 Well, perhaps one reason why I was asked to participate here is that we have been doing a undiagnosed disease program at UAB outside the network and prior, actually, to the existence of the network. So maybe there are some lessons in terms of how this can be scaled into a non-NIH-funded environment. It happened because I was the chair of an external advisory committee to the UDP in its early days, so I was exposed to it and had some opportunity to learn how it works. Invited Bill to UAB, he met with the CEO of our health system and the dean. They bought it as something that was the right thing to do and a good thing to do, and we've gotten about $200,000 a year for the past four years from our institution to move this forward. We view it as a clinical program. Obviously, it's not funded as a research program. We, and I mean by that all the various consultants, bill for our services in the traditional way, but we do have some money to grease the wheels, which is where that funding is used. In part, to hire nurse practitioners, this is the announcement about the program, but here are the players besides myself, two physicians who dedicate a small amount of their effort to full-time nurse practitioners, that's where a lot of the money goes, and they're the ones really that are the kind of engine of the program because much of what we end up doing, as you'll see, is to facilitate workups and to make it easy for consultants to get engaged, and that's really what the nurses largely accomplish, and we have a genetic counselor who also dedicates Potter for Time. We have a whole cadre of consultants, both in the adult and pediatric world, none of them are paid anything to participate in this program. They do bill for their services, like any other, and they agree to prioritize patients and to try to coordinate all of our workups, our outpatient workups. We don't bring people in, obviously we don't have the funding to make that possible, but it works reasonably well and why they stay engaged is because it's really, really interesting, I think. We have meetings that occur that, by the way, graduate students and genetics trainees attend as well as even some basic scientists, and they're just fascinating meetings. You see all of medicine unraveled in front of you when you hear the different consultants go back and forth about what could possibly be going on with this patient, and although it's not a basic science program, it does stimulate people to take things back with them, and that's, in my mind, one of the major goals of this program. So here are some numbers, they're not that up to date, so we haven't actually compiled them in the last, say, six months, but I would guess that we are at about 250 referrals at this point, and many of the workups were still in progress, but we actually have made diagnoses that have changed the course of treatment for patients. So if you ask the question, which I think is important if you're going to define mission and think about where it's going, so what's the soul of the program? So I didn't think of this as, you know, we're successful if we can cure somebody. That's, in my mind, that's the job of the NIH altogether, not anyone institute or anyone program. I saw this program as an engine of diagnosis that would take mysteries and solve them, and that would be the point from which the entire community could get involved to try to understand now what can we do about this. But I always thought, and I came to this conclusion when I was involved in that external advisory committee sitting in on some of the meetings here, that this was very much old-fashioned medicine, the part of medicine that, sadly, has gone by the wayside, which is that doctors listen to their patients and talk to each other, two things that happen very little these days in the pressured environment of day-to-day medicine, but then wedded to modern medicine and all the various genomic approaches and so forth. And so I saw the UDP almost as backstopping a dysfunctional healthcare system and providing something for patients who were desperate, largely because people really just weren't mobilized to use the tools that actually were at their disposal to help them. So in thinking about scalability and sustainability, just a few comments, some of which are connected to things other people have said all day. The role of sequencing, without question, that's been the most powerful tool at our disposal in terms of making diagnoses. And I'll be the first to advocate for good quality phenotyping. However, I will admit to you that there are times when we made a diagnosis by sequencing, and you sort of kick yourself that either you didn't think of the thing because it wasn't a new discovery. It was just a very rare condition presenting in a somewhat atypical way. And the honest truth is if I had done nothing at all other than sequence, then I would have come to the same answer. And we're going to see a lot of that, and that's why I was saying before, we really need to look carefully at process. What's the shortest distance to the answer? The answer being not the cure, but what the underlying pathophysiology is. And the network that's been set up to help facilitate functional validation is, I think, of huge value. And certainly, we would love to have access to that just as I'm sure many others in the community. The point I made earlier about lessons that are learned about how to do this most efficiently. In my mind, it's certainly not my field, but somebody who's an expert on process management ought to be looking in and asking the question, how efficiently can you do this? Because if it will be scalable, it will be because it gets to be more efficient. The idea of push diagnosis occurred to me, I guess, at one point when we made a diagnosis, and this I'm sure happens to all of you, that in a million years we wouldn't have made except by sequencing. It was nowhere on anybody's differential diagnosis. However, when you looked at the, in this case, it was an MRI of a young child, it wasn't that unfamiliar a picture. And the question is, how many other kids out there are out there who have the same condition and the same MRI? And the reason it's never been diagnosed is sequencing is new. It hasn't been used all that widely so far. And nobody would ever have thought of this gene until very recently, and probably even not to this day. Can we be coming up with tools to go back into radiology and saying, how many more Pantocerebellar atrophy patients do you have in infancy, which is what this was, that we could be asking this about? So every time you make a diagnosis, yes, maybe these are ultra rare, and some of them probably are. Some of them are probably just rare, and nobody ever thinks of them because they don't really surface as well-defined syndrome. So I'll bet you you'll find many more diagnoses if you could push this out rather than wait for the patients to come to you. We have, I think, productively partnered with what we call the Center for Clinical and Translational Science at UAB. And that's been, I think, a good way for us to reach both the clinical and also the clinical investigation community. And surely that network is one that could be captured to facilitate the expansion of this. We worry a lot about underserved communities. It takes a fair amount of sophistication, nevermind health insurance, to know that there even exists this kind of resource. And I think there are a lot of folks out there who don't have that sophistication, don't have a physician whom they can push to refer them. And I think there's a lot of need to try to reach underserved communities, which is something we're focusing more on now. We've heard a lot about patient networks and mobilizing them. And I'll also just mention the possibility of professional networks, including perhaps various of the professional societies, who I think would find it really fascinating to get involved in thinking through how to take the expertise that they have access to and mobilize it in this way. So in conclusion, really, I think this is scalable. It is not inexpensive. Why did UAB put money into it? I think the answer was in part because they knew, based on the experience at the NIH program, that it would have a kind of halo effect, that patients would benefit from this. And it would be something that they could point to as something that they'd really contributed to the community. And I don't think that uniquely motivated in that way. And when kind of approached in the right way, be surprised what you can make happen.