238 THE ENZYME TREATMENT OF CANCER
could
reveal more distinctly the fundamental divergence between “Cohnheim’s theory”
of neoplasms and embryonic rests—mythical structures which the practical
embryologist never sees—and my theories of the origin and nature of cancer.
“If
a doctrine be challenged,” said Pasteur, “it happens seldom that its truth or
falsehood cannot be established by some crucial test. Even a single experiment
will often suffice either to refute or to consolidate the doctrine.” By” a
single experiment “ Pasteur meant a single scientific experiment. A hundred
experiments— or even a hundred thousand—of the sorts given by Dr. Bainbridge
(First Scientific Report) would not be crucial in any sense to a Pasteur.
Now,
the doctrine of the asexual (trophoblastic) nature of cancer has been
challenged, although no scientific evidences of any kind have ever been
adduced against its truth by official cancer researchers, ex-researchers,
anonymous leader-writers, newspaper scribes, or medical men. Of course, the
non-existent evidences against its truth cannot be produced, no matter how
often or how urgently they be demanded. This doctrine of the asexual
(trophoblastic) nature of cancer, however, as a scientific one, falls into line
with those referred to by Pasteur; for it happens that its truth or falsehood
can be established by “ some crucial test “—by a crucial test of the severest
scientific character. This natural test has not as yet been applied to this
doctrine of the nature of cancer, even by the writer, who with Pasteur believes
that “ science is prevision.” He has never yet seen with his own eyes that
which he now challenges the whole array of researchers and writers—the
pathologists, the official researchers, and the Executive of the Imperial
Cancer Research, London—to refute. If, after due