all the disturbances subsided when an injection of genuine amylopsin was substituted.
The thirtieth and final thesis of Bainbridge’s report reads that the enzyme treatment “ does not cure cancer. At the time this verdict was published, Captain Lambelle had reported his latest case of success to the War Office of Great Britain, and this report is given verbatim on a succeeding page. Even though there had been no others, even though Rice, Golley, Wiggin, Campbell, Goeth, Cutfield, Guarracino, and others, had had no successful cases, even if the remains of the cancer of the tongue in the Naples case had not been seen by two of the leading physicians of Naples (vide Appendix D) to shell out, “like the kernel of a nut,” I am prepared to take my stand, and now do so, upon the result of the published case of the recurrent sarcoma in York alone, to maintain that it has established the truth of my theses, and to declare that with this result all the essential portions of the problem, regarded scientifically, are solved once and for all. Bainbridge’s thirtieth thesis is false. He, who would set up the frivolous objection that the York case was one of malignant sarcoma, not of cancer, and that sarcoma does “not come within the definition of cancer,” may be invited to study the eleventh chapter of the present writing, and before urging this multiplication of causes scientifically to make for himself the crucial tests with the polarimeter to prove that cancer and sarcoma are not identical. In the cycle of animal life, as also in the visible universe, there is not room for two fundamentally different malignant tumours, cancer and sarcoma. The embryological evidences upon which this distinction has been~ founded, like those of this science underlying all current pathological classifications of malignant tumours, are absurd and unscientific.