A researcher in virology and immunotherapy got bad news: Her cancer was back with a vengeance; the treatments weren’t working. She decided to treat it herself.
Very interesting case. I've got a friend who was saved by an experimental trial of immunotherapy a few years back, so I was aware we could weaponize the immune system against cancer, but I didn't know we could straight up use live viruses !
A remark on this point :
"Allow consent forms to skip trivial issues no one cares about (“aspirin might taste bad”) and optimize them for patient understanding instead of liability avoidance."
I think it's like that because it kinda makes sense in the US. Microwaves manuals have warnings about not putting your cat in the microwave, which is not the case in Europe, because a judge would always consider that a customer should not be a complete moron.
I think this would be possible if people couldn't sue companies for completely wild reasons.
Last thing : I have the feeling new forms of treatment are generally considered a last resort after all traditional options fail. It makes sense in the beginning of course, but I feel like when we have enough data to back it up, we fail to change the standard of treatment quickly enough.
For example, considering the body of research on the effects of psilocybin on depression (more efficient and less side effects compared to SSRIs), we should have already started research on psilocybin as a first intention treatment, and not only for SSRIs-resistant forms of depression. It doesn't make any sense.
Challenging question. There is a long history of self-experimentation and one has to admire the courage it takes for an innovative investigator to take the plunge. I am truly glad that Dr. Beatta was successful in treating her recurring tumor. But as a research biologist who has reviewed many research protocols, papers, and grant proposals, I understand the reservations of the journals to publish the paper she and her team submitted. IRBs were instituted to consider the ethics of proposed research, as well as the experimental design. The history of medicine is full of unethical experimentation on subjects without their informed consent - think of Helen Lane and the Tuskegee airmen. So don't discount the value of IRBs entirely. Since Dr. Beatta experimented on herself, there isn't a question of informed consent. But non-virologist patients pressuring their oncologists to inject their tumors with live viruses after reading about her experience wouldn't be doing so out of informed consent, but desperation. Another important consideration is that to truly advance the field of cancer treatment, more than a seemingly arbitrary choice of viruses, doses, injection protocol, and treatment timeline is necessary. From Dr. Beatta's anecdotal study we don't know whether there is anything special about the virus types used, how often and what titer is injected, how long to continue the injections, etc. Every tumor and patient has a unique genetic profile and there is no way to know from this study of one whether similar treatment would be effective or harmful. It's frustrating that careful research requires adequate sample sizes and can't be rushed, particularly for critically ill patients, but in the long run many more lives are likely to be saved from such research than from self-experimentation on a single subject. Yet another concern with this study is that inflammation is an unpredictable process that can be difficult to regulate. You've likely heard of cytokine storms in which a patient's immune system reacts to infection with an uncontrolled and excessive release of immune molecules that can be fatal. Dr. Beatta experienced fever for several days, a sign of inflammation. Fortunately her body tolerated it and recovered, but it could have gone the other way. Please understand that I am not discounting her skill and courage in conducting this experiment on herself, and it is an extremely interesting pathway for future treatment. Having lost several family members to cancer, I wish I could have convinced their doctors to take such a dramatic step to try to save them after standard treatments failed. But the biologist in me understands that research must proceed in a deliberate and ethical manner to have the greatest benefit.
What a great article! Thank you! If you study the history of science, you know that scientific experimentation on yourself was Whole part of the advancement… Somehow the regulations have taken over innovation…
Bring up the web page in a browser for the story, the tutorial, the bibliography (either URLs or downloadable PDFs). Human mothers' milk contains immune enhancing constituents, and my wife's idea was to enhance my immune system to fight my small amount of non-aggressive cancer. But around the time of my diagnosis we found research from Lund University in Sweden that showed mother's milk itself killed cancer cells in vitro but left normal cells unaffected. Through other coincidences, we connected with the wife of a former colleague, a cancer survivor who was nursing a 6 month old, who agreed to pump milk for me. Within a month, my PSA (imperfect blood marker of prostate cancer) fell into the middle of the normal range. And has pretty much stayed there since (there are some nuances with BPH and a growing gland as I age, as well as some spikes when I had bacterial prostatitis).
I have been drinking mother's milk since September 1999, from occasional donors and purchased from a milk bank, tracking with PSA blood work as well as MRIs with spectroscopy at UCSF since then. And my cancer has been undetectable for many years. I would be happy to communicate via email or phone. See my web paper for contact info.
And Tomas, thanks so much for your scholarship, your graphics, and your fascinating & eclectic topics.
Not my area of expertise, but a close friend of mine, Andrew Hessel, has been exploring synthetic biology for this exact use case. Instead of guessing how a virus and a cancer cell may interact, the idea is manufacturing personalized and targeted synthetic viruses that hunt and neutralize the cancer cells in your body. It could be an interesting followup article for you, and happy to connect you with Andrew. Here's a team he co-founded: https://www.humanegenomics.com/. Here's a video of him sharing related insights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQrOTg0OGVo
I did something similar 25 years ago with my prostate cancer, using human mothers' milk, and have been cancer free since. See https://www.cohensw.com/mvpcsg_nov99_text.html for my story and peer reviewed scientific references.
Very informative and thought provoking article, but what is the freedom that cars brought over bicycles? (speed?, longer mobility reach within short time? Moving in an enclosed box, disconnected from outdoor life? Contributing to climate change?)
I used to have a car. I have car owners all around me. I rent a car few times per year. The preference (or is it convenience, the option by default) is there, but more often than not it is not a choice anymore, the whole society and cities/towns have been built around cars and roads...
Very excited about the possibility of using a cocktail of oncolytic viruses to treat cancer. Maybe even in combo with other things like cancer vaccines.
You've provided a refreshing angle on n=1 medical research. I'm sure there are many cases - that of Prof Richard Scolyer has some similarities. He's an expert in melanoma immunotherapy who is applying his (& his team's) expertise in melanoma, to treat his own inoperable glioblastoma. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/104252882
I’ve heard of some of the targeted cancer treatments that are coming on board. Very interesting.
But not the virus aspect of stimulating the immune system. Glad there were documented studies prior to Covid since everything related to Covid still seems to have the “not true” label attached - regardless of which side people to seem to sit. Frustrating.
But very interesting case studies being reported in the article. Thanks for providing the links, Tomas.
Not long ago I was pronounced "cancer free" from Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma.
Before treatment, one of my brothers sent me some info on an accidental discovery at Merck where they had some mice that they were not able to give cancer, and the explanation seemed to have been that the mice had just been de-wormed. A man named Joe Tippins was in a clinical trial for some brain cancer, a vet friend told him about the strange mice results, and he started taking dog deworming medicine (fenbendazole). Joe was the only patient that survived that trial (I think around 145 subjects).
So I started taking fenbendazole, and immediately was able to sleep better. A doctor told me, okay, but that might just be an anti-inflammatory effect. I did go on to seek conventional treatment, and when I told the oncologist I was taking fenbendazole, he looked into it and a bit to my surprise said go ahead and keep doing that.
And it turns out that there is a web site https://careoncology.com/mebendazole-v-fenbendazole/ which recommends the human version of the dewormer for treatment of lymphoma (not as a substitute for traditional treatment, but for additional help).
I think a huge barrier to more of this type of work is that there is a huge cost to drug makers to get a product to market, which dis-incentivizes cheap solutions.
A caution is in order - lots of people think that Joe Tippins was cured only with the dog de-wormer. It's possible but we can't overlook the fact that he was getting cancer treatment at the same time, so it could be a synergistic thing.
Ez érdekes. Pontos meghatározás szerint a vírusok kis testecskék, melyek egy sejtben keletkeznek, képesek a sejtet és a szervezetet elhagyni, majd a sejtbe visszatérni, ahol újra elszaporodnak. Az általunk vírusnak nevezett testecskék nukleinsavat tartalmazó fehérjetokból állnak.
A ténylegesen létező vírusok nukleinsava egy dupla szárú cirkuláris zárt DNA-ból áll.
Pedig...
A ténylegesen létező vírusok esetében soha nem tudtak megfigyelni megbetegítő tulajdonságot; sőt épp ellenkezőleg.
Az állítólagosan megbetegítő vírusok fotói kivétel nélkül mind sejtek teljesen normális alkotóelemei vagy mesterségesen előállított részecskék.
You forgot 2005 Nobel Prize winner Barry Marshall who proved Helicobacter pylori was the major cause of ulcers by drinking a flask of the culture.
Thanks for sharing! Yes indeed
Amazing article Tomas. The detail you put into ALL your pieces is tremendously educational.
Many thanks.
Thanks Alan! I put 2 babies out a week :)
Very interesting case. I've got a friend who was saved by an experimental trial of immunotherapy a few years back, so I was aware we could weaponize the immune system against cancer, but I didn't know we could straight up use live viruses !
A remark on this point :
"Allow consent forms to skip trivial issues no one cares about (“aspirin might taste bad”) and optimize them for patient understanding instead of liability avoidance."
I think it's like that because it kinda makes sense in the US. Microwaves manuals have warnings about not putting your cat in the microwave, which is not the case in Europe, because a judge would always consider that a customer should not be a complete moron.
I think this would be possible if people couldn't sue companies for completely wild reasons.
Last thing : I have the feeling new forms of treatment are generally considered a last resort after all traditional options fail. It makes sense in the beginning of course, but I feel like when we have enough data to back it up, we fail to change the standard of treatment quickly enough.
For example, considering the body of research on the effects of psilocybin on depression (more efficient and less side effects compared to SSRIs), we should have already started research on psilocybin as a first intention treatment, and not only for SSRIs-resistant forms of depression. It doesn't make any sense.
Hi Laurent, both of the things you say make sense, although I don't know enough about IRBs and their equivalent in Europe
I didn't know but psilocybin! Another reason to try it
Challenging question. There is a long history of self-experimentation and one has to admire the courage it takes for an innovative investigator to take the plunge. I am truly glad that Dr. Beatta was successful in treating her recurring tumor. But as a research biologist who has reviewed many research protocols, papers, and grant proposals, I understand the reservations of the journals to publish the paper she and her team submitted. IRBs were instituted to consider the ethics of proposed research, as well as the experimental design. The history of medicine is full of unethical experimentation on subjects without their informed consent - think of Helen Lane and the Tuskegee airmen. So don't discount the value of IRBs entirely. Since Dr. Beatta experimented on herself, there isn't a question of informed consent. But non-virologist patients pressuring their oncologists to inject their tumors with live viruses after reading about her experience wouldn't be doing so out of informed consent, but desperation. Another important consideration is that to truly advance the field of cancer treatment, more than a seemingly arbitrary choice of viruses, doses, injection protocol, and treatment timeline is necessary. From Dr. Beatta's anecdotal study we don't know whether there is anything special about the virus types used, how often and what titer is injected, how long to continue the injections, etc. Every tumor and patient has a unique genetic profile and there is no way to know from this study of one whether similar treatment would be effective or harmful. It's frustrating that careful research requires adequate sample sizes and can't be rushed, particularly for critically ill patients, but in the long run many more lives are likely to be saved from such research than from self-experimentation on a single subject. Yet another concern with this study is that inflammation is an unpredictable process that can be difficult to regulate. You've likely heard of cytokine storms in which a patient's immune system reacts to infection with an uncontrolled and excessive release of immune molecules that can be fatal. Dr. Beatta experienced fever for several days, a sign of inflammation. Fortunately her body tolerated it and recovered, but it could have gone the other way. Please understand that I am not discounting her skill and courage in conducting this experiment on herself, and it is an extremely interesting pathway for future treatment. Having lost several family members to cancer, I wish I could have convinced their doctors to take such a dramatic step to try to save them after standard treatments failed. But the biologist in me understands that research must proceed in a deliberate and ethical manner to have the greatest benefit.
Hi, thanks!
I don't think we disagree in anything from what you say!
And some of your questions are answered in next week's article. Looking forward to your thoughts then!
I look forward to reading it.
What a great article! Thank you! If you study the history of science, you know that scientific experimentation on yourself was Whole part of the advancement… Somehow the regulations have taken over innovation…
I’m a breast cancer survivor. There is so much research right now it’s impossible to keep up, but this is very exciting!!
One of the bright sides of humanity!
Bring up the web page in a browser for the story, the tutorial, the bibliography (either URLs or downloadable PDFs). Human mothers' milk contains immune enhancing constituents, and my wife's idea was to enhance my immune system to fight my small amount of non-aggressive cancer. But around the time of my diagnosis we found research from Lund University in Sweden that showed mother's milk itself killed cancer cells in vitro but left normal cells unaffected. Through other coincidences, we connected with the wife of a former colleague, a cancer survivor who was nursing a 6 month old, who agreed to pump milk for me. Within a month, my PSA (imperfect blood marker of prostate cancer) fell into the middle of the normal range. And has pretty much stayed there since (there are some nuances with BPH and a growing gland as I age, as well as some spikes when I had bacterial prostatitis).
I have been drinking mother's milk since September 1999, from occasional donors and purchased from a milk bank, tracking with PSA blood work as well as MRIs with spectroscopy at UCSF since then. And my cancer has been undetectable for many years. I would be happy to communicate via email or phone. See my web paper for contact info.
And Tomas, thanks so much for your scholarship, your graphics, and your fascinating & eclectic topics.
Interesting!
Not my area of expertise, but a close friend of mine, Andrew Hessel, has been exploring synthetic biology for this exact use case. Instead of guessing how a virus and a cancer cell may interact, the idea is manufacturing personalized and targeted synthetic viruses that hunt and neutralize the cancer cells in your body. It could be an interesting followup article for you, and happy to connect you with Andrew. Here's a team he co-founded: https://www.humanegenomics.com/. Here's a video of him sharing related insights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQrOTg0OGVo
Very cool! Thanks for bringing to my attention!
I did something similar 25 years ago with my prostate cancer, using human mothers' milk, and have been cancer free since. See https://www.cohensw.com/mvpcsg_nov99_text.html for my story and peer reviewed scientific references.
Hi Howard! It's a bit too long (it goes beyond the token window from Claude!) Can you summarize?
Very informative and thought provoking article, but what is the freedom that cars brought over bicycles? (speed?, longer mobility reach within short time? Moving in an enclosed box, disconnected from outdoor life? Contributing to climate change?)
Do you own a car? Do you know car owners? Do you use cars? Every time somebody uses a car instead of a bicycle, they are manifesting a preference.
I used to have a car. I have car owners all around me. I rent a car few times per year. The preference (or is it convenience, the option by default) is there, but more often than not it is not a choice anymore, the whole society and cities/towns have been built around cars and roads...
Very excited about the possibility of using a cocktail of oncolytic viruses to treat cancer. Maybe even in combo with other things like cancer vaccines.
Fascinating!
You've provided a refreshing angle on n=1 medical research. I'm sure there are many cases - that of Prof Richard Scolyer has some similarities. He's an expert in melanoma immunotherapy who is applying his (& his team's) expertise in melanoma, to treat his own inoperable glioblastoma. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/104252882
Great article. Look forward to part 2!
I’ve heard of some of the targeted cancer treatments that are coming on board. Very interesting.
But not the virus aspect of stimulating the immune system. Glad there were documented studies prior to Covid since everything related to Covid still seems to have the “not true” label attached - regardless of which side people to seem to sit. Frustrating.
But very interesting case studies being reported in the article. Thanks for providing the links, Tomas.
It's a fascinating field of study.
Not long ago I was pronounced "cancer free" from Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma.
Before treatment, one of my brothers sent me some info on an accidental discovery at Merck where they had some mice that they were not able to give cancer, and the explanation seemed to have been that the mice had just been de-wormed. A man named Joe Tippins was in a clinical trial for some brain cancer, a vet friend told him about the strange mice results, and he started taking dog deworming medicine (fenbendazole). Joe was the only patient that survived that trial (I think around 145 subjects).
So I started taking fenbendazole, and immediately was able to sleep better. A doctor told me, okay, but that might just be an anti-inflammatory effect. I did go on to seek conventional treatment, and when I told the oncologist I was taking fenbendazole, he looked into it and a bit to my surprise said go ahead and keep doing that.
And it turns out that there is a web site https://careoncology.com/mebendazole-v-fenbendazole/ which recommends the human version of the dewormer for treatment of lymphoma (not as a substitute for traditional treatment, but for additional help).
I think a huge barrier to more of this type of work is that there is a huge cost to drug makers to get a product to market, which dis-incentivizes cheap solutions.
A caution is in order - lots of people think that Joe Tippins was cured only with the dog de-wormer. It's possible but we can't overlook the fact that he was getting cancer treatment at the same time, so it could be a synergistic thing.
Ez érdekes. Pontos meghatározás szerint a vírusok kis testecskék, melyek egy sejtben keletkeznek, képesek a sejtet és a szervezetet elhagyni, majd a sejtbe visszatérni, ahol újra elszaporodnak. Az általunk vírusnak nevezett testecskék nukleinsavat tartalmazó fehérjetokból állnak.
A ténylegesen létező vírusok nukleinsava egy dupla szárú cirkuláris zárt DNA-ból áll.
Pedig...
A ténylegesen létező vírusok esetében soha nem tudtak megfigyelni megbetegítő tulajdonságot; sőt épp ellenkezőleg.
Az állítólagosan megbetegítő vírusok fotói kivétel nélkül mind sejtek teljesen normális alkotóelemei vagy mesterségesen előállított részecskék.
Akkor most miről beszélünk?