03x11 - Scientific studies and science journalism

[bunniefuu]

[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 q*eer.

[audience laughs, groans]

- Wow.

That kind of h*m*
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 k*ll
five criminals every week,

which may not be
an idle promise.

Since he's been mayor,

extrajudicial death squads
have reportedly k*lled

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
k*lling K*llers?

- I'm sorry--

about three people?

[laughter]
That's not good.

Not knowing how many
people you've k*lled

is like not knowing how many
Vicodin you took.

If don't know the exact number,

the answer is
way too f*cking 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 m*rder*d and g*ng-r*ped

in 1989 in the jail
in Davao City,

where he's still
the mayor today.

- [speaking native language]

man: I was angry she was r*ped.

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 f*cking assh*le.

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
f*cking 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 w*apon--
provided the w*apon--

she wants to sh**t at him.

- So if she's given a w*apon,
she would sh**t at...

- Uh-huh.
- President Obama?

- Uh-huh, she wants
to sh**t 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 g*n
factory-turned-museum

with great historical
significance.

- We're told the founder
and president, Kim Il-Sung,

test fired the first
locally produced submachine g*n



hitting those two targets
with a bull's-eye every time.

man: This r*fle, 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
sh**t three b*ll*ts,

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,


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 v*olence
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,

d*ck 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 k*lling 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


#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 k*ll 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 f*cking
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


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 dr*gs
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 k*ll 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


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
k*lled by baboons?

One.



Two were k*lled in
a non-baboon-related

m*rder-su1c1de.

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!

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]