4. ON THE PARASITIC THEORY OF CANCER


Opponents of the parasitic theory invariably content that tumours produced experimentally by the introduction of parasites obtained in pure culture from cancerous blood or tumours, in most cases do not conform of the conditions recognized by pathologists….


By W.SCHMIDT, Munich.

Abstract by Mr.R.Berk.

THE author refer to his collaboration for more than 20 years with Otto Schmidt and his succession director of the institution devoted to cancer research. He essays authorship on the strength of the important results of their combined investigations and the therapeutic success achieved with their vaccine and animal serum.

He comments on the impetus received by the parasitic theory of cancer aetiology from the publication in July, 1925, of the research of Gye and Barnard, who claim that with virus cultivated from a Gye and Barnard, who claim that with virus cultivated from a Rous tumour, adding rabbit serum and a 14-day old fowl embryo in a bouillon containing potassium chloride, fowl sarcoma can be induced even with a billion fold dilution, that this type or growth is also common to mammals and that cancer is an infective disease due to a virus or group of parasites.

Attempts by the author and numerous other investigators to apply Gye’s research to human animal tumours filed. Alexis, Carles, also Murphy and Landsteiner showed that independently of these of a spontaneous tumour and excluding every infectious contamination tumours identical with Rous tumours could be produced experimentally by injecting a seven-day fowl embryo in various quoted authorities shows that contrary to Gye’s assertion, Rous tumour extract can remain active inspite of the addition of chloroform that filtrates of fowl sarcoma are not of necessity free from active cells; that active well preserved cells can survive even after the grinding dessicated tumour mass, and that a microscopic preparation the filtered sediment of tumour centrifuged for 45 minutes still contained well-preserved cells, all suggesting the probability that Gye, when injecting his filtrate, accidentally also transferred cell material. Also it is doubtful if the Rous tumour should be classified with the feminine malignant tumour should be classified with the genuine malignant tumours.

A statement of the antagonistic opinions as to the aetiology of malignant growths follows. Firstly, the cellular theory that cells have an “innate property,” disposition or inherent propensity top unlimited growth, or are stimulated there to and to the invasion and destruction of normal cell tissue by endogenic or exogenic agency and alternately the infection theory, according to which a foreign micro-organism, invades a system,. hitherto, healthy, and excites the cell to boundless proliferation.

Schmidt now summarizes and opinion of a number of authorities who do not hold a parasite responsible for the origin of malignant neoplasms, and still less accept the theory of a universal excitant, maintaining that if a cancer producing agent of he nature of the nature of a virus does exist, it is necessary to assume a whole group of related parasites to provide every biologically distinctive tumour type with it individual excitant.

Opponents of the parasitic theory invariably content that tumours produced experimentally by the introduction of parasites obtained in pure culture from cancerous blood or tumours, in most cases do not conform of the conditions recognized by pathologists. On the other hand, when experimental tumors do receive the cachet of eminent pathologists as being of the requisite blastomatic mature it is asserted that their manifestation is the result of a nonspecific process. The excitant only represent the stimulus which induces the cell, on account of its “innate property,” to commence its boundless growth. the stimulations still non-specific. And the defenders of the cellular theory continue their search for the unknown factor which outlaws the cell from its fellows, perverts its histological and clinical nature, and ultimately, through atypical proliferation, leads to morphologically recognizable cancer growth.

John Henry Clarke
John Henry Clarke MD (1853 – November 24, 1931 was a prominent English classical homeopath. Dr. Clarke was a busy practitioner. As a physician he not only had his own clinic in Piccadilly, London, but he also was a consultant at the London Homeopathic Hospital and researched into new remedies — nosodes. For many years, he was the editor of The Homeopathic World. He wrote many books, his best known were Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica and Repertory of Materia Medica