In the Vol. 10, Number 6 issue of Explore! For the Professional I reported on new scientific findings on the Enderlein Perspective as authored by Ronald Ullmann, Biochemist, Calw, Germany. In this article, I wish to present further material for consideration in that line of scientific inquiry with the intention of clarifying the information for the use of microscopists and biological practitioners.
I have a clinical background and have worked with isopathic remedies for over a decade and have compiled data on the subject for over a decade. Therefore, my observations are from that point of view rather than laboratory analysis that has to do with molecular identification of microorganisms. My queries are also generated from that point of view.
Let me address for a moment the difficulties regarding making a proving (one way or the other, pro or con) on a scientific hypothesis such as that presented by Prof. Dr. Enderlein. First and foremost, the proper talent and manpower necessary for testing and laboratory results is expensive to produce. Therefore, the information that has been utilized regarding substantiation of Enderlein remedy efficacy and it’s relationship to darkfield analysis has until very recently, been strictly in the hands of those who could substantiate or refute the hypothesis empirically. In contrast to the fine precision available through sophisticated laboratory analysis techniques, the empirical method is fraught with potential errors in judgment based on the clinician’s limitations. And this is why you see so many disparaging interpretations of blood pictures from one school of thought to the next. Yet, this is where the war has been fought, in the trenches of the practitioner’s evaluation rooms and the data has never been fully compiled, as it is a tremendous undertaking. The data is sitting in the clinician’s files and often goes to the grave with him or her. Secondly, pharmaceutical interests have not been interested in this area, isopathy, as the organisms used to make isopathic remedies are not patentable. But neither are herbs, and the pharmaceutical concerns have moved heavily into that area based on the expansive popularity of herbs. Hopefully, microorganism-based remedies of this type will become popular enough someday to warrant the research funding that the field of interest really requires and deserves. But that day is yet to come, if it ever arrives at all.
To summarize, the limitations are primarily financial.
One of the most interesting aspects of the new scientific findings, to me, is that they match many of my empirical observations at the level of the information addressed in the report authored by Mr. Ullmann. I have had the opportunity to look at further information on the subject since the release of that report and agree with the central premise, which is that the progressions observed between the ranges of what Enderlein termed ‘symprotit and macrosymprotit’ are not DNA related. This is to say that blood cell destruction and the resultant protein polymerizations contribute to the ‘morphing’ of blood elements from one size or phase of development to another and that the mechanisms behind that process are not a “microorganism growth cycle”, but rather artifacts of blood cell breakdown which is indicative of numerous potential causes. But it is not just and only that simple. Basically, the overall biology of the human and mammalian organisms is a great chaos of effects. In appearance, moving as an organism from point A to point D does not always go through the process of developing the phases B and C along the way. Therefore, point D can be arrived at in more than one way. This is evidenced in the appearance in blood pictures of (for instance) diaphanous ball-like formations with a single grainlet or nucleus-like inclusion. I have personally observed this form to reproduce through mitosis and also to grow out of a large grainlet or macrosymprotit. But they look identical and neither one may possibly be a “microorganism’ in the classic sense.
There is the basic diaphanous and nucleated form which goes through a process of mitosis and ends up as two singly nucleated forms.
The progression occurs in a totally different manner, but ending up with the same appearance. This may indicate that these are two completely different processes producing visually identical end results.
But the one thing that we know for sure is that when these organisms are more complex with many grainlets inside of them, there is always a corresponding physical problem, an illness.
The stumbling block on the morphological ground for most practitioners is that they are convinced (and certainly rightfully so) that there is a relationship between the variants observed and the subject’s state of ill health. The question is… how are these developments ordered, by what physical processes? Since there is a considerable accumulation of proof that the organisms are not DNA related, the question is, how and why do they form? This is a question that must be answered through laboratory means. It is difficult to fathom just how little we know regarding microbes and especially how few we have isolated and identified. This is where the necessity for resources comes into play in order that research may continue.
The reason that I accompany the microscopy training with a presentation on the stressors that drive illness is that the latter is the most important area to look for information. I have always said that the microscope is not for diagnosis in the hands of most people, but rather to determine if the terrain is imbalanced and just how much–and then to track the progress or lack of it that is observed in the course of treatment. It is very valuable for this purpose due to the fact that it can be demonstrated to the subject of the evaluation. It might make the difference in them staying with a course of treatment that is working for them even if they are still feeling the bite of detoxification, etc.
There are two issues that arise continually in the microscopy practice. One is–is there any scientific substantiation, and if not, why not? There is a good deal of published information that represents scientific substantiation of the cell morphologies. Some of this information has been compiled by Dr. Betsy Meshbesher in the Biotrophy Research Bulletin #1–Live Blood Analysis. Dr. Meshbesher and I recommend the book for anyone who is in need of such substantiation. This includes many people who practice microscopy.
The next issue is–the problem that different schools of thought regarding the interpretations exist that vary greatly. For instance, regarding ball-type forms there are the following interpretations.
They are candida
They are observed in greater numbers when utilizing isopathic therapies of fungal origin
They are a by-product of the lipid by-layer of the erythrocyte being sloughed off due to degenerative processes
They are not all a by-product of the lipid by-layer being sloughed off of the cell when they are seen to be associated with platelets and apparently budding
They represent the presence of potentially any number of fungi in the tissues
This is difficult and disturbing to the clinician, patient, and also makes it difficult to make a realistic evaluation. This is why we only use the microscope as a tool for screening rather than for diagnosis. There are many ways of doing an evaluation for the patient or client. There are lab tests, sonograms, point testing, biological terrain assessment, thermography, dietary evaluation, hair analysis, etc., etc. Therefore it is sufficient to get a feeling for the condition of the terrain and then look for potential improvements over time that are consistent and lasting. If this is part of a comprehensive evaluation, the patient really appreciates the visual image of the blood, as it speaks to you, perceptually.
I am sure that there are also any number of other various interpretations on this one issue. Some are outright incorrect, some are incomplete, and some are correct. For instance, the perception that the balls are candida related is possibly correct in certain instances (in that the appearance of the balls may be related to the fact that the person may have a fungal overgrowth), but not necessarily more so than other various fungi that may appear and develop in the body. So to call them ‘candida’ is an error.
One reasonable question is–if the lipid by-layer of the erythrocyte is what is behind this appearance, what is happening when we observe growth or expansion of the form in question? Why does it begin with the appearance of what Enderlein described as a tube-like form, then becomes a ball-form, then divides into two ball forms which may then stretch out again into tube-forms? Naturally, the changes in the terrain of the specimen may be the greatest catalytic factor in these progressions, but that factor is only one of the elements for consideration when studying these progressions. In short, although I have found certain individuals to hold pieces of the puzzle, no one has the whole picture yet.
Although there is a good deal of general crankiness regarding the state of affairs in microscopic evaluation techniques at this time, let’s consider this. The reason that the microscope is so popular is, that it is generally used as a part of a larger process of evaluation, and very much speaks to people. Although I have been one of the most forceful critics of misinformation, I must say that overall, as many microscopists use only nutritionally based therapies that can do very little or no harm, that is a lot more than can be said for many of the techniques (surgeries, drug therapies) that most often seem to make things worse. Anyone who looks at blood long enough is going to begin to see the correlations between the state of the subject and the blood images that are observed. That is why we definitively state that healthy blood produces few variations and that blood that has many artifactual variations, high hemolysis rate, clumping, roleau, and many other potential variations always indicates dysbiosis of some form or another. This proves out over and over. That alone makes it a useful tool in the physician’s office.
I would like to acknowledge the numerous individuals who work long and hard in this field, often without much support, trying to tie the information together in a way that it can be useful to others. Before I can rightfully say that though I must abandon any enmity that has developed between myself and any others as a result of biases, misunderstandings and differences in perspective. I have always promised myself that I would never allow those factors to control me or my work, which is why I am making this public statement. I am abandoning any and all personal reactions in order that the work itself is best served. Therefore, I also offer apologies to any that I may have slighted or offended in a weaker moment. Also, thanks to Peter Gosch for responding to the questions that I posed in my last article, it was helpful in a number of ways.
I also feel that it is appropriate to give Professor Enderlein his due as a brilliant and talented researcher within the confines of the technological limitations of his own era. Although I appreciate new findings, they become tarnished if presented in a manner that belittles Enderlein’s work and doesn’t acknowledge his contributions. I was disturbed to have numerous calls from practitioners who felt that there was some gloating going on about how Enderlein was (is) nonsense. No more so than your old transistor radio as compared to your nice new CD player. So it is important that people understand that terrain evaluation through darkfield or even phase contrast microscopy is a useful tool and has it’s place in the practice.
I would like to take this opportunity to announce the formation of the Microsome Research and Education Foundation, a Nevada not-for-profit research organization whereby we hope to fund further inquiry into the field of microorganism developments. Our intention is to apply for grant funding in order to support this necessary research. Any qualified individuals that would like to be part of the Academic Board of Microsome and participate in this project may contact me at 707-781-9557 or info@nulifesciences.com.
It is time to put all division aside. Let’s see what can be discovered.
About the Author
Michael Coyle is a Nutritionally Oriented Natural Therapist and Microbiological Researcher.
In 1967, at the age of 17, Michael began his experimentations with dietary approaches to healing, following the works of the developer of Macrobiotics, George Osawa. This led him to make a synthesis of both Oriental approaches and Western Naturopathic approaches as described by Dr. Paavo Airola, N.D.
Michael has been applying and researching complementary healing modalities for more than 30 years. He has also worked extensively with herbal, homeopathic, isopathic, nutritional, nootropic and energetic therapies.
In 1989, Michael began his study of morphological conditions in the native blood. Since 1994, Michael has devoted his time to training medical doctors and complementary health professionals at his training facility in the art and science of native blood evaluation and the associated applications of wholistic therapies.
As a complement to his trainings he has developed two major literary works. There is the 430 page textbook Applied Microscopy For Nutritional Evaluation and Correction, an explanation of what Michael has coined “The New Biology”. The accompanying volume The Four Underlying Causes of Illness and What To Do About Them, is a treatise on the causative factors underlying illness, which has been scientifically proven to be driven by chemicals, diet, radiations and emotions. These works are available through Elbow Room Publishing, Petaluma, CA.
Michael is also the inventor and designer of a breakthrough high resolution, high magnification microscopy system which is ideal for native blood imaging. He is the technical representative and spokesperson for, NuLife Sciences, a corporation created to provide educational services.
Dr. Eddy Bettermann MD 
4 thoughts on “New Scientific Findings and Their Impact on the Enderlein Perspective, Part II”