I mean, maybe I

don't.

What happened was when genome sequencing came in, people talked about it a lot with regard to human beings for figuring out genetic diseases, but it's very valuable.

Let's say a bunch of people get sick, and you want to find out whether they're getting sick due to the same organism By looking at the detailed genetic sequence, you can figure out if it was the same organism, and then you can trace it back to where they ate or what they were exposed to.

So that's a key part of the epidemiology.

There's another part of it that I think is fascinating, and it gives you a hint of what could happen in the future.

There was an experiment done in the city of Chicago that did involve Google, not me, but other people at Google.

shocked

Um, define misinformation for us w- in, in the context of what we're talking about with the public health and individual health.

It's useful, I believe, when we're studying it, to divide information into information that's reliable and truthful, information that's incorrect for any reason, most often just people didn't have it right or no one really knows the answer.

Then disinformation, which is information which is purposely put out there which is known to be incorrect or pretty much proven to be incorrect, that could be harmful to people.

Um, and then malinformation, which is very purposeful, destructive information put out, often by government adversaries, uh, as a form, really, of cyber warfare.

And these categories are all different.

Um, the terminology itself is controversial because, uh, particularly just in the broad misinformation category, it can be argued whether a piece of information is correct or not, and often experts will disagree.

So there is a lot of fuzziness there, and people can be highly offended.

... on the topic of trust.