JANUARY I0, 1907 | 
NATURE 
247 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 
[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions 
expressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 
to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 
manuscripts intended for this or any other part of NATURE. 
No notice is taken of anonymous communications. ] 
The Treatment of Cancer, 
In Nature of December 20, 1906, I note an article 
(pp. 177-8) on ‘‘ The Treatment of Cancer.’’ As a scien- 
tific investigator, I must dispute the truth of the fact that 
I have any co-discoverer in this matter of the use of 
pancreatic ferments in the treatment of malignant growths. 
As, of course, you are well aware, all priority in scientific 
discovery depends upon publication. In the case of the 
medical man mentioned in the article there has never been 
any publication of scientific facts, and the reference to the 
comparative immunity of the small intestine from cancer 
has a very different scientific explanation from that given 
in the British Medical Journal, 1906, p. 715. The real 
reason is the very small extent of the original piece of 
gut, out of which, by growth within itself, the mammalian 
small intestine is developed. If the explanation given by 
this medical man were correct, the cecum ought to be as 
immune from cancer as the lower end of the small intes- 
tine. This gentleman has never claimed to have discovered 
a cure, let alone the cure, for cancer. What he professes 
to have found is that the proteolytic ferment, trypsin, 
and not the diastatic one, amylopsin, splits up glycogen. 
This is a very remarkable find to have made! Assuming 
a miracle to have happened when these unpublished experi- 
ments were made, and that trypsin did split up glycogen, 
it may be asked why he and his pharmacist adopted for 
use as an injection into human patients, from about the 
end of February last until recently, a decoction containing 
a small amount of practically pure trypsin, which had no 
action whatever upon glycogen? 
The medical man who made this remarkable find, which 
will not stand the test of confirmation, himself writes in 
the pages of the Medical Press of December 19, 1906, as 
follows :—*‘ Every medical man must deplore the frequent 
attempts which are made in the Lay Press to induce the 
public to believe that a cure for cancer has been dis- 
covered.’’ This is clear enough. Against it I, a scientific 
man, now affirm not only that a cure has been found, but 
that my own work and discoveries have revealed the cure. 
For the evidences of the truth of this statement I will not 
refer to various microscopic preparations of tumours after 
treatment, removed by operation, at a post-mortem, or 
sloughed away, for these are the property of physicians 
in England and America, who will themselves publish 
their cases. 
Instead, as the space at disposal is limited, I will refer 
to Prof. W. J. Morton’s preliminary report in the New 
York Medical Record, December 8, 1906, to the other 
cases in course of publication there, and to the brief 
account of the Naples case of inoperable cancer of the 
tongue, which I hope to see published shortly in the pages 
of that medical journal. Six months after all treatment 
ceased the patient is alive, well, and free from cancer. 
This is the Sequel of the use of preparations of pan- 
creatic enzymes, scientifically prepared, and employed by 
such able and distinguished physicians as Cavaliere 
Guarracino and Prof. Manzo. The cancer yielded to the 
chemical test. The reagent for this is not, as so many in 
this country have believed, including certain cancer re- 
searchers, a solution of glycerine and water, possibly con- 
taining a little trypsin, but it is a potent extract of 
pancreas-gland, prepared from the fresh gland direct, and 
containing all the enzymes. 
The writer of an article in the British Medical Journal 
for December 15, 1906, p. 1736, who displays a close 
knowledge of the unpublished work of a research body, 
states that trypsin is among the substances condemned in 
the passage cited from the fourth annual report of the 
Imperial Cancer Research Fund. I have not used the term 
“trypsin treatment,’’ for I agree with Prof. Poirier, of 
the French Cancer Research, that trypsin will destroy 
cancer, but not cure it. The preparations used must be 
NO. 1941, VOL. 75 | 
such as those manufactured by Messrs. Fairchild Bros- 
and Foster, and they must be employed in the way directed 
by a scientific investigator. If the statement be aimed at 
the course of treatment advised by me, a scientific man, 
and, as a chemical trade newspaper says, ‘‘ not even a 
medical man,’’ if this be the case, I now direct the atten- 
tion of the scientific members of the executive of the 
Imperial Cancer Research Fund to its existence. I traverse 
it completely, and deny that it contains a vestige of truth. 
As I have produced evidences of its falsity, if it refer to 
the pancreatic treatment, I now call upon these scientific 
men to substantiate the truth of the point by the produc- 
tion of evidences, including a clear account of the means 
adopted to obtain a proper injection compound, or to re- 
tract and withdraw the assertion; for what happened in 
Naples has also occurred in New York, as well as in 
other places in this country, even in the neighbourhood of 
this city of Edinburgh. J. Brarp. 
8 Barnton Terrace, Edinburgh, December 23, 1906. 
Wiru reference to the above letter, questions of priority 
are not involved in the article referred to. It may be that 
Dr. Shaw-Mackenzie’s ‘advocacy of the trypsin treatment 
of cancer was based ‘on a misconception, but that he did 
independently evolve it seems clear to us, and this is all 
that was suggested in the article. His line of treatment is 
indicated in a letter to the British Medical Journal, May 
27, 1905, p- 1183, and again in the same journal, January 
27, 1906, p. 240; in the latter not only trypsin, but pan- 
creatin and secretin are suggested. As regards the term 
“trypsin treatment,’’ Dr. Beard, in an article in the 
British Medical Journal (January 20, 1906, p. 140), uses 
the phrases, ‘‘ the length of time and number of injections 
of trypsin necessary to destroy the tumour,’’ “‘ trypsin is 
the substance which will destroy the cancer cell (Beard 
and Shaw-Mackenzie),’’ &c., and he moreover states, “‘ the 
preparation of trypsin employed (Fairchild Bros. and 
Foster’s) was that originally dispensed to Dr. Shaw- 
Mackenzie’s prescription by Mr. F. W. Gamble,’’ thus 
acknowledging Dr. Shaw-Mackenzie’s work, and actually 
making use of the latter’s preparation of trypsin! Accept- 
ing the details of the case of cancer of the tongue cured 
by pancreatic extract as correct, it is a remarkable one, 
but not unique. The writer knows a case of mammary 
cancer, diagnosed as such 4} years ago by four doctors, 
and on which a London surgeon refused to operate, which 
after treatment with X-rays has atrophied, and the patient 
is well and in good health to-day, surely as remarkable a 
case! Lastly, with regard to the alleged cures of cancer 
obtained by Prof. Morton in America (to which reference 
was made in the article), these are summarised in the 
British Medical Journal, December 22, 1906, p. 1835- 
About thirty cases were treated, and the results claimed 
are cure in two cases, remarkable atrophy of the tumour 
in one, and arrest of disease in many. In one case the 
““ cure’? has lasted four months, in the other one month! 
It is absurd yet to speak of such cases as “‘ cured’’; 
careful surgeons allow a three years’ limit! To claim 
that ‘‘ the cure’ for cancer has been found has at present 
nothing to substantiate it, and in our opinion Dr. Shaw- 
Mackenzie’s position is far more scientific than Dr. 
Beard’s. We believe that the pancreatic enzymes must be 
injected into the neighbourhood of the growth or used 
locally ; how, then, could the secondary growths in internal 
organs, &c., be attacked? Until this can be done, no 
““cure ’’? for cancer will have been obtained. 
Tue WRITER OF THE ARTICLE. 
The American Gooseberry-mildew. 
I Give below the facts 
England of this disease. 
This mildew, Sphaerotheca mors-uvae (Schwein.), Berk. 
—known in America since 1834—has proved so destructive 
there as practically to prevent the cultivation of the 
European gooseberry on a commercial scale. It was un- 
recorded in Europe until 1900, when it appeared in a few 
gardens in the north-east of Ireland. It has spread over 
concerning the outbreak in 
1 See, for example, Year Book, U.S. Dept. Agric , 1899; also Bull. r14, 
161, N.Y. Agric. Exper. Stat. 
