4 ms·
The science is not new, but the reason why this paper is raising some eyebrows is the following: Institutional Review Board Statement This is a case of self-e
by folli 2y ago
The science is not new, but the reason why this paper is raising some eyebrows is the following:
Institutional Review Board Statement
This is a case of self-experimentation. As such, it does not require ethics committee review [33,34,35]. The study was feasible only due to the unique situation in which the patient was also an expert virologist. The patient was fully aware of her illness as well as of available therapies, and as a scientist in the field of virology, she was aware of the potential of oncolytic virotherapy. After two recurrences of the same tumour, she wanted to try an innovative approach in a scientifically sound way. Her oncologists (the leading oncologists in Croatia for breast cancer) accepted to monitor the progress of the treatment, primarily with the aim of discontinuing the injections and intervening with conventional therapy if there were untoward effects or if the tumour progressed.
- kortex 2y agoDefinitely eyebrow raising but I'm always a fan of a bit of "mad scientist" self-experimentation (within reason), whether it be Barry Marshall chugging H. pylori or Thought Emporium giving himself lactase gene therapy.
- Loughla 2y agoI think it's pretty great. Put your mouth where your money is sort of thing.
- noddleah 2y agoAgree. This is one of the first things I thought, and while I'm not super well versed in the processes behind getting clinical experiments approved, I can see how the data might not account for confounders that you'd see in a traditional clinical study