32 WARFARE IN THE HUMAN BODY 



reasonably lead to the inference that interacting stimula- 

 tion and regulation is a function of all tissues, and that this 

 is the method of growth and order in every animal what- 

 soever. All cases of excessive or defective growth must 

 be classed as the result of stimulation, or the want of it, as 

 surely as we see atrophy follow a failure of function or 

 hypertrophy on its excess. But if this is generally true of 

 all the obviously controlled tissues, it may easily enough 

 be true of those which are regulated we know not how, 

 and, if that be granted for the sake of discussion, it seems 

 possible not only to class all cases of malignancy, but 

 to suggest possible means of combating it by other than 

 surgical means. 



That some method should be adopted for clearing up the 

 confusion of theory seems obvious when the battle-ground 

 of the cancer authorities and specialists is surveyed without 

 prejudice. Unless there is definite reason for coming to 

 other conclusions, it is usually safest to work on the principle 

 that earnest and able workers are rarely entirely wrong. 

 That the constitutional view of cancer, held by Paget, 

 though undoubtedly " humoral," and therefore suspect, 

 is still advocated by some is not surprising when it takes 

 the form of " predisposition," if the word is interpreted in 

 the light of modern physiology and heredity. To go no 

 further than to speak of the cancerous diathesis, after the 

 more ancient manner, is however a denial of explanation. 

 The theory of infection may also have something to com- 

 mend itself, if it is only on the ground that infections 

 may stimulate a latent proclivity, though to declare that 

 malignancy is due to a special pathogenic organism is to 

 ask us to believe that every form of it has its own special 

 bacillus or protozoon, or that a single one can exhibit its 

 potentialities in a thousand shapes, while it is necessary to 



