Dr. Willy Meyer in the discussion said that physicians had long been too prone to consider carcinoma a local disease, and when he found signs of metastatic infection he never felt that he could expect anything from an operation. We can only state with Hartwell and others that every especially favorable series of cancer cases, and this applies particularly to the breast, should be subject to close scrutiny. Why did this or that operator get marvelous results and an equally efficient man get very poor ones? There are also many factors to be considered. How many cases were of the senile or scirrhous type? How many of the tumors removed were proved microscopically to be cancer? If one operates radically on every tumor or swelling in the breast, however small, the end results will, of course, be more favorable; for undoubtedly many innocent lesions, chronic mastitis, adenoma, cystic tumors, etc., are often removed unnecessarily. The question also arises as to what was the after care, and what steps were taken to prevent recurrence? In view of the statement of Hildebrand, just quoted, that 35 per cent is the maximum possibility for permanent cure, and considering the terrible pain and miserable death one so constantly sees in recurrences, it really becomes a question as to the advisability of surgical interference. The opinion has been expressed more than once by those who have watched the disease, that if left alone, with ordinary medical care, the entire average of 100 cases would be better, as to length of life and suffering, than if submitted to operation. I shall hope to show you in a later lecture that a greater proportion of breast tumors, diagnosed as cancer by competent surgeons, have recovered completely for years, under proper dietary and medical care than the percentage yielded by operative procedure.