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.”
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”. 
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,”
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..” 
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, 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 microbes are the result, not the cause of disease.
Even the common “communicable” diseases, e.g. strep throat or chickenpox, can not take hold, grow, if the internal milieu is not conducive to their reproduction. This is what base powder does. As stated before, one third of people in Europe did not get bubonic plague. In treating cancer with isopathic medicine, for example, one does not attack the tumor at all, instead one changes the environment, the internal milieu that caused the cancer 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”.
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 we only 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 change form.
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
we never grew anything on an asparagus/agar broth so,
we never saw protits!!!
What you see
is determined by how you look at something.
Is this science?
* * *
The thing is, that to classify all the different forms that bacteria can and do assume, in the terms of contemporary microbiology would be a taxicological (taxonomy- the science of classification) nightmare. We 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, 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 form, for example when the protit changes into a virus, well, it just changes, instantaneously – as if it made a quantum jump. You have to watch awhile though, through the microscope, to see this.)
“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.”  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.” 
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.” 
The German view represented by Guenther 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. Acid Base
* * *
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 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.
- Divided Legacy, Harris Counter, pg. xv.
- Divided Legacy, Harris Counter, pg. xvii.
- Divided Legacy, Harris Coulter, pg. 37
- (ibid.), Harris Coulter
- Ibid. pg. 39
- Ibid, pg.39
- Blutuntersuchung im Dunkelfeld, nach Prof. Dr. Guenther Enderlein, pg. 77, 1993
- (F. Loehnis, 1922) Winogradsky in (1930)
- (Divided Legacy, Harris Coulter, pg. 197)
- Ibid pg. 196
- Modern Proteom Research Disproves Enderlein’s Theory of Microbial Life Cycles
- What are the possibilities of developing and transformation for microorganism after Prof. Dr. Günther Enderlein?
- Professor Enderlein’s research: developing isopathic immune-modulators from bacteria and fungi
- Revisiting Enderlein’s Perspective in the 21st Century