for their placing no faith in trypsin, and none in persons who persist in advocating its use by repeating stories of alleged cures’ when, as a matter of fact, the patients referred to have been proved to have died from the disease.” Scientifically, it is not necessary to do more than insist on the fallacy of laying any stress at all upon “a negative result,” and in the present instance this happens to be specially true, for ” the medical profession,” if it were “placing faith “ in the evidences furnished by Bainbridge’s report, would find it not difficult, but impossible, to cite from it any real scientific grounds for this. The “chapter” may be found easily, for the “scientific report” has been scattered broadcast, but the verse” is at present blank. In the chemical experiment the observer must satisfy, not only himself concerning his reagents, but also the requirements of science.
As Bainbridge employed five different strengths of trypsin injections, of which the strongest is stated to have been six times the strength of the weakest, and as he furnished no particulars to show in which cases each of these injections had been employed, or the total number and sizes of the doses in a given time, the ‘chapter and verse” of his evidence can carry no sort of conviction to any logical mind. The reference to patients “proved to have died from the disease” in the citation above is, of course, to the single case of Miss K. H., which has never once been cited by me as a “cure,” or even believed for a moment to have been “cured.” This case (No. 7 of Bainbridge’s report) furnishes, a far more useful and instructive object-lesson of the value of surgery in cancer than of trypsin and amylopsin.
The following is the history of this case as given on pp. 20 and 21 of Bainbridge’s report: “Duration of disease previous to enzyme treatment: about three