assertion shall be made without at the same time the production of the evidences for it.
Of course, “ trypsin “ is not a cure for cancer, a fact stated by the writer in Nature four years ago. The evidences for this, it may be added, are forthcoming in abundance whenever asked for. What has destroyed cancer without injury to the patient in cases not too far advanced, and what will do the like again and again, is the use of properly prepared injections of trypsin of a strength of at least a thousand Roberts tryptic units of activity plus equal amounts of amylopsin of two thousand to two thousand four hundred (2,000 to 2,400) Roberts amylolytic units of strength per cubic centimetre, and the doses of injections and their frequency must be adapted to the needs of the particular case under treatment.
As “failure is easier of attainment than success in anything,” it would be possible to the end of time for some surgeon, or official cancer researcher, to declare that trypsin and amylopsin were “useless,” or “futile,” in the particular cases treated by him, and used as he employed them. Scientifically, all such verdicts are worthless, unless the evidences for them be produced in full; and these must include the previous history of the case, the duration of the treatment, the preparations used, definite statements as to their purity, all necessary details as to their quantitative values, their doses, and the number of these. Science, as a mistress, makes exacting demands upon the observer, and the mere designation of a document as a “ scientific report “ does not alone confer any scientific value upon its contents.
The view generally accepted by mankind, even by all medical men, has long been that cancer is “an incurable disease.” How often have I not heard this expression, even from very prominent surgeons! Not only was