh tailwind just temper those expectations. It will be a tailwind for discovery or molecule design or figuring out the right capsize and again those things get come up ties out anyway but it will not Do much in terms of getting through those clinical trials and um In fact you could even see you could argue that I'll make clinical trials more uh Honourous where You know you used to have right now because we don't really know You know you can have a 10 to 15 phase 2 trial But if you have AI supplementing you Let me see look AI is Figured out that the impact of this patient in phase two would be x. Well, you know what let's confirm it with 200 patients now Or 100 patient hours right now if you go faster in the clinic, they might ask you to do more and so So that's another I guess you know balancing act yeah, but that's probably what I would say uh From from my takes so I should Got it. I feel so you know, it's funny. I uh I felt this way when I first started in commodities and metals and mining Like I feel really dumb Looking at these companies. I'm like I know Nothing It's like very overwhelming, but I think it the the the beautiful thing about AI now is You know, I can't go into cloud and and just say hey You know, give me a whole breakdown explain all of this like I'm a fifth grader and and but don't you know Remove any of the valuable stuff like just you know really synthesizes for me And then also creating those maps like I think that's going to be a helpful exercise for me It's like understanding you know all of these value chains and and you know None of this would be possible really without these AI tools because like you said like the knowledge is is the gating factor and You know that that that's another because this part of the tailwind to biosonic which is now every fund Generalist has a biotic analyst in their pocket Yeah, and so it's going to be far easier to allocate flows and funds Into an ecosystem or sector because you can learn how really quick on it like if you did not know What twist txg? Illuminate billion into one personality how all these things interact or what they do or you know what the What the flows look like you can learn up very quickly and say oh, okay Maybe I don't need to wait for EPS gap maybe I can change my IPS and my policy for my fund because I've learned a lot about what these things can do I understand the unit economics. I'm going to allocate some capital here Right, I can learn a bit more about a drug come it's oh wow like wait a minute You know my original thought was most biotechs were basically coin flips that you lose 90% on But there's a few handful here that are actually platforms yeah and platforms is how you get rolic That's how you get your return on mr cap and biotech And you learn up but hey, we might have some compounders here. Okay. I can know that actually I like allocate to that so if you have a biotic analyst in your pocket Little list you have or life science tools analyst in your pocket Like that is another I think that's an underrated Bad would be my contrarian take which is You might get flows in the space because people are learning faster Yep. Uh, on in in the States and something that would have had a compression. multiple or neglected might get one sooner. Like, they make more fair, normalize sooner. So that's how I kind of see it at scale with AI. Like, if you want to go learn about repulgin, sort of, where do you do and where they are on the ecosystem, I mean, cloud teach you that in two seconds, 30 seconds. What are the best resources to just learn, like, and to read the stount of a new stuff, like, and getting into the habit of reading about biotech and healthcare, like any sort of, you know, RSS feeds, blah, you know, obviously we'll pitch your sub stack, but anything else out there? Um, as long as I was reading, it's like clinical trial abundance. That's on sub stack. It's a clinical trial abundance. I have to pull up the name, but they'll go through like, hey, scientific discoveries of the week, you know, or, um, they'll, they'll have, uh, you know, the latest technology that we've seen or something that's been in the news, right? And so, uh, I think that's a good one where you find new drugs, uh, things that have been in the news. Like, I found on that one, for example, there's a stock called M-A-N-E main. And that one, they basically have a cure to baldness. Like, the, the, the, the drug is so, the data was so good. Wow. Um, I mean, it's up 150% from its IPO. I mean, if that data holds, again, if the data holds, right? We don't know if the data holds that's going to be aware. Like that will take out, like the standard of care and it's a pill. And doesn't have any, like major side effects. So, you know, I, uh, a five find it out, I'll find the exact name for you. But it's like clinical trial. Is it the clinical trial's abundance blog? Something like that. I think that's where I found it. So, and yeah, there's some good sub stacks out there that I recommend. Um, and I usually just go through like a rabbit hole and I surf a little bit and find some other ones. But yeah, there are some ones that can, you know, what science is, if it's good reason to week, whether we learn today. Um, so yeah, I, I, sub stacks actually great tool. If, if you have time to surf, that's what I recommend. Do you find yourself using sub stack more than X for like idea generation and things like that? I find I'm using sub stack more for like more in depth knowledge learning. So to speak for a degeneration like your idea generation. I'm still, I'm still a lot on X for sure. Um, but sub stack is starting to creep in a little bit. Just because there are, there's some good writers out there. And, you know, I'm subscribed to quite a few now. So, but, but X is, is great for just like finding that ticker. The, you know, the usage, I, you know, I use a lot more than the sub stack. We're still number one or X is the number one. Yeah. Awesome. Well, Peter, this is always a great exercise. And as, you know, I'm as someone that's starting to build their basket, their, their biotech basket and just kind of look into the space a little bit more. I always enjoy talking to you about all these things. And you'll be in, you'll be in DC. You'll be in my neck of the woods coming up, man. I will. Yeah. Yeah. You know, and it's interesting. I mean, like, here's a great example in, in this conference, you have like, there is a, like a subset or a section completely dedicated to solving their epilepsy. Huh. So, you know, you have the runner presenting a couple of other one of the unique you're presenting. So you have like these treatments that are one and done. Imagine you have epilepsy and you are afraid of driving because you, once you get it, you might get into crash and die. Yeah. And if you offer that person, hey, here's this one time therapy and you never have to have one or 90% of the time you will not have one. Would you do it? Yeah, most people would say yes. Yeah. Right. So that's the world we're getting into. Like, that's pretty exciting. Like, that's the narrative or the salt or the spice, whatever you want to call it, that bubbles are formed off. Yeah. Elements of truth. Yeah. No, I think it's like, you know, it's it's another thing too is I just think we're shifting more and more like and, you know, maybe this is wrong, but like, you know, you've got call it the boomer population, the silver tsunami as, as as one of my friends calls it. And you mentioned it earlier in the podcast, but there's a huge shift towards this longevity, right? Like, it's not like the Brian Johnson, like, extreme, but it's like, people have this desire to now want to take care of their bodies and want to live healthier, fuller lives. And we didn't even discuss things like peptides, which have become like a huge, this kind of like niche market that's that's that's blown up and, and like, you're just seeing like these things crop up where, you know, five, 10 years ago, I just don't know if like the aesthetics and the longevity demand was there. And now it's met with like this AI innovation that allows drugs to be discovered and therapies to be discovered much more quickly. Yeah, I mean, like, the G.L.P. ones is basically longevity drug. If you lose weight, you will live longer. Yeah, right. I mean, even even even AMD 130 with Huntington's, I mean, Huntington's is these you get it up 30 if it's aggressive and you like die of 50 55. Okay, well, if you now you get this therapy, you could live to like your 80 or 85 right? Yeah, the longevity stuff is also a couple of short, especially with the golden silver silver, as you say, like the aging population is so residami, so residami is reimbursed. Is someone going to reimburse a million dollar Parkinson's drug for guy who's 80 years old, right? And I might live another 10 years. Yeah, that's a harder come. Tonning can easily, like if you get it at 30, like to people who have a Huntington's example is imagine you have like a guy who works at I would say, like he works on Nike makes 300 K year and it isn't exact. Okay, you know, he gets Huntington's a 30. He has he's done his job at 40. His wife has to leave her job to care for him. He's in a hospital bed, right? He's he's done. So you want from upper middle class to lower middle class and like a generation. Okay, that's Huntington's. So if someone takes his therapy, they go back to work, they continue to pay, sent in your United Health, their health premiums, right, the justification and talking about a long life, right? Like the payback period is very easy to figure that one out. Yeah, but for some of the things that are more age related as opposed to you, you don't have a long life. You know, are you going to pay $2 million for an Alzheimer's patient who might die in five years? Yeah, that's the harder piece. The rebuttal to what I'm saying is these markets are so big, maybe you don't have to charge a million bucks. But, but like I know, those are the questions that I have in my head versus Huntington's. It's easy. It's like, yeah, this guy's 30s and the prime working inch of his life. It's going to cost you $7 million to treat him with hospital beds and physical therapists and nurses and other shit like over his 25 year life. The 75 years span. Yeah, 3 million once you're done is pretty awesome. So yeah, that's the only thing I have in my head. But yeah, I think one, like this, your inversion 1.0 of this longevity trade. And what does that look like? It's obviously health and wellness. It's gel P1s next gen gel P1s. It's gene and cell therapies like all these things are meant to extend life. I mean, even take the initial clear point. You're always talking about a DC deficiency, which is children are born without dopamine in their head. Okay. I mean, you get this thing at 2 you did it for like a done. But now you get the gene therapy. These kids are going 10, 12 years old, 15 years old. They can live a life. Okay. These are all going to be part of that longevity. Peace. Right. And so, you know, I think you're in a really interesting time where I go back to my original quote, which is you want to buy discovery. Who what have we discovered? We had discovered that wow, we can treat major disease like Huntington's or epilepsy or Parkinson's or wow, we can extend the life to 105 years now. And wow, like cancer is now 70% of Americans get cancer, like live a long life. It's no longer a death sentence. Wow, like we discovered. Not cure to pancreatic cancer, but something that makes it less of a death sentence. Okay, wow, you want to buy that in a bubble because the truth starts to extrapolate really fast. And you see that in a short glimpse with something like twist wow DNA synthesis is a true bottleneck to AI drug discovery and biosecurities also a problem. And this is going to become a national security issue and the only player in the United States, you can really do this wow. Right. This is the ASML and TSMC of the entire synthetic biologics trade. What about DNA computing, which is also something that they have and that's real right who invested in their DNA computing spin off the CIA and Bayzo's and always other guys. They do not throw on money and something fake stuff right wow again truth proof and discovery over recovery. That's the trade that's my final party words like that's what. Why, Dan and her aren't working right now. Those are recovery traits. They're coming out of a COVID tip ahead when. They're coming out of vaccines, things like that. They eventually will work, right? And that's why I go back to shit co-season is a derivative of discovery, not recovery. Right, those are my credit words for you or for people in their portfolio as if you want to think about where you're going. - So I just got transported into some like, I don't know, you're just preaching to me for a second. There was this religious experience. (laughing) It's like, oh my gosh. I need to full port into biotech right now. - Yeah, I mean, it's just the full, I'm a capital cycle whisperer. That's all I do, right? Like, I just, I know, I just, I know where the left tail is and I just bet really big when I see it. - Well, you brought up the left-truth. - The left-truth. Like, with the, almost like taking the national strategic approach, right? You see this everywhere. You see this decoupling, whether it's critical minerals, whether it's robotics, whether it's AI. Like, why can't a drug discover, or why can't a gene therapy, or why can't some sort of modality, biotech modality become nationalistic or strategic, right? Like, if you play this out, like, do you really want to inject something with maybe a Chinese or a potential foreign, quote unquote, enemy of the US? Like, do you want to inject Americans with a foreign-made product that you may be in a cold war with, or in a hot war with? Like, just the same as like, the US is now discovering, oh, do we really want the Chinese to, do we really want Chinese magnets in our F-16s that we can then maybe go use to ward off a Taiwanese attack? Like, you know, you, like these questions. - So that's where the value is going to accrue to the, I call it the railroad, which is the process, like that's the infrastructure, right? So you don't want to have Chinese DNA, you know, discovering drugs, or being part of us, and this is to discover therapies. You don't want to have Chinese A/V, you don't want to have Chinese equipment, you don't want to have Chinese, you know, like processes in there, you want it all in, but the American pharmaceutical industry kind of knows that and kind of knows those risks, 'cause you're dealing with people's lives anyway. So a lot of their processes are manufacturing, a lot of their infrastructure is already very domestic. - Yeah. - Because it has this regular by the FDA, where the FDA will come into your factory and notice dust on my throat and shut you down. So it's a very different kind of environment in other areas, where it becomes a little more different is, hey, we've developed some technology that can extend our populations life by 10 years. Like the average life expectancy in the next 25, 35 years might be 110 years old, is like, and okay, yeah, America will want all that processes in the United States. Quest is a DNA, it's DNA on a chip. It's to calculate false positive errors on cancer testers, for example, or for biosacrity. Like if you do a thumbprint, or facial recognition, that it will be DNA to read, okay? Do you want Chinese DNA in there reading your DNA? No. So there is a biosacrity element to it as well. Even for weapons, like, twist as a massive bios, or well, I think we'll have eventually a massive biosacrity, because they have a biosacrity business. I think it's partnered with Microsoft. But yeah, these things can eventually have a national security implication. They will have a national, American scientific sector, your biotech sector is of national security importance. Like it is, yeah, how America continues to run. America is nothing without its people. And if the people are healthy, you have a greater tax base, right? You have more powerful armies, you have more powerful economies, you have people in great company, and people can do things like I told you about hunting disease. You go from upper middle class to lower middle class in a generation. Imagine you eradicate that. Yeah. Like that, that's what hunting consists. Yeah. So, yeah, this is a national, this certainly is a national interest to the United States. It's exciting stuff, man. Yeah, I'm sorry. Totally crazy stuff. Awesome. Well, I'll let you go. Let me, before I do, can you plug your sub-stack for everybody? Yeah, it's a bio-tn.bio, back in the NAC and bios. It's really, like I said, I started to help people look at biotech in different ways. I cover bio-tek and life science tools, everything's timestamp, meaning if I'm talking about it, it's in the bio-range now or in that range. Yeah. So, it's really meant to be a research intelligence signal for people who are interested in life sciences or biotech. Awesome. And then the last question that I ask everybody, and I've forgotten that you're two other answers. So, you could have anyone from the past or the present to have dinner with who to be and why. It's great. I've been going down like a philosophical binge lately, so, and I, maybe this is overrated, or maybe not, maybe not overrated, but I would say Aristotle, like I'm deep into his works now. I'm like, I have a massive appreciation of how smart that guy was. I mean, I always knew he was smart, but I mean, like, just to have those ideas and concepts, written 300 years before Christ is pretty insane. Like, how do you figure that out? Wait, like, how do you, it's amazing how smart people were back then, man. It's crazy. Someone said it was harder than we are. Yeah. I mean, I mean, it comes back to human incentive, and it comes back to, you give a lot of people time, I think maybe they can figure something out, right? I mean, that's what I'm an Isaac Newton. I mean, you didn't ever have a job, right? I can't. So, yeah, I'll probably say him. Awesome. All right, Peter, thanks so much, man. And I hope to see you in person when you're in DC. We should make it happen. Yeah, I'll text you by the ability. Awesome. All right, brother. Great, bro.