effects produced by the action of trypsin upon the tumour-cells can be averted by sufficiently powerful injections of genuine amylopsin of great strength, made along with those of trypsin, in all probability in the long run a considerable shortening of the vital and crucial period of the treatment can be, and will be, obtained. Again, the resulting liquefaction may be looked upon as being in essence a separation of the tumour into two main portions,
—a liquid one, which either must be got rid of as a “seropurulent” discharge, or, getting into the blood, must be excreted by the skin and kidneys; and a more solid portion, the skeleton or framework of the tumour-cells, which, if near the surface, may be sloughed out; if deeper, then encapsulated. In many cases it may be desirable, once the phenomena of liquefaction have been induced, to remove the dead tumour by operation, and, so it appears to me, it is at such a time, when every tumour-cell has been killed and its albumins liquefied, that surgical intervention is called for, if at all.
The eighth thesis (p. 32) must be specially noted and challenged. It reads: “That because of the tendency of injectio trypsini to disintegrate the tissues, it may be a direct menace to life—(a) by eroding large blood-vessels (when the disease is contiguous to these structures, as when deep in the neck or in the pelvis), thus causing death by haemorrhage; (b) when given in large doses, over considerable periods of time, by overwhelming the system with toxic products (tumour toxins), thus, in some cases, hastening death.” Regarding (a), I deny flatly that trypsin has any such action on normal somatic tissues as that attributed to it by Bainbridge. His conclusion is not in accord with the tenets of stereochemistry. The statement is a new answer to the old riddle: “ Why do the stomach and intestines not digest