190 THE ENZYME TREATMENT OF CANCER
have done, trypsin in the urine* is not enough; it must be shown that this is not antitrypsin (vide Bainbridge’s Report, p.14: “The above experiments showed the presence in the urine in cases on the trypsin treatment, in non-cancerous patients, and in patients with cancer who had not been treated by trypsin, of an enzyme possessing properties of digestion similar to trypsin “).
This is cited as one instance where the actual ferment present was not determined. In the same way, if sugar he noted in the urine, it must be determined that it is not laevulose.
Dr. Bainbridge and others have, of their own initiative, set up what they term “ test cases.” In a scientific sense no case can be regarded as a test one, where any other treatment had been employed previously, or where the conditions of the “test,” like the Ball and Thomas ones, and those of Dr. Bainbridge, had been laid down by the authors themselves without the agreement of the investigator, and without the scientific observance of the rules relating to “ errors of experiment.” As will later on be done with one series of these “ tests,” so any other “scientific tests” shall be placed in their proper scientific aspects, including all the cases published by Dr. Bainbridge, when the authors see fit to reveal in scientific fashion what they have really done in the process of carrying out their “ scientific experiments.”
Then there are the preparations and the dosage. Scores,
* Similarly, in the first of the cases recorded by Dr. A. Pinkuss. in the paper already cited (p. 12). it is stated that trypsin was first detected in the urine after forty-eight injections, and from thence onwards it remained mostly positive. Considering the strengths of injections used, it appears more likely that antitrypsin from the cancer was mistaken for trypsin, and this surmise is rather confirmed by the statement that a rigor was only observable on the forty-third day of treatment.