RETROSPECT 179
all
the disturbances subsided when an injection of genuine amylopsin was
substituted.
The
thirtieth and final thesis of Bainbridge’s report reads that the enzyme treatment
“ does not cure cancer. At the time this verdict was published, Captain
Lambelle had reported his latest case of success to the War Office of Great
Britain, and this report is given verbatim on a succeeding page. Even
though there had been no others, even though Rice, Golley, Wiggin, Campbell,
Goeth, Cutfield, Guarracino, and others, had had no successful cases, even if
the remains of the cancer of the tongue in the Naples case had not been seen by
two of the leading physicians of Naples (vide Appendix D) to shell out,
“like the kernel of a nut,” I am prepared to take my stand, and now do so, upon
the result of the published case of the recurrent sarcoma in York alone, to
maintain that it has established the truth of my theses, and to declare that
with this result all the essential portions of the problem, regarded
scientifically, are solved once and for all. Bainbridge’s thirtieth thesis is
false. He, who would set up the frivolous objection that the York case was one
of malignant sarcoma, not of cancer, and that sarcoma does “not come within the
definition of cancer,” may be invited to study the eleventh chapter of the
present writing, and before urging this multiplication of causes scientifically
to make for himself the crucial tests with the polarimeter to prove that cancer
and sarcoma are not identical. In the cycle of animal life, as also in the
visible universe, there is not room for two fundamentally different malignant
tumours, cancer and sarcoma. The embryological evidences upon which this distinction
has been~ founded, like those of this science underlying all current
pathological classifications of malignant tumours, are absurd and unscientific.