Oh right. Thanks. Hey, Bob. I was saying on the 'Lipkin Thread' about that old post from Jenny Spotila which I think we discussed when it was originally posted. The information might have now improved regarding his studies, I forget now without checking what it is we do know and what we don't to be honest (just that we don't really know a great deal!!) but I happened to watch again the link she included to that NIH State of Knowledge: It was interesting to hear again Harvey Alter's thoughts on this Lipkin Study. I had forgotten how much faith he had placed in it (Jenny quotes him as also saying it to be 'definitive' for example) but I was more interested in what he had to say about how it was being put together. There was also a comment from Coffin I think and it reiterated what I believe Miller had to say on that other thread, that PCR is required before NGS can be performed. To me this would seem logical I suppose i.e. you have to really know what you are looking for before looking for it and PCR identifies what to look for. But this does seem to go against what I have been given to understand elsewhere. I get the impression that NGS is some sort of 'uber-scan' that can simply 'dig deep' and reveal 'anything' and 'everything'. Presumably though it has to be primed and I think from her links in the post above, one of the articles did indicate that Lipkin will be looking for already associated viruses in the CFI project. Any thoughts? Thanks.