GENERAL NOTES ON CANCER

Updated March 11,2005

 

UPDATE NOTE #1: The cause and cure of cancer was published by John Beard in 1902. Beard’s studies have continually been ignored or attacked by orthodox medicine in spite of the fact that his theory has been clinically demonstrated to be correct over and over again throughout history. Beard actually discovered stem cells at the turn of the century. He called them trophoblasts. All trophoblast cells originate in the yolk sac and have to migrate into, and throughout, the growing embryo – when a stem cell loses its power to differentiate into the cell type of its parent tissue it becomes cancerous  and grows out of control.

UPDATE NOTE #2: If you heard that the Kelley enzymes were “burning people up” and were too strong, here is the situation. Sometime in the near past, Dr Kelley decided to double the amount of glandulars in the pancreatic enzymes. This caused problems, probably due to the amount of protomorphogens [PMGs] they contained. Protomorphogens are the blueprints for the new cells. Since they are mineral containing proteins, they initiate antibody responses if they spill over into the intercellular spaces or blood stream [e.g, in trauma or degenerative disease processes]. If tissue breakdown exceeds tissue repair, these PMGs interfere with recovery since histamine is released when they hook up with antibodies [Royal Lee originally called these, Natural Tissue Antibodies]. Antibodies surrounding sick and diseased tissue stifle growth and repair [demonstrated in the chicken heart and many other experiments during the early 19th and 20th century]. When body organs are diseased, such as in rheumatic heart disease, PMGs often effect recovery by clearing out the antibodies collecting around damaged cells that are releasing the protein contents. The PMGs prepared from animal tissue link up with the troublemaking antibodies and carry them off, allowing the cell breathing space in which to repair or reproduce. When the protomorphogen hooks up with the antibody to clear it away to make room for healthy tissue growth, histamine is released. This can cause sharp pains, dull aches, feeling of impending cold onset, flu type symptoms or just plain sick syndrome, depending upon the amounts of PMGs taken in. PMGs are prepared from glandulars. If the heart is being attacked, beef heart PMG is fed. If the Liver is in need of repair, Liver PMG is fed. Stories abound about heart patients who were kept alive by eating pounds of fresh beef heart over a hundred years ago. This type of medical information was swept under the rug by medical criminals and medical students were denied access to such information because these items could not be patented by the drug companies. High levels of PMGs in the Kelley pancreatic enzymes were probably the result of his use of increased amounts of glandulars. According to my reporting source, the pancreatic enzyme effect of the Kelley enzymes are claimed to be higher than all the others on the market for which assays are available for comparison. It is my personal opinion that all of the enzymes being marketed by reputable companies are OK for use. The most comprehensive explanation of protomorphogen is found in Dr Royal Lee’s work, Protomorphology, The Principles of Cell Regulation.

UPDATE NOTE #3: Dr William Donald Kelley passed away on January 30, 2005. May he rest in peace. We all thank him for the outstanding contribution he made to the public health and welfare and we forgive him the eccentricities that he displayed in later life.

 

1.    CANCER DEFINITION AND DISCUSSION –

2.    LEARN ABOUT THE AMAZING EFFECT OF BLOOD ROOT SALVE IN DRAWING TUMORS         OUT OF THE BODY THROUGH THE SKIN. THE EFFECT OF BLOOD ROOT DEFIES ALL SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT AND PHYSIOLOGICAL FUNCTION. BRAIN TUMORS HAVE BEEN DRAWN DOWN THROUGH THE LYMPHATICS AND THEN OUT THROUGH THE SKIN ON THE BACK OF THE NECK.  I HAVE PERSONALLY WITNESSED THE POWERFUL EFFECTS OF BLOOD ROOT SALVE DRAWING TUMORS OUT OF THE BREAST.

3.    WARNING AGAINST THE USE OF ABORTION PILL RSU-486.

4.    PSA TEST, THE GREAT MEDICAL SCAM OF THE 80s

5.    THE ENZYME TREATMENT OF CANCER AND ITS SCIENTIFIC BASIS BY JOHN BEARD ,   1911 [this is Beard’s original book].

 

 

 

1.

 

WHAT IS CANCER?

 Diabetes is the inability of the body to metabolize properly, sugars and carbohydrates. Cancer is nothing more than the very simple inability of the body to metabolize proteins properly. And that's all cancer is. William Donald Kelley, DDS

[note: William Donald Kelley passed away on Jan 30, 2005 in Weatherford, Texas and is buried next to his last wife in Missouri].

 

Until the reader understands what cancer is, they will be unsuccessful in applying the proper treatment.

 

The commonly held view of cancer is incorrect. Cancer is not a tumor, metastasis or blood or lymph invasion.

 

A malignant tumor is a SIGN of cancer, a SYMPTOM of cancer, a malignant tumor is NOT cancer.

 

Cancer is the inability of the body to metabolize proteins due to a lack of pancreatic enzymes. It is the pancreatic enzyme that digests the cancer cell. Pancreatic enzymes will attack and digest any cell foreign to the body but will not harm normal body cells. Pancreatic enzymes taken by mouth escape digestion and are absorbed intact into the system. The enzymes have survived boiling in hydrochloric acid at a temperature of several hundred degrees. Pig enzymes are most similar to humans and are the preferred source by some doctors. Beef enzymes are a close second.

 

Cancer is a failure of the pancreas to produce enough pancreatic enzymes to keep the daily growth of trophoblast cells in the body under control. All trophobasts originate in the yolk sac. They are now called STEM CELLS.

 

It appears as though the pancreatic enzyme is the ONLY bodily defense against the growth of malignant tumors arising out of the trophoblasts/stem cells scattered throughout the body. Other apparent cures are probably the result of the facilitation [by the supposed curative substance or procedure] of the pancreatic enzymes to do their job in digesting cancer cells.

 

Everyone grows malignant tumors in their bodies every day. Trophoblast Cells designed to form the placenta in every pregnancy are found scattered all throughout the body and when triggered into reproducing, begin to form malignant tumors.

 

Pancreatic enzymes “sniff out” these incipient tumors and digest them. Pancreatic enzymes do not attack and digest normal body cells.

 

This is why the fetal pancreas turns on so early in gestation. It helps digest the trophoblast cells of pregnancy which eat into the uterine lining to “prepare the bed” for the embryo. Those trophoblast cells are the same cells that form malignant tumors.

 

The true cause of cancer was announced in 1902 and published in 1911.  It was later described as The Unitarian Trophoblastic Theory of Cancer.

 

The cause of cancer has been steadfastly ignored by mainstream medicine for an entire century because the cure has nothing to do with medicine nor drugs, nor heroic or mystifying procedures. Millions and millions of people have suffered and died unnecessarily because of criminal interference by organized medicine and the pharmaceutical industry, aided and abetted by government bureaucrats and the alphabet soup of bureaucracies, in particular, the NIH, CDC and FDA. xxx

 

If you are growing tumors and have been told you have cancer – unless you have the cancer of pregnancy [80-90% of which respond to orthodox drug treatments with Methotrexate etc.] your best chance for recovery is to begin pancreatic enzyme therapy and follow the protocol developed by Dr William Donald Kelley, the Texas orthodontist who rescued himself from pancreatic cancer. Dr. Kelley’s protocol is based upon the John Beard theory of cancer. There are many lay people scattered around the USA ready and able to help cancer victims to put the Kelley protocol to use.

 

The more affluent patient should contact Dr Nicholas Gonzalez of NYC. Initial fee $2800 with appointments scheduled at six month intervals costing $650 initially.

 

In reviewing the different approaches to cancer in alternative medicine one must keep in mind that anything that facilitates the effectiveness of pancreatic enzymes in the body will appear to be a cancer cure.  For example, a sympathetic dominant, overly acid cancer patient with solid tumors who engages in a vegetarian based diet cure for cancer might achieve enough pH balance to increase the effectiveness of their pancreas and recover. On the other hand, a parasympathetic dominant cancer victim with lymphomas and blood related cancers might be able to effect the same result by resorting to an entirely different, meat based diet. The latter patient who tries to go vegetarian and eats lots of green salads etc. thinking that is the healthy thing to do will make matters worse.

 

Orthodox medicine attacks malignant tumors with poisonous drugs which add to the poisons that result from the tumor breakdown. This often overwhelms the system and the patient dies from the toxins released by the tumor breakdown plus the drug effects, plus their basic malnourished state and junk food diet. In my opinion, most cancer patients die from the medical treatment long before they would die of their cancers.

 

When using the proper therapy [pancreatic enzymes plus vitamins, minerals and essential food factors], the patient only has to contend with the poisons from the tumor breakdown. Coffee enemas that stimulate the liver help this process along and help the body to rid itself of toxins. The coffee enema was a standard in medical care for over seventy years and was used to rescue patients from toxic shock syndrome. It was originally used for pain relief during the Crimean war when supplies of painkilling drugs were exhausted. I have just been informed by Dr Kelley’s son that Pam MacDougall, a long time Kelley colleague uses infrared sauna for eliminating detoxification effects. As soon as I gather the material on this I will add it to this discussion.

 

Patients have to stop pancreatic enzymes [and their other nutritional supplements] for periods of time to enable their liver to clean out the toxins. Presently, patients stay on the protocol for up to 15 to 20 days and then rest for five days to enable to the system to cleanse itself of the toxic tumor breakdown products.

 

During the five day abstention from the vitamins and enzymes of the protocol - purges, liver flushes and “clean sweep” techniques are used to help clean out the body.

 

The bigger the dose of pancreatic enzyme the greater the destruction of the tumor masses.

 

The greater the destruction of the tumor mass the worse the patient feels.

 

If you are treating yourself for cancer with pancreatic enzymes and don’t feel bad, one of three possibilities exist:

1.    you are not taking enough enzymes

2.    your tumors are very small

3.    something is blocking the effect of the pancreatic enzymes.

 

This latter point is one of the most important guidelines for the recovering cancer patient.

 

SUGGESTED READING ON CANCER added Jan 24, 2004

1.    John Beard’s reprint advertised on this website.

2.    The Immortal Cell by Gerald B Dermer who spent half his adult life as a cancer researcher. He describes cancer research as, “…a scientific and medical scandal of the highest order...a tale of poor science and the pressures that induce cancer scientists to do unsound work.”

3.    A New Approach to the Conquest of Cancer, Rheumatic and Heart Diseases by Howard H Beard, PhD [no relation to John Beard] Note: I listened to Dr Beard lecture in 1973. He claimed that he had some tumors growing in his bowels and when they got too big he just stopped the donuts and took some pancreatic enzymes. He told this story in a humorous, joking manner when asked about his personal diet but it was my opinion that he was serious about the tumors in his bowel. Howard Beard recommended the urine pregnancy test as a cancer diagnosis since anyone with HcG in their urine had to be pregnant or have cancer. Back in those days we were doing pregnancy tests on males to help diagnose cancer – everyone thought we were crazy.

4.        One Answer to Cancer By Dr William Donald Kelley. Dr Kelley explains why no one can cure your cancer and that you have to do it yourself. He gives you the guidelines to accomplish the task. It helps to have someone knowledge to help you along the way. The nutritional treatment of cancer is a full time job and the patients need lots of help. For example, using the Gonzalez enzymes require up to 96 capsules of pancreatic enzymes a day in six divided doses with one dose between two and four AM at a time when the body is most alkaline. Pancreatic enzymes work in an alkaline environment.

 

 

Dr Duffy’s advice to CANCER patients and ANYONE INTERESTED IN THEIR HEALTH WHO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO EAT ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN PERSONAL METABOLIC TYPE OR WHO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW TO CURE THEIR CANCER AT HOME:

  1. Cancer patients call Kelley’s health food store in Texas.

     College Health Store

     410 Lution

     Weatherford, Texas

     78087

     Tel 1-888-477-3618 toll free from within the USA, or 1-817-594-0705 outside USA. Fax number is 1-817-594-1471.

Ask for the nutritional catalog that contains the pancreatic enzymes and other nutritional items necessary to comply with the Kelley cancer treatment protocol. ALSO ASK FOR A COPY OF THE NUTRITIONAL PROTOCOL FOR YOU TO FOLLOW.

  1. Call 1-888-477-3618 toll free and order Dr Kelley’s SELF TEST and take it from there, he will recommend the specific nutrition for each metabolic type after you complete the comprehensive (2 to 3 hours) questionnaire cost is only $19.95 for the SELF TEST. [call 1-817-594-0705 if you are out of the country]
  2. If you are not a do-it-yourselfer call Dr Gonzalez in NYC 1-212-213-3337.
  3. For quick urine testing in the USA, and for periodic testing to evaluate the continuing effectiveness of your protocol call AMERICAN METABOLIC LABS in Hollywood Florida., 1818 Sheridan St., Hollywood, Florida 33020.  Dr. E.K. SCHANDEL, M.A, Ph.D., M.D., FACB, Clinical Lab Director. 954-929-4814/4895, fax 4896. [added Feb 28, 2004]
  4. To draw tumors out through the skin learn about BLOOD ROOT SALVE – a registered pharmacist faced with brain surgery for a tumor decided to take the alternative approach and discovered Blood Root salve. He put the salve on his neck and drew the brain tumor down through the lymph and out through the skin. Thousands of patients have literally sucked tumors out of their bodies by using Blood Root Salve. When coupled with the Kelley nutritional program cancer cure rates should approach 100% depending upon condition of the patient when proper therapy is finally begun.  Call Larry Rawdon 1-800-726-0662 – the registered pharmacist and request help with the Blood Root Salve, it’s available for less than twenty dollars at this writing! Also call Janetta Alford 1-615-849-9766 and get her first hand description of pulling fourteen tumors out of her body with Blood Root Salve after being diagnosed with breast cancer and being given the death sentence. She states, as others do, that the salve acts like a magnet and literally pulls the tumor out through the skin. Rawdon described how his tumor was connected to tentacles that allowed the tumor to drop out of the skin while still connected. It took several days for the tentacles to withdraw completely and drop the tumor free of the body. He claims that he didn’t try to rush it and just kept applying the salve on the top of the tumor. I personally treated a woman for several years who used the salve and pulled over a dozen tumors out through her breast – she finally succumbed due to lung surgery [surgical removal of one lung] prior to finding out about the alternative methods. Alford and Rawdon are available to help
  5. To receive two tapes on the use of Blood Root Salve call Tom Kohler at 1-814-723-6383 and order tapes #456, 05-13-04 on Blood Root by Larry Rawdon, and tape #457, 05-20-04 on Blood Root by Janetta Alford. [both tapes recorded during doctors second opinion conference] TAPES ARE TEN DOLLARS EACH. Ask Tom about other tapes that are available on AUTISM, Alzheimer’s etc. Tom’s address is 16 Park Place Warren, Pa 16365.
  6. A new addition to the Kelley protocol is the use of Beta Glucan to assist in overcoming inhibition of pancreatic enzymes by toxic metals etc. Call Tom Kohler for a source of Beta Glucan and identify yourself as doctor or patient – he will make the Beta Glucan available to you.

 

 

ALL ABOUT CANCER

 

The remarks herein are also supported by the study published in the peer reviewed journal, Nutrition and Cancer vol. 33, no.2, 1999 (June). The question of the effectiveness of ORAL pancreatic enzymes was finally settled and reported in 1965 in the J of Exp Med. Initially, investigators thought that pancreatic enzymes could not survive digestion and exert their effects on cancer cells after being absorbed through the digestive system. This was found to be untrue. Pancreatic enzymes survive the digestive process and then go about their business of digesting cancer cells – regardless of their location. This was demonstrated on a strain of lab mice that routinely develop and die of cancer within six months.  When these mice were placed on pancreatic enzymes, 100% of them survived and lived out normal lifespans! – 100& of the controls, fed the usual rations, died of cancer as usual.

 

The great nutritional genius of the 20th century, Dr William Donald Kelley has been completely vindicated and should be nominated for a Nobel prize for giving the public a totally effective cure for cancer that requires no outside help, no poisoning, cutting or burning (chemotherapy, surgery, X-radiation) and can be done at home.

 

This article should also serve to expose the chicanery of Chris Wallace with his latest ABC “Primetime” show (Jan 2002); the criminal activity of the major news networks; the curious activity of Stephen Barrett, known as the chief “quackbuster” for organized medicine; the destructive and misleading activities of Tony Fauci and gang at the CDC/NIH; and all the medical quacks practicing orthodox medicine and those churning out useless, junk-science based “scientific” papers at the public’s expense. This latter group was properly exposed by Gerald B. Dermer, a cancer researcher who spent a good part of his life doing cancer research and then dropped out to expose it as a colossal fraud. Read his book, The Immortal Cell: Why Cancer Reseach Fails.

 

Any MD with common sense and the power to think for him/her self who has practiced orthodox medicine five or more years eventually realizes that they’re doing more harm than good. Some of them then begin to look around for a less harmful approach – often ending up in non therapeutic activities such as radiology, psychiatry etc. I have been told this over and over by MDs I have met over the years.

 

In 1973, this writer taught a seminar on the Kelley nutritional treatment of cancer to a group of Chiropractors in Tallmadge, Ohio, at which time I was called a quack by some of my colleagues and threatened with de-licensing etc. The techniques that I taught at that seminar, while based upon the fundamental idea of John Beard as interpreted by Dr Kelley, have been perfected over the years by Dr Kelley and Dr Gonzalez and now represent statistically, by peer reviewed study, the best approach available for the cancer patient. This is regardless of the type or location of the cancer with the possible exception of the cancer of pregnancy.

 

A case by case approach based upon biochemical individuality is now being used by Nicholas Gonzalez MD, in NYC and others. Effective biochemical and other forms of screening, individualized diets, physical examinations, nutrient supplementation and special detoxification techniques have now been formulated into the best approach to cancer in history. The treatment of cancer is now highly successful.

 

The established protocols have been demonstrably successful with pancreatic cancer. Gonzalez in NYC has published the results of the effectiveness of the nutritional approach to cancer which far exceeds anything available in the orthodox approach in most cancers [see choriocarcinoma below].

 

Julius Cohnheim (1839-1884) described the embryonal rest theory, surmising that when the embryo is formed, an excess of germ cells are formed which later, subjected to certain environmental stimuli, can multiply out of control. The result would be cancer if it were not for [as later discovered by John Beard] a properly functioning pancreas producing the enzymes necessary to keep such growths under control.

 

These germ cells, called trophoblasts by John Beard are none other than the STEM CELL of modern research. They originate in the yolk sac and migrate to all sections of the body where they become the “seeds” for future tissue growth depending upon their location.

 

Cohnheim’s idea had to wait for the Scot, John Beard to figure out the connection between the pancreas and cancer. Beard observed that the developing embryo is immediately surrounded by a layer of trophoblasts which eat into the lining to prepare a nest for the developing egg where they continue to multiply until the day the fetal pancreas turns on. Trophoblasts are wild and wooly cells, primitive and undifferentiated parts of the placenta and if unchecked by pancreatic enzymes, become the most rapidly destructive cancer, choriocarcinoma.  Orthodox drug therapy is effective in 80-90% of choriocarcinoma via the use of Methotrexate and other drugs [Dr Gonzalez, pers comm.].

 

At a certain time in the development of the embryo, the seemingly unchecked growth of these cells would abruptly stop at a specific day in every species observed by Beard. This led to his theory that perhaps the use pancreatic enzymes would be effective in the treatment of cancer since it was these very pancreatic enzymes that digested and eliminated the potentially cancer forming trophoblasts of pregnancy.

 

Beard gave us the answer to the DIRECT cause of cancer – it has been kept out of sight, ridiculed and ostracized by organized medicine ever since he reported his findings in 1902 (Lancet 1:1758) in an article entitled The Trophoblastic Theory of Cancer.

 

In 1911 Beard published a book,  “The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer” and shortly thereafter, forty clinics in London, England were busily treating cancer with crude pancreatic enzymes. Another investigator named Beard (Howard Beard) later proposed that urine Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, (hCG) was a sure fire indicator of cancer.  [A hard copy of the 1911 book is available from this website]

 

hCG is the molecule used in pregnancy tests to establish pregnancy. hCG also indicates the presence of malignant cells. hCG in the urine indicates one of three possibilities: a pregnant female, a male with cancer, or an un-pregnant female with cancer.

 

HCG is a negatively charged glycoprotein hormone (a “sialoglyocprotein”). Howard Beard developed the “Anthrone” urine test to detect hCG in the urine as a specific pathognomonic sign of cancer except in the pregnant female. The pharmaceutically supported establishment criminals in government bureacracies have managed to keep this information under the rug until 1992 when Acevedo’s research was finally published in the establishment mouthpiece for cancer, the journal Cancer 1992;69:1818-28 and 1829-42 finally published the truth along with Cancer Det Prev 1995;19:37. The chief investigator said, “hCG, the hormone of pregnancy…is a common phenotypic characteristic of cancer.”

 

In another study The Michigan State Department of Biomechanics reported 96% effectiveness in the Furda Biochemical analysis ability to predict cancer based on protein electrophoresis analysis. (pers comm. H.Eidenier Jr). In 1994 Krichevsky reported that ALL cancer cells express hCG in all its forms including the related human luteinizing hormone (Endocrin 1994;135:1034-39).

 

So the truth is finally out officially. In 1942 Ernst T. Krebs Jr rediscovered Beard’s thesis and history and in July 1950 they published an article in the Medical Record entitled, “The Unitarian Trophoblastic Thesis of Cancer.” Krebs stated, “cancer is trophoblast in special and temporal anomaly, hybridized with, and vasularized by, hostal or somatic cells and in irreversible and fiercely malignant antithesis to such.” (Townsend Letter Feb/Mar 1993 p175).

 

Krebs co-discovered Laetrile (Vitamin B17), found especially in apricot kernels. Vigorous nutritional therapy has been responsible for deaths attributed to too rapid breakdown of tumors that release overwhelming toxins into the body. Underactivity of the Liver would contribute to such deaths and this is the reason for the insistence on the use of coffee enemas on a daily basis by patients on the nutritional cure of cancer to insure Liver breakdown of the highly toxic products of tumor breakdown.

 

Dr Kelley cured himself of pancreatic cancer by simple, natural means. Although his approach was only about thirty per cent effective in the very beginning because he used a strictly vegetarian approach, he quickly found out that other methods had to be brought into the equation.

 

Kelley had the will to perform the thousands of painstaking studies on the effects of the various vitamins, minerals and essential food factors necessary to figure out an effective protocol for all the metabolic types. The Kelley approach is being successfully used by Gonzalez in NYC [greatly improved as new products are discovered and developed]. The protocol is practically a guaranteed success for those who use it properly. [Any patient who has been given six months to live stands a good chance of full recovery]

 

The nutritional treatment of cancer is based upon John Beard’s trophoblastic theory of cancer which includes the use of pancreatic enzymes and detoxifying methods including the liver flush and coffee enema. The use of detoxifying methods are absolutely essential in all cancer patients and is lifesaving in some due to the enormous amount of toxins released from tumor break-down. Many cancer patients thought to be dying of cancer drug effects are in fact dying from the poisonous products of tumor breakdown. If that is not detoxified by coffee enemas and liver flushes, the patient will often die even though the signs of cancer [tumors] are disappearing in their body.

 

Basically the nutritional approach to cancer involves the use of large amounts of pancreatic enzymes, diet tailored to the individual biochemical needs of the patient and the rigorous use of the coffee enema, liver flushes, special detoxification techniques and purges.

 

The quackbusters who have been ridiculing the coffee enema are referred to the Merck Manual from 1898 to 1977. Coffee enema is recommended in that prestigious medical manual.

 

Medical literature reveals that coffee enemas have been used in hospital emergency situations for conditions as serious as septic shock and was first used by nurses in the days of Florence Nightingale. Nurses treating wounded soldiers ran out of hashish being given by enema to control pain. One of the nurses noted the coffee pot on the stove and suddenly was inspired to use the brown coffee which resembled the hashish, in an attempt to achieve a placebo effect on the soldiers. The coffee enema turned out to have a better effect on pain than the hashish, due to its effect on flushing the gallbladder and draining the liver. 

 

The treatment of cancer is a do-it-at-home approach and is a full time job. Minimum enemas per day is usually two and some patients require as many as six to eight. Coffee enemas using strictly fresh ground ORGANIC coffee are necessary along with the consumption of as many as 180 vitamin tablets per day depending upon the severity of the situation. Cost is estimated at one twentieth of the cost of orthodox medical treatment, most of the latter of which ends up killing the patient. Hardly anyone dies of cancer these days, most people die from the medical treatment.

 

One thing is certain, the NUTRITIONAL, NATURAL cure for cancer is available. Those in government positions who continue to support the drug oriented orthodox medical approach to cancer while suppressing information vital to the public health and welfare should be identified and brought before a jury and tried for crimes against humanity in accordance with the principles laid down at Nuremberg. There is no question in my mind that if this were accomplished properly, many of the leading figures in our government bureacracies today would be found guilty of villainous acts against the public good.

 

The number of people victimized by the Nazi medical crimes pale in comparison to the numbers of innocent victims in the USA today who are dying from medical quackery being rendered by doctors practicing orthodox medicine. This is particularly true in regards to those being treated by the deadly drugs used for AIDS, a myth similar to fictional epidemic [SMON] in Japan during the fifties and sixties when doctors killed over 11,000 people while the medical quacks searched for a mysterious, non existing virus as cause of the doctor induced deaths. It is high time that we examine such activities and treat them for what they are, crimes against humanity for profit. Every year thousands of Americans are dying at the hands of modern medicine.

 

The situation is totally out of control and has now reached mind boggling proportions.

 

The makers of Bayer Aspirin just admitted to killing over 80 Americans with a useless cholesterol drug being commercialized to improperly influence the elderly who do better with higher cholesterol levels!

 

Every member of the orthodox medical fraternity and every person who benefits from tax supported medical research resulting in the propagation of destructive propaganda from orthodox medicine are equally guilty. These co-conspirators should be brought to trial and tried under principles laid down at Nuremberg.

 

The NIH and the CDC especially, are a plague on humankind and causing more deaths, ill health, maiming, and unnecessary business losses [Mad cow, Hoof and Mouth insanity etc], than all of the wars of history and will continue to do so until a public consciousness is awakened and proper actions as suggested herein are put into effect.

 

REPEAT ADVICE…….

Dr Duffy’s advice to cancer patients and ANYONE INTERESTED IN THEIR HEALTH WHO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO EAT ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN PERSONAL METABOLIC TYPE:

1. Cancer patients call Kelley’s health food store in Texas.

     College Health Store

     410 Lution

     Weatherford, Texas

     78087

     Tel 1-888-477-3618 toll free from within the USA – you usually have to leave your name and number and request and people at the store will call you back. If outside the USA use 1-817-594-0705. Fax number is 1-817-594-1471. Ask for the nutritional catalog that contains the pancreatic enzymes and other nutritional items necessary to comply with the Kelley cancer treatment protocol. ALSO ASK FOR A COPY OF THE NUTRITIONAL PROTOCOL FOR YOU TO FOLLOW.

2. Call 1-888-477-3618 toll free and order Dr Kelley’s SELF TEST and take it from there, he will recommend the specific nutrition for each metabolic type after you complete the comprehensive (2 to 3 hours) questionnaire - cost is only $19.95 for the SELF TEST. [call 1-817-594-0705 if you are out of the country]

3. Dr Kelley recommends the Navarro urine test to diagnose the presence of cancer. The telephone number for the Navarro clinic, [long distance to the Philipines] is 011-632-714-7442 or 847-359-3634. Also call Lorraine Rosenthal director, Cancer Control Society at 323-663-7801 for further information. Anyone taking the urine test for cancer must abstain from pancreatic enzymes for five days.

4. If you are not a do-it-yourselfer call Dr Gonzalez in NYC 1-212-213-3337. My advice for those calling Gonzalez – if you do not appear to be fully committed to his therapy you probably won’t be accepted as a patient.

 

MORE TO COME

 

The following was added on January 24, 2004

Every age is afflicted by armies directed by criminals who promote the use of force and violence to achieve their selfish ends. Armies of the past were easily recognized – they wore identifiable uniforms and carried recognizable weapons. They were easily differentiated by the man-on-the-street.

 

Not so with the new criminally directed army.

 

The violent, destructive army of today, which has been slowly forming over the centuries, gaining power little by little through the years is the army of the white coats – the doctors – operating under the direction of criminals with the force of bureaucracy-endowed power.

 

The white coats are the most destructive element on the planet today. They have adulterated our foods, our drinking water, and our bodies, with their quack remedies.

 

Most importantly, they have robbed us of our right to choose for ourselves, the type of treatment we desire for ourselves and our children.

 

They have brought into the American culture MANDATORY  MEDICINE, COMPULSORY VACCINATION.

 

COMPULSORY MEDICINE IN ANY FORM OTHER THAN MOMENTARY QUARANTINE FOR A SPECIFIC REASON AND SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TIME PERIOD IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE IN A FREE SOCIETY OR IN ANY SOCIET Y.

COMPULSORY MEDICINE OF ANY TYPE IS REPUGNANT.

 

 

2.

WARNING AGAINST USE OF ABORTION PILL RSU-486

The abortion pill is made up of two different pills administered in series. The first is Mifepristone. The second is Cytotec. Searle manufactures Cytotec and issued the following warning on its use: Doctors are warned not to use it "off label" for induction of labor and abortion because it can lead to severe bleeding and uterine ruptures requiring surgery. It might cause death. Cytotec is the only drug available presently to accompany the Mifepristone. CYTOTEC WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AND APPROVED TO BE USED IN THE PREVENTION OF ULCERS. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, DRUG PROFIT SUPPORTED JUNK SCIENCE THAT IS NOT ONLY CONDONED, BUT ENCOURAGED BY, YOUR GOVERNMENT.

The Mifepristone is being made in China. US companies were not willing to take on the risk. Of course China is beyond responsibility. Imagine trying to collect from China, damages caused by the drug.

 

 

3.

 

 

A CLASSICAL EXAMPLE OF MEDICAL QUACKERY

21st CENTURY STYLE:

THE NON SPECIFICITY

OF "PROSTATE SPECIFIC" ANTIGEN

By Daniel H Duffy Sr, DC

 

On Saturday, June 15, 2002 a long time patient came in for his regular checkup and treatment via AK. He is now 77 and has been a patient for almost 30 years. He was preparing for a senior citizen race walking event.

 

On a recent visit to His MD, he was examined in orthodox fashion and found to have an elevated PSA for which an incredibly expensive drug was prescribed. It cost over $1000 for 90 pills. Three of the pills immediately made him sick so he stopped taking the drug after his first three doses.

 

Of course, he only paid five of the $1000 plus dollars it cost - we the taxpayers paid the rest - thanks to the criminal efforts of LBJ - the great provider of MEDICARE.

 

All of LBJ's programs demonstrably failed - especially the negative income tax fiasco which really backfired but not before it tore apart the negro and hispanic families in which it resulted in divorce rates as high as >80percentile. [if you would like to read about that see Murray's book, Losing Ground]. But I digress, back to the PSA story... HERE ARE THE FACTS.....PASS THEM AROUND!!!

 

1. PSA means Prostate Specific Antigen.

 

2. PSA is NOT specific and has LITTLE to do with the prostate specifically.

 

3. PSA is found in females with breast, lung and uterine cancers. [whoops!] In fact, the highest levels of PSA have been found in females RECOVERING from breast cancers. [J Nat'l Cancer Inst Oct 6, 1999, Fortier, AH et al] Surprise, surprise, the ladies that made the best recoveries were the ones with the highest PSA levels!!

 

4. PSA appears to be an anti-angiogenic molecule. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, one of the features of cancer is that it has an enormous appetite and therefore needs a huge blood supply to feed it, so wherever you see cancer growing, you will see angio-genesis taking place – the creation of new vascular tissue. [That's why shark cartilage became popular.]

 

5. PSA appears to inhibit the usual increases in circulation necessary to feed the cancer and to support its rapid growth and proliferation.

 

6. Nicholas Gonzalez MD of NYC reports patients who have shown PSA levels of a hundred or more for long periods of time who are doing just fine as they recover from their cancers - he opines that increased PSA levels indicates a GOOD response by the body, NOT a BAD response. [audio tapes 12 and 17 spring 1999 lecture, ACAM – see ordering info below]. Dr Gonzalez uses the nutritional protocol that he learned from his teacher, the orthodontist and scientist, Dr William Donald Kelley of Grapevine, Texas, who is one of my three nominees for the Nobel prize in medicine [along with George J Goodheart DC and James Pershing Isaacs MD]. Gonzalez also reports a properly recovering cancer patient with a CEA of 350,000, the highest in medical history. See the article on the site on the AMAS test to learn about the CEA which is another cancer marker. When a tumor breaks down it dumps all the CEA into the blood stream. BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT BLOOD TEST LEVELS AND TUMOR SIZES, MORE IS OFTEN NOT WORSE, AND BIGGER, ESPECIALLY, IS OFTEN NOT WORSE than smaller!!! Some tumors tend to encapsulate and get bigger not smaller!!

 

7. So giving a toxic drug for a "specific" antigen which is not at all "specific" is just one more in a long line of examples of medical quackery being propagated by present establishment sources. It’s sort of like giving a deadly drug for a non infectious, non transmissible disease [AIDS] allegedly caused by an unproved virus [HIV]. It can also be compared to injecting newborn babies with foreign proteins and heavy metal poisons to “protect” them from adult diseases in dope addicts.  Note that I use the old familiar term for these human wastrels – “dope addicts” rather than “substance abusers” – dope addict is more apropos. Sort of like calling a bum a bum, rather than a homeless person. Using the euphemism “homeless person” might make you feel better but hey, life is not fair, some people are bums. Face it. Others are criminals. Face it. Not facing it results in what we’re discussing here. Highly educated people committing crimes against humanity and getting away with it largely because our language is politically correct. If we were in the habit of calling bums what they are, and dope addicts what they are, we might not find it so difficult to call an MD a quack and a criminal and begin to take steps to put them where they belong, behind bars, not out on the street preying on the innocent and the ignorant. 

 

The very highly educated, brilliant doctor, Thomas Stamey published the original study on PSA in the New England Journal Of Medicine in 1987. He concluded, based upon his knowledge, experience and training along with the study result that the worse the Prostate cancer, the higher the PSA. Exactly the opposite is true! Dr Stamey is an honest fellow though, he recently was quoted as saying “I removed a couple of hundred prostates I wish I hadn’t.” [F.B.Dunn, J Natl Cancer Inst Vol 94, No6, pp 415-16 Mar 20, 2002]

 

The activities of Dr Stamey raise several questions:

 

1. Do you think that Dr Stamey should be held accountable for those unnecessary surgeries?

2. What do you think would happen to the tobacco industry executives or the auto industry executives or the toy industry executives if they were caught killing, maiming or harming so many people – especially innocent children like those suffering from quack vaccine induced disabilities and death?

3. Do you think the deaths of prostate cancer patients resulting from misdiagnosis and maltreatment became part of the statistics used to place the practice of orthodox medicine in third place on the list of causes of unnecessary deaths in the USA?

4. Are you beginning to get the right idea about the dreadful effects orthodox medicine in the 21st century?

 

I'll say it once again, CONSENSUS-DRIVEN, ORTHODOX MEDICINE IS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, IT IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH AND IT IS THE ROOT SOURCE OF ALL OF THE MEDICAL QUACKERY OF THE 21st CENTURY. It is also the greatest threat to life and limb and health in all recorded history. Do you REALLY think that orthodox medicine is only number three in the cause of deaths in the USA? If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you! Most of the deaths caused by orthodox medical doctors go unreported and unrecognized for what they are. The reported figures are only the tiny tip of a very large iceberg. This underreporting is especially true of vaccine reactions. Especially in infants and young school aged children.

 

And we want to trust these people and accept what they have to say about VACCINES??? We want to trust these consensus driven quacks to inject our neonates with poisons? We want to accept the dribble and gobbledook nonsense they continue to propagate about vaccines, phantom diseases, phantom viruses, and now…prions???

 

CRISIS MEDICINE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS A BLESSING TO HUMANITY - IT  WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE IN AN EMERGENCY, RESCUE YOU FROM CONGENITALLY INFLICTED PROBLEMS, AND SPARE YOU MOST OF THE UNNECESSARY PAIN AND SUFFERING FROM TRAUMA AND ACCIDENTS – don’t confuse one with the other, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

PASS THIS ON TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY YOUR LEGISLATORS.

 

ORDER THE GONZALEZ AUDIO TAPES FROM:

Anthony Crum
Professional Audio Recording
4905 Marshall Creek Dr.
La Verne CA 91750

800-430-4727

Dr. Gonzalez's talks are available from the ACAM Ft. Lauderdale meeting. Two tapes are available: a formal lecture tape # 12 and a workshop on a continuation of the same topic, tape # 17.  The order code is 02-102, # 12 & 17.  The cost is $11.00 ea.  Total $22.00 plus $2.00 shipping, total $24.00.  You can place the order by e-mail, fax, or by phone.  Payment is by either credit card.  Visa, Master Card, or AMEX.  Or you may send a check to Anthony Crum made out to PAR.

 

 

 

4.

 

 

 

THE ENZYME TREATMENT OF CANCER

AND ITS SCIENTIFIC BASIS

 

 

BEING COLLECTED PAPERS DEALING WITH THE ORIGIN, NATURE, AND SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT OF THE NATURAL PHENOMENON KNOWN AS MALIGNANT DISEASE.

 

BY

 

JOHN BEARD, D.Sc.

 

 

 

 

 

“When, from a correct General Principle, one develops the conclusions in special cases of its application, new surprises, for which one was not previously prepared, always make their appearance.  And, since the conclusions unfold, not according to the author’s caprice, but after their own laws, it has often made the impression upon me that really it was not my own work which I wrote down, but merely the work of another.

                                                                                                                 Hermann Von Helmholtz

 

 

 

 

LONDON

CHATTO & WINDUS

1911

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PREFACE

 

“Man,” writes the learned and genial Carl Ernst von Baer, “considers himself just as necessarily in the centre of his mental horizon as of his mathematical one.” When, in the closing hours of the last day of the nineteenth century, I wrote this citation in the original German, as the opening words of the preface of the first of a series of memoirs upon the history of the germ-cells, I little reckoned that the controversy regarding their story, which was the final link in the general principle of an antithetic alternation of generations, would be carried on around the side-issue—the special case in von Helmholtz’s sense—of the origin, nature, and scientific treatment of cancer. All. Of these are concerns of embryology, for they are problems of reproduction, growth, and there stereo-chemical processes of life. In the discussion of a similar problem of embryology—that of parthenogenesis (pFdogenesis) or virgin reproduction in fly-maggots (Ceidomya) –von Baer used the above words. His account of this discovery of Wagner’s has its special interest in connection with the present work.

     Carl Ernst von Baer writes: * “that at first the dis-

*Baer, Carl Ernst von: “Über Prof. Nic. Wagner’s Entdeckung von Larven, die sich fortpflanzen, Herrn Ganin’s verwandte und engänzende Beobachtungen und über die Paedogenesis überhaupt,” in Mélanges Biologiques, v., 1865, pp. 203-308; loc. cit., pp 241-243.

v

 

 

covery appears to be received with doubt” –that even the well-known worker on the parthenogenesis of bees, von Siebold, expressly said that it appeared to him to be incredible—“only shows how unexpected it was and how little one was prepared for it. It is thus a testimony of its importance, and, so to speak, a compliment for it. I should like to recall an expression of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s who, when someone criticized one of his earlier philological works adversely, in a reply expressed himself somewhat as follows: ‘A book which immediately on its first appearance finds general approval really does not deserve to be printed at all, for it contains only that which in the convictions of all is completely accepted, or at lease for which they were entirely prepared.’ That is very true, for the really new, when it is far-reaching and thorough, can only gradually find an entrance, because numerous convictions must be altered in order to make its proper place for the new-comer. That the corals were inhabited by animals was first discovered by the naval surgeon Peyssonel, in the years 1723-1725, and it was no less a man than the great Réaumur who rejected the discovery as an absurdity in 1727, when Peyssonel had communicated his finds to him. These researches had been carried on for several years, and they were indeed numerous and careful, for Peyssonel says: ‘In the tubes of Tubipora there sit animals, what one believes to be flowers in the noble corals’” (Corallium rubrum,  the red coral of commerce)  “ ‘are also animals; for they occur at all seasons of the year, they retract themselves when they are touched, and when one lifts the corals out of water, in the Madreporarian corals the animals resemble the sea-anemones; the skeleton of the coral on decomposing gives off an animals odour, and even the chemical investigation proves the presence of animal substances.’

vi

 

 

 

All these grounds Réaumur mentions, but concludes that the corals are plants which excrete a stony substance, and that if one sees animals in them these must be parasites which have wandered into them. He finds it quite out of question , as one sees, to imagine the existence of branched animals. Out of consid-eration for the individual, he does not mention the name of him who had asserted such remarkable things, In this way Peyssonel remained quite unknown and unrecognized. But when, later on, Trembley made known his observations on the fresh-water polypes, and in the buds of these one had before his eyes a branched, animal, Réaumur asked the botanist, Bernard de Jussieu, who was going to the seaside, to examine what connection this had with the corals. When, then, De Jussieu expressed himself in favour of their animal nature, Réaumur at last believed it himself, and withdrew his former judgment. Peyssonel, who learnt in the West Indies that Réaumur had not published the memoir sent to him, but that later on the correctness of his discovery had been recognized, in 1751 sent a new memoir, not to Paris, but to London, where in appeared in 1753 in the Philosophical Transactions. Thus, thirty years passed before he succeeded in publishing his discovery, and five years more before, by the publication of the tenth edition of Linnæus’s “Systema Naturæ’ (1758), it gained general acceptance. How many and angry writings did there not appear against Harvey’s account of the circulation of the blood, because it was not known what to do with the air or the spirits (Archæi) which were supposed to reside in the arteries, and when Harvey died, twenty years after the publication of his discovery, it had not yet become generally accepted. Much longer still was it before the discovery of Copernicus found general acceptance, and

vii

 

 

 

the earth had to describe its path round the sun many times before the Holy Chair allowed it to be spoken of publicly.”

     At that time, in view of the history of science, it was quite anticipated, that the new facts concerning the history and continuity of the germ-cells from generation to generation would obtain a hostile welcome and reception, and that their discoverer would undoubtedly win a reward for all his patient labours similar to the recompenses meted out in past times to all those pioneers, termed by Robert Browning, “God’s elect,” from Khalif Al-Mamun, who dared to measure the earth and to describe it as a globe, down to Pasteur, who in our own day, among other brilliant deeds, caused “chemistry to take possession of medicine” (Duclaux). But the anathema did not come then; it was reserved for another occasion, and one of far greater import for human welfare and hopes. On the one hand, some of the germ-cell finds could be annexed—apparently—by others; on the other, they seemed to fit in so well with Weismann’s conceptions of a hypothetical germ-plasm – a thing non-existent—that to many it appeared possible to incorporate them with the doctrines of this distinguished zoologist. To another, again, they looked like furnishing in fact a confirmation of the vague speculations of Richard Owen, and this has led to the assignment of the actual work and discoveries to him, who actually never did any investigations at all into the history of the germ-cells. In fine, in one way or another, the germ-cell finds wee disposed of and dispersed. Some of them—some of the more fundamental points—were cast aside and ignored; others, the more obvious, were annexed or parcelled out, and ascribed to this, that, or the other embryologist or zoologist, and practically nothing at all was left over to

viii

 

 

 

the credit of the original observer, who, indeed, ought to have congratulated himself on the –for his welfare—fortunate turn of events. All this has reference to Great Britain and America.

     Then came the time, the “divisions” and “brigades” being complete and ready, and eager to take the field, when the general principle of an antithetic alternation of generations, with an actual tangible continuity of germ-cells from generation to generation, had to be applied to the special case of cancer or malignant disease. Since it has long been one of my maxims in research to reap and garner the harvest completely, leaving as little gleanings as possible for others, this application of the general principle could not be left undone. Cancer stood defiantly in the way, and an immediate decisive campaign against it was inevitable.

     New conclusions were reached, one after the other, and in due course these were published. Mankind in general , and medical mankind in particular, wee supposed to be waiting the advent of some new scientific discovery concerning the nature of cancer, in the hope that this would lead ultimately to success in its non-operative medical treatment. The reception give to the new conclusions in Great Britain was hardly in accord with that which, in a scientific era, might have been foreseen. The scientific investigator might have been attacking some of the most sacred and deeply rooted religious and moral convictions of mankind concerning cancer or malignant disease. The physical martyrdom was lacking; but there are, as I can testify from experience, many more ways than one of burning a scientific man at the stake.

     Two of the discoveries referred to by von Baer—those of Copernicus and Harvey—had this feature in common:

ix

 

 

 

that, at the time they were published, it was not, and could not be, foreseen that they possessed intrinsic vital importance for mankind. None the less, they were denounced, and their authors along with them. Did the histories of the discoveries of Morton, Simpson, Semmelweis, Lister, and—last and greatest—Pasteur not prove the contrary, one might have concluded that the main reasons for the opposition to, and the denouncement of, Copernicus and Harvey, for example, were that these discoveries had no apparent bearing on the physical welfare of humanity. If so, mankind would welcome eagerly any discoveries relating to the scientific nature and treatment of cancer, even though, as an old and very wise friend re-marks, they were made by a chimney-sweep.

     Actual experiences have not tallied with these anticipations. Whether it would have been otherwise had the discoveries been made and published twenty-five or thirty years earlier –for instance, in my student days, or at the time when the late Sir James Paget concluded (1887), that operative interference with can-cer was not advisable, --is a moot question. In the light of actual events, since the scientific man especially learns from experience, I have surmised, perhaps rightly, that all these denunciations of scientific discoveries and of their authors –the latter including among many other Khalif Al-Mamun, Servetus, Coperniucus, Giordana Bruno, Galileo, Vesalius,*

* “In the same year (1543, when appeared the treatise of Copernicus on the ‘Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies’), Vesalius, a young Belgian anatomist, published his “Structure of the Human Body,’ a volume rich in facts ascertained by dis-section. Some of these facts were held to contradict the teaching of Galen. Next year Vesalius was driven by the hostility of the medical profession to burn his manuscripts and relinquish original work; he was not yet thirty years of age” (L. C. Miall, ‘History of Biology,’ 1911, p. 20).

x

 

 

 

De Dominis, Harvey, Buffon, Morton, Simpson, Semmelweis, Lister, and Pasteur, etc.—have been due, not so much to religious motives and the odium theologicum, as to the innate constitution of human nature and its intolerance of the new and the strange, even though this be calculated to be of surpassing benefit to humanity.

     As to the particular instance dealt with in this book I have nothing at all to retract—even at the stake—concerning my scientific conclusions as to the origin, nature, and rational treatment of the natural phenomenon known as cancer or malignant disease. The words of Galileo, Eppur si muove, were a definite enough statement on his position. Pasteur told his opponents that he lived in a realm of which they knew nothing and into which they had no entry. These words of his also I adopt. Cancer is a natural phenomenon, germinal in origin and asexual (trophoblastic) in nature, and it is one which, by the laws of Nature, must yield to the magic influences of the all-powerful ferments, trypsin and amylopsin. Of these, trypsin has been described—rightly—by a scientific man, Dr. Emil Westergaard, as far “more powerful than dynamite.”

     Those who think differently, or think they think differently, or who don’t think at all, and who without adducing any but negative finds without value in science, persist in denying the scientific research nugatory, all scientific evidences in utter disregard of truth itself, are endeavouring, possibly without even knowing it, to render all scientific research nugatory, all scientific progress an impossibility. The logical sequel to all such futile and vain opposition to scientific truth and progress would be, not the creation and lavish endowment of institutes for cancer research, but the foundation of societies for the prevention of cruelty to cancer.

     No apology is offered for the very frequent use of the

xi

 

 

 

term “science” and its variations in the present writing. The writer is actuated solely by his deep reverence for the truths of Nature: her facts and truths are to him everything, and human “authority” nothing. Neither praise nor blame, nor even abuse nor ridicule, is asked for, sought after, or desired. The actual discoveries entailed in the finding out of Nature’s remedies for malignant disease possibly are, be it admitted, trifling; perhaps, too, they deserve no human praise, much less do they call for ridicule. The long years spent in daily and nightly labours in the search after the general principle of an antithetic alternation of generations as the basis of the life-cycle of all the higher animals, including man, were something different, and the results were their own and only reward. Why the publication of true facts of Nature—such as are recorded in this book—should earn for their author the recompense of ridicule I know not. Baseless assertions—such as that “trypsin” is without action upon living cancer-cells—are not evidences, and in no civilized court of justice would they be admitted as such. One thing is now clear, and the whole world may be challenged to contradict it: this is, that if it be asserted—as it has been more than once publicly by British official researchers—that trypsin is devoid of action upon living cancer-cells, then this same “trypsin” would also be found by an physiological chemist to be destitute of action upon all other albuminous substances in this universe. A “trypsin” devoid of action upon cancer-cells can also have no action at all upon milk, and yet it is mainly by its action upon milk that trypsin is usually estimated by chemists and by manufacturers of ferment preparations. Since a strong solution of trypsin, when injected daily hypodermically, has been known to liquefy a large living recurrent epithelioma or skin-cancer in less

xii

 

 

 

than fourteen days, it follows, that those who assert, that “trypsin” is devoid of action upon living cancer-cells, might state with equal truth, that the “trypsin” they used had also no action at all upon anything else-

that is, was quite inert.

     Looking back over the history of the ferment, trypsin, in science, though really discovered, but not named, by Baron Corvisart in 1857, it was for some ten years in danger of being forgotten. Then, in 1867, Professor W. Kühne took it up for research purposes, and in 1876 he gave it the name it bears of “trypsin,” from Tpú­­Xw,­­­ “I wear away.” That is, it took Kühne nine years to establish this ferment securely as a possession of science. Why should I expect to be more fortunate than he? If nine years were required to set at rest the question of the mere actual existence of such a ferment as trypsin, it is perhaps quite out of question to say how many times the earth will have to describe its path round the sun -–n conformity with the doctrine of Coperniucus—before mankind will admit the truth of my discoveries concerning Nature’s uses of trypsin and its complement, amylopsin. It may be that they, including many surgeons, would rather themselves die of cancer than admit the truth. Like the other happenings in the history of the reception of my cancer studies, this would not be at all a new attitude, for, according to Brewster, “a protégé of Kepler’s, of the name of Horky, wrote a volume against Galileo’s discovery” of the satellites of Jupiter, “after having declared ‘that he would never concede his four new planets to that Italian from Padua, even if he should die for it.’” But sooner or later, if not now –possibly in the far-off future, when the inertia of the past two thousand years shall have ceased to be, and a new advance of the human intellect shall commence –it will be recognized

xiii

 

 

 

that, while the ferments of cancer came into existence in the dim and distant past in an ascending series of complexity, for the purpose of building-up asexual generation, trypsin and its modification, amylopsin, were evolved millions of years ago as things even more powerful than the ferments of cancer, and for the primary purpose of pulling down asexual generation, in order that something new –a sexual generation—might arise, blossom, and people the earth. That these latter ferments have also a very great digestive import, and are, therefore –to man, as the centre of the universe—of personal and even great commercial value, happens to be a corallary to what was their original use, and to the uses which they are still first of all given by Nature in every normal development.

     Each one of us human beings, in the course of the gestation in which he or she arose, as a prime condition of his or her existence and persistence, was compelled by the iron necessity of Nature to destroy a natural phenomenon of the same nature as cancer –to wit, the trophoblast or asexual generation of normal development—and by no other means than the secretion of pancreatic ferments. This is the reason which confers a lasting truth on the words which I wrote down on December 8, 1904, and which, almost immediately, gave the solution of the problem of cancer—“The mammalian embryo solved the problem of cancer ages ago.” “Still it moves,” commented Galileo. If the enzyme treatment of cancer be abandoned for the next century—if trypsin and amylopsin be maligned as “useless” or “futile” in cancer—all the same every human being who comes into this world in that time will never omit to employ his own pancreatic ferments in his development—never fail, since failure means death, to the pancreatic or enzyme

xiv

 

 

 

treatment of cancer in his own gestation—for the suppression of normal trophoblast or asexual generation. For otherwise this, as the most deadly form of cancer known—chiro-epithelioma—would inevitably destroy him—and his parent. In normal development, trypsin and amylopsin, unheeding human medical and surgical perversity, intolerance, and ignorance, will continue to destroy cancer, or trophoblast, or asexual generation, as in the past has happened for untold millions of years, for long ages before man was evolved.

     For this is one of Nature’s fundamental postulates, one of her inexorable laws for the continued existence of a race of human beings to people the earth, and without its strict and unbending observance there would be no living human beings upon the earth, no surgeons, no “cancer experts,” loudly parading and proclaiming publicly their ignorance of the origin and nature of cancer, and –no problems of cancer.

 

 

*                    *                    *                    *                    *

 

          It is a pleasant duty to put on record here how much in recent years the writer owes to the help of Messrs. Fairchild Brothers and Foster, of New York City, to Mr. B. T. Fairchild, and to their European manager, Mr. A. E. Holden. On all occasions the latter never failed to find some way of meeting my demands upon him. Like his chief, Mr. B. T. Fairchild, he has helped the humane and scientific work in every way in his power. What the debt is which the world owes to Mr. B. T. Fairchild himself, to his deep interest in the enzyme treatment of cancer, and to his scientific powers and knowledge, I will not attempt to determine. A later generation may be better able to estimate it. I know that from his heart not so long ago he sent the message that, except myself,

xv

 

 

 

no man on earth could have a greater satisfaction than he in seeing this enzyme treatment succeed.

     Of the portions of the book which have been published previously, Chapters I., III. and IV. are republished from the Lancet, and Chapters V. and VI. from the Medical Record, by permission of the editors and proprietors of those journals; and the usual acknowledgments and thanks are tendered herewith. Chapters II., III. And IV. may be taken to represent the results of work undertaken with the aid of research grants from the Carnegie Trust of the Scottish Universities, amounting in all to the sum of  £70. Most of the pioneer work of the earlier years was carried out without the aid of grants from any source.

 

 

        8, Barnton Terrace,

              Edinburgh.

                   October 12, 1911.

 

 

xvi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

PART  1

 

THE PROBLEMS OF CANCER

 

            CHAPTER                                                                                                                                                                PAGE

                                INTRODUCTION                                                                                                                                                1 

 

I.        EMBRYOLOGICAL ASPECTS AND ETIOLOGY OF CARCINOMA                                                            48

II.      THE EMBRYOLOGY AND ETIOLOGY OF TUMOURS                                                                              67

III.    THE PROBLEMS OF CANCER                                                                                                                    95

IV.     THE CANCER PROBLEM                                                                                                                          108

V.       THE INTERLUDE OF CANCER                                                                                                                 122

VI.     THE ASYMMETRY OF THE CYCLE OF LIFE, BEING “THE END OF THE THREAD”                              143

 

 

 

 

PART II

 

THE PANCREATIC OR ENZYME TREAT OF CANCER

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              RETROSPECT                                                                                                                                           166                

VII.   GENERAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE PANCREATIC OR ENZYME TREATMENT OF CANCER

                                 IN ITS VARIOUS FORMS                                                                                              188

VIII.  TWO RECENT CASES                                                                                                                           209

IX.     ON THE RELATIONS OF TRYPSIN AND AMYLOPSIN                                                                         223

X.       A PUBLISHED TEST OF  “THE TRYPSIN TREATMENT OF CANCER”                                                 230

XI.    THE CRUCIAL TEST OF THE NATURE OF CANCER                                                                            235

XII.  “SCIENCE IS PREVISION”                                                                                                                                      243

 

 

 xvii                                        

                           

 

 

 

    CONTENTS

                                                                                                                                                      PAGE

APPENDIX A :          THE LIVERPOOL LECTURE—GERM-CELLS AND THE CANCER PROBLEM                                              247

 

APPENDIX B:           PICK: IN THE  “DISCUSSION ZU DEN VORTRÄGEN ÜBER DIE ÆTIOGIE DES CARCINOMS,”

                                  IN “BERLINER KLIN. WORCHENSCHRIFT,” 1905, NO. 13. ABSTRACT OF THE REMARKS

                                  CONTRIBUTED BY THE PATHOLOGIST DR. L. PICK TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE

                                  ETIOLOGY OF CANCER, IN BERLIN, MARCH 15, 1905                                                                         252

 

APPENDIX C:          THE LIFE-CYCLE OF THE HIGHER ANIMALS AND ALTERNATION OF GENERATIONS                         255

 

APPENDIX D:          THE NAPELS CASE OF EPITHELIOMA OF THE TONGUE                                                                         265

 

APPENDIX E:           THE FUNCTION OF THE CORPUS LETEUM                                                                                             267

 

APPENDIX F:           THE TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS IN SANATORIA                                                                           271

 

APPENDIX G:          SOME OF THE SUCESSFUL CASES REPORTED IN PAST YEARS, ALL OF WHICH WERE TREATED

                                  WITH GENUINE PREPARATIONS OF TRYPSIN AND AMYLOPSIN                                                        273

 

APPENDIX H:          NEGATIVE RESULTS IN SCIENCE                                                                                                             277

 

APPENDIX K:           SCIENTIFIC PRIORITY                                                                                                                              279

 

APPENDIX L:           “ENCEPHALOID” CANCER OF THE BREAST                                                                                            280

 

APPENDIX M:          THE GERMAN PREPARATIONS                                                                                                                281

 

INDEX                                                                                                                                                                                        283

 

 

 

 

xviii

 

 

 

 

ILLUSTRATIONS

 

FIGS.                                                                                                                                                                       FACING PAGE

I-4.      ILLUSTRATING THE GERM-CELLS OF FISHES AND THEIR MIGRATIONS INTO THE EMBRYONIC

                BODY                                                                                                                                                                      58

5.       DIAGRAM OF THE LIFE-CYCLE OF A BACK-BONED ANIMAL                                                                                  124

6.       AFTER FOUR MONTHS’ TREATMENT, SHOWING NECROTIC TUMOR IN SITU.  JULY 15, 1909                                       208

7.       AFTER REMOVAL OF DEAD TUMOUR EN MASSE.  TUMOUR LIFTED OUT WITH DISSECTING

                FORCEPS WITHOUT BLEEDING OR OOZING.   JULY 15, 1909                                                                        208        

8.       NO TUMOUR LEFT: PARTS HEALED AND CLEAN,   SEPTEMBER 17, 1909                                                                          210

9.       PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN OCTOBER 14, 1910, FIFTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE SLOUGH ( SHOWN

                IN FIG. 6) HAD BEEN LIFTED OUT OF THE CHEEK WITH FORCEPS                                                                  210

10.      PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SLIDE OF THE TUMOUR WHICH WAS PREPARED BY A PATHOLOGIST

                OF THE ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL COLLEGE.  THE PATIENT’S NAME, WRITTEN ON IT BY

                CAPTAIN LAMBELLE, HAS BEEN ERASED                                                                                                            212

11.      MICRO-PHOTOGRAPH OF A PORTION OF THE SLIDE OF FIG. 10. PREPARED BY MR. A.

                FLATTERS, F.R.M.S., MANCHESTER.  THE MAGNIFICATION IS 360 DIAMETERS                                           212

 

 

 

 

xix

 

 

 

 

THE

ENZYME TREATMENT OF CANCER

AND ITS SCIENTIFIC BASIS

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Some years ago a former fellow-student—M.D. (Lond.), Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, London, physician to a large hospital in London – remarked that a single case of cure of undoubted cancer would establish the truth of the writer’s published statements, and bring the whole world to his feet.  Not long after then, here and there cures were published; but to these I will not refer; for, unlike those of the York case, the scientific proofs of them are not in my possession, and in one way or another it may be said of many of them, that the evidences in their favour were incomplete or inconclusive, which latter was, indeed, the verdict pronounced, without adducing scientific evidences, upon “trypsin” by Sir Henry Morris, Bart., late President of the Royal College of Surgeons, London, as recently as 1908.  To a profession such as the medical one, which does not yet grasp the nature of the scientific evidences, the results of the pancreatic or enzyme treatment, even in the most favourable cases, might easily have been taken to be “inconclusive.”  The scientific facts that certain tumours had yielded to the stereo-chemical test—the highest court of appeal—and thereby had shown their malignant

1

 

 

 

nature, were not evidences to those, who knew nothing at all of modern embryology or of stereo-chemistry, and who relied implicitly upon the microscopical examination and appearances of a portion of the growth taken before or after operation.  Then there were the countless failures,* many of them due, as I am now convinced, to faulty preparations, or to injections which were very much too weak for their work.  In this way great difficulties had to be surmounted, quite apart from what has been termed the “conservatism” of the medical profession.  Apart from the latter, these difficulties seem now to have been removed.  Definite statements can be made concerning the requirements of really efficacious preparations for the treatment, and a successful case of cure, not standing isolated, can be, and is, produced in the present writing.

          *For the sake of the scientific truth, the published opinion of Professor F. Blumenthal, of the University of Berlin—certainly a competent judge—regarding these should be noted.  The vast majority of the cases hitherto treated (usually with very weak injections and with small does of these) were in an advanced phase of cancer.  Oftener than not they were some of the failures of surgery.  Professor Blumenthal remarks—rightly and scientifically—that the cases as yet handed over for medical treatment, as opposed to surgical, wee nearly all such that no possible treatment could have saved them.  Lest this should be supposed to be exaggerated, Professor Blumenthal’s actual words may be cited.  He writes:  “Die innere Behandlung des Carcinoms ist heute lediglich beschränkt auf die verzweifelten, nicht operablen Fälle.  Wir haven jetzt daran festzhalten, dass jede bösartige Geschwulst, so lange sie operabel ist, auch durch Operation entfernt werden muss.  Es handelt sich also für die innere Behandlung um eine Kategorie von Krankheitsfällen, welche vergleichbar sind mit verallgemeinerter Tuberculose, disseminierter Eiterung.  Man stellt an die innere Therapie die Anforderung, nicht die beginnenden Fälle zu heilen, sondern überlässt ihr fast nur solche Fälle, die wohl niemals gerettet werden könnten, auch wenn es eiene innere Methode gäbe.”  Ferdinand Blumenthal, “innere Behandlung und Fürsorge bei Krebskranken,” in Zeitschrift f. Krebs forschung, vol. X., pp. 134-148 (1910); loc. Cit., p. 134.

2

 

 

 

          In the eighth section of “The Belfast Address” the physicist, Professor John Tyndall, wrote:  “But there is in the true man of science a desire stronger than the wish to have his beliefs upheld—namely, the desire to have them true.  And this stronger wish causes him to reject the most plausible support if he has reason to suspect that it is vitiated by error.”  That is the writer’s position to-day.  Six years ago he stated publicly that, in the secretion of that important digestive gland, the pancreas, Nature had furnished a potent means of coping with cancer.  Even though there had been no other successes at the hands of Captain Lambelle, R.A.M.C. or of other, the successful issue of the case of the York ex-drummer, described in Chapter VIII., demonstrates for all time the scientific truth of the foregoing conclusion.  The army surgeon who treated the patient, and the writer of these lines, both invite the fullest investigation of this case.  The tumour was recurrent immediately after two operations upon it, and it had become inoperable.  The diagnosis was confirmed by microscopical examination of a portion of the tumour-mass removed at the second operation by a pathologist of the Royal Army Medical College.  A section which he made is in the writer’s possession, and from an examination of it he is able to say that the diagnosis given is not open to the slightest question.  The patient is alive and well, free from recurrence, and his address is written across the copy of the ten charts of the case, all certified and signed by the surgeon, and which, like the photographic negatives, copies of the official documents, and all other particulars, I owe to my friend, Captain F. W. Lambelle, M. D.,  R.A. M.C., now stationed in Central India.  All the evidences are open to the most searching investigation, and this in the interest of scientific truth as well as in those of humanity, is invited.

3

 

 

         

A surgeon, who published as a “scientific report” an account of the failure of the enzyme treatment at his hands in a large series of (mostly very advanced) cases, remarked to the writer not long ago that a single case of success would not prove his thesis.  The exact opposite of this assertion has been maintained quite recently by the Moseley Professor Surgery in Harvard University, Boston, Dr. Maurice H. Richardson.  In the Journal of the American Medical Association, February 4, 1911, in an article upon “The Operative Treatment of Cancer of the Breast” (p. 315), he write: “And yet I am full of enthusiasm in the hope that the near future or the next method will solve the problem.  One single total disappearance of  undoubted breast cancer under any form of non-operative treatment will presage success, just as surely as a successful man-flight presaged aviation.”  A little further on he adds: “One varies, perhaps, in the positiveness of one’s opinion.  One’s diagnosis may be an absolute conviction.  I have often said—and I here repeat—that the diagnosis of cancer by gross appearance, plus the history, made by an experienced man is more worthy of credence in some cases than the microscopic examination alone.”  Everything of import here named by Professor Richardson has been fulfilled to the letter.  In 1908 Captain Lambelle gave the enzyme treatment, as laid down by him further on in this book, in a case of “encephaloid”* cancer of the breast  The patient was a Yorkshire lady of social position.  The diagnosis was made by “experienced men,” as well as by Lambelle himself.  There was no operation and no microscopical examination.  In his last letter to me, dated December 1,

          *”Encephaloid cancer,” a term used by pathologists to define soft cancer from hard cancer, or scirrhus.  Encephaloid cancer is so termed because of its brain-like softness.  It is described as quick-growing and rapidly fatal (see Appendix L).

4

 

 

 

1910, he writes concerning this case: “By the way, that case of encephaloid breast cancer is alive and free from recurrence—diagnosed October, 1908.  I saw her on November 29, as near as mortal man can say ‘cured.’”  Further comment on the above is not needed.

          I was well aware, as any scientific man is, that negative results in scientific experiments never proved anything at all in science, but was also under the impression that very many scientific discoveries of great moment had been the outcome of single successful experiments.  The fall of an apple from a tree revealed the law of universal gravitation to Newton. In our own day a single photographic impression of some keys, etc., led the physicist Röntgen, in 1895, to the discovery of the Röntgen, or X rays; and, strange to say, the find of a few stray ganglion cells in the development of an American lake-fish in 1888 led the writer ultimately to the discovery of the nature of cancer, and of much besides.  The scientific investigator knows, even if some surgeons be ignorant of it, that very many discoveries in science are the outcome of what at first were of the nature of single successful experiments.  Even the cures* of cancer by

          *Looking at the matter from the point of view of practical embryology, the so-called “cures” of cancer by surgical operation are probably in all cases without exception examples of the “cure” of a benign tumour, a more or less reduced “embryoma.” Naturally benign tumours are of common occurrence, and whether diagnosed by microscopical examination or only clinically     , the diagnosis of cancer is not one which can be regarded as conforming to a scientific criterion.  When one thinks of the extraordinary frequency of recurrence after surgical operation, one can only conclude that, in the absence of the crucial stereo-chemical tests, either of adequate injections of sufficiently potent preparations of trypsin and amylopsin, or of examination of the tumour albumins by means of the polarimeter, at present there is no valid evidence extant that operation has ever cured a single case of malignant disease, though it may quite well have induced it, as the X rays have often done.  Sir James Paget. A scientific

5

 

 

 

surgical operation are not in blocks of certain dimension; but assuming that surgery ever does cure even a single case of cancer—a very big assumption which, as a scientific man, I make only for the sake of argument—each case of cure would be of the nature of a single successful experiment.  I do not for a moment deny that surgery does, and has done, many very wonderful thing, but to assert that it ever knowingly cures a single case of cancer is a scientific absurdity.

          If ten, a hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand cases of cure be required—by the surgeons, not by science—to establish truth of the scientific foundations of the pancreatic or enzyme treatment of cancer, then from the particulars furnished in later chapters of this book, any of these numbers can be obtained, always provided, as the lawyers say, that properly and scientifically standardized and guaranteed preparations be employed and the treatment be carried out in the scientific fashion—letter and spirit—laid down here by Captain Lambelle and the writer.  Since the medical profession of Great Britain has, through some of its members, been most careful to guard that the writer, who is a mere scientific man, and “not even a medical practitioner,” should treat no cases at all—cancer being a natural phenomenon, not “an incurable disease”—more than this single demonstration cannot be asked from me.  There is, sad enough to say, no dearth of cases, for in England and Wales alone annually nearly 40,000 people, some of them surgeons, die from malignant disease.

(continued from page 5 footnotes)

man of high standing because of the extent and nature of his investigations, doubted whether operation was ever advisable in case of cancer, and on the evening of my Liverpool lecture of 1905, I heard a prominent surgeon declare that he would not be willing, even in the most favourable case of cancer in which he had operated, to stake a sovereign against its recurrence.

6

 

 

 

          It behooves me to add a few words of explanation of Captain Lambelle’s connection with the work.  In his address, “Science and Immortality” (London, 1904), Sir William Osler, in the finest written compliment any of my researches had ever received, described (p.58) “the patiently worked-out story of the morphological continuity of the germ-plasm” (i.e., the germ-cells) as “one of the fairy-tales of science.”  Shortly after then their author was to have an unexpected and much greater compliment, because of a practical kind, paid to these investigations.  As a scientific man the writer places his trust, in true military fashion, in “divisions” and “brigades,” represented by the published records of observation and experiment, and not in “fairy-tales of science.”  The investigation, one of the most powerful of my “divisions,” which immediately preceded the cancer work was into the history of the germ-cells, the forerunners of eggs and sperms, from generation to generation.  Some of the published results of these researches found their way as far as China, where, in Hong-Kong, a Captain of the British Royal Army Medical Corps happened to be stationed.  These finds interested him so much that he endeavoured, on human embryos, to make independent observations.

          In the first instance these failed, as any experienced practical embryologist would have foretold.  This officer, Captain F. W. Lambelle, M.D., was shortly afterwards ordered home again, and, on reporting himself to the Director-General at the War Office, he related the foregoing facts and his deep interest in my scientific researches.  This led the Director-General to station Captain Lambelle with the 2nd Light Dragoons (The Royal Scots Greys), at that time in garrison in Edinburgh, so that he might learn more of my work.  From the day when, un-

7

 

 

 

announced, Captain Lambelle entered my little room in full uniform, and saluting, introduced himself, we have been close friends.  He worked for himself over much my material—a collection also, like the Scots Greys, “Second to None!”—and he read all my published papers, which, unlike some scientific people, he thoroughly understood and appreciated; in fact, he evinced the deepest interest in all the problems and their solutions which had occupied my leisure hours during many years.  At that time I happened to be, noiens velens, in the thick on the cancer-business, and he often expressed his regrets that the nature of his work, with young healthy soldiers, gave him no chances of looking into cancer-matters practically for himself.  Subsequently, his appointment as operating surgeon of the Military Hospital, York—the hospital of the Northern Command—placed, one after the other, four cases of cancer in his way, and of these he cured three, the fourth dying from hæmorrhage as the treated dead sloughing tumour came away.  One of these cases fully recorded in this book.  The other two successful cases are not laid stress upon by him, simply because, although the clinical diagnoses of cancer were ample, the microscopical evidences, upon which scientifically I personally lay no stres at all, were lacking.*  In order to say the surgeons who have set up this arbitrary stand of the microscopical appearances of cancer as a criterior—often a very deceptive one—the requisite slides of sections of the tumour have to be produced as completing the surgical diagnosis.

          In his last letter to me before sailing to India, Captain Lambelle stated that the total number of injections given in latest case was 120.  Apparently, from the charts, the ferments exhibited March to July, 1909, did not

          *Compare Professor Richardson’s opinion as cited on p. 4.

8

 

 

 

amount to more than 60,000 tryptic units and 120,000 amylolytic ones.  That is to say, for his last published case the strengths and doses of injections employed during the vital period of the treatment can be stated.  This can be said also only of the report of Messrs. Ball and Thomas.  Dr. Bainbridge, according to his own statement, used injections of five strengths of trypsin, but in his report he does not discriminate among these, or give figures, from which even approximate calculations, or any at all; can be made.  All of those in this country, or elsewhere, who, publicly or privately, have condemned the treatment, with the single exception mentioned above, whatever its scientific value, have furnished no particulars of strengths or doses and of the total number of injections exhibited; in fact, not one of them has given a scientific verdict, for not one of them has produced any evidences that he ever employed any ferments whatever.  In 1906 and 1907 the statement was often made by several very prominent London surgeons to private patients that they had “tried” trypsin in cancer, but had found it “useless.”  They themselvew knew nothing at all about the preparations used, but actually this adverse verdict was given after the employment of preparations containing at that time less than 10 tryptic units per cubic centimetre or ampoule.*  This should be

          *The first injections of “trypsin” employed in 1906 were all, or nearly all, made up from Fairchild Brothers and Foster’s “trypsin in powder.” This, which is no longer on sale anywhere, was a very potent preparation, and it had been on the market for many years.  At the beginning of April, 1906, the manufacturers of this “trypsin in powder,” as they announced by advertisements in the chief British medical and chemical newspapers, withdrew it from sale.  Tis step placed others makers of “trypsin injections” upon their own resources, or very largely so.  There was already a “famine in the land” as regards “trypsin,” so much of one that I heard through friends of several cancer patients who were being treated with raw sweetbreads,

9

 

 

 

compared with Captain Lambelle’s usual dose of one thousand (1,000) tryptic units plus two thousand (2,000) amylolytic units, 1 ampoule or 1 c.c. of each.

          A University Professor of Surgery, in support of his public statement of 1910, that the pancreatic ferments were “futile” in cancer, recently sent me copies of Bainbridge’s report, and an author’s copy of a paper by Sir Henry Morris, read before the Surgical Congress, Brussels, September 21 to 25, 1908.  In the latter it is written: “He noted the reports on the use of the latter “’trypsin’), and the fact that the evidences in its favour could not be considered conclusive.”  Trypsin alone, a most deadly remedy for cancer if employed without abundant amylopsin, is mentioned.  Nothing whatever is said about the conclusive or non-conclusive character of the failing evidences, that adequate strengths and doses of trypsin, and any at all of amylopsin, had been employed.  No doubt the preparations wee said to be “potent.”  Possibly to-day Sir Henry Morris could no more produce any scientific evidences concerning the strengths and compositions of the injections he was referring to in 1908 than the University Professor, mentioned above, did do or could do when I asked him politely for some particulars as scientific evidences of the truth of his published statement.  It ought not to be necessary, but—leider!--it is, to remind surgeons that in science it is a rule—as it also is in courts of justice—that no

(continued from page 9 footnotes)

or pancreas glands.  I have always considered the withdrawal of this “trypsin in powder” as a very wise step, but one of its direct consequences would appear to have been the extensive employment, especially in and about London, of a “trypsin” injection possession at that time rather less than ten units of tryptic strength.  The eminent surgeons mentioned above had not, as a matter of fact, a ghost of an idea of the potencies of the injections they so glibly condemned—the boxes of ampoules were labelled with the magic word “trypsin.”

10

 

 

 

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

11

 

 

 

cancer incurable, but it was a disease of the nature and origin of which the whole of the medical profession, by its own confession, often proclaimed by leading surgeons in public orations, knew nothing at all about.  Under such circumstances it could hardly be strange that it should not be in conformity with the generally accepted, when a scientific man, who knew very well what he was speaking about, and who, like Pasteur, had earned the right to an opinion by his investigations of many long year, announced that cancer was not a disease, but a natural phenomenon, that it was germinal in origin and asexual (trophoblastic) in nature.  This was all something new, which had never been said before by anyone, living or dead.  As at the present time we were supposed, but possibly erroneously, to have outlived the Dark Ages, and as, at all events, those who made me, the scientific Germans, who have advanced far beyond the Dark Ages, had long advocated and practised “the freedom of science in the modern state,” it was something to be examined scientifically.  It is interesting to see how this was realized in Germany.

          A recent part of the German Journal of Cancer Investigation (vol. x., part 1) contains the report of a special Cancer Congress, held in May, 1910.  Here Professor C. Neuber, well known for his researches into the chemistry of cancer, writes on p. 70 regarding the position of chemistry in cancer research in words which recall Duclaux’s declaration concerning chemistry and medicine.  Neuberg affirms that where the problems of the nature of tumours are in question, chemistry will never retreat from the field of conflict.  Duclaux said: “With Pasteur chemistry took possession of medicine.  It is easy to foresee that she will never loosen her hold upon it."” As a study of

12

 

 

 

the following pages will show, my fundamental discoveries of the nature of cancer, and of the places of the two all-powerful ferments, trypsin and amylopsin, in the treatment of this natural phenomenon, not disease, were founded in the first instance in the science of embryology.  This is as true for the separate reasons advanced for the employment of trypsin and of amylopsin as it is for those urged in 1902 as demonstrating the asexual (trophoblastic) nature of cancer.*  Afterwards, from 1906, the chemical evidences—the stereo-chemical ones—began to reveal themselves to the observer, who was not like that genius Pasteur, “a mere chemist,” but a practical embryologist, who had chanced to have some sort of elementary chemical education at the hands of Sir Henry Roscoe and of that pioneer of comparative physiological chemistry, the late Professor C. F. W.

          *Sexual and Asexual, Sexual Generation and Asexual Generation.—In animals and in plants two modes of reproduction are recognized, the sexual one, by means of germ-cells, eggs, and sperms, and the asexual by budding, which is really a process of continuous indefinite cell-division, with no eggs or sperms.  In an animal or plant a sexual generation is one which bears reproductive organs, in which eggs or sperms, or both, arise.  On the other hand, an asexual generation of an animal or plant is one which never bears reproductive organs, eggs or sperms, or both, but which reproduces in the way indicated above, really by cell-division.  In plants the asexual generation is the flowering plant, which is capable of indefinite unrestricted increase, as, for example, a Gloire de Dijon rose or the fine white chrysanthemum, Niveus.  Origianlly there was but one plant of each of these.  The sexual generation of a flowering plant is a small microscopic entity contained with the flower.  In animals all the individuals which bear sexual organs belong to the sexual generation, which the asexual generation are represented in various ways.  Thus, in the sea-ploypes, by the colony of polypes, while here the medusæ or “jelly-fish” are sexual; in worms, starfish, etc., but what are known as larvæ, while here the wor, starfish, etc., are sexual; and lastly, in the highest animals or mammals the asexual generation is present only during uterine life, as what Hubrecht termed the trophoblast.  This latter used to be regarded as one of the “fœtal membranes” under the name of chorion.

13

 

 

 

Krukenberg.  Thus it came about that, while the line of first advance was purely embryological, later a junction could be effected with the science of stereo-chemistry, and a further base for operations obtained in the fundamental discoveries of Pasteur on the asymmetry of naturally occurring organic compounds.

          The following remarks* (literally translated), by Professor F. Blumenthal, of Berlin, concerning “trypsin” and cancer are of interest: “For a long time the trypsin-therapy of Beard awakened greater hope.  This depends upon the quick digestion of the cancerous tumour by trypsin.  If trypsin or pancreatin be injected into a cancer, one notes a fairly quick softening of the same, leading to a liquefaction, which is aseptic, not made up of pus.  In some cases it appears that in small and readily accessible tumours it has been possible with the help of trypsin to cause the tumour to disappear.  I will recall only the case in the aural clinic of Munich.  In larger tumours, especially with metastates, I have only had failures.  Successes also seem to be lacking in mouse-tumours, as Bashford reported. †  In the treatment with

          * Blumenthal, F., “Innere Behandlung und Fürsorge bei Krebskranken,” in Zeitschr. F. Krebsforschung, 1910, vol. X., pp. 137-138.

          † It would appear not to have occurred to Professor Blumenthal that this statement might have reference to inert ferments.  Since the experiments, which must be supposed to have led to this erroneous conclusion, have never yet been published, and since they are, indeed, not mentioned in a single word in the Third Scientific Report of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, published in 1908, and, lastly, since there are no scientific or other evidences extant to show that ferments of any kind or sort had ever been employed in these unpublished experiments, I feel bound to ask Professor Blumenthal to explain, as a scientific man, why he cites these unpublished experiments, and non-existent evidences?  It is common enough to note in scientific publications that published experiments or evidences have been ignored by the author, but it is something quite new to find unpublished experiments and mythical evidences cited in a

14

 

 

 

trypsin I have also noticed a disagreeable complication, which consists in this, that often the digestive power of the trypsin passed over also to sound tissue, and a disagreeable destruction of this came to pass.  Recently Sticker and Falk have improved the trypsin-therapy in that they have united the action to trypsin to charcoal, by which means, after a single injection, this action persists much longer, since this carbenzyme is not so quickly used up as ordinary trypsin.”

          Regarding the foregoing, only a few words need be added.  It will be noted that Blumenthal also confirms the “liquefying” action of trypsin on cancer.  This has now happened in London, Berlin, New York, and elsewhere.  The researcher of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund denied some years ago that trypsin had any action at all upon cancer-cells.  Looked at scientifically, either trypsin acts upon living cancer-cells, and

(continued from page 14 footnotes)

scientific paper.  Moreover, as Professor Blumenthal is quite aware, the results of his own experiments with “tryspin” are in direct contradiction with the verdict pronounced, without the production of any evidences, by officials of this cancer research.  It reminds one of the reception accorded  to von Siebold’s discovery of two sorts of spermatozoa in a fresh-water diœcious snail, Paludina vivipara, in 1836.  Within an easy walk of Würzburg, this snail is readily found in great numbers, and the first time that these two sorts of sperms were seen by me was in 1882, in living material obtained not far from Würzburg.  None the less, when von Siebold published his find, the professor of Anatomy in the University of  Würzburg, the celebrated anatomist and embryologist, Alber von Kölliker, interposed the weight of his authority, and, without taking the trouble to examine the facts for himself in the animal concerned,  disposed of von Siebold’s finds…simply by denying the correctness of his observations.  Since that time an extensive literature has sprung up concerning twofold sperms in Paludina and many other animals, including man, and the well-known cytologist, F. Meves, has published a minute account of the development and histology of these two sperms of this snail, the wormlike and the hairlike forms.

15

 

 

 

ultimately, if used in solutions of sufficient strength, liquefies them, as maintained by myself, Blumenthal, and—“in some cases”—by Bainbridge, or it has no action upon them, as stated in 1906, and again in 1907 by official researchers.  One or other of these statements must be false.  The official assertion was unsupported by the production of any evidences whatever, the former rests upon the independent testimony of four* different observers, situated as widely apart as London, Edinburgh, Berlin, and New York.  The official statement is untrue.  Already, in Nature (January 10,1907), I called upon the executive of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund to substantiate the assertions made under their auspices, or to withdraw them.  I now repeat this unsatisfied demand, merely adding that, if they wish their finds still to stand, they must complete the statements scientifically by the addition that inert trypsin† had been employed, and that the assertions challenged related to such inert trypsin, and not to trypsin in an active form.

          In the later pages of this book I have explained why it comes about that in some cases trypsin may act upon

          * As I recognize, while finally reading through this manuscript before sending it to press, a fifth observer of the formation of “liquid cancer” can be cited.  From the charts of Captain Lambelle’s case of sarcoma, and from his description on a subsequent page of the course of his case of lympho-sarcoma, it is clear that in what he speaks of as “sero-purulent fluid” in the one case, and “purulent fluid” in the other, he was really dealing with liquefied cancer.

            The General Superintendent of this cancer research himself writes as follows: “It is surprising how many people are unconvinced that the scientific examination of such claims presupposes exact knowledge of the ingredients of the remedy.  In the absence of this knowledge, negative conclusions could always be ascribed to error” (British Medical Journal, May, 27, 1911, p. 1221).  One wonders whether he knew this when the unpublished experiments with  “trypsin” were carried out, if so, why he failed to act upon it.

16

 

 

 

“normal” somatic tissues.  It is in very advanced cancer cases, where the tissues have been much acted upon by the ferments and toxic products of cancer, and have thereby been injured.  In this connection the finds of Yoshimoto and Neuberg concerning the auto-digestion of cancerous liver, and of portions bordering upon the cancer, are of much import.

          As to the improvements in the treatment brought about by Sticker and Falk, I content myself with the record of them, and make no comment beyond saying that, in my opinion, no “trypsin-therapy” which is unaccompanied by abundant animal amylopsin will be, or can be, satisfactory in the long run.

          In the long, interesting article, summing up what he considers to be our present knowledge of the chemistry of cancer, published in the “Ergebnisse der Physiologie” (1910), Professor F. Blumenthal, of Berlin, has a reference to “trypsin” in cancer.  Recalling his own investigations with Wolff, published in 1905 (Med. Klinik, No. 5), he states that (in the test-tube!) all the tumours, five in number, wee very easily attacked and pulled down by trypsin, and in a footnote he adds: “These finds were the basis of the trypsin-therapy of cancer.”  In a more recent publication (German Journal of Cancer Investigation, vol. X., p. 137), he makes a similar statement in these words: “For a long time the trypsin-therapy of Beard awakened greater hope.  This depends upon the fact that the cancerous tumour is quickly digessted by trypsin” (in the test-tube!).  On the other hand, the writer of the brief article upon cancer in the new eleventh edition* of the “Enclopædia Britannica” assigns as

          *The prospectus states that “this new edition represents the results of a fresh survey, undertaken in every department of knowledge by the most eminent authorities, up to the year 1910.”

17

 

 

 

the reason of my advocacy of trypsin in cancer that the pancreas-gland was believed to be a t fault in cancer patients.  Versions of the reasons similar to these two have been given in other places—thus, in the Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift.  They are both quite incorrect.  My only connection with the first was in publishing in the Lancet of April 29, 1905, a summary and translation of some recent German cancer work, including that of Blumenthal and Wolff upon the chemistry of cancer, and the citation of this relation of trypsin to the cancer-cell as a certain support of my views.  As to the second reason, neither the writer of the article in the “Enclopædia Britannica” nor anyone else can find in any of my published writings even a hint of this statement.  Moreover, it has been supposed that my affirmation of the germinal origin of cancer meant that it was embryonic or somatic, and my name has been quoted as that of a supporter and advocate of “embryonic theories,” such as the Remak-Cohnheim one of “embryonic rests.”  In the first article referred to (“Ergebnisse der Physiologie”) Blumenthal considers these embryonic theories as refuted from the chemical side by the chemical fact mentioned in his paper, such as the discovery by Abderhalden and Pincussohn that the ferments contained in extracts of mouse-tumours pull down silk peptones and polypetids atypically.  With this conclusion I agree absolutely, and would add that ever since 1902, and before then, I have been an opponent of the Remak-Cohnheim theory of “embryonic rests” upon grounds of embryological observation, leading to the conclusion that these “rests” are mere figments of the imagination.  The Remak-Cohnheim theory of embryonic rests is, therefore, now untenable on decisive chemical and embryological grounds, and must be abandoned.

18

 

 

 

          My theories of cancer, its origin and nature, differ toto cœlo from those advanced by any other observer, living or dead.  The theory of the germinal origin of cancer, which says that a cancer arises primarily from a latent germ-cell, does not mean that cancer is embryonic in origin or character.  Germ-cells, such as fertilized eggs, give rise to something else than embryo or soma: they produce on occasion trophoblast (asexual generation).  I know that some embryologist, for whom chemistry and physiology have no existence in their researches, describe the trophoblast of Hubrecht as merely another name for what they term “extra-embryonic epiblast.”  To use the latter term does not signify anything more than where in normal development the supposed portion of epiblast lies—i.e., beyond the embryo.  I do not agree with them that trophoblast is epiblastic (embryonic skin) in character, or that their description of it as “extra-embryonic epiblast” in any way defines it embryologically.  Their account is merely descriptive, and it gives no information whatever concerning the chemical, physical, or physiological characters of this “extra-embryonic epiblast” or trophoblast, which, quite unlike ordinary epiblast or embryonic skin, eats and erodes the maternal tissues.

          In very simple words I will now endeavour to summarize what is meant by the germinal origin and the asexual or trophoblastic nature of cancer.  To these shall be added brief accounts of the reasons advanced six years ago for employing “the secretion of that important digestive gland, the pancreas,” including the two ferments, trypsin and amylopsin, in the scientific treatment of cancer.  It is appropriate that this should be written down on January 20, 1911, the sixth anniversary of the scientific lecture in Liverpool, in which the more important of these reasons were first announced publicly.

19

 

 

 

          One of the most remarkable of the many brilliant things done by the illustrious French chemist, Louis Pasteur, was the giving of two public scientific lectures, in 1860, “On the Asymmetry of Naturally Occurring Organic Compounds,” which include the albumins, sugars, starches, etc., found or formed in animals or plants.  In a scientific instrument, known as a polarimeter, these compounds always rotate the plane of polarized light to the right or to the left.  Therefore, by chemists they are described briefly as dextro- or lævo- (d- or l-) compounds—for example, dextrose, or d-sugar, and lævulose or 1-sugar.  That is, as they occur in living nature, animals or plants, they are never “compensated mixtures” of both stereo-isomers—never, for instance, of dextrose, and lævulose—and in such “compensated mixtures” all rotation is absent, because the one compound twists the plane of polarized light as much to the right as the other does to the left.  When the chemist is able to manufacture any of these compounds in the laboratory, he has never been able to make the one compound, the 1- one, without an equal amount of the other, the d- one.  To get them separated he has had to employ expedients, such as fermentation by yeast, etc., when one of the two might be attacked and pulled down, but not the other.  The fact that all living organisms, whether animal or plant, manufacture or contain invariably only the one stereo-isomer, and not the other, has often been commented upon. Thus, by Professor W. J. Pope, who writes that while d-glucose (d- sugar) is a valuable foodstuff, we should be unable to digest its opposite or anithesis, 1-glucose, although they have the same chemical composition—that is, are isomers or stereo-isomers.  Humanity is, therefore, according to him, composed of dextro-men and dextro-women; and, putting his words, which will

20

 

 

 

be found in Chapter VI., in simpler language, just as we ourselves should probably starve if provided with food of organic compounds the opposites in light-rotation of those to which we are accustomed, so our opposites, the lævo-men, if they were to come among us now, when we have not yet succeeded in manufacturing the more important foodstuffs artificially, would find our food, even our bodies, not suitable for their nourishment.  That is, these foodstuffs would require to be changed, or “inverted.”  If we our-selves had to digest compensated mixtures, we should need a double digestive apparatus.  He supposes that in course of time the one set of compounds as articles of food has vanished.  If it were scientifically true, as well as “generally accepted,” that the fertilized egg gave rise directly to an embryo or individual, then one of the sets would have vanished from the nutrition of all higher animals.  Now, one of my discoveries has been that Pope’s hypothetical lævo-men do exist, and that they are represented by, among other things, the cancers.  In this way the second set of nutritive compounds has not vanished, but at its basis the antithesis of two sets of things—compounds of carbon, defined by Pasteur—is the same antithesis as that of two sets of living things, asexual and sexual respectively, discovered and in the researches of more than twenty years described by me as occurring in the cycle of life of a fish, a frog, or a man, etc.

          The fertilized egg, and any of the (primary) germ-cells which arise later on, possess the intrinsic property (potentiality) of developing in the one direction or the other; in the asexual, with the cleavage of the fertilized egg, when trophoblast first raises, as in every normal development; in the sexual, when a primary germ-cell, which itself is

21

 

 

 

derived ultimately from the fertilized egg, unfolds as an embryo or individual.  What I found was that Nature employed this peculiarity of the antithetic or opposite character of certain naturally occurring compounds, all containing carbon, and many of them also nitrogen, as the chemical basis of the cycle of animal life.  She did not attempt to unite both sets of the compounds, the 1- ones and the d- ones, in any one form, animal or plant; neither did she dispense with one of the sets.  Had she done either of these things, had she been able to do it, she would have carried out the “generally accepted” view of direct development, egg leading directly to embryo.  Then the egg would produce the hen, and the hen the egg, and so on ad infinitum.  On the contrary, in order to get back to the fertilized egg again, Nature had found it necessary to separate the “compensated mixtures” into their components, to use at one time the one set, made up of certain 1- and other d- compounds, and then to use the other set, made up of the opposite ones; that is, she swings the pendulum of life first in the one direction, and then in the other, and in this way brings it back again to the starting-point—the fertilized egg.

          As pointed out in Chapter VI., in connection with the account of Professor Pope’s lecture, by means of two generations, asexual and sexual, which alternate in the life-cycle from egg to egg.  Nature not only utilizes two of the apparent possibilities afforded by the existence of stereo-isomeric compounds, but also she is thereby enabled to bring round again and again the cycle of life to its starting-point.  Under the orthodox and “generally accepted” view of direct development these things have not been explained, but they have simply been ignored.  The like orthodox views have also, notoriously, been

22

 

 

 

impotent to elucidate cancer, and the reasons for this failure lie on the surface.

          Normally, in development, the fertilized egg, by forming trophoblast (asexual generation), swings the pendulum in the direction of dextro-albumins, lævo-starches, and 1- sugars, etc., and later the primary germ-cell, by unfolding as a sexual individual or embryo (sexual generation), in which new eggs or sperms arise, reverses the swing of the pendulum in the direction of the formation of lævo-albumins, dextro-sugars, d-starches, etc.  Abnormally, some primary germ-cell, originally destined to give rise to a twin identical with the individual harbouring it, either, ab origine, does this by producing a monstrosity, or a benign tumour—an “embryoma”—or, remaining latent, anon it swings the pendulum in the opposite direction, and produces a cancer, which is trophoblastic (asexual) in nature—that is, is the same product as would arise normally from a fertilized egg.  A cancer thus is not somatic, not embryonic, not “gametoid tissue” (Farmer, Moore, and Walker), not derived from an “embryonic rest” (Remak-Cohnheim), but it is trophoblast (asexual generation), the very antithesis or opposite of embryo or soma (sexual generation), embryologically and chemically.

          When Professor Pope spoke of dextro men and women, he would, in my opinion, have done better to have used the terms “lævo-men” and “lævo-women.”  For while the sugars and starches of our foodstuffs are d-compounds, the nitrogenous or albuminous constituents are 1-compounds.  This leads one also to point out to the non-chemical reader that the one generation—say the sexual one, man—does not use exclusively compounds of one rotation, 1- or d-ones, but these stereo-isomeric compounds form series, some of them being 1-compounds,

23

 

 

 

others d-compounds.  The like is true of the ferments, which certain of the albumins give rise to as modifications of themselves.  Trypsin is like the albumin from which it is derived lævo-rotatory; it converts d-starches into d-sugars, among other things, but not 1-ones, and thus not the 1-glycogen or animal starch of cancer.  It acts upon and pulls down certain d-compounds of cancer.  On the other hand, the proteolytic or albumin-attacking ferment of cancer is a dextro-rotatory body, like the (dextro-rotatory) of cancer, from which it is derived.  It attacks and pulls down, not the living dextro-totatory albumins of cancer, but the living lævo-rotatory albumins of the human body.

          The conception I have formed of one action of amylopsin in the enzyme treatment of cancer is briefly as follows: Acting upon the living d-albumins of cancer, trypsin pulls them down in the chemical scale a certain distance, but not into simple harmless products.  On the contrary, some of the products of its action are very poisonous, and to all appearance these are dextro-rotatory, like cancer albumin.  As compounds of this rotation they can be acted upon and reduced to simple harmless compounds by the ferment amylopsin, owing to its configuration, its lævo-rotatory character. †

          * For an opportunity of determining these facts concerning the rotations of trypsin and amylopsin I am indebted to Mr. P. W. Squire, London.  At my request he kindly sent me freshly prepared and strong solutions of both trypsin and amylopsin, as well as a bottle of the “menstruum” in which they were dissolved.  In my polarimeter the latter showed no rotation at all, while both tyrpsin and amylopsin were strong lævo-rotatory.

It was not my purpose to calculate their “specific rotations.”

          † The following natural question was recently put to the writer by a surgeon keenly interested in these matters:  “If

24

 

 

 

          The first and only reasons advanced by me publicly at Liverpool, now six years ago to the day, for the use of pancreatic ferments in cancer, were that at a certain period of development every normal embryo, or soma, or sexual individual, commenced to suppress the trophoblast or asexual generation of normal development.  This came to pass by the initiation of the functioning of the sweetbread or pancreas-gland, with its powerful ferments, the two chief of which are trypsin and amylopsin.

          Some imaginary relation of diabetes to cancer, or some suspected failure or “fault” on the part of the sweetbread or pancreas gland, had nothing at all to do with the reason—as little as had the discovery a little later on, by Blumenthal and Wolff, that trypsin easily digests

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­(continued from page 24 footnotes)

trypsin acts upon dextro-albumins, of what use is it in the ordinary adult body, seeing that the albumins of human food are lævo-albumins?”  No more than Nature does would I separate amylopsin in its action from trypsin, for, like Nature, we must associate the two ferments.  Trypsin and amylopsin, acting upon the dead lævo-albumins of our food-stuffs: Trypsin only pulls these down to a limited extent, converting them into substances capable of absorption, and on these amylopsin has no action.  These are built up again into living lævo-albumins by cell ferments in the body-cells.  Trypsin and amylopsin acting upon the living dextro-rotatory albumins of asexual generation or cancer: Trypsin at once attacks these, and pulls them down into quite other bodies than those which its forms from dead lævo-albumins.  These bodies, or some of them, are rank poisons to the human body, but, as they are further acted upon amylopsin, and by it pulled down into simple, harmless products, the two ferments, trypsin and amylopsin, acting here together, pull down the cancer-albumins, these products of the action of trypsin are chemically relatively highly organized and can be used as food by the cells of the body.  This not the case with the products, to which the action of trypsin and amylopsin on cancer-albumins, living or dead, gives rise.  He who doubts the truth of the above had better, before publishing his doubts, study the recent work of Professor Abderhalden and his pupils.

25

 

 

 

cancer cells (in the test-tube).  Nor have I ever held, as some have done, that because they supposed, erroneously, that trypsin had some action in “splitting up” glycogen or animal starch, that it “dissolved” glycogen, therefore it should be used in cancer cases.  From the start I wished all the ferments—trypsin, amylopsin, and steapsin—of the pancreas gland to be used in the injections employed.*  The import of trypsin was, of course, clear, for it was known, since the work of Corvisart and Kühne, to attack and pull down dead 1-albumins, and I anticipated—rightly, in spite of all the contradictions extant, which are false—that it would, and scientifically regarded must, pull down the living d-albumins of cancer or trophoblast. †  The special reasons for the employment of very potent injections of amylopsin, which normally converts starch into a d-sugar, termed “glucose,” came later on.  It was found that the injections first used, which were very deficient in amylopsin, being sometimes, indeed, almost chemically pure trypsin, produced after some six to eight weeks, according to the strengths employed, very bad symptoms.  These were first reported to me by French and Italian physicians, and I told them that, as this treatment followed the lines of what happened in a normal human gestation from the seventh week onwards, they

          * For evidence of this, reference need only be made to the following fact:   Early in 1906, when the London representative of a well-known firm of manufacturing chemists, specialist in the ferments, called upon me, I requested him to inform his firm that in my opinion the injections for use in cancer ought to contain all the ferments.

            The evidences of the truth of this will be found in the text under the description of the course of the York case.  The like facts wee also witnessed in the very similar course of the Naples case, and these scientific finds are confirmed up to the hilt by the facts concerning the “liquefaction of cancer” in the living human body, as detailed subsequently.

26

         

 

               

should treat these symptoms as they would the vomiting of pregnancy.  I then found that for this and for the covulsive illness sometimes happening in pregnancy, and known as “eclampsia,” there was no rational treatment extant in medicine.  So once again a new problem had to be solved embryologically.  It was, What induced these bad symptoms in pregnancy, leading up to eclampsia, and in cancer ending with the continued injected of trypsin, in something identical with eclampsia?  With continued improvements in the treatment, especially in the preparation of the injections, when put up scientifically, these bad symptoms do not now arise to anything like the extent that they die in 1906, for example.  They were, in an ascending sereies, nausea, vomiting, pain in the back, “sleeping in any position,” drowsiness, mental and physical torpor, high arterial tension, and albuminuria, culminating on occasion in convulsions, lasting several hours, with complete unconsciousness (coma).  Only one case of the latter (mentioned farther on) was ever reported to me.  It happened that there was an extensive experimental study of eclampsia in one of the German medical journals for 1905 by Professor Zweifel, as well as the report of a lecture by him in the Munich Medizinische Wochenschrift (February 13, 1906).  He concluded that eclampsia was due to sarco-lactic acid in the fœtal blood and placenta, but the conclusions appeared to rest upon thin ice, and there may well have been other substances.  Professor Zweifel’s name awakened recollections of a former discovery of his, to the effect that amylopsin was not produced in the human pancreas gland until some months after birth.  I had never before had occasion to consider the import of this fact embryologically, although I had worked over the whole course of gestation, studied its span, the cause of birth, the

27

 

 

 

milk nutrition, etc., from the standpoint of the embryologist.  Certain of my researches, published some ten years earlier, when applied to the problem, furnished the solution with ease.  One German medical man has described the following advocacy of amylopsin in cancer as “fantastic,” which is merely a pious “opinion,” not a scientific argument; but I am willing to admit that sometimes Nature may do things which to some people, like a certain King of Spain, may appear to be “fantastic.”  Whether it be a “fantastic” fact or not, genuine amylopsin always does its work in the scientific treatment of cancer.

          In the days of long ago, in our ancestry, as in that of all mammals, and as now happens in most marsupials, like the kangaroo, opossum, etc., birth took place at what I have termed the “critical period.”  This is the moment in development when the embryo is first complete in all its parts.  In a rabbit it is after some fifteen days out of a total gestation of thirty; in a human being in the seventh week of pregnancy, out of the total of nine months.  With birth at this period the milk-nutrition was initiated.  In this amylopsin is not of any use, and can be dispensed with.  When, as she did, Nature prolonged the gestation, in order to bring the young into the world in a more perfect form, she deferred in so doing more and more the start of the milk-nutrition.  In prolonging the gestation, she forgot, or omitted to introduce, amylopsin at an earlier period and not the “unconscious memory” remained that it was not needed until the milk-period had passed.  Consequently there is an absence of amylopsin during all fœtal life.  Usually the difficulties caused by this can be surmounted if the mother produce sufficient amylopsin, but from the seventh week of gestation pregnancy is a sorry business, owing to

28

This absence of amylopsin in the fœtus.  To this day, to my knowledge, such is the “conservatism” of the medical profession, amylopsin has not been employed as an injection in any case of threatened eclampsia.*  But in cancer it has for some years past been used along with trypsin, and it has never failed to perform its task of removing the bad symptoms.  The first case in which it was injected, in 1906, was that of a very distinguished artist and art-critic, who was suffering from an advanced cancer, recurrent after three operations.  I had previously told his physician—a London one of high standing—when, almost to the day, his patient would develop the bad symptoms.  The first intimation was in a friendly letter written from the patient’s club by himself, in the course of which he complained of being drowsy, and said finally that he could hardly hole his pen for this reason.  Then his physician wrote that the patient showed high arterial tension and albuninuria, and that he was about to inject amylopsin.  Under the influence of this ferment all the symptoms vanished in two days.  Had trypsin been as successful hitherto as amylopsin in its mission in the treatment of cancer, very many who are now dead would still be among us.

          How the term “tryspin treatment” came to find its

          *This is a very remarkable fact.  To many physicians of both sexes the writer has explained the scientific reasons for concluding that the source of eclampsia was to be sought and found in an absence or deficiency of amylopsin in the maternal blood, to be remedied, of course, by hypodermic or intramuscular injections of genuine amylopsin of 2,000 units of activity per cubic centimetre.  So far as he is aware, though more than one of these has expressed intentions of “trying” this scientific remedy, there is no single case of actual or threatened eclampsia, in which such injections were made.  Instead thereof, the barbarous remedy of stripping the capsules of the kidneys is still often resorted to, and only recently a new device has been sug-gested seriously—to wit, amputation of the breasts.

29

 

 

 

way into general use is still a mystery to me.  It was, I believe, first employed by an anonymous writer—still quite unknown to me—in the Daily Mail, somewhere about the end of January, 1906.  It caught on, and nothing I could do ever altered the name of the treatment.  But with certain other happenings this use of the term “trypsin treatment” was a disastrous occurrence.  Since early in 1906 I have always used the designation of “the pancreatic or enzyme treatment.”  An “enzyme” is another name for a ferment.  Again and again I have insisted upon the fact that a “trypsin treatment” of cancer was about the most deadly remedy which could be devised.  It is impossible to estimate how many treated cases all over the world have failed from toxæmia owing directly to this use of trypsin without abundant amylopsin.

          Particular attention may be directed to the following: The scientific treatment of cancer or malignant disease advocated by me is not, and it never was, a “trypsin treatment.”  From the days of its first annunciation—December 13,1904, and January 20,1905—it was meant to be of injections of “the secretion of that important digestive gland, the pancreas”—that is to say, of pancreatic ferments, including both trypsin and amylopsin.  I lay no claim what ever to have “discovered” such a scientific absurdity as “that tryspin dissolved glycogen”—as water also does—or the equally ridiculous one that it was a “property [of trypsin] without doubt of breaking up glycogen in living tissues” (The Hospital, January 26, 1907, p. 297).  I do not and have not, “suggested” the use of secretin, or erepsin, or enterokinase, alon with one or both of the pancreatic ferments mentioned above, just as little as that of soap or chian trupentine.  I deal in science, not in domestic commodities.  None of these

30

 

 

 

things are in conformity with the enzyme treatment of cancer.

          Moreover, it is not suggested in this book that the injection of 60,000 genuine tryptic units and 120,000 amylolytic units in the space of four months will cause any and every malignant tumour to shell out or encapsulate.  At times a cancer may shell out on less, as happened, for exaple, in the Naples case of inoperable cancer of the tongue.  In others, again, a much more vigorous treatment, for all I know, may be needed.  Thus, the case in which, to my knowledge, the greatest number of tryptic units was ever injected in a given time was one of multiple scarcoma.  In this case, in eight weeks, according to my calculations, 84,000 tryptic units, and only about 16,800 amylolytic units, of the strongest injections then on sale, wee given.  Several of the tumours did, indeed, disappear, but, so far as I am aware, the patient was not cured of sarcoma.  Attention may be directed to the comparatively small amount of amylopsin employed, and it is my suspicion that the case failed from toxæmia, due to this lack of amylopsin.  This case was treated in the early1907, and at that time the very great importance of large injections of amylopsin had not been recognized.  The trypsin injection used in this case of multiple sarcoma contained 500 tryptic and 100 amylolytic units per cubic centimetre or ampoule.  Owing to these facts, the course of treatment, doses, etc., cannot be compared with that adopted by Captain Lambelle which such conspicuous success.  At  all events, genuine trypsin was injected, and Dr. H.O.S. did not condemn the treatment.  If a malignant tumour posses an enzyme (ferment) totally different from that (trypsin) widely present, according to Vernon, in traces in normal tissues, surely that is a fact of supreme significance and import.  Since

31

 

 

 

1904 one of my main theses has been that, just as in normal development there was an antithesis or opposite character, of two generations—sexual and asexual respectively—so the like antithesis obtained, of necessity, in the ferments employed by these for their nutrition.  The ferments of the asexual generation or trophoblast were therefore the antitheses or opposites of the pancreatic ferments, trypsin and amylopsin; and as cancer was in nature asexual generation (trophoblast), so its ferments mush be identical with those employed by the trophoblast of normal development.  All life-processes take place through the action of ferments, and without these there would be no life, such as we know it.  It follows from this that the action of cancer ferments upon substances on which trypsin and amylopsin, or normal cell-ferments, will also act, cannot be the same as that of the latter; that is, the products of the fermentation must be different when used upon the same sub-stratum.  The proof of this, and the answer in the affirmative to the above question, has really been furnished quite recently by German scientific chemists.  In the paper by Professor Neuberg, already cited (p. 12), he writes that “Comprehensive investigations into unusual ferment phenomena of tumours have been made by E. Abderhalden, with P. Rona, A.H. Koelker, F. Medigreceanu, and L. Pincussohn.  They showed that often, but not constantly in human and animal tumours enzymes can be detected which split up polypeptids and peptones quicker than normal cell-ferments do.  In addition, it was established that extracts of caner (die Krebssäfte) split up polypeptids in entirely atypical fashion.  While, for example, normally cell-ferments hydrolize d-alanyl-glycyl-glycin to d-alanin and glycyl-glycyl, tumour fluid splits it into glycocoll and d-alanyl-glycin.  The pulling

32

 

 

 

down (Abbau) of cancer (carcinoma) takes place thus at quite other points (Stellen) of the animo-acid compounds that those at which all other peptolytic ferments attack.”  All this is in complete accord with the scientific foundations of the enzyme treatment of cancer, and it is exactly what one might expect under the view of the trophoblastic or asexual nature of cancer, advocated by me.  As Blumenthal urges, it alone, apart from all other considerations, is sufficient to refute and render untenable the “embryonic views,” such as the Remak-Cohnheim one.  Professor Abderhalden, in speaking of the foregoing finds, remarks that it is improbable that the atypical pulling-down of the silk peptone is accidental, and he describes the enzymes concerned in this al “atypical ferments of tumours.”  Again, Yosimoto found that the proteolytic autolysis (albuminous self-digestion) of cancerous liver was much increased over the normal, not only in the tumour portion, but in those free from tumour.  Neuberg, studying the like self-digestion of liver-cancer, discovered a characteristic produce—fiz., reducing pentose, which in the self-digestion of normal liver is not produced.

          In the Third (and latest) Report of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (1908) the word “ferment” occurs but twice in its 440 pages.  Dr. W. Cramer writes (p. 433): “The effect which a growing tumour produces on a normal organism* is a problem of nutrition similar to the growth of a fœtus in a pregnant animal.  It cannot be explained by attributing to a cancer-cell the formation of pathogenic substances of a hypothetical nature, such as a ‘cancer ferment,’ or a ‘cancer toxin.’”  The reader will not how this is rendered in the Introduction to the Report by the Editor: “Dr. Cramer’s paper shows how

          *A “normal position” is here understood to mean a rat inoculated with a malignant tumour.

33

 

 

 

precise bio-chemical methods can now be applied to the study of the growth of cancer, and brings new and exact information as to the nature of the relations existing between the tumour and the animal bearing it.  The effect which a growing tumour produces upon a normal organism is the problem of nutrition similar to the growth of a fœtus in a pregnant animal; it cannot be explained by assuming the formation of pathogenic ‘cancer ferments’ or ‘cancer toxins.’  In the foregoing the italics are mine, and they are introduced to draw attention to the method of citing the “new and exact information.”

          As demonstrating the exact opposite of this information, one may cite the following recent words of Blumenthal and Neuberg: “Moreover, we consider the question of the abnormal enzymatic (ferment) processes in tumours as completely cleared up, since it has also been answered in a positive sense by Abderhalden and his colleagues, working with quite other methods.”  The original German of this passage will be found in a short article by Blumenthal  and Neuberg on “Proteolytische Fermente der Krebszelle,” in 1909; also to the same author, in Zeitschr. F. Kresborchung, vol. X., 1910; and to Blumenthal, “Ergebnisse der Physiologie,” “Die chemische Vorgäange bei der Krebskrankeit,” pp. 363-428, 1910; separate edition of the memoir (Asher-Spiro, Berlin), 1910.

          In a review of Bainbridge’s report, the Lancet (October 9, 1909, p. 1079) states: “A  negative result of this kind has the great value we have indicated, in that the medical profession have before them chapter and verse

34

 

 

 

for their placing no faith in trypsin, and none in persons who persist in advocating its use by repeating stories of alleged ‘cures’ when, as a matter of fact, the patients referred to have been proved to have died from the disease.”  Scientifically, it is not necessary to do more than insist on the fallacy of lying any stress at all upon “a negative result,” and in the present instance this happens to be specially true, for “the medical profession,” if it were “placing faith” in the evidences furnished by Bainbridge’s  report, would find it now difficult, but impossible, to cite from it any real scientific grounds for this.  The “chapter” may be found easily, for the “scientific report” has been scattered broadcast, but the “verse” is a present blank.  In the chemical experiment the observer must satisfy, not only himself concerning his reagents, but also the requirements of science.

          As Bainbridge employed five different strengths of trypsin injections, of which the strongest is stated to have been six time the strength of the weakest, and as he furnished no particulars to show in which cases each of these injections had been employed, or the total number and sizes of the doses in a given time, the “chapter and verse” of his evidence can carry no sort of conviction to any logical mind.  The reference to patients “proved to have died from the disease” in the citation above is, of course, to the single case of Miss K. H., which has never once been cited by me as a “cure,” or even believed for a moment to have been “cured.”  This case (No. 7 of Bainbridge’s report) furnishes a far more useful and instructive object-lesson of the value of surgery in cancer than of trypsin and amylopsin.

          The following is the history of this case as give on pp. 20 and 21 of Bainbridge’s report: “Duration of disease previous to enzyme treatment: about three

35

 

 

 

years.  Previous treatment: removal of growth from left breast, June 4, 1904 (Dr. Edward W. Peet); radical operation refused.  About one year later thirty-two X-ray treatments (Dr. William J. Morton); trypsin, 5 to 10 minim doses, April 27, to October 31, 1906 (Dr. Morton).  Radical operation, November 3, 1906 (Bainbridge).  Removal of enlarge nodules and secondary deposits in skin, January 22, 1907 (Bainbridge).  Condition when enzyme treatment was begun: full enzyme treatment instituted twenty-four days after radical operation.  Recurrent, irremovable cancer of left side of chest and glands of neck; liver enlarge, probably cancerous; general condition poor.”  This is a fair sample of what surgically is understood by “a thorough, scientific test.”  According to the above the cancer of the breast had existed for not far short of three years, and the case had failed twice surgically before a real enzyme treatment was, as a last resort, undertaken.

          Dr. Morton’s treatment with 5 to 10 minims of “trypsin” thrice weekly during some six months in 1906 may be dismissed as no treatment at all.  I doubt whether with the strengths then on sale, which no endeavours of mine could persuade manufacturers to increase, the patient received in all more than one of the doses mentioned in this book—viz., 1,000 tryptic units.  According to Bainbridge’s report, and its author, as the surgeon concerned, perhaps knows the  facts better than any anonymous critic, the order of events was the very opposite of that usually assumed.  The knife failed twice before Bainbridge evoked the ferments.  There might, indeed, be some point, if little truth, in the statement here referred to, had the patient derived any benefit at all from “submission to the knife.”

          Looking back over the field of my researches since the

36

 

 

 

summer of 1888, twenty-three years ago, at various phases of the journey, it was all a lonely pilgrimage

“Towards the unknown region,

Where neither ground is for the feet,

Nor any path to follow.”

                                                                                                         WHITTIER

New problems, entailing fresh, patient labours, constantly arose, and the solutions of these brought, invariable, new surprise in their train.  The start of the work was the discovery of a transient nervous apparatus in the development of a fish; this was the one end of the slender thread.  Its unravelling was always intensely interesting and absorbing to the observer, and the thread went on, and on, and on, always continuously, unlike any other thread of research known to me in the whole history of embryology.  Then, at last, the other end came in sight, twenty-five years after the observer first began, in Semper’s old research institute in the ancient University of Würzburg, to learn from the master how research problems were to be approached, dealt with, and solved.  The story of this is told in Chapter VI.

          The first piece of work upon the thread occupied some five or six years; for that time was required to work out, night after night, and put together the results, which are recorded, with eight plates, in the memoir upon “The History of a Transient Nervous Apparatus” (1896).  This was clearly an asexual structure, the work upon it a prelude to the cancer investigations.  There are, indeed, published researches extant, such as Professor A. Goette’s immense monograph upon the development of a toad, Bombinator, which took a longer time; but, so far as I know the literature of embryology, there is no other embryological monograph which covers so long a period of development, or span of time, some seventeen

37

 

 

 

months, as this.  It is nearly twice the length of time of a human pregnancy from conception to birth.

          But this is not the place to write a history of a quarter of a century’s researches in embryology.  Suffice it to say that the chain of researches is now a complete one, every link has been tested, and no flaw discovered.  As one outcome of this systematic investigation, a single case of successful cure of malignant disease, quite apart from others recorded in the published literature, is brought before the whole work, and the invitation is give that any test of its truth be applied to it.  All the methods employed are published in full.  The remedies suggested and the modes of using them may be rejected or ignored; but the truth, if scientific truth have any place at all in this world, must be admitted.  The facts are: that in a case of malignant disease, termed by the pathologists a “round-celled sarcoma”—named by me, scientifically, irresponsible trophoblast or asexual generation—which was recurrent and inoperable after two extensive surgical operations upon it; the remains of the tumour, under the influence of the all-powerful ferments, trypsin and amylopsin, finally shelled out, leaving the patient free from all trace of malignant disease, and, in fact, “cured.”  I ask that these scientific fact, which cannot be denied, be admitted, and that with this the tardy acknowledgment be made, that when, on January 20,1905, a scientific man, whose sole object was the revelation of the truths of Nature, stated publicly that “in the secretion of that important digestive gland, the pancreas,” Nature had provided a potent remedy for cancer: what he then said was nothing more than scientific truth, which is the greatest of all truth.

          This, Nature’s remedy, may be taken or left; but the truth may be denied no longer.  It is beyond my power

38

 

 

 

to prevent mankind, in happy ignorance of what the cycle of life really is, from awaiting some other solution of the problems.  In doing this futile thing mankind may watch, and hope, and pray, until the crack of doom; but all in vain.  Even if the scientific solution were to dawn upon official research, it could—in this universe, at all events, and as it is constituted—be none other than that offered by Nature!  No denial can any longer have the smallest value against the supreme truth, that when properly—that is scientifically-applied, the pancreatic ferments, trypsin and amylopsin, being the most powder things in the whole range of organic nature, are efficacious agents against cancer.

          At the present time science and scientific research are not things to be made light of, to be scoffed at and jeered at in the market-place, or to be ignored.  With the publication of the facts contained in this book, the responsibility is shifted to other shoulders than those of the scientific observer.  All I ask is, that these truths of Nature, which she has given as a revelation of boundless and priceless import to a world which was not ready for them—that these shall not be denied, but be received reverently as what they are—true facts of Nature.  Cancer is a natural phenomenon, not a disease; although it may bring disease in its train.  Its treatment—that of a natural phenomenon—has been committed legally, logically, rationally, and scientifically not to the hands of the scientific observer, who has discovered its origin and nature.  It is the business of the scientific observer, not that of the medical man or surgeon, to study and elucidate natural phenomena.  Let the truth be acknowledged

39

 

 

 

for its own sake.  As the writer is “not even a medical practitioner,” the adoption of the treatment in all or any cases of cancer is not compulsory; but it may not for a moment be imagined that scientifically it is intended to make good the failures of surgery.*

          The statement made in this book that cancer is a natural phenomenon, not a disease is unassailable.  It rests upon scientific evidences, which are impregnable against all attacks; but it may be questioned whether civilized mankind as a whole has any real conceptions of the nature of natural phenomena in general.  Some are beneficent.  The sun rises, and its heat and light render this earth habitable to man.  Owing to natural phenomena, the seasons return in orderly fashion, bringing, among other things, spring, with its fresh, new green; summer, with its wealth of flower; and autumn, with its harvest of fruit and grain.  Other natural phenomenon are maleficent—malignant.  The volcano, also a natural phenomenon, has in the past buried or destroyed countless cities; and even in our own day this has happened.  Some naturalists have been of opinion that the fossil remains of innumerable animals, now extinct—often found in great multitudes heaped together-owed their present existence, as imperfect records of past events, to catastrophes which were also

          *While for the sake of humanity the enzyme treatment may be refused to no case of cancer, recurrent after one or more operation, if such cases fail, from the point of view of pure science, they may not be regarded and cited as “test cases”; for in them there always lies the possible source of error of experiment of previous operative interference.  With a positive result, as in the York case, such a case becomes, on the other hand, a test one of the severest description; for in it success has been obtained, in spite of the existence of the possible source of error.

40

 

 

natural phenomena.  Last, cancer, with all its malignancy—a thing which laughs to scorn the impotence of the surgeon’s knife, which yearly claims its thousands upon thousands of human victims *--is at its scientific basis only a maleficent natural phenomenon, such as these.  We come into being and exist as human beings because of beneficent natural phenomena, and as human beings we continue, for a span of time, to subsist, in spite of maleficent natural phenomena.  The course of some natural phenomena is unalterable by human agency; others, again, by a knowledge of the working of Nature, of science, can have their maleficent action stemmed and averted; and, as a scientific man, I affirm that cancer belongs to the category of these.

          To those, surgeons and others, who have not, like the writer, foolishly devoted their lives to scientific research and experiment, but wisely to more mundane pursuits—such as the acquirement of wealth—let the following warnings be uttered: “If you wish to set up what you term ‘test cases,’ pray let them be such as shall fulfil in every way the requirements of science.  Do not vitiate your experiments from the very start, as has happened, by choosing some 66 per cent. Of the cases, in which there lay the pernicious ‘error of experiment’ of previous surgical operation, once or several times over.  Remember also that if your cases be chosen rightly—that is, scientifically—even then there remain the reagents employed, and how used.  Do not forget that in this, as in every scientific chemical experiment, the observer must not only satisfy himself regarding his reagents, but be prepared,

          *On the basis of the present population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (45,000,000), the tribute exacted by malignant disease in a single century would be not less than 3,875,000 human lives, or over 100 daily; for India 27 millions.

41

 

 

 

if called upon to do so, to produce scientific evidences concerning their nature and composition.*  Above all, do not for a moment imagine that you ‘have tried trypsin in cancer, and have found it useless,’ when to all intents and purposes you might just as well have been testing the effects of a solution of glycerine and water.  Do not think it is ‘science’ to perform mere elementary qualitative experiments upon your injections, showing that they have some action upon starch and upon white of egg.  Lastly, under the erroneous idea that it thereby makes the thing a scientific document, do not publish any account of your negative experiments with trypsin and amylopsin with the sub-title, “A Scientific Report,’ unless the document in question fulfil, like my scientific memoirs and like this book, in all  respects the requirements of science.”

          The greatest exaction of science is truth.  This is why the expression, “scientific truth,” is so far-reaching and invincible.  In the opening passages of this Introduction two points were referred to, and to them at its close I return.  “There is,” said Tyndall, in somewhat different words, “in the true scientific man a desire far greater than to have his conclusions ‘generally accepted’: it is the ardent wish to see them verified in fact.” Again, it was pointed out that the problems of the origin, nature, etc., of cancer formed but a special case, a side-issue, of the application of a general principle.  This general principle, revealed by my researches of more than twenty years, was of an antithetic alternation of generations with a continuity of germ-cells from generation to generation as the basis of the cycle of life.  This, the law of animal development, waw what during many years of research Carl Ernst von Baer groped for, but in vain.  In this

          *Apparently this rule of science has no applications in official cancer research.

42

 

 

 

connection a confession on p. 451 of von Baer’s “Autobiography” (second edition, 1886) is of great interest.  Here, in a review of his own published embryological researches, he writes: “Und der Generations-Weschsel schleuderte mich ganz zurück” (And the alternation of generations threw me right back).  As the reader will find a subsequent chapter, there are grounds for supposing that the like difficulties connected with alternation of generations interfered with the researches of another great embryologist, Johannes Müller.  It required, in fact, the later botanical investigations of Hofmeister and others to furnish a new basis for attacking this fundamental problem of alternation of generations in animals.  Sixty years after von Baer published his investigations I began mine—in the summer of 1888.  These researches certainly lasted far longer than his, and their completion only came nearly twenty years later, with the final overthrow and rout of cancer.  This latter, including the physical fact of the actual liquefaction of living cancer in the living human body, and embracing the true cure of malignant disease in the single case—a test one for all time—of Lambelle’s ex-drummer in York has a far wider import and deeper bearing than its applications in medicine, and for the welfare of humanity.  The scientific investigator is bound, on occasion, to divest himself of his humanity, and to look at his problems and their solutions in cold-blooded fashion.  He must draw the conclusions, even though the heavens fall.  This I shall now proceed to do in brief, reserving a fuller treatment for some other place and occasion.

          For the past century, to go no farther back innumerable attempts have been made—all in vain—to solve the problems of cancer, or malignant disease.  In Dr. Jacob Wolff’s monumental work, “Die Lehre

43

 

 

 

von der Krebskrankheir,” vol. i., the list of investigators given includes more than a thousand names—to be exact 1,004.  Why, of these, did 1,003 fail, and but a single on succeed?  The answer to this is not far to seek, and, indeed, it is contained in the true solution which is detailed in the following pages.  All scientific research, to be successful in the end and enduring, must start in correct principles, or, at any rate, not in false ones.  Until in recent years a practical embryologist of long-working experience applied the general principle of an antithetic alternation of generations to the problem of cancer, it had always been attacked from the standpoints of three embryological dogmas, which have this in common—that they are false, though “generally accepted.”  These are epigenesis, or direct building-up of the embryo from the products of the fertilized egg (Harvey and Wolff); somatic origin of germ-cells, as “chips” of the “old block”  (Huxley); and recapitulation in development,  as maintained by Haeckel and his followers.  If these doctrines, which are pretty “generally accepted,” were true, if they contained a particle of truth, the solutions of the problems of cancer would follow inevitably out of them.  If they were false, as they are, their applications to cancer could but lead to failure, and this has been the case.  Years ago, as opposed to these dogmas and as scientifically true, I set up, on grounds of observation, the three doctrines of evolution with predestination (Weismann anticipating me in this), a morphological continuity of germ-cells, and an antithetic alternation of generations.

          This trilogy of doctrines is in reality one and indivisible.  If this trilogy were scientifically correct, its application to the problems of cancer must end in their resolution, and this has, in fact, happened.  It would not have

44

 

 

taken place under any constitution of the visible universe other than the one which includes this general principle of an antithetic alternation of generations as the basis of the cycle of life of animals and plants.  It would have been lacking, were this general principle untrue, had my researches since 1888 been false as well as “heterodox.”  Were direct development or epigenesis, somatic origin of germ-cells, etc.  Nature’s method, cancer would not, could not, have been liquefied by injections of pancreatic ferments in London, New York, Berlin, and York; no malignant tumours at all would have disappeared under the influence of injections of pancreatic ferments; and Lambelle’s ex-pensioned drummer would long ago have perished miserably from the ravages of malignant disease, as countless other cases still do every day, week, and year all over this earth.  It follows that the current dogmas of direct development or epigenesis, set up in the eighteenth century by the researches of Harvey and Caspar Friedrich Wolff, somatic origin of germ-cells, and recapitulation in development which are taught in all, or almost all, the Universities of the civilized world, and which are supposed to underlie the sciences of embryology, zoology, and anatomy, not to mention physiology and pathology, etc.—that these are false, even though they be “orthodox.”  Therefore, the general principle of an antithetic alternation of generations has not only resulted in the overthrow and rout of cancer, but its decisive success in this has demonstrated how necessary it is, in the interest of truth itself, that without further delay—unless scientific truth have ceased to be a requirement of science—the scientific house be put in order, the false dogmas be cast out and rejected as worthless, and the Golden Rule of an antithetic alternation of generations be set up as a fundamental scientific general principle of the sciences of

45

 

 

 

life—embryology, biology, etc.  Orthodoxy will not in science render false doctrines true, and Tyndall’s words become a mere mockery and delusion unless they apply to the embryologist and biologist, as well as to the physicist and chemist.

          Twenty years ago my general principle—an antithetic alternation of generations with a continuity of germ-cells from generation to generation as the basis of the cycle of life—was almost within my grasp; that is, had almost been established by facts of observation.  After a few more years of patient research this was so—at last.  Those, and those only, who know and appreciate the history of the growth of human scientific knowledge—“The Growth of Truth” (Osler) can realize the true import of this.  Two of the greatest scientific investigators of the nineteenth century were Hermann von Helmholtz and Louis Pasteur.  As investigator they were incomparable, beyond comparison with others or with each other.  What the latter thought about general principles in scientific research is cited, else in this book, and it may be found in full in his live, “La Vie de Pasteur,” written by Vallery-Radot.  The illustrious physicist and physiologist, Hermann von Helmholtz, wrote his view in the following beautiful lines: “When, from a correct general principle, one develops the conclusions in special case of its application, new surprises, for which one was not previously prepared, always make their appearance.  And since the conclusions unfold, not according to the author’s caprice, but after their own laws, it has been made the impression upon me that really it was not my own work which I wrote down, but merely the work of another.”*

          * “Wenn man aus einem richtigen Allgemeinen Principe die Folgerungen in den einzelnen Fällen seiner Anwendung  für sich entwickelt, so kommen immer neue Überraschungen zum Vor-

46

 

 

 

          The general principle of an antithetic alternation of generations has now been applied to the special case of the natural phenomenon knows as “cancer,” or “malignant disease.”  Even though this had been in the York case alone, at the hands of Captain Lambelle, it has proved itself to be capable of solving the enigmas of cancer, of explaining it scientifically, and of coping with it successfully.  Not only so, but in the sequel it has turned out—and it is no accident—that at its basis this general principle merges into a certain other one, laid bare by the researches of “Pasteur, van t’Hoff, and Le Bel.  This, which relates to the asymmetry of naturally occurring organic compounds, rests upon a foundation-stone of the visible universe, the asymmetrical carbon atom.  It is this which is the true and only scientific basis of the science of stereo-chemistry, and, as my researches have shown for all time, of the sciences of life, embryology and biology.  The problems of cancer were vulnerable along two different lines of attack—embryology and stereo-chemistry.  While official cancer research has failed hitherto to follow up either line of attack, the writer, in his private cancer studies, has developed both of these—the only possible points of attack—and along both the “divisions” and “brigades” have achieved the complete overthrow and decisive rout of Cancer.

(footnotes from page 46)

schein, auf die man vorher nicht gefasst war.  Und da sich die Folgerungen nicht nach der Willkür des Autor, sondern nach ihren eigenen Gesetze entwickeln, so hat es mir oft den Eindruck gemacht, als wäre es gar nicht meine eigene Arbeit, die ich niederschreibe, sondern als ob ich nur die Arbeit eines Anderen neiderschriebe” (From a letter written to Sir William Thomson [Lord Kelvin] in 1860).

47

 

PART 1

 

THE PROBLEMS OF CANCER

 

CHAPTER 1

 

EMBRYOLOGICAL ASPECTS AND ETIOLOGY OF CARCINOMA*

 

At a time when so much is being attempted in the investigation of the problem of the nature of cancer, it may appear presumptuous on the part of an embryologist to express opinions and conclusions regarding this grave question.  It has long been a subject of earnest research by physicians and pathologists, who naturally are familiar with actual facts and finds concerning carcinoma, foreign to the embryologist.  But hitherto the physician and the surgeon, the pathologist and the gynæcologist, have failed utterly to establish anything concerning the etiology of cancer, and without the intervention of the embryologist success may be as distant in the future as in the past.

          As indicated by the above title, the present chapter is intended to deal with aspects of carcinoma as they strike an embryologist, and not every embryologist, but one particular investigator.  At the outset it may be asked, “Is the etiology of carcinoma an embryological problem?”  As the thing itself and its manifestations demonstrably fall within the province of the surgeon and the pathologist, for it confronts them almost daily, it is possibly not

          *The Lancet, June 21, 1902.

48

 

 

 

very clear why the problem of the nature of cancer should be an embryological one at all.  It is a disease carrying with it death and destruction.  On the other hand, the problems of the embryologist, as generally understood, treat not of disease, but of the blossoming-forth of life itself—of the phenomena which culminate in the appearance of new living beings.  Death and decay would seem to be things of which, from his researches, the embryologist might be expected to obtain no practical knowledge.  He is supposed to be concerned with “das Werden,” while das Vergehen” is beyond the scope of his researches.  Would that it were so!  Unless he shut his eyes to plain facts, “das Vergehen” in the midst of das Werden”—death in budding life itself—is continually before him.

          The conviction impressed upon the writer’s mind from many years devoted to the study of the mode of the development of the higher animals, the vertebrata, is that everywhere and at any point atrophy and death and degeneration of cell, of organs, of organism, of embryos themselves, are among the commonest phenomena under the eyes of the embryologist.  His textbooks, even his published researches, may be silent of these; for, as a rule, he believes himself to be concerned solely with the coming-into-being; and the opposite aspect, the decline of life, he leaves severely alone.  It is not, in his tacit opinion, a theme of the science of embryology.  This view of the problems of the science has for many years failed to commend itself to the writer, and in his own researches he has endeavoured to take account of everything happening and capable of being observed during the developmental cycle, whether progressive or retrogressive.

49

 

 

 

          The manifestations of life present themselves under the headings of either form and structure, or function.   Embryological research deals largely with form and structure, or, more exactly, with the coming about of these.  And as, according to the testimony of pathologist, cancer, when it appears, is something new to the organism,--a neoplasm, a foreign thing, not growing and functioning after the manner of the individual containing it, increasing by cell-division after unknown laws, which appear to defy all law, carrying with it widespread eroding destruction, only comparable to that dealt out by some parasites—the phenomena of cancer would have analogies at least to many such lying within the domain of the embryologist.  Cancer is something with a beginning; it increases like a developing embryonic germ by cell-division; it invades territory at first foreign to it, and it differs only from a parasitic organism in the fact that its mode of reproduction is what may be defined as asexual.  And thus, while as a rule its cycle is limited to the individual harbouring it, carcinoma is something with for itself an indefinite life-cycle, which is only bounded by the life of its host, but which cannot be carried directly over, by germs or fertilized gametes, to another organism.*  That the resemblance between the life-cycle of a cancer and that of a higher animal should be incomplete is natural; for the former is an abnormal product, and it is in the nature of such to differ in some or other important details from the typical or normal.

          The problem of the nature of cancer has long been before the writer in his investigations; in fact, ever since

         

*It has, however, been shown by Hanau and Wehr to be possible to transplant cancer from one individual—e.g., the dog—to another.

          50

 

 

 

he learnt, from the researches of Welms* and other, that it had been encountered occasionally along with those curious tumours, the “dermoid cysts” of ovary or testis—the “embryomata,” or rudimentary embryos of Wilms.  The latter speaks of this occasional connection † of the two—it had in 1902, according to Wilms, been observed some nine times—as a remarkable fact (p. 86), in that, in an organism of one or two years of age, the development of carcinoma can happen.  As this relates to the presumed age of the embryoma, and not to that of the individual harbouring the latter, the validity of the conclusion is not apparent.  On his part the writer must reject it.  For the past two year, from time to time, in researches upon the germ-cells, observations have been made which appeared to have bearings upon the nature of carcinoma. ‡  This period may not seem  a long one; but beyond it life the investigations of other twelve years, without which the standpoint of to-day would be an impossibility.  If, therefore, no study of cancers underlie the present chapter, the approach of the problem is not a sudden one; but it as been preceded by prolonged observation, and, moreover, animal life is the same whether it be that of a hyroid polype upon a shell of the seashore, or that of a cancer within an individual of the human race.

          The immediate cause of the present writing was as follows:  In a recent paper, dealing with the understudy theory of heredity, in an altogether different connection,

         

* Wilms, Max, “Über die Dermoidcysten und Teratome,” etc. in Deutsches Archiv f. klin. Med., v. 55,1895, pp. 1-108, Pl. 3; also Martin, “die Krankheiten des Eierstockes,” etc., Leppzic, 1899, pp. 576-614.

            † Chorio-epithelioma, even in the male, and usually in the testis, has, of recent years, turned out to be not uncommon.

            ‡ Some years ago, at Liverpool, Mr. H. J. Styles, F.R.C.S., published figures of all the supposed “cancer-parasites,” and showed what they really wee.  All of these have been seen by the writer in degenerating germ-cells of development.

51

 

a few comments had been written down upon the mode of growth exhibited by certain organisms, and a comparison drawn between this and the pernicious growth of the human chorion in certain cases.* And it was not until long after the proof had been returned that it was seen how in this comparison the key to the problem of the nature of cancer had been given away. If the pernicious growth of the chorion be really carcinomatous-and it is recognizedas such by pathologists under the names of malignant placentoma, deciduoma, chorio-epithelioma or destructive placental polyp‡-the nature of cancer is clear as the light of day. And it has seemed desirable to offer the present essay, in order that at least a warning note might thereby be uttered, and an earnest attempt made to point to the futility of investigation in the direction of a cul-de-sac, such as the probable one of cancer, as due t o unicellular organisms.

          In the following, the facts concerning carcinoma, as

 

          *The passage in question is as follows : “It should be mentioned that De Vries and Weisman have already notedthe resemblance in mode of growth between the flowering plant and the colonial hydrozoa. Many of the latter also possess the indefinite unrestricted power of growth so characteristic of the aporophyte of the higher plants. As a rule the asexual generations of the higher animals do not exhibit this faculty. They rarely obtain a chance of showing it, for it is their usual fate to undergo early suppression by the sexual generation. When, as happens sometimes in cases of abortion in the human subject, the embryo is got rid of prior to the critical period, or at any rate, before the asexual generation has here been suppressed, the latter may go on growing indefinitely if left in the uterus. I refer, of course, to the unrestricted and pernicious growth of the chorion, when left in the womb after an abortion.” (Transactions of the Botanical Society, Edinburgh, 1902, pp. 140-141).

† The carcinomatous character of the pernicious growth of the chorion was first clearly recognized by Professor F. Marchand in 1895.

‡ Ziegler, Ernst, Allgemeine Pathologie, v.11, p. 488 10 Aufl, 1901.

52

 

 

established by pathological research, such as those given in the latest edition of Ziegler’s “Pathologie,” will be taken for granted. It will be assumed that at the basis there is morphologically but one form of cancer, no matter how different it may appear to be in diverse localities.

          A cancer of the skin is naturally different from one of the uterus or liver, for it grows and increases under other conditions. Ziegler, for one, adduces reasons against the supposed origin of cancer from some effects of unicellular organisms, and to his objections something more can be added. It is not in the nature of parasitic maladies to lead to cellular increase, such as is characteristic of cancer ; and, while the phenomena of destruction possibly present themselves prominently to the surgeon and the pathologist, those of indefinite unrestricted cellular increase and multiplication most impress the embryologist. And if the nature of cancer to be brought out in the course of the following be the true one, any further one is a superfluity.

          The conclusions are based chiefly, but not entirely, upon researches in Elasmobranch fishes,* and to any but vertebrate embryologists there might appear to be no warrant for applying results obtained in animals so low down in the scale to man himself. But the broad outlines, the laws, and even most of the details of the development, are the same in man as I the fishes, and the life-cycle of the former can be interpreted in terms of that of the latter. The starting-point goes back more than two years to the beginning of researches upon germ-cells, and with these to the earlier work of Wilms upon the embryolomata. The results of the work, and of previous necessary

             

            * Also upon researches in mammalian development, especially upon the trophoblast (larva or phorozoon, asexual generation), allantoic placenta, critical period, and span of gestation.

53

 

inquiries , dating as long ago as 1888 cannot be given at all in detail here. A general survey of the chief conclusions will be found in “Heredity and the Epicycle of he Germ-Cells.”* The nature of cancer is really known, but not recognized. Failure to perceive the true nature of carcinoma has hitherto been due to one simple fact : the views generally-universally- held regarding the course of the cycle of development from egg to egg are erroneous.

          Were an embryologist of to-day asked what in outline was the cycle of development in one of the higher forms-say a fish, chick or mammal- he would probably be amazed at the question. “The hen lays the egg, the latter gives birth to a new hen,” and so, as Kleinenberg once remarked of something else, under the eyes of the delighted and astonished spectator, the cycle is completed. This supposed cycle has never really been witnessed, for the very good reason that it does not exist. The hen neither produces the egg, nor is it the chief, nor even the immediate task of the latter to give rise to a new hen. As the establishment of this and of the true life-cycle have filled in the working hours of the writer during many years, it may be obvious that the production of the evidences must be beyond the limits of this book. Indeed, no attempt will be made to prove here what the true life-cycle is, and wherein its details lie ; the results of previous work will be assumed, and for fuller information the reader may be referred to the original memoirs.

          In the higher animals-the Metazoa-what is termed “direct development” does not, and cannot exist. It has been found that the cycle of animal development, even of the highest forms, resembles very closely that of

            * Biologisches Centralblatt, 1902, vol. xxii., pp. 321-328, 353-360, and 398-408.

54

 

a fern or a flowering plant. In the line from the egg to the egg there are two generations-an asexual form, and one, which, as it is the bearer of sexual organs, is spoken of as the sexual generation. Under prevailing views of development the line of ancestry from generation to generation is exceedingly simple-too simple, indeed, to explain the facts ; so simple that Nature could not adopt it in practice, were she to make the trial. It may be represented thus : eggembryo or sexual generationeggembryo, etc., the egg producing the embryo ; the latter, when mature, forming from its own tissues new eggs. This is undoubtedly, one of the most impossible conceptions which ever formed part of a science. [emphasis added by DHD Sr] The amended cycle of development and the course of heredity are as follow : eggtrophoblast (phorozoon or bearing animal, asexual generation) primitive germ-cellprimary germ-cellssecondary germ-cellsgametes, eggs or spermsfertilized egg.* In the line of ancestry, as given here, a line which, apart from the asexual generation, is one of unicellular organisms, the embryo finds no place. It arises from one of the primary germ-cells, whose number is always a definite one-2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.-and the rest enter the embryonic body to form its sexual products. A more detailed account of this cycle will be found in “Heredity and the Epicycle of the Germ-Cells.” The four important items in the cycle are : (1) The gametes, egg and sperm, by whose union, to form a zygote, a new cyle is initiated ; (2) the first product of the zygote, the phorozoon, trophoblast, or asexual generation ; (3) the primary germ-cells, destined for future generations ; and (4), only important to enable the completion of the cycle, the embryo or sexual generation.

          Any and every primary germ-cell, if it develop or unfold

           

* See Fig. 5, Chapter V.

55

         

 

as such, normally gives birth to an embryo, and as elsewhere indicated, the embryomata of Wilms arise, and must do so, from such primary germ-cells. This unfolding of a primary germ-cell is equivalent to its landing in a cul-de-sac ; its powers of growth and increase and its life are thereby limited. The contrast between this and the larva or asexual generation in these respects is very striking. The latter, like the corresponding generation in plants, often possesses indefinite unrestricted powers of growth in an apical fashion.* In many animals there is only one apical region of growth in the asexual generation ; in the hydroid polypes there may be many such, and Weismann and De Vries have already noted their powers of indefinite unrestricted  growth. That which brings to a sharp and sudden close the growth of the asexual generation, if there be but one growing point, is the cutting off

 

* Of great, but hitherto unrecognized, importance in this direction, are certain results of experimental embryology-such as those of Driesch, Morgan, and others, upon echinoderma, and of E.B. Wilson and others upon Amphiosus, ETC. (For a full account see E.B. Wilson’s “The Cell,” second edition, 1900 ; or Korshelt und Heider, “Lehrbuch der vergleichende Entwicklungsgeschichte, Allemeiner Teil,” Jena, Gustav Fischer, 1902 ; or J.W. Jenkinson, “Experimental Embryology,” Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1909). Space does not permit of a description and discussion of these experiments. The general result is, that in certain animals, if the cells of the early cleavage of the egg be separated, each of them will give rise to a diminutive larva, the size of this varying directly with the size of the original blastomere. These minute larva are often, but erroneously, spoken of as “embryos.” Though they may go on living for a considerable time, no case is known in which an embryo with sexual organs arises upon such a larva, as would of course, happen in a normal development. Allied to this latter circumstance is the fact that the in vertebrate larva obtained by embryologists by artificial  fecundation, never give rise to the sexual form, no matter how long they may be kept living in the laboratory. The writer has reared Echinus (sea-urchin) larva for fifteen days without the formation of a sea-urchin upon any of them. Many other similar facts could be mentioned.

 

56

 

 

of this from the organism, its conversion into a primitive germ-cell, and the consequent formation of primary germ-cells from this. Normally, as already stated, the further development of a primary germ-cell results in an embryo, not in a larva (asexual generation). 

          Coming now to the primary germ-cells, upon which many observations have been made, it has elsewhere been established that their number is always a member of the geometrical series : 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc., or 2 to the nth power where n is one of the numerals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc., and that the greatest number of primary germ-cells in any embryo will be 2n-1. Thus the total number in the common dog-fish (Scyllium Cannicula) is 128 ; in the male smooth skate (Raja Batis), 256 : in the female, 512 ; and the greatest number in the embryo of one of these 127 (in Scyllium), 255 (in the male skate), and 511 (in the female skate). But for convenience and brevity, dealing with one form only- say, the dog-fish (Pristiurus)-of the 127 primary germ-cells, it never happens that all, or anything like that, reach the normal position-the germinal ridge or nidus. Usually, at the most from 90 to 100 of them arrive here, the remainder being found in all sorts of unusual places, where many of them degenerate.

          Here may be inserted a very brief account of some unpublished finds, which for this reason have escaped the attentions of some observers intent upon “annexation.” Some ten years ago my observations proved to me that in certain dog-fishes (Scyllium and Pristiuris)

The single ovary of the adult female arose by the degeneration during development of the left embryonic ovary and the persistence of the right one. There were at the time many indications-even strong evidences-that the find in the female skate of twice as many primary germ-cells as in the male was a general rule for the back-boned

 

57

 

 

animals or vertebrates. But the numbers appeared to work out to the same (about 128) in both (potentially) male and female embryos of the above two dog-fishes. I was sure in my own mind that the real number in potentially female embryos of each was not 128, but 256. This was the position when, in 1903, the writer was compelled to lay aside his germ-cell researches, in order to undertake a campaign against cancer. Owing to this, the publication of the series of germ-cell memoirs was interrupted, for no time could be found to extend the tedious countings of germ-cells in embryos of these two dog-fishes. This task was afterwards undertaken on my material by an able amateur  microscopist-my friend W. T. Haydon, an engineer of Liverpool. His finds showed clearly that my suspicions were well founded, for it turned out that in these fishes, as in the skate, the approximate number of primary germ-cells in potential female embryos was at one time in the development double that in the male. Later on the numbers became equal in the two sexes, owing to this degeneration of one of the ovaries.

          The number of Elasmobranch embryos hitherto examined is several hundred, belonging to different species, and in all these under a certain age no single embryo has been seen, in which all the germ-cells present might be described as normally  placed. The percentage of vagrant germ-cells varies ; it is usually from 10 to 12 per cent. In Pristiuris, and from 25 to 30 per cent. In Raja Batis. The places where these occur are numerous : in the body cavity, upon the splanchnic (gut) mesoblast, on the subintestinal veins, in kidney tubules, in the pericardium, in the liver, in the skin, in any part of the gut epithelium, especially in the rectum, rarely in the head or gill region, and practically always there are some in the immediate

58

 

neighborhood of the stomach in connection with the yolk-stalk. Undoubtedly, many of these germ-cells degenerate, and few, if any, of the vagrant ones, after a certain early period, ever find their way to the germinal nidus. The embryomata of Wilms are to be regarded as products of such vagrant or of persistent (in ovary or testis) primary germ-cells. But-and this is remarkable-very many such vagrant germ-cell occur in places where embryomata are not usually encountered : thus, in the immediate neighborhood of the stomach, in the liver, in or under the skin and in the rectum. In nearly every embryo one of more germ-cells may be found in the yolk-stalk, in the immediate neighborhood of the pylorus, and also in the rectal epithelium.

          It may be therefore suspected that if the germ-cells of many of these places-e.g., liver, pylorus, rectum, etc.-ever do develop, they must give rise to some product not of the nature of an embryo, not an “embryoma.” It is not without interest that the common situations for the origin of cancer are the very ones in which vagrant germ cells are usually met with : thus, in the rectum, near the pylorus (yolk stalk), other parts of the gut, in the kidneys, in the skin, etc. Apparently, cancer of the tongue, of the oesophagus, of the larynx, and of the mammary gland, at first glance form exceptions, but this is not really so. Tongue, esophagus, and larynx are products in the higher forms of a rebuilding of the gill region ; oesophagus and mammary glands are closely associated with the pericardium, where vagrant germ-cells (and at times embryomatat as products of these) are often found. That cancer should arise in what embryologically are holes and corners-places where layers and folds come together, as in tongue and larynx-is readily explicable. Such vagrant germ-cells are intruders in the situations

59

 

originally taken up by them, and it has often been noted how they would appear to be hustled about from pillar to post, when in the way, until they land in some corner or other. Normally, if the paradox be allowable, the development of such a vagrant germ-cell should result in a more or less complete twin-embryo ; but any gradation of this down to a very rudimentary embryo may be found in practice. Figured in Ziegler’s “Pathologie” may be seen all sorts of steps, from complete identical twins, only abnormal in being united at some point, through those more completely united, to others forming more or less complete embryos, embedded within or projecting from a normal one, down to mere cysts or absolutely rudimentary embryos.* No one has ever witnessed the development of such a rudimentary embryo or embryoma, and probably it will never be seen ; but the connection between them and vagrant or persistent (in ovary or testis) primary vagrant germ-cells is not less certain than that between an onion and the seed originally planted. In the same way, the hypothesis that the vagrant primary germ-cells of certain regions-thus those of the neighborhood of the stomach and of the rectum-if they develop, give rise, not to an embryo, but to an asexual generation of indefinite unrestricted powers of growth, can never be converted into a fact by direct observation. It can only be inferred from the facts. But it is a very simple explanation of all the facts, and its probability is increased by other considerations.

          But why should a vagrant vagrant germ-cell, when developing into a cancer cell, omit or skip the formation of an embryo, and proceed with a different portion of the life cycle?

 

            * A much fuller series of such embryonic monstrosities, forming a very interesting and instructive collection, will be found in Ernst Schwalbe, “Die Morphologie der Missbildungen,” etc. Part II., Jena, Gustav Fischer, 1907.

60

 

 

One reason* is perhaps clear. It is that the further growth of a vagrant germ-cell, or its progeny, to form a cancer takes place at a much later period than that at which its embryological development into a more or less complete embryo should have happened. (The instances of cancer with embryomata, noted by Wilms, do not form exceptions.) Moreover, it must not be forgotten that we are dealing here with pathological conditions, with phenomena which in some glaring way do not conform to the normal. Cancer is, more or less, an attribute of later sexual life or of old age. For this reason one is inclined to suppose that it is not immediately due to the further development of a vagrant vagrant germ-cell itself : that this latter first of all divides many times, as it would do if in the germinal nidus, and that it ultimately forms more or less normal forerunners of gametes, oocytes or spermatocytes. These would be in abnormal situations and under abnormal conditions, and under some stimulus, they would develop as though parthenogenetically, but abnormally, to form a trophoblast.

          At the basis, cancer is nothing more than the production abnormally of an asexual generation within a sexual generation. Elsewhere analogies may be seen. In hermaphroditism we witness the conversion of the forerunners of male eggs (in what are really females) into sperms. In certain ferns, abnormally upon the asexual generation or fern-plant, what the botanists term “apogamy” is met with-i.e., the appearance of a new sporophyte upon the original one ; the formation of a sexual generation or gametophyte, and of sexual organs being skipped. It has been urged from a botanical side that comparison between apogamy in certain ferns and carcinoma in a mammal would not be justified, because the former was an abnormal condition. But we are dealing with abnormalities,

 

* Compare p. 20, et seq. of the Introduction.

 

61

 

 

 

page 62 is missing and presumed to be a picture page

 

 

 

a few comments had been written down upon the mode of growth exhibited by certain organisms, and a comparison drawn between this and the pernicious growth of the human chorion in certain cases.*  And it was not until long after the proof had been returned that is was seen how in this comparison the key to the problem of the nature of cancer had been given away.  If the pernicious growth of the chorion be really carcinomatous—and it is recognized † as such by pathologists under the names of malignant placentoma, deciduoma, chorio-epithelioma or destructive placental ploype ‡--the nature of cancer is clear as the light of day.  And it has seemed desirable to offer the present essay, in order that at least a warning note might thereby be uttered, and an earnest attempt made to point to the futility of investigation in the direction of a cul-de-sac, such as the probable one of cancer, as due to unicellular organisms.

          In the following, the facts concerning carcinoma, as*The passage in question is as follows: “It should be mentioned that De Vries and Weism 

 

 

w the mammals;* the animal lowest in the scale in which it has been recorded being the short-headed phalanger (Belideus breviceps).†  The disease is a corollary to uterine gestation.

          If the cycle of development of the higher animals really be that concluded by the writer, if his interpretation of the phenomena of mammalian development—which are not in the least based upon facts or factors noted in cancer, but upon normal development here—if these be correct, the nature of carcinoma is not hypothetical at all, but is actually known.  More than one font cannot be assumed, and it one fountain-head be shown, all other

          * See. However, the closing lines of this chapter.

          † Bland-Sutton. J.: “Evolution and Disease,” London, 1890, p. 247, Fig. 123.  The case is one of cancer in the marsupial pouch.

63

 

 

 

explanations become superfluous.  In certain cases in human development, where either no embryo arises within the chorion, or when the embryo becomes aborted or dies prior to the suppression of the asexual generation, the latter—the chorion—may go on gowing indefinitely, and may give rise to what pathologists and gynæcologists recognize to be a form of cancer, placentoma, or chorio-epithelioma (Marchand).  For years now I have recognized, and, in homologizing this structure with the larval skin of an amphibian, Hubrecht has gone a long way in the like direction, that the human chorion represents the main portion or whole of the asexual generation here.  In certain cases, therefore, we here witness the conversion of the chorion—i.e., of the asexual generation—into a malignant tumour, a carcinoma.

          What other proof could be asked for?  That this proof of the nature of cancer is not in agreement with accepted views of normal development cannot be set down to the fault of the writer.  He holds, and has long maintained, such views to be false and unfounded in fact, and moreover, it has been attempted to indicate the right way.  The arguments and conclusions have been neither refuted nor confirmed, but they have been ignored.  But embryologists, are living, and have long been existing therein, in a mental universe, where but a tithe of the facts observed are explicable under their views.  Under the conception of development as an antithetic alternation of generations—especially as laid down in “Hereditary and the Epicycle of the Germ-Cells” *--all the known facts of development fit in, all are capable of easy and natural explanation.  And the elucidation of the etiology of carcinoma follows as a natural corollary to the law of the

          *Bilogisches Centralblatt, 1902, vol. xxii., pp. 321-328, 353-360, and 398-408.

64

 

 

 

development cycle.  The embryologist and pathologist may ignore and neglect the plain and palpable fact, but on no theory of direct development—a thing only existing for the higher animals in the human imagination—can any explanation whatever of the nature of carcinoma be advanced.  This would have been recognized clearly long ago had some embryologist taken the trouble, as the writer has done since 1888, to trace out in full the details of the life-cycle of one of the higher animals from egg to egg.  The idea of direct development, accepted without examination of the evidences, and the erroneous belief in the somatic (body) origin of germ-cells, have retarded the advance of knowledge to an extent difficult to estimate.

          The nature of the argument employed in the present writing may be summarized as follows:  Granted the facts of the origin, migrations, and history of the germ-cells of vertebrates, and assuming the course of the life-cycle to be that previously indicated, by hypothesis cancer is derived from vagrant primary germ-cells, which, instead of forming a more or less complete embryo or embryoma, skip this, and give rise to an asexual generation of indefinite unrestricted powers of growth.  This is, of course, purely hypothetical, but it becomes the true explanation by the following facts:  On the one hand, as my researches have shown, the hypothetical verirrte Keime, or “lost germs,” of pathologists not only exist, but they are numerously represented, and by things capable of abnormal development—the vagrant primary germ-cells.  On the other hand, the carcinomatous nature of such an abnormal growth of an asexual generation has been demonstrated abundantly by Marchand for the instances of the pernicious growth of the chorion, chorio-epithelioma.  If such a chorion, or trophoblast, the representative more

65

 

 

 

or less complete of the asexual generation, when robbed of its embryo, or when it fail to form such, can—and this is established—give origin to a malignant carcinomatous tumour, the nature of cancer is clear.  The vagrant primary germ-cell is the seed, while its fruit, sometimes represented by an embryoma, may, on occasion, take the form of a carcinoma.

 

          In the foregoing pages, written in 1902, cancer is spoken of as “a disease,” for not until the researches had advanced much farther did it become clear that cancer was a natural phenomenon.  The origin of a cancer from “a vagrant germ-cell” is urged; but on grounds, given later, it soon became necessary to restrict this power of independent development to some few only of the vagrant germ-cells.  Its asexual nature is clearly defined in the foregoing, and while at that time its restriction to mammals seemed clear (although in 1895 its occurrence in some other vertebrates had been recorded, as I found later on), below the mammals it is still anything but common.  Even now (1911) no case is known in reptiles, and but a few instances have been found in birds, while in many thousands of frogs examined the writer has only encountered on undoubted case of epithelioma.  Considering its frequency in mammals, especially in man, the statement made above of its connection with uterine gestation would still appear to have a basis of fact under-lying it.  The adaptation of the asexual generation (trophoblast) to uterine life, shown by the occurrence of uterine gestation, favours its abnormal development in mammals as a parasitic cancer, as in no other class of back-boned animals.  In the following chapter an attempt will be made to show how the tumours are related among themselves, and to the individual harbouring such a new formation.

66

         

 

CHAPTER  ll

 

THE EMBRYOLOGY AND ETIOLOGY OF TUMOURS

 

A.    THE EMBRYOLOGY OF TUMOURS.

 

The etiology of tumours is one of the darkest regions of pathology.  This is by no means due to lack of hypotheses, rather to the absence of material basis for any of those current.  It cannot fall within the scope of the work to treat of anything like all the different ideas at some time or other maintained.*

          The writer’s purpose will be served best by referring only to views as to the nature of pathological growths, based in some form or other upon embryology. †  One cannot read the writings of the pathologists of the twenty-five years without being struck by the un-

 

* For these, and their name is legion, see Wolff, Jacob:  “Die Lehre von der Krebskrankheit,” Jena, Gustav Fisher, part i., 1907, and part ii., 1911.

            To account for tumours the two views most advocated at present appear to be that of “embryonic rests” or displacements, and that of metaplasy.  Under “metaplasy” pathologists understand change in the character of tissue-cells, even in later life.  Both are purely hypothetical, and each of them, has been described as savouring of the miraculous.  From the modern embryological standpoint          both of them may be said to be impossibilities.  Regarding “metaplasy,” as little as a man can return to his childhood, so little an any of the cells of his body take on embryonic characters, or change their nature.  If any one small part of the body can do this, why not grant the same superhuman power to the whole?

67

 

 

 

doubted tendency on the part of, at any rate, many of them to assign some sort or other of embryo-logical basis to very many, if not all, tumours.  I should be the last person in the world to deprecate this, convinced as I am that far more tumours than almost any pathologist now living possibly imagines to be explicable embryologically have such a basis.  I only differ from many pathologist in regarding these neoplasms from an embryological standpoint which is as strange to them as it is to the majority of embryologists.  The pathologist who is an exponent of a developmental etiology of tumours naturally endeavors to bring them under the laws of embryology, as given in current textbooks.  Since my work of many years past has clearly brought home to me the erroneous, baseless, and impossible nature of many of the tenets and doctrines of modern embryology—e.g., direct development, somatic origin of germ-cells, and epigenesis—it must, of course, be equally clear than an “embryology of tumours” founded on these can only be fallacious.

          A tumour, whether simple or complex, is a living thing, and, like everything living, it comes gradually into being, it unfolds and manifests itself, and in this way it has its own developmental history.  This statement may appear somewhat metaphorical, but its meaning is clear enough if it be said that very many tumours, from the most complicated teratomata down to cancer (carcinoma and sarcoma), are but bizarre manifestations of some portion of an animal life-cycle.  The truth of this could not become apparent hitherto for two reasons: on the one hand, the views maintained as to the normal cycle of development were erroneous; and, on the other, the true science of embryology is as yet almost a  terra incognita to pathologists.  But, just as there is a science of normal

68

 

 

 

development waiting for recognition in our Universities, *--one whose continued neglect and exclusion will continue to revenge itself upon mankind, as it has already done in the past, by a corresponding retardation of priceless knowledge—so there is also (a branch of the foregoing, and only to be understood in the light of it) an important field of abnormal embryology, largely represented by the tumours and their problems—a knowledge of which can only be advance by aiding and fostering the former.

          In his magnificent monograph upon tumours Borst writes eloquently of this pathological embryology as a large and interesting region of knowledge, through whose mystical portals we penetrate at the moment with feebly burning torches of comprehension (Erkenntniss), but with the highest expectations.  The torches here spoken of may be identified as those of the science of normal embryology, than which there is possibly no department of knowledge of more moment to mankind, and by whose light alone these dark, but to mankind gravely important, regions can be illumined adequately.

          In studying the views presently advocated as to the etiology of tumours, the following points are apparent to the embryologist.  In their basis, so far as this is embryological, they are but modification of the Remak-

         

*The writer seeks no such post, although aware that in the last two years of his life the creation of such a University Chair in London for him was the cherished wish of the late George Bond Howes, Professor of Zoology in the Royal College of Science, South Kensington.  But it may be pointed out that, unlike Germany and the United States, Great Britain has to-day not a single University Chair of Embryology.  Had such posts been as common for the last fifty years as those in many other subjects of infinitely less important to mankind and to medicine, the problems of cancer might have been solved long ago, and possibly thousands of human beings saved from the torments of malignant disease.

69

 

 

 

Cohnheim theory of embryonic rests,* and the descriptions and classifications of the tumours usually adopted have no embryological groundwork whatever, proceeding, as they do, from the simple to the complex, instead of from the most complicated teratomata—the embryomata of Wilms—to the simple tumours represented by but one tissue—a “connective tissue” or an epithelium. †

          The “rest-theory” of Remak-Cohnheim, and their followers is a natural corollary of epigenesis as the mode of the development; and so little as the possibility of this mode of development can be admitted, as little can the existence of such rest of embryonic tissues, organs, or structures, be allowed. ‡  With the rejection of the Remak-Cohnheim theory, the modification suggested by Ribbert also falls to the ground.  If the embryo be not gradually built up from a pile of material, as a house is erected, there can be no superfluous bricks or other structures to ball back upon as the seed of later tumours.  Even were the development epigenetic—and this is certainly not the case—the actual existence of such rests has never yet been demonstrated; nor is it shown by the occasional appearance of a supernumerary or accessory organ or structure, such as an extra kidney, thymus,

 

          * The theory of “embryonic rests” as the source of tumours is almost invariably attributed to the pathologist Cohnheim.  As shown in another chapter, it was first enunciated by the embryologist Remak, and for this reason and for clearness it will be referred to in these pages as the “Remak-Cohnheim” theory.

          † To his knowledge Wilms and C. P. White are the only authors who, like the writer, regard the neoplasms in this “inverted” fashion.  It may help to support their attitude in this important matter to add that the writer arrived at the conclusion that, as a rule, the tumours were approached in the wrong order, before seeing their writings.

          ‡ The recognition of the impossibility of epigenesis as the mode of the development was first made by Weismann in his “Germplasm” (1893).

70

 

 

 

adrenal, ovary, or spleen.  In no embryological sense can such be considered to represent the missing hypothetical rests.  Such structures have not been known to give rise to tumours.

          Perhaps the theory of embryonic rests has undergone its most important and most scientific alterations at the hands of Wilms,* of whose views—to some extent, at the least—Borst† is also an exponent.  Of Wilms’s researches on tumours, and especially of the facts laid bare by them, it is not too much to say that they are epoch-making.  But of his embryological conclusions it must be added that they are necessarily false, because based on the premisses of an impossible embryology.

          The lost germs or rest of Remak-Cohnheim are replaced by Wilms by what he terms “germinal shuntings” (Keimausschaltungen).  Essentially, Wilm’s theory is almost as simple as that to be here advocated, and, like the later, the hypothesis of germ-shuntings will readily explain many tumours.  The germ-shuntings of Wilms are conceived as follows:  At various periods of the development, from the earliest to undefined later ones, prior to the completion of the parts of the embryo, there are single cells or little groups of such, set apart to furnish some structure of the embryo.  These are often serially repeated (metameric segmentation) in great numbers.  Some on or more of these may be shunted out of the normal connection ( ? by what ) at almost any period of the devlopment.  According to Wilms, this shunting is not to be regarded as a displacement, for the thing shunted actually remains in the organ to which it really

 

          *Wilms, Max:  “Die Mischgeschwülste,” Leipzic, 1899-1903, 3  Hefte.

          `† Borst, Max:  “Die Lehre von den Geschwülsten,” Wiesbaden, 1902, 2 vols.

71

 

 

 

belongs.*  If this hypothetical shunting—which, to may mind, in a normal development is physically impossible without disaster to the developing embryo—happen in the earliest periods, it will be in connection with cells of the cleavage, and one or more of these may become the abnormally placed seeds of a tumour or tumours.  As an example, to be commented upon later in its true bearings, Wilms himself found in one case not less than five embryomata or rudimentary embryos in one ovary!  These represent under Wilms’s views five blastomeres of the cleavage.  I do not know whether or not there be any upholder of epigenetic development who is prepared to grant the subtraction of this number of cleavage-products without utter disaster to the further development.  As will be seen anon, the experimental researches of Driesch, Herbst, and other—Bonnet notwithstanding—do not in the least support Wilms and Bonnet in their extravagant suppositions.  Again, according to Wilms, if the happening be at a later period, it may concern, for instance, a part of one or more mesoblastic somites, and, as we know the fate of these, the structure of a tumour arising subsequently can be foretold.  Thus a tumour in the region of the vertebral may be made up of “embryonic mesenchyme,” or formative tissue, cartilage, and bone; or of the first, or of the first and second of these.  Such a tumour Wilms derives from a “shunted” mesoblastic somite, because such a somite gives rise normally to these tissues.  Now that, for example,

 

          *On closer examination, contradictions in Wilm’s statements may be found.  Thus, to account for some tumours, or parts of such, Wilms requires “germs” from mesoblastic somites, and these may, according to him, be displaced physically into—for example—the kidney or uterus.  In this way Wilms’s theory is seen to have very much in common with the earlier one of Remak-Cohnheim.

72

 

 

 

somites may be shunted, actually or but physiologically, from the normal connection is purely hypothetical, and nothing of the kind has ever been witnessed.  Rudimentary somites occur even in the trunk region in some animals, but these are rudimentary, and probably always disappear.

          Wilms regards his germs as things destined in reality to form parts of “the embryo,” and therefore as belonging to this.*  Under his views cases of five embryomata in one ovary require the shunting into this of five blastomeres during the early development; that is to say, in this instance the original fertilized egg must have been divided up in some way or other into at least six portions, one of which formed a normal embryo, while the remaining five retained at lease the potentialities of each becoming an abnormal embryo or embryoma.  It is open to doubt whether any upholder of epigenesis will admit the possibility of the course of events happening in this way.  As it would seem a new hypothesis is needed to account for each of the five embryomata, with an additional one to explain the continued normal character of the development after such a shaking and shunting.

          Equally formidable difficulties are furnished by the well-known instances of multiple tumours, of various kinds, in one individual.  Indeed, the doctrine of epigenesis as the mode of the development labours under quite sufficient insuperable intrinsic difficulties without having to bear the burdens imposed upon it by such

 

          * As decisive against the origin of tumours from cells, or tissues, of the individual in which they develop, may be cited the facts that very many of them are encapsulated from the surroundings—thus, tumours of the kidneys, breast, and parotid; and that various observers—thus, Wilms and Borst—deny any passage or transition of normal tissues into them.  The encapsulation of many tumours is of embryological interest, because many of the aberrant germ-cells exhibit this feature.

73

 

 

 

serious tamperings with the development , as Wilms’s theories demand.  Nor should it be forgotten that, while on the one hand Wilms speaks of an embryonic “over-production” (!), he states that the germs of his tumours develop in exactly those organs to whose edifice under normal circumstances they ought to have contributed.

          Underlying the doctrine of the shunted germs are the dogmas of epigenesis and somatic origin of germ-cells.  The latter is an absolute necessity to the former.  Since the founder of this (Professor Waldeyer) has seen reason to reject his former conclusions in favour of a morphological continuity of germ-cells, the greatest stronghold of epigenesis has fallen.*  Brilliant as are Wilms’s actual investigations of the tumours, when regarded from the objective embryological standpoint, the “shunted germs,” evoked to account for the facts, are just as hypothetical and chimerical as any other “lost germs” ever conceived of by pathologists.

          Wilms’s theory, ingenious, and enticing though it be, is but a clearer defined modification of that of embryonic rests.  As with the latter, epigenesis and hypothesis are its main bases; and as to the Remak-Cohnheim theory, the objection can be urged that it is an unnecessary multiplication of causes.  This is well illustrated by Wilms’s and Borst’s distinctions of monogerminal and bigerminal tumours.  Double monsters and certain teratomata are regarded as bigerminal, and, placed in contrast

 

          *See Waldeyer, W.” “Die Geschlechtszellen,” Abdruck aus dem “Handbuch der vergleichenden und experimentellen Entwickelungsgeschichte der Wirbeltiere,” von Dr. Oscar Hertwig, vol. i., 1903, pp. 404-405.  With the “prevision,” of which Pasteur so often spoke, on p. 405 Waldeyer writes: Die” Folgerungen aus dieser Lehre von der Kontinuität der Geschlechtszellen sind fast unbsehbar für die gesamte Biologie” (The consequences of this doctrine of the continuity of germ-cells are almost incalculable for every branch of Biology).

74

 

 

 

with the remaining complicated   “three-layered” tumours, which, as due to developmental abnormalities of a single embryo, are stated to be monogerminal.  As, according to Wilms, all possible transition between the most complicated embryomata and the simpler tumours exist, there would appear to be no grounds for this and similar increases in the hypotheses.

          Apart from its entirely hypothetical character, its lack of support in facts of embryology, and its continual and unnecessary multiplication of causes, the theory of germ-shuntings labours under other difficulties.  It is not easy to conceive any adequate cause for such shuntings during development, and the difficulty is greatly increased when cases of multiple tumours in very different parts of the body, each of which requiring one or more shuntings at some period or other, are taken account of; for with them a normal development would appear to be quite out of question.  But, granted the possibility of such shuntings, the real difficulties begin.  What causes such a shunted germ, ignoring all laws of differentiation, to embark upon a career of damage, riot, and destruction of its own?  To take an instance from Wilms, typical of many such:  the germ of an osteo-sarcoma will be a cell or germs of the periosteum of some bone.  Normally, like its fellows, it ought to have contributed to the formation of that bone.  Instead, thereof, at some period or other, after lying dormant, it breaks all bounds, and proceeds on a line of development of its own.  This is such that, unless brought to a stop by some extrinsic cause or other (operation or death of the host), it may be the parent-cell of more progeny than all the other bone-producing cells in the body!  In find, Wilms ascribes to his shunted germs far greater embryological potentialities than Nature ever endowed them with.  On the other

75

 

 

 

hand, some of the aberrant and vagrant germ-cells described by the writer undoubtedly possess, as was once remarked to the writer by a human anatomist, far greater potentialities for mischief than any germs ever conceived of by pathologists.

          Not only the embryonic rests and the germinal shuntings, but a host of subsidiary hypotheses—among others, those of Borst, relating to the tumours of the sacral and cerebral regions—become superfluous in the light of the much simpler theory of tumour-formation as due to—(1) the abnormal development of a persistent primary germ-cell, and (2) the bizarre pathological manifestation by this of some greater or less portion of a life-cycle.  Under this view most, if not all, tumours receive a simple explanation, and under it, also, it must be manifest that previous attempts—that of Wilms excepted—to explain the tumours, in taking the simpler ones as the starting points, have really begun at the wrong end of the scale.