We took a break from recording this week as we have a lot going on – the holidays, end of semester crunch, and Matt relocating for a 6 month sabbatical to the UK. We’ll be back in 2 weeks with another episode so tune in!

Matt, Chris, and Don look at a study using month of birth to explore whether attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is over-diagnosed, the gang discusses a study on how patients feel about having their clinical trial data shared, and Don enlightens us on which Legos taste best.

Matt, Chris, and Don look at a study of the effects of eating organic foods on risk of cancer, the gang discusses the role of data safety and monitoring boards in clinical trials, and Matt gives his shortest amazing and amusing ever.

Matt, Chris, and Don look at a study of whether herpes virus is associated with dementia, the gang discusses a new database of retracted studies and what it tells us, and Don gives us the ICD10 codes we never knew we needed.

Matt, Chris, and Don look at two studies on asthma medication dosing, the gang discusses whether ad hominem attacks on science are more effective than attacks on the science itself, and Matt finally figures out which host is more popular.

Matt, Chris, and Don look at a massive cross-sectional study on the relationship between exercise and mental health, the gang discusses whether critiquing science gives fodder to those who wish to dismiss science, and Don finally solves all our manuscript issues.

Matt, Chris, and Don look at a study that used a unique approach to look at the effect of a common NSAID on cardiovascular disease, the gang discusses a study attempting to reproduce results originally published in Nature and Science, and Chris, yet again, finds a way to talk about bees.

Matt, Chris, and Don look at whether melatonin can help people with a sleep disorder, the gang discusses nutritional epidemiology, and Chris learns the dangers of ignoring Matt’s emails.

Matt, Chris, and Don take on a study from China on the relationship between smog and cognitive function, the gang discusses a new EU funding policy on publishing in paywalled journals, and Chris insists he gets two Amazing and Amusings.

It’s our one year anniversary! Chris and Don are away this week so rather than have Matt talk to himself, we thought we’d go back and revisit some of our favorite Amazing and Amusing segments from the past year.

Matt, Chris, and Jen talk about a study of whether low-dose aspirin to prevent vascular events should be weight dependent, the gang revisits placebo effects, and Jen focuses on the empathy of our dogs.

Matt, Chris, and Jennifer Rider (our first ever guest host) discuss a pragmatic trial of smoking cessation, examine the pros and cons of surrogate endpoints, and Chris schools us all on horse dentistry.

Matt, Chris, and Don review the literature on whether labelling can reduce food purchase and consumption, the gang discusses a series of trials that were found to have errors, and Chris calculates the sum total of all living things on earth.

Matt, Chris, and Don examine a study that looked at whether a vaccine can treat Type 1 diabetes, the gang discusses the “Loss of Confidence Project," and Matt reports on an N of 1 study that suggests red wine may be good for blood sugar.

Matt, Chris, and Don do their second ever live podcast, exploring a study on the effects of sleep on mortality, the gang discusses a proposal to change the definition of statistical significance, and Chris goes rogue and has three amazing and amusing articles.

Matt, Chris, and Don examine a trial using synbiotics to prevent neonatal sepsis, the gang discusses scientific productivity over time, and Don gives us just a study title for his amazing and amusing.

Matt, Chris, and Don discuss a new treatment for lung cancer (immunotherapy), the gang discusses a large clinical trial that controversially changed its endpoint, and Chris dives into the world of linguistics (again).

Matt, Chris, and Don look at a drug company antidepressant trial in adolescents that was re-analyzed by different authors who came to different conclusions, the gang discusses the pre-registration movement in psychology, and Matt finds out what happens to all those unreported clinical trials.

Matt, Chris, and Don finally take on one of their own studies and see how it holds up, the gang discusses what to do when your study has flaws, and Chris tells us what happens if you don’t get funding as a junior faculty member.

Matt, Chris, and Don tackle a study on the effectiveness of opioids vs non-opioids for chronic pain, the gang discusses new NIH rules on how a clinical trial is defined, and Matt reads us some academic love poems.

Matt, Chris, and Don are joined by two faculty from the BUSPH Biostats Department to discuss a massive meta-analysis on the effectiveness of antidepressants, then we talk about the pros and cons of meta-analysis, and Don gives us some driving advice.

Matt, Chris, and Don discuss a study on the HPV vaccine and its impact on prevalence of HPV, the gang discusses what the goal of peer review is, and Matt gets on twitter to find out the latest on significance.

Matt, Chris, and Don puzzle out whether a diet low in gluten has an effect on coronary artery disease, the gang discusses whether it is ok to have prior beliefs when critiquing a study, and Don explains how sandwiches are killing the planet.

Matt, Chris, and Don look at the science behind a supplement aimed at improving memory, debate conflicts of interest in industry research, and Matt explains why Don is to blame for his hearing loss.

Matt, Chris, and Don debate a new meta-analysis on calcium and vitamin D supplements for prevention of fractures, Matt explains why he hates null hypothesis significance testing, and Don alerts us to the dangers of listening to heavy metal.

In this special bonus episode, we have our first guest, Dr. Kate Grabowski, the author of the HIV incidence in Uganda study in episode 14. She talks with Matt about a few issues we got wrong and the wider impact of her work on HIV.

Matt, Chris, and Don weigh in on an area they finally have some expertise in (HIV) by reviewing a study of HIV prevention in Uganda, examine the difference between “efficacy” and “effectiveness,” and Matt gets dangerously close to a word we’re not allowed to say. 

Matt, Chris, and Don try to act like grownups in discussing fecal transplants delivered through oral capsules, p-values are finally, though not fully taken on, and Chris reveals that “jellyfish ain’t babies".

Matt, Chris, and Don discuss a study that contradicts much of the previous evidence on heart stents for angina, Matt learns how angina is really pronounced while discussing ethics in medical research, and the three answer the question of just how bad Vegemite really is.

Matt, Chris, and Don 'run' through a study on exercise and academic achievement, then Matt drills Chris on why he’s so skeptical about observational studies, and Don seems to suggest it's ok to talk on the phone while crossing the street as long as you're in good shape.

Bonus content! Matt, Chris, and Don answer questions from a live audience.

Matt, Chris, and Don feed a live audience burritos before asking whether fat and carbs are killing us, wrestle with whether the ranking of a journal defines the quality of the articles within, and Chris finally teaches us why bees don’t use back scratchers.

Matt, Chris, and Don get checked into the boards on this new study on watching hockey and heart rates (seriously), get called for high sticking over their take on how big a study needs to be, and Chris warns us about the dangers of pizza deficiency syndrome. (Special episode with video!)

Matt, Chris, and Don decide whether school kids in Uganda can be taught to evaluate the validity of health claims (hey, isn’t that our job?), talk about generalizing study results and Chris finds the answers in rubbing his bald spot.

Matt, Chris, and Don drop their Halloween candy to debate whether H1N1 flu vaccine can cause spontaneous abortions, attempt to discern whether or not it is ok to divide up your data, and Matt has an anecdote about The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

Matt, Chris, and Don examine if artificial sweeteners are good or bad for your weight, pontificate on conflicts of interest in studies, and discuss what shall only be called “baloney” (so that we don’t get a PG-13 rating).

Matt, Chris, and Don discuss a new study that suggests increasing pollution regulation standards in the US could save lives, debate whether or not medical researchers should make policy recommendations, and answer the question: is it safer to ride in blue or yellow taxis?

Matt, Chris, and Don discuss the paper that set off the MMR and autism controversy, dive deep into the peer review system, and Chris and Don leave Matt scratching more than his head with their Amazing and Amusing contributions.

Matt, Chris, and Don dig into the latest study on whether alcohol is good for your heart, discuss what kinds of health studies the media likes to report on and review the harshest peer reviewer feedback we can find.

Matt, Chris, and Don review a new study suggesting chocolate may reduce your risk for atrial fibrillation, discuss the difference between observational studies and randomized controlled trials and ask whether Usain Bolt is fast enough to cause a Doppler shift.

Matt, Chris, and Don examine a report on how routines in childhood affect obesity, discuss their takes on how to critically read a journal article, debate the plural of platypus and the science behind the “asparagus smell”, and why neurotic cats need boxes.