Science Fictions

Exploring the placebo effect and its controversies, including its potential for both positive clinical effects and statistical bias. Discussing the concept of pharmacological memory and its relationship to placebos. Delving into pain perception and the role of expectation management. Highlighting the influence of demand characteristics and the importance of double-blind studies. Exploring how expectations affect pain management and the need for further research.

On The Studies Show, we’re all about trying to get it right. But sometimes we get it wrong. Every so often, we’ll do a feedback/corrections/clarifications episode where we go back and try to correct any errors in the last few episodes, and reply to your more general feedback. This is the first one of those, covering Episodes 1-8. Our thanks go to everyone who pointed out our mistakes. Please keep the feedback coming!Show notes* Retatrutide phase 2 trial; semaglutide vs. tirzepatide cost-effectiveness study* The IARC’s useful, detailed report on (e.g.) whether being a firefighter is a cancer risk; the FDA disagrees with the IARC on whether aspartame should be labelled as a “possible” cause of cancer* The newest published trial of psilocybin for depression* Stuart’s more recent article on ultra-processed foods, with discussion of mechanisms; Chris Snowdon’s two part review of Chris van Tulleken’s book; interview with Herman Pontzer on his book BurnCreditsThe 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 sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Explore the intriguing evolution of the growth mindset concept, from its origins in Carol Dweck’s research to its acceptance in educational settings. Discover the debate over whether praising effort truly nurtures success and how widespread claims may not hold up against rigorous studies. The hosts dissect various meta-analyses that reveal inconsistent effects on academic performance and discuss the implications of publication bias and financial conflicts in research. Ultimately, they question the real impact of growth mindset interventions in classrooms.

If you were anywhere near social media at the start of August, you’ll have seen endless claims of a massive, world-changing breakthrough in physics: the LK-99 room-temperature superconductor.In this episode, Tom and Stuart—neither of them anything approaching a physicist, so caveat emptor—discuss what a superconductor is, why it would be exciting (or not) for it to work at room temperature, and ask why people online got so excited over claims that one had been discovered… when it actually hadn’t. The Studies Show is sponsored by the i, the UK’s best daily newspaper. You can find the latest deals—including a 50% off deal for digital subscriptions—at this link. Thanks to the i for their support!If you’re enjoying The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access some features like ask-me-anything chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe by typing your email address below:Show Notes* Video of the Meissner effect - the eerie levitation of superconducting materials* The initial LK-99 preprint on arXiv* Stuart’s article from the day LK-99 went viral* Statistical model that many thought proved LK-99 really was a room-temperature superconductor* Article in Nature News explaining why the LK-99 material might’ve seemed to have superconducting properties* Story on the retractions of work by another room-temperature superconductor researcher* Actually-exciting superconductor advance 1 (and replication); actually-exciting superconductor advance 2 (and replication)* Article on the Fleischmann & Pons “cold fusion” debacle* Story of the “faster-than-light neutrino” error* Plastic Fantastic, the book about the fraudulent semiconductor studies in the early 2000s* Article on “quantum computing’s reproducibility crisis” and the Majorana particleCreditsThe 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 sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

This podcast explores the impact of ultra-processed foods on obesity, discussing their definition, categorization, and health implications. It highlights the limitations of observational studies, presents the results of a study on weight gain, and delves into the brain's response to the modern food environment. The hosts share their views on ultra-processed foods and promote the podcast's subscription options.

Seemingly-reliable sources give you diametrically-opposed views on vaping. Are e-cigarettes “95% less harmful” than cigarettes, or aren’t they? Are vapes gateway drugs that lead people to smoke, or are they a great way to give up smoking? Is it both? Neither?In Episode 5 of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into the research on the health effects of vaping and try to answer these questions - as well as explaining the origin of the fabled “popcorn lung”.The Studies Show is brought to you by the i, the UK’s best daily newspaper. For the next 7 days only, you can take advantage of the i’s current deal: 50% off a full digital subscription + the physical weekend paper. Thanks to the i for their support!If you like the sound of The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access some features like ask-me-anything chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe right here:Show Notes* The WHO praises India for banning vapes* Article on The Conversation arguing the “vaping is 95% less harmful than cigarettes” claim has been debunked* Long UK Government/King’s College London report defending the “95% less harmful” claim (2022)* Earlier (2018) Public Health England report with similar conclusions* New Nicotine Alliance (unaffiliated anti-smoking charity) report with useful references on addictiveness, risk, etc.* Popcorn lung: Science-Based Medicine piece illustrated with lungs full of popcorn; Johns Hopkins piece saying popcorn lung is a concern; American Lung Association piece agreeing; Cancer Research UK piece saying no cases ever linked to vaping* Study retracted for erroneously comparing different age groups; study retracted for time-travelling heart-attacks* UK cigarette smoking rate dropping in adults; dropping in children* Tom’s article on this from 2017* 2017 study showing vaping and cigarette smoking correlate in teenagers* 2022 Cochrane review on vaping and smoking cessation* Study of vaping in pregnant mice; press release; article in The Sun with scary headline* Study on vaping vs. nicotine patches for smoking cessation in pregnant women* People’s beliefs about vaping: increasing belief that it’s as dangerous as smoking in adults; in adults again; in childrenCreditsThe 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 sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

You’ve surely seen the hyped news stories. Psychedelic drugs are no longer just for hippies and attendees at raves: they’re the new frontier of mental health treatment, revolutionising how we think about conditions like depression and PTSD and showing major promise in clinical trials.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into psychedelics and mental illness. They start by talking about why scientists think psychedelics might be relevant here - and it’s to do with the theory of the “Bayesian Brain”. Then they get into the studies, and point to some serious hurdles on the way to getting good evidence on this question.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to find insightful essays on science, technology, and human progress. We’re very grateful for their support.If you like the sound of The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access some features like chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe right here:Show Notes* Announcement that Australia has legalised psychedelics for some kinds of psychotherapy* A long, highly technical exposition of the Bayesian Brain theory with reference to psychedelics* Criticism of the Bayesian Brain theory more generally* Stuart’s Substack post on psychedelics* The Phase II randomised trial of psilocybin versus escitalopram* The Phase III randomised trial of MDMA for PTSD* The New York Magazine podcast series raising some safety concerns about psychedelic therapy* Eiko Fried’s Twitter thread on a very bad study of psychedelics and mental illnessCreditsThe 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 sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

The WHO’s cancer-research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), has decided that the commonly-used sweetener aspartame “possibly causes cancer”. It’s been added to a long list of chemicals, activities, and occupations that are in some way carcinogenic. Apparently.But the list is really stupid. In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart ask about the point of this list, when after all, the dose makes the poison. Is working a night shift as much of a cancer risk as using aloe vera skin cream? Does it even make sense to ask that question?The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to find insightful essays on science, technology, and human progress. We’re very grateful for their support.If you like the sound of The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access some features like chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe right here:Show Notes* The IARC list of carcinogens* The Dynomight explainer on aspartame, its chemical properties, and its safety* The French study of sweeteners and cancer risk* Context on the level of risk* Long review article on the effects of aspartame* Critique of two of the Rammazini Institute’s aspartame studies* Tom’s Twitter thread on aspartame* Stuart’s article on aspartame* Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz’s article on aspartame and the IARCCreditsThe 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 sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

Every so often a new study appears that claims that breastfed children are smarter, healthier, or otherwise better off later in life than those who were fed baby formula.In this episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart look into one recent such study, and ask what the research in general tells us about the apparently-dramatic effects of breastfeeding. Should you feel terribly guilty if you can’t, or choose not to, breastfeed your baby? Or is this an example of weak evidence being blown out of proportion?The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to find insightful essays on science, technology, and human progress. We’re very grateful for their support.Listen above, or on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or any other podcast provider.If you like the sound of The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access some features like ask-me-anything chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe right here:Show notes* The new study claiming breastfed children get better GCSE results* Stuart’s Twitter thread critiquing the study* The WHO page stating that breastfed children “perform better on intelligence tests”* Brazilian study of breastfeeding and intelligence (and other outcomes)* Initial report of the Belorussian breastfeeding-promotion randomised controlled trial* Age-16 follow-up of the RCT* Sibling-control study of breastfeeding and intelligence* Stuart’s Substack post on breastfeeding and intelligence* Tom’s article on the breastfeeding controversyCreditsThe 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 sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe

In this first episode of The Studies Show, Tom and Stuart discuss the new wave of weight loss drugs (like semaglutide), and the weird, often irrational arguments that people make against them.“New, effective drugs will help people lose lots of weight and this is a good thing” doesn’t sound like it should be a controversial statement, but as this episode shows, it really is.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to find insightful essays on science, technology, and human progress. We’re very grateful for their support.Listen above, or on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or any other podcast provider.If you like the sound of The Studies Show, then please consider becoming a subscriber. You can join as a free subscriber and get an email whenever we release an episode. If you join as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to access some features like chats with Tom and Stuart, and (soon) paid-only episodes. Either way, you can subscribe right here:Show Notes* Stuart’s Twitter thread of anti-semaglutide articles in The Guardian* The specific Guardian article mentioned about how “body positivity has lost”* The two-year STEP 5 trial of semaglutide for obesity* Study on what happens when people come off semaglutide* Review paper on the safety and side-effects of semaglutide* One example of someone discussing the question of lean-mass lossCreditsThe 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 sciencefictionspod.substack.com/subscribe