News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Unconventional Case Study of Neoadjuvant Oncolytic Viroth... by folli on Sunday September 08, 2024 @03:22PM (#41482488)
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.

Re:Unconventional Case Study of Neoadjuvant Oncolytic Viroth... by kortex on Sunday September 08, 2024 @06:09PM (#41483662)
Definitely 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.
Re:Unconventional Case Study of Neoadjuvant Oncolytic Viroth... by Loughla on Sunday September 08, 2024 @10:00PM (#41484873)
I think it's pretty great. Put your mouth where your money is sort of thing.
Re:Unconventional Case Study of Neoadjuvant Oncolytic Viroth... by noddleah on Monday September 09, 2024 @10:54AM (#41489093)
Agree. 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