Beata Halassy, a virologist from the University of Zagreb and a cancer patient, decided to cure herself with oncolytic virotherapy (OVT), Nature News reports.

OVT uses viruses to attack cancer cells directly and also stimulate the body’s immune system to fight the cancer.

Halassy chose to inject her tumor with two viruses: first, a measles virus commonly used in vaccines, and then a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), which can cause mild flu-like symptoms but is generally safe.

Her approach was to target her tumor with these viruses consecutively, a method not typically used in standard OVT trials, which are more focused on late-stage cancers like metastatic melanoma.

A colleague administer the treatment over two months using viruses that Halassy herself prepared in her lab.

Halassy’s self-treatment worked; the tumor not only shrank but also became less invasive, allowing for an easier surgical removal.

After the surgery, Halassy continued with a standard cancer treatment drug called trastuzumab. She has now been cancer-free for four years.

Halassy believes her experience provides valuable insights into OVT’s potential, which hasn’t been officially approved for breast cancer treatment anywhere in the world yet.

Pointless “ethical” concerns

Halassy faced rejections from many journals when she tried to publish her findings, primarily due to the self-experimentation aspect. Eventually she published her work in Vaccines.

The case of Halassy has raised significant ethical questions regarding self-experimentation. While Halassy’s case showed success, there’s concern that publicizing such methods might encourage others to try similar unproven treatments, potentially leading them away from established medical protocols. This could be risky, especially since cancer patients might be desperate for alternatives.

Halassy’s story has sparked a debate on how scientific knowledge gained from self-experimentation should be handled ethically. While some worry about the broader implications on patient care and safety, others argue for the importance of sharing such data for potential advancements.

It can be argued that “ethical” objections to self-administered therapies that have saved lives and show potential to save more lives are pointless. If biohacking saves lives, then it is good.

Let us know your thoughts! Sign up for a Mindplex account now, join our Telegram, or follow us on Twitter.