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