What's happening guys? In today's video we are going to go over the doctoral degree tier list where we rank doctoral degrees from S tier which is really good to F tier which is awful. Now you might be wondering what the heck I'm wearing right now because as my subscribers love to point out I always wear a black shirt in all of my videos.  Now another thing I didn't know is when you graduate you get this weird hat that kind of looks like the combination of a beret and an octagon. Now I do know a lot about getting a doctorate because I've gotten one. I've gone all the way through the system from undergraduate to the highest level and so I kind of know a lot about the whole subject of getting a college degree. I also have a ton of friends who went through the same thing we've had lots of conversations and I have a lot of insight on this. This was another video that got requested over and over again by my loyal so come on we'll cut that part. I really can't talk man like holy and this was another video that was requested over and over again by my loyal subscribers so of course I'm going to deliver. Now let me know that you appreciate these subscriber requested videos by automatically without even thinking about it smashing the like button in order to defeat the evil youtube algorithm. So let's jump right in with number one on the list which is going to be architect. So these are the people that design buildings and stuff and the debt to income ratio is going to be somewhere around 2.25 to 1. Now that's actually not too bad compared to a lot of the ones on the list and I will say that the debt to income ratio data that I collected is probably higher than the actual reality of things just because there's not a lot of accurate data out there however if you compare them to each other I would say that they're probably pretty accurate. So the debt to income ratio probably isn't going to be 2.25 to 1 it might be something like 1.5 to 1 but when you compare it to the other ones on the list that means there's going to be either less or more debt if that makes any sense. Now architects are going to make around $80,000 a year there's 133,000 jobs available and it's growing at 8% which is faster than average. Additionally these are the statistics for a bachelor level degree and so for a doctor you're probably going to make around 25% more than that. This would bump you up into the six figures a year level. So this one isn't too bad but it's also not that great either. I'm going to go ahead and put this one into C tier, C for cool but pretty tough to break into. Speaking of cool I am going to take this robe off because I am getting extremely hot. Next one on the list is going to be acupuncturist and this is basically the people that put needles all over different places in people's bodies and this is a form of alternative medicine. Apparently it helps you know alleviate pain and heal different diseases. Pretty controversial in the medical field of course but we're not going to get into that in this video. Believe it or not there are a lot of schools out there that charge over $50,000 a year for this degree. The debt to income ratio for this one is 4.6 to 1. Now just to put that into perspective I recommend that you pretty much never go over a debt to income ratio of three to one that's like pretty much the highest that you should ever go. Generally you want to try to stay under two to one debt to income ratio and if you're in a career where you're not making very much money you probably want to go even lower than that. Now what I mean by that is a two to one debt to income ratio means you're making $100,000 a year and you have to go $200,000 into debt. That's manageable you can pay it off over a few years it'll probably take you like five years to pay it off but at the end of those five years you'll be good to go. When you get into the 4.6 to one debt to income ratio it gets to the point where it's pretty much impossible for you to ever be able to pay it off because that means you'd have $460,000 in debt if you made $100,000 a year. Now this one isn't even listed on BLS but the problem with this career is from what I found they don't even make $100,000 a year they make somewhere around $75,000 and this is for the ones that actually are able to find a job and many of them can't. I have a cousin who actually went into this he was you know a naturopath and he was not able to find a job after years and years of searching. He eventually gave up and went into a completely unrelated industry. I don't even know what to say about this one this one goes into F tier F for 4.6 to one debt to income ratio that's just awful. Next one on the list is going to be an art related PhD so this is where you would get a PhD in an art related degree like film or music. Now this is almost never going to be worth it unless you want to become a professor at a university. Becoming a professor is pretty rare though and there can only be so many people that teach people how to teach people how to teach people how to teach people. Now additionally getting your PhD takes on average 8.2 years and that's on top of your bachelor's degree which takes around four years so that's over 12 years on average in order to get your PhD and that's why the average person that graduates with it is going to be over 33 years old but once you're done that means it's game time baby right? Not really because the average PhD is going to be over a hundred thousand dollars in debt and any follower of my channel knows that the type of debt that you have to take out in order to get a graduate level degree is much worse than the type of student loan debt that you take out in undergrad. On top of this PhDs barely earn more in the same field than master's graduates earn even though they go to an extra like six years of school and if that wasn't enough when you're getting your PhD you're probably going to get work like 10 to 12 hours a day seven days a week. You have to do original research and then present it to people in front of a panel you get grilled and if you pass that then you can finally get your doctorate. Everyone is going to be assigned an advisor that's going to help you through this whole process and that's kind of just the luck of the draw because if you get a good advisor that's going to be awesome but if you get a bad one it can actually hurt you. Now on top of this many people don't even end up finishing their PhDs especially in the fields where a lot of people go for PhDs just because of the fact that they can't find a job with a bachelor's or a master's level degree. So for instance only 29% of humanities majors end up finishing their PhD over a seven-year period. This one is going to be F tier clearly.  Next one on the list is going to be college professor. What's that I hear? Someone out there said that you can be a college professor with some of these degrees. This is a comment that I get all the time people will comment oh well this degree isn't useless because you can become a college professor and teach other people how to get the same degree. And I guess you're kind of right there but the problem is there's just not that much room for that many college professors. Now you can expect to have about a 1.8 debt to income ratio which isn't bad. College professors make around $79,000 a year on average. There's 1.3 million jobs available and it's growing at 11%. $79,000 a year is pretty low for a doctoral level degree and additionally it's pretty difficult to actually get into academia. Think about it a professor will teach hundreds of students every single year how many of those students are going to go on to become professors themselves. Many people that go into academia and they want to become professors end up realizing that it's very similar to what's known as a pyramid scheme. And by that I mean only the people at the very top end up making money and just about everyone else ends up either not making any money or losing money. And they do this in hopes that someday they will make it to the top but very few of them ever do. So you've got teachers teaching teachers how to teach teachers to teach and teach and blah blah blah blah and so on. Now if you don't believe me I always say this check out the subreddit r slash grad school where they talk about this all the time. Still this isn't one of the worst on the list there's other ones that are much worse and if you are able to make it to that professor level and get yourself tenure that can be a pretty sweet gig. Just make sure that you know what you're getting yourself into. College professor is going to go into b tier. B for better hope that you get your tenure. Next one on the list is going to be chiropractor and this one this one is awful.  They also have a debt to income ratio of 4.9 to 1.  This is awful. Now for all of that debt you can expect to make around $70,000 a year there's 50,000 jobs available and it's growing at 7%. These are really bad numbers for a doctoral level degree. The only reason you should become a chiropractor is maybe if you come from a family full of chiropractors and you just have to get the degree in order to work in the family business or some kind of weird situation like that. Other than that, don't do it. This one goes in F tier. F for financially. Next one on the list is going to be dentists and they're going to have a 2.5 to 1 debt to income ratio. So dentists are the brave souls that are okay with putting their hands into people's mouths all day every day. The debt to income ratio here is going to be about 2.5 to 1 which seems a little bit high but because of the fact that dentists have a relatively high salary it's actually not too bad. Dentists make $159,000 a year there's 155,000 jobs available and it's growing at 7% which is as fast as average. Still $159,000 isn't that good and that is why this one is going to go into B tier. B for don't bite off more than you can chew. Next one on the list is going to be lawyer and this is another one of those classic career paths that for many decades was really good. In recent times it's become a little bit overrated a little bit saturated. Now lawyers have a debt to income ratio of 2.8 to 1 which is pretty high. They make around $122,000 a year there's 823,000 jobs available in the United States and it's growing at 6%.  So the lawyers at the very top are making millions and millions of dollars a year whereas the lawyers at the bottom might be scraping by on like 40-50,000 dollars a year if they even have a job.  This one is a big risk, big reward type of degree. I'm going to go ahead and put it into B tier. B for better call Saul. Next one on the list is going to be medical doctor and this is another one of those extremely popular degrees. Now this is another one on the list that's a bit overrated in my opinion that doesn't mean that it's not still good that just means that the hype is up here and the reality is like right here. Still this is one of the best doctoral level degrees that you can get. It has a 1.64 to 1 debt to income ratio which is really good especially considering how much you make. Doctors can easily clear over 250,000 dollars a year sometimes much more than that depending on their specialty. So compared to other doctoral level degrees this one is going to go into S tier. S for sleep deprivation during residency. Next one on the list is going to be optometrist and they're going to be experts in all things that have to do with your eyes. Now optometrists have a 3.4 to 1 debt to income ratio which is not very good. However they do have decent numbers which kind of make up for that. They make around 115,000 dollars a year. There's 42,000 jobs available and it's growing at 10% which is faster than average. Still that 3.4 to 1 debt to income ratio really scares me and for that reason I'm going to go ahead and put this one into D tier. D for dope glasses. Next one on the list is going to be a dental specialist like an orthodontist, endodontist or periodontist. Now they have a 2 to 1 debt to income ratio which is really good considering how much money they make. They make about as much money as traditional doctors so you're probably not going to have that much trouble paying off your loans. This one is going to go into A tier. A for smash the like button for the YouTube algorithm. Next one on the list we're going to talk about pharmacists and pharmacists are legal drug dealers and experts on pharmacology. They have a 2.2 to 1 debt to income ratio on this list which isn't too bad compared to a lot of the others and on top of that pharmacists make around 128,000 dollars a year. There's 314,000 jobs available and it's growing at 0%. Now the job outlook is pretty scary here. Definitely don't join pharmacy if your plan is to become a retail pharmacist because retail pharmacy is completely saturated. I'll probably make a whole video about that in the future so stay tuned. Still the debt to income ratio isn't that bad here and you do make a pretty good amount of money. This one is going to go into A tier. A for alright as long as you don't go into retail. Next one on the list is going to be a physical therapist and they help ill or injured people improve their movement or pain. They have a 2.5 to 1 debt to income ratio which is on the higher side especially considering the fact that they don't make all that much money. They make around 89,000 dollars a year. There's 247,000 jobs available and it's growing at 22% which is much faster than average. Now one thing that I will say about this one is it has an extremely high job satisfaction score. So no matter what metric you look at for instance let's look at pay scale. It has 89% meaning score which means 89% of the people find that their job is extremely meaningful. That's the highest on the list by far. One of the highest meaning scores out of any job out there. So even if the salary is a little bit low this one still has a good meaning score and so I'm going to bump it up just a tiny bit. I'm going to put this one into C tier. C for constantly gets confused with occupational therapy. Next one on the list is going to be psychologist at a doctoral level so this is going to include both doctoral PhDs as well as PsyDs. Now psychology is one of the most popular majors that you can go for and in my opinion it's pretty overrated. They have a 3.2 to 1 debt to income ratio which is really bad especially considering how much you make. They only make around $80,000 a year. There's 181,000 jobs available and it's growing at 14% which is pretty good. That is a scary amount of debt to have while you're only making about $80,000 a year. Psychology is going to go into D tier. D for damn I can already tell I'm going to get a lot of hate comments for this one. Next one on the list is going to be a science related PhD. So this would be something like biology or chemistry that you get a PhD in. So all the same things apply to this one that apply to the art PhD that I mentioned before where it takes a long time in order to get your degree. It costs a lot. There's a lot of downsides to it. The only difference with this one is there actually is a lot of opportunities outside of academia whereas the art related PhD academia is pretty much the only way that you can go. However this one isn't as good as the other STEM degrees and the you know STEM acronym which is science technology engineering and mathematics. So I'm going to put this one into B tier, B for better than average but still not as good as the other STEM degrees. Next one on the list is going to be a liberal arts social science humanities type degree at the PhD level. So this would be a PhD level degree like sociology or maybe history. Now all of the same issues apply to this one that applied to the art degree. However it's a little bit better than art in my opinion and so for that reason I'm going to put it slightly higher on the list. I'm going to go ahead and put this one into D tier D for debt because it's probably not worth it. Next one on the list is going to be the rest of the STEM degrees technology engineering and mathematics. Now honestly these ones are usually pretty solid even at the doctoral level. In fact there's a lot of positions out there that prefer people in mathematics or technology and engineering that have a doctoral level degree. This one is actually pretty decent. I'm going to go ahead and put it into A tier. A for actually might be worth it for some people. Next one on the list is going to be teachers that have doctorates. So I've actually seen this several times where high school teachers or even in very rare cases middle school teachers will have doctorates. They do end up making more than their bachelor level or master's level counterparts even though it's not that much more. Now they have a 2.5 to 1 debt to income ratio which isn't very good considering that they don't make very much money. They make around $61,000 a year. There's 1 million jobs and it's growing at around 4%. This is for all high school teachers though so you can probably add about 25% on top of that for doctoral level degrees. Still not that great overall. I wish this one was a little bit better but unfortunately I have to be fair here. I'm going to go ahead and put this one into C tier. C for 12 years of college in order to work as a high school teacher. Next one on the list is going to be veterinarian. Now everybody loves animals and wouldn't you just love to be able to work with animals all day long? Unfortunately veterinarians have a 3.1 to 1 debt to income ratio and unfortunately they only make around $95,000 a year. There's 84,000 jobs available but it is growing at 18% which is much faster than average. The statistics aren't horrible but that debt to income ratio is high enough that this one is pretty scary. Still if you're able to find a cheaper school which I pretty much universally recommend for any graduate level degree just go with the cheapest possible school that you can possibly go to. If you're able to find a really cheap school this one will probably be worth it because it does have a pretty good meaning score and job satisfaction score because you get to work with animals all day long. So this one is going to go into D tier. D for dogs are better than cats and that's just a fact. Thanks for watching my video guys. It was super fun to make this one. Go ahead, smash the like button, hit the subscribe button, ring the notification bell and comment down below any thoughts, comments, criticisms, etc. that you have on the video. I will catch you later.


Hello, everyone, and welcome. This is Melissa Armo with the stocks. We're taking a look here tonight at the market and the QQQs. Big rally here into the clothes just happened really basically in the last five minutes of trading didn't go anywhere. Weird strange market gap down today. And really I think that rally was due to the rally in Apple that happened. The rally that happened in Apple in the last 15 minutes of the day lifted the Qs because it was such a big part of the, Apple is such a big part of the Qs and then obviously Apple is up tonight. And the Qs look pretty much just flat here. Pretty much flat. I mean, we close at 190. 194. Well, we're down a little, I guess, 197, but I mean, it's just looking at this whole picture. I mean, if you look at the fact that we're not that far off the highs, we should be over the highs by now. Do you know what I'm saying? I mean, the last time we made a new high was in July. The whole month of August went by, we didn't go anywhere. We didn't really have a steep drop that we didn't get over the high. Now we tried to break out here a couple of days ago. That didn't go anywhere. Fell today, that didn't go anywhere. So something's gonna happen here. I'm just not sure anymore here if it's gonna really happen this week because we only have Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. So if something doesn't happen here in the next three days, which it could, it might, anything's possible, then I think next week is gonna be the week to watch. But it'll be very, very, very, very interesting here. But this is the chop. This is the chop, this is the back and forth. And again, this was the whole entire month of August here where we were in the range. So very interesting to trade these times and to be watching where we go. And you gotta just read it with a fine-tuned comb and be careful and take your profits. I mean, that's pretty much the name of the game right now was the whole month of August. So if you have any questions, if you're interested in learning how to date trade, email me and Melissa at thestockswish.com. Have a great night, everyone.


Thank you very much, everyone, especially Zach, for setting that up. In fact, I have my first slide, I guess. So this is my thank you slide, and conflict of interest. And each of these icons represents some institution that is very pragmatic and practical about helping our world get better. And when I talk about data privacy and risk, I inevitably have to talk about technologies and cohorts, because I see this as an important part of this. And this is roughly how the narrative that we'll be talking about today. I want to introduce the question of who can contribute to breakthroughs. It is not just large institutions. I have to talk about not just three technologies, but their impact on this question of data privacy and risk, and then how we do data integration and sharing that Zach has introduced so well, and how we get from association to causation briefly, and then how this impacts therapies, new therapies, not just small molecules, but gene therapies immune microbial and brain. Now this is actually from the last pair of talks that we had. John Sulston came in electronically, and so I came electronically to listen to him, and he had this diagram here about the threat of proprietary databases that only people, institutions with money, would get access to the human genome, and we did it as much as we could to prevent this from happening by putting as much as possible into the public domain. I would generalize this very slightly. This is literally John's slide. This is not.  To say the DB gap covers not just the human genome, but human genomes plus traits. It's even more useful than human genome, and it still has this possibility that only exceptionally wealthy institutions have access. So we ask, who should get access? Here are two clerks here who did quite a bit without appropriate credentials. By the time they were 26 years old, Einstein and Ramanujan, and then here is Aaron Swartz and Richard Feynman, who almost certainly would not be given access to DB gap because one is a safe cracker, and the other is an activist who likes putting public, putting private data in the public domain. But nevertheless, they made gigantic contributions by the time they were 26 years old. With the exception of Feynman, were generally not associated with institutions at the time of some of their breakthroughs. Here are three more examples, more up-to-date and more genomically oriented. They happened to all be in my lab at some point or another, but they made all these contributions before they were, some cases before they were 17. This is Kaol, who was interested in hemochromatosis because her father had it, and so she did it herself, literally in her closet. This is her closet door right there in an eBay PCR machine. Does the FDA control Kaol? Not clear, but the Globe reported it. Ann West, in 11th grade a few years ago, did and now analyzed four members of her family, all four members of her family, including herself. Her father had Factor 5 Leiden, and she set a new bar for 11th grade science projects. And then Shoudy Woo, I assigned his undergraduate class, so what I thought was a ridiculous assignment, which was to, this was in 2007, to take genomes in and pop interpretations out, and he didn't know that I was kidding, and he actually did it, and so he got a science in the nature paper out of that, so. And we have companies that offer tiny bits of our genome that are considered to be particularly informative. You don't necessarily have to have a family history. You could be the first one in your family because of a carrier status, basically.  I'm one-quarter Ashkenazi, so I'm at risk for the largest set of these genes, of the 23 genes in the Good Start menu. Now that I've had my genome sequenced a few times, this is much less likely, but nevertheless it was good to know, and I, so I was, that's an example of partial genomes, but what about whole genomes? There are now a number of companies that offer whole genome sequencing. It's affordable, they consider, much more affordable than $3 billion anyway, and sort of, and these range from CLIA CAP type approvals to direct to consumer. And this is a partial list. That's whole genome sequencing. Now how do we get to that place, and how do we predict where we're going next? This slide, you know, the punchline is already ruined for this audience, but nevertheless we rarely talk about how long we would have predicted it would have taken if we had extrapolated this Moore's Law curve, this dotted line, with this green curve which had been kind of, genomics had been on this pokey Moore's Law exponential since I was a student, it would have taken six decades to get from the end of the genome project where actually it could have flatlined after the genome project was over, but six decades with an optimistic exponential, and instead it was six years, instead of six decades due to the advanced sequencing technology development grants from the NHGRI, among other reasons, and it's down around $2,000 is what we've been paying for the last couple of years in the personal genome project. So just three snippets on technology and how it impacts this privacy issue, clinical accuracy, if I had to put down some money today and get my genome sequence, actually I did do it this way, among other ways, but it would be this long fragment read from complete genomics now, CGI, BGI, where they can get long haplotypes up to sort of a N50 median of 1.5 million base pairs, so that you can tell the difference between having two mutations in one copy of your gene and still having a one functional copy, or having the two mutations knocking out both your mother and father's copy in your genome. That's a big deal clinically as to whether you've got one functioning copy of your gene or you have zero functioning copies of your gene. You would think that would be present in all of the whole genome sequencing, at least the ones that are clinical, or the exomes, or the SNPs and so forth, so this haplotype phase I think is quite significant and this is one of the few papers to have a practical application protocol, this was just published this summer. Now, one of the other consequences of having, and this is very quite practical, of having a very accurate genome, so you not only get accuracy in terms of haplotype phase, but also we improve the accuracy for SNPs to about 1 in 10 million, Q70, when you have a truly accurate genome, you can throw away all the data except for the variance and it fits into four megabytes. Instead of being a terabyte of data, you've got four megabytes of data, you could fit the entire population of the earth on a couple of petabyte drive, okay, so stop worrying about data, just worry about accuracy. That was a one-dimensional genome, and we might be interested in three dimensional genomes, this is not the day to talk about that, multiple colors, but we are interested in whether we can get down, that was by the way done on ten cells by necessity, but ten cells is getting to be a small number of cells to do a genome on, all those genomes by LFR done that way, but we can do single cells, we can do less than a cell, and so if you're worried about your privacy, you better protect your subcellular material, and here's just one little slide on technology, I can't avoid it, here we have on the order, we can do next-gen sequencing in C2, a variety of different next-gen sequencing methods apply with very light amplification where you leave, these are RNAs, but you can also do with DNA, where each of these cells has each single dots as a single molecule of RNA lightly amplified, and then next-gen sequence, and you can see these two adjacent cells differ by one base peer in one messenger RNA type, and you can get the whole transcriptome this way, so you have effectively four to the sixtieth colors, or you can think of them as sequence tags. Speaking of sequence tags, and you know risk of your genome, these nanopore technologies, which I am embarrassed to say is my second slowest technology to develop, no actually no the last one, the nanopore was, this is nanopore is the slowest, it started in the late 80s in the in C2 sequencing started in the 90s, maybe they're both slow, ridiculously slow, but these have the potential of being highly accurate, this is not a sequencing accuracy, this analytic chemistry on peg-label deoxynucleotide triphosphates from my colleague, my colleagues at NIST and Columbia, Jingwei Zhu and John Cassianowitz, in collaboration with Genia, the nanopore company you haven't heard of too much, but this is scalable to billions of transistors and each going at 10 hertz or so, and it's potentially wearable as a consequence, you can have a battery operated chip that's disposable and is capable of going at gigahertz rates, I'm not saying when this or if this will arrive, but let's imagine that there is at some point some kind of technology that will be wearable, as you are monitoring your oral hygiene real time, you're picking up every person and microorganism in your environment as well, is that regulatable? But back down to Earth, we have data leakage and re-identification issues that are constant, Zach has started the conversation on this, but their entire databases of ways that people get data leakage and re-identification of various sorts, gigantic databases out there that you can look at, where they document things like 26 million veterans medical records and their social security numbers and the disposal of the information, not yesterday but actually quite a while ago, and this was part of our motivation for starting the personal general project was the knowledge that this could happen, and the case that Zach mentioned from our colleague, Yaniv Erlich, in 2013 was actually predated in 2005 when a 15-year-old kid did it, he didn't get a science paper out of it though, but he did find his anonymous sperm donor dad, first try, and so this is not new stuff, as Zach would say, this is Groundhog Day, how many warnings do we need? And when we have 10 pages of consent form, a fine print written by fine lawyers, are we protecting the laboratory or the patient? The million veterans project, I have to say to their, you know, I have to compliment them on doing a survey to see what the patients want, and they found that the patients, 96% of them wanted to receive information about their health, and their response was, sorry, we are legally unable to return, so why did we ask? I don't know, but nevertheless, this is in the face of a study that at least, in part, said that research results can and sometimes should be returned to the participants, and this was in 2010. I used to get a little whimsical, but, and I don't believe this applies to everybody, certainly if you're on the International Space Station, you don't have the kind of privacy that most of us have, it's a luxury.  But privacy is not only a luxury, it's a symptom. One of the personal genome project volunteers, and one of the reasons we picked them, is he was a father of 400 kids, estimated, and that's because he was a sperm donor, and the secrecy that surrounded this was intended to protect him and possibly his kids, but what we actually have is an Ann Arbor, Michigan, well you'll notice, by the way, that I casually mentioned names of people in this talk of patients, that's because they have given permission to do this, so almost, my entire talk, every time I mention a patient, I will mention my name, but in case Kirk Maxey is gone on the warpath, because they have 400 kids in Ann Arbor, Michigan who are half siblings who are about marrying age now. So what are the risks of privacy loss? We were very worried about this at the beginning of the personal genome project, which started around 2005, because there was not the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, which was the big bugaboo about we could be denied our healthcare and employment by participating in this open study. That was hypothetical at the time, there were very, very few cases of it, and since 2008, it's been illegal as well, so it would probably be a bad idea for a big company to do that. Life and long-term care insurance were not covered by Gina, but are still hypothetical, so that's the risk of privacy loss. What about the risk of privacy abuse? If I were Typhoid Mary, I actually went to great extremes to try to avoid or to retain her privacy while continuing to be a food handler. There are many people that like spreading STDs without having to share their private information about their health status. Same thing goes for many perpetrators of violence do not want you to know that, et cetera. I don't drive because I have publicly disclosed narcolepsy, but other people do, and there are 1.2 million people a year that die in driving accidents worldwide, and not all of them, but some of them are due to these and other causes. Individuals can and probably do decide whether they're going to take out long-term care insurance based on their APB status. This is a factor of 20 when an actuarial terms is a gigantic factor. Actuarial guys get really excited about a factor of 1%. So we stand at an important juncture for genomics where we decide, something that was decided long ago for faces and voices, which is whether we're going to reveal them or whether we're going to keep them very private. I would argue that our faces and voices are more revealing than our genomes right now anyway, because they not only reveal our ancestry like the genomes, but they reveal our emotions, our age, and our health.  As I've said, we've had repeated warnings in peer-reviewed papers where the genome plus the phenome, either one of them can be re-identifying. The SNPs, this Homer and Craig paper, had the consequences. I understand that NIH scraped a bunch of data out of the public and put it back in the vault. Maybe that's an oversimplification, but also it's been pointed out there's tryptomics, GWAS studies, microbiomics, lychromosome. There are many things that are risky to put in the public domain even after de-identification. Nevertheless, a modern consent form, and as far as I know, all the consent forms on the NHGRI website say, thanks to this effect, it will be very hard for anyone who looks at the databases to know which information came from you. This has not been corrected, as far as I know, since the publication of the Yanni Varix paper, which wasn't news. This is from the 1000 Genomes Consent Form. They also put in language about how it would be, really easy, but they also say it would be very hard, and so this is a mixed message. So we have genomes, environments, and traits. Wouldn't it be great if these were really fully integrated the way that Zach and I have laid out here? Are there any barriers whatsoever to full integration? I mean, isn't it the case that the 1000 Genome Projects also had all this other stuff about epigenomes and microbiomes and so forth? No, it didn't. Wouldn't it be great if the Human Microbiome Project also had the human genomes with it and the, you know, cell lines and so forth? Wouldn't it be great if the ENCODE Project encoded all these things? So I've brought these, I've put these acronyms here that you're all familiar with. We need integrated datasets and shareable ones. I will argue that there is at least one such integrated environment.  It's a gift that people can choose to take it or not. I'd say there's zero barriers to full integration and sharing in this. I'm not saying we've fully delivered integration, but we've certainly delivered sharing, and this is now international. Canada just announced its Personal Genome Project and immediately got 500 individuals who are willing to pay for themselves and one other individual, and it integrates. And as each item gets integrated, the cohort becomes more valuable in the same sense that each article that gets written for Wikipedia makes Wikipedia that much more valuable and more and more people participate. So this is something that is likely to snowball, although I am not claiming that it is snowballed yet. We each group can set their own goals and get their own IRB approval using the template that we provide. So it is we consent for re-identification. We don't put names out there, but we say you should pretend your name is out there. You may even consider putting your name out there on your own, as many of them have. And we do that because we require not signing a 10-page consent form, which they don't read, and if you ask almost any principal investigator, they will admit that their research subjects do not read the consent forms. But they do read ours because they have to get not a 99% but 100% on our entrance exam. It's only 20 questions, but they have to get every one of them right. Our old exam was pretty hard, and we felt that that was okay because we didn't want every, we were getting too many applicants, not too few. The new ones were pretty easy. The old one that was hard, at least one applicant took it 90 times. That's how excited they were to get into this project. When we first proposed this project, people were saying no one's going to show up, George. Well, that's not the case. And stem cells, another thing very hard to do, hard to share because just like genomes, maybe even more than genomes, it tells you a lot about the person. Here's a practical consequence of this that we see. It's not every day that two major government institutions get together like NIST and FDA, and they did so in this case on the issue of genome standards. They wanted to have genome, it's actually called genomeandbottle.org, if you want to look it up, if you don't already know about it, where they wanted to have thousands of copies of one lot of DNA from maybe multiple different sources, but one lot for each that would be distributed for anyone who wants to develop a new diagnostic and new genome service or new instrument. So they all be on the same page, same genome, and they looked around for properly consented genomes, and so far there aren't a whole lot of them out there, but ours looks good so far in terms of consent for re-identification and for commercial use. I'm not going to go through the technology here, but we have new technology, well, technology has been in development for five years, but still fresh and new, where you can analyze your immunome and epigenomes of other types, and this is not only identifying of who you are, even if you're an identical twin, or even you can tell who you are, the changes from day to day. This is extremely identified, tells you what you are being exposed to. People sometimes say, well, I don't think it's time to get my genome, even if we're free, I wouldn't bother, there's nothing I can learn from it. You know, nobody in my family ever had a genetic disease, but here's some examples of people who have, and it illustrates an interesting point, which is both clinical practice, we're all in equals one, and increasing for research is informative to deal with a coherent picture of a single individual, which is extensive, it's a big data and a diverse set of data, and these typically, they were exomes or genomes, and we should be able to recite these to our friends as examples of the cutting edge of genome sequencing. Nick Volker, you probably all know about, he was three years old, having multiple intestinal surgeries, he got, notice I'm naming names, all of these are publicly known names, many of them are a couple of them in the genome project, and so the intestinal surgery stopped when his pediatricians did the absolute desperate act of sequencing, his exomer genome, and found that he had an immune problem that could be solved with cord blood transfer. The burial twins, cerebral palsy, and their diet changed include serotonin and dopamine precursors, so the list goes on. John Lauerman was one of the PGP volunteers who wrote about his experience in Bloomberg, and he found he had a somatic variation in his blood for Jack II that explained why he had leg problems and scotoma in his retina, and in fact his leg pain would cause him to be hospitalized, and he got a genetic test, they thought it might be Factor V Leiden, it shows the difference between a genetic test and a genomic test, because he didn't have Factor V Leiden, but he did have Jack II. Now those tend to, and what we usually think about genetics and even gene therapy is about curing people have rare deleterious alleles, but the alternative, and I think it's an interesting way of going forward, is focusing on just as rare, the other end of the bell curve, things that are rare protective alleles, and we're looking at these three studies on really old people, the Welderly, which is sort of 80 and above, the 100 over 100, which is 100 and above, and the Super Centenarian study, which is people over 110, and there's some likely genetics here, Tom Pearls and others have pointed out that there might be a 17-fold increase risk of living too long if you're a sibling, and you can see that probably these people are making it past 110 years, probably not because they're drinking and smoking to excess, but in spite of it, we could, and they might have rare protective alleles. This is not meant to encourage you all to smoke and drink to excess. And here's some rare protective alleles, not from the Super Centenarians, but from other studies gathered from the literature. Let me give you some idea. Oh, by the way, the Super Centenarians are very hard to protect their identity. There's a list of, 72 of them online if you want to bounce your laser off their windows. That would be interesting. And here's just a laundry list of homozygous nulls and special heterozygous and so forth, and it's really quite a number of them in this list is growing, and I think we're going to learn quite a bit. And if you weren't already convinced that genetics is not your destiny because you can change your environment, you can now change your genetics as well. So there's now in phase two clinical trials from this company Sangamo and others that they collaborate with and compete with. You can now not just insert a gene that covers for a rare deleterious missing gene function, but you can remove gene function precisely or change a few base pairs. And this is due to zinc-finger nucleases. We had a very tiny role in the beginning days of Sangamo in the 1990s, last millennium, but I'm not currently affiliated with them. So this is one of my few slides that is not direct conflict of interest. But anyway, they're in phase two clinical trials on this zinc-finger nucleus that knocks out both copies of CCR5, which is the HIV ligand that allows entry. And we're now doing CRISPR RNA, and I'm not going to talk. This is, I would love to give an entire talk on the CRISPR gene therapy and CRISPR analysis of causation. But I just want to end on this last topic here, which is another kind of gene therapy that my postdoc Volker Busconf did as a graduate student, which was introducing bacterial genes into retinas of rodents, and this to restore visual responses by making neurons essentially responsive to light. And you can do the reverse where you can make neurons report out their activity with light. And this and various other progresses in nanotechnology and synthetic biology are the basis of brain activity map, which you may have heard of. I don't know how, since it's so secret. But the brain activity map in a certain sense is already baked into the personal genome project. We want to know about behavioral cognitive variation among individuals and their potential genetic and environmental components. And so for many years now, we've been collecting things like functional magnetic resonance imaging data. This is very, very coarse grained, but it's the state of the art ways of doing a brain activity map. And we've done this on many of the PTP volunteers. This is actually my brain sliced through here. Fortunately, these are virtual slices rather than actual slices. But we would like to get really high resolution. And to do that, we might have to be a little more invasive than FMRI. Here's an example of a patient of John Donahue. John Donahue is one of the founding members of our brain activity map project clan. And he and his team allowed this tetraplegic woman to, for the first time, give herself a drink, albeit through a robotic arm. But you can see this little implant on the top of her head, which had been there for five years. Finally, allowed this feedback circuit. It was very slow and clumsy. And it required this huge arm. John Donahue and others on our team would love to allow her to do this with her own arm and to do it with much finer grain and faster. That's what we're in the brain activity map is largely about technology, reducing the costs, enabling all kinds of small science, and not only just reading the brain, but being able to have the brain control various things. Now, are there any LC issues? And are we concerned? Yes, of course there are. You can read brains and potentially control them. And this could be as significant as genomics. So here's an example, again, not news, 2005, where a neuron was identified in an epileptic. You have the IRB approval to put electrodes in for epileptics looking for vents, but you also can look for images that they could recognize. And a Jennifer Aniston neuron was discovered, which was very specific for her face and not a variety of faces that looked kind of like her. And so this was really quite remarkable, but it showed how crude it was too, because we only found one neuron. There was almost certainly big nerve circuits, and there were many other faces that were stored in that brain. So we'd like to be able to do this and many other things at higher resolution. So Zach and I think have left quite a bit of time and produced enough provocations for discussion. But clearly data privacy is an issue in the world. It's especially an issue in research. If we want people to participate in such things that are extremely identifying and revealing about one's state, not just inherited, but day-to-day state, we need to solve many of these problems. And I've presented at least one cohort, which doesn't have to be the only way of doing things, but it should be baked in as part of, I think, our portfolio of cohorts. Thank you very much.


My goal is not to sell them a piece of property or have them sell their piece of property. My goal is to create a friendship with them and make them feel comfortable with me. Period. End of story. When I look at the industry right this second for just say a brand new agent getting into the business, I have to admit that it's probably a little tough. It's probably a little tough for a brand new agent with low inventory to squeeze out a listing so they're being forced to deal with mostly buyers right now which you guys know that story. They're competing against 15 other buyers and it's a really tough market for that. So they're really just kind of in a tough pickle because they're trying to get to their first sale. They're trying to build some momentum in the business and kind of get their career started. So it is tough in that respect. But if you look at it from the perspective of agents like myself who actually built an incredible brand locally and created some influence in their markets, the market's actually incredibly easy right now because you're the one that people are coming to that are buying and selling and you're getting listings pretty easily because all of your past clients, anyone who does want to sell, they really want to sell because the markets are up a lot. There's pockets in the market. There's pockets in the market of things that are on the easy side and things that are on the hard side. One thing that I'm noticing is that a lot of these agents who are representing buyers right now competing against 15 other buyers, they're in this tough market. They're representing mostly buyers, hardly any sellers, maybe even zero sellers. And they're saying, Ricky, how do I get my buyers' offers accepted in one breath? And then the next breath, they're saying, you know, I'm going to go work on, I'm going to take classes on how to work pre foreclosures and learn how to do short sales and things of that nature because that's got to be coming. Listen to what they're saying. And this could be a lot of you guys. I want you to hopefully this open up your eyes to a few things. Right now, those agents are on the harder side of the transaction, okay? They're on the side with the buyer competing against 15 buyers. And what they're telling me is that while they're doing this, they're also going to try to figure out how to do short sales, whereas if the market does turn towards a short sale environment, guess what? You're going to be competing against 15 agents to get those listings because now everybody's going to switch to those listings. When you look at the outside factors in terms of the market, supply to man interest rates, you know, what's happening with, you know, the stock market and all these outside factors, if the market's going to crash, so on and so forth, have absolutely nothing to do with your success.  I mean, we need to because we have to stay on top of it for our clients, but you've got to block it out of that part of your brain that allows those outside factors to affect your success because it doesn't have anything to do with your success. Remember what I said, closings happen every day, forever, and business is unlimited every single day for every single agent. I've got to drill this into your heads right now, right? Scalable means being able to, you know, grow your business exponentially, exponentially with very little effort. How do we grow exponentially with very little effort and maintain that on a consistent basis? These are all things I want to dive into. And I learned all this through the market crash, okay? And in 2008, I get back in the business, okay? I fault my way back to really a lot further than I was when I lost everything. By 2014, I was selling 100 properties a year. This will be year number eight in a row that I've sold 100 properties and I'm just a single agent with one assistant.  I do all the real estate agent stuff still. And my assistant handles all the back end stuff. And we have a really, she's been with me for eight years and this will be year number eight. So she literally came the first year that I sold 100 deals and we've just got a really good system in place. We know how each other work. Having a great assistant is a huge component to me being able to accomplish this. A great assistant will double your business overnight.  And this is something that you've really got to take to heart is that when I'm talking to a prospect, I absolutely do not care if they want to buy or sell something today or not. My goal is not to sell them a piece of property or have them sell their piece of property. My goal is to create a friendship with them and make them feel comfortable with me. Period. End of story. If you can't make someone feel comfortable with you, there's no chance at all for any business. There's not going to be a transaction. The number one goal for you as a real estate agent, one goal is to talk to the most people but an even a secondary goal right under that and the reason of talking to so many people is to make them feel comfortable with you. Your goal when you're talking to a prospect is not to get a listing, set an appointment, close a deal, is to make them feel comfortable with you. Period. Because if you can't get to that part of this, then there's not going to be a listing appointment, a closing, a deal, showing properties. There's not really going to be anything else. They're just going to kind of ghost you, right? You've all been ghosted, I'm sure, and you wonder why and it may be because they didn't feel comfortable for whatever reason. This caused you to make this decision to buy or sell this house because you didn't just wake up one day and decide I want to buy or sell a house today, for no reason. There's something going on in your life.  Maybe it's an investment, we're taking money off the table here, we're going to put it over here. There's something bigger above the transaction and when you can tap into that, that's when we're really building some serious rapport with people and we're really showing them that we care because we do care and we want them to know that and we've got to know the back story before we can really help them. If you use your career as a real estate agent as a vehicle to help, the same old exact follow up for every single prospect. There's a lot of training out there with, here's how you follow up with every single prospect. You follow up the exact same way for every prospect. How can that be? How can you have the exact follow up game for every prospect when every prospect situation is different? There's different motivations, there's different reasons, there's different timelines that they're looking to do stuff. You can't follow up the exact same way with every single prospect. You can't. You have to find out what's happening, create a custom game plan around their specific situation and then execute the game plan. In like 230, some of those were actually accepted. Then Zillow takes the other 1900 and then passes those off to premier agents or whatever. I don't know what they do. They have their own brokerage. I don't know what they're doing. He was trying to make the argument that that's something that could really disrupt the industry there. I said, but listen, it's the same thing as what we're seeing with the digital buyers, picking their agent online. Now it's a huge shift back to who's my trusted real estate agent that I know how they're going to handle the deal and I'm not going to pick an agent online. What's going to happen with the iBuyers in my opinion? We're going to go through a cycle of this where the sellers click to find out what their house is worth and get that instant offer. Come to find out it's 50% of what their house is worth. They're not going to click that. You think they're going to click that button again? No. We're going to go through a cycle of that and people will stop clicking that button because they already know they're going to get an offer that's ridiculously low. You have such a massive brand built on the back of a weekly email on the same day of the week forever to your entire database that's customized by you with opinions on this and that, right? It's personalized going out to your entire database of these people that you actually talk to not a digital lead that you never talked to. These are people you talk to in your market who own the exact type of property you want to sell. Think about the quality of that of your business at that point. Big, huge, not hard to do. Massive. And that builds your personal brand.


This is stock number 9-2-4-0. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, your Jeep Wrangler headquarters. We are checking out this super clean, really good-looking 2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sport with the Willys-Wheeler's package. From this HD video, you'll be able to tell that this Jeep is extremely clean all the way around. We shoot all of our videos in 1080p, so if you have HD capabilities on your computer tablet or smartphone device, turn them on now, because it's like you're right here looking at the Wrangler with me. So this one's got a little bit of a lift on it, has Mickey Thompson Baja ATZ tires. These are 35 by 12 and a half hour 20s, and they are on Anthem Off-Road, 20-inch painted alloy rims, really, really good-looking combo here, especially on the blacked-out Willys-Wheeler's package. You can see that these tires have, I'd say, probably 80 to 90% of the tread left. It has the DualShock FoxShox suspension. Framing underbody is like new. Get a good look at that suspension kit right there. Everything's in really nice shape. Everything was really well done on this Jeep. Front bumper is in really nice condition. No dents or dings or scuffs on it. It has the factory fog lights. Front fender is in really nice condition. Passenger side rim here. No scuffs or scrapes on it. Very, very clean, and this tire is just as much tread as the driver's side. As we go down this side of the vehicle, you can take a look at the hood here. Very clean. No dents or dings on that. But as you go down this side of the vehicle, you can see just how clean the body is, how reflective and glass-like that paint is. We take these videos because we sell these vehicles all over the United States, and we want to make sure that our customers that are out of state, or even if you're close by, can get the most accurate representation of the vehicle as possible, so that when you get here, you'll have absolutely no surprises, or if you're on the fence about making the trip, hopefully this video can, you know, ease your mind, I guess you could say, that we're a real dealership. We're a very high-quality dealership, and we want to make sure that we have high-quality products and present them in a high-quality way. Back rim is in excellent condition as well. No scuffs or scrapes. It's a little bit of water on there. It's been raining here today. Four-wheel disc brakes, of course. Back tires have just as much tread as the front tires. You can see the frame, and the underbody is very, very clean on this vehicle. It has the rock rails on it that are in excellent shape. I just can't get over how clean this paint is. I didn't see any scratches on this vehicle. Very, very nice condition. The back rim is a full-size matching rim and tire. You can see this tire is brand new. So you can see how much tread is on there compared to the ones that are on it. So maybe even 90 percent, 95 percent. A lot of tread left on those tires. Back here we have the receiver hitch and four-pin wiring. The rear bumper is in excellent condition as well, and back here we have the soft top. So this is a dual top group. Also has all the pieces for the soft top, and of course the door is in really nice condition as well. There's really, there's only 5,000-some miles on this Jeep, so you'd expect it to be really clean, but we want to make sure that, you know, if you're flying in from California or Colorado or wherever it may be, that you know exactly what you're getting so you can buy that plane ticket.  We like to cater to our state customers, so we get it. The hard top is in really nice condition as well, and this back rim here, no scuffs or scrapes on that, absolutely perfect.  There are no rips or tears on these seats. This Jeep has never been smoked in. As a factory, all weather floor mats, carpeting is really nice and clean underneath. Manual crank windows, and as you can see, this Jeep has 5,325 miles. You have your compass temperature mileage display. This one also has your Bluetooth audio controls, leather-wrapped steering wheel, cruise controls on this side. It does have the 430 radio, so you have a hard drive on there that you can record music on. I believe it's 28 gigabits of hard drive space, which is a lot of songs. Anyways, you got AM, FM, Serious Satellite radio capabilities as well. Bluetooth audio controls, stability control. This is a 6-speed manual transmission, 4x4 shifter on the center console there. And the passenger seat is absolutely perfect, no rips or tears. Like I said, this Jeep has never been smoked in. The hard top on the inside is in really nice clean condition as well. And the dash is in great shape too. Let's take a quick look at the back seats. Back seats are in great condition as well. No rips, no tears, no stains. Very, very clean. It does have the latch child safety system. Has the all-weather floor mats back here as well. These seats do fold down for extra storage, which is really nice. And then there's all those soft top adapter pieces that you have. And once again, latch child safety system. You can fit car seats in these. I have two car seats in my Wrangler right now. It's a little tighter, but it works. Now this is one of my favorite features and definitely going to be the next thing I add to my Wrangler. This one has shocks on the hood, which is really a nice system there. So that's definitely the next upgrade I'm doing. Anyway, it's 3.6 liter V6 Pentastar. Been on Ward's top 10 engine list four different times. Engine bay is very clean, runs very smooth. This Jeep has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop. Has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked out and topped off. Everything's been gone over mechanically 100%. And yeah, just a really, really nice Jeep all the way around. Highly recommended from a conditioning quality standpoint, from a good looking standpoint as well. And thanks for checking out the video. If you want to see more pictures, go to our website, which is www.SummitAuto.com. We have full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle on our lot. Videos of every single used vehicle that we have. And if you want to make this Jeep Ears, give us a call right now,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Thanks for one of our sales associates to make this Jeep Ears today. Don't hesitate, we make it easy. Once again, that number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Thanks for checking out the video. If you want to check out more videos like this, go to our YouTube channel, which is www.youtube.com. Remember to like, subscribe, and share on those videos. In fact, in a second you'll see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left. A link to more used Wrangler videos like this one on your right. And if you haven't been to our website on the bottom, a link to this Jeep on our website. Check us out and we really look forward to helping you with this super clean 2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited. Willie's Wheeler, thanks again.


I'm Dermot Gavin, every country should be able to evaluate plant health risks to better protect plants. Protecting national plant resources is essential to sustain plant health globally. The International Plant Protection Convention helps developing countries improve their vital sanitary capacity and sustain life on earth.