Transcript
I have a confession to make, and it comes with a bit of a behind-the-scenes look into why making science education content feels like such an uphill battle. So yesterday I was in the middle of filming a video, which means setting up my fancy camera, lighting, outfit, etc. And when I finished, I decided, hey, I'm already set up to film, why don't I film another quick video about some new studies that I just read about? I had seen this article about using poop pills to treat cancer. And it was just a word-for-word copy of a new press release about two new studies. The studies were published in nature, one of the top journals in the world, and the press release contained quotes from the original study authors. So I went ahead and filmed the very high-level video about just a press release in the quotes. But then, I have a personal rule that I'll never publish a video about a study without reading the actual study. And I like using direct quotes and figures taken from the text. So the next day I was in the middle of editing and looking for key quotes and images that I could use in the video. And at first I was very confused. The article was about using fecal microbial transplants to improve cancer treatment. And it said that the first study could be eliminated with FMT, Thucle Matter Transplant. And then a quote from the author about how normal immunotherapy can have very bad side effects leading to stopping the treatment early, which leads to bad outcomes. And how 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 receiving the FMT than the control group. But also better long-term results, meaning the study was showing something completely different than what they said. I was confused. Until I realized that the article linked to the wrong study. two studies published on using FMTs to help treat kidney cancer both on January 28, 26. Both published in Nature. And while the original press release linked to the correct one, this article got them mixed up. Problem solved? No, because even then, the correct study did not show that FMTs lowered side effects. It was a phase one study with no control group. It was just trying to and powered to show that the FMT process was safe and didn't make things which it did. But 50% of the patients still experienced bad side effects to the immunotherapy, which is pretty in keeping with what is the normal percentage. What was interesting about the new study, though, is that it seemed like the people who actually had the fewer side effects were the ones for whom the bacteria from the FMT actually seemed to take root, called engraftment. But that's correlation. It could be that the already healthier people were the ones who were more likely for that bacteria to be able to take root and have fewer immunotherapy, not that one causes the other. So even when looking at the correct study, the official press releases statement that first study shows that the toxic side effects of drugs to treat kidney cancer could be eliminated with FMT, well, that's a gross exaggeration of the data, which is so unnecessary because the actual data from all three studies is actually super exciting, which I'll get to in the next video.
Additional notes
New Poop Pill to help cancer treatment? I get that the researchers are excited about the results, but it just lowers trust in science when they start extrapolating or implying things that go beyond the data! I legit fil SUPER COOL: One of the big problems with FMTs is that it's pretty hard to get the right bacteria into your small intestine. These studies used a fairly new method whereby the bacteria is taken from donors, concentrated, and placed into tasteless, odourless, and acid-resistant capsules so that they survive through the stomach (called LND101). In this study, the full dose comprised 36-40 capsules (80-100 g of stool), followed by two half-doses of 20-25 capsules each (50-60 g of stool). That’s a lot of pills! Note: there was a 50% “response rate” to the immunotherapy, which means the tumor is shrinking by a defined amount. - Severe toxicity was much less common in responders to the immunotherapy: - Responders with grade 3 irAEs: 1/9 (11%) - Non-responders with grade 3 irAEs: 8/9 (89%) - Reported association test: χ² = 8.00, P = 0.005 - Only 15/20 finished all planned FMT doses irAE=immune-related adverse events STUDIES: Correct Kidney Cancer Study 1: DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-04183-8 Incorrect But Still Cool Kidney Cancer Study 1: DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-04189-2 Lung and Skin Cancer FMT Study for Next vid: DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-04186-5 #science #sciencenews #tiktoklearningcampaign
References
- Correct Kidney Cancer Study 1. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-04183-8. Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-04183-8
- Incorrect But Still Cool Kidney Cancer Study 1. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-04189-2. Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-04189-2
- Lung and Skin Cancer FMT Study for next video. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-025-04186-5. Source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-04186-5