The Studies Show

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 behindCredits 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.comYou 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.

In a desperate attempt to be relevant given the US Election, Tom and Stuart dedicate this episode of The Studies Show to talking about government investment in science. How bad is it if politicians cut the science budget? Exactly how much do you get back for every pound or dollar spent on science—and how is that even calculated in the first place?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine—a journal of science, history, and technology that discusses the secrets behind human progress. You can read their published essays at worksinprogress.co, or their shorter pieces on their Substack at worksinprogress.news.Show notes* Nature’s editorial: “The world needs a President who respects evidence”* Trump’s science budget cuts: NIH/EPA, CDC* Nature’s editorial on the “surge in far-right parties” in Europe cutting the science budget* Tom’s 2015 BuzzFeed News article on science budget cuts in the UK* Article on Argentinian science budget cuts under Javier Milei* Andre Geim and Nancy Rothwell’s 2024 Guardian article on how £1 of science funding gets you £12 back* Jonathan Haskel and Stian Westlake’s book, Capitalism Without Capital* Haskel’s 2014 paper finding a £4 return on investment for every £1 spent on science* 2024 UK National Centre for Universities and Business report finding that £1 of science investment leads to £3-4 of private investmentCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We’re grateful to Jonathan Haskel for talking to us for this episode; as always, any mistakes are our own. 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

WoooOOOOOoooOOOOOoooo, it’s that time of year again! It’s Halloween, so it’s time for The Studies Show hosts to face their fears, and read the research from one of the weirdest areas of science, parapsychology.This time it’s all about psychic mediums. What does it mean to test whether someone can talk to the dead? Are we any better at doing it now than we were 100 years ago at the height of “spiritualism”? And what do the most recent results tell us about the existence of the afterlife?Happy Halloween! 🎃This week, The Studies Show is brought to you by Semafor, the online newletter service that gives you everything you need to know about politics, business, economics, and much more in the form of email newsletters. This week we talked about Ben Smith’s newsletter on a topic that’s just as scary as Halloween: the US Presidential Election. You can find it and more excellent newsletters at www.semafor.com/newsletters.Show notes* Alfred Russel Wallace’s “Defence of Modern Spiritualism”* Article on Darwin’s views on spiritualism* Peter Lamont’s book on Daniel Dunglas Home* Sarcastic sceptical article on William Crookes’s botched investigation of Home* Video of James Randi debunking the medium Peter Popoff* Ray Hyman’s classic paper on cold reading* 2021 meta-analysis on mediumship* New Italian mediumship paper from 2022* 2023 review on “Is Biological Death Final?” with discussion of the Drake Equation for parapsychologyCreditsThe 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