RETROSPECT
187
tryptic
units, whereas it should have 1,000 such at least.
One
criticism, if it can be called such, has been made to the effect that the
theoretical basis on which “the trypsin treatment of cancer” is built contains
too many unknown factors to be accepted as sound. There is a learned ring about
this empty statement, but it lacks all evidences. I suppose that, as the
factors are unknown, they cannot be named. One might as well say, “The
theoretical basis upon which Newton’s conception of universal gravitation is
built contains too many unknown factors to be accepted as sound.” Certainly,
one could not name these I seem to read once more the remark made by a
pathologist, who was one of the first to whom I told by letter my conclusions
as to the import of the pancreatic enzymes in cancer in 1904. It was that there
were “ difficulties.” He never named them, then or later. It was a strange and
weird remark to make to a man who had spent his life overcoming and trying to
overcome scientific “ difficulties.” There is also the fallacy of speaking of “
the trypsin treatment,” which I agree is thoroughly unsound.
As
to the researches of Achalme, von Bergmann, Guleke, and Bamberg, cited
sometimes as proving “that injections of trypsin are immediately followed by
the production of antitrypsin, so that an effect opposite to that aimed at is
produced,” the marvel is that this statement should be made seriously. The
reason is passed over in silence that this result was due to organic impurities
in the preparations used.