Kevin McKernan

They discovered that if you took that drug and actually looked at people's EGFR receptors, there was like a 15 base pair insert, a deletion inside that gene that if you had it, the drug worked. And if you didn't, it did not work. So the drug failed on population-wide. But if you isolated the people and sequenced them first, you had remarkable success rates with the drug.

They discovered that if you took that drug and actually looked at people's EGFR receptors, there was like a 15 base pair insert, a deletion inside that gene that if you had it, the drug worked. And if you didn't, it did not work. So the drug failed on population-wide. But if you isolated the people and sequenced them first, you had remarkable success rates with the drug.

So it rescued a drug just by knowing the genetics of the population to put it on.

So it rescued a drug just by knowing the genetics of the population to put it on.

So it rescued a drug just by knowing the genetics of the population to put it on.

So that was really the whole goal of the Human Genome Project was to do that a thousand times over and do that in every disease is can we target these drugs so that we're not sloppily – you know, blanketing the population with drugs that we test on small populations and they blow up on us when we hit, you know, different, different, um, haplogroups or different populations out there.

So that was really the whole goal of the Human Genome Project was to do that a thousand times over and do that in every disease is can we target these drugs so that we're not sloppily – you know, blanketing the population with drugs that we test on small populations and they blow up on us when we hit, you know, different, different, um, haplogroups or different populations out there.

So that was really the whole goal of the Human Genome Project was to do that a thousand times over and do that in every disease is can we target these drugs so that we're not sloppily – you know, blanketing the population with drugs that we test on small populations and they blow up on us when we hit, you know, different, different, um, haplogroups or different populations out there.

If you want to compare it to cannabis plants were completely inbred and should be walking backwards. Yes. Yeah. So, you know, maybe there's a million variants maybe between, uh, any given individual, uh, So it's like a variant for every thousand or something? Yeah, it's a fair number.

If you want to compare it to cannabis plants were completely inbred and should be walking backwards. Yes. Yeah. So, you know, maybe there's a million variants maybe between, uh, any given individual, uh, So it's like a variant for every thousand or something? Yeah, it's a fair number.

If you want to compare it to cannabis plants were completely inbred and should be walking backwards. Yes. Yeah. So, you know, maybe there's a million variants maybe between, uh, any given individual, uh, So it's like a variant for every thousand or something? Yeah, it's a fair number.

Now that we have better sequencers, some would argue maybe it's more like one in every 500 if you include some of these insertions and deletions and longer structural variations that we couldn't see very well back then with the technology we had that initially did the Human Genome Project.

Now that we have better sequencers, some would argue maybe it's more like one in every 500 if you include some of these insertions and deletions and longer structural variations that we couldn't see very well back then with the technology we had that initially did the Human Genome Project.

Now that we have better sequencers, some would argue maybe it's more like one in every 500 if you include some of these insertions and deletions and longer structural variations that we couldn't see very well back then with the technology we had that initially did the Human Genome Project.

But 20 years on, as we are now, we now have completely different technology to survey genomes that are remarkable compared to what we had before. And we can see much more variation now than we could then. Oh, really? Yeah. Yeah, we're not at the level of cannabis plants, all right? Right, right. Cannabis plants are their own beast.

But 20 years on, as we are now, we now have completely different technology to survey genomes that are remarkable compared to what we had before. And we can see much more variation now than we could then. Oh, really? Yeah. Yeah, we're not at the level of cannabis plants, all right? Right, right. Cannabis plants are their own beast.

But 20 years on, as we are now, we now have completely different technology to survey genomes that are remarkable compared to what we had before. And we can see much more variation now than we could then. Oh, really? Yeah. Yeah, we're not at the level of cannabis plants, all right? Right, right. Cannabis plants are their own beast.

The polymorphism rate is – that's a good question.

The polymorphism rate is – that's a good question.

The polymorphism rate is – that's a good question.