On a Competitive Balance Within the Endobiont

©Copyright 1997 by Thomas A. Dorman, MD., Kent, Washington, USA
(Explore Issue: Volume 8, Number 3)

Introduction

This article will explore a radical approach to science and medicine. Though hardly known in North America, the practical applications of these matters have been current in Europe alternative medicine circles for decades. Whether this most intriguing of alternatives will gain a toehold in our society is an enigma. Watch it unfold! The clinical harvest may be large, scientific challenges enormous. As you will see from what follows, dear reader, the affront is threefold:

1. The intellectual front. The ideas of these methods challenge the very core of biological sciences, virtually all of them, and;
2. The philosophical milieu challenges not only the primacy of man in the universe but his very identity. Less of a challenge, although still important;
3. Clinical decisions about these matters fall into the realm of the Hippocratic approach rather than the Platonic. This is a political counter-trend as has been discussed on the pages of this magazine before.

So let us set to. First, the reader will find an inventory of some of the basic concepts which will need to be demolished for this odyssey. Second there is an outline of the new concepts. Please remember, however, this is a popular article, not a textbook or a treatise. Accordingly, you will only find introductions to ideas and references. The rest is up to you.

Linear Identity

Man has sought the philosopher's stone, longevity, since time immemorial to preserve the conscious identity which makes up the essence of each of us. The idea was captured by Descartes in the phrase, I think, therefore I am¹, or with Ayn Rand's succinct definition of man as a rational animal^2,3. The I fails ultimately because of individual mortality. After the grief of mortality we characteristically take solace in our progeny. However, not every son takes over where his father left off, so we embrace a broader family -- the tribe, the race, the nation, perhaps even our whole civilization. In our case we call it Western civilization. The ego's last defense is in the whole of the human species itself, in perpetuity. The dialectic where we should draw the line in this safety net for our ego, for our sense of identity, is the grist which operates the mill of social affairs and of spoken politics and history. It can be seen, therefore, that the psychological need for the concept of uniqueness of our species is diacritical for this pride, whether individual or collective. In contradiction, the theory of the life within, the endobiont of Professor Günther Enderlein, is predicated on accepting that our very organism is one of symbiosis.

Evolution

The Darwinian notion of evolution being a combination of gradual change of species on this planet through the mechanism of survival of the fittest has been challenged⁴. If the human, however, is a symbiosis of the genetic lineage of more than one organism, would we postulate an evolutionary duet down the millennia, nay, for millions of years? Incredible!

Life Cycles

Monomorphism is the concept that each species has one form. This is pretty much evident when looking at our own species or even at advanced examples of the plant kingdom. More "primitive" organisms, however, have multiple forms. We know, for instance, that the malaria parasite evolves through many stages, and several species, particularly parasites, have been described in which forms differ in their life cycles. In most cases life cycles are completed. In other instances the complete cycles are not mandatory -- that is to say, the organism can multiply in one form for prolonged periods. They proceed to what is usually called a sexual stage of multiplication only in propitious circumstances. The malaria parasite is the best example of this⁵. Science has recognized these cyclic phenomena, but they have not been fashionable models in recent years. In the case of bacteria and viruses, they have been denied. Our present odyssey calls for an acceptance of the concept of cycles. In addition, it posits that the host's internal environment influences growth and multiplication of the internal partner, the endobiont, as well as the sequence of its cyclic changes. The sequence is not necessarily unidirectional. What is meant by unidirectional? The example is the change of an insect's egg to a larva, thence to a cocoon, to an adult form, such as a butterfly, followed by sexual reproduction and the laying down of more eggs. Butterflies do not regress into the cocoon. The cycle is, therefore, unidirectional. Contrariwise, it is postulated that in certain circumstances the environment of micro-organisms can move an advanced form of an organism back to a more primitive one. In order not to confuse the concepts of ontological stages (larva, cocoon, butterfly, etc.) with this new one, the term valency has been introduced. The valency is recognized by its microscopic morphological complexity. Developmental and morphological valency is a new and difficult concept in microbiology.

Health and Disease

The allopathic concept of health is that a given state which is naturally preserved through the body's internal balance. Disease, on the other hand, is an invasion of this balance by an outside force, whether an injury, a metabolic defect, or an invading organism. (In Chinese medicine this is referred to as an External Pernicious Influence.) This contrasts with the homeopathic concept of health as one which is dependent on the inherent characteristics of the life concerned, and which can perhaps be modulated by subtle influences through harmonic stimuli, whether these be vibrational, through chemical imprinting or by other means⁶.

Isopathy

Isopathy is a term which refers to an adjustment in the balance between the symbiotic partners which constitute a life. The physician looks at the internal environment, the milieu, or bio-terrain as it is now called, through the microscope and with other means. The endobiont is coaxed into changing into a lower valency, the chondrit form. This is the essence of isopathic therapy.

Symbiosis

If you have been able to follow this essay, you will have come to realize that the term symbiosis is central to the discussion. Symbiosis is the cooperative joint living of two organisms for their mutual benefit in a form which is dependent on this interaction. Lichens are the most familiar example. Here, symbiosis exists between free-living bacteria and free fungal forms which in the lichen itself acquire a morphological form and exist in certain circumstances, such as adhering to rocks or tree bark, in a form which is quite different from the existence of each of the contributory organisms on their own. In fact, in the case of lichens the free-living fungi and bacteria are seldom seen alone, although it is possible to culture them and raise them in the experimental situation separately and even bring them together to re-form the lichen. Amazingly (and Oh, what a blow to the human ego!), it is suggested that our very existence constitutes such a symbiosis.

The Endobiont

So who, you will want to know, is the internal resident, this symbiontic partner? Before revealing this horrible secret, please be warned, dear reader, that the discoverer of the endobiont, an eminent German zoologist, has been maligned, his name virtually effaced from science for the very reason that he made this discovery. It is not a compliment to our ego. Contrary to what you might think or hope, science is not driven entirely by cold and indifferent logic. We have seen that revolutionary ideas have been subjected to long periods of suppression⁷. Well, hear is the blow: The internal partner is a measly fungus. Günther Enderlein reported that he was able to culture a fungus by the name of Mucor racemosus (Fresen) from human blood. (The name Fresen refers to the individual who first described this organism, G. Fresen, a botanist, 1870.) This fungus has been found elsewhere, cultured, for instance, from mummified Egyptian pharaohs. But the fungus can be found in such mundane places as the crevices between the tiles of your bathroom where it is free living. The preposterous suggestion that this fungal organism is an internal partner to Homo sapiens was, you can see, not well received. An uncertain caveat to this is that Enderlein and subsequent researchers have attributed a similar relationship to several organisms, the fungus Aspergillus niger in particular. And so from our embarrassment of thinking that we have an unwelcome partner in our journey in the universe -- I am referring to our as that of our species -- we are now challenged with a whole zoo of internal creatures.

Monomorphism

Matters are becoming complicated because, in addition to the above challenges, Enderlein posited that the mini creatures in this zoo can change from one form (species) to another in certain circumstances. The terms viral, bacterial, and fungal refer, therefore, to phases or valencies as well as to species. Here we have a conceptual synthesis between the ablation of the concept of monomorphism and the introduction of the concept of cyclic changes between valencies. This paradigm shift is anathema to microbiology since Robert Koch⁸ initially defined the parameters we now take for gospel. This subject is delineated in Günther Enderlein's book Bakterien Cyclogenie⁹, and in his major work AKMON¹⁰.

Intellectual Shock

To take stock, then, of the intellectual shocks just applied to received opinion we might pen the following list:

1. Species aren't necessarily species but symbioses.
2. Phenotypes are not really an expression of genetics of one species but a composite.
3. Life forms change in a sequel and the forms may cycle backwards at times.
4. The concept of specificity in genetic coding for a species needs to be reassessed if the form and function are predicated on symbiosis.
5. The whole business of evolution and Darwinism is untenable with this biological framework.
6. A new category of disease is introduced. This is an imbalance between the symbiotic partners. This concept of disease is nothing short of revolutionary.

By analogy: Copernicus challenged the centrality of planet earth and the solar system and Darwin the place of man on earth in God's image. How much larger is Günther Enderlein's blow to the ego of man based on this little list of paradigm shifts?

Dark Field Microscopy

If you have stayed with me thus far, dear reader, you are amongst the brave. Not only have I led you through an Alice-in-Wonderland maze of paradigm shifts, but I have so far not offered you a single reason to stay with me on this odyssey. But here it is. Look and you can see it! The amazing thing is that Günther Enderlein's work, theory and explanation is simply visible to the eye of the microscopist. Dark field microscopy was invented in 1837. Enderlein was a zoologist and makeshift clinician during the First World War. It fell to him, therefore, to combine clinical observation in the war theater with his knowledge of zoology, which was formed in a period before the conformity of the modern era, a time when essential ideas in science, those of Beauchamps, Pasteur, Koch and Bernard were still alive, competing and not yet relegated to their definitive slots of winner and loser. Some of these issues have been addressed elsewhere.¹¹ And so, Seeing is believing. When Günther Enderlein started studying dark field microscopy he observed in living mammalian blood (of course, including human blood) the appearances of bacteria, branching, growing structures akin to the mycelia of fungi, let alone the appearance of moving, directed particles within the living blood, both in cells and the plasma. Platelets seemed to play an important role in this pantheon, in the new zoo. By watching and classifying changes under the microscope, he discovered that the endobiontic changes anticipated disease. A match was found between

1. the initial microscopic appearances and
2. the rate of change, on the one hand, and prognosis and category of disease on the other.

We see, therefore, that in addition to prognosis, an impression can be formed of the likely disease category a person might suffer from. The forms visible under the microscope do not reach the highest potential valency of the internal partners, the endobiont, and, therefore, diagnosis of endobiontic species cannot be made microscopically. (Therefore, I comment on disease category, not diagnosis). However, assessments of valency, rate of change, endobiontic load, and observations about the internal milieu can indeed be made (and very usefully) with dark field microscopy. Herein lies the therapeutic potential.

Empiricism

The quintessence of the empiric method is a reliance on the scientist's observation. As scientists, we observe all kinds of things directly and indirectly in our experimental methods. But here we have a method of direct observation with the microscope. With suitable instrumentation and setting, anyone can see the changes for himself. What a paradox it is, then, that the profession of pathology, those doctors trained in the job of microscopic inspection and diagnosis, almost uniformly deny this whole scenario. The moving parts under the microscope are dismissed as Brownian movement (the true but random jiggling of tiny particles as the result of molecular interactions in fluids) or the extraneous invasion of the medium with bacteria from the air (not only could bacteria not grow fast enough for the changes we observe, but the patterns we observe in dark field microscopy matching health and disease, as outlined above, would hardly occur if the appearance were due to a random contamination from the air). Perhaps the aphorism, Seeing is believing, should be reversed to, Believing is seeing! Because in this case the establishment will not acknowledge what is plain to the eye because of their beliefs. Before I become too hoity-toity in my condemnation of the establishment, one should interject that the threshold of belief was painful for this writer too. He feels nothing but sympathy for the disbelievers because these observations are so contrary to our imprinted scientistic (pseudo-scientific) belief system.

The Use of Hypothesis

So why, you might ask, embark on this antiestablishmentarian odyssey? The reason is simple. A doctor is in quest of the therapeutic yield. Perhaps this theoretical framework will lead to the management of ill health with new and effective methods. Some are destined to journey in quest of the golden fleece. We should remind ourselves that in our scientific tradition, hypothesis is a tool for a practical outcome. Each hypothesis is valuable only if it yields useful information. Karl Popper¹² has defined these things for us.

Salvation

Günther Enderlein was so great a scientist that he drew the logical clinical conclusion from his zoological observations and developed a method for growing low valency Mucor and subsequently low valency forms of the alternate form of endobionts titled with the names of other species, such, for instance, as Aspergillus niger, in pure culture forms. These have been reduced to their essential protein moieties and are available as remedies from a company in Hoya, Germany, now called SANUM Kehlbeck. These remedies have been in use in Europe for about half a century with increasing degrees of sophistication, skill and therapeutic outcome. The intellectual divide between the Germanic lands and our own has been so wide that these marvelous remedies have barely penetrated into America and even the scientific knowledge about them has remained sub rosa. We owe, therefore, to the intellectual enthusiasm of a few English writers and enthusiasts, sometimes based on personal tragedies and salvation, that any information has become available. The battle (and seemingly a battle it was indeed) to introduce these remedies legally via the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of our government has just recently been concluded. We can, therefore, cash in on the dedication of these pioneers and bring some of these remedies to bear on our illnesses here at home. This writer is proud to support the introduction of the SANUM remedies to North America, even, if the quest for better health is a little like Jason's quest for the golden fleece. Symbolically, I see in Scylla the platonic socialist totalitarian snatching sailors from my boat and in Charybdis an intellectual vortex vacuuming out contrarian scientific paradigms.

Insurance

It goes without saying that Isopathic (SANUM) remedies are not insured benefits under Medicare or any known North American insurance. Individuals who choose practitioners using these methods fall into the category of self-reliant people who take responsibility for themselves. This is the ultimate in alternatives because of the scientific challenges.

Further Reading

Hidden Killers by Enby, Gosch and Sheehan is a paperback¹³which tells much more of the tale. Explore! magazine also carries many articles on this subject. Readers who are not already subscribers will wish to join the ranks of regular adherents in order to stay in touch. Purchase the book, imbibe from it, and then if you are interested in help, consider asking for this approach to your health. It is not "the standard of care" for your doctor to initiate isopathic treatment in America at present. But then, of course, anything that is not done by the majority is not the standard of care. Here is an example of conformism through consensus.

References

1. Descartes, Renè. Discourse on Method, 1637.
2. Rand, Ayn. The Objectivist Ethics in the Virtue of Selfishness, 1964
3. Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton, page 220, 1991.
4. Dr. Dorman's Practice Newsletter, October,1995
5. Dr. Dorman's Practice Newsletter, September 1992.
6. Gerber, Richard. Vibrational Medicine: New Choices for Healing Ourselves. Bear and Company, Santa Fe, New Mexico,1988.
7. Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition. The University of Chicago Press,1970.
8. Koch's Postulates: See footnotes to Practice Newsletter, September 1992.
9. Enderlein, Günther. Bakterien Cyclogenie, 1925. (In German, not yet available in English.)
10. Enderlein, Günther. AKMON . Ibica Publishers, 1957. (Also in German.)
11. Dr. Dorman's Practice Newsletter, October,1995, September, 1995.
12. Popper, Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery in 1934. Harper Torch Books, New York, 1969.
13. Available from Explore Book Club, 5160 West Phelps Road, Suite #B, Glendale, AZ, 85306. Phone: 602-439-7977.

[Back to Top]