7 Comments

What you said about some number of subjects not complying with the peanut/pea-not protocol made me think:

Many many drugs get good results when tested on rats but are far less impressive when human subjects take the drugs (or not.) Rats have no choice but to comply; humans, on the other hand, disobey the protocol at some rate greater than zero. Is there any way to estimate how much of the dropoff in efficacy from rats to humans is due to the latter's disobedience?

Expand full comment
author

I don't know about ways to estimate it, but I'm certain this must be part of the *over 90% failure rate* when translating from animal studies to humans! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9293739/

Expand full comment

A grim part of me spent much of this episode half expecting - in true, Studies Show style - that the answer as to why kids fed peanuts at a younger age had fewer allergies was that researchers had only measured it in the ones who’d survived…

Expand full comment
author

oh god I didn't think of that. Peanuts peppering the wings and fuselage of the B-25

Expand full comment

Big peanut is covering up all the deaths!

Expand full comment

Very interesting. Another question is why the prevalence of allergies is seemingly much higher than years past.

Expand full comment
author

Definitely want to look into this for a future episode - we've had the "hygeine hypothesis" on the list for a while now!

Expand full comment