tryptic units, whereas it should have 1,000 such at least.
One criticism, if it can be called such, has been made to the effect that the theoretical basis on which “the trypsin treatment of cancer” is built contains too many unknown factors to be accepted as sound. There is a learned ring about this empty statement, but it lacks all evidences. I suppose that, as the factors are unknown, they cannot be named. One might as well say, “The theoretical basis upon which Newton’s conception of universal gravitation is built contains too many unknown factors to be accepted as sound.” Certainly, one could not name these I seem to read once more the remark made by a pathologist, who was one of the first to whom I told by letter my conclusions as to the import of the pancreatic enzymes in cancer in 1904. It was that there were “ difficulties.” He never named them, then or later. It was a strange and weird remark to make to a man who had spent his life overcoming and trying to overcome scientific “ difficulties.” There is also the fallacy of speaking of “ the trypsin treatment,” which I agree is thoroughly unsound.
As to the researches of Achalme, von Bergmann, Guleke, and Bamberg, cited sometimes as proving “that injections of trypsin are immediately followed by the production of antitrypsin, so that an effect opposite to that aimed at is produced,” the marvel is that this statement should be made seriously. The reason is passed over in silence that this result was due to organic impurities in the preparations used.