Facing a third recurrence of breast cancer and the grueling prospect of more chemotherapy, virologist Beata Halassy decided to take matters into her own hands—literally. She bypassed standard medical protocols and turned to her own laboratory, cultivating specific viruses to inject directly into her tumor. It sounds like the plot of a science fiction movie, but this real-life experiment actually happened, sparking a fierce debate among doctors and ethicists about where the line between bravery and recklessness really lies.
A Radical Approach to Recurrent Breast Cancer
In 2020, Beata Halassy, a virologist at the University of Zagreb, faced a stage 3 breast cancer diagnosis at the site of a previous mastectomy. It was her third recurrence, and she was determined to avoid another grueling round of chemotherapy. Instead, Halassy leveraged her professional expertise to attempt a self-treatment method known as oncolytic virotherapy (OVT).
Halassy cultivated research-grade stocks of two specific viruses in her laboratory: a measles strain typically used in childhood vaccines and a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). She selected these pathogens because they are known to infect the specific cell type originating from her tumor. Over a two-month period, a colleague administered the freshly prepared viral treatments directly into her tumor.
The experiment yielded significant results without serious side effects. The tumor shrank substantially, softened, and detached from the pectoral muscle and skin it had invaded. This detachment allowed for easier surgical removal. Post-surgery analysis confirmed the tumor was infiltrated with immune cells, proving the viruses successfully provoked her body to fight the disease. Halassy noted, “An immune response was, for sure, elicited.” Following the surgery and a year of treatment with the anticancer drug trastuzumab, Halassy has remained cancer-free for four years.
Could Viruses Cure Cancer?
Oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) is an emerging field of cancer treatment that utilizes viruses to attack malignant cells while simultaneously provoking the immune system to join the fight. While Halassy’s self-application was unconventional, the science behind it is grounded in established research. OVT is already a recognized therapeutic category, with one specific treatment called T-VEC currently approved in the United States for treating metastatic melanoma.
However, the medical landscape for breast cancer is distinct. There are currently no government-approved OVT treatments for breast cancer at any stage anywhere in the world. Most clinical trials for this therapy have historically focused on late-stage metastatic cancers, though researchers are increasingly investigating its potential for earlier-stage disease.
Halassy employed a sequential approach, administering a measles virus followed by a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). Both pathogens have established safety records in other contexts; the measles strain is widely used in childhood vaccines, and VSV typically induces only mild flu-like symptoms.
Stephen Russell, an OVT specialist and biotech founder, noted that Halassy’s case suggests the viral injections worked exactly as theorized. The treatment successfully shrank the tumor and caused its invasive edges to recede. While Russell points out that an experiment on a single person cannot definitively prove efficacy for the general population, the biological mechanism observed in Halassy’s case aligns with broader scientific efforts to harness the power of viruses against tumors.
A Dangerous Precedent or Vital Knowledge?
Despite the medical success of her experiment, Halassy faced significant resistance when she attempted to share her findings with the scientific community. She received more than a dozen rejections from various journals before her case report was finally accepted. The primary hesitation among editors was not the validity of her data, but the ethical implications of publishing a self-experiment.
The medical community worries that highlighting such unconventional success stories might encourage patients to reject standard, proven treatments in favor of dangerous, unproven home remedies. Jacob Sherkow, a law and medicine researcher at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, highlighted this dilemma.
While he believes Halassy’s specific study “does fall within the line of being ethical,” he noted that it is “not a slam-dunk case” for publishers who must balance knowledge sharing with public safety.
The paper was eventually published in the journal Vaccines in August 2024 as an “unconventional case study.” The publication explicitly emphasized that self-medication with oncolytic viruses should not be the first approach for cancer patients. Halassy acknowledged the difficulty of the process, stating, “It took a brave editor to publish the report.” Her experience places her in a long, often stigmatized history of scientists experimenting on themselves to advance medical knowledge.
Navigating Treatment Options Responsibly
While Beata Halassy’s success story is compelling, it comes with a critical disclaimer: this was a controlled scientific endeavor, not a home remedy. Halassy herself believes it is unlikely others will attempt to copy her simply because the treatment requires high-level scientific knowledge and access to research-grade materials. However, her journey offers valuable lessons on how patients can approach their own diagnoses.
First, this case highlights the importance of exploring all available options, including clinical trials. Halassy did not reject science; she leaned into it. Patients facing difficult diagnoses can work with their medical teams to identify ongoing clinical trials for emerging therapies like oncolytic virotherapy (OVT). These trials provide access to cutting-edge treatments under strict safety protocols, removing the extreme risks associated with self-experimentation.
Second, medical supervision is non-negotiable. Even with her extensive expertise, Halassy did not act entirely alone. She engaged her oncologists, who agreed to monitor her progress throughout the experiment. They had a contingency plan to switch back to conventional chemotherapy immediately if the viral treatment failed. This underscores a vital rule for any patient considering alternative or adjunctive therapies: never hide treatments from your primary care team. Transparent collaboration with doctors ensures that safety nets remain in place, regardless of the treatment path chosen.
One Woman’s Risk to Future Cures
Beata Halassy didn’t just walk away from this experience cancer-free; she walked away with a new mission. Because of her success, she completely changed the focus of her lab. She recently secured funding to test this same viral therapy on domestic animals, like dogs and cats, battling cancer.
This shift is crucial. While her personal experiment was risky, moving this research into a controlled lab setting is how real medical progress happens. It bridges the gap between a “wild idea” and a safe, approved treatment that you can get at a hospital. By treating pets, researchers can gather the necessary safety data to eventually bring these therapies to human clinical trials properly.
Jacob Sherkow, the legal researcher, made a strong point: we can’t let valuable knowledge disappear just because the method was controversial. We have to learn from it. Halassy’s choice to publish her results—and now apply them to veterinary medicine—means this data won’t be lost. It will be tested, refined, and perfected.
Source:
- Corbyn, Z. (2024). This scientist treated her own cancer with viruses she grew in the lab. Nature, 635(8039), 529–530. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03647-0
