made against time, in order to save the life of a very distinguished man, a brilliant artist and art-critic. The New York surgeon forgets the great feature of the enzyme treatment of cancer, amylopsin. Since June, 1906 (Medical Record, June 23, 1906, p. 1020), the writer has never recommended the use of trypsin without amylopsin, sufficient to counteract the formation of the toxic products, of which Dr. Bainbridge writes. When he put down this paragraph, he must surely have forgotten that he ever heard from me of certain uses of amylopsin. Finally, both of his objections are proved to be absurd from Captain Lambelle’s procedure and results. In the case, cited anon, in the period from March 8 to July 15 (four months), Captain Lambelle injected somewhere about 6o,ooo tryptic units, an amount possibly much greater than Dr. Bainbridge ever injected in a single case. But Captain Lambelle did not experience either (a) or (b), and his observations are opposed diametrically to both of those conclusions, which can only be described as “errors of experiment.” Taken along with thesis 9, “that the injections are often painful,” the two things together read like an attempt to create a prejudice against the treatment. Scientifically, it is not easy to decide which of the two paragraphs is the more trivial.
In certain cases, and in these only, there are two dangers inherent in the enzyme treatment. These are (a) perforation, due to shrinkage of the tumour under the action of the ferments, as in aesophageal and gastric cancer; and (b) haemorrhage, really due to the like cause, as in uterine and some pelvic cases. The physician should, however, note that these dangers are present in such cases, whatever treatment be adopted, or even if the cancer be allowed to pursue its course merrily; and that