News conference dripping with irony, epidemiology and vitriol

[Feed cuts in and we see Doctor John Falangiopolous, a distinguished-looking epidemiologist, sit down and pull the two lone microphones towards himself. He seems somewhat disappointed to notice that there are only a few reporters present.]

JF: Hello, I’m Doctor John Falangiopolous and we’re here to talk about my study, which shows that most studies are wrong.

You have the briefing materials, but in essence my research shows that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false.

In fact, any randomly chosen study has only a 50 percent chance of being right.

Cindy Luhoo, CMN: Cindy Luhoo, CMN. So if that is the case, how do we know your study is right?

JF: Well, of course, I knew the irony of situation, but let me assure you, because of the nature of my study, I was careful to ensure that I did not make any of the mistakes that are so common.

It’s important to note that in the scientific process, it is not the first discovery that is critical, but the replication and confirmation that matters, because quite often research is refuted or shown to be incorrect.

CL: Follow up question: Like your study?

JF: No, my study is quite accurate, but I suppose we will not know for sure until my findings have been replicated by another scientist.

Bob Flaberghast, Washington Times-Journal: Bob Flaberghast, Washington Times-Journal, here. So, I’m confused. Should we be reporting on this or not?

JF: Yes, the study merits media attention. In fact, my hope is that the general public will understand that any particular study is not fact until it has been replicated by other studies.

BF: Well, then why cover it in the first place? Shouldn’t we wait for the replicating studies?

CL: Yes, but what about the news value Bob? Who cares about the second study?

BF: But Dr. Falangiopolous is saying that the first study doesn’t really matter.

CL: He didn’t say that Bob! God you always jump to these conclusions.

BF: Hey, I at least think about it a bit before I write something. At least I’m not just slapping it on the air as soon as I have some kind of film or actuality I can use.

CL: Bob, that’s not fair —

JF: If I could just interject for a moment, I think I can —

BF: Of course it’s fair. I can’t help it if your medium demands instant gratification.

CL: Well my medium may demand instant gratification, but at least I don’t.

BF: Oh! You bitch!

CL: Doctor Falangiopolous, would you say it’s normal for a man to ejaculate the very second of penetration?

JF: Well, uh, my field of research is epidemiology, so I’m not sure that I’m qualified to —

BF: Oh, ignore her because she’s been passed up for an anchor job again.

CL: You prick!

JF: Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t see how —

BF & CL: Shut up!

JF: I will not shut up. This is my media conference. We’re here to talk about my study —

BF: Which by your own admission has only a 50 percent chance of being right?

JF: Yes, but the point is —

CL: So you have it. Put the camera on me. On me! Good. So there you have it folks, this study is worthless and Bob is a premature ejaculator.

BF: Are you doing a stand-up in the middle of news conference?

CL: Yes jiffy pop. What’s it to you?

BF: I told you never to call me that. It makes me angry

[Camera pans wildly, we see Dr. Falangiopolous making cutting motion with his hand, Bob approaching Cindy, who looks simultaneously pissed off and terrified … feed cuts out.]

Obviously, this is another piece from the archives — however, my theory is that if it’s more than two years old, then it will seem new. This is based on a 2005 story in the New Scientist: Most scientific papers are probably wrong . (The story, not the theory.) Thanks to Mars Discovery District for the nerds. Other geekery is available at humor-blogs.com and alltop.

This is your last chance to vote for The Skwib as the best Canadian humour blog.