As an individual who provides training in the Enderlein perspective, including the Live or Native Blood Analysis for the health care community, I am in contact with many individuals who are representative of divergent scientific and philosophical backgrounds. The queries that I receive during training sessions are often quite provocative and I have learned to use the three magic words that all good researchers and lecturers must include in their vocabularies. These words are “I don’t know,” and must be applied judiciously under the appropriate circumstances. I would like to take this opportunity to consider just what we do and do not know regarding Dr. Günther Enderlein’s work from today’s scientific perspective, with the intention of possibly provoking some consideration on the part of individuals who are interested in the subject.

Here is what we know:
Enderlein was a class A genius. I can personally vouch for the fact that some of what he described morphologically was never viewed by him microscopically, but was an extrapolation that has proven it to be 100% correct due to the advent of such technologies as the scanning electron microscope and the imaging, which is producible thereby.

The conventional laboratory perspective and microscopic imaging equipment that is commonly utilized today does not reveal the majority of the morphological structures that Enderlein described, nor does the scientific community have a working description or perspective for evaluation of those structures when presented with them. It may presume to, but upon closer examination, technicians of that variety must acquiesce and concede to the fact that they are not familiar with the structures, which are viewed, nor their meaning and function.

Polymorphism is a fact, certainly in some species of microorganisms (especially fungal), and is clearly demonstrable microscopically with the proper equipment.

Very little has been done to track the species specificity of these polymorphic variants in and through their varying polymorphic phases of development. The understanding has not been scientifically translated into today’s predominant scientific perspective and language, namely genetics. The practical implication of this is that until the DNA sequences have been determined for the complete Cyclogeny as described by Enderlein, the perspective will not enter the mainstream as a ‘provable’ science, partially due to the fact that it does not translate readily into current scientific terminology.

The Enderlein remedies have a long history of efficacy and provide clinical evidence of the relationship between the isopathic remedy utilized, and the desired observable effect. What this means is that although it hasn’t been fully explained or understood exactly why a given remedy works, that it works nevertheless. This also implies that for the practitioner or clinician, there is not a great deal of impetus to create the necessary data to prove the efficacy scientifically. Because these remedies are a product of Nature, pharmaceutical companies, which deal in patentable fractions of Nature, will never likely develop an interest in putting the necessary funds in motion to do the proving.

The disappointing news is that we don’t have a working language and perspective that will likely be shared by all in the near future. The good news is that we have a working system for correction of the terrain imbalance that has a long track record of efficacy. A bird in the hand, perhaps?

People sometimes expect me, because I use Enderlein’s concepts and discoveries as a platform for my presentations, to be defensive regarding people questioning the paradigm. My actual position is: I would be just as happy to have proven as disproved Enderlein theory as it relates to morphological progressions and their species specificity. I have not seen that evidence in either direction–proof or disproof. What I have seen is the remarkable degree to which the working hypothesis of Enderlein stands for itself. What I have not seen much of is scientific proving to the contrary. A good example of this is that every time that I encounter a naysayer, I ask for a description then of ‘just what it is that we are undeniably viewing’ in the polymorphic progressions that occur in blood pictures. I have never to this day had anyone claim of “bunkum,” a favorite word used to describe “quackery,” and give me a reasonable explanation of just what we are looking at. In fact, the majority is even incorrect in the description of the traditionally noted blood elements when viewed in a Darkfield, because they have never seen them that way. This does not stop their jaws from dropping when it is their blood being viewed.

I therefore am equally frustrated due to the lack of affirmation as well as the inability to disprove Enderlein and have that be a step towards proving any other concept. Therefore, I believe that it can be said that the momentum of the times, characterized by the language of DNA, has overshadowed any real desire to even consider rather than dismiss something as compelling as blood examination in the Darkfield.

This tendency towards the function of doubt as a scientific method is always creating the threat of exclusivity of this method in the pursuit of ultimate scientific knowledge, as if such a thing existed. In fact, though, theory evolves constantly and an example of this is the recent disproving of particle theory. So what was proof yesterday turns out to be an outmoded concept today.

In reality though, the reason that Darkfield examination is compelling is that it is equally an art as well as a science. Does the painter know exactly what his creation will look like before he paints it? If he did, why wouldn’t he not just make a static copy, a photograph? The painter is seeking the essence or living spirit of the subject, as also is the practitioner performing the living process and dynamic art of Native Blood Evaluation. As the painter may have studied the work of others–technique, blending of colors, preparation of a canvas, and so on, so must the Darkfield practitioner know his stuff, the correct amounts and condition of cells and other numerous factors and then must practice the art of putting all of that together with the profile of the subject. This art may provide the subject of the evaluation with a most important piece of the puzzle towards regaining equanimity, which is a real starting point to work from, and the coaching of an expert who has taken many down the road to recovery. This is much more tangible, compelling and inspiring than a number of sheets of mystified, abstracted numbers, values and terms.

I am constantly amazed that people who are sick will accept a diagnosis, a “naming” of a condition as sufficient! What about what caused and is causing the trouble, and what about a solution that takes everything into account about the condition and the person, rather than attempting to just eliminate the result of the condition?

I would also like to mention before I go further that there is an e-group discussion forum available to practitioners of the art. I highly recommend it, as it is a conversation that is full of feedback from numerous practitioners and is probably one of the best educational formats that you could possibly find for the established practitioner. To become a part of this forum contact the owner of the group, Dr. Rob Abbott  and tell him that you saw it here.

Another note of great interest is the development of a National Microscopy Association, which is headed up by Jed Adamson and has recently accomplished the status of a not-for-profit Foundation. This is a membership association for practitioners only with the express intention of organizing research results, establishing a self-governing membership and creating a clarified legal position for practitioners. I can endorse this organization personally, and am a member of it. This non-profit foundation will be instrumental in moving the Enderlein perspective and microscopic blood evaluation altogether into the 21st century, especially at the level of politics and legalities. It is the only non-commerce driven vehicle of its type, which is concentrated in the legal and political arenas and is not an extension of NuLife Sciences or any other commercial organization. Joining this organization will help to assure your right to perform research in the area of live blood analysis and to demonstrate to CLIA and other similar Federal and State organizations our serious intention to be self-governing.

I was recently interviewed by a functionary from the Dept. of Health and Hygiene, which has been commissioned by CLIA to make a recommendation regarding CLIA statutes as they relate to CAM (Complimentary and Alternative Medicine). There is some interest in revising CLIA guidelines to be more reflective of the new understanding of CAM. There was also an expressed interest in not inhibiting research in his area. A report will be available soon on the actual recommendation that was made to CLIA.

© Copyright 2001 by Michael Coyle, USA
(Explore Issue: Volume 10, Number 3)

One thought on “Revisiting Enderlein’s Perspective in the 21st Century

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s