So I have bad news, I have good news, and I have a task. So the bad news is that we all get sick. I get sick. You get sick. And every one of us gets sick, and the question really is, how sick do we get? Is it something that kills us? Is it something that we survive? Is it something that we can treat?
我有些好消息也有些坏消息 也有个任务。 坏消息是我们都会得病 我会生病,你会生病。 我们每一个人都会生病。问题是: 我们病得有多重?会不会致命? 我们能不能挺过来? 可不可以被治愈?
And we've gotten sick as long as we've been people. And so we've always looked for reasons to explain why we get sick. And for a long time, it was the gods, right? The gods are angry with me, or the gods are testing me, right? Or God, singular, more recently, is punishing me or judging me. And as long as we've looked for explanations, we've wound up with something that gets closer and closer to science, which is hypotheses as to why we get sick, and as long as we've had hypotheses about why we get sick, we've tried to treat it as well.
只要我们还是人类,我们就会得病。 所以,我们常会寻找得病的原因。 很长时间以来,我们认为是和上帝有关, 上帝生我的气了,或者上帝在考验我, 或是上帝 在惩罚我或审判我。 我们不断的寻求生病的原因 我们得到了一些越来越接近科学的假设, 一些我们为什么会得病的假设。 有了这些假设,我们就会尝试去治愈疾病。
So this is Avicenna. He wrote a book over a thousand years ago called "The Canon of Medicine," and the rules he laid out for testing medicines are actually really similar to the rules we have today, that the disease and the medicine must be the same strength, the medicine needs to be pure, and in the end we need to test it in people. And so if you put together these themes of a narrative or a hypothesis in human testing, right, you get some beautiful results, even when we didn't have very good technologies.
这是伊本·西那 ,几千年前他写了一本《医学规则》。 他记述的药物测试规则 和我们今天使用的规则非常相似 药物的作用强度必须与疾病的严重程度相当。 药物需是纯净的, 最终,我们会进行人体实验 如果你把这些关于人体试验的 叙述或假设总结起来, 就会得到很漂亮的结果, 即使是在科技不发达的年代。
This is a guy named Carlos Finlay. He had a hypothesis that was way outside the box for his time, in the late 1800s. He thought yellow fever was not transmitted by dirty clothing. He thought it was transmitted by mosquitos. And they laughed at him. For 20 years, they called this guy "the mosquito man." But he ran an experiment in people, right? He had this hypothesis, and he tested it in people. So he got volunteers to go move to Cuba and live in tents and be voluntarily infected with yellow fever. So some of the people in some of the tents had dirty clothes and some of the people were in tents that were full of mosquitos that had been exposed to yellow fever. And it definitively proved that it wasn't this magic dust called fomites in your clothes that caused yellow fever. But it wasn't until we tested it in people that we actually knew. And this is what those people signed up for. This is what it looked like to have yellow fever in Cuba at that time. You suffered in a tent, in the heat, alone, and you probably died. But people volunteered for this.
这个人叫卡洛斯·芬莱, 他提出了一个 在19世纪末期非常有超前的假设 他认为黄热病不是由脏衣物 而是由蚊子传播的。 人们都取笑他,之后的20年里人们称他为"蚊子先生" 但他在一些人身上进行了实验 他有了这个假设然后在人们身上进行测试 他招了自愿感染黄热病的志愿者 去古巴住在帐篷里 其中一些放有脏衣服 另一些 则满是接触过黄热病的蚊子 实验无疑证明了并不是那些 叫做感染体的神奇污垢导致黄热病 如果没有人体实验,我们将无法证明这个结论。 并且这是人们自愿的 这就是当时在古巴得黄热病的样子 你在帐篷里独自一人忍受高温 还有可能会死掉 但人们依然自愿参加
And it's not just a cool example of a scientific design of experiment in theory. They also did this beautiful thing. They signed this document, and it's called an informed consent document. And informed consent is an idea that we should be very proud of as a society, right? It's something that separates us from the Nazis at Nuremberg, enforced medical experimentation. It's the idea that agreement to join a study without understanding isn't agreement. It's something that protects us from harm, from hucksters, from people that would try to hoodwink us into a clinical study that we don't understand, or that we don't agree to. And so you put together the thread of narrative hypothesis, experimentation in humans, and informed consent, and you get what we call clinical study, and it's how we do the vast majority of medical work. It doesn't really matter if you're in the north, the south, the east, the west. Clinical studies form the basis of how we investigate, so if we're going to look at a new drug, right, we test it in people, we draw blood, we do experiments, and we gain consent for that study, to make sure that we're not screwing people over as part of it.
这并不仅是一个很酷的科学实验设计 他们还做了这样一件漂亮的事情 这个文件叫做知情同意书,志愿者需要签署这个协议 知情同意书是一个值得社会骄傲的想法 它把我们和纽伦堡的那些 进行强制医学实验的纳粹党区分开来 它的基本原则是, 志愿者的同意必须建立在知晓实验内容的基础上 它可以防止我们被唯利是图的人 哄骗去参加那些 我们不了解也不想参加的医学实验 将这些口头叙述、科学假设 人体试验以及知情同意书组合在一起 就是我们今天的临床试验 大量的医学工作都通过临床实验完成。 无论你来自何方 临床研究形成了医学研究的基础 比如说我们要开发一种新药物 我们要进行人体实验、抽血、化验 当然在这之前要通过知情同意书 来确认我们没有强迫人们参与
But the world is changing around the clinical study, which has been fairly well established for tens of years if not 50 to 100 years. So now we're able to gather data about our genomes, but, as we saw earlier, our genomes aren't dispositive. We're able to gather information about our environment. And more importantly, we're able to gather information about our choices, because it turns out that what we think of as our health is more like the interaction of our bodies, our genomes, our choices and our environment. And the clinical methods that we've got aren't very good at studying that because they are based on the idea of person-to-person interaction. You interact with your doctor and you get enrolled in the study. So this is my grandfather. I actually never met him, but he's holding my mom, and his genes are in me, right? His choices ran through to me. He was a smoker, like most people were. This is my son. So my grandfather's genes go all the way through to him, and my choices are going to affect his health. The technology between these two pictures cannot be more different, but the methodology for clinical studies has not radically changed over that time period. We just have better statistics. The way we gain informed consent was formed in large part after World War II, around the time that picture was taken. That was 70 years ago, and the way we gain informed consent, this tool that was created to protect us from harm, now creates silos. So the data that we collect for prostate cancer or for Alzheimer's trials goes into silos where it can only be used for prostate cancer or for Alzheimer's research. Right? It can't be networked. It can't be integrated. It cannot be used by people who aren't credentialed. So a physicist can't get access to it without filing paperwork. A computer scientist can't get access to it without filing paperwork. Computer scientists aren't patient. They don't file paperwork.
临床实验方法已经建立超过10年 如果没有超过50或100年的话 而它周围的环境已经不同了。 现如今我们可以得到基因组的信息 但是基因组并不能决定一切 我们可以收集周围环境的信息 但更重要的是,我们可以记录我们的日常选择 因为我们发现身体健康是由 我们的身体、基因、环境 和日常选择共同决定的 如今的临床方法 是基于人与人之间的交互 所以并不能满足现代的要求。 在实验中你只是和你的医生进行交流 这是我的外公,虽然我从来没见过他 但他抱着的是我妈妈,而他的基因遗传给我 他的选择也会影响我。像他人一样 他吸烟。 这是我的儿子。 我外公的基因也会遗传给他 我的选择会影响他的健康 两代人的时间 科技发展日新月异 但是临床实验方法论并没有很大的改善 我们只是有了更好的统计而已 知情同意的授权方式,主要是在第一张照片的年代 也就是二战后形成的 知情同意书的本意是保护我们免遭伤害 但在这70后的今天,这种方法却形成了信息孤岛 在前列腺癌或老年痴呆症 临床实验中获取的数据 只能存入用以进行前列腺癌或 老年痴呆症研究的数据孤岛 它们不会被链接或整合起来 他们需要获得授权才能被使用 所以一个物理学家必须填写表格才能得到临床数据 不填表格计算机学家就不能得到临床数据 计算机学家可没那么耐心,他们不喜欢填表格
And this is an accident. These are tools that we created to protect us from harm, but what they're doing is protecting us from innovation now. And that wasn't the goal. It wasn't the point. Right? It's a side effect, if you will, of a power we created to take us for good. And so if you think about it, the depressing thing is that Facebook would never make a change to something as important as an advertising algorithm with a sample size as small as a Phase III clinical trial. We cannot take the information from past trials and put them together to form statistically significant samples.
这是不应该的。这些用来保护我们的方法 现在却在阻碍 我们创新的脚步 这并不是他们的初衷,对吧? 这是一个副作用 一个好事的副作用 想想看,Facebook用于改进广告投放算法 能够获得的样本大小都比 一个三期临床实验的样本大得多 这真叫人觉得沮丧 我们不能汇总过去的实验数据 形成有效的统计样本
And that sucks, right? So 45 percent of men develop cancer. Thirty-eight percent of women develop cancer. One in four men dies of cancer. One in five women dies of cancer, at least in the United States. And three out of the four drugs we give you if you get cancer fail. And this is personal to me. My sister is a cancer survivor. My mother-in-law is a cancer survivor. Cancer sucks. And when you have it, you don't have a lot of privacy in the hospital. You're naked the vast majority of the time. People you don't know come in and look at you and poke you and prod you, and when I tell cancer survivors that this tool we created to protect them is actually preventing their data from being used, especially when only three to four percent of people who have cancer ever even sign up for a clinical study, their reaction is not, "Thank you, God, for protecting my privacy." It's outrage that we have this information and we can't use it. And it's an accident. So the cost in blood and treasure of this is enormous. Two hundred and twenty-six billion a year is spent on cancer in the United States. Fifteen hundred people a day die in the United States. And it's getting worse.
这太糟糕了,不是吗? 45%的男性会患癌症 38%的女性会患癌症 每4个男人就有1人死于癌症 每5个女人就有1人死于癌症,至少在美国是这样 四分之三的癌症治疗药物 最终都失败了。 我个人对癌症感受颇深 我的姊妹从癌患中痊愈 我的岳母也是。得癌症很郁闷的。 如果得了癌症,你在医院里是没多少隐私的 大部分时间都是裸体 你不认识的人会进到病房指指点点 当我告诉得过癌症的人旨在保护他们的 知情同意书阻止了临床研究使用他们的诊断数据 尤其是授权临床研究的癌症患者比例 只有百分之三到四时 他们的反应不是“感谢上帝我的隐私得到了保护” 而是非常愤怒 我们采集了这些信息却没有好好的利用 这是个意外 这个意外的代价是巨大的 美国每年在癌症上的支出是2260亿美元 但每天却有1500人死于癌症 真是越来越糟
So the good news is that some things have changed, and the most important thing that's changed is that we can now measure ourselves in ways that used to be the dominion of the health system. So a lot of people talk about it as digital exhaust. I like to think of it as the dust that runs along behind my kid. We can reach back and grab that dust, and we can learn a lot about health from it, so if our choices are part of our health, what we eat is a really important aspect of our health. So you can do something very simple and basic and take a picture of your food, and if enough people do that, we can learn a lot about how our food affects our health. One interesting thing that came out of this — this is an app for iPhones called The Eatery — is that we think our pizza is significantly healthier than other people's pizza is. Okay? (Laughter) And it seems like a trivial result, but this is the sort of research that used to take the health system years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to accomplish. It was done in five months by a startup company of a couple of people. I don't have any financial interest in it.
好消息是,有些事正在改变 其中最重要的是我们可以利用那些 之前只能被医疗体系内行使用的方法 来了解我们自己 很多人认为这是数据狂热 我常用一个例子诠释这个想法: 提取我儿子身后的粉尘 可以得到很多关于健康的信息 如果选择是健康的一部分,那么 饮食是健康很重要的一部分。你可以随意的 拍一张食物的照片 如果有足够多的人这样做,我们就可以从中调查 食物对健康的影响 由此得到的一个有趣结论是——屏幕上是一款叫做The Eatery的iPhone应用—— 我们吃的披萨比别人吃的披萨 要健康的多(笑声) 这看起来是一个简单的结论 但这种研究往往会花费医疗机构 数年以及成百上千万美元去完成 现在只有几个人的创业公司在5个月就得出了这个结论 当然我对这家公司没有任何利益联系
But more nontrivially, we can get our genotypes done, and although our genotypes aren't dispositive, they give us clues. So I could show you mine. It's just A's, T's, C's and G's. This is the interpretation of it. As you can see, I carry a 32 percent risk of prostate cancer, 22 percent risk of psoriasis and a 14 percent risk of Alzheimer's disease. So that means, if you're a geneticist, you're freaking out, going, "Oh my God, you told everyone you carry the ApoE E4 allele. What's wrong with you?" Right? When I got these results, I started talking to doctors, and they told me not to tell anyone, and my reaction is, "Is that going to help anyone cure me when I get the disease?" And no one could tell me yes. And I live in a web world where, when you share things, beautiful stuff happens, not bad stuff. So I started putting this in my slide decks, and I got even more obnoxious, and I went to my doctor, and I said, "I'd like to actually get my bloodwork. Please give me back my data." So this is my most recent bloodwork. As you can see, I have high cholesterol. I have particularly high bad cholesterol, and I have some bad liver numbers, but those are because we had a dinner party with a lot of good wine the night before we ran the test. (Laughter) Right. But look at how non-computable this information is. This is like the photograph of my granddad holding my mom from a data perspective, and I had to go into the system and get it out.
更加不同寻常的是,我们可以测定自己的基因型 虽然它们不是决定性的,但依然可以从中得到信息 这是我的基因型,腺嘌呤、胞嘧啶、胸腺嘧啶和鸟嘌呤 这是解读,可以看到 我有32%的风险患前列腺癌 22%的风险患牛皮癣,14%的风险患老年痴呆症 这意味着,如果你是基因学家,你会崩溃的 喊着,“神呐,你告诉每个人你携带ApoE E4等位基因,有毛病吧?” 当我得到这些结果,我开始跟一些医生交谈 他们跟我说不要告诉任何人,我的反应是 “如果我得病,这些信息可以帮助人治愈我吗” 没人肯定的回答我 我生活在网络时代,当大家分享信息时 美好的事情应该发生,而不是糟糕的事情 所以我开始把这些结果放进幻灯片 我变得更“贪得无厌”,我去找我的医生 说:“我想要我的验血结果” 这就是我最近的验血数据 正如所见,我的胆固醇过高 尤其是有害胆固醇,我的肝脏指数也不太好 不过这是因为在验血的前一天的晚宴 我喝了很多红酒 但是,这些数据是多么的不可计算 这张纸和那张外公抱着母亲的照片一样 从数据的角度来说,我必须先进入系统 才能取出数据
So the thing that I'm proposing we do here is that we reach behind us and we grab the dust, that we reach into our bodies and we grab the genotype, and we reach into the medical system and we grab our records, and we use it to build something together, which is a commons. And there's been a lot of talk about commonses, right, here, there, everywhere, right. A commons is nothing more than a public good that we build out of private goods. We do it voluntarily, and we do it through standardized legal tools. We do it through standardized technologies. Right. That's all a commons is. It's something that we build together because we think it's important.
这里我要提议的是 我们要去收集身后的灰尘 要去体内得到基因型 要去医疗机构得到我们的记录 然后大家一起建成一个公共数据库(commons) 各种各样的演讲都提到了公共数据 一个公共数据库是用个人利益 换取大众利益的机制 我们通过合法的标准化工具与技术 资源的参与进去 这就是公共数据库。 因为我们认为它很重要 所以我们会集体参与
And a commons of data is something that's really unique, because we make it from our own data. And although a lot of people like privacy as their methodology of control around data, and obsess around privacy, at least some of us really like to share as a form of control, and what's remarkable about digital commonses is you don't need a big percentage if your sample size is big enough to generate something massive and beautiful. So not that many programmers write free software, but we have the Apache web server. Not that many people who read Wikipedia edit, but it works. So as long as some people like to share as their form of control, we can build a commons, as long as we can get the information out. And in biology, the numbers are even better. So Vanderbilt ran a study asking people, we'd like to take your biosamples, your blood, and share them in a biobank, and only five percent of the people opted out. I'm from Tennessee. It's not the most science-positive state in the United States of America. (Laughter) But only five percent of the people wanted out. So people like to share, if you give them the opportunity and the choice.
这个公共数据库是独一无二的 因为他是由每个人特殊的数据组成的 即使很多人用很多方法去保护 和关注自己的隐私和数据 但至少有一些人喜欢去分享,掌控自己的数据 公共数据库的一个显著特点是 只要有了足够的样本,不需要很大比例的人来参与 也可以得到漂亮且大规模的结果 正因为此,虽然写开源软件的程序员不多 但我们仍有Apache服务器 虽然浏览维基百科的人中很少有人会去编辑 但维基百科很好用。所以只要有人愿意分享 只要能得到数据,我们就能建立公共数据库 在生物界,数字更加客观 范德比特大学在一项研究中对人们进行调查 希望得到他们的生物样品、血液,并且在生物样本库中分享 只有5%的人拒绝 我来自田纳西州,在美国范围里 这并不是一个特别喜欢科学的州 但是仅有5%的人拒绝提供样本 所以只要有机会,人们是喜欢分享的
And the reason that I got obsessed with this, besides the obvious family aspects, is that I spend a lot of time around mathematicians, and mathematicians are drawn to places where there's a lot of data because they can use it to tease signals out of noise. And those correlations that they can tease out, they're not necessarily causal agents, but math, in this day and age, is like a giant set of power tools that we're leaving on the floor, not plugged in in health, while we use hand saws. If we have a lot of shared genotypes, and a lot of shared outcomes, and a lot of shared lifestyle choices, and a lot of shared environmental information, we can start to tease out the correlations between subtle variations in people, the choices they make and the health that they create as a result of those choices, and there's open-source infrastructure to do all of this. Sage Bionetworks is a nonprofit that's built a giant math system that's waiting for data, but there isn't any.
除了明显的家庭因素,另一个驱使我关注这些的原因是 我和数学家们共事了很长时间 他们会被吸引到有大量数据的地方去 因为数学家可以利用数据从一团乱麻中梳理出头绪来 这些被发现的结果并不是病原体 但是当我们用原始的方法去研究健康时 数学这个能力强大的工具 却一直被遗忘在角落 没有被利用在健康研究中 如果我们可以获得很多人们公开的基因型 化验结果,生活中的选择 以及环境信息 就可以从细微的差别中梳理出联系 知道选择是怎样影响健康的 现在已有开源的基础设施可以完成这些任务 Sage Bionetwork是一个拥有大型数学系统的公益机构 他们需要数据,但是却得不到很多
So that's what I do. I've actually started what we think is the world's first fully digital, fully self-contributed, unlimited in scope, global in participation, ethically approved clinical research study where you contribute the data. So if you reach behind yourself and you grab the dust, if you reach into your body and grab your genome, if you reach into the medical system and somehow extract your medical record, you can actually go through an online informed consent process -- because the donation to the commons must be voluntary and it must be informed -- and you can actually upload your information and have it syndicated to the mathematicians who will do this sort of big data research, and the goal is to get 100,000 in the first year and a million in the first five years so that we have a statistically significant cohort that you can use to take smaller sample sizes from traditional research and map it against, so that you can use it to tease out those subtle correlations between the variations that make us unique and the kinds of health that we need to move forward as a society.
这就是我要做的。我想发起世界上第一个 完全数字化的、自给自足的 无限制、无国界且符合伦理的 临床研究供人们来提供数据 所以你可以去获取身后的尘土 获取你的基因型 去医疗机构得到你的医疗数据 你就可以在网上完成知情同意的过程 因为向公共数据库的贡献必须是自愿的 志愿者必须知情。 之后你可以上传 你的信息,聚合后的信息会送给那些 专门解决大数据的数学家们去研究 我们第一年的目标是得到10万份数据 前五年得到100万 这样我们就有了具有统计意义的同期组群 你可以从传统研究中得到更小的采样数量 与之对应 你可以从那些使我们互异的差别中 找出细微的联系 可以找到需要整个社会努力的健康标准
And I've spent a lot of time around other commons. I've been around the early web. I've been around the early creative commons world, and there's four things that all of these share, which is, they're all really simple. And so if you were to go to the website and enroll in this study, you're not going to see something complicated. But it's not simplistic. These things are weak intentionally, right, because you can always add power and control to a system, but it's very difficult to remove those things if you put them in at the beginning, and so being simple doesn't mean being simplistic, and being weak doesn't mean weakness. Those are strengths in the system.
我在开源世界工作了很长时间 我参与了早期的web的形成 我也参与了早期的知识共享组织(creative commons) 他们有四个共同点:一是简单 所以如果你去我们的网站参与研究 你不会看到很复杂的事情 但这不是过分简单。 它们被故意设计的很轻量 因为向一个系统中增加功能简单 但想移除一个一开始就存在的部分是很难的 所以简单并不代表过分简单 保持轻量并不代表能力弱 这就是我们系统的力量
And open doesn't mean that there's no money. Closed systems, corporations, make a lot of money on the open web, and they're one of the reasons why the open web lives is that corporations have a vested interest in the openness of the system. And so all of these things are part of the clinical study that we've created, so you can actually come in, all you have to be is 14 years old, willing to sign a contract that says I'm not going to be a jerk, basically, and you're in. You can start analyzing the data. You do have to solve a CAPTCHA as well. (Laughter) And if you'd like to build corporate structures on top of it, that's okay too. That's all in the consent, so if you don't like those terms, you don't come in. It's very much the design principles of a commons that we're trying to bring to health data. And the other thing about these systems is that it only takes a small number of really unreasonable people working together to create them. It didn't take that many people to make Wikipedia Wikipedia, or to keep it Wikipedia. And we're not supposed to be unreasonable in health, and so I hate this word "patient." I don't like being patient when systems are broken, and health care is broken. I'm not talking about the politics of health care, I'm talking about the way we scientifically approach health care. So I don't want to be patient. And the task I'm giving to you is to not be patient. So I'd like you to actually try, when you go home, to get your data. You'll be shocked and offended and, I would bet, outraged, at how hard it is to get it. But it's a challenge that I hope you'll take, and maybe you'll share it. Maybe you won't. If you don't have anyone in your family who's sick, maybe you wouldn't be unreasonable. But if you do, or if you've been sick, then maybe you would. And we're going to be able to do an experiment in the next several months that lets us know exactly how many unreasonable people are out there. So this is the Athena Breast Health Network. It's a study of 150,000 women in California, and they're going to return all the data to the participants of the study in a computable form, with one-clickability to load it into the study that I've put together. So we'll know exactly how many people are willing to be unreasonable.
开放并不代表不能盈利 封闭的系统和公司通过开放的网络 赚了很多钱,开放的网络赖以生存的原因之一 就是公司和企业对系统的开放性 有很大的兴趣 我们创造的新临床实验包括这些特性 所以你只要年满14周岁,来到我们的网站 愿意签署一份合同证明你不会做蠢事 你就被接受了 你可以开始分析数据 当然你也需要填验证码(笑声) 如果你希望基于此建立一个公司 也是可以的。这些都在同意书中 如果你不喜欢这些条款,也可以不参加 我们希望把公共品的设计理念 引入到医疗数据领域 值得一提的是开发这个系统的团队 只有很少几个无私奉献的人 并不像维基百科一样动用了大量的人 去编辑和维护 人们总说我们不应该无私分享关于健康的数据 所以我讨厌“耐心”这个词 当我们的系统、卫生保健崩溃的时候 我不会保持耐心 我不是指政治上的医保,而是通过科学途径达到的卫生保健 我等不及了,交给你们的任务 也很急迫。我希望你们回家后 尝试去获得自己的数据 困难程度会让你震惊 甚至愤怒 但我希望你们能去挑战一下 或许你们最终会分享,或许不会 如果你家里没有任何人生病 或许你不会无私的分享数据 但如果你曾病过,或许你会分享 接下来的几个月我们会做一个实验 让我们了解有多少无私奉献的人 这是Athena Breast健康网络 在一个针对15万加州女性的研究中 他们会将数据以可计算的方式归还给参与者 只要点击一下 就可以把数据载入我们的系统中。这样就可以知道 有多少人愿意无私的分享他们的数据
So what I'd end [with] is, the most beautiful thing I've learned since I quit my job almost a year ago to do this, is that it really doesn't take very many of us to achieve spectacular results. You just have to be willing to be unreasonable, and the risk we're running is not the risk those 14 men who got yellow fever ran. Right? It's to be naked, digitally, in public. So you know more about me and my health than I know about you. It's asymmetric now. And being naked and alone can be terrifying. But to be naked in a group, voluntarily, can be quite beautiful. And so it doesn't take all of us. It just takes all of some of us. Thank you. (Applause)
我希望以这张图片结尾 自从一年前辞职做这件事情,我学到的 最美好的事情是:完成一件壮举真的 不需要召集很多人去合作 需要的只是愿意分享自己的数据 承担的风险远低于那些 自愿感染黄热病的人,对么? 这像是在数字世界中集体裸体,是对称的 你了解我的身体和健康,我也了解你的。 一个人裸体是很可怕的事情 但是一群人自愿的这么做,可以是非常美好的。 这不需要所有人都参与 只要所有愿意参加的人都参与就可以。 谢谢 (掌声)