INTRODUCTION
11
assertion
shall be made without at the same time the production of the evidences for it.
Of
course, “ trypsin “ is not a cure for cancer, a fact stated by the writer in Nature
four years ago. The evidences for this, it may be added, are forthcoming in
abundance whenever asked for. What has destroyed cancer without injury to the
patient in cases not too far advanced, and what will do the like again and
again, is the use of properly prepared injections of trypsin of a strength of
at least a thousand Roberts tryptic units of activity plus equal amounts of
amylopsin of two thousand to two thousand four hundred (2,000 to 2,400) Roberts
amylolytic units of strength per cubic centimetre, and the doses of injections
and their frequency must be adapted to the needs of the particular case under
treatment.
As
“failure is easier of attainment than success in anything,” it would be
possible to the end of time for some surgeon, or official cancer researcher, to
declare that trypsin and amylopsin were “useless,” or “futile,” in the
particular cases treated by him, and used as he employed them. Scientifically,
all such verdicts are worthless, unless the evidences for them be produced in
full; and these must include the previous history of the case, the duration of
the treatment, the preparations used, definite statements as to their purity,
all necessary details as to their quantitative values, their doses, and the
number of these. Science, as a mistress, makes exacting demands upon the
observer, and the mere designation of a document as a “ scientific report “
does not alone confer any scientific value upon its contents.
The
view generally accepted by mankind, even by all medical men, has long been that
cancer is “an incurable disease.” How often have I not heard this expression,
even from very prominent surgeons! Not only was