Science Fictions

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 children

Credits

The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com

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 illness

Credits

The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com

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 IARC

Credits

The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com

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 controversy

Credits

The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com

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 loss

Credits

The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sciencefictionspod.substack.com