[TV static drones]
[bright tone]
[upbeat rock music]
*
[cheers and applause]
- Welcome, welcome, welcome to "Last Week Tonight."
Thank you so much for joining us.
I'm John Oliver.
Just time for a quick recap of the week,
and obviously, the big news here in the U.S.
is that Donald Trump is now
the presumptive Republican nominee for president.
That's right, this sentient circus peanut
now holds the future of a major political party
in his tiny, raccoon paw-sized hands,
which is frankly a little surprising,
because the Internet repeatedly told me
I had destroyed and eviscerated him.
Why would they say that if it wasn't true?
[cheers and applause]
But look, if you are feeling depressed
about the current state of this election,
let me give you some perspective
from the Philippines,
the world's Rorschach test.
I see an upside down feather
and my father's disappointment.
Their presidential election takes place tomorrow,
and the current frontrunner is Rodrigo Duterte,
and he's a colorful character, to say the least.
man: Rodrigo Duterte
is far from your average politician.
His off-the-cuff remarks are legendary.
- [speaking native language]
man: At this mass wedding,
Duterte offers himself as a gift to the young brides.
- [speaking native language]
man: I don't have money to give,
but I could give your wives something else,
and this is for the wives only.
Men, I'm sorry, but you don't get anything,
because I'm not a queer.
[audience laughs, groans]
- Wow.
That kind of homophobia during a wedding
usually only happens when the father of the bride
has six whisky sours
and decides to tell everyone what he really thinks
about Cam and Mitchell on "Modern Family."
Not a fan. Not a fan.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Duterte routinely kisses his female supporters,
once called the Pope a "son of a bitch"--
all of which has earned him a reputation
as the "Trump of the East,"
a title previously held by a burnt wonton
covered in scarecrow pubes.
Now, Duterte has also suggested
if elected, he would kill five criminals every week,
which may not be an idle promise.
Since he's been mayor,
extrajudicial death squads have reportedly killed
over 1,000 people, and while he denies any involvement in that,
he does admit he's got blood on his hands.
- So no qualms about killing killers?
- I'm sorry--
about three people?
[laughter] That's not good.
Not knowing how many people you've killed
is like not knowing how many Vicodin you took.
If don't know the exact number,
the answer is way too fucking many.
And yet, incredibly, none of this has hurt him.
More than half of the city's residents
think the death squad is "okay,"
which is a surprisingly measured response.
Death squads? Yeah, they're okay.
Could be deathier, I suppose.
#SquadGoals.
[laughter]
At times, though, Duterte has seemed
like he is trying to test the limits
of basic human decency.
On the campaign trail recently,
he delivered a speech that was truly nauseating.
Field: He was the mayor of Davao
when an Australian missionary was murdered and gang-raped
in 1989 in the jail in Davao City,
where he's still the mayor today.
- [speaking native language]
man: I was angry she was raped.
Yes, that was one thing,
but she was so beautiful.
I think the mayor should have been first.
What a waste.
[audience groans] - What a fucking asshole.
And if any part of you was thinking,
"Was that some kind of horrific joke?"
please know he meant every word of it.
- Okay, let this be a lesson to all of us.
When we say, "I just want a politician
who'll tell me what he really thinks,"
we should specify that that politician
should not be a total fucking monster.
And yet, incredibly-- incredibly,
this man is leading in the polls
by 11 points,
so he's probably going to get elected president tomorrow,
which isn't just terrifying for the Philippines,
because it means that in just a year's time,
we could be treated to this
as an official state visit.
So, so let's--
let's move on to some lighter news
in North Korea...
[laughter]
Alphabetically speaking,
the world's foremost Korea.
This week, that country saw a major event.
- Ominous developments in North Korea right now,
where the biggest political event in decades is underway:
the first gathering of the Communist Party elites
in some 36 years,
- That's right, the North Korean Workers' Party
had its first gathering since 1980.
And I'm guessing the first order of business was therefore,
"Oh, my God, how good was 'Cheers'?
How good was 'Cheers,' guys?"
This event was so momentous,
North Korea actually invited around 130 foreign journalists
to come cover it, where they got the chance to meet
some normal, everyday, completely unscripted
Pyongyang citizens.
- [speaking native language]
man: Yes, he's the best one in the world.
- The best leader in the world? man: Yeah.
It's the most powerful country in the world.
- What should America know about your leader?
- [speaking native language]
man: Comrade Kim is the best in the world, she says,
and a peacemaker.
- [speaking native language]
woman: We don't have anything against Americans,
but we don't like American policymakers, she said.
- What do you think of President Obama?
- [speaking native language]
- If she's given the weapon-- provided the weapon--
she wants to shoot at him.
- So if she's given a weapon, she would shoot at...
- Uh-huh. - President Obama?
- Uh-huh, she wants to shoot at him.
- Wow. - Wow.
- Yeah, wow.
There is--there is literally no other response to that
than "wow."
Especially because you don't often hear assassination threats
in the same wistful tone of voice you'd say,
"Well, if I had a bread maker,
it would be focaccia every morning."
[laughter]
But the highly choreographed talk for the foreign journalists
didn't stop here.
They were also taken to a model farm
that seemed weirdly devoid of farmers,
a nursery school with this on the wall,
and even a gun factory-turned-museum
with great historical significance.
- We're told the founder and president, Kim Il-Sung,
test fired the first locally produced submachine gun
50 meters--more than 160 feet--
hitting those two targets with a bull's-eye every time.
man: This rifle, apparently fired by the founder
of the DPRK, Kim Il-Sung, even his wife,
and then later his son, Kim Jong Il.
They all apparently hit bull's-eye.
- Comrade Kim Jong Il shoot three bullets,
and three of them got bull's-eye.
- They all got bull's-eye? - Mm-hmm.
- And how old was he at the time?
- He was seven year old.
- A seven-year-old got three bull's-eyes?
- Yeah. - That's pretty impressive.
- [chuckles] Mm-hmm.
[laughter]
- Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
That--that is a very professional translator.
"A seven-year-old got three bull's-eyes?"
"Mm-hmm."
"A seven-year-old?" "I said, 'Mm-hmm.'"
[laughter]
Still, the whole point of the trip
was to attend Kim Jong-un's speech.
However, at the last minute,
the journalists were not allowed into the building
and were instead taken back to their hotel,
where they couldn't even watch the speech on state TV
because, as one of them showed on Vine,
it was airing an old, black-and-white
Korean military drama,
so her readers were reduced to watching someone
watching North Korean television,
and now you're watching this show watch someone
watching North Korean television.
It's like a Russian nesting doll
if every piece was less entertaining
than a plain, wooden doll that does nothing.
But thankfully, 13 hours later,
the state TV did give some inkling
of what was going on inside that meeting.
- The state television channel broke into regular programming
with a special news bulletin
announcing that Kim Jong-un will be elected this weekend
to a new, even more grandiose title
than the one he currently holds.
- Ooh, Kim Jong-un is getting a title bump.
I guess the only question is, what's the title going to be?
Will it be Supreme Leader?
Triple Supreme Leader?
I happen to think the most fitting would be
Kimleesi, Mother of Dragons,
because think about it,
given his unpredictable violence and fantastical family history,
he's perhaps the only person on Earth
who could conceivably win the "Game of Thrones."
[laughter] And now, this...
[orchestral music]
- The next president of the United States,
John Edwards.
- And the next president of the United States,
John McCain.
- The next president of the United States,
Newt Gingrich.
- Our next president of the United States, Al Gore.
- And the next president of the United States,
Michele Bachmann.
- Gary Johnson, the next president of the United States.
- The next president of the United States,
Dick Gephardt.
- You are looking at the next president
of the United States of America.
- Ralph Nader, the next president of the United States!
- The next president of the United States,
Ted Cruz.
[laughter and applause]
- Moving on, our main story tonight
concerns science:
the thing we love and respect so much,
we only allow scientists to be portrayed
by the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Nicolas Cage, and Al Pacino.
That is how much we respect them
and the complexity of the work they do.
Science is constantly producing new studies,
as you would know if you've ever watched TV.
- A new study shows how sugar might fuel the growth of cancer.
- A new study shows late-night snacking
could damage the part of your brain
that creates and stores memories.
woman: A new study finds pizza
is the most addictive food in America.
woman: A new study suggests hugging your dog
is bad for your dog.
- A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine
is just as good as spending an hour at the gym.
[laughter] - What?
That--that last one-- [cheers and applause]
No, no, no.
No, that last one doesn't even sound like science.
It's more like something your sassy aunt
would wear on her T-shirt.
And--and when studies aren't blanketing TV,
they're all over your Facebook feed with alerts like,
"Study Finds Liberals Are Better Than Conservatives at Smizing,"
"your cat might be thinking about killing you,"
and "scientific study shows that bears engage in fellatio."
And by the way, I'm not interested.
Let me know when bears start engaging
in some mutually pleasurable 69-ing,
#BearPleasure #Feminism.
[cheers and applause]
Time dot--Exactly.
Time.com once even ran the headline,
"Scientists Say Smelling Farts Might Prevent Cancer,"
which I would say was the most unfortunate thing
"Time" ever published, but then this is the magazine
that once did a cover story on
"Those Asian American Whiz Kids."
The point is, there are now so many studies
being thrown around, they can seem to contradict one another.
In just the last few months, we've seen studies about coffee
that claim it may reverse the effects of liver damage,
help prevent colon cancer,
decrease the risk of endometrial cancer,
and increase the risk of miscarriage.
Coffee today is like God in the Old Testament.
It will either save you or kill you
depending on how much you believe in its magic powers.
And after a certain point,
all that ridiculous information
can make you wonder, "Is science bullshit?"
To which the answer is clearly "no,"
but there is a lot of bullshit
currently masquerading as science.
So tonight, we thought we'd talk about
a few of the reasons why.
And first, not all scientific studies are equal.
Some may appear in less than legitimate scientific journals,
and others may be subtly biased
because of scientists feeling pressured
to come up with eye-catching, positive results.
- My success as a-- as a scientist
depends on me publishing my findings,
and I need to publish as frequently as possible
in the most prestigious outlets that I can.
- Now, that's true.
Scientists are under constant pressure
to publish, with tenure and funding on the line.
And to get published, it helps to have results
that seem new and striking,
'cause scientists know nobody is publishing a study
that says, "Nothing Up With Acai Berries."
[laughter]
And to get those results, there are all sorts of ways
that, consciously or not, you can tweak your study.
You could alter how long it lasts, uh,
or make your random sample too small to be reliable
or engage in something that scientists call
"P-hacking."
That's P-hacking with a hyphen,
not to be confused with "phacking,"
which, as I think everyone knows,
is a euphemism for fucking the Philly Phanatic.
[laughter]
Now, P-hacking is very complicated,
but it basically means collecting lots of variables
and then playing with your data until you find something
that counts as statistically significant
but is probably meaningless.
For example, the website FiveThirtyEight
surveyed 54 people
and collected over 1,000 variables
and through P-hacking the results
was able to find statistically significant correlations between
eating cabbage and having an innie belly button,
drinking iced tea and believing
"Crash" didn't deserve to win Best Picture,
and eating raw tomatoes and Judaism.
And the only thing tomatoes have in common with Judaism
is that neither of them really feel quite at home
in the Upper Midwest.
[laughter]
But--but you don't even need to engage
in these kinds of manipulations to get results
that don't hold up.
Even the best designed studies
can get fluke-ish results.
And the best process that science has
to guard against that is the replication study,
where other scientists redo your study
and see if they get similar results.
Unfortunately, that happens way less than it should.
- Replication studies are so rarely funded
and so underappreciated.
They never get published.
No one wants to do them.
There's no reward system there in place
that enables it to happen.
So you just have all of these exploratory studies
out there that are taken as fact--
that this is a scientific fact
that's never actually been confirmed.
- Exactly.
There is no reward for being
the second person to discover something in science.
There's no Nobel Prize for fact-checking.
And incidentally, "There's No Nobel Prize for Fact-Checking"
is a motivational poster
in Brian Williams's MSNBC dressing room.
[laughter and applause] And for--
for all those reasons-- for all those reasons,
scientists themselves know not to attach
too much significance to individual studies
until they're placed in the much larger context
of all the work taking place in that field.
But too often, a small study with nuanced, tentative findings
gets blown out of all proportion
when it's presented to us, the lay public.
Sometimes that happens when a scientific body
puts out a press release
summarizing the study for a wider audience.
For instance, earlier this year,
a medical society hosted a conference
at which a paper was presented comparing the effects
of high- and low-flavanol chocolate
during pregnancy.
If that sounds narrow and technical,
it was supposed to be.
There wasn't even a control group
of women who didn't eat chocolate.
And the study found no difference
in preeclampsia or high blood pressure
between women who ate the two chocolates.
So there is no way a study that boring
can make it to television, right?
Well, wait,
because that medical society issued a press release
with the much sexier but pretty misleading title,
"The Benefits of Chocolate During Pregnancy."
And because most TV producers just read press releases,
this happens...
woman: Turns out if you're pregnant,
eating 30 grams a day of chocolate--
that's about two-thirds of a chocolate bar,
not the whole chocolate bar--
could improve blood flow to the placenta
and benefit the growth and development of your baby,
especially in women at risk for preeclampsia
or high blood pressure in pregnancy.
- Except that's not what the study said!
It's like a game of telephone.
The substance gets distorted at every step.
And I can only imagine how someone who watched that segment
must have described it the next day.
"Ooh, the news said our baby is made of chocolate,
and it's okay if I eat it, but only two-thirds."
[laughter]
And it is not like the media needs help
blowing things out of proportion.
Remember that "Time" story about farts and cancer?
It turns out the study never mentioned
either of those things.
It just pointed out that certain sulfide compounds
"are useful pharmacological tools to study"
mitochondrial dysfunction.
And while that "Time" story was later heavily corrected,
the scientists told us that
"we still get phone calls and emails
"from 'strange' radio and TV shows
wanting us to talk about farts,"
which is clearly a waste of their time.
They're doing valuable work.
They shouldn't be wasting their time fielding calls
from drive time DJs
Gas-Man and The Beef.
[laughter]
And--and there is no doubt
some of this is on us,
the viewing audience.
We like fun, pop-y science
that we can share like gossip,
and TV news producers know it.
That is why you constantly hear stuff like this...
man: Men, listen up.
A brand new study says a woman is more open to romance
when they are full opposed to being hungry.
- Okay. [laughter]
First of all, no shit.
Anyone is more open to anything
when they aren't hungry.
But--but you should know
that study involved only 20 women,
and you cannot presume that 20 women
can speak for all women.
This is science, not the United States Senate.
And then--and then-- [cheers]
There was this eye-catching report
from just last year.
- A university in England says
drinking champagne every week
may help delay dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
They say only one to three glasses a week--
not a day, a week--
can be effective for your health.
- Fantastic news.
- No, it isn't.
No, no, because there's a big issue with that study,
aside from the fact that if you are celebrating
with champagne three times a week,
your standards for celebration
need to be much higher.
Champagne is acceptable on New Year's,
Valentine's, birthdays,
and if and when Henry Kissinger dies,
and that's it.
That is it. That is the full list.
But the bigger issue is,
that study was performed on rats.
And how do you not tell people that?
And how do you not also
show them photos of the experiments?
[laughter]
Oh, you'd think they would've paired it with some cheese,
but it appears they went with cocaine.
God, that's chic.
Those are chic rats.
It's not the drugs that make them cool.
It's their confidence.
But the truth is,
while studies performed on rats and mice
are undeniably useful,
their applicability to humans can be limited.
The overwhelming majority of treatments
that work on lab mice
do not wind up succeeding in humans,
which means two things:
A, we shouldn't rush out to report rodent results,
and B, during lab mouse funerals
when they say, "At least he didn't die in vain,"
most of the time, they are lying.
I-I know it hurts to hear that,
but them's the breaks, mouse.
Now--now to be fair,
it's not always the news media.
Sometimes researchers themselves
will oversimplify the science.
Even TED Talks, which have had some amazing speakers,
have also featured some morning show-style science
in the past, like Paul Zak's 2011 talk
on a hormone produced in the brain called oxytocin,
which he even gave a catchy name to.
- This little syringe contains the moral molecule.
It's so easy to cause people's brains to release oxytocin.
I know how to do it,
and my favorite way to do it
is in fact the easiest.
Let me show it you.
Come here, give me a hug.
[laughter]
There you go. [applause]
Here's your prescription from Dr. Love:
eight hugs a day.
We have found that people who release more oxytocin
are happier,
and they're happier because they have better relationships
of all types.
Dr. Love says eight hugs a day.
[laughter]
- First of all,
don't call yourself "Dr. Love."
That's the nickname a tabloid gives a dentist
who ejaculated on his sedated patients.
[laughter]
And second--second, there is no way
that I would be happier giving eight hugs a day.
I'm English; that is four lifetimes' worth of hugs.
[laughter]
And look, by now, you probably won't be surprised to learn
the real science on oxytocin is more complicated
than the term "moral molecule" suggests,
because while it has been found to enhance positive emotions
like bonding and trust, researchers have also found
that it can enhance negative emotions
like envy and bias.
So while promising, the science on this is still
very much in progress, which probably explains
why a recent survey of oxytocin research warned
the reports about it influencing
a large number of social behaviors
"should be viewed with healthy skepticism,"
which is really a long, technical way of saying
what you probably knew in the first place, which is,
when a strange man calling himself Dr. Love
offers to hug you eight times a day,
say no.
[laughter and applause]
And you can see-- you can see just about all
of the problems that I've described,
plus one more,
in a study that made the rounds last year.
- A new study claims that driving while dehydrated
is just as dangerous as driving drunk.
Researchers say drivers who drank just one ounce
of water per hour made the same number of mistakes
on the road as those over the legal limit with alcohol.
Doctor, when I hear this, I thought,
"This cannot be true."
- Yeah, obviously it couldn't,
because it wasn't true.
As Britain's National Health Service had already pointed out,
that study was riddled with red flags,
including that it was based on just 12 men
of whom data was only reported for 11,
and it got funding from
the European Hydration Institute,
a foundation that's received over $7 million
from Coca-Cola,
a company that just happens to sell rehydration
in the form of fizzy, brown sugar water,
carbonated urine,
flat urine,
diet urine,
and grapefruit-flavored embalming fluid.
And--and look,
just because a study is industry-funded
or its sample size was small
or it was done on mice
doesn't mean it's automatically flawed,
but it is something the media reporting on it
should probably tell you about.
And you may think, "Well, hold on, where's the harm here?
"So long as I don't try to fart cancer away
or fellate a bear, no one's getting hurt."
But I'm not so sure about that,
'cause think of it this way:
this is a chart mapping the results
of studies of things like coffee, eggs, and wine.
All of them have been linked to raising or lowering
your risk of cancer, depending on the study.
And "everything causes cancer" is not the conclusion
you want to draw from science.
It's the conclusion you should draw from logging on to WebMD,
where that is their motto.
Because if I were to tell you
about each of those studies in isolation,
at some point, you might reasonably think,
"Well, no one knows anything about what causes cancer."
And that is a problem,
because that's the sort of thing that enabled tobacco companies
for years to insist, "The science isn't in yet."
And if you think I'm exaggerating about the impact
that this misreporting can have on our faith in science,
look at an example from some of the people most guilty of it,
because the "TODAY" show,
which lives for scientific studies,
recently concluded one segment like this...
- Like a lot of studies that we love around here,
there've been a couple, especially related to women...
woman: Right. - About the benefits--
as I get all serious-- of whole milk.
Hey, whole milk. But it is true.
- There is a lot of research, though, that says
actually having whole milk-- or having whole fat
dairy products actually can help you lose weight.
- I think the way to live your life is,
you find the study that sounds best to you,
and you go with that.
- No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no!
[applause] In science--in science,
you don't just get to cherry-pick the parts
that justify what you were going to do anyway.
That's religion. You're thinking of religion.
That is what you're thinking of there.
[cheers and applause] And look, this is dangerous.
This is really dangerous.
If we start thinking that science is à la carte
and that if you don't like one study, don't worry,
another will be along soon,
that is what leads people to think
that man-made climate change isn't real
or that vaccines cause autism,
both of which the scientific consensus is pretty clear on.
Science is by its nature imperfect,
but it is hugely important,
and it deserves better than to be twisted out of proportion
and turned into morning show gossip.
So if they are going to keep saying "a study says,"
they should have to provide sourcing and context
or not mention it at all.
And I know what you're thinking: "Well, hold on, if that happens,
where am I going to get all my interesting bullshit from?"
Don't worry, we have you covered.
[upbeat gentle music]
man: Do you love science in all its complexity,
but wish it could be a little less complex
and a lot less scientific?
Introducing TODD Talks,
where the format of TED Talks meets the intellectual rigor
of morning news shows.
- Chocolate, mmm.
It will kill you.
- What if I were to tell you all
that the cure to racism
is coffee?
- And in my research, I found out
red wine makes babies 20% more sociable.
That's a baby we can work with.
man: At TODD Talks, we've raised the bar
on entertainment
by lowering the bar on what constitutes science.
- Our scientists at the Skittles Foundation
for Rainbow Tasting have done some pioneering work.
We placed 37 volunteers from Tulsa, Oklahoma,
on an all-Skittle diet for six weeks,
and guess how many were killed by baboons?
One.
34 people lived.
Two were killed in a non-baboon-related
murder-suicide.
man: Why do we do this? Because you love science.
But you don't want to hear its process
accurately depicted on a stage.
- I conducted a randomized, double-blind trial
on the effects of coffee on cancer of the esophagus,
and while there were statistically significant
decreases in incidences of cancer
in the mice that were given the coffee
compared to the control group,
any definitely conclusions will of course have to await
human trial, peer review, and replication.
Now, of course this--
- I think what he's trying to say is,
coffee cures cancer!
[applause] Yes!
We did it! - No, no, no, no, no.
- We finally did it! - No, no, no, no, no!
- Coffee cures cancer!
man: You won't find our speakers at TED Talks,
because they're not afraid to ask the hard questions.
- Are eggs good for you?
Or are they bad for you?
What if I were to tell you they were both?
What if I were to tell you they were neither?
What if I were to tell you they were both
and neither?
man: Whoo! - Yes!
man: TODD Talks feature the kinds
of scientific insights
that aren't just un-credible--
they're incredible.
- Stand butt-to-butt with me.
Boom.
By standing butt-to-butt,
we can actually increase our serotonin levels.
How do you feel?
- Uh, weird.
- Weird. That's the serotonin working.
Okay, don't move. I'm gonna step out.
I'm gonna come back in and give you a boost.
How does that feel?
- Um... - She's speechless.
man: If you like the idea of science,
you'll absolutely love TODD Talks.
- People, none of what you're hearing here is science.
Science is a very slow and rigorous process
that does not lend itself easily to sweeping conclusions.
- Whoa, take it easy, pal.
Sounds like somebody needs a serotonin boost.
Come on, bring it in. Whoo!
man: TODD Talks have been called "insightful,"
"inspiring," and "a clear trademark infringement."
- And guess what? I'm not even a scientist.
But my study shows that you seem 70%
more authoritative if you're wearing a lab coat,
and I am!
[applause] Thank you so much.
Whoo! Not a scientist--there you go.
[cheers] Yeah, yeah, yeah!
Whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo!
Whoo, whoo, whoo, yeah!
Whoa! Thank you!
Thank you so much.
It's been fun. I'm not a scientist.
[cheers and applause]
man: TODD Talks-- because science
doesn't have to be an exact science.
- That's our show. Thank you so much for watching.
We'll be back next week. Good night.
[cheers and applause]
- What if I told you all
that the cure to racism
was coffee?
Not tea.
Don't drink tea.
That'll make it worse.
- One out of 37.
What are the odds?
We'll never know.
[crowd murmuring]
- Whoa--argh!
[applause] Oh...
- Good, bad, neither.
Both. Science!
[cheers and applause]
Science...
[applause]
Is an egg.
[bright tone]