176 THE ENZYME
TREATMENT OF CANCER
themselves
in life ?“ The reply here given is tantamount to saying, “Because they do.”
The scientific answer to the conundrum is, that those ferments, such as trypsin
and amylopsin. which build up the somatic albumins in life, do not pull them
down in the living state, but that the antitheses of these ferments, their
stereo-isomers, the ferments of cancer, do attack and pull down such albumins
in life. In the cases mentioned by Bainbridge it is the fault of the
tumour—that is, of its ferments, not that of the “ trypsin “ injection, and in
such cases as much danger at least attaches to any possible treatment, even to
surgery. The erosion of a “large vessel” is caused by the tumour, and not by
the trypsin.” The flimsy inaccuracy of the statement (a) is shown by the
following considerations: Wherever the cancer may be, the injections are never
made into it, but hypodermically, or deep into the muscles, at some distance
from it. Owing to Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the blood, it is
clear that in this treatment the ferments circulate in the blood to reach the
tumour. Therefore, in all cases they course through all the “large vessels,”
but in Bainbridge’s report there is no suggestion that these ferments ever “
erode” the “large blood-vessels,” unless these be contiguous to the tumour. In
the case of the York ex-pensioner the tumour was not many millimetres away from
the carotid artery, but even the injection of 6o,ooo units of trypsin (in four
months) caused no damage to this vital structure. As to (b), this was a
discovery of mine in 1906, and not of Dr. Bainbridge’s. It is quite true, if
nothing but trypsin be administered, provided that the trypsin injection be
strong. Not only did I discover this fact, but my scientific knowledge also
furnished, in amylopsin, the remedy. I well recollect that this latter find had
to be