Well enzymes cleave proteins so if you include them with food proteins
there's a good chance they are going to work on those proteins.

When the enzymes entered the blood they would be inactivated by the action
of the blood serum.
This is a good argument to say they don't work, but experimental data says
they do work, so maybe they act at the tumour site?

Well it is accepted in science that enzymes are absorbed intact orally..

See :-
Castell, J.V., G. Friedrich, C.S. Kuhn, G.E. Poppe. 1997.
Intestinal absorption of undegraded proteins in men: presence of bromelain
in plasma after oral intake. Am J Physiol 273(1 Pt. 1):G139-146
http://www.mucos.cz/eng/far_mech/drbobat.htm

<See above>

Politics aside, Gonzalez is a doctor, he is trying to do good science, this
is more than a lot of the quacks out there.
If you support something controvercial you are always going to get flack
from the sceptics for making claims etc.
(I think the pancreatic cancer study was reviewed at Sloan Kettering - the
famous hospital).

Well that's entirely your choice, you are right it is a matter of belief
until it becomes mainstream scientific fact.
It has been around 100 years since John Beard proposed the trophoblast
theory of cancer.

Well if the trial produces many cures people will listen, but it is single
arm so it will be critiqued to hell.

There's other rodent studies showing amazing cures but the enzymes were
injected into and around the tumour mass, or given with cyanide and vitamin
a emulsion etc.

Anth.

The crux of the theory is that around the cancer cell is HCG, this carries a
charge which repels the killer cells.
The amylase attacks the sugar molecule on the HCG and the
trypsin/chymorypsin dissolves the protein part.
Without the HCG coating the cell is vulnerable to attack by the immune
system and it wiped out.
Anth

[snip]

Controlled research and that replicated is the only way to gain support,
any number of self reported success stories will not do.  They might
suggest a place to start but they are not the standard of being accepted.  
Being "unrefruited" is not a standard, thoseproposing a theory are to
provide support in the form by which all such is accepted.

The above, like the pig abstract, demonstrate that if proteins are small
enough they can be absorped, apparently at least the one above falls into
that category. Being able to generalize that example to all enzymes is
dubious and not yet shown.  In the current question is that of those of
the pancreas, and by definition any others not included above.  The beauty
of the pig abstract was that their pancreas was removed so any possible
level in the blood after oral intake of enzymes produced by it would have
to be external.  In the specific instance of enzymes of the pancreas, on
which the cancer theory depends, it has been demonstrated they are not
absorbed.  For that reason the mice abstract shows only that intake of
enzmes from the pancreas by water seemed to have an effect on the course
of the disease while not showing those enzymes showing up in the blood.  
They were human cancer cells transplanted in the mice, it is just as valid
a theory that the enzymes in the gut caused some differences in hormones
which affected the course of the disease in a context of cell rejection.  

Btw, the above abstract still needs to exclude other possible reasons that
blood levels of the enzyme rose in correlation with the dose, apart from
the size issue which relates to all proteins.  Those same enzymes are
produced by the body all the time, the normal source of them and not food.  
Again, we must exclude the possibility that presence of isolated enzymes
in the gut does not cause an increase of internal production.  The only
support this cancer treatment will get is if it shows promise in the
current trial, and how that came to be is an intresting story in itself.

The trial will show if there is anything there, snipits of research here
and there we can't question in detail is not going to do it.  All the self
reported "success" stories will not do it.  Appeals to how mistreated
fringe doctors are by main stream research while regretable will not do
it.  Science/medicine advances on multiple demonstrations of a good match
between theory and objective repeatble observations.  In my mind the
following is the now accepted concensus and the benchmark by which such
questions should be approached.  The asorbtion of pe from the gut has not
yet been demonstrated, and it remains questionable that any enzymes of any
size can, until that can be demonstrated and confirmed, the things shown
here are suggestive but not conclusive. In the list of problems with the
idea they can below, even if they are absorbed they are still subject to
destruction and can be themselves a source of immunity and other problems.  
All of the problems must be addressed, but even they are mute if routine
normal absorbtion can not be demonstrated.  We cann't tell about the
quality of the studies done on absorbtion are and how they might have
controlled for internal generation of enzymes.  The pig example does
control to exclude internal generation and it specifically shows no
absorbtion of pe.  Here are the main unanswered questions about the
proposed cancer treatment:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/kg.html

  Glandular enzymes restoring normal function to poison-damaged organs.
  Biological barriers to efficient absorption of proteolytic enzymes
  into the systemic circulation are so formidable that oral delivery is
  all but impossible [30,31]. Intestinal absorption of protein molecules
  depends on their size and complexity, their sensitivity to hydrolysis
  by host stomach acids and to host digestive enzymes, the capacity for
  transport across the intestinal mucosa, their avoidance of recognition
  as foreign by the immune system, and their destruction by the
  reticuloendothelial system [32].

  Like all dietary proteins, enzymes are dismantled into constituent
  amino acids by host proteolytic enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract,
  thus destroying their enzymatic activity. Should intact enzymes manage
  to enter the circulation, they would still have to avoid denaturation
  by serum proteolytic enzymes. They would have to be "smart" enough to
  find the "poisoned target organ" or cancer cell before destroying
  serum proteins and blood-vessel-wall structural proteins. If the
  enzymes were to avoid those barriers, their repeated appearance in the
  circulation would eventually give rise to severe hypersensitivity
  reactions and anaphylaxis. There seem to be good reasons for the
  evolutionary characteristic of preventing the absorption of
  proteolytic enzymes from the gastrointestinal tract.

   Conclusions

    * Neither Kelley nor Gonzalez has identified proposed toxins in
      processed food.
    * Neither has evidence that abnormal protein molecules from
      necrosing tumors are toxins or that they poison organs.
    * Neither has evidence that the toxins poison oxidative metabolism.
    * Neither has evidence that cancers thrive in an anaerobic
      environment.
    * Neither has shown that coffee enemas, megavitamin doses, and their
      special diets inhibit the progress of cancer.
    * Neither has produced evidence that a deficiency of pancreatic
      digestive enzymes is related to the onset of cancer.
    * Neither has produced evidence that enzymes from animal or
      vegetable sources can replace enzymes in human organs.
    * There is no evidence that ingested pancreatic enzymes seek out and
      kill cancer cells.
    * Neither has produced evidence that their regimens are more
      effective than a placebo for cancer.