Enderlein developed his own terminology in the attempt to explain his idea which, in turn, has made it difficult to read his papers with full understanding. “He stated that small harmless and beneficial herbal particles were present in every animal or plant and which may transform into larger and pathogen (disease producing) bacteria or fungi under certain stimuli and body staus.”
He also separated the “symbionts” or larger clumps of protein he visualized under dark field microscopy into “acid” or “alkaline” categories. These small clumps of proteins he felt were not abnormal or a danger to health but under certain stimuli such as an abnormal acid blood pH status they could progress into harmful agents producing a variety of disorders. He made this conclusion because when he introduced an alkaline solution under the cover slip on the slide for live blood cell analysis the protein material he observed disappeared. He again concluded that if the blood were in an acid state, progression of these substances would allow development of bacteria and on into a fungus thus allowing disease states to form in the body.
Upon observing the material he was studying under the microscope, when “spermites” interacted with other larger clumps that he labeled “mychits” they dissolved and he believed the disappearance was from de- polymerization, a degradation of the structures. At this time in the science of bacteriology reports were published of viruses attacking bacteria and destroying them. Enderlein concluded that the spermite was a virus and the mychits a bacterium. The appearance of these objects (mychits) seen in dark field microscopy was similar to bacteria and fungus observed in phase contrast microscopy which led to the following conclusion.
He believed a plant protein/protit which he felt every cell contained, would grow into larger formations and eventually into a bacteria and even on into a fungus (pleomorphism). Enderlein believed that the protit was the primordial form of life and origin of every living being. He believed It took some abnormal stimuli such as an improper diet to effect a change from the normal alkaline blood pH 0f 7.4 to an acid pH level below 7.0 of the blood to allow this to occur. As growth of protit to spermite progressed and on to bacteria and/or fungus, various disease states would become present. This he believed was the basis of all disease in animal and man.
The above conclusions of Enderlein led to his additional hypothesis that by changing the pH of the blood toward alkaline and other influences to the body status would, in turn, reverse the development of intra-blood microbes and relieve disease.
Many morphological changes in blood cells do occur with certain physical disorders and these will be listed later. Enderlein observed, by dark field microscopy, dissolution of the non-cellular material when he applied an alkaline solution to a ‘live blood cell analysis” slide. From this he deducted that the protit grew into pathogenic status when the blood became acidic, and therapy with alkaline would terminate the production of pathogen (disease producing) bacteria or fungus. This concept became the basis of his therapy to illness. A concept not recognized by science of his time or of the present.
He also believed that the beginning particle, protit/herbal protein, continued to exist in the body or cells after dissolution of the large aggregates which he believed were bacteria and fungi and could rise again producing disease. He was able to reduce fungi, by placing in an alkaline solution, to ball like particles that appeared similar to the ball like (spermites) material he was observing under the microscope, so he concluded they were the same. In his day in the world of science this was not unusual. Enderlein developed a therapeutic approach based upon this hypothesis and also drawing from the concepts of Samuel Hahnemann M.D. (1755-1843), the father of homeopathy.
Hahnemann was guided by his belief in “vitalism,” to the Chinese—chi’, the Indian—prana, and today might call it universal energy. Homeopathy attempts to restore in illness disrupted functions/life processes, this is believed to be accomplished by prescribing a highly diluted substance that when taken in large quantity by a healthy individual provokes symptoms similar to the symptoms peculiar to a specific illness. Hahnemann felt this could be done by diluting such a substance (a remedy) to infinite dilutions and by shaking (succession) this solution violently with each dilution. Hahnemann believed the original substance taken to make the remedy, contained a “life force” a “spirit” that could be transferred into the diluted solution. As the solution was diluted further and further the “life force” would be transferred by the shaking and would increase in potency, the remedy might not contain any molecules of the original substance at the end of dilutions. Thus a “homeopathic remedy” would be created.
Isopathy is the term applied to a therapeutic substance prepared in a similar manner but using the believed pathogen (tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, toxin, etc.) which he believed had developed in the blood (bacteria, fungus) from the herbal protein/protit, which he postulated was the cause of all illness. The isopathic medication was prepared by diluting similarly as in the preparation of a homeopathy remedy.
The work of Ederlein and his hypothesis must be viewed in the stream of advancement in the field of biological sciences. His was one of several hypothesis which were present during his time. It was not until the field of genetics and DNA knowledge was developed in the 1940’s and 1950’s that the solid proof of Enderlein’s ideas were shown to be incorrect. Knowledge in the biochemistry and functioning of genes has continuously progressed. We can now have confidence that a simple herbal protein will not of its own progress into a more complicated protein structures and be able to develop cells. It takes specific DNA in genes to put this all together.
Viruses have only one strand of DNA covered with a protein and cannot duplicate, they must attach to the DNA of some other structure to do so. Viruses will have 5-250 genes according to type of virus. A bacterium will have in excess of 4000 genes, and fungus/ yeast 6000. A virus changing into a bacteria and, in turn, the bacteria progressing on to yeast or fungus in not feasible due to genetics.
By use of dark field microscopy Enderlein left himself open to error because this type of exam depends so much on self-interpretation of what was seen under the microscope. In his day there was no electronics to record the exam so his reporting could not be examined by others. In using the dry blood, stained, and light microscopy method of exam the slide could be seen by many examiners and error more easily exposed.
I have suspicion that Enderlein’s world view may have been similar to the pantheistic world view of Samuel Hahnemann M.D. Enderlein chose homeopathic and isopathic therapeutic agents as therapy. His therapeutic preparations were also highly diluted. The company he started, Sanum, and operated produced diluted homeopathic and isopathic supplements.
During the time that Dr. Enderlein was involved in blood cell research, so were thousands of others around the world. They all were using the same type of methods to examine blood. They had the same type of instruments to work with. Why did medical science gradually move to the use of dried and stained blood smears in analysis and drop use of the dark field method except in cases of looking for the spirochete of syphilis?
I was a trained licensed laboratory technician and for a number of years worked in the laboratory of various hospitals including my medical school hospital. We did not have a dark field microscope in any of them. If we had need of such we would send the specimen to the state’s Public Health laboratory. This would be the case across America. Were these doctors, specializing in pathology and in charge of laboratories ignorant of the best methods of examining blood? Had they not been specialists in the science of blood analysis during these years when light field, phase contrast, and dark field microscopy was being used universally? Why reduce the method of blood exam to a standard technique of dried stained blood? Millions upon millions of exams were correlated with specific illnesses and the evidence pointed to the dried stained slide as by far the most accurate method.
Careful study of Dr. Enderlein’s work reveals: “He also looked at many different parameters with stained preparations; a fact often overlooked by Enderlein proponents who teach dark field…”
So the question now comes: why do some holistic healers, naturopaths, chiropractors, and rarely an M.D. use the discarded inferior method? They claim that they can see in “live blood” things not seen in the standard technique. Is that really true? Let us look a bit further at the chemical analysis of the objects referred to as protit, spermite, symbiont, mychit, etc.
New technologies allow chemists to analyze proteins in a way undreamed of in the day of Enderlein’s research. DNA knowledge and methods of examining such have also revolutionized understanding of previous questions. “Proteom research” was conducted by Christopher Gerner, Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of Vienna, Austria, which is the most advanced method of studying proteins. The material Enderlein saw and studied proved to be clumps of albumin and globulin protein which come from the breakdown of red blood cells. In conditions where red blood cells break down faster than the liver and spleen can process them, protein components form and can grow in size. This was what Enderlein was seeing. His work was exceptional but his theory was incorrect attempting to explain and correlate these observations to disease and its etiology.