## Scientist Treats Own Breast Cancer with Lab-Grown Virus, Sparking Ethical Debate
In a case that has ignited a debate about the boundaries of self-experimentation and the potential of unconventional cancer therapies, a 49-year-old scientist successfully treated her own breast cancer using a virus she cultivated in her lab. The remarkable story of virologist Beata Halassy, published in the journal ‘Vaccines’, raises questions about the ethics of self-treatment and the potential for groundbreaking medical breakthroughs.
Halassy, who had a history of recurrent triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), was diagnosed with the disease again in 2020, this time at the site of a previous mastectomy. Faced with a second recurrence, she decided to take matters into her own hands, opting for an ‘unproven treatment’ known as oncolytic virotherapy (OVT).
OVT, a cutting-edge approach to cancer therapy, utilizes viruses to specifically target and destroy cancerous cells while stimulating the immune system to fight the disease. Halassy, despite not being an expert in OVT, leveraged her expertise in cultivating and purifying viruses in the lab to administer the treatment herself.
Her self-treatment involved a two-pronged approach: first, a measles virus, followed by a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), both injected directly into the tumor. While her oncologists monitored her progress, Halassy was prepared to switch to conventional chemotherapy if the treatment failed. Thankfully, it did not.
The report in ‘Vaccines’ details the success of Halassy’s treatment. Two months after the initial virus injections, the tumor had shrunk significantly and was surgically removed. Following the surgery, Halassy received a year of treatment with the anticancer drug trastuzumab. She has now been cancer-free for four years.
While Halassy’s case offers a glimmer of hope for alternative cancer treatments, it also raises concerns about the ethics of self-experimentation. Stephen Russell, an OVT specialist, acknowledged that Halassy’s experience suggests the effectiveness of the viral injections, but questioned whether it truly broke new ground. He noted that researchers are already investigating OVT for earlier-stage cancers, and questioned the significance of using two viruses sequentially, given the lack of a control group in a single-case study.
The publication of Halassy’s findings in ‘Vaccines’ also faced significant hurdles. She received over a dozen rejections from other journals, primarily due to concerns about the ethical implications of her self-experimentation. Jacob Sherkow, a law and medicine researcher, expressed concern that publishing Halassy’s results could encourage others to reject conventional treatment and attempt similar risky self-treatments. However, he also emphasized the importance of not dismissing the valuable knowledge gained from self-experimentation.
The authors of the paper acknowledge that self-medicating with cancer-fighting viruses should not be the primary approach to treating cancer. They emphasize the need for rigorous clinical trials to assess the efficacy and safety of OVT as a neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage cancer.
Halassy’s case serves as a reminder of the complex ethical considerations involved in medical research and the potential for both groundbreaking discoveries and potential risks associated with self-experimentation. It remains to be seen how this remarkable case will shape the future of cancer treatment and the ongoing dialogue around the ethics of medical innovation.
