Prior to opening the call for Q&A Paul will close with a summary of some of our other programs. Before beginning we’d like to remind you that some of the statements made during the call today are forward-looking statements including statements regarding our expectations for the launch and commercialization of Jakafi, our product revenue guidance as well as our development plan. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results to differ materially including those described in our Form 10(q) for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 and from time to time in our other SEC documents. Paul?Paul Friedman Good morning. The launch of Jakafi for patients with intermediate or high-risk Myelofibrosis continues to go well and is pretty much right on the forecasts that we’ve made. During Q2 we shipped $35.1 million of Jakafi to our specialty pharmacies compared to $25.1 million in Q1. As Pat will describe in greater detail we’re seeing steady growth in the use of Jakafi by hematologists and oncologists. Since the pace of the launch is going as we expected, we’re providing revenue guidance for 2012 net product sales in the range of $120 million to $135 million. This range reflects our continued belief that the growth will be steady and gradual as physicians move from prescribing Jakafi for more severely ill MF patients to using the product in less severely ill patients, specifically patients with any degree of splenomegaly and/or symptoms. The drug provides dramatic relief in spleen reduction and in symptom improvement and additionally, as we shared with you last quarter, further analysis of COMFORT 1 first published in The New England Journal of Medicine further suggests that there may be a survival advantage for Jakafi over placebo. In that regard, more recently [Doctor Bershtofstick] et al published an article in the journal Blood regarding their analysis of 107 MF patients from our Phase I/II study. In the article, the authors state that in this group of patients followed for a median of 32 months there could be a survival advantage with ruxolitinib treatment when compared to historic controls who had similar patient entry criteria. Now, while there are clearly limitations to these comparisons to historical controls, the authors also state that the data suggests a survival benefit from ruxolitinib independent of any comparison with a historical control group. Specifically, survival in the high-risk patients treated with ruxolitinib was consistent with that of intermediate II risk patients. The published data states that the normal life expectancy for high-risk patients is approximately two years compared to four years for intermediate II risk patients. This would suggest a very meaningful improvement in survival.