The History of Monmorphism/Pleomorphism

WHY IS PLEOMORPHISM UNKNOWN TO MODERN MEDICINE? A dichotomy in medical speculation, an unresolved philosophical conflict, has existed from ancient times to the present. This conflict is between two theories known traditionally as Empiricism and Rationalism. “While this conflict can be discerned in the earliest writings of the Hippocratic Corpus, from the fifth century BC, the names Empirical and Rationalist became current in Rome at the beginning of the Christian era – designating groups of physicians competing with one another ideologically and economically.” (Divided Legacy, Harris Counter, pg. xv.) The main form of medicine practiced today is of the Rationalist or Rationalist/Methodist point of view. Rationalism involves a mechanistic or chemical understanding of the human organism. It maintains that life itself can be explained by physics and chemistry, or, more generally speaking, by mechanics. Rationalism maintains that there is no essential difference between the structural chemistry of life and that of inanimate nature. This idea of the body viewed as a machine composed of many little machines is contrary to the Empirical view that the laws governing the living organism differ from those of lifeless matter. This concept is called Vitalism. The person as a whole is something different from a collection of viscera; the wholeness gives some extra, if undeniable, quality to the individual organs. Today we pay for our knowledge of the parts in ignorance of the whole. Vitalism maintains that; “the organism is reactive, at all times coping with, and attempting to overcome, the stresses which impinge upon it from outside. It behaves purposively, the nature and form of its reaction being determined by the specific environmental stress encountered. It responds to challenge, which no aggregate or assembly of non-living substances can ever do”. (Divided Legacy, Harris Counter, pg. xvii.) In 1946, the quantum physicist Erwin Schroedinger pointed out… “that biological material has a totally different character from all other states of matter density of life – that is, the information stored per unit volume – and that of any inorganic system that has not been produced by living forms…The silicon chip must use many orders of magnitude more atoms to store the same amount of information as a gene.” This is vitalism, Quantum Vitalism. According to Harris Coulter, no perfect Rationalist therapeutic doctrine has ever been devised. Even Galen, who of all physicians in history worked hardest at theoretical consistency, left a few loose ends. But the formulation which emerged in the late nineteenth century – the specific bacterial disease treated by the ‘contrary’ medicine – seemed to its devotees an almost unblemished depiction of the Rationalistic reality. The above is what is what ‘modern’, allopathic medicine has become. The microbe and the Germ Theory of Disease became a new organizing principle in medicine, bringing much scattered clinical data together into a series of new specific entities with some cures, specific cures. The ‘germ theory’ was bolstered by the doctrine of ‘monomorphism’ – meaning again that microbial genera and species are fixed and eternal, that the form of each microorganism associated with a specific disease always stays the same and always causes that same disease. “Monomorphism was above all, a practical response to an emergency situation in bacteriology. This concept of disease, emerged in a context of intense anxiety over the social depredations inflicted in every country in Europe and the United States by a series of diseases whose very names – tuberculosis, diphtheria, typhus, cholera–were chilling reminders of human mortality,” (Divided Legacy, Harris Coulter, pg. 37) More to the point; “involved in the concept of Pleomorphism was the role and importance of the host organism – THE PATIENT! Microbes altered their forms in response to the patient, in response to the diet, environmental stresses the patient encountered, what poisons the patient consumed etc..” (ibid.), Harris Coulter) Such ideas have little to do with the doctor. Pleomorphism meant that the host organism or patient was an active participant in infection and disease – in contrast to Koch and Pasteur and the monomorphists who held the microbe to be all-powerful, the host organism a passive victim. Pleomorphism meant downgrading the microbe or microform, since the host, by resisting the latter’s onslaught, could alter its characteristics and make it return to a normal form as again. The patient had control over the bacteria, not the other way around. The microform found in the body are the result, not the cause of dis-ease or so-called disease. Even the common so-called “communicable” dis-eases, e.g. strep throat or chickenpox, can not take hold, grow, if the internal milieu is not conducive to their reproduction or growth. One third of people in Europe did not get bubonic plague. In treating cancerous condition with an alkalizing pH Miracle approach, for example, one does not attack or treat the tumor at all, instead one changes the internal environment, the internal milieu that caused the cancerous condition in the first place. What this all means then, this pleomorphism/monomorphism controversy, is that at its most fundamental level it has socioeconomic dimensions that still effect us profoundly today. “Accepting Pleomorphism meant acknowledging the host organism’s, the patient’s capacity to defend itself (him or her) against, and dominate, the microbe. Monomorphism, on the contrary, enhanced the role of the microbe in disease, and consequently that of the physician who combats the microbe. This is the principal reason for the instinctive hostility of the majority of physicians to Pleomorphism and Whoistic/Alternative Medicine in general.” This gives the responsibility for health back to the patient… if they want it! Pleomorphism has been a great threat to this “control” factor. This control factor means; “control of the disease with poisons that need monitored and controlled, controlling therefore, the patient and their pocket book.” The phenomena are forced into categories which can be manipulated to make a living from the practice of medicine. The monomorphists have identified their doctrine with science itself, as science itself, that Monomorphism is a law of nature, which it is not. This viewpoint has, through the years, taken on such an aspect of truth that to question it now seems a scientific sacrilege. The followers of Koch proclaimed Monomorphism with ‘religious fanaticism’, stated Max Gruber in 1885. F. Loehnis stated in 1922 that the intransigence and verbal violence displayed by the various factions in this conflict resembled certain historic theological quarrels. This battle has been going on for a long time! For all these reasons, Monomorphism was at first excessively rigid, even dogmatic. Rene Dubious states that Koch and Pasteur; “overestablished” the doctrine of the specificity of disease causes and that blind acceptance by several generations of bacteriologist of the dogma of constancy of cell forms and immutability of cultural characteristics discouraged for many years the study of the problems of morphology, inheritance, and variation in bacteria. “Upon clear contemplation, not only the cancer problem but the entire pathology, as taught by school medicine, have become unsustainable. In any case, it is extremely revealing of the insight that Prof. Sauerbruch, in following a series of cancer patients he treated isopathically (with pleomorphic medicines) in his hospital at the Charite and who, subsequently, in the closing years of his life again and again had pointed out that: “IF ENDERELEIN, AND NASSONS ET AL, ARE CORRECT, THEN WE CAN THROW OUT OUR ENTIRE LITERATURE”. (Blutuntersuchung im Dunkelfeld, nach Prof. Dr. Günther Enderlein, pg. 77, 1993, Compiled by Dr. med. Maria M-Bleker) The consequences of this are profound. Also, there are many problems that monomorphism has not been able to explain. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is one that is becoming quite critical in today’s world. The bacteria don’t ‘mutate’ into a drug resistant form, they just change, evolve, de-volve. There is a big difference between the two forms of change. Mutation occurs rarely, Pleomorphism occurs all the time. Another problem has been microbiology’s inability to classify microorganisms in proper families and the like, genera and species because the organisms do change form. Despite the inability of a century of bacteriological research to define the boundaries of these supposed genera and species, the suggestion is never heard that the search for them should be abandoned. The monomorphist conviction that genera and species do exist somewhere still retains a peculiarly tenacious hold. In school I learned cultured bacteria on very particular growth media. For example, all the strep “germs” in hospital microbiology labs anywhere are grown on blood agar (sterile human or rabbit blood mixed with agar). Therefore all the germs grow the same way, all streptococcal bacteria look like little round balls in strings, if they are grown on blood agar, at a very specific pH’s, pH 7.6 – 7.8, and temperatures. Change any of these conditions, the pH etc. and the germs or microforms change their form and their function. According to Enderlein’s formulations, the protits which are used as medicine actually are grown on a culture medium composed of a broth made of asparagus and agar. In medical school you learn to never grow anything on an asparagus/agar broth so, you never see the Protits or Antione BeChamp’s (An antagonist of Louis Pasteur)Microzymas or Nassen’s Somatid or God’s Dust. What you see is determined by how you look at something. Is this science? The thing is, that to classify all the different microforms that bacteria can and do assume, in the terms of contemporary microbiology would be a taxicological (taxonomy- the science of classification) nightmare. I knew in school that syphilis microbes could grow as fungal forms, on old culture plates. These plates were just ignored and thrown away. To say that the above syphilis organism began as a protit or microzyma, somewhere, sometime, in some other generation even, and then went through all the stages that it would take to end up on an old culture plate in some microbiology lab, would require an impossible classification system, if done in the mono-morphistic way. This begs a quantum system of classification, like the definition of vitalism given by Schroedinger above. (As an aside, when these organisms do change their form and function, for example when the protit or microzyma changes into a yeast from a bacteria, well, it just changes, instantaneously – as if it made a quantum jump. You have to watch awhile though, through the microscope, to see this. I have seen this happen thousands of times!!!!!!!!) “If Pleomorphism were correct, scientific investigation of bacteria would be an impossibility. One grasps one’s head to make sure it is still on the shoulders. The whole structure of our science threatens to collapse.” (F. Loehnis, 1922) Winogradsky in (1930) called pleomorphism; “chaotic…truly, the whole of a researcher’s lifetime would hardly be sufficient to follow directly all of the transformations indicated by [Felix Loehnis].” Hans Zinsser in 1932 stated that; “If the pleomorphic surmise is a correct one, acid base–the entire structure of our attitude toward the biology of disease must be changed…If these conclusions are correct, this will bring about a revolution in biology…At the present time it is dangerous for the progress of bacteriology to accept this work until it has been satisfactorily demonstrated…Nothing short of absolute proof should be accepted or we may risk making research more difficult than it already is.” To this end, the French microscopist and bacteriologist, Gaston Naessens has described the whole cycle of the Somatid/Protit, maintaining that all bacteria are derived from a single Somatid/Protit. “Naessens demonstrates and describes each such stage, with return to the starting point, thus meeting an earlier objection as to the idea of a bacterial life cycle. In effect this view rejects all bacterial classification. The French have a proclivity for Pleomorphism, are more radical, and also more theoretical, and contend that the whole of the earth’s microbial life constitutes a single collection of genetic material, “GENOME”, (the self reproducing portion of a cell), adequate to supply every microbial genus and species.” (Divided Legacy, Harris Coulter, pg. 197) Sonea and Panisset, representing the French view, maintain that; “each microorganism has access to this genome (genetic pool) and borrows from it genes as needed – employing conjugation, transformation, transduction, and other mechanisms of gene transfer which are still incompletely known. Genes are relinquished when environmental circumstances no longer require their use for survival.”(Ibid pg. 196) The German view represented by Günther Enderlein is not much different. Enderlein finds that all microorganisms originate from a Protit that, in its culminant and most degenerative phase, turns into the fungus Mucor racemosis. In going from the original Protit to the fungal form, all known bacteria are manifested, if the conditions for their manifestation, are right. This fungus then, Mucor racemosis, is the end, of the beginning. After it has decayed all the organic matter present it disintegrates back into the Protit it came from. Of all the impediments to the acceptance of Pleomorphism: Rationalism vs. Empiricism; the need for Magic Bullets, specific cures and disease entities in the face of the epidemic type so-called diseases prevalent at the end of the last century; the “control” factor consisting of the contradiction between the patient healing his or herself and the doctor doing the job with allopathic, potentially dangerous drugs; the religious fanaticism and intransigence of the monomorphists; the inability of modern science to classify microorganisms into families etc. and the other inconsistencies contained in the monomorphist ‘science’ including drug resistance; of all these impediments I feel the most important one is the so called “complexity” factor. “The phenomena are forced into categories which can be manipulated and named, to make a living from the practice of medicine, as easily as possible.” (Harris Coulter) It isn’t complex. You just need to know more than one form of medicine. The other form of medicine – Dr. Robert O. Young’s “New Biolody.” (R)

2 thoughts on “The History of Monmorphism/Pleomorphism”

  1. Very Insightful! I learned a great deal and feel more confident in sharing the Alkaline lifestyle with others!
    Thank you Dr. Young for your great work once again.
    Angel Kavrakov


  2. Ya know I love ya doc!! It was hard for a simple mind like mine to read but worth it. I see 3 or 4 human frailties at work here. 1st the need most people have to blame there problems on something/someone other than themselves and there by needing a king , doctor or dictator. 2nd the compulsive need of some to control ,fix and dictate to others what they should do. and 3rd the power of the almighty dollar. So which came 1st the Medical Doctor the hypochodriac or the dishonest profiteer.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s