SIO504: The Other Kind of Nut Allergy. Well, Both Kinds, I Guess?

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:12 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Serious Inquiries Only. This is episode 504. I'm your host, Thomas Smith, and it's some more Quibbies with Jenessa. I'm gonna make it a thing. I am gonna make my Quibby bit be as big or bigger than the actual app Quibbie, which had billions of dollars poured into it. That's my... Oh, I already did. So, it's part two of these mini-debunks, where we're getting now three debunks in this one. Or if not debunks, it's debunks slash interesting things to learn about. And I've teased already so much, Jenessa's, and now my new favorite study about nut allergies. I'm 12. Literal, no, not literal nut allergies, figurative nut allergies and also a claim that testosterone does not actually make people more aggressive. We'll see if that holds up. And finally, we'll look at a claim about ADHD tests on TikTok. Are they effective? Are they not effective? Or is this a bad science thingy? A meta bad science thinky? Can't wait. Hope you enjoyed it as much as Jenessa and I did. Patreon.com slash SeriousPod if you'd like to skip the ads and already have listened to this. If you pledged there, that's right. If YOU pledged THERE, you've already listened to this Sounds impossible, I know, but it's not. Ask anyone who's pledged there. They've probably already listened to this, most likely. Well, I don't know. There's a lot of podcasts, but we'll see when they get to it in the queue. Point is, thank you so much for your support. We'll take a quick quick break and then we'll get to Quibi number three. I love a good debunk. This is fun. And

0:01:54 Thomas: I guess it sounds like you have another, well, you have a lot more, but in time for another short

0:01:59 Jenessa: Yeah. Okay. If you were to ask me what is my favorite scientific paper, I should really tell you something like in my field. There's definitely papers on neuroplasticity and sensory adaptation that I would say like, oh, this one's my favorite, or maybe this one is my

0:01:59 Thomas: Quibi. It'll make me laugh if no one else laughs at it. It's fine.

0:02:20 Jenessa: Favorite. But if I'm going to be honest with you, it is this two-page case report. And the title is

0:02:27 Thomas: Oh God. What in the world is happening here? Okay. Dangerous liaison. What is that? Is that

0:02:29 Jenessa: Dangerous Liaison, Sexually Transmitted Allergic Reaction to Brazil Nuts. Yeah, somebody was having fun. I've heard the phrase before. I assumed you were.

0:02:45 Thomas: That the name of something? What is that? A book or a song or something? Yeah. Are you looking it up or am I? Let's see. Dangerous. Okay. Yeah, yeah. It's a movie. Okay, it's a romantic period drama. Okay I knew it was something. I was like I know what that is. So this is from the year 1988 is this movie. So oh Glenn Close. John Malkovich. Oh this is great because John Malfovich is is looking hot like he's the like he puts the dangerous and dangerous liaisons or he puts the liaison in danger I don't know one of the other but that's funny because that's not how I think of that actor anymore interesting glenn close john malkovich and michelle pfeiffer well now I have to watch this all right so that's the movie version what's the uh what's this study that

0:03:25 Jenessa: Yeah me either yeah I guess so I will read you the introduction which is two sentences while there are several cases of semen

0:03:37 Thomas: That uses that name oh I've heard of this oh oh man oh oh oh my god oh my God I never thought

0:03:46 Jenessa: Allergy reported in the literature cases of systemic allergic reaction caused by food Food proteins transferred in semen have not previously been recorded. We described the case of a woman with a documented Brazil nut allergy who developed urticaria, that's itching, and dyspnea, that shortness of breath, after intercourse with her boyfriend who had consumed Brazil nuts two to three hours previously. Yeah.

0:04:20 Thomas: About this how two to three hours holy shit I don't want to get too dirty on the show how is semen made I don' t understand it how am I eating a Brazil nut and then it's like oh yeah we need

0:04:30 Jenessa: Um apparently at least in this one individual

0:04:33 Thomas: Some of that down there and it's just like instantly within hours utilizing it I mean that's incredible. This makes me think, okay, I've never thought about this. I don't care about this kind of thing, but this makes me thinking that whole like, oh, well, if you, you know, if you eat a pineapple, it's going to change the like, you know, smell or taste. It's like, well shit, if you're telling me this, yeah, maybe that's right. Holy crap. Semen science. We need to get to the bottom of this. Geez. I

0:04:52 Jenessa: Oh maybe it's not bullshit I don't know I did just always assume that was bullshit when people said that but now that you mention it so what is my favorite about this paper is this is a great

0:05:08 Thomas: Don't, I don' Well now, who knows? All bets are off. This is is crazy oh my god I guess so that there's not any other mystery come that she might have or

0:05:17 Jenessa: Example of scientists just really getting a little out of control and not realizing any of the social implications of what they're up to. So they report on this a 20-year-old woman in a stable relationship. Why? Why does this? Okay. Maybe. Maybe that's why. The specific incident

0:05:39 Thomas: Something there's they're isolating variables yeah I don't know I was gonna say like how hooked are

0:05:46 Jenessa: Is basically she knows she has a severe allergy here. So if her partner is to eat these Brazil nuts, he brushes his teeth, he cleans under his nails. I don't know why you wouldn't just... How good are Brazil nuts? They're pretty big and like... Yeah, they really are. Yeah.

0:06:02 Thomas: You I couldn't name I couldn't tell you what a Brazil nut is yeah they're huge right that's the one thing I would have said if someone asked me something about them I'd be like I think they're big that's all I've got. So like how married could you be to these things? Yeah. Okay. All right.

0:06:19 Jenessa: Like just quit them, right? He consumed mixed nuts and it included four to five Brazil nuts. It's like a little less crazy than like, well, my girlfriend's deadly allergic and I bought a bag of them.

0:06:27 Thomas: Fair enough. Yeah. And here's my daily routine after I eat my fistful of Brazil nuts. Yeah,

0:06:35 Jenessa: They have sex. She gets significant itching and swelling of the vagina and vulva, felt faint, no choking or wheezing, but mildly short of breath.

0:06:42 Thomas: Reminder, Arlo has a bunch of allergies. So we've, yeah, we've dealt with this. It's funny

0:06:47 Jenessa: She took cetirizine. I forget the brand name of that, but it's a common over-the-counter and started to improve within 45 minutes. The following day she noticed marked fatigue but no skin rash dyspnea or faintness she'd been diagnosed with a brazil nut allergy two years earlier so um you're probably familiar with the skin prick test right you've been through it oh you probably yeah yeah right you're familiar uh

0:07:13 Thomas: That I didn't recognize, I don't recognize that medication name that you said. So I guess that's not one. Well, for kids, I guess maybe there's limited in what they can do. Benadryl is pretty much it. Benadryl and or, you know, the EpiPen if it gets bad. I'm so sorry, but I'm just realizing

0:07:29 Jenessa: They do you know a placebo just like a little saline prick um this is how I found out that I I have, sometimes they call it mast cell activation. I'm not sure a consensus on, you're not wrong.

0:07:42 Thomas: What they do is they do the prick test and then a bunch of different people come on your back. A bunch of people come to you and they're like, I don't know, I'm not going to do this. Different people come onto your back after having eaten different things.

0:07:55 Jenessa: Literally, that's where we're at.

0:07:57 Thomas: Oh, man. Oh, that's what they're going to doing. Oh my God. I thought you were telling me about the normal test so I was saying like that's the normal test was my my joke but you're but now they're like they're not coming on people's backs not exactly okay

0:07:57 Jenessa: So we're going to do a little placebo. They're going too, it is the normal test.

0:08:08 Jenessa: Not exactly. This is where it all goes off the rails. So a normal prick test, they would get you with a placebo and then they have the proteins in a little vial of like a Brazil nut and a peanut and a maple leaf or whatever. I react to the placebo, which is how we know my skin just hates me. Yeah. I mean, kind of. My body just fakes allergies. Yeah, I've heard some people call it

0:08:31 Thomas: Wow I thought you're gonna say it's how we know I'm just a big faker my body only cares about wow that's weird do you have that with with other stuff

0:08:43 Jenessa: Mast cell activation syndrome, but I think like there's not a consensus on whether that's exactly the right way to think of this. That could be what it is. Yeah it's just like a high level of

0:08:53 Thomas: Like if just something like because lydia's getting that lately like if something is tight on her skin or like any sort of skin anything it like turns into this big puffy thing it's really weird is that that hmm oh hers isn't itchy okay hers is just like a or at least I don't

0:09:08 Jenessa: Histamine in your body so you just you just react to all the things you're just an itch person now yeah so like I get for example what's called dermatographia like you can write on my skin

0:09:18 Thomas: Think it is yeah it might be that right you shouldn't but you could yeah sure oh my god

0:09:24 Jenessa: If you just kind of gently scratch it's not necessarily itchy but it's a little irritated and I'll get like you could draw a little smiley face on me and wait a minute and there it'll be that's not what they do at the doctor's office but you know they they usually just draw a line The prick test, they do the placebo and they get a, how much do you react to just being poked and getting a little saline? And then they would do the various allergens. So they do The Brazil Nut one to show, yeah, she reacts. And then what they did is they had her partner ejaculate before and after a Brazil Nut, and then they put that in the needle and did a prick test with the semen. And there's the picture of her back with a big reaction to being poked with semen on the back.

0:10:16 Jenessa: This sentence just absolutely kills me. Unfortunately, the couple separated soon afterwards.

0:10:28 Thomas: I'm tired of your Brazil nut eating ways.

0:10:31 Jenessa: It was impossible to formally confirm the secretion of Brazil nut proteins into seminal fluid by Western blotting and other techniques.

0:10:31 Thomas: Oh, no. Oh, my God.

0:10:43 Jenessa: We know she reacted and then they broke up and they could not, in fact, call him and be like, hey, can you come back and come in a cup again, please?

0:10:53 Thomas: Just for extra verification?

0:10:55 Jenessa: So what they wanted to do is we know she's reacting to it, but they wanted to confirm that the protein from the Brazil nut actually got into the semen.

0:10:57 Thomas: Or is there some reason they didn't?

0:11:07 Jenessa: So like come in here and eat it and then ejaculate in a cup and then we're going to do what's called a western blot which is like a you run a gel if you've ever done that in like a lab sometime you would put various like pipette some proteins into this like jelly thing and then you run an electrical current and it pulls proteins are generally negatively charged so you can pull them through this jelly substance and big proteins take longer to go through the little

0:11:34 Thomas: My question is, if they did the part where they're putting the cum on her back, why didn't they do it then?

0:11:37 Jenessa: Holes in the jelly and you stain them. For the life of me, where'd the sample go? You didn't

0:11:45 Thomas: They had the cum in their hands. They had it. Yeah.

0:11:52 Jenessa: Use all of it. I like where, where? So reading between the lines of this study, like here's

0:11:52 Thomas: Yeah this is so good oh this is great we've done it yeah yeah I think he'd be down for it I don't

0:12:05 Jenessa: These scientists like my god we're the first to 2007 we're the first ever to document an allergy with the and here's this person like I'm sorry so you want me to come in here ejaculate into a cup you're gonna prick my girlfriend's back with it and then eat a bunch of brazil nuts and then do it again and I just can't even imagine oh my god I truly

0:12:29 Thomas: Like why not you know what else is he doing I I want to imagine we got to make a movie out of this because I want To imagine the scientists like trying to get them back together or whatever you know or they're like they're Like which which is like yeah we broke up oh he's oh come on he's he's not all that bad, you know, trying to, who knows? Yeah. Yeah.

0:12:49 Jenessa: Truly, that sentence, I just imagine so much behind the scenes of like phone calls of like, please come in.

0:12:54 Thomas: Yeah. They're doing the trick where they're like, Oh, do you want to meet a scientist for lunch? And then they like bring him, you know? Or have him, have him go instead. And whoops. Oh yeah.

0:12:56 Jenessa: We come on. We need the sample. I just can't even imagine this poor woman just.

0:13:08 Thomas: He just happened to be here trying to set them up. Just please come in this cup. Just come in his cup. That's all we need. You don't have to get back together. Come on. Don't you have rebound sex where it's like, you kind of like, you know it takes you a while to break up and he, you now Rick, come on. No all right not ethical I'm sure that seems fine to me this seems great this is the best

0:13:25 Jenessa: Oh, my God. Where was the IRB? I don't see. Normally in these papers, you have a sentence that says this was approved by the IRB of whatever university. And I have to assume it happened. I don'T see it written in the paper. Yeah.

0:13:33 Thomas: Kind of science oh well is is there a difference in I know we've talked to irb a lot is there a difference when you're like we found these literal two people and they're like sure we'll

0:13:48 Jenessa: Yeah. So if you do a case study and somebody just told you about their life, I still think,

0:13:51 Thomas: Do this thing is that different than like when you do studies we're like well we're gonna find a bunch of random participants or something sure because you're not rfk jr I get it

0:14:05 Jenessa: Okay, so if it was me, I'm still always running it by my IRB. I'm going to say, yeah, I're going to ask for an expedited review and I'm gonna say, look, this is minimal. Like, I'm just asking them questions about their life. That's the thing is they're stabbing you. Like I

0:14:20 Thomas: It's barely any cum it's a little bit of cum

0:14:26 Jenessa: I would have to, unless they're going to say, well, this was just done for her own medical purposes for her safety, and then we reported it.

0:14:34 Thomas: Yeah yeah yeah it could have been I mean honestly that like like all jokes aside like when you have allergies like it would be important to know like well okay was it that or not because you know allergies are serious they can kill you if it's really severe so could be that and then they like

0:14:37 Jenessa: Yeah, maybe it was that. They did it for her purposes to make sure she was safe or to figure out why, and then got her consent to publish the paper. Nobody's named, of course, because Jesus. Jesus. It's really that one sentence. Unfortunately, the couple separated, and that's what makes it my favorite paper. It's delightful, and it's two pages, and it's a very easy read, so I'll share if anyone's interested.

0:14:54 Thomas: Wrote it up. Yeah. This is great. It's so good. It is so good! I agree. Concur. Good times.

0:15:24 Thomas: Well, that's now my favorite study as well. I love it. So much fun. I think there's, I think a lot can be done with that. Just like movie rights, you know, there's something, it's just, there is something there. I don't know what. It just seems fun all around. The tragedy, the breakup yeah yeah that we need to know oh good times well uh let's do let's

0:15:39 Jenessa: There's so much we don't know about this couple. Yeah so this one I've got for you I prepped this thinking like oh boy this will be super

0:16:01 Thomas: Do another one you got you got something more for us uh you solved solved it too

0:16:09 Jenessa: Interesting and like I totally thought yeah this could be an episode and then the problem is I just hit two glaring errors really fast and went oh well I dismiss this in 10 minutes yeah that's

0:16:22 Thomas: Quick huh dang oh not huh oh wow sure yeah yeah yeah nothing wrong with I do

0:16:23 Jenessa: The problem this one I think it got like a reasonable amount of attention um the title is how evidence-based is the hashtag ADHD test, a cross-sectional content analysis of TikTok videos on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder screening. The allegation here is they go through 50 videos on TikTok that have the hashtag ADHD test and 92% were misleading. So like, oh boy, boy, this is not good. We have misleading information. Not good news. I was so ready to be engaged with this, especially because one thing I appreciated, they didn't just search for vague ADHD content. I worry a lot when we're criticizing people who have ADHD, people who have autism, whatever, just talking about their personal experiences. Right. I don't really want to hear from some neurotypical expert like well actually that doesn't perfectly reflect the diagnostic criteria like all right maybe the diagnostic criteria are bullshit or maybe this person shared their personal experience and some of what they experience is not a symptom of adhd let's relax but if you call it an adhd test yeah this should be a good time to say that's not a test, actually. I like how they did that. It's going to go off the rails pretty quick.

0:17:21 Thomas: But we do it all the time yeah yeah sure yeah I think that's fair that's the end of good things. Yeah, you had me until then. I mean, I appreciate the like trying to avoid the

0:17:58 Jenessa: Yeah, unfortunately, it could be worse. But they say they're going to search for the hashtag ADHD test on TikTok. And they're gonna do this without creating an account to avoid the bias of the TikTok algorithm, which is based on caption, keywords, and hashtags, number of likes, blah, That way they ended up with the top 50 videos. And I was like, ooh, yeah. Yeah, if they just said the first 50 given the method we used, okay, fine.

0:18:27 Thomas: Algorithm, but top? I don't know. No. And it's looking real shady lately. And honestly, all of,

0:18:35 Jenessa: But like any presumption that this is now unbiased, we don't know how the TikTok algorithm works. We don't Know that when you don't have an account. Yeah yeah there's a lot of concern that when you don't have an account they are still putting trackers all over your computer that you are probably still getting tailored content

0:18:57 Thomas: I think it came out that all the social media companies do that. They have a file on people who don't even use their product because, you know, think if it's your relative, you don't use

0:19:04 Jenessa: Yeah like so did you get a brand new computer and hide your ip address with a vpn or did you just

0:19:08 Thomas: It, but your relative does. They know about you because of all the data they have about the person who does use it who's connected to you yeah like maybe they did I feel like they would have told us yeah it's usually the sciencey people tell us stuff like that okay yeah yeah and that's what

0:19:23 Jenessa: Maybe they don't say that they just said searched in the mobile application without creating an account. I don't buy that this is inherently unbiased at all. Inclusion criteria involved selecting videos that specifically described or informed viewers about ADHD test or diagnosis, and were in the English language. Fine. They were sorted by relevance. Okay, so if you search for the hashtag and then you have to sort by relevance, well, then clearly it wasn't inherently giving you like the most watched videos right or like the most relevant videos yeah yeah here's what ends up happening

0:20:04 Thomas: I would think you would I feel like that's what you would want to do right I mean is there I get that the algorithm's messed up but if you can search and just go with the top views when I cover you or what am I what am I missing oh I guess you would say relevance would be still the tiktok

0:20:16 Jenessa: That I think is indicative of how this isn't reflective of what your average person comes across they search for the hashtag they sort by relevance I can't tell if they said they sort my relevance because then their diagram says results sorted by tiktok algorithm so I don't know what that means I think they mean they clicked a button

0:20:39 Thomas: Algorithm, right? Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that's it. Cause you're sorting by, yes, you are clicking the button, but you still don't know what the hell relevance means. It's still the TikTok version of that. Hmm. So nothing to do, or are they looking for something that

0:20:43 Jenessa: And to sort by relevance, but I'm not quite sure. Yeah, yeah, whatever that is. And then the videos were screened from top till the sample size of 50 was reached. So they had to go through 120 videos until they included 50. They excluded 70 videos that had the hashtag and were sorted by relevance and still had nothing to do with ADD. Described or informed viewers about ADHD test or diagnosis.

0:21:15 Thomas: Specifically says it's a test? Yeah, yeah. It could have been plenty that were ADHD,

0:21:21 Jenessa: So I guess it could have been ADHD related. Yeah, yeah. The larger point here is when you use TikTok or you, you know, the royal you, the average person, you have an account. You have an algorithm. It is showing you things tailored to you. You know, I don't have a TikTok, but I have an Instagram.

0:21:26 Thomas: But yeah, it just didn't quite, I feel like that's fair. Like they're looking for something that's actually making a bit of a claim about a test, right. I am royalty. Yeah, Yeah. Thank you for, yeah. Hmm. Sure. But if, if it's, if they've, if the videos have a bunch

0:21:52 Jenessa: And like, I know that it's showing me more scientifically accurate stuff because I linger on that stuff and I block and hide and fly away from the inaccurate stuff. We went on here without an account. We sorted by relevance and then we had to exclude 70 videos to actually get to 50 that were a test. Like already, I'm just like, okay, so this is not reflective of your average user. Like, did they see these videos? I have no freaking idea. This is just a sample. Sure and they do so there's a lot of likes and comments and favorites um they mention on here

0:22:24 Thomas: Of views, somebody's watching them, right? 10 seconds. Jesus. How are you doing a test

0:22:31 Jenessa: And they're going to analyze that so okay great they range from 10 seconds to five minutes yeah I don't know how that yeah it's that's got to be bullshit right yeah out of the 50 videos

0:22:41 Thomas: Intense? Okay. All right. Well, maybe who knows? You don't know it. My questionnaire, it's from

0:22:48 Jenessa: Useful videos were eight percent n equals four while 92 n equals 46 were misleading now here's my first big objection, what did they define as useful? Well, they said, here's this questionnaire that we use in, I believe it's Canada. This is a questionnaire we use in Canada for like pre-screening. I don't know it. It's true. This questionnaire has six questions on it. And if you answer often or very often to four or more of them, that's indicative that you should go get assessed for adult ADHD.

0:23:11 Thomas: Kid. Yeah. Ooh, I can't wait. Give me some of them. Ah, you don't have them. Oh boy. I could be a test for this. I can be the control group for this. Give me something. Do you do a podcast that should be short and it turns out to be super long because oh oh that doesn't seem right three but and then it's misleading that seems right yeah

0:23:27 Jenessa: HD. Actually, they don't have it here. Let me see if they, yeah, because ADD. Yeah, they don't include that questionnaire here. But what they said was when we went through these 50 videos, we categorized a video as useful if their content had at least four out of those six screening questions. And if it didn't, it was misleading. No, it doesn't. So like Like if it had three, yeah. Or what if it Had four out of six, but then a bunch of bullshit, it's not misleading. The other stuff is kind of nitpicky.

0:24:16 Thomas: That doesn't seem right yeah yeah yeah hmm yeah how did those even get in yeah

0:24:19 Jenessa: This I was like, oh, you chose a pre-screening questionnaire. It needs four out Of six to say you should go get pre-screened in Canada in order to not be misleading when you say this is an ADD test or let me tell you about ADD tests. You have to say at least four out of six now realistically you should have to say six out of six if you say four of them and I only get three but what if you gave all six and I would have said five of them you know this makes no sense and especially for misleading to be anywhere from oh they only had three out of the six or that also includes total not bullshit nonsense like mmm I I don't love that. And then I get to the results. Upon content analysis, the misleading videos were of the following types. 63% N equals 29 were ASMR videos. Because when people make ASMR videos, they purposely do all kinds of dumb bullshit. They'll do, I'm going to do a cranial nerve. I'm gonna cut your hair. I'm to do an ADD test.

0:25:30 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Maybe I don't understand TikTok. I don't know. And I don't. Okay. So, that seems

0:25:31 Jenessa: Nobody clicks an ASMR video and thinks that they are getting, am I crazy? Nobody who clicks on the cranial nerve ASMR test thinks they're, the woman who's like, okay, look at my scissors and tell me if you smell, like they know they're not getting their cranial nerves tested when they're like, oh, good answer and write something down. So if you redo the analysis removing those, because I think the people watching those know it's not a real ADD test.

0:25:59 Thomas: Weird. Yeah, yeah. Oh, so, our sample size is getting kind of worthless. Yeah yeah. Uh, yeah,

0:26:09 Jenessa: I think those people are trying to get their brain tickled and fall asleep. If we take the 46 videos that were misleading and subtract the 29 ASMR videos, we're left with 17. Really low. Yes. And now take your 50 and subtract 29. we only have 21 videos left. The 17 out of 29, that's still 81% misleading. And the four out of 21 that they said were useful, that is 19%. Again, you had to include four out of those six pre-screened questionnaires from one specific questionnaire to be useful. Now let's look at what the videos actually were. Videos they said were misleading. Three of them were a fast revolving color changing funnel with a flashing caption that said ADHD test will begin. After 25 seconds, a text flashes congratulating the viewer for making it so far as this means the viewer has ADHD. All right. Yeah, that's just beyond bullshit, right? I am fine with you putting those are misleading is doesn't even cover it. That's that's nothing. That's nonsense. They also put a category misleading symptoms. There's four videos in here. One of them only had three symptoms listed. Late all the time, frequent anger outburst, can't sit still. Late all the time and can't sit still are like, they are core symptoms. The anger out burst, I don't know that it's self-diagnostic, but like, yeah, if you are undiagnosed, untreated ADD, like it's not unusual to have emotional outbursts. That's true. Absolutely. Especially in kids. Yeah. I forget the name for this, but it's like highly correlated,

0:27:19 Thomas: Yeah. Okay, sure. Yeah? Yeah. Well, it can affect emotional regulation, right? Especially in kids.

0:27:59 Thomas: Isn t it one of those things? I m not the scientist, but aren t those things, uh, comorbidities might tell me there's things that are not symptoms, but they overlap like they. Yeah. What the hell is that? What's the other word? Yeah. There's many other things that also cause them, I guess.

0:28:15 Jenessa: Like, right, exactly. So like, I would not consider that diagnostic, but I wouldn't consider it not a thing that a lot of ADD people experience. Is that equally misleading as two of the videos which said instruction to cover one eye and bring index finger toward the open eye explanation that viewers are more likely to have adhd if unable to follow their finger all the way to their nose that's bullshit that's nonsense so is the one that correctly described two core symptoms and then a tangentially definitely related thing, these do not go in the same category category, one of them gave five signs to diagnose ADD. Procrastination, hyperfocus, zoning out, impulsive behavior, irritated when told what to do. Yeah, pretty much. Like, I guess these aren't

0:28:44 Thomas: What? OK. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Those are equal. Seems harsh. Yeah.

0:29:08 Thomas: Yeah. Sure. OK. Those are a lot of things that Are Kind of Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's like extra stuff. Yeah, exactly. Wow. That's terrible. Who did this study? It

0:29:16 Jenessa: All on the six question pre-screener. I think they're like, most of those are in the DSM. Yeah. Yeah. There are people who work at the Department of Mental Health and Addiction

0:29:28 Thomas: Almost seems like amateur. Like it's like, like, like a hobby site, like a student or something. Like it resembles science, but not really a lot of assumptions in there. Yeah

0:29:39 Jenessa: In New Zealand. Honestly, I read it and I read a lot of some judgment and ableism in here. They talk about why it's so important to not have this misleading content is that there's been a spike in adult stimulant prescriptions. And so clearly this must be because people are seeing these bad ADD videos and self-diagnosing. Yeah. And like the idea that I self-diagnosed,

0:30:05 Thomas: And then you know what? They handed me my my stimulants that I have to pass a fucking background check every single month to get Constantly, they're like the least easy things to get ever. Now. I don't you said it was Australia or something What'd you say? New Zealand? Yeah, sorry. Sorry. Yeah, I'm sure they would.

0:30:09 Jenessa: Yeah, New Zealand. It's, yeah. Yeah. You know, it doesn't say here like PhD or MD, like it doesn'T tell me who they are.

0:30:28 Thomas: Somebody took offense to that. I don't know who. Maybe things are different. But also my other thought was like, I've just off the top of my head. Was that one of those like Orwellianly named things where it's like the council for pediatric whatever. And it turns out it's just like anti-vax bullshit. Was it like, could it be one of these? One of those names? Hmm.

0:30:50 Jenessa: It says Health New Zealand Waikato Hospital and Health New Zealand Waikato and Departments of Psychological Medicine. So they work there. I read a lot of judgy stuff in here, that whole premise that you are going to self-diagnose and get yourself medication and also that that's bad. Clearly, if we have seen a spike in adult stimulant prescription, that can't be adults who are missed diagnosis when they were children, which we know is a thing. We know there is an under-diagnosis crisis, not an over-diagnosis. But we've seen an increase in the prescriptions that's got to be incorrect self-diagnosis somehow acquiring a prescription.

0:31:13 Thomas: Mm hmm, dude.

0:31:38 Jenessa: Like come on man right took me years to get this treatment that has like changed my life and also

0:31:40 Thomas: If you can do that, let me know how you did. That's because that's impressive. You know, you you deserve it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just like a joke. Yeah. Hmm, maybe. Hmm. That's yeah, that's

0:31:52 Jenessa: Like if it changes somebody's life I don't know do I give a shit whether it was a correct diagnosis if it's changed your life for the better that's ultimately what did it for me was this extreme categorization of useful versus misleading where misleading has grouped together things that are pretty dang close to an accurate description of ADD with things that are total bullshit. If I reanalyze again where I put the misleading symptoms ones that I'm like, oh, come on, man, that's close enough. Now we're at 13 out of 21 or 62% are misleading and 8 out of 21 are misleading, 38% are useful. And again, this is the 50 videos they got after they searched ADHD test without an account, sorted by relevance, went through 120 videos and kicked out 70 in a row. Did they display 120 videos or did you look at a video, kick it out, look at the video, pick it out and the algorithm is learning stuff as you're going? Six of them are this dot test where you look spinning dots. I can't believe you found six different videos of, oh, look at this spinning dot and that's gonna tell you if you have ADD. Is that really that prevalent or is that how prevalent it was after you did this weird method like I don't know I have no way of knowing right like if it displayed 120 videos right off the bat

0:33:16 Thomas: A good point yeah it could absolutely be true that like as you're scrolling through the algorithm is doing a bunch of shit that it seems like they're not accounting for right yeah yeah I I'm with you

0:33:31 Jenessa: Fine but I bet you it didn't I bet it showed you some videos and then as you scrolled it loaded new videos and it learned it was absolutely putting cookies on that computer and learning things based on you were lingering on bullshit the one that just absolutely made me be like this goes right in the trash the asmr videos I just sincerely doubt that the vast majority of people watching those thought they were getting a real test it says the instruction to the viewer to focus on one color or shape and then rapid change in audio visual and tactile stimuli stimuli such as tapping, rustling, or whispering, no explanation how those activities can test for ADHD. Nobody thinks they can. They're trying to get a funny tingle in their spine. It just feels like this was written by boomers who don't know how the internet works. So this one's a no for me. No. No.No, I would not. Yeah, I wouldn't go on TikTok and look for an ADHD test. I think that's

0:34:32 Thomas: Yeah, that's weird. As much as TikTok is not a great place to diagnose your ADHD, necessarily, it seems like that's overly harsh. Yeah.

0:34:45 Jenessa: A terrible idea. Do I think this paper can tell me how prevalent the misinformation is? No, it's not getting me there. Yeah, truly. Sometimes this feels personal, I'm going to be honest.

0:34:55 Thomas: And it's like, if you're going to go criticize people for their misleading science, like don't do a misleading study to do that unless you're really doing this. That was the prank. That seems it seems like for just Jenessa. That's the prank was just for you. Yeah. Yeah yeah and you know what wouldn't have been that hard and it would have been kind of

0:35:16 Jenessa: I really think on these algorithm-based scrolling apps, Instagram, TikTok, I don't know that we we really could measure the prevalence of almost anything because it is so tailored and they are very secretive about their proprietary algorithms. We don't know how it works. We don't know when you do and don't have a profile, like what is it using? What we definitely don't Have is, oh yeah, if you don't have a profile and you search for something, we show you the things that had the most views or the most comments or whatever. Like we we just don't know that that's the case and what we do know is if you do have a profile it is tailored to you so definitionally the person who's watching does not get this oh yeah I would love that I've seen that yeah true yeah yeah I mean I know instagram which is

0:36:10 Thomas: Interesting is like do a number of accounts and do the search differently like first click on all the ones that you're thinking are like you know looking suspect then click like start with it and just see if it sorts stuff differently you know like that wouldn't it's not really that hard to like incorporate that into what you're trying to do well let's do it it. Let's see. You know that, I mean, TikTok right now we're getting, like, people are claiming it is actively politically censoring people. I haven't checked on it. Yeah, I've seen it a lot of places. I also, I mean, I have seen a lot of bullshit a lot places, to be honest. So, who knows? But I'm concerned. So who knows what they're doing there? Right. Yeah. Yeah yeah. Oh, for sure. Yeah

0:36:53 Jenessa: You know, somewhat equivalent scroll-y algorithm-based thing, I get very science-focused content. I get a lot of ADD and autism-flavored content. And it does tend to be, like, educated professionals, but it's professionals who are like, I have ADD, and study ADD. I have autism, and study autism so it's so tailored to me and my interests and like I nothing about us without us inclusion social model of disability like it's looking at me for me it's certainly there's a slant but it's scientifically validated stuff for the most part I'm sure if you are somebody who's looking for and therefore this is all caused by the vaccine it's gonna feed you that for sure I

0:37:44 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Is there a sense that like, if you are searching enough of the ADHD stuff

0:37:45 Jenessa: I just don't know that you could ever get a representative sample of what the average person sees. There's just not an average person. Yeah.

0:37:58 Thomas: And you're looking for stuff that has a ton of views, it's not like there's like infinite of that. So maybe there's a way to do it that kind of collects basically the top things people would have seen. I don't know how accessible like their API or whatever. I feel like they're kind of a black box. I know we have a lot of computer people who could tell me. Yeah, exactly. It is the problem. So I don'T know. But like there's many sites where this would be routine and easy, but I don't think that's them yeah yeah yeah no way you're misleading sir you're the misleading

0:38:04 Jenessa: I wonder, algorithm v. algorithm, like, could you write a program that could do that?

0:38:14 Jenessa: I don't know.t know. I don' Yeah, that's the problem. Yeah.

0:38:31 Jenessa: So, like I don''t love how they picked out their 50, but either way, the things that really knocked it down for me the way they defined useful is just so bizarrely narrow and then including asmr videos just I was laughing when I read that I was like all right you don't even know how the internet works there's ways maybe that you could get really creative and figure this out but this is nothing especially the quantitative part to very specifically say 92% is misleading? No way. Yeah. So I got another one for you. Somebody posted this a while ago in

0:39:06 Thomas: You're out of order. Well it's not a dot org so what was that that was candace owens

0:39:26 Jenessa: The Where There's Woke group. What they linked to was reporting on sciencedaily.com. I don't know how reliable a source it generally is. When you go to the website, it looks very sciencey. It's It's not a .org. It's true. I'm not sure. Oh, yeah, yeah. If you go to it, it looks very

0:39:47 Thomas: What were you there for that I don't remember it was so funny but she was like well if it was a .org it'd be reliable oh yeah oh it just looks like a journal like I literally would think this

0:39:59 Jenessa: Journal-y. Like there's no ads. It's very sterile, you know, black text on a white background. It's got science-y vibes. Yeah, it pretty much does, but it's not. Yeah. It looks exactly like a journal. And so maybe it is, you a general place where they report on some science. They do at the bottom link me to the real article which again makes me think it's maybe this is usually a good source of information because you've heard me complain a hundred times that so many articles will just say like a study out of whatever university which just as a side note scientists almost never care what university the research was done at it's not like oh harvard has the best science lab. Like, not necessarily. Just because it sounds fancy to your average person and is a good school to get a bachelor's at. Newspaper articles will be like, a study out of this university. And I'm like, that helps me not at all to find this. Yeah, the first author's last name

0:40:12 Thomas: Is a journal oh wow well they did a good job hmm right hmm is it more oh to find it okay is it more about like who the scientist is there than what they're doing well I don't even know what

0:41:11 Jenessa: Will really help me get there. I don't know why you wouldn't just cite it. That would help me a a lot. The article title is the most helpful thing. Anyway, this looks like decent science reporting and it was certainly an interesting title. And then I read the real article and I was like, oh, no, this is this is not good. So the claim on our science daily dot com like reporting testosterone does not induce aggression, study shows. OK, that's kind of a big deal. Yeah, Yeah. Because like, you know, certainly in animals, this seems to correlate, right? Like animals with high testosterone are more aggressive. And we do know that men are more

0:41:30 Thomas: What it is. What's the claim? What's happening? That would surprise me. Yeah. Yeah, like humans.

0:41:56 Thomas: The human male animal. Yeah sure. But I've heard from trans men who are like well when I started

0:42:01 Jenessa: Physically aggressive. They are more verbally aggressive. Certainly some of that is culture. Like we know we, you know, men don't have to be more aggressive, we can teach that behavior away. Of course. Sure. Yeah, we know other medications can influence our mood and behavior.

0:42:16 Thomas: Getting on you know testosterone it's like it my my whole stuff changed. You know like my I've heard that from transmen before. I think the chemicals they're not deterministic. It doesn't determine everything. Like any chemical or drug like it's good it you know they can have effects And, you know, it doesn't absolve any violent man from some sort of responsibility, but there, you know, there's certainly degrees and tendencies that, that chemicals can make a difference on, right? Yeah. Oh, I would assume that like emotional aggression or text aggression or,

0:42:46 Jenessa: It wouldn't be like weird, right? So this would be surprising for sure. The reporting here goes on to tell us this is not actually about physical aggression when they talk about what happened in the study. If you just read the headline, you would probably have assumed. When we say aggression, Aggression. Yeah, you think about hitting people, right? I mean, fine. In psych, we define aggression much more broadly than that. And that's fair. I would certainly include verbal aggression. Like, I think that makes sense.

0:43:16 Thomas: No, I mean, what did they actually like study, I guess was what I was asking.

0:43:20 Jenessa: So what they actually studied, I think, is a bit of a stretch.

0:43:24 Thomas: Ah, oh, that one. Yeah. Yeah, because they really care about, people really care

0:43:28 Jenessa: What they had people do, it's a study design I have seen many times before around like justice orientation. One person is going to make the offer and the other person is gonna accept or reject. And it's, hey, I've got 10 bucks. The offeror will offer a certain amount to the receiver and that person can accept or reject. If you accept, I get a certain amount, you get a certain amount. If you reject, nobody gets anything. Yeah, most people have heard of this. It's a pretty famous study design. They really do. Exactly.

0:44:02 Thomas: About fairness and they're willing to like deprive themselves of something to, to make sure it's fair yeah yeah hmm what what is the test of aggression in there maybe I missed it

0:44:07 Jenessa: If you offer seven and three, a lot of people will reject that offer. They will walk away with zero dollars instead of three because it's not right. It's not fair. If you were just like game theory, like emotionless and didn't care about justice, well, obviously you'd take three dollars instead of zero right but if you want to exist in a just world you'll be like I will walk away with zero so that you walk away because you're a jerk that's not necessarily irrational if you have a species that has to work together right it's a fine study design I don't know that it tests aggression in this reporting they're going to just say test subjects the individuals they give 0.5 milligrams of testosterone or a placebo and they want to see are people going to be more aggressive in that they make less fair offers I it doesn't I get that like making a fair offer is what we'd call like a pro-social behavior less fair offers are like more anti-social but pro- social and anti-social is much more broad and generic than like aggressive. It's a stretch. But I was like, okay, at least I'm curious. The first thing is when I go read the actual study, it's not test subjects. It is all women. There are no men in the study. They said the reason was this way of giving testosterone, 0.5 milligrams under the tongue and then waiting a certain number of hours. Whereas we know in women, like the uptake of testosterone and that that will end up at a certain concentration in the blood and that we don't know that that administration method works in men. Why not just figure that out first would be an option. You could just have men in this study and then just do a blood test and find out or like have men In the study and admit it's a limitation that the men's results are slightly harder to interpret. I don't know. It didn't seem like a good reason to not have them. And also, all of this more public, general reporting does not disclose that. It feels kind of important. At best, this tells us how testosterone affects women. Of all the things where you might expect a gender difference in behavior, I would think sex hormones are the one. So that was not great. All right, I keep reading. They do find, oh, okay, it's statistically significant. The people who got testosterone actually made more fair offers. And the people who believed they got testosterone made less fair offers and like, oh okay, that's

0:44:48 Thomas: Or did you not finish hmm okay yeah yeah yeah for sure oh yeah just see ah yeah yeah oh wow wow that is really interesting oh yeah yeah

0:47:02 Jenessa: Interesting. So if they believed they had testosterone, they like, you know, acted mean. It is, right? Except for the effect size. This is when it all just completely fell apart for me. There's a total of $10, the amount of units on the table. The people in the placebo group offered 3.4 and the testosterone group offered like 3.9. So it's it's not even a one unit difference.

0:47:37 Thomas: Yeah it's pretty small yeah why would they do that just let them offer whatever it's not even

0:47:38 Jenessa: And then it gets even worse because I was like, oh, OK, so that means like some people offered three and some people offered four and like more threes than fours in the placebo group, except it's Not even that, because if you go all the way down to the the methods section at the end, some papers do it that way, the proposer could only offer five, three, two, or zero. They couldn't even offer four. They could offer three or five.

0:48:11 Thomas: That many possibilities yeah that would be interesting yeah it could be interesting too

0:48:11 Jenessa: No, not at all. They said this ensured a clear separation between an offer that is regarded as fair, five, and offers perceived to be unfair, three, two or zero, or possibly when you let people offer I get six you get four maybe a lot of people do that and maybe a lot people accept that offer because it's like just slightly off of fair and maybe that's what everyone does if four is an option. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of people would offer five

0:48:41 Thomas: If like if something influenced that like if testosterone theoretically influenced a number number of people who are like I'm gonna I'm gonna go for four because I could probably get away with that you know like that could be interesting yeah hmm yeah rather than looking at an average if

0:48:59 Jenessa: And then a lot a lot would try to get away with four and six as a split and And most people would correctly guess that, like, three and seven's a stretch. They're going to reject it. And instead, you could only offer five or three. So now when you look at a gap of 3.4 and 3.9, when people aren't allowed to offer four, so, like 3.5 isn't even close to an offer you were allowed to make. Like, this is a statistical artifact. Artifact, you averaged 120 people, and that's how you end up with the gap between 5, 3, 2, and 0. Oh, yeah. You know, that would make a lot of sense. And it would also be a great reason to

0:49:45 Thomas: You've done the thing where you've you've assured that it's either going to be fair or unfair why don't you just count the number of fairs and unfairs like I feel like the average doesn't really do that much like it should just be like this many made an unfair one and this many made a fair one and compare it across the groups yeah that's what they could have accomplished with

0:50:09 Jenessa: Not give 4 as an option. Probably doing beforehand, maybe, if I were to speculate.

0:50:12 Thomas: That yeah weird yeah yeah finders fee, you know, yeah, bank transaction fee, you know, this seems like

0:50:17 Jenessa: Speculate because you could totally convince me hey when we make four an option it's like debatable if four is four and six is fair by the luck of the draw I got put in the bargainer position, and it's only fair if I get a little extra yeah yeah yeah right a lot of people could probably justify that sitting on both sides of the table I think you're totally right if you said five three two zero and really anything other than five we're gonna call you an unfair offerer and the fives are like the virtuous the people who just insisted on fairness and there could be a lot of reasons for that they could be being strategic they could Be committed to fairness you know whatever but yeah to just do a binary of like a count of that you do a different statistic. You'd probably do a chi-squared test on that one, but you know, you could still check for that. This average number, to say the average dollar amount was 3.9 about when they could only offer five or three, like at some point you get into that significant digits problem. 3. 9 is not a number anyone was allowed to offer. It's not even close to a number. Anyone was allowed Yeah, right. Yeah. It is so hard to parse out without seeing the raw data, without seeing, they don't give me the range in here. The error bars are standard error of the mean. If they had given me standard deviation would show you.

0:51:39 Thomas: Bad basic math stuff is it that the vast majority of people offered five but then some significant number of people offered zero or whatever or is it that a bunch of people offered like three you could have the same result with different numbers there so how does it like you would you would just want to know how many people I mean not for nothing

0:52:16 Jenessa: One standard deviation is where 66 percent of people are falling and two standard deviations is about 98 percent. Standard error of the mean is like way harder to interpret because it depends on other factors in your data. So I look at these error bars on the graph and I can't quite tell what exactly to make of it on its own. I don't know the highest and the presumably some people offered five and some people offered zero, but I don' t know like I don t have a histogram the frequency of who offered what. No!

0:52:49 Thomas: Were they able to offer the other person more money huh

0:52:53 Jenessa: Five, three, two, and zero. What if testosterone makes you so kind that you would have offered six to them? One of their hypotheses in here is that well the folk wisdom is testosterone makes you aggressive. Other people have said what if it makes you status seeking? And one way to get status is aggression, but another way is to be magnanimous, to be part of, you know, a good person in society. And so that could explain this if people were trying to be good and to look like a high status. Well, a person who wanted to look high status might have given you all $10. I don't even need money. I'll give it to you.

0:52:54 Thomas: Yeah hmm interesting yeah yeah who knows huh hmm

0:53:34 Jenessa: They're like, oh, it's statistically significant, the placebo versus testosterone. It's statistically insignificant that the people who thought they got testosterone gave on average like 3.1, and the people Who thought they got a placebo gave about 3.9 or 3.8. So that difference is statistically significant. But then if you look at the difference score where getting testosterone, the actual difference made you $0.60 more generous, and thinking you got testosterone made you almost a dollar less generous. But that gap, the difference between plus 0.6 and minus one, that's not significant. This is a statistical artifact. This is if you calculate it one way, you get a p-value that crossed the line if you calculate it the other way you get a p-value that didn't cross the line if you just try to analyze this a slightly different way it didn't work anymore yeah it feels like p-hacking it definitely you're making me wonder if they tried that binary split and it didn't and then they were like well maybe a better way to analyze these were with the average sometimes this happens with papers there's a whole bunch of things just sitting in this this filing cabinet of my notes no no it is not no so for whatever reason it just like made the

0:54:26 Thomas: Hmm. So, pee hacking. Wow. Plus, wait a minute. This is from 2009. Yeah, but it's not like it's sitting there for 15 years or whatever. Huh. It's so interesting that that happens so often. Hmm.

0:55:06 Jenessa: Rounds on Tumblr and somebody was like, hey, what do you think of this? It is, isn't it? This is just another one where I was like oh I can't actually make an episode out of this. I never want to make a big deal out of an effect size that is so small especially when that effect size is narrower than the options participants even had. At least if the gap were two dollars and and they could offer dollar increments, I'd be like, okay, it's not nothing. But they had 120 participants, and they couldn't even get a dollar gap when the fair versus unfair gap we suspect most people would pick is a $2 gap, five versus three. And they didn't let you go above it. And it's all women. Why? What is the connection to aggression here? The connection to aggression is just so tenuous. Yeah. Yeah. And like that reporting, it did at least mention the study design. So, you know, somebody with a critical eye could be like, I don't know that I agree that this design is aggression, but it doesn't even mention that it's just women. It feels like they went out of their way to not say it because they just keep saying the test subjects.

0:55:31 Thomas: Yeah. Hmm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah-yeah. Yet another bad science thingy that just was not... It's old, it's random and it seems bad how much of our information environment is just this stuff over and over hmm wow right yeah yeah yeah and I I feel like they should have structured this

0:56:42 Jenessa: Yeah, I agree. Our information environment's a mess. I worry that this pressure to publish on researchers is leading to stuff like this. Like this would be a really great undergrad thesis for an undergrad to get practice doing research. This did not need to be in the public eye. Or you could put it in the public eye and not oversell these results. You could be like, hey, look what happened. I don't quite know what it means. Yeah but this is in nature which is like one of the most famous journals yeah yeah yeah when you

0:57:13 Thomas: One a little differently and might have had some interesting results it just seems like it was a weird choice and in different ways oh it is oh I thought it was in we couldn't try oh that's right right. That was just the website thing. That was the, oh, huh. Yeah. Yeah, boy. Yeah

0:57:29 Jenessa: Go to the actual article it is published in nature which is weird nature's all about honestly I feel like it's getting worse and worse to the point that it's about the flashy headline it's about the thing that gets attention and gets citations they don't want a nice sterile replication study that validates people using good methods or something that fails to replicate, which I think could be really interesting. Nobody wants to publish that anymore. The science environment is getting stressful and I'm glad I don't do it anymore. Yeah. I do. It's piling up.

0:58:08 Thomas: Another debunk. Another day, another day. It's just there's so much of this stuff out there. I'm sure you have a lot more in your drawer. We need more skeptics in the world and we need more critical readers and I guess the financial incentives need to be different or the publishing incentives need be different too right oh god well can't wait for that to ruin the discourse further well um my new business idea

0:58:18 Jenessa: Yeah, they really do. People need to understand when they are hiring and promoting professors professors and really keeping in mind that promoting to tenure the the opposite is firing there's no like oh you missed out on tenure better luck next time the motivations towards that need to be quality not quantity this focus on just getting out papers that your resume your cv is long and therefore it is good that's how this happens that's why we have this crisis of all all these stupid AI papers coming out now that are obviously written by AI and have diagrams that are nonsensical like because people need their name on a paper to survive like that's come on that's bullshit yay oh yeah yeah the redhead oh no was it like a scam okay just bad idea oh

0:59:19 Thomas: Quibi is great and I think Jenessa made it work we're gonna put ads all over the super bowl and we're getting Sophie Turner that's my memory is that her name the game thrones girl that's my main memory of quibi as just she was in something and was everywhere I was like I don't who's watching this I don't know turns out no one turns out no yeah it's kind of it's like no it was so it wasn't a scam it wasn'T a scam it was it was an dumb idea who's the woman who was pretty wealthy and for a while like tried to run for president maybe or run for governor who was was it I want to say hp

0:59:54 Jenessa: Oh boy. No. I think so. Yes. Oh, I thought you were giving me a person's initials.

0:59:55 Thomas: She was ceo of okay now I gotta now I got to check this is important by the way this is a diagnostic adhd test right now if you are still listening This was all a trick. It means you have ADHD. Meg Whitman. Remember that person? She did try to run for governor. She was the CEO of something, I thought. Yeah, Hewlett-Packard. Yeah, yeah, okay, I was right. Wow. Sometimes stuff rattles around in my brain. No, no, Hewlett-Packard.

1:00:21 Jenessa: So we had nothing to do. Just bored. The documentary about Quibi that has

1:00:22 Thomas: She was a CEO, so it was her idea. And it was like, okay. People are dying for content that is both. Could be landscape and could be portrait. So we'll do two different things. And you'll be able to watch it either way. It'll cost a lot of money because you'll have to shoot for both. You have to double your production costs basically for those. And no one watched it. They're also super short. They're like 10 minutes. How am I the only one who remembers this? It was right before, wait a minute. No, that's makes it even funnier. And I've probably said this before. I think it was like, yeah, it was mid COVID. Yeah. Couldn't be a better time for like, here's a thing where you can watch stuff. Yeah, I mean, I guess, could you make the argument that's like, well, normally people would be at work watching stuff on their phones, you know but now they're at home so they wouldn't bother on their phone I don't know but still it's pretty funny six months later shuts down it's funny and a bummer and where is the goddamn documentary on this has anyone made a documentary on the documentary on it's gonna be me maybe I have to do it yeah and you can watch it on two different formats no all right this was a lot

1:01:21 Jenessa: The Brazil nut couple just in the background. I'll just keep collecting.

1:01:28 Thomas: Of fun there's so much stuff rattling around your junk drawer of research and uh maybe we'll get some more sometime soon I'm tired of your brazil nut eating ways I am royalty yeah