In an unconventional and ethically charged move, Beata Halassy, a virologist at the University of Zagreb, successfully treated her own breast cancer by self-administering an experimental therapy known as oncolytic virotherapy (OVT). This daring act of self-experimentation, detailed in a recent case report published in Vaccines, has sparked a widespread ethical debate while also highlighting the potential of OVT as an emerging cancer treatment.
A Personal Battle Against Recurring Cancer
Halassy’s journey began in 2020, when she was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer at the site of a previous mastectomy. Having already endured multiple rounds of chemotherapy following earlier recurrences, she found herself unwilling to undergo conventional treatments again. As a virologist with extensive expertise in cultivating and purifying viruses, she made the extraordinary decision to treat herself using lab-grown viruses.
While her decision was driven by her professional background and a desire to explore untested options, Halassy emphasized that she was not a specialist in cancer treatment. Her knowledge of viruses and their behavior provided the confidence to proceed, but she acknowledged the risks involved. She also ensured that her oncologists monitored her condition closely, ready to intervene with conventional therapies if necessary.
The Mechanics of Oncolytic Virotherapy
Oncolytic virotherapy is a cutting-edge approach that utilizes viruses to selectively attack cancer cells and stimulate the immune system to fight the disease. While still experimental, the field has shown promise in clinical trials, particularly for advanced-stage cancers. However, no OVT agents have been approved for treating breast cancer in any stage, making Halassy’s attempt especially notable.
For her treatment, Halassy used two viruses in sequence: a strain of the measles virus and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). Both viruses have been investigated in OVT trials and are known to infect cells of the type found in her tumor. The strain of measles she used is widely employed in childhood vaccines, while the VSV strain typically causes only mild flu-like symptoms. Her treatment involved direct injections of research-grade virus material into the tumor over two months, a protocol she devised and prepared herself.
Encouraging Results
The results of Halassy’s unconventional treatment were promising. During the course of her self-administered therapy, the tumor shrank significantly, softened, and detached from the surrounding pectoral muscle and skin. These changes made it easier to remove surgically. Post-surgical analysis revealed that the tumor had been infiltrated by immune cells, including lymphocytes, suggesting that the OVT not only attacked the tumor directly but also stimulated her immune system to respond.
Following surgery, Halassy underwent a year of treatment with trastuzumab, a well-established anticancer drug. Four years later, she remains cancer-free.
Ethical Challenges and Publication Hurdles
Halassy felt a professional and moral obligation to share her findings, but publishing the case report proved difficult. Her manuscript was rejected by over a dozen journals, largely due to concerns about the ethical implications of self-experimentation. She eventually succeeded in publishing the report in Vaccines, attributing the breakthrough to a brave editor willing to tackle the contentious subject.
The ethical dilemma surrounding self-experimentation in science is not new. Critics argue that sharing such findings could encourage vulnerable individuals to bypass conventional therapies in favor of unproven treatments. Cancer patients, in particular, may be more inclined to take risks with unvalidated options, potentially jeopardizing their health.
However, others stress the importance of preserving the knowledge gained from self-experimentation. Jacob Sherkow, a legal and medical ethics researcher, highlighted the delicate balance between discouraging unsafe practices and ensuring valuable scientific insights are not lost. “I think it ultimately does fall within the line of being ethical, but it isn’t a slam-dunk case,” he noted, calling for more robust ethical discussions alongside such case reports.
A History of Self-Experimentation
Halassy’s case joins a long and controversial tradition of self-experimentation in science. Many groundbreaking discoveries, from the development of anesthesia to the elucidation of stomach ulcer causes, have emerged from researchers testing hypotheses on themselves. However, this practice remains fraught with ethical and scientific concerns, particularly when the results are publicized.
Criticism from the Scientific Community
Some experts have questioned whether Halassy’s case offers meaningful advancements to the field of OVT. Stephen Russell, an OVT specialist, acknowledged that her treatment demonstrated the therapy’s potential efficacy but argued that it did not break significant new ground. Clinical trials have already explored OVT for early-stage cancers, and while Halassy’s use of two viruses sequentially is novel, Russell stated that an “n of 1” study makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions.
“The real novelty,” Russell remarked, “is that she did it to herself using viruses grown in her own lab.”
