1189

THE EVANS CANCER CURE.

THE LANCET.

LONDON: SATURDAY, MAY 31, 1930.

THE EVAXS CANCER CURE.-PUERPERAL SEPSIS.

IT is lamentable that the jury failed to agree in theaction brought by Mrs. AMELIA BURRELL againstMr. DAVID REES EVANS, an unqualified medical

practitioner and the proprietor of an alleged formulafor the cure of cancer. Mrs. BuRRELL’s case was thatthe defendant promised to cure her permanently inthree months by herbal treatment. She charged himnot only with negligence but also with fraud. Thegrave feature of the case was that, before thedefendant’s treatment began, Mrs. BURRELL was inan operable condition, but, after three months’treatment, she was inoperable and incurable. Afterseveral days’ trial Mr. Justice CHARLES left threequestions to the jury : (1) Did the defendant makefraudulent misrepresentations to induce, and did heinduce, the plaintiff to enter into a contract to betreated by him ? z? (2) Did he warrant to cure her

permanently in three months and was the warrantybroken (3) Was he negligent in his treatment of her ’?After being absent from court for three hours the jurysaid they could not agree on the first and thirdquestions ; as to the second question, they consideredMr. EvANS did not warrant to cure Mrs. BURRELL inthree months. Describing this inconclusive result asextraordinarily unfortunate, the judge had no alterna-tive but to discharge the jury. The plaintiff, of course,is free to recommence her action before another jury.A subsequent application on Mr. EVANS’s behalf forjudgment on the issue of contract was refused, the costsof the application being awarded to Mrs. BURRELL.

Regrettable as is the waste of time and moneywhich the requirement of unanimity among jurymenoccasionally imposes, the action has brought to lightfacts of wide interest. We now know from Mr. EvANShimself that his formula for the cure of cancer was

accidentally discovered by his father (a farmer) and hisuncle who, after experimenting with various remedies,successfully cured their brother of cancer of the lip.In his early days, the plaintiff tells us, he helped hisfather and uncle who dealt at Cardigan with 200patients a day, working from 9 A.M. till midnight andonly breaking off for tea. We know that Mr. EvANShas four formulae in all ; one of them he uses for curingduodenal ulcer, an ailment which, he explained to thejudge, is of the same family as cancer. We know thathe was educated at the Cardigan County School andnot at any university or hospital, even though theliterature which he circulates may suggest the contrary.We know that the testimonials which he publishes arenot spontaneous and that his booklet, entitled theCardigan Cancer Cure, can be judicially described as" sodden with misstatements." Suggestions were

made during the trial that the orthodox medicalpractitioners were jealous of the success of the Evanscure and declined to put it to the test. On the otherhand, Prof. LAZARUS-BARLOW, for over twenty yearsdirector of cancer research at the Middlesex Hospitaland a member of the Cancer Committee of the Ministryof Health, gave evidence that Mr. EvANS had (afterquestions had been asked in Parliament about hiscancer cure) been invited to appear before the

committee. He came and brought with him printedand written documents, sworn statements, and

photographs of cases which he wished to submit to thecommittee for investigation. The committee com-municated with medical officers of health in thetowns where the alleged cured patients resided,asking for information about the cases. In themajority of instances the patients were dead or haddisappeared. In only two or three cases could themedical officers get definite evidence, and there wasnothing to lead them to suspect that the suggestedcure had ever taken place. The committee reportedthat they had not found sufficient evidence to carry thematter further.

Part of the publicity which the Cardigan CancerCure has enjoyed has been due to an article in Light byMr. HANNEN SwAFFER who, in the evidence he gavefor the defendant, described himself as a very well-known investigator of facts. We do not know the

jury’s opinion of this article but we know what thejudge thought of it. " How any responsible journalistcould write such wicked, misleading nonsense dealingwith so terrible a thing as cancer," said Mr. JusticeCHARLES, " I cannot conceive. I asked him do youknow anything about cancer or how to recognisecancer ? ’ and he replied I know nothing.’ Yet hedeliberately told the public that the defendant showedhim photographs of malignant growths and cancers inbottles ; I daresay the defendant did nothing of thekind." The evidence in the case, and the jury’sinability to come to a decision upon the merits of theEvans treatment seem to show that there are manypeople who so trustfully believe in the magic of asecret and miraculous cure that they prefer theministrations of an unqualified practitioner to all theknown developments of medicine and surgery. Eventheir credulity is taxed when Mr. SwAFFER’S articletells them that " Little is done in hospitals except toperform operations which only delay inevitabledeath." Mr. EVANS himself, it may be, viewed theprospects of the recent litigation with anxiety. Atany rate he transferred his money into his wife’s namea month after the issue of the statement of claim.Nevertheless he can claim that the jury accepted hisstatement that he did not warrant to cure Mrs. BURRELLpermanently in three months. Simultaneously withthese civil proceedings in London in Mrs. BuRRELL’sclaim for damages, a herbalist named JAMES MASSEYwas being tried .at Manchester Assizes on a criminalcharge of manslaughter. The prosecution calledevidence to show that the accused, an unqualifiedpractitioner, had treated a woman for some months andby criminal neglect and ignorance had aggravated hercancer ; if properly treated, she would probably haverecovered. He was found guilty and was sentenced to15 months’ imprisonment.

PUERPERAL SEPSIS.IN the middle of the eighteenth century

CHARLES WHITE, the father of modern midwifery,conducted his practice in the poorest parts ofManchester for 25 years without losing a singlecase from puerperal fever. ROBERT CoLLINS statedin 1835 that he did not have a single death which heattributed to this cause among 10,785 deliveries iuthe last four years of his Mastership of the RotundaHospital. On the other hand, WHITE said, " It isevident that by much the greater part of the sex willdo well even under the worst treatment," and it isthis problem which is so baffling. Why is it that aslight slip in technique will kill one patient, whileothers will recover without any symptoms after " the