Confession

I have a confession to make. And it comes with a bit of a behind-the-scenes look at why making science content often feels like a losing battle.

So yesterday I was in the middle of filming a video–And for me that means setting up my fancy camera microphone outfit, etc . When I finished I decided, "Hey I'm already set up to film. Why don't I quickly film another piece about some exciting new studies I just read about?"

I had seen this article about using poop pills to treat cancer.

It was just a word-for-word copy of the official press-release about two new studies.

The studies were published in Nature-one of the top journals in the world–and the press release had multiple quotes from the authors.

Soo i went ahead and filmed a very high-level video based on just the press release and quotes.

But then…

I have a personal rule that I never PUBLISH a video about a study without READING THE ACTUAL STUDY. And I like using direct quotes and figures taken from it.

Soo the next day I was mid-editing, reading through the studies to find the key supporting images I could use…

And at first I was very confused.

The article was about two studies using “fecal microbiota transplants” to improve cancer treatment.

It said that “The first study shows that the toxic side effects of drugs to treat kidney cancer could be eliminated with FMT"

and then a quote FROM THE AUTHOR about how normal immunotherapy can have bad side effects that often lead to stopping treatment early, and they were trying to fix that with FMTs.

All pooper- i mean super.

Except when I looked at the linked study, it actually showed MORE side effects in the group that received the FMT, but also better long-term treatment results.

I was confused.

Until i realized that the ARTICLE LINKED TO THE WRONG STUDY.

Turns out there were TWO studies published about using FMT to treat kidney cancer, both on January 28th 2026, both published in nature. And while the original press release linked to the correct one, this article got them mixed up.

But EVEN THEN. The CORRECT STUDY did not show that FMTs lowered side effects. It was a Phase I study with NO CONTROL group. It was just trying to show that the FMT process is safe- which it did– but 50% of patients still experienced pretty bad adverse reactions to the immunotherapy. Which is pretty standard.

What WAS interesting about the study is that it showed that the people who had the fewer side effects were the ones for whom the new, poop-donated bacteria seemed to actually take up residence, but that’s correlation. It could be that the already healthier people were just more likely to let those bacteria take root AND have fewer therapy side effects, not that the one caused the other.

Soo even when looking at the CORRECT STUDY the official press release’s statement that “The first study shows that the toxic side effects of drugs to treat kidney cancer could be eliminated with FMT” is a GROSS EXAGGERATION of the data!

Which is SO UNNECCESSARY because the ACTUAL DATA form ALL 3 studies is SUPER EXCITING. Which i’ll cover in the next video.

V2

"Imagine a cancer drug that works... but only for 40% of people. Now imagine that by changing what's living in a patient's gut, you could double that number. That's not a hypothetical. It just happened.

"Scientists just gave cancer patients pills made from someone else's poop. And it might be one of the most important breakthroughs in cancer treatment this decade. Let me explain before you scroll."

What if one of the biggest problems in cancer treatment... wasn't the cancer?

It was that the treatment just... doesn't work for most people.

Modern immunotherapy is powerful. It teaches your immune system to hunt down cancer cells.

But for over half of patients, it fails. The immune system never gets the memo.

Now here's the twist.

Three new clinical studies just showed that something surprisingly simple can change that.

Not a new drug. Not gene editing.

A fecal microbiota transplant.

Yes. That kind.

Researchers gave cancer patients capsules containing a full transplant of gut microbiota from donors — the whole ecosystem. The goal wasn't to kill cancer directly. It was to reshape the environment the immune system operates in.

In a small lung cancer trial, about 80% of patients responded to immunotherapy after the transplant. Normally? That number's closer to forty.

In melanoma, response rates went from about fifty percent... to seventy-five.

And in the first-ever randomized, placebo-controlled trial in kidney cancer, patients who got the transplant survived progression-free for a median of two years. The placebo group? Nine months.

Same classes of drugs. Same cancers. Different gut.

But here's what surprised even the researchers.

The transplant didn't work by adding good bacteria from the donor. Responders and non-responders received similar amounts of donor microbes.

What mattered was removal. Responders lost significantly more of their own harmful bacteria — species linked to immune resistance. When researchers reintroduced those bacteria in mice, the immunotherapy stopped working.

The transplant wasn't seeding a garden. It was pulling weeds.

These are still early results — small trials, and bigger randomized studies are underway. But the idea is profound.

Cancer treatment doesn't just happen in tumors. It happens in systems.

And sometimes, changing the system changes everything.

V1

What if one of the biggest problems in cancer treatment…

wasn’t the cancer?

It was collateral damage.

Modern immunotherapy is powerful. It teaches your immune system to hunt down cancer cells.

But there’s a catch: in many patients, that same immune system turns on the gut.

Severe colitis. Relentless diarrhea. So bad that some patients are forced to stop treatment early.

Now here’s the twist.

Two new clinical studies just showed that something surprisingly simple can change that outcome.

Not a new drug.

Not gene editing.

But… a carefully designed fecal microbiota transplant.

Yes. That kind.

Researchers gave cancer patients capsules filled with healthy gut bacteria from donors. The goal wasn’t to kill cancer directly—it was to fix the ecosystem the immune system lives in.

And the results were wild.

In kidney cancer patients, adding these microbiome capsules dramatically reduced the toxic side effects of immunotherapy—helping patients stay on life-saving treatment.

In lung cancer, about 80% of patients responded to immunotherapy with the transplant. Normally, that number is closer to forty.

In melanoma, response rates jumped from about fifty percent… to seventy-five.

Same drugs. Same cancers.

Different gut.

Why does this work?

Because your immune system doesn’t operate in isolation. It takes cues from trillions of bacteria living inside you. Some microbes amplify inflammation. Others calm it down. Some may even help immune cells recognize tumors more effectively.

By removing harmful bacteria and restoring balance, researchers may have unlocked a new way to tune cancer treatment—without adding more toxicity.

This isn’t sci-fi. It’s already being tested in large clinical trials across Canada.

The big idea here isn’t “poop pills cure cancer.”

It’s something deeper.

Cancer treatment doesn’t just happen in tumors.

It happens in systems.

And sometimes, changing the system changes everything.