Advertise on podcast: The Cracking Cancer Podcast

In this episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon sits down in person with science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD, to tackle one of the most persistent and anxiety-inducing topics in oncology: Does sugar feed cancer? Rob and Kyle break down the biochemistry behind how the body processes carbohydrates, deconstruct online misconceptions, and address the real-world harm caused when cancer patients starve themselves of vital nutrition out of fear. Rob explains the Warburg Effect—a phenomenon where cancer cells preferentially use glucose via fast, anaerobic glycolysis to generate rapid cellular energy—and clarifies why cell culture findings in a Petri dish do not translate to human metabolism. Dr. Kyle discusses human glucose homeostasis, highlighting how the liver and muscles maintain steady blood sugar through gluconeogenesis and glycogen breakdown regardless of dietary intake. The hosts issue a stark warning against extreme restrictions that lead to cancer cachexia (muscle and weight wasting) and explain why, for patients without uncontrolled diabetes, enjoying food and maintaining caloric intake is far more vital than cutting out sugars.   Key Takeaways: The Warburg Effect Misconception The Body Regulates Blood Sugar Automatically The Danger of Cancer Cachexia When Sugar Does Matter (Uncontrolled Diabetes) A Calorie is a Calorie During Treatment   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: 0:00 Welcome & Intro: Addressing the "Sugar Feeds Cancer" Myth 2:15 Biochemistry 101: Deconstructing the Warburg Effect 6:40 Blood Sugar Regulation: Why the Body Makes Its Own Glucose 11:50 Metabolic Syndromes vs. Direct Tumor Growth 16:20 The Real Danger: Malnourishment, Starvation, and Cachexia 21:10 Preclinical Mouse Models vs. Human Diets 28:30 Evaluating the Clinical Data: Why Ketogenic Studies Struggle 35:15 Restoring Quality of Life: Why You Should Eat Your Ice Cream   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

In this episode of Cracking Cancer, science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD, is joined by glioblastoma researcher Dr. Julio Sanchez, a postdoctoral fellow at UCLA. Julio pulls back the curtain on early-stage cancer research, shedding light on the quiet, rigorous, and often high-failure world of preclinical science that takes place long before a new drug ever reaches a clinical trial. Julio details the transition from in vitro cell line work to complex in vivo mouse models, explaining why glioblastoma remains one of the most notoriously aggressive and difficult-to-treat brain cancers. He highlights his lab's recent publication in Cancer Research, which introduced next-generation, CRISPR-engineered mouse models that far better mirror human glioblastoma pathology and the tumor immune microenvironment compared to traditional cell lines developed in the 1970s. The pair also explore the rise of therapeutic mRNA vaccines and organoid platforms, and discuss why the scientific method is fundamentally a mindset built on resilience, critical thinking, and iterative problem-solving.   Key Takeaways: The In Vitro to In Vivo Pipeline Modernizing Glioblastoma Models Therapeutic vs. Preventative Vaccines The Promise of Organoid Platforms Resilience as a Core Metric   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: 00:00 Meet Rob and Julio 02:29 Inside the Lab Pipeline 03:03 Julio Research Focus 04:45 Teamwork in Science 07:42 Cell Lines Explained 11:41 Limits of In Vitro 15:31 From Cells to Mice 17:19 Better GBM Models 22:25 Immunocompetent Mice 25:42 Choosing Mouse Strains 28:07 Organoids as Bridge 31:12 Why Research Takes Time 36:56 Mechanisms and Rigor 40:01 Future of GBM Therapy 47:43 Science as Mindset 50:59 Resilience and Hope 53:36 Trust Science Outreach 57:13 Closing Thanks and Wrap   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

In this episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon is joined by GI medical oncologist Dr. Chris Lieu (University of Colorado Cancer Center) and Stage IV neuroendocrine rectal cancer patient advocate Bill Thach. Bill brings an incredible, rare perspective—having navigated 11 lines of therapy and participated in 5 distinct clinical trials since his diagnosis in 2018. Dr. Lieu and Bill break down why clinical trials should be viewed as proactive options starting at diagnosis rather than as "last resorts." They demystify the multi-phase clinical trial pipeline, dispel common myths around "guinea pigs" or placebo controls, and highlight how trial participants gain access to FDA-approved therapies years ahead of the public. The panel also covers the essential role of comprehensive biomarker testing in colorectal and GI cancers—such as KRAS, DLL3, ATM, and Claudin—and highlights game-changing emerging modalities like Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs), Radieligand/Radiopharmaceutical therapies, and homegrown CAR-T cell trials.   Key Takeaways: Early Access Advantage Debunking the Placebo Myth The Three Essential Biomarker Questions Sequencing Strategy Matters Concierge Level of Monitoring   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: 00:00 Welcome to Cracking Cancer 01:55 Bill’s Diagnosis Journey 05:42 When to Consider Trials 08:51 What Trials Really Are 14:07 Finding Trial Options 19:55 Second Opinions Matter 22:46 Trial Logistics and Tradeoffs 29:27 Trial Phases Explained 36:16 Choosing the Right Trial 39:25 Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer 49:05 Future Therapies on the Horizon 52:54 Final Advice and Wrap Up     To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

In this episode of Cracking Cancer, science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD, is joined by virologist and gene therapy researcher Dr. Cole Peters to pull back the curtain on the hidden mechanics of academic cancer funding in the United States. Dr. Peters walks listeners through the pipeline of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) grants—from training awards to multi-year R01 research grants. He exposes the immense administrative burden and fierce competitiveness required to keep basic research labs alive. The conversation explores the critical distinction between basic research (discovering fundamental biological processes) and translational research (moving lab findings to clinical trials), illustrating how iconic breakthroughs like PCR testing, Keytruda (PD-1 inhibitors), and CRISPR gene editing were all born out of basic research that initially had no direct clinical mandate. Dr. Peters also breaks down recent 2025–2026 administrative policy changes regarding grant funding structures and political oversight of peer review. He provides a stark, first-hand account of how grant freezes, "brain drain," and sudden funding interruptions disrupt mouse models, dismantle research teams, and set scientific momentum back by years.   Key Takeaways: The Engine of American Innovation Basic vs. Translational Research The High Bar of Peer Review Policy Shifts in Grant Oversight The True Cost of Funding Delays   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: 00:00 Welcome to Cracking Cancer 01:41 Why Early Funding Matters 02:11 How NIH Funding Works 04:13 What Makes a Strong Grant 11:01 Grant Success Rates and Competition 15:33 Why Basic Research Matters 18:34 Keytruda and PD-1 Origins 23:52 How Grants Get Awarded 27:35 Peer Review Changes and Risks 33:38 Funding Cuts Hit Labs 36:30 Brain Drain and Lost Momentum 46:54 Basic Research Breakthroughs PCR 50:30 State Funding and Local ROI 52:55 Get Involved and Closing   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

In this solo episode of Cracking Cancer, patient advocate Samantha Murrell and science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD, dive into an unexpected topic in integrative oncology: the potential anti-cancer properties of statins—the most widely prescribed class of cardiovascular medications in the world. Driven by digital discussions around drug repurposing (similar to their recent exploration of GLP-1s), Samantha and Rob explore how cholesterol-lowering drugs might influence oncogenic signaling pathways and complement standard cancer therapies. Rob breaks down the underlying biochemistry of statins, detailing how they block the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme. This mechanism not only reduces bad LDL cholesterol production but also cuts off the synthesis of isoprenoid lipids. These lipids act as essential molecular anchors that help key oncogenic driver proteins—such as RAS and Rho—attach to cell membranes and send downstream growth signals. The hosts contrast lipophilic versus hydrophilic statins, evaluate retrospective survival data in breast and lung cancer cohorts, and emphasize the critical importance of checking for drug-drug interactions and genetic variants (like the SLCO1B1 transporter gene) before modifying any medication regimen.   Key Takeaways: Beyond Cholesterol Reduction The Lipophilic vs. Hydrophilic Difference Biomarker Overlaps (HER2 & EGFR) The Danger of Pharmacogenomic Toxicity Association Is Not Causation   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Want to read the papers disussed in this episode yourself? Links are below! https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11912801/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1933287423001630?utm_source=copilot.com https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12170056/     Chapters: 00:00 Welcome and Mission 01:10 Why Statins and Cancer 02:01 Cholesterol and Statins 101 04:24 Other Cholesterol Drugs 06:50 Statins Bad Rap 12:06 Mevalonate Pathway and Cancer 15:13 HER2 EGFR Connections 18:34 What the Studies Show 27:37 Why Papers Say More Research 30:31 Drug Interactions and Dosing 34:04 Genetics and Statin Response 41:31 Wrap Up and Next Topics 42:29 Outro and Support the Show   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

In this eye-opening episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon is joined by Max Doppelt, founder of Patient Data Vault, to tackle one of the most frustrating aspects of modern oncology: clinical trial exclusion criteria. Max shares the heartbreaking story of his mother, who was diagnosed with EGFR Exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). After weeks of agonizing screening to access a promising targeted trial, she was rejected over subtle CT scan findings that hinted at—but did not confirm—pneumonitis. That screening failure forced their family to travel to China to obtain a life-saving drug that was not yet accessible to her in the United States. Dr. Kyle and Max dissect the hidden mechanics of clinical trial design, explaining why trials are often risk-averse, hyper-rigorous experiments designed to isolate variables for FDA approval rather than accommodate real-world complexity. The panel exposes common pitfalls that screen-fail patients—from active brain metastases and strict ECOG performance scores to the "first-line trap," where receiving a single dose of standard chemotherapy permanently disqualifies a patient from frontline trials. They also address "time toxicity"—the dangerous weeks lost in administrative limbo while a patient's cancer progresses—and highlight how platforms like Patient Data Vault use AI to bring total protocol transparency to patients before they waste critical time.   Key Takeaways: The "First-Line" Trap ECOG Performance Status is Dynamic Brain Metastases Risk-Aversion The High Cost of "Time Toxicity" The US vs. EU Protocol Transparency Gap   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: 00:00 Welcome to Cracking Cancer 00:59 Meet Max Doppelt 01:20 A Trial Rejection Story 04:36 Why Exclusion Criteria Exist 06:40 Pneumonitis Gray Areas 09:58 Common Trial Dealbreakers 11:04 Brain Mets and Delays 16:29 Lines of Therapy Trap 18:56 Finding Frontline Trials 23:59 ECOG Performance Status 34:25 Labs and Modifiable Factors 36:32 Screening Delays and Retesting 42:33 Protocol Design and Copy Paste 45:25 Transparency and AI Tools 55:12 Patient Support and Advocacy 59:37 Final Takeaways and Resources   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

The Ethics and Impacts of Clinical Trial Prediction Markets In this episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon is joined by patient advocate Samantha Murrell and science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD, to tackle an unforeseen intersection in modern medicine: the rise of prediction markets on clinical trial outcomes. The panel dissects the recent introduction of prediction markets for FDA regulatory approvals and Phase 3 trial endpoints—including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The team explores the severe moral and psychological ramifications of treating life-saving medical research like a sports wager. Samantha shares the distressing reality for cancer patients facing a Phase 3 trial, who may now see public financial markets actively "b*****g against" their treatment's success. Dr. Kyle and Rob analyze how these speculative markets risk introducing profound biases into clinical trial measurements, threatening patient enrollment, compromising investigator objectivity, and reducing complex biological discoveries down to binary, short-term financial wagers.   Key Takeaways: The Arrival of Clinical Trial Prediction Markets The Psychological Toll on Enrolled Patients Unconscious Bias in Scan Measurement Erosion of Scientific Nuance Ethical and Insider Trading Vulnerabilities   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: 00:00 B*****g On Trials 02:47 Patient Advocate Reaction 05:03 Hope And Harm 09:24 Endpoints Explained 11:25 How Trial Data Forms 12:40 Bias And Measurement 17:29 Insider Info Risks 25:01 Threats And Coercion 39:04 Negative Trials Still Help 47:57 Symptom Bias And Reporting 59:07 Better Things To B** On   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

In this episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon is joined by GI medical oncologist Dr. Sam Klempner (Mass General Brigham) and Stage IV gastric cancer patient advocate Frank Blandon. Frank shares his journey of navigating a diagnostic whirlwind—from being initially misdiagnosed with testicular cancer to finding that a "collapsed stomach" on CT scans hid the true primary tumor. Dr. Klempner breaks down the biology of gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers, explaining how chronic inflammation (from sources like H. pylori or Epstein-Barr Virus) can spark mutations. The panel explores the rapidly expanding biomarker landscape—including PD-L1, HER2, MSI/MMR, and Claudin 18.2—and why getting comprehensive testing upfront is vital for matching patients to modern immunotherapies, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and clinical trials. They also address the psychological hurdles of seeking a second opinion and why "stage is just a number" in an era of transformative treatments.   Key Takeaways: Vague Early Symptoms Lead to Delays The Four Essential Biomarkers EBV-Associated Gastric Cancer Managing "Time Toxicity" and Treatment Regimens Second Opinions Are Not Insults (MOST IMPORTANT)   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: (00:00) Meet The Guests (02:48) Frank Misdiagnosis Story (07:02) Symptoms And Early Clues (09:07) Risk Factors And Causes (12:03) EBV And Anemia Explained (14:49) Biomarkers That Guide Care (22:05) Frank Treatment Journey (24:48) Managing Side Effects (27:28) Stage Based Treatment Options (31:59) Trials And New Therapies (37:04) Hope From Research And ASCO (39:01) Support Groups And Advocacy (41:09) Second Opinions Matter (47:57) Final Advice And Wrap Up   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

In this episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon is joined by Jeanne Zurek, a Stage IV EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer patient from Minnesota, and science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD. The episode focuses on how the route of drug administration impacts a patient's quality of life, moving from oral TKIs to intravenous (IV) infusions and, ultimately, to subcutaneous (SubQ) injections. Jeanne shares their personal experience transitioning from hours-long IV infusions of amivantamab—which frequently triggered infusion reactions and required heavy steroid pre-medications—to a 5-minute SubQ injection. Rob explains the underlying biochemistry of this transition, highlighting how formulation innovations like hyaluronidase break down tissue barriers to allow larger drug volumes under the skin. Together with Dr. Kyle, they discuss the reduction of "time toxicity," how shorter administration times increase infusion clinic capacity for newly diagnosed patients, and the future of long-acting injectables and home-based cancer care.   Key Takeaways: The Shift from IV to SubQ The Role of Hyaluronidase Reduction in Infusion Reactions Mitigating "Time Toxicity" Systemic Clinic Benefits   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: (00:00) Meet the Guests (02:22) Jeanne’s Diagnosis Journey (04:26) From Pills to Antibodies (06:03) Routes of Administration 101 (07:36) IV Infusion Reality Check (10:06) Managing Infusion Reactions (15:14) Switching to SubQ Injections (24:26) SubQ Benefits and Time Toxicity (30:48) How SubQ Delivery Works (37:55) Side Effects and Patient Advocacy (48:12) Future Delivery and Clinic Capacity (54:05) Pills vs Long Acting Options (58:39) Wrap Up and Next Steps   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

The Metabolic Blueprint: Weighing the Evidence on GLP-1s and Cancer Survival In this highly anticipated episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon sits down with patient advocate Samantha Murrell and science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD, to tackle the most talked-about presentation from the 2026 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting: the intersection of GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro) and oncology. Samantha reveals that she has been using an off-label microdose of a GLP-1 alongside her targeted therapy for Stage IV HER2-mutant lung cancer, not for weight loss, but to target systemic, chronic inflammation. The trio breaks down large-scale real-world data tracking over 25,000 patients, which uncovered a striking associative signal: patients taking GLP-1s alongside traditional targeted therapies were twice as likely to be alive at five years compared to matched cohorts. Dr. Kyle and Rob dissect what this means from a biochemical perspective. They separate mere association from actual causation, explore why chronic inflammation can act as a shield for tumors, and detail the strict clinical rules patients must follow—such as preserving lean muscle mass to prevent cachexia—if they choose to discuss these metabolically active compounds with their oncology teams.   Key Takeaways: The Staggering ASCO Survival Signal Chronic Inflammation vs. Acute Immune Response The Metformin Connection The Critical Muscle Mass Warning The "Healthy Baseline" Confounder   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: (00:00) Sugar Feeds Cancer (01:57) Why GLP-1s Are Buzzing (05:15) Association vs Causation (07:06) Patient Concerns and Anecdotes (10:54) Inflammation Theory and ASCO Data (15:22) Evidence Review and Metformin Link (21:12) Glucose Control Mythbusting (28:00) What GLP-1 Drugs Are (30:36) Next Gen GLP-1s (31:31) Long Acting and Oral Options (32:07) ASCO Lung Cancer Signal (36:23) Interpreting Retrospective Data (39:13) Why Samantha Tried It (40:14) Absorption Theory and Dosing (41:28) Early Side Effects and Adaptation (43:01) Microdosing Caveats (45:14) Autoimmune and Histamine Effects (50:55) Broader Cancer Survival Data (53:35) Practical Safety Guidance (56:34) What We Still Dont Know   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

In this special behind-the-scenes episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon sits down for a candid, scientist-to-scientist conversation with science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD. Stepping away from the traditional patient-interview format, Kyle and Rob pull back the curtain on their own medical paths to explore a profound systemic challenge: the widening chasm between complex oncology research and the everyday patient. Rob shares his viral origin story, which began during his doctoral work at Cornell studying mRNA therapeutics for kidney cancer. When the pandemic hit, a simple explanatory video made for his own family skyrocketed into a full-time mission to demystify laboratory science. Kyle shares a deeply personal, never-before-told story about growing up in a low-healthcare-literacy household in rural Vermont, navigating his brother’s rare genetic liver disorder, and the decades of silent anxiety his mother carried simply because she lacked the vocabulary to ask her doctors the right questions. Together, they deconstruct the broken incentives of modern academic publishing, the flaws of the journal "impact factor" business, and how breaking down elitist medical jargon empowers patients to reclaim control over their own clinical destinies.   Key Takeaways: The Widening Scientific Chasm The "Whiteboard" Anchor for Clinical Care The Fragmented Reality of Learning The Business of the Peer-Review "Paywall" Empathy as a Clinical Metric   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: (00:00) Welcome to Cracking Cancer (00:22) Why Those mRNA Videos Took Off (09:55) How to Explain Complex Science (13:35) Empowering Patients and Caregivers (18:37) Many Ways to Communicate Science (23:08) Finding Credible Information (25:09) Peer Review and Impact Factor (35:05) AI as a Learning Tool (40:22) Kyle’s Personal Why (50:42) Advice and Wrap Up   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

Deconstructing Fenbendazole: Scaffolding, Solvents, and the "Joe Tippens" Protocol In this highly requested follow-up to their Ivermectin discussion, host Dr. Kyle Concannon, patient advocate Samantha Murrell, and science communicator Rob Swanda, PhD, touch the hot stove of alternative oncology once again. This time, they dive deep into Fenbendazole (commonly called "Fenben"), an antiparasitic veterinary drug that has exploded in popularity across cancer forums due to the viral "Joe Tippens Protocol." Samantha opens up about her personal choice to take Fenbendazole secretly for eight months alongside conventional chemotherapy, providing an unfiltered look at the immense "what if" pressure patients face behind closed doors. The conversation shifts to rigorous biochemical scrutiny as Dr. Kyle and Rob break down what the drug actually does inside a petri dish and a living organism. They expose the fascinating irony of alternative health branding: while Fenbendazole is frequently marketed online as a "natural, holistic alternative to harsh toxins," it is completely synthetic. Conversely, the very chemotherapies it seeks to replace are the ones derived directly from nature. Moving step-by-step through peer-reviewed data, they analyze how this compound disrupts cellular architecture, why its therapeutic thresholds carry hidden toxicities, and how missing variables in animal models can obscure the difference between a true anti-tumor signal and a general cellular poison.   Key Takeaways: The Microtubule Mechanism (Chemo in Disguise) The P53 Gene Context The "Healthy Tissue" Toxicity Flaw Flawed Mouse Models & Missing Data Association vs. Causation   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    For more information on Fenbendazole, check out Rob's info-packed video below! https://youtu.be/DDVko6G84wo   Want to see the data yourself? Check out the actual papers below: Fenbendazole acts as a moderate microtubule destabilizing agent and causes cancer cell death by modulating multiple cellular pathways https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6085345/ Fenbendazole Exhibits Differential Anticancer Effects In Vitro and In Vivo in Models of Mouse Lymphoma https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/45/11/560    Chapters: (00:00) Why Fenbendazole Now (01:38) Samantha Tries Fenben (02:09) Joe Tippens Protocol Buzz (04:04) How She Took It (06:14) Social Pressure and Disclosure (08:23) What Fenbendazole Is (11:17) Microtubules and Cancer Logic (13:29) Natural Versus Synthetic Debate (17:25) Preclinical Evidence Deep Dive (19:31) Mouse Study Caveats (25:57) Safety Unknowns and Next Steps (30:39) Paper Rigor Check (31:42) Dose Response Reality (33:15) P53 Dependency Explained (38:25) Healthy Cell Toxicity (40:32) Missing Controls Bias (42:28) Second Study Lymphoma (44:42) Why Immune Free Mice (49:30) How Strong Is Evidence (54:38) Anecdotes Versus Causation (57:00) Mechanism Gaps Takeaways (59:33) Final Verdict Sign Off   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

In this critical episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon reunites with co-host JJ Singleton and welcomes Zach Schroeder, a first-year intern at Wake Forest and the founder of the Rural Cancer Institute. Zach sharing his harrowing personal journey as a 21-year-old diagnosed with Stage III melanoma in a tiny Kansas town anchors the conversation. To receive life-saving surgeries and radiation at MD Anderson, Zach faced an 1100-mile round trip, waking up at 2:00 AM on treatment days to fly across state lines—all while balancing his junior year of college. The trio dives into the staggering statistics defining the "Rural Cancer Gap." They explore the reality that while cancer mortality is declining nationwide, urban survival rates are improving significantly faster than rural ones. From local hospital closures and severe screening shortages (like having only seven providers to perform colonoscopies across a 14-county region in western North Carolina) to systemic medical licensing laws that legally prohibit academic oncologists from billing for telehealth across state lines, this episode exposes the bureaucratic and geographic barriers holding back rural survival. But it also highlights a powerful cultural truth: the profound community support unique to small-town medicine, and how model frameworks like the "Rural Oncology Home" are blending high-tier academic decision-making with local, close-to-home infusion care.   Key Takeaways: The Widening Rural Mortality Gap The Telehealth "Billing Wall" The "Rural Oncology Home" Model Severe Screening Deserts The Sibling/Caregiver Strain   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: (00:00) Zach Melanoma Journey (08:16) JJ Colon Cancer Travel (10:34) Rural Care Barriers Data (16:35) Rural Cancer Gap Explained (20:45) Rural Oncology Home Model (25:18) Telehealth and Licensing (39:41) Isolation and Culture Shock (49:45) Solutions Training and Teams (53:20) Second Opinions and Support (56:22) Final Advice and Wrap   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

Touching the Hot Stove: The Truth About Ivermectin and Cancer In this high-stakes episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon is joined by patient advocate Samantha Morrell and biochemist Rob, PhD, to dissect the data behind the Ivermectin "miracle cure" narrative. Samantha candidly shares her personal experience with the drug, including the social pressure that led her to try it and the subsequent disease progression she experienced while on it. The conversation moves from social media anecdotes to the hard science of the petri dish. Rob explains the actual mechanism of Ivermectin as an antiparasitic and why the "cancer is a parasite" theory is biologically incorrect. They deconstruct the preclinical studies often cited by proponents, revealing a massive dosing gap: the concentrations required to kill cancer cells in a lab are 10 to 100 times higher than what the human body can safely tolerate. From the dangers of DMSO as a solvent to the ICU-level risks of high-dose toxicity, this episode provides a grounded, peer-reviewed reality check for patients navigating the "what if" pressure of alternative therapies.   Key Takeaways: The Dosing Disconnect Cancer is Not a Parasite The Danger of "False Hope" Time-Loss The "Immune Cold to Hot" Myth Repurposing vs. Folklore   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Want to learn more about Ivermectin? Watch Rob's quick explainer video in the link below! https://youtu.be/gpaowjmeiLc   Chapters: 00:00 Why Ivermectin Now 02:35 Samantha Tried It 04:55 Pressure and Regret 06:28 What Ivermectin Is 12:32 Why Trials Matter 20:31 Doses and Toxicity 29:47 Does It Kill Cells 34:31 DMSO As Alternative Therapy 38:26 Toxicity And Neuro Risks 43:18 Glutamate Cancer Metabolism 46:41 Why Petri Dish Misleads 51:29 If It Worked Pharma Would Pivot 53:36 Anecdotes And Missing Case Reports 55:41 Self Dosing And False Hope 57:44 Wrap Up And Key Takeaways   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos

Inside the "Scientific City": Navigating the AACR Conference with Max Doppelt In this episode of Cracking Cancer, host Dr. Kyle Concannon and patient advocate Max Doppelt pull back the curtain on one of the world's largest oncology events: the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting. While clinical conferences focus on what drugs work now, AACR is a massive "scientific city" dedicated to the deep biology and technological breakthroughs that will define cancer care three to five years from now. From navigating the half-mile-long San Diego Convention Center to decoding posters filled with PhD-level jargon, Kyle and Max share the "sneakers-on-the-ground" reality of attending a conference where patients make up less than 1% of the audience. They discuss the striking knowledge gap between basic scientists and clinicians, the overwhelming pharmaceutical presence, and why the most valuable moments often happen over eclectic dinners rather than in lecture halls. Whether you are a researcher looking for a similarity-search algorithm for posters or a patient searching for a "seed of hope," this conversation offers a roadmap for making sense of pure scientific chaos.   Key Takeaways: AACR is Preclinical, Not Clinical The "Half-Mile" Planning Rule Scientists Are Accessible The "Similarity Index" Need Networking is the Real Dividend   Want to get more involved with cancer research and support the podcast? Visit the link below: ⬇️ (All proceeds go strictly towards furthering cancer research and supporting this podcast) Giving.CU.EDU/CrackingCancer    Chapters: (00:00) Why AACR Matters (01:37) Conference Scale Tour (05:20) Planning and Navigating (08:41) Making Research Accessible (15:04) Patient Tracks and Lunch (16:10) Exon 20 and Relevance Gap (21:18) Basic Biology vs Clinic (27:57) Hope and Collaboration (30:51) AI for Smarter Networking (35:58) Best Moments and People (42:40) Booths and Home Base (44:11) Wrap Up and Next Year   To find out more about supporting the show and research endeavors, please go to the following website: www.crackingcancer.org   Attributions The music track - Progression Pulse - is provided by Denys Brodovskyi through the Attribution 4.0 International License   X: (1) Cracking Cancer Podcast (@Cracking_Cancer) / X IG: Cracking Cancer (@crackingcancerpodcast) • Instagram photos and videos