Listen Now

G’Day everyone – Welcome to ScIQ on TYT Network.In today’s society, people are very concerned about race. Is Elizabeth Warren really Native American? Is Mitt Romney really human? Or a cyborg sent from planet nine?But if you thought you owned that DNA test, think again, because by getting a test done you just lost the rights to your genetic data! Recently news came out that FamilyTreeDNA shared it’s databank of 2 million people with the FBI – so if you’ve taken a DNA test and were planning to murder someone, you might want to reconsider. Now, I think we all agree that solving crimes is good. But the Family Tree database is also free to access and can be used by anyone, which you probably didn’t know when you spat on that q-tip. Yes, Public DNA databases are a real thing, and they are a big risk to your privacy risks.Scarily, the FBI can also use the database to find the relatives of criminals, and then use those relatives to find the real suspect. Now, people who get their DNA tested don’t often realize that they’ve also consented to release their genetic data to that testing company. Just like Facebook owns your usage data, about when you’ve been shopping for halloween costumes for dogs, the DNA testing company now owns your genetic data, and can theoretically do whatever they want with it. If that sounds crazy, it’s not. This industry is so new that it’s hasn’t been regulated yet. Experts agree that “There is no legal limit on what they could do” with that information.Ancestry.com, 23 & Me – this is all the Wild West. Congress hasn’t even had a chance to catch up – and we’re all like “take me genetic code and take my money!!” Which brings up the fun issue of genetic privacy. The stuff we’re paying companies to take – it could be worth billions. For example, testing companies could sell your data to insurers, who can then deny you health insurance or life insurance based on your genetic profile. “Sorry sir, your results show you’re at risk of cancer – you can f*ck off! Next!” And it’s not just DNA testing that’s a potential problem. In the past few years, all the biggest tech companies have all made moves to get into the health sector. Google’s head of AI Jeff Dean was quoted as saying, "Healthcare is the single biggest white space for Google to move into."Microsoft have just partnered with Walgreens to hold your medical information in the cloud. Amazon has created the ABC Initiative with Berkshire Hathaway and Chase Bank, with the intention of revolutionizing healthcare by creating value from health data – what could possibly go wrong?And Uber has launched Uber Health to potentially replace ambulances. Ambulance Pool, anyone? 20% cheaper than a regular Ambulance, and triple the blood! Now I love technology, it’s what brings my to your screen.But tech companies aren’t known for their respect for privacy, so I might as well just tell you about my raging thrush infection now, because if Instagram’s gonna be in charge of protecting my medical records, they’ll be on Facebook next week. What? That’s not even that gross – you know what is gross?? Having to look at the inside of someone’s uterus everytime they get knocked up. No Sharon, I don’t want to see your reproductive organs on my newsfeed!There are big concerns about genetic privacy, and just liked no one cared about email server security until Benghazi, it’s likely no one will care about genetic security until someone in a garage in Galverston starts making little Hitler clones. So, before you get a DNA test, just remember you’re giving away the most valuable thing you own, yourseSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/sciQ)

With prescription drug prices soaring in the US, there has been growing bipartisan and public anger over the tricks and shady deals of Big Pharma companies. Recently, the CEOs of several U.S. drug makers testified before a senate hearing - but made the same excuses they'd made before. Here in America, prescription drug prices are as out of control as Beto’s youth pastor vibes.It’s probably the only thing in america right now that everyone agrees with.“We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs - the drug companies are ripping us off every single day.” “The rising cost for prescription drugs, and outcry to do something about it.” “The number one issue for so many people - the high cost of these prescription drugs.”A recent study by the Public Policy Institute found prices have more than tripled since 2006. Another study found the cost of insulin has doubled in just four years. Talk about 0-100 – the only thing i’ve seen go up as fast is R Kelly’s temper.I probably need to stop watching so much E News.Now, politicians have finally decided enough is enough (well, some have) – and brought all the big drug companies to congress to please explain.And surprise, surprise – the drug companies lied! Crazy. Here’s my fact check of the biggest fibs told big drug companies – and why they’re just… wrong. LIE #1: THE COSTS TO MAKE DRUGS HAVE GONE UP True, costs for everything generally go up. Yep, I’ve heard of inflation.But the cost to buy the drugs has gone up way more than the cost to make the drugs.If costs have gone up so much, how come the costs haven’t gone up as much overseas?Just look at this graph, which shows the cost of insulin across different countries. In 2016, America’s top 10 drugmakers made a 27% profit margin.Is that a…  good profit margin? Well, the average profit of the S&P 500 was 11%. So Big Pharma is making twice as much profit as other big companies. So yep, they’re making a f-ckload of coin.LIE #2: AMERICA ISN’T THAT EXPENSIVE, COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTRIES, CAUSE WE’VE GOT DISCOUNTS AND STUFF. Why must you fill the room with LIES!?In Europe, where they have a single payer system, like most of the developed world – the government uses the buying power of all its citizens to get the best price. Europe is like, “Yeah G’Day Pfizer, we want to buy your drug, and we’ll buy enough for our 739 million people if you give us a sweet deal.” That’s why costs for drugs in Europe usually go down over time as they demand better mates rates.But in America, each individual insurance company does the negotiating, so they get no mates rates for those piddly a-s requests. Which is why, even if you have health insurance, you still get stitched up. And of course if you have no health insurance, then you’re up  sh-t creek in a barbed wire canoe with a rusty teaspoon for a paddle.Just to show how dumb the US system is: Medicare buys drugs for 55 million people, but it legally can’t negotiate what it pays for prescription drugs. Yes, drug companies can just name their price. “ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!”and taxpayers have to pay that.LIE #3: DEVELOPING NEW DRUGS IS RISKY AND EXPENSIVE, AND MOST DRUGS FAIL – BUT WE MUST FIND CURES! SO GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY!Yeah, true: it costs a lot to research drugs. But guess what else is true – a lot of that research is paid for by taxpayers! Drug companies don’t pay for basic research, the government does! That’s what all those smart people in white coats do in universities. Usually, drug companies only buy-up when a newSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/sciQ)

G'Day you! Yeah, I’m talking to you mate. What are you doing to save the environment?Oh, you recycle. Good for you! It’s a pain in the ass, isn’t it? Rinsing those yogurt tubs and then keeping them under the sink, all stinky like a dunny in summer? But it gives you a good feeling, right? Well, it may be giving you a good feeling, but I’m here to tell all you happy recyclers of the world – you ain’t doing sh*t for the environment. In fact, this whole recycling thing – it’s a big. Fat. scam.Right now you’re probably thinking – fair go Jayde, “What about all the recycling labels and the recycling plants…?!” Well – you’re right – recycling did actually used to help… in some way. But let’s cut to the chase: Recycling waste in the US is expensive. That’s why America used to only recycle about one third of its plastic domestically. We’d ship all our plastic sh*t to China, who’d buy it, melt it down and cheap plastic Chinese shit. In fact, China was the world’s dumping ground – importing two-thirds of the world’s plastic waste. This arrangement was working just dandy – til China realized it didn’t need our trash anymore. They make plenty of it themselves, thank you very much. At the start of this year, they officially closed their border to America’s trash. So now, America’s trash is homeless. A study published in Science Advances predicts over 100 million metric tons of plastic waste  is now in limbo  – and just to visualize that – its as much as if you stacked up all the plastic as high as the empire state building, and then covered all of Manhattan with it. Where is limbo? Well, some of our trash ends up in Vietnam, Malaysia, India, and Thailand. But they don’t manufacture anywhere near as much plastic cr*p as China does, so they wont be buying up all our trash. These countries often don’t even have effective waste management for their own citizens, and the Science Advances study shows much of that plastic ultimately ends up in the ocean. But wait – don’t we have recycling plants in America? Yes – but that costs money. Cities have to collect, sort, clean, melt. After all that – it’s not even worth much. Say it cost you 10 bucks to make a tonne of recycled plastics – but you can only sell it for 5 bucks. So the city loses money on every bit of plastic it recycles. Now, while the govt isn’t averse to pissing money down the drain – oftentimes it’s just easier for them to dump all those carefully-separated plastics into landfill. Wondering where *your* plastic yoghurt tub goes? The website www.wastedive.com/ found if you live in Any of these states[..1] , - your “recycling” might be going to the same place you throw the rest of your trash. Depressing, right? But here’s an idea: Instead of recycling, how about not buying plastic in the first place?Get yourself one of those fancy aluminum bottles and grocery bags with baby owls on it – and turn your nose up at plastics like a true tree-hugger! So, recycling: better than littering– but definitely not all its cracked up to be!Disagree with me? Let me have it, in the comments below.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/sciQ)

According to a national report,  almost a quarter million US kiddies were married between 2001 and 2010. It also found, and interesting – that the highest rate of child marriage goes to (drumroll please) Idaho! The state that just voted against banning child marriage.Idaho’s current law allows anyone, no matter how young they are, to get married if both a parent and a judge consents to the marriage. So theoretically, you could marry a baby. You’d have a hard time getting said baby to remember it’s wedding vowels, but there’s no law to stop you from giving it a red hot crack!Now, most child marriages aren’t “Romeo and Juliet” situations, where 17 year olds fall in love with their high school sweetheart.Only about 1 in 7 child marriages are children marrying other minors. 77% of the children wed were underage girls marrying adult men, often with a significant age differences – some of the marriages simply legalized what would have been statutory r*ape.Like in an Alabama, where a US state judge once forced a 14-year-old girl to marry a 74-year-old man even though the age of statutory rape is 16. I say “forced”, because there’s no way a child would fall in love with an old man,... unless it’s 17 year old Bella falling in love with 110 year old Edward – which is TOTALLY NOT CREEPY AT ALL because said centenarian looks like Robert Pattison.Now, you might ask why we’re cool with letting children marry creepy old men, when science clearly tells us they can’t all be Robert Pattison.Well, like the second amendment – this problem is caused by a super outdated precedent that desperately needs an update. Back in the ye olde days, getting pregnant out of marriage was a huge deal – and many states didn’t set a minimum age of marriage – as a way of ‘protecting’ girls from having a child out of wedlock and getting burned at the stake etc. But now in Idaho, a marriage of a girl of ANY age can be approved by a judge, if the “judge determines that it is in the best interest of society that the marriage be permitted”.When might a judge find a marriage involving a female child “in the best interest of society”? Oh, that’s right, when a girl is knocked up and is standing before a judge who believes out-of-wedlock births are ruining this country. Republicans in Idaho say blocking child marriage was “an overreach of the government”, and blocked the bill. “I do not think courts should be involved in marriage at all… I think two willing people should be able to go and get married.” says Republican Bryan Zollinger. Really, Senator Zollinger – marriage, is an overreach over government? Really?Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/sciQ)

Now, humans have killed off many mammal species before, including: TASMANIAN TIGER:  HUNTINGWESTERN BLACK RHINO: POACHINGVAKIDA - OVERFISHINGYANGTZE DOLPHIN: POLLUTIONSOUTH CHINA TIGER: POACHING SAUDI GAZELLE: HUNTINGAnd CHRISTMAS ISLAND SHREW (thanks to the INTRODUCED SPECIES yellow crazy ant - and yes - those ants are deadset mental)But the Bramble Cay Melomys is the FIRST mammal to die out due to climate change.  Ummm, Congrats Australia?So, how exactly did the adorable rat-like Bramble Cay succumb to climate change?Was it that, it didn’t have adequate access to food, unlike the pizza rat? Nope.Was it that it looked like a rat, and it basically was a rat, so no one gave a rats arse? Kinda, Basically. Yeah.Scientists and the conservation community knew the Melomys was critically endangered – for a while. They believe the last melomys may have drowned in a storm surge that, because of rising sea levels caused by climate change, flooded the entire island.  But It was only when someone formally declared the Bramble Cay as dead, did anyone care that it had been alive. Common story – just look at Van Gogh, Galileo and the 9/11 hijackers. Here’s what’s frustrating. Experts like Dr John Woinarski said the death of the melomys was entirely foreseeable and preventable.“IT SUFFERED FROM LIVING A LONG WAY AWAY FROM ANYWHERE ELSE, BEING A RAT, AND BEING NOT PARTICULARLY ATTRACTIVE.” - DR JOHN WOINARSKI IT  “(IT) WAS NOT AN ANIMAL CHARISMATIC ENOUGH TO GARNER MUCH PUBLIC ATTENTION.” - DR JOHN WOINARSKI So in other words, if you want to not become extinct, you better bloody be the Cardi B of the animal kingdom.Obviously Australia is very sad and ashamed at the death of one of our own – so they’re totally reformed they’re climate change policies!Just kidding! Australia doesn’t give a shit.The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison – has got his hands in the pockets of big coal - and told Aussie kids on climate strike to “get back to school”. Dianne Feinstein, eat ya heart out.I should note here that the past last five Aussie summers have been like - each hotter than the last by record breaking amounts - which is by American standards – bloody hot. Not to mention longer droughts, more (and worse) bushfires, floods, you name it. Oh – and our coral reefs – bleached to high heavens. Literally.But this story isn’t just about my home country. Many more species are still vulnerable to rising sea levels and extinction from climate change.Consider this: Could we, humans,  be the next Bramble Cay Melomys?Okay that’s an exaggeration, of course we won’t be the NEXT – but if we don’t get our shit together soon, well, let’s just say the endangered list is not a good place to be.But whadda you guys reckon? Are you as outraged as me at the loss of this adorable rodent? Let me know in the comments below.And, in honor of the Bramble Cay Melomys, I’ll now send you off with some photos of this lovable rat in happier times.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/sciQ)

With all the news focused on spending bills that Trump won’t sign, you might not have noticed one bill Trump did sign, right before the shutdown began. It’s called the US Farm Bill, a bill that’s been going since 1933 and gives away almost a trillion dollars of your taxpayer money. Now, in 1933 the Farm Bill was created to protect vulnerable farmers who mostly looked like this. But today, many farmers look like this: huge Agriculture companies that own thousands of acres and make billions of dollars. So why do we still even have a Farm Bill, and where’s all that money going?Now, before we get started, let me just say that the latest US Farm Bill does loads of good things, like guarantee food stamps for the poor, legalize hemp, and outlaw the farming of cats and dogs for meat. Which I thought was already a thing in the US, but anyway, the Farm Bill was supported by both parties and passed almost unanimously. But like a golden beachy glow that might also be malignant skin cancer, the farm bill does two things that are pretty sh-thouse:ONE - it sneaks billions of dollars into the pockets of Big Agriculture companies andTWO - It destroys the environment. Let’s start with number one: The US Farm Bill was created during the Great Depression, to keep family farms afloat and ensure a stable national food supply in rough times. Sounds pretty Fair Dinkum to me!But see, the thing is – farming technology has come a bl--dy long way since the Great Depression – and because of this rampant industrialization, most farms are owned by Big Ag.Because of the US Farm Bill, in 2017, these big companies received an average of $18.2 million in subsidies from Uncle Sam. Even billionaire businessman Glen Taylor – the owner of the Minnesota Timberwolves – received over one hundred thousand dollars in subsidies a year. Now, the Timberwolves rankings aren’t that hot – but does Glennie Boy really need government handouts? Nup. Did we just pass a bill to keep giving him money? Yep.But don’t take my word for it. Iowa’s Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is one of only two farmers in the Senate. And he voted against the Farm Bill. He said:“I’m very disappointed ...“I’ve been trying to make sure the people who get the subsidies are real farmers. … I’ve been trying for three years, and it gets worse and worse and worse.”Now, why aren’t more politicians like Chuck p-ssed about this? Well, just like taking money from our troops, taking money from our farmers has never been a good way to win votes. Especially right now – because of Trump’s trade war with China, farmers have been losing billions. That’s true for both these kinds of farmers, and these.So rather than do something unpopular and get nailed by the Agriculture lobby, both political sides are happy to keep handing out checks. Secondly, the Farm Bill is also making a dog’s breakfast out of America’s environment... because of a thing called ‘crop insurance’. Now again, crop insurance was created to protect ye olde Depression era farmers from droughts and floods and hurricanes. If their crops were destroyed, the government would give them a few bucks so they wouldn't go bankrupt, and could survive to farm again in the next season. Kind of like a ‘thank you, next’ situation.But today, crop insurance is a bit like a rich parent who keeps bailing their kid out of the slammer. Big agriculture companies know, if they make bad choices and their farm fails, the government will just bail them out with a nice fat insurance check. A 2017 study shows that crop insurance means less sh-ts given towards planting the right crops, especially by Big Ag corporations. Sure, it might be aSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/sciQ)

Jayde Lovell sits down with climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann, co-recipient of the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement (often referred to as the 'Nobel for the Environment'. Lovell:                    G’Day. Well, as you know, climate change is one of the biggest threats facing the world today, and to talk about some of the recent political developments in climate change. I have with me a titan of the climate change defense movement, Dr. Michael Mann. Thank you so much for joining us.Mann:                Thank you. I thank you, It's good to be with you.Lovell:                     Now, you were originally famous for producing a really important piece of science that's become known as the Hockey Stick Graph back in 1998. Can you tell us briefly what that is?Mann:                Yeah, well, we only have about a century of widespread thermometer measurements around the world, and we know the globe has warmed up quite a bit over that century. But to understand how unusual that warming might be, we have to turn to other indirect measures of the climate that go farther back in time from natural archives like tree rings and corals and ice cores. And what we did literally two decades ago, was to pull all those information together so that we could reconstruct how temperatures had varied over the past thousand years, and that revealed a graph that's come to be known as the hockey stick, where the blade, if you will, of the hockey stick, the warming of the past century is seen to be unprecedented over the past thousand years.Lovell:                     So 20 years ago you were able to show the world in this clear graph that this warming that we're experiencing currently is absolutely unprecedented in history, and that made you a lot of enemies. Can you tell me about some of the attacks that you've had to endure as a climate change scientist?Mann:                Sure. So once the Hockey Stick became this icon in the climate change debate, I was suddenly subject to all these efforts to discredit me personally as a way of discrediting this graph, and I was subject to subpoenas, Congressional subpoenas. I received what appeared to be a dangerous substance in the mail, a white powder that had to be examined by the FBI. I have had demands for me to be fired. I have had threats against my life, threats against my family. I've been hauled before Congressional committees. Put in the hot seat by politicians trying to discredit me, often politicians funded by the fossil fuel industry. So they've tried everything pretty much in the book to try to discredit me.Lovell:                     Just because you happen to be talking about a type of science that they don't agree with?Mann:                Because the implications of our work are inconvenient for special interests who currently profit from fossil fuels. Climate change, the reality and threat of climate change, tell us we have to move away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy. That is inconvenient for some powerful special interest.Lovell:                     Now, I wanted to talk to you, and I wanted to record this conversation because there's a piece of news that hasn't become was public as I wish it had. It's that a statement was recently made at the most recent climate summit, COP24, put out by four nations, all agreeing on one piece of mistruth. We've termed them the Axis of Evil, but can youSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/sciQ)

Ever since this guy Trump extolled the virtues of’ ‘grabbing em by the pussy’, we’ve all been wondering:How bloody hell is it that a guy can admit to sexually assaulting someone – and then be elected president?And it’s not just ‘ol baby fingers who gets to blend the creepy uncle stuff with public office. There’s also:Arnold Schwarzenegger – confessed groper of ladies – elected Governor! Brett Kavanaugh – accused of attempted raped – ok’ed to serve on the supreme court Roy Moore - accused of child m*lesting – and supported by GOP leadersNow look, I understand – sometimes things are in the gray area – but even when Trump and Schwarzenegger admitted their sexual misconduct – people still seem to love and support them!Society says rape, groping, domestic violence, sex with minors is not ok, but then – is totally ok with it. Does that not do your head in?I mean: ‘How come famous people get away with behaving badly?”Turns out, scientists have been pondering this social phenomena for ages. And Here’s Aussie comedian Jim Jefferies explaining it with what he coined the ‘Fame to Blame’ Ratio: “Science tells us the more talented you are, the more likely you are to get away with a crime. It’s called the ‘Fame to Blame Ratio’. As you can see here…[cut]...Cosby of course, falls at the upper end, along with your Woody Allens, your Michael Jackson’s, your R Kelly’s - the creepiest of the creeps, but also the most talented. But down here, your favorite sandwich enthusiast Jarrod. Just as creepy, not very talented”And just last month – new research came out to show just how much we let the fame of our heroes go to our heads and make us completely mental. The study, published in Frontiers in Psychology, looked at the famous case of László Kiss - the popular head coach of the Hungarian national swimming team - who resigned amid a whole rapey rape hullaballo.The scientists wanted to understand if people’s opinion of Lazzie influenced the way they interpreted the facts.For example: Would they be more likely to think Lazzie was innocent, if they thought he was a top bloke who’d lead the national team to victory? Well, it’s probably not surprising that the people who thought Lazzie was a top bloke – also thought he couldn’t possibly be a rapist. So when he denied the rape allegations – his fans believed him. No fibs there! Well, turns out – those in Team Lazzie, those who thought he was a top bloke – they still supported him! They just changed their definition of ‘rape’, deciding that “yeah he did the thing, but it wasn’t really rape, and even if it was, it wasn’t really that bad”. Because why? Because he was so successful, that’s why.  That type of justification is sounding super familiar! ...say…  Donald Trump - it doesn’t matter that he confessed to sexual assaulting women on tape! He’s self-made billionaire! That promising young Stanford Swimmer isn’t a bad guy! Just because he raped a girl! He was only 19! And a three-time All-American swimmer!Look – what Science shows is that, we’re really good when it comes to separating people we like – from their behavior. Studies as far back as 2011 show that we view crimes not by our morals, but by our view of the criminal. This phenomena, of us turning the other cheek when our heros behave badly, is the same reason that Chris Brown, Mel Gibson and R Kelly all still have careers. So, next time Trump acts all invincible like this:“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and he wouldn't lose voters”It just might turns out, that, unfortunately – the science is there to back him up.But what do you guys think? (use the second take)Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/sciQ)

The birth control pill has a dirty little secret: the inventors  designed it so they could please The Pope.If you're on the pill, you can safely skip your period. Medically speaking - periods aren't necessary. And yes, you heard us right – the 28-day cycle with a 'period' is all because male inventors were trying to bend to the needs of religious men. Sound familiar? Jayde Lovell explains on the latest episode of ScIQ.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/sciQ)