SPEAKER_04

Like if you had a thousand versions of an ancient Bible, you would stack up the lines one by one.

And finally, you find one line that has this letter that's correct and then this one correct.

And then you basically do a summation of an averaging of the correctness.

And so they say, oh, well, 90% of the genome is non-human.

It's probably garbage.

It's probably these mistakes.

It's probably bacterial contamination that you're reading.

There's ways to deal with that, but that requires money and not one-off DNA sequences put on the interwebs.

for some amateur genomicist to make a claim about.

So there's ways to do it.

I mean, you would want at the end of the day to get the results to the level where you could go to the guys who did the Denisovan and the Neanderthal DNA, the Max Planck, who won the Nobel Prize for it, and say, hey, what do you think?

But you don't dare take it to people like that until you've done your homework.

You don't put them under a flashlight.

And people, I think, have gotten used to this click mentality of impatience where I want the result today.

Why can't you just make it all transparent?

Dump all the data on the web tomorrow.

You're not transparent.

You're hiding something.

No, I'm not.

I am just trying to make sure that you don't make the mistake and accuse me of making the mistake that you'll find in the data because the raw data is never clean.