Virologist Beata Halassy took an unconventional approach when she used viruses she grew in her laboratory to treat her own stage 3 breast cancer. This method, known as oncolytic virotherapy (OVT), typically employs viruses to target and kill cancer cells while also stimulating the immune system’s response against the tumor. Her case, detailed in a recent report published in the journal Vaccines, offers a compelling story of self-experimentation in the face of recurring cancer.
Halassy, who is not a specialist in OVT but has a background in cultivating and purifying viruses, chose to inject her tumor with two different viruses: a measles virus and a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). Both of these viruses had been used in clinical trials for cancer treatment, with the measles virus specifically being tested against metastatic breast cancer. Her treatment spanned over two months with the help of a colleague who administered the injections directly into the tumor.
The self-administered therapy appeared to be a success; the tumor not only shrank significantly but also detached from the surrounding tissues, which facilitated its surgical removal. Post-surgery analysis revealed a high infiltration of immune cells, suggesting the oncolytic virotherapy had effectively triggered an immune response against the tumor.
Despite the personal success, Halassy’s case opens a complex discussion on the ethics of self-experimentation. The scientific community often views self-experimentation with skepticism due to potential ethical issues, such as the risk of encouraging others to opt for unproven treatments over established therapies. This is especially critical in life-threatening conditions like cancer, where patients might be vulnerable to unverified claims.
Moreover, Halassy’s experience highlights the challenges faced by researchers in publishing results derived from self-experimentation. Despite numerous rejections, she persisted, driven by a belief in the value of her findings and the historical significance of self-experimentation in scientific discovery.
The conversation around her case underscores the need for a balanced view that considers both the potential scientific contributions of self-experimentation and the ethical implications. It also raises questions about what safeguards should be in place when scientists turn to themselves as test subjects.
This unique case not only adds to the ongoing discussions about the role of oncolytic virotherapy in cancer treatment but also exemplifies how personal experiences can reshape scientific inquiry and lead to new research avenues—Halassy has since redirected her lab’s focus to exploring OVT for treating cancer in domestic animals, inspired by her own positive outcome.