RETROSPECT 177
made
against time, in order to save the life of a very distinguished man, a
brilliant artist and art-critic. The New York surgeon forgets the great feature
of the enzyme treatment of cancer, amylopsin. Since June, 1906 (Medical
Record, June 23, 1906, p. 1020), the writer has never recommended the use
of trypsin without amylopsin, sufficient to counteract the formation of the
toxic products, of which Dr. Bainbridge writes. When he put down this
paragraph, he must surely have forgotten that he ever heard from me of certain
uses of amylopsin. Finally, both of his objections are proved to be absurd from
Captain Lambelle’s procedure and results. In the case, cited anon, in the
period from March 8 to July 15 (four months), Captain Lambelle injected somewhere
about 6o,ooo tryptic units, an amount possibly much greater than Dr. Bainbridge
ever injected in a single case. But Captain Lambelle did not experience either
(a) or (b), and his observations are opposed diametrically to both of
those conclusions, which can only be described as “errors of experiment.” Taken
along with thesis 9, “that the injections are often painful,” the two things
together read like an attempt to create a prejudice against the treatment.
Scientifically, it is not easy to decide which of the two paragraphs is the
more trivial.
In
certain cases, and in these only, there are two dangers inherent in the enzyme
treatment. These are (a) perforation, due to shrinkage of the tumour under the
action of the ferments, as in aesophageal and gastric cancer; and (b) haemorrhage,
really due to the like cause, as in uterine and some pelvic cases. The
physician should, however, note that these dangers are present in such cases,
whatever treatment be adopted, or even if the cancer be allowed to pursue its
course merrily; and that