Episodes
-
The Studies Show LIVE! Get your tickets for our live show in London on Friday 9 May at this link.
Blaze it up! It’s time for an episode on cannabis. And just to be clear, not “on cannabis”, but “on, as in about, cannabis”. What’s the evidence that this incredibly popular drug will lower your IQ? What about the question of whether it causes psychosis?
In this toked-up episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart try to find out—and gracefully refrain from any “drug humour” while doing so.
The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Why does all that steam come out of the ground in New York City? Why are pineapples the greatest fruit? What on Earth was the Hanseatic League? All of these questions and more are answered in their most recent issue, available 100% free at www.worksinprogress.co.
Show notes
* A summary of the endocannabinoid system
* 2015 review of the evidence on the psychological effects of cannabis
* Famous 1987 study of Swedish soldiers on cannabis and psychosis
* The NEMESIS study
* 2007 systematic review of longitudinal studies of cannabis and psychosis
* 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis with results on dose-response
* Study finding earlier use predicts higher psychosis risk
* 2023 study on sex differences in the cannabis-psychosis relation
* Example of a Mendelian Randomisation study on cannabis and psychosis
* Data on cannabis exposure over time in the UK
* Dunedin Cohort study on cannabis and IQ
* And a response to some controversy over the data
* 2021 systematic review of IQ decline after smoking cannabis
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
The Studies Show. Live. In London. With Jesse Singal. Talking about controversial science. Friday 9 May 2025. What more need we say? Well actually, we say a bit more in this brief podcast.
Get your tickets HERE!
Or go to bit.ly/tss_live.
See you there!
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
Missing episodes?
-
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com
As if the basic “pro-life vs. pro-choice” issue wasn’t controversial enough, there’s been a decades-long scientific debate on the impact of abortion on mental health. Does getting an abortion cause a lifetime of depression? Or do most women think that in retrospect it was the correct choice?
As it happens, this issue opens up some massive questions about meta-analysis, bias, and the impact of legal threats on science. Tom and Stuart discuss them in this paid-only episode of The Studies Show.
To hear the full episode and read the show notes, you’ll need to become a paid subscriber at thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe.
With apologies from Tom for lateness because he forgot to press send.
-
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. thinks that seed oils—like sunflower or soybean oil—are causing terrible damage to people’s health. And now he’s the US Health Secretary (wait, what?!) we should probably take him seriously.
In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart trace the origins of the idea that seed oils are uniquely unhealthy, and look at all the best evidence from randomised trials on whether it’s remotely true.
The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, where you can find detailed, beautifully-written essays on technology and progress. If you need something to read that’s full of unexpected and inspiring ideas about how science and technology can make the world better, you can be confident that you’ll find it at worksinprogress.co.
Show notes
* Joe Rogan’s interview with the aptly-named dietary influencer Paul Saladino
* A typical anonymous tweet about the supposed effects of seed oils
* Article about Ray Peat’s advice on how often to measure your temperature for optimum health
* Guardian article on RFK Jr. and his views on seed oils
* Dynomight on seed oils
* 2013 systematic review on linoleic acid and inflammation
* 2017 systematic review on randomised trials of linoleic acid
* 2015 meta-analysis of cohort studies looking at linoleic acid and coronary heart disease
* 2020 meta-analysis of saturated fat and health outcomes
* The safflower oil study beloved of seed oil worriers
* And the Minnesota Coronary Survey
Credits
We’re very grateful to Stevie Miller for helping us with the research for this episode. The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
Whether it’s the 1903 New York Times article that claimed a flying machine was ten million years away, or the record executive who (allegedly) told the Beatles in the early 1960s that guitar bands were on the way out, predictions are hard.
In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss the psychologist Philip Tetlock’s research on superforecasters, the people who make the most accurate predictions of all. Even if you can’t become a superforecaster yourself, it turns out there’s a lot we can learn from them about how to form beliefs—and how to be right more often.
The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine, where this week Tom has written a review of the new book, Doctored, about fraud in Alzheimer’s research. Read that and many other short pieces on the Works in Progress Substack at worksinprogress.news.
Show notes
* A book chapter on the “Expert Political Judgement” study from Philip Tetlock
* Research on how people interpret terms like “a serious possibility” and “likely”
* Research that argues against the idea that teaming up makes superforecasters better
* Study on the correlates of being a good superforecaster (i.e. having a low Brier score)
* A paper on “small steps to accuracy”: how people who update their beliefs more often are better forecasters
* Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner’s book Superforecasting
* Julia Galef’s book The Scout Mindset
* Tom’s book, Everything is Predictable
* Tom’s review of Mervyn King’s book, Radical Uncertainty
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
Beginning in 2016, diplomats at the US Embassy in Havana started reporting strange concussion-like symptoms, even though they hadn’t taken a blow to the head. Some claimed they’d been the victim of a mysterious “sonic weapon”, aimed at them from somewhere outside and accompanied by a loud, high-pitched noise. Several scientific papers followed that appeared to confirm they’d been attacked.
In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart tell the whole story of Havana Syndrome, and dare to touch on the highly controversial theory that the symptoms might’ve been the result of mass hysteria (or as it’s now known, “mass psychogenic illness”).
The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. Their Substack is full of shorter articles that highlight apects of science and technology you might never have considered. This week: the surprising story of “The Prophet of Parking”. You can find that any all of their shorter items at worksinprogress.news.
Show notes
* The most recent (January 2025) development in the story of Havana Syndrome
* Stuart’s New Statesman article on Havana Syndrome from 2021
* Long and detailed ProPublica article from 2018
* Wikipedia articles on the LRAD and the Active Denial System
* NY Times article from around the time, about the Trump administration’s reaction to the “attacks”
* US Senate hearings on the “attacks” led by Marco Rubio
* Initial 2018 JAMA article with cognitive and other tests
* Response letters 1, 2, and 3 (“cognitive impairments everybody has”)
* 2019 JAMA article on brain imaging results
* Stuart’s 2015 study on brain imaging in ageing
* Entomologists report on the similarity of the recorded sound to that of a cricket
* Declassified US report that agrees
* A history of mass psychogenic illness
* BBC article on “The Bristol Hum”
* Guardian article on the bizarre phenomenon of Morgellon’s Syndrome
* Article arguing that critics of the “mass psychogenic illness” theory have misunderstood the condition
* 2020 National Academy of Sciences report
* Putin bragging about high-tech Russian weapons
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com
It’s been five years since the start of the COVID pandemic (yes, you read that correctly—five years). And the debate still rages online—did the virus come from a wet market, maybe via a pangolin, or from a gain-of-function experiment in a biolab?
In this paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart cover the lab leak hypothesis, and talk about what it means for how people should make their minds up about scientific controversies.
To hear the full episode, read the show notes, and leave a comment, you’ll need to be a paid subscriber on Substack. You can become one at www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe.
-
Every so often there’s a controversy related to IQ. The latest was caused by [checks notes] the new Vice President of the US attacking the IQ of a political podcaster on Twitter.
You could argue that the VP should have better things to be doing. But Tom and Stuart certainly don’t, because they’ve recorded a whole episode of The Studies Show on the science of IQ. Hasn’t IQ been debunked as a measure? Does anyone take it seriously in 2025? Doesn’t an IQ test only tell you how good you are at doing IQ tests? In this episode, find out the answers to all these questions and more.
The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine. It’s an online magazine associated with the broad “progress studies” movement, where you can find excellent, data-driven essays on what works to drive scientific and technological advances. You can find every issue of the magazine, for free, at worksinprogress.co.
Show notes
* JD Vance’s tweet about Rory Stewart’s IQ; Rory Stewart’s response
* Study on how standardised testing helps get more poor/minority kids into “gifted and talented” programmes
* 2023 meta-analysis on intelligence and lifespan
* 2018 study (n >2m) from the Israeli military on intelligence and early mortality
* Brief Nature article discussing why intelligence might relate to lifespan
* 2018 article on the psychological problems of high-IQ people
* Huge Swedish study on psychiatric hospitalisation and intelligence
* Can you ever be too smart for your own good?
* Meta-analysis on self-knowledge of IQ
* 2020 study showing that the Dunning-Kruger effect is a “statistical artefact”
* 2023 follow-up analysis
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
It had to happen eventually: this week The Studies Show is all about philosophy. As we look at science in general, how do we decide what those studies are actually showing?
Tom and Stuart take a look at the Big Two of philosophy of science: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, with their respective theories of falsificationism and paradigm shifts. Both are theories that almost everyone interested in science has heard of—but both make far more extreme claims than you might think.
The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to go online for fact-rich, data-dense articles on science and technology, and how they’ve made the world a better place—or how they might do so in the future. To find all their essays, all for free, go to worksinprogress.co.
Show notes
* Tom’s new book, Everything is Predictable: How Bayes’ Remarkable Theorem Explains the World
* Wagenmakers’s 2020 study asking scientists how they think about scientific claims
* David Hume’s 1748 Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the problem of induction
* Bertrand Russell’s 1946 book History of Western Philosophy
* Popper’s 1959 book The Logic of Scientific Discovery
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Popper
* Kuhn’s 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Kuhn
* 2019 Scott Alexander review of the book
* Michael Strevens’s 2020 book The Knowledge Machine
* Daniel Lakens’s Coursera course on “improving your statistical inferences”
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
Before the panic over social media—but after the panic over “video nasties”—was the panic over violent videogames. Was Pac-Man causing little Johnny so much frustration that he’d take it out on his siblings with his fists? Was Doom secretly training little Timmy to be a school shooter?
You don’t hear so much about videogames and violence any more, but if you look at the studies (and the critiques of those studies) there’s a lot to learn about where science can go wrong. In this episode of The Studies Show—in addition to, if we’re honest, just spending quite a lot of time talking about videogames—Tom and Stuart ask whether there’s any decent evidence that gaming can make people more aggressive.
The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine—a journal of underrated ideas to make the world a better place. In the episode we discussed a recent essay on cruise ships, and the surprising (and continual) improvements over the years. You can find all their essays, all of which are free to read, at worksinprogress.co.
Show notes
* Horribly violent games of yore: Death Race, Postal, Postal 2, Carmageddon, Doom II, Quake
* Newer games mentioned in the episode: Slay the Spire, Hades, Doom Eternal, Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Elden Ring
* Hilarious attempt by an MP to ban Space Invaders in 1981
* Chris Ferguson’s 2013 review of videogames and violence
* 2003 review of “The Influence of Media Violence on Youth”
* Pete Etchells’s 2019 book Lost in a Good Game
* List of publications based on the Singapore dataset
* Influential 2008 study by Chris Anderson showing a correlation between videogame violence exposure and violence
* Small Ferguson study from 2012 controlling for several variables and finding no correlation
* Study in the ALSPAC/Children of the 90s dataset
* Are modern, more realistic games worse for us than older ones? Study from 2021
* Use the CRTT to get whichever result you want
* Psychological measures aren’t toothbrushes
* Violent crime rates over time in the US, UK, various European countries, Japan
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com
Is recycling worthwhile? Is sending your rubbish to landfill actually so bad? Grab your cotton tote bag and join Tom and Stuart as they look at the evidence—and the intense political debate and even conspiracy theories—over the surprisingly controversial topic of recycling.
This is a paid-only episode, and to hear the whole thing (and read the show notes), you’ll need to become a subscriber to The Studies Show. Find out how at www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe.
-
We want scientists to be paragons of objectivity. At the very least, we want them to tell us who’s paying their bills. But it turns out that in some fields of research, the norms about reporting financial conflicts of interest are all over the place. Scientists making big money from after-dinner speeches about their research often don’t think it’s at all relevant to disclose.
In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the evidence on how funding affects the outcomes of scientific research—and discuss whether scientists need to be a lot more transparent about where their money comes from.
Show notes
* 2017 meta-analysis of the impact of funding source (for-profit vs. non-profit) on medical randomised trials
* Tom’s Nature article on undisclosed financial conflicts in psychology research
* New Angela Duckworth paper with no COI statement
* Unconvincing ethics article on COI disclosures and public trust
* Scientist declares his membership of the Scottish Socialist Party in an article about Margaret Thatcher
* Ioannidis article on conflicts of interest in nutrition research
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
This week, as a gift for New Year’s Eve, we’re opening up a previously-paywalled episode so that everyone can listen. It’s our episode from April 2024 on “Youth gender medicine & the Cass Review”. Since the show notes were previously behind the paywall, they’re copied below.
If you’d like to listen to all our paywalled episodes—which are of course ad-free, like this one—you can subscribe by visiting thestudiesshowpod.com.
Normal service will be resumed next week. Happy New Year!
Show notes
* The Cass Review’s final report
* List of systematic reviews from University of York researchers that were commissioned by the Cass Review
* Hannah Barnes on why the Tavistock gender identity clinic was forced to close
* VICE interview with a Tavistock doctor, including information on patient numbers
* Original Dutch single-case study on puberty blockers
* Somewhat larger Dutch study of puberty blockers from 2011
* The “Early Intervention” study from England (not published until 2021)
* Article that’s critical of the “cis-supremacy” in the Cass Review
* BMJ editorial on the Cass Review
* Billy Bragg claims that the Cass Review only included 2 studies out of 102
* Owen Jones’s video where he claims studies were “arbitrarily” excluded from the report
* Fact-checking post from Benjamin Ryan, covering some of the criticisms of the Cass Report
* Hilary Cass interviewed by The Times
* Episode of BBC More or Less that addresses some of the criticisms
* 2020 study on the small proportion of medical treatments where there’s strong evidence
* More recent (2022) study by the same authors finding an even more depressing picture: “More than 9 in 10 healthcare interventions studied within recent Cochrane Reviews are not supported by high-quality evidence, and harms are under-reported”
* The book Medical Nihilism
* The BMJ review of the book, quoted in the episode
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
In this final episode of 2024, Tom and Stuart talk about the most exciting scientific breakthroughs of the year… but temper it with some of the worst episodes of scientific fraud and misconduct, too. Then, just as a bonus, they address some of the biggest errors made in episodes of The Studies Show in 2024, too.
Thank you so much for listening in 2024. If you aren’t one already, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support the podcast and get access to all the episodes. In any case, we’ll see you for more The Studies Show in the New Year!
The Studies Show is sponsored by GiveWell, the non-profit aimed at making charitable donations as effective as possible. If you’re the kind of person who wants solid evidence that the money you donate is having an important effect on people’s lives, GiveWell is where you should be looking.
You can get your donation matched up to $100 if you’re a first-time donor on GiveWell. Just go to the website (GiveWell.org), then click “Donate”. When you make your donation, say you heard about GiveWell on a podcast, and enter “The Studies Show” to let them know we sent you. Then you’ll see the donation matched.
Show notes
* Saloni Dattani’s “Five Medical Breakthroughs in 2024” post
* Gavin Leech’s “Breakthroughs of 2024” thread on Twitter
* Stuart’s monthly bad science newsletter
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
In this “fun”, festive episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss two ways—one man-made, one natural—that our species might be wiped off the planet.
The first is “mirror life”, a science-fiction-sounding threat that hardly anyone had heard of until last week, when a group of concerned scientists wrote an open letter arguing that this is a technology that should never be developed. The second is the eruption of a supervolcano, which has a scarily high likelihood of happening in the next century… and for which scientists say we’re “woefully underprepared”. Have a cheery Christmas!
Here’s your chance to do some clear, measurable good this Christmas. We’re pleased to say that we’re being sponsored by GiveWell, the non-profit organisation who use evidence to work out which charities are the most impactful and effective. The really good news is that they’ll match any donation up to $100 for first-time donors who tell them at the checkout that they heard about GiveWell on a podcast, and then choose THE STUDIES SHOW. Go to GiveWell.org and click “donate” to get started.
Show notes
* Mirror life:
* The 300-page full Stanford report
* Science perspective piece on the risks of mirror life
* Asimov Press explainer article
* Supervolcanoes:
* I HATE ICELAND!
* Nature piece from 2022 about our “woeful” level of preparation for a massive volcanic eruption
* 1816, the “year without a summer”
* Evidence against the idea that Mt. Tambora nearly drove humans to extinction
* 2024 paper that’s sceptical of global cooling beyond 1.5 degrees C
* 2023 paper with a much more pessimistic scenario
* Two useful discussions (first, second) of the effects of supervolcanoes on the Effective Altruism forum
* 2018 article on what interventions might prevent or mitigate supervolcanic eruptions
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com
Rather unexpectedly, the idea of separate sports for males and females has become massively controversial—a major flashpoint in the culture wars, and even in the recent US election.
So what does the evidence say? Is it fair if trans women (who are biologically male) compete with females in sports like swimming, or even boxing? How much sporting performance does a lifetime of testosterone grant you? In this paid-only episode of The Studies Show, Tom and (confirmed sport-hater) Stuart look at the evidence on male vs. female sport performance—and discuss whether the argument is really more about ethics and politics than scientific evidence.
-
Patrick Bateman. Hannibal Lecter. Ted Bundy. The guy who used to live downstairs from me. Psychopaths, every one. Except defining psychopathy, let alone measuring it, turns out to be surprisingly controversial among psychologists and forensic scientists.
In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the latest attempts to define and model psychopathy, the evidence on the questionnaires used to measure it, and whether The Sopranos was right in saying that therapy only makes psychopaths worse.
Our sponsor for the next month is GiveWell. They’re the org that helps you work out the most effective, life-saving ways to donate to charity. The great news is that, if you haven’t donated with GiveWell before, they’ve offered to match your charitable donations up to $100. That is, if you donate $100 to an effective charity, it’ll instantly be doubled. What are you waiting for? All you have to do is go to GiveWell.org, click “Donate”, and when you’re at the checkout choose PODCAST and enter THE STUDIES SHOW.
Show notes
* The Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy strongly criticise Jon Ronson’s book The Psychopath Test
* 2021 Nature Reviews Disease Primers article on psychopathy
* Critical discussion of whether the psychopath label should be applied to children
* Christopher Patrick’s review of psychopathy research and discussion of his “triarchic” model of psychopathy
* 2020 review-of-reviews on whether psychopathy checklist scores predict violence, therapy outcomes, or remorse
* The 2020 letter from “concerned experts” about PCL-R scores and institutional violence
* Review on psychopathy scores and “dangerousness” from 2022
* The controversial 1992 study on iatrogenic effects on psychopaths in therapy
* “Are psychopathy assessments ethical?”
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
Among patients hospitalized for COVID, smokers had better outcomes. Among people with cardiovascular disease, those with obesity live longer. Among NBA basketballers, taller players don’t do any better. These are all facts. But the interpretation you might immediately draw is completely wrong.
It turns out that these findings (and many more) might be due to the weird and under-discussed phenomenon of “collider bias”. Everyone who’s interested in scientific methods knows what a confounder is—but do they know what a collider is? In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart attempt to explain.
We’re delighted to announce our sponsor for the next month: GiveWell. They’re the organisation who use rigorous evidence to point you towards the highest-impact charities. Want to make sure your donation goes as far as possible, maximising the lives that you’ll save and improve? GiveWell.org is the place to go.
And here’s a fantastic opportunity: if you’re a new donor, GiveWell will match up to $100 of your charitable donation if you go to GiveWell.org, then choose “PODCAST” and enter “The Studies Show” at checkout.
Show notes
* French study on COVID and smoking rates
* French doctors handing out nicotine patches during the pandemic
* Review of 13 studies in China showing lower smoking rates in those hospitalised for COVID
* Among heart attack sufferers, smokers have better subsequent health
* Obesity linked to improved survival among patients with a wide range of diseases
* Within the NBA, tall basketball players do no better than short ones
* Standardized testing doesn’t predict how well graduate physics students do
* The same but for biology
* The same but for STEM in general
* Do neurotic people actually live longer, once you correct for self-rated health?
* Julia Rohrer’s blog article on collider bias, using the conscientiousness/IQ relation
* The “collider scope” paper - one of the best explanations of the phenomenon
* Article on “the obsesity paradox”
* Follow-up arguing that it might not be a paradox at all
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
Is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., just a big crank? Well, yes. But is he nevertheless correct in his specific claims about the harms of water fluoridation? It’s long been argued that it’s no longer necessary, and that it might have the scary adverse effect of lowering children’s IQs. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look at the evidence.
While they’re at it, Tom and Stuart ask whether there’s evidence for several other dentistry-related claims. Regular check-ups; flossing; fillings; fluoride toothpaste—is your dentist just b**********g you about any or all of these?
[This podcast was recorded just before Donald Trump selected RFK Jr. as his candidate for US Health Secretary, but that makes the episode even more relevant].
The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine. If you’re an optimist who enjoys reading about how things have gotten better in the past, and how we might make them better in the future—then it’s the magazine for you. Find it at worksinprogress.co.
Show notes
* RFK Jr.’s tweet about how the new Trump administration will remove fluoride from the US water supply
* US National Research Council’s 2006 report on fluoridation
* 2023 meta-analysis on water fluoridation and IQ
* Letter co-authored by Stuart, criticising a bad study on fluoride and IQ in pregnant women and their babies
* The original study
* Review of fluoridation and cancer risk
* 2000 UK NHS review of fluoridation and cancer risk
* 2022 UK Government report on the link of water fluoridation to various different medical conditions
* 2024 Cochrane Review on fluoridation and preventing tooth decay
* Review of guidelines from the Journal of the American Dental Association
* 2020 randomised controlled trial on fillings in children’s teeth
* The Cochrane Library on the evidence for specific intervals between dental appointments (e.g. 6 months)
* The American Dental Association guidelines on flossing, and the NHS ones
* 2019 Cochrane review of RCTs of flossing
* The ADA and NHS guidelines on brushing with fluoride toothpaste
* 2019 Cochrane review on brushing and fluoride
* Claims about cardiac health being related to dental health
* Study of 1m people in Korea on cardiac health and tooth loss
* 2020 meta-analysis of cardiac and dental health
* The study included in the meta-analysis by Chen, Chen, Lin, and Chen
* Claims about dental health and cancer
* 2020 review of the literature
* 2024 Ars Technica story on dentists over-selling their services
* 2019 Atlantic piece: “Is Dentistry a Science?”
* 2013 piece in the Washington State Dental News magazine on “creative diagnosis”
* Articles in the British Dental Journal and JAMA Internal Medicine both arguing that evidence-based medicine has left dentistry behind
Credits
The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe -
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com
You might’ve noticed it: a lot of celebrities have recently been talking or writing about their diagnosis of adult ADHD. The way they discuss it, as soon as they discovered they had ADHD everything made sense: their distractibility, their difficulties following instructions, their restlessness, and so on.
But is adult ADHD a real psychiatric condition? How does it differ from childhood ADHD? And (whisper it) might some people actually be faking having ADHD? In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart cast a sceptical eye over this very “trendy” diagnosis.
By the way, if you’re a paying subscriber, you can add the RSS feed of this podcast to your favourite podcast app so you don’t just have to access the paid-only episodes via the Substack page. You can find out how to do so at this link.
- Show more
