The Pleomorphic Page
What is it? and does it have something to do with all the Chronic Diseases?
VIDEOS 1/5 OF THE WAY DOWN THE PAGE,ALL THE SCIENCE ONTHE BOTTOM HALF OF THE PAGE
A Classic Pleomorph "Y" shape
Pleomorph on sterile medium vancouver
"Claude Bernard, argued that disease was caused by variations in the host’s internal milieu, or “terrain,”to which the microbes responded by changing form in order to survive. "According to this theory, the vitality of the host was the principal factor in disease. Relatively small
changes in the internal environment made the “terrain” attractive and hospitable to different types of invading organisms: a weak host not only “invited” invading organisms to take up residence, but
actually cultured them, inducing their changes into pathological forms. On his death bed Louis Pasteur admitted Bernard was right and the germ theory was wrong.
"A strong and vital host, on the other hand, was inhospitable and would keep pathological organisms and disease at bay. This is the Pleomorphic, terrain(PH) theory of disease."
changes in the internal environment made the “terrain” attractive and hospitable to different types of invading organisms: a weak host not only “invited” invading organisms to take up residence, but
actually cultured them, inducing their changes into pathological forms. On his death bed Louis Pasteur admitted Bernard was right and the germ theory was wrong.
"A strong and vital host, on the other hand, was inhospitable and would keep pathological organisms and disease at bay. This is the Pleomorphic, terrain(PH) theory of disease."
Noun1.mycoplasma - any of a group of small parasitic bacteria that lack cell walls and can survive without oxygen or are anerobic which is never good for humans.Mycoplasma (mk-plzm) Any of a phylum of extremely small, parasitic bacteria that have a flexible cell membrane instead of a rigid cell wall, can assume a variety of shapes, and are capable of forming colonies. Too small to be seen with a light microscope, mycoplasmas are thought to be the smallest organisms capable of independent growth. They cause a number of important diseases.(mycoplasmosis)
Mycoplasmas of the genus Mycoplasma are dependent upon sterols such as cholesterol for growth and cause several types of pneumonia in humans and animals. Any of numerous parasitic, pathogenic microorganisms of the genus Mycoplasma that lack a true cell wall, and needing sterols such as cholesterol for growth.
a genus of ultramicroscopic organisms lacking rigid cell walls and considered to be the smallest free-living organisms. Some are saprophytes, some are parasites, and many are pathogens. One species is a cause of mycoplasma pneumonia, tracheobronchitis, pharyngitis, and bullous myringitis. Fungal sinusitis will require surgery to clean out the sinuses. Then, a relatively long course of a very strong antifungal medication called amphotericin B is given through a needle in the vein (intravenously).
Mycoplasmas of the genus Mycoplasma are dependent upon sterols such as cholesterol for growth and cause several types of pneumonia in humans and animals. Any of numerous parasitic, pathogenic microorganisms of the genus Mycoplasma that lack a true cell wall, and needing sterols such as cholesterol for growth.
a genus of ultramicroscopic organisms lacking rigid cell walls and considered to be the smallest free-living organisms. Some are saprophytes, some are parasites, and many are pathogens. One species is a cause of mycoplasma pneumonia, tracheobronchitis, pharyngitis, and bullous myringitis. Fungal sinusitis will require surgery to clean out the sinuses. Then, a relatively long course of a very strong antifungal medication called amphotericin B is given through a needle in the vein (intravenously).
Simple Pleomorphic Theory
Monomorphism vs Pleomorphism
"Bechamp described how in certain conditions microzymas could develop into bacteria within a cell and could, if the right conditions persisted, become pathological, so that infection could develop in the body without the acquisition of the germ from an outside source. These observations supported the belief of Professor Claude Bernard (1813-78), who contended that no matter where germs came from they presented a danger only if the body was in a run-down state due to a disturbed "milieu interieur."They penetrate and infect individual cells.
"Bechamp described how in certain conditions microzymas could develop into bacteria within a cell and could, if the right conditions persisted, become pathological, so that infection could develop in the body without the acquisition of the germ from an outside source. These observations supported the belief of Professor Claude Bernard (1813-78), who contended that no matter where germs came from they presented a danger only if the body was in a run-down state due to a disturbed "milieu interieur."They penetrate and infect individual cells.
Auto Immunes and Cancer Easily precipitated by injecting Pleomorphs
Of special interest are experiments of Dr Livingston-Wheeler who injected cultures of pleomorphic organisms into mice. When small amounts were injected then an autoimmune disease developed but higher doses produced tumors or cancer. Accordingly these cancer-forming microbes have often been called cancer viruses or cancer microbes.They use mice because the cells are the closest to human cells
Laboratory contaminant Mycoplasma species are often found in research laboratories as contaminants in cell culture. Mycoplasmal cell culture contamination occurs due to contamination from individuals or contaminated cell culture medium ingredients. Mycoplasma cells are physically small – less than 1 µm – and they are therefore difficult to detect with a conventional microscope. Mycoplasmas may induce cellular changes, including chromosome aberrations, changes in metabolism and cell growth. Severe Mycoplasma infections may destroy a cell line. Detection techniques include DNA Probe, enzyme immunoassays, PCR, plating on sensitive agar and staining with a DNA stain including DAPI or Hoechst.
It has been estimated that at least 11 to 15% of U.S. laboratory cell cultures are contaminated with mycoplasma. A Corning study showed that half of U.S. scientists did not test for mycoplasma contamination in their cell cultures. The study also stated that, in former Czechoslovakia, 100% of cell cultures that were not routinely tested were contaminated while only 2% of those routinely tested were contaminated . Since the U.S. contamination rate was based on a study of companies that routinely checked for mycoplasma, the actual contamination rate may be higher. European contamination rates are higher and that of other countries are higher still (up to 80% of Japanese cell cultures). About 1% of published Gene Expression Omnibus data may have been compromised. Several antibiotic based formulation of anti-mycoplasma reagents have been developed over the years.[16]
Synthetic mycoplasma genome A chemically synthesized genome of a mycoplasmal cell based entirely on synthetic DNA which can self-replicate has been referred to as Mycoplasma laboratorium.[17]
It has been estimated that at least 11 to 15% of U.S. laboratory cell cultures are contaminated with mycoplasma. A Corning study showed that half of U.S. scientists did not test for mycoplasma contamination in their cell cultures. The study also stated that, in former Czechoslovakia, 100% of cell cultures that were not routinely tested were contaminated while only 2% of those routinely tested were contaminated . Since the U.S. contamination rate was based on a study of companies that routinely checked for mycoplasma, the actual contamination rate may be higher. European contamination rates are higher and that of other countries are higher still (up to 80% of Japanese cell cultures). About 1% of published Gene Expression Omnibus data may have been compromised. Several antibiotic based formulation of anti-mycoplasma reagents have been developed over the years.[16]
Synthetic mycoplasma genome A chemically synthesized genome of a mycoplasmal cell based entirely on synthetic DNA which can self-replicate has been referred to as Mycoplasma laboratorium.[17]
An old Medical Controversy Resurfaces with implications in Cancer,Aids etc.
The point is our machines can severely restrict if not outright kill these invaders.
another pleomorph shape,vancouver
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 40,407-414, 1997
EXTREME PLEOMORPHISM AND THE BACTERIAL LIFE CYCLE: A FORGOTTEN CONTROVERSEY
MILTON WAINWRIGHT
The first 40 years of this century witnessed bacteriologists involved in a debate which was fought with an intensity not seen since the arguments over spontaneous generation conducted during the last
quarter of the 19th century. This now long-forgotten controversy concerned the question of whether or not bacteria exhibit extreme pleomorphism and go through complex life cycles. The term pleomorphism was used to refer to the supposed
ability of bacteria to change shape dramatically, or to exist in a number of extreme morphological forms. Thus it was believed that bacteria could change from a single coccoid to complex filamentous forms and vice versa. In addition, rather than reproducing by single division, bacteria were thought to undergo complex life cycles involving single cells, spore, filaments, and ultra-filterable forms.The debate split microbiologists into two opposing schools: the monomorphists and the pleomorphists. The monomorphists finally triumphed, but
as we shall see, even today reports continue to appear apparently showing that bacteria exhibit extreme morphological variations and undergo complex life cycles.
Nearly all modern microbiologists belong to the monomorphic school; that is, they accept that, apart from minor variation, each bacterial cell is derived from a previously existing cell of practically the same size and shape. Cocci generally beget cocci, and rods give rise to rods. The monomorphist view, stressed by Virchow, Cohn and Koch, is that by binary fission most bacteria divide transversely to produce two new cells which eventually achieve the same size and morphology of the original. In the same way, a single spore germinates to give rise to a vegetative cell essentially the same as the cell from which the spore originated. Exceptions to this rule are accepted in certain so-called higher bacteria, including some actinomycetes. Simple bacteria, on the other hand, are generally regarded as showing only occasional, slight morphological variation. This
view of bacterial morphology and growth is so enshrined in our view of these organisms that we rarely bother to think about it. Despite this, there are a small number of latter-day heretics who continue to provide evidence which, they claim, supports the pleomorphist heresy.
The Historical Literature on Extreme Pleomorphism and the Bacterial Growth Cycle.
The original pleomorphists were particularly active during the first three decades of this century. The basic tenet of their belief was that even common bacteria showed complex life cycles which often included a frequently pathogenic, filterable, or hidden phase . Some even suggested that bacteria are merely rudimentary components of the fungal life cycle. The principal proponents of pleomorphism, such as Almquist, Bergstrand,
Hort, Lohnis, Mellon, and Enderlein, have largely been forgotten. However, even renowned microbiologists like Ferdinand Cohn published evidence insupport of extreme pleomorphism.
Similarly, the eminent American bacteriologist, Theobald Smith, isolated a bacterium which apparently occurred in three forms: a bacillus, a coccus with an endospore or arthrospore, and a conglomeration of all three .By 1928, in an article on morphology published in the monograph The Newer Knowledge of Bacteriology and Immunology, Clark could state that "bacteria, even amongst the Eubacteriales, do at times reproduce by means other than equal fission seems to me to be definitely proved". He quotes the work of Hort, who showed that under adverse conditions, colon-typhoid bacteria reproduce by budding, by producing Y-shaped and large aberrant forms and deeply staining granules which can be filterable. Hort went on to describe how these irregular bodies reproduced actively and so were not examples of so-called involution forms, a term used by the monomorphists to suggest that what the pleomorphists were seeing was merely a collection of freakish, unreproduceable forms produced by old cells. These were invariably sterile, incapable of taking up a stain, and were produced in old cultures by localised cell-wall lysis. However, such unusual forms could also be seen in young cultures. AlexanderFleming also described how one of his four-day-old cultures of an anaerobic streptococcus changed from its usual chains of cocci to a variety of strain shapes which he regarded as being involution forms. Lohnis concluded that all bacteria live alternatively in first an organised and then an amorphous state . The latter he called the "symplastic state,"because at this point the living matter enclosed in separate cells apparently undergoes a thorough mixing, followed by the complete disintegrationof cell wall, to form a non-stainable symplasm.
Lohnis also suggested that direct union between two or more cells may occur by the process which he termed "conjugation.". He also stated that all bacteria multiply not only by fission, but by the formation of gonidia. These were sometimes seen to grow directly into full-sized cells, or to go through a symplasm stage. Such gonididia were either produced by partial or complete dissolution of the cell wall or developed while still united to the mother cell. Some of the gonidia were also filterable. Lohnis' main conclusion was that the life cycle of each bacterial species comprises several sub-cycles showing wide morphological and phsiological variations, all being connected together by a symplastic stage.
The ultimate pleomorphist heresy was voiced by Wade and Manalang, when they stated that Bacillus influenzae (then thought to be the cause of influenza) could occasionally abandon it usual bacillary form, produce conidiophores, and grow as a "frank fungus". In the same year, the Swedish microbiologist Bergstrand journeyed all the way down this road by stating that bacteria are really Fungi imperfecti. This view was also
held by Melon, who stated that:bacteria in their fundamental biology are in reality flingi that have been telescoped down as it were, to a somewhat lower order, but this order is not so low as to preclude the preservation by the bacteria of the fundamental organisation characterising the fungi and higher plants.
Descriptions of pleomorphin in bacteria were often associated with bacteria isolated from tumors. There is an extensive literature implicating bacteria and other nonviral microorganisms in the etiology of cancer, many of which were said to be highly pleomorphic . The best examples are provided by the work of Young, Clover and Gruner . So impressed was the latter by the pleomorphic nature of his isolate that he named it Cryptomyces
pleomorpha. Both Young and Clover provided illustrations showing complex life cycles, representing the passage of their cancer germs through a variety of stages including spores, bacilli, amorphous forms, and filamentous stages.Not surprisingly, members of the monorphic school had a field day criticising the apparently absurd claims made by the pleomorphists. The most common criticism was that the pleomorphists exhibited poor technique, their delusions obviously resulting from contamination. Secondly, the pleomorphists were said to have merely arranged whatever they saw, either contaminants or the products of ageing cells, into convenient life
cycles. Winogradsky, perhaps not surprisingly, was severely critical of the pleomorphists, but nevertheless suggested that "The observations may be correct, but the interpretation given to the diverse forms observed cannot be taken seriously.
Perhaps the most impartial historical analyses of pleomorphism are given by Handly and Henrici, with the first chapter of the latter's book providinga particularly useful introduction to the history of pleomorphism. Although he was essentially critical of the concept of extreme pleomorphism, Henrici did not dismiss it as readily as many of his contemporaries. He stated that "bacteria do change their morpholigic type and within very wide limits; and with this change may go at times important physiological modifications." Henrici particularly objected to the criticism that extreme pleomorphism always resulted from contamination; instead his opinion was that:
anyone who will patiently study with the microscope his own cultures which he knows to be pure can quickly confirm the general observation that rod forms may appear in cultures of cocci, spherical forms in cultures of bacilli lateral buds and branches and internal globular bodies. Henrici finally came to essential the same conclusion arrived at by Winogradsky, namely that "In undertaking a critical analysis of this work[of the
pleomorphists] one cannot find fault so much with the actual data as to the logic followed in erecting the hypothesis.The modern microbiologist, thoroughly schooled in monomorphism, can easily dismiss this historical literature as being absurd - merely the ramblings of some ancients who could not even avoid contaminating their cultures. While recognising that some of the early studies were undoubtedly flawed, Wuerthele-Caspe et al., summed up the pleomorphist counterargument as follows: "the faults of the enthusiastic early workers
were certainly no greater than the errors both of commission and omission made later on by some of the monomorphists whose views today dominate our textbooks".
Young similarly defences the pleomorphist's case in a short yet comprehensive review which concludes the following quote: Is all this [the evidence which he cities in support of pleomorphism] and a hundred and one similar observations by other careful workers merely a tissue of a self-deceptions originating in an exuberant imagination and on faulty technique? Is it not rather one of those great facts that user in a new era?.
While no such new era was ever ushered in, microbiologists will doubtless be surprised to discover that papers continue to appear in support of pleomorphism.
Recent Claims in Support of the Existence of Extreme Pleomorphism
Examples of pleomorphism continued to be reported with surprising regularity throughout the I920s and 1930s. By 1940, however, opposition to the hegemony of the monomorphists was dead, if not yet buried. Textbooks on bacteriology nevertheless still gave token support to extreme pleomorphism even as late as the 1960s. During this period, work on L-forms appeared to substantiate some of the claims made by pleomorphists. Hieneberger-Noble, for example, suggested that L-forms correlated with the symplasm observed by Lohnis. Bacterial
conjugation, an idea that had been scoffed at by many monomorphists, was now taken seriously. Previously, Lohnis had been mocked when he had claimed that he, and numerous other workers including Potthoft, had observed conjugation tubes connecting two bacterial cells .Reports of the existence of limited pleomorphism continue to appear somewhat infrequently in the modern literature. Wood and Kelly, for example,
Recently showed that the morphology of a species of Thiobacillus varied in response to environmental conditions, while limited pleomorphism in
Bradyrhizobium was reported by Reding and Leop to be induced by dicarboxylate [24, 25]. While claims for such limited pleomorphism offend no one, modern reports of extreme bacterial pleomorphism are likely to suffer derision, or more usually just be ignored. The association between cancer etiology and bacteria continues to be the source of many of the claims made by modern pleomorphists. For example, an amazing series of papers linking extremely pleomorphic bacteria and cancer was reported in 1970 in a symposium in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The first of these papers, by Wuetherle Caspe-Livingston, reported the isolation of a specific type of highly pleomorphic microorganism found consistently in human and animal cancers. Due to its remarkable pleomorphism, the organism was described as an "unclassified mystery," but was apparently capable of resembling micrococci, diphtheroids, bacilli, fungi, viruses, and host cell
inclusions. Of particular interest was the reported appearance of an L-form, symplasm stage. The following quote from this paper could just as easily have come from the historical literature:
The virus-like bodies present in tumour and culture filtrates can evolve after one or more months into larger mycoplasma-like L forms, and thence to frankly bacterial rods and filaments. Polar or peritrichous flagella can develop under favourable conditions, and motile rods exhibiting a tumbling appearance. Under certain conditions unfavourable to the organisms, large glovoid bodies and still larger cysts from as well as spore forms develop.When conditions again become favourable, small bodies bud off from the chromatin ring lining the cyst, and filaments also may sprout from the rim. The small bodies, often acid fast, lengthen out into rods and filaments.It should be noted however, that this work and the approach to cancer management which has been developed from it have come in for considerable criticism [26]. In particular it has been suggested that the so-called cancer germ involved is not new, but merely a strain of Staphylococcus epidermidis.
White also suggests that within cancerous cells exists "a non-septic, or non-virulent cell-wall deficient or conidial like micrococcus" . Similarly intriguing recent papers reporting a complex life cycle in bacteria were written by Pease and Pease and Tallack [28, 29]. They state that for over a century there have been reports of a widespread, possibly universal, endoparasitism in humans caused by a bacterium capable of passing through
a complex life cycle. Not surprisingly, this reported complexity has made this organism difficult to study and sceptics have yet to be convinced of its validity. The organism which Pease and Tallack consider to be a silent but potentially important pathogen was also reported to be associated with cancer by Alexander-Jackson and by Livingston and Alexander-Jackson [30, 31]. Incredibly, it has even been suggested that the Rous sarcoma
virus is simple a stage in the life cycle of a bacterium. A number of workers have isolated cell-wall deficient bacteria from material containing the Rous sarcoma virus, as well as the Bittner virus and Shope's Papilloma virus . Eleanor Alexander-Jackson even claims to have repeatedly grown cell-wall deficient bacteria from the blood of chickens infected with rous sarcoma . Macomber apparently stated the obvious when he said that it goes against common sense to suppose that a virus can turn into a bacterium. Instead, he suggested that it is more likely that viruses can be incorporated into cell-wall-less bacteria associated with the virus. He then emphasised the importance of clarifying the exact relationship between cancer-associated cell-wall deficient bacteria and the oncogenic retroviruses.Pleomorphic cell-wall deficient bacteria have also been associated with rheumatoid arthritis. Mattma, for example, has claimed that a bacterium of this type, which apparently causes this disease in chickens, can revert in culture to Proprionibactenum acne.
Conclusion
What can we make of all this? Most modern microbiologists, being monomorphists, would doubtless assume the examples of bacterial life cycles and extreme pleomorphism given here are merely the result of a mixture of wild speculation and contaminated cultures. (this was the view taken by Frobisher, who coined the word oligomorphism to describe the more readily acceptable examples, which clearly exist, of limited pleomorphism .) Yet most of the microbiologists who have reported examples of extreme pleomorphism went to considerable lengths to demonstrate the purity of their cultures. It is also worth remembering that they often spent more time-much more than most modern microbiologists do-just looking at bacteria. Likewise,
they were generally more practised in the art of microscopy than are their modern counterparts. On the other hand, Holman and Carson showed that the work described by at least one researcher, who claimed to have demonstrated extreme bacterial pleomorphism, resulted from faulty bacteriological technique.
Microbiologists of the past had no preconceived ideas about the nature of bacteria, and all possibilities were open to investigation. Of course, they lacked out technological sophistication - in particular, they knew nothing of the molecular approaches, which might be profitably used to study some of their apparently wild claims.
The literature on extreme pleomorphism remains intriguing, and some aspects of it may be worthy of reappraisal. By merely dismissing it, we may be ignoring something of fundamental importance. This is especially likely since examples of extreme variation in bacterial morphology continue to be linked with various diseases and cancer in animals and humans . The use of molecular techniques should, however, help clarify any lingering
uncertainties arising from the historical literature on extreme pleomorphism, although those certain of the phenomenon's validity would doubtless argue that their claims could be confirmed by simple, if thorough, microscopy. Perhaps it is now time to re-examine such claims with a non jaundiced eye.
EXTREME PLEOMORPHISM AND THE BACTERIAL LIFE CYCLE: A FORGOTTEN CONTROVERSEY
MILTON WAINWRIGHT
The first 40 years of this century witnessed bacteriologists involved in a debate which was fought with an intensity not seen since the arguments over spontaneous generation conducted during the last
quarter of the 19th century. This now long-forgotten controversy concerned the question of whether or not bacteria exhibit extreme pleomorphism and go through complex life cycles. The term pleomorphism was used to refer to the supposed
ability of bacteria to change shape dramatically, or to exist in a number of extreme morphological forms. Thus it was believed that bacteria could change from a single coccoid to complex filamentous forms and vice versa. In addition, rather than reproducing by single division, bacteria were thought to undergo complex life cycles involving single cells, spore, filaments, and ultra-filterable forms.The debate split microbiologists into two opposing schools: the monomorphists and the pleomorphists. The monomorphists finally triumphed, but
as we shall see, even today reports continue to appear apparently showing that bacteria exhibit extreme morphological variations and undergo complex life cycles.
Nearly all modern microbiologists belong to the monomorphic school; that is, they accept that, apart from minor variation, each bacterial cell is derived from a previously existing cell of practically the same size and shape. Cocci generally beget cocci, and rods give rise to rods. The monomorphist view, stressed by Virchow, Cohn and Koch, is that by binary fission most bacteria divide transversely to produce two new cells which eventually achieve the same size and morphology of the original. In the same way, a single spore germinates to give rise to a vegetative cell essentially the same as the cell from which the spore originated. Exceptions to this rule are accepted in certain so-called higher bacteria, including some actinomycetes. Simple bacteria, on the other hand, are generally regarded as showing only occasional, slight morphological variation. This
view of bacterial morphology and growth is so enshrined in our view of these organisms that we rarely bother to think about it. Despite this, there are a small number of latter-day heretics who continue to provide evidence which, they claim, supports the pleomorphist heresy.
The Historical Literature on Extreme Pleomorphism and the Bacterial Growth Cycle.
The original pleomorphists were particularly active during the first three decades of this century. The basic tenet of their belief was that even common bacteria showed complex life cycles which often included a frequently pathogenic, filterable, or hidden phase . Some even suggested that bacteria are merely rudimentary components of the fungal life cycle. The principal proponents of pleomorphism, such as Almquist, Bergstrand,
Hort, Lohnis, Mellon, and Enderlein, have largely been forgotten. However, even renowned microbiologists like Ferdinand Cohn published evidence insupport of extreme pleomorphism.
Similarly, the eminent American bacteriologist, Theobald Smith, isolated a bacterium which apparently occurred in three forms: a bacillus, a coccus with an endospore or arthrospore, and a conglomeration of all three .By 1928, in an article on morphology published in the monograph The Newer Knowledge of Bacteriology and Immunology, Clark could state that "bacteria, even amongst the Eubacteriales, do at times reproduce by means other than equal fission seems to me to be definitely proved". He quotes the work of Hort, who showed that under adverse conditions, colon-typhoid bacteria reproduce by budding, by producing Y-shaped and large aberrant forms and deeply staining granules which can be filterable. Hort went on to describe how these irregular bodies reproduced actively and so were not examples of so-called involution forms, a term used by the monomorphists to suggest that what the pleomorphists were seeing was merely a collection of freakish, unreproduceable forms produced by old cells. These were invariably sterile, incapable of taking up a stain, and were produced in old cultures by localised cell-wall lysis. However, such unusual forms could also be seen in young cultures. AlexanderFleming also described how one of his four-day-old cultures of an anaerobic streptococcus changed from its usual chains of cocci to a variety of strain shapes which he regarded as being involution forms. Lohnis concluded that all bacteria live alternatively in first an organised and then an amorphous state . The latter he called the "symplastic state,"because at this point the living matter enclosed in separate cells apparently undergoes a thorough mixing, followed by the complete disintegrationof cell wall, to form a non-stainable symplasm.
Lohnis also suggested that direct union between two or more cells may occur by the process which he termed "conjugation.". He also stated that all bacteria multiply not only by fission, but by the formation of gonidia. These were sometimes seen to grow directly into full-sized cells, or to go through a symplasm stage. Such gonididia were either produced by partial or complete dissolution of the cell wall or developed while still united to the mother cell. Some of the gonidia were also filterable. Lohnis' main conclusion was that the life cycle of each bacterial species comprises several sub-cycles showing wide morphological and phsiological variations, all being connected together by a symplastic stage.
The ultimate pleomorphist heresy was voiced by Wade and Manalang, when they stated that Bacillus influenzae (then thought to be the cause of influenza) could occasionally abandon it usual bacillary form, produce conidiophores, and grow as a "frank fungus". In the same year, the Swedish microbiologist Bergstrand journeyed all the way down this road by stating that bacteria are really Fungi imperfecti. This view was also
held by Melon, who stated that:bacteria in their fundamental biology are in reality flingi that have been telescoped down as it were, to a somewhat lower order, but this order is not so low as to preclude the preservation by the bacteria of the fundamental organisation characterising the fungi and higher plants.
Descriptions of pleomorphin in bacteria were often associated with bacteria isolated from tumors. There is an extensive literature implicating bacteria and other nonviral microorganisms in the etiology of cancer, many of which were said to be highly pleomorphic . The best examples are provided by the work of Young, Clover and Gruner . So impressed was the latter by the pleomorphic nature of his isolate that he named it Cryptomyces
pleomorpha. Both Young and Clover provided illustrations showing complex life cycles, representing the passage of their cancer germs through a variety of stages including spores, bacilli, amorphous forms, and filamentous stages.Not surprisingly, members of the monorphic school had a field day criticising the apparently absurd claims made by the pleomorphists. The most common criticism was that the pleomorphists exhibited poor technique, their delusions obviously resulting from contamination. Secondly, the pleomorphists were said to have merely arranged whatever they saw, either contaminants or the products of ageing cells, into convenient life
cycles. Winogradsky, perhaps not surprisingly, was severely critical of the pleomorphists, but nevertheless suggested that "The observations may be correct, but the interpretation given to the diverse forms observed cannot be taken seriously.
Perhaps the most impartial historical analyses of pleomorphism are given by Handly and Henrici, with the first chapter of the latter's book providinga particularly useful introduction to the history of pleomorphism. Although he was essentially critical of the concept of extreme pleomorphism, Henrici did not dismiss it as readily as many of his contemporaries. He stated that "bacteria do change their morpholigic type and within very wide limits; and with this change may go at times important physiological modifications." Henrici particularly objected to the criticism that extreme pleomorphism always resulted from contamination; instead his opinion was that:
anyone who will patiently study with the microscope his own cultures which he knows to be pure can quickly confirm the general observation that rod forms may appear in cultures of cocci, spherical forms in cultures of bacilli lateral buds and branches and internal globular bodies. Henrici finally came to essential the same conclusion arrived at by Winogradsky, namely that "In undertaking a critical analysis of this work[of the
pleomorphists] one cannot find fault so much with the actual data as to the logic followed in erecting the hypothesis.The modern microbiologist, thoroughly schooled in monomorphism, can easily dismiss this historical literature as being absurd - merely the ramblings of some ancients who could not even avoid contaminating their cultures. While recognising that some of the early studies were undoubtedly flawed, Wuerthele-Caspe et al., summed up the pleomorphist counterargument as follows: "the faults of the enthusiastic early workers
were certainly no greater than the errors both of commission and omission made later on by some of the monomorphists whose views today dominate our textbooks".
Young similarly defences the pleomorphist's case in a short yet comprehensive review which concludes the following quote: Is all this [the evidence which he cities in support of pleomorphism] and a hundred and one similar observations by other careful workers merely a tissue of a self-deceptions originating in an exuberant imagination and on faulty technique? Is it not rather one of those great facts that user in a new era?.
While no such new era was ever ushered in, microbiologists will doubtless be surprised to discover that papers continue to appear in support of pleomorphism.
Recent Claims in Support of the Existence of Extreme Pleomorphism
Examples of pleomorphism continued to be reported with surprising regularity throughout the I920s and 1930s. By 1940, however, opposition to the hegemony of the monomorphists was dead, if not yet buried. Textbooks on bacteriology nevertheless still gave token support to extreme pleomorphism even as late as the 1960s. During this period, work on L-forms appeared to substantiate some of the claims made by pleomorphists. Hieneberger-Noble, for example, suggested that L-forms correlated with the symplasm observed by Lohnis. Bacterial
conjugation, an idea that had been scoffed at by many monomorphists, was now taken seriously. Previously, Lohnis had been mocked when he had claimed that he, and numerous other workers including Potthoft, had observed conjugation tubes connecting two bacterial cells .Reports of the existence of limited pleomorphism continue to appear somewhat infrequently in the modern literature. Wood and Kelly, for example,
Recently showed that the morphology of a species of Thiobacillus varied in response to environmental conditions, while limited pleomorphism in
Bradyrhizobium was reported by Reding and Leop to be induced by dicarboxylate [24, 25]. While claims for such limited pleomorphism offend no one, modern reports of extreme bacterial pleomorphism are likely to suffer derision, or more usually just be ignored. The association between cancer etiology and bacteria continues to be the source of many of the claims made by modern pleomorphists. For example, an amazing series of papers linking extremely pleomorphic bacteria and cancer was reported in 1970 in a symposium in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The first of these papers, by Wuetherle Caspe-Livingston, reported the isolation of a specific type of highly pleomorphic microorganism found consistently in human and animal cancers. Due to its remarkable pleomorphism, the organism was described as an "unclassified mystery," but was apparently capable of resembling micrococci, diphtheroids, bacilli, fungi, viruses, and host cell
inclusions. Of particular interest was the reported appearance of an L-form, symplasm stage. The following quote from this paper could just as easily have come from the historical literature:
The virus-like bodies present in tumour and culture filtrates can evolve after one or more months into larger mycoplasma-like L forms, and thence to frankly bacterial rods and filaments. Polar or peritrichous flagella can develop under favourable conditions, and motile rods exhibiting a tumbling appearance. Under certain conditions unfavourable to the organisms, large glovoid bodies and still larger cysts from as well as spore forms develop.When conditions again become favourable, small bodies bud off from the chromatin ring lining the cyst, and filaments also may sprout from the rim. The small bodies, often acid fast, lengthen out into rods and filaments.It should be noted however, that this work and the approach to cancer management which has been developed from it have come in for considerable criticism [26]. In particular it has been suggested that the so-called cancer germ involved is not new, but merely a strain of Staphylococcus epidermidis.
White also suggests that within cancerous cells exists "a non-septic, or non-virulent cell-wall deficient or conidial like micrococcus" . Similarly intriguing recent papers reporting a complex life cycle in bacteria were written by Pease and Pease and Tallack [28, 29]. They state that for over a century there have been reports of a widespread, possibly universal, endoparasitism in humans caused by a bacterium capable of passing through
a complex life cycle. Not surprisingly, this reported complexity has made this organism difficult to study and sceptics have yet to be convinced of its validity. The organism which Pease and Tallack consider to be a silent but potentially important pathogen was also reported to be associated with cancer by Alexander-Jackson and by Livingston and Alexander-Jackson [30, 31]. Incredibly, it has even been suggested that the Rous sarcoma
virus is simple a stage in the life cycle of a bacterium. A number of workers have isolated cell-wall deficient bacteria from material containing the Rous sarcoma virus, as well as the Bittner virus and Shope's Papilloma virus . Eleanor Alexander-Jackson even claims to have repeatedly grown cell-wall deficient bacteria from the blood of chickens infected with rous sarcoma . Macomber apparently stated the obvious when he said that it goes against common sense to suppose that a virus can turn into a bacterium. Instead, he suggested that it is more likely that viruses can be incorporated into cell-wall-less bacteria associated with the virus. He then emphasised the importance of clarifying the exact relationship between cancer-associated cell-wall deficient bacteria and the oncogenic retroviruses.Pleomorphic cell-wall deficient bacteria have also been associated with rheumatoid arthritis. Mattma, for example, has claimed that a bacterium of this type, which apparently causes this disease in chickens, can revert in culture to Proprionibactenum acne.
Conclusion
What can we make of all this? Most modern microbiologists, being monomorphists, would doubtless assume the examples of bacterial life cycles and extreme pleomorphism given here are merely the result of a mixture of wild speculation and contaminated cultures. (this was the view taken by Frobisher, who coined the word oligomorphism to describe the more readily acceptable examples, which clearly exist, of limited pleomorphism .) Yet most of the microbiologists who have reported examples of extreme pleomorphism went to considerable lengths to demonstrate the purity of their cultures. It is also worth remembering that they often spent more time-much more than most modern microbiologists do-just looking at bacteria. Likewise,
they were generally more practised in the art of microscopy than are their modern counterparts. On the other hand, Holman and Carson showed that the work described by at least one researcher, who claimed to have demonstrated extreme bacterial pleomorphism, resulted from faulty bacteriological technique.
Microbiologists of the past had no preconceived ideas about the nature of bacteria, and all possibilities were open to investigation. Of course, they lacked out technological sophistication - in particular, they knew nothing of the molecular approaches, which might be profitably used to study some of their apparently wild claims.
The literature on extreme pleomorphism remains intriguing, and some aspects of it may be worthy of reappraisal. By merely dismissing it, we may be ignoring something of fundamental importance. This is especially likely since examples of extreme variation in bacterial morphology continue to be linked with various diseases and cancer in animals and humans . The use of molecular techniques should, however, help clarify any lingering
uncertainties arising from the historical literature on extreme pleomorphism, although those certain of the phenomenon's validity would doubtless argue that their claims could be confirmed by simple, if thorough, microscopy. Perhaps it is now time to re-examine such claims with a non jaundiced eye.
Pleomorps and Mycrozyma
When a grub turns into a butterfly, this is know as metamorphism, if it could turn back into a grub again that would be known as Pleomorphism.
When Louis Pasteur (1822 – 1895) went public with his Germ Theory of disease, Europe continued to be ravaged by waves of infectious plagues, including Cholera, Typhus, Pneumonia (‘consumption’) and Tuberculosis;
not to mention the not-too-distant memory of the Black Death. Pasteur’s discovery was due to the invention of the microscope.The officials and public of the era were ripe for a simple and direct explanation from the emerging world of the Natural Sciences for these tragic and decimating diseases. However, at the time Pasteur was formulating and publicizing his work, a quiet, much more qualified and experienced researcher, Pierre Bechamp, was also looking at the new frontier-world of microbes, and came up with a more complex, but thorough,understanding of these miniature marvels. He identified a fundamental unit of microbiological life, named the ‘microzyma’, which he said was critical in supporting the life of cells, but could be triggered into pathogenic states, depending on specific changes in the state of the internal (particularly the blood) environment. Therefore, the bacteria and other micro-organisms; viruses and fungi, that were being blamed
as the cause of disease, were viewed by Bechamp as being part of Nature’s ‘clean-up crew’, breaking down sick tissue and ultimately decomposing a no-longer-occupied body. Bechamp also viewed these micro-organisms as ‘changing forms’ (pleomorphic): from seed to bacterial, viral and fungal states, rather than being seen as discrete species unto themselves. Once these bugs have done the job, they revert to the ‘seed’ stage once again ready to support new life. The very ground we stand on is teeming with these fundamental biological units. I once saw a video of a microzma expiring and emitting a photon of light in the process. Perhaps these units represent the transitional point where Light becomes living Matter. The consciousness of the era, however, was, as noted, looking for a simpler, more linear explanation for disease, and as Pasteur was more of a PR man than Bechamp, he won the recognition of academia and society. Also, the simplistic notion of ‘kill the bug, cure the disease’ was very appealing for the emerging Pharmaceutical trade, and continues to provide a major illusion in support of one of the newest ‘plagues’, the overuse of antibiotics. Pasteur’s conscience, however, moved him to say on his deathbed, Bechamp was right!”. As Bill Nelson, developer of the QXCI machine likes to say, "the Germ theory proposes you get rid of the flies, while it makes more sense to clean up the garbage attracting them."
As a result of the entrenchment of the Germ Theory in the western mind, other research pioneers who (often independently) corroborated Bechamp’s work, operated on the fringes of mainstream science and did not receivethe financial support that would have promoted their findings.
One of the reasons there is some confusion about the concept of Pleomorhism is the language used to describe the various orms was drawn from different researchers who each used their own terminology, unaware of their colleague’s work. Thus, the "Micozyma" of Bechamp is also referred to as a "Protit", "Bion", or "Vion" by other researachers. he QXCI machine
The QXCI machine,on the Pleomorphic Panel in the Dark Field Blood area, uses the terminology of Enderlien" from Germany. We can also consider the work of Gaston Naesson of Quebec, Wilhelm Reich, and of course, Royal Rife.
With the creation of Rife's Universal Microscope in the 1930’s, Rife was able to observe and prove
the reality of pleomorphism. He was able to do this partly because of his advancements with optics, but also because he used light frequencies to highlight his samples rather than chemical dyes. Using dyes kills the specimen, so tissues cannot be viewed in the natural living state. Studying dead samples is a dumb as studying cadavers to understand living processes. Further, Rife was able to isolate the particular viral form involved in all forms of Cancer, and discover a frequency signal that would neutralize it.Maurice Fishbein, representing the AMA at the time, wanted to ‘buy into’ Rife’s discovery for personal gain. As Rife said ‘no’ to his offer,
the once-supportive AMA establishment henceforth vilified him in print and his discoveries were driven underground. Government goon squads attempted to physically destroy all the evidence of Rife’s work. There are a handful of Rife’s Universal Microscopes in existence, but none of them complete and functional. Instead, mainstream science uses the Electron Microscope, which kills the sample with radiation in the process of viewing the sample.
Factors for us to be aware of that create disturbances in the Pleomorphic chain of states include: low blood oxygen (arising from any variety f reasons…see the article on Low Cell Vitality on this topic); ongoing imbalances in PH; overgrowth of bowel-based Fungi (ie: the Candidas); and Emotional trauma.
If you see numbers over 90 on the Pleomorph page, use the Blood reatment panel for Pleomorphic Balance. We do not want to ‘zap’ each phase, as e may be upsetting the delicate balance the body is attempting to create. Mostimportantly is to address the causal factors. Using the frequency 66.5 in the Manual Rife function balances the Pleomorphic counts, as does a drop of Essential Oil of Peppermint in eachglass of water and using Grape Plant Extract. For more insight into this fascinating topic I highly recommend Nina Silver’s book, ‘The Handbook of Rife Frequency Healing’. As the Pleomorphic Theory illustrates, life is incredibly complex and ordered. We must
help our clients appreciate this complexity, and thus foster a sense of wonder and respect for themselves as expressions of creative intelligence.
Dave Cowan
Bacteria: Pathogens or Agents of Decay?: An Ecological Approach to Health
by Adeha Feustel
http://www.cultivatinghealth.com/Article/PcAarticle.htm
(excerpt)
"Claude Bernard, argued that disease was caused by variations in the host’s internal milieu, or “terrain,” to which the microbes responded by changing form in order to survive. "According to this theory, the vitality of the host was the principal factor in disease. Relatively small changes in the internal environment made the “terrain” attractive and hospitable to different types of invading organisms: a weak host not only “invited” invading organisms to take up residence,but actually cultured them, inducing their changes into pathological forms.
"A strong and vital host, on the other hand, was inhospitable and would keep pathological organisms and disease at bay. This is the pleomorphic terrain theory of disease."
--TO BE OR NOT TO BE? - 150 Years of Hidden Knowledge,
by Christopher Bird 1991
Pleomorphism, Its Discovery and Suppression
Béchamp, in a biological parallel to Lavoisier’s chemical rule: "Nothing is lost, nothing is created ... all is transformed," was to state: "Nothing is the prey of death ... all is the prey of life."
Pleo-morphism means many forms, many or more (pleo-), forms or bodies (morph-). This is in contradistinction to Monomorphism which means one (mono-) body or form. Modern medicine, bacteriology, is founded on the idea of Mono-morphism where once a germ is a particular germ it always stays that way.According to this way of thinking a streptococcal germ is always a streptococcus. It only has one (mono-) form, it doesn't change into anything else.
Pleomorphism on the other hand maintains that "germs" occur in many forms beginning with the Protit, which can change into a virus, which can change into a bacteria, which can change into a fungus. Any of these forms, bacterial, viral or fungal can and do eventually, break all apart, and turn back into the Protits from whence they came. It starts all over again, life. The Protit never dies. This is a nature of life, It goes on no matter
what. A germ is 'a beginning', that's all.These Protits or colloids of life in our blood, develop or change according to the condition (pH, etc.) of the blood. At some stages of their development they are outright pathogenic (make you sick) and parasitic. These are our internal parasites. These Protits can go in the other direction too and turn into cells we need. See Live Cell Therapy They can help regenerate organs.The internal parasite, which exists in us always, is in contrast to external parasites with which we occasionally come in contact. This is where the germ theory actually holds relevance. This is the area of external microbes and parasites that when taken to extremes, intensifies into infectious diseases and epidemics which overwhelm the system.Surprisingly, without having even the slightest idea of pleomorphic biology, medicine through hygiene, has accomplished much in this area. The fact is, opportunistic bugs, bacteria and viruses are all over the place, in our blood even which modern science says is not so, even though they are easily seen. Some of us get sick and some of us don't. As far back as the plagues of the dark ages some lived and some died. One third of the people didn't get plague. Nobody knew why.
Pleomorphism is a concept discovered in the early 1800's. It shows that 'germs' come from inside the body, from the "tiny dots" you can see in the blood with any microscope. These "tiny dots" of course are the colloids of life or Protits.As the environment that surrounds the cells becomes acid, toxic, polluted, these "tiny dots", Protits, change form, into the microorganisms that clean up the garbage, dead cells, toxins and the like, that are the result of the toxic condition. This is what bacteria, 'germs' are for.When the host balance is destroyed, when the internal environment the Protits and cells live in, the internal milieu, becomes toxic and acid, the Protits lose their symbiotic (live harmoniously together) and life giving qualities and devolve downward, changing first into viruses, then into bacteria and finally into fungal forms, each stage of which is progressively more hostile to surrounding tissue cells. Germs, all microorganisms, (viruses, bacteria, fungi and everything in-between) are the result, not the cause of disease!
Louis Pasteur was wrong!
His idea of the bacterial cause of disease was wrong! If "germs" are there as a result, not a cause, then to treat
the resultant germs with antibiotics is, in theory and in fact, wrong!
This basic misconception about disease effects all aspects of medicine.
This is why this is a "new"... biology.
Louis Pasteur is said to have said on his death bed that really he had been wrong about his "Germ Theory" of disease. He said then, in so many words, that, it is not the germ that is the problem, it is the internal environment, the internal milieu that allowed the germ to develop in the first place that is the problem.
Add to this the error of William Harvey, who stated in 1651 that the cell is the smallest unit of life and the magnitude of this issue becomes even more apparent. That was more than 300 years ago!! and still, to this day, this fallacy has not been corrected even though Bechamp (1816-1908) demonstrated that the smallest unit of life was what he called the microzyma and Enderlein again published in 1921 and 1925 that the smallest unit
of life is not the cell but the Protit.
One should treat the cause, not the result. The idea of anti-biosis, anti-biotic (anti-life) is one way. The opposite of anti-biosis is PRO-BIOSIS (for-life),which is what Eclectic Medicine is about. It's not "alternative", it's Eclectic. "Alternative medicine" is just a popular anachronism for Eclectic. None of this is new and it isn't alternative.
As these "little dots", Protits, change form, they can change into organisms that are more and more detrimental to the body, they become independent and no longer live in harmony and in support of their host body. As they develop their individual form, they create their own metabolism and waste products of that metabolism, which is harmful to the local body fluids, causing pain and inflammation. Finally, this 'local' process, which develops in the body's "weakest organ", effects the Whole body.
It is not the organisms that make you sick,it is the waste products of the metabolism of those organisms that make you sick."In reality, it is not the bacteria themselves that produce the disease, but we believe it is the chemical constituents of these microorganisms enacting upon the unbalanced cell metabolism of the human body that in actuality produce the disease. We also believe if the metabolism of the human body is perfectly balanced or poised, it is susceptible to no disease." (from the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of The Smithsonian
Institution, 1944, The Rife's Microscope, The Smithsonian Report, 1944). * * *
These disease processes, these changes in the blood, are difficult to fathom at first as they make themselves known in the beginning as functional disturbances (effecting the functions but not yet the structures of the body) in the most diversified organs such as by;
* headaches,
* high or low blood pressure,
* inability to maintain chiropractic adjustment,
* feeling poorly,
* unmotivated attitude,
* lack of appetite,
* drab complexion,
* coated tongue,
* wounds in the mouth,
* pimples, sores,
* hoarseness,
* runny noses and the like,
* ear noises,
* diarrhea,
* lowered capacity for seeing and hearing,
* depressions,
* weak concentration or poor memory. Later, these disturbances manifest as the chronic diseases we know so well today.
See How You Rot and Rust by Steve Denk for another discussion on pleomorphism, pH balance, and oxidation/reduction which is another part of this whole process.
Medicines based on these ideas have been available and well researched in Europe for the last 150 years. Many of these medicines are available in this country now. See the Web-site What Is Pleomorphism and Isopathic Homeopathy for a discussion on medicines that are available in the United States now, this because of the heroic work of some very dedicated and wonderful people. There is more known about these older medicines than
about modern drugs, simply because these ideas have been around for so long. Just because these scientists lived in the 1800s or before doesn'tmean they were stupid
The small dots again are the Protits, the large white rings, red blood cells. The long organisms in the middle of the slides are bacterial forms that the Protits have turned into. Modern Biology claims this is not so, even though it is there for anyone to see.Pleomorphism is a concept that today sounds very strange. What pleomorphism is, however, cannot be denied as the vast amount of data that has been obtained over the last 180 years confirms what modern microbiologists are discovering, re-covering today. As noted, many people have been involved in this debate for a long time. Why things are like this is explained in the topic History on the Home Page. We will cover the main progenitors of this idea beginning with Günther Enderlein.
http://www.pnf.org/compendium/ follow link for pics PLEOMORPHIC COMPENDIUM
How you rot and rust
http://biomedx.com/microscopes/rrintro/rr2.html
Fortunately there have been and are today scientists who have continued along the other road - the road ignored by Pasteur. They have continued the pleomorphic line of research with great veracity, though it is largely suppressed and unknown in the United States.The American medical establishment does not look at live blood. Their practice of staining blood with chemicals kills it. It also kills the ability to really "see" what is going on. But in looking at live blood, you can clearly "see" that there are bacteria, microorganisms and parasites that not only are in the blood, but that over time can grow and can change their shapes. Research has proven that they can become pathogenic (disease producing). This ability of microorganisms to change is the concept of pleomorphism we've been discussing. Understanding this concept is essential to the understanding of cancer and its cure, and the cure of many other diseases.
American Medical Establishment does not look at live blood.
Looking at live blood under a microscope is an incredible learning tool and begins an incredible journey whereby we come to understand that there're living, creepy crawly organisms that live in the environment of our blood. These are the microorganisms and parasites that truly constitute "the fungus among us."
DARKFIELD MICROSCOPY
Today, researchers who look for organisms in live blood use standard laboratory microscopes with high magnification that are specially set up to view the blood under "darkfield" or "phase contrast" conditions. With darkfield this means that the blood sample being viewed is actually in front of a dark background and light is being angled onto the blood sample from the sides. Under phase contrast conditions, the light coming through the specimen is shifted into two beams, one slightly out of phase with the other. These techniques allow nearly invisible micro-organisms within the blood to be "lit up" and seen. They also clearly delineate the blood cells. This method is in contrast to the standard microscope "brightfield" conditions where light shines directly through the viewed sample. Using this kind of microscope technology, German bacteriologist Guenther Enderlein (a student of Bechamp) discovered tiny micro-organisms which he called protits. These tiny micro-organisms flourished in the blood cells, in the plasma body fluids, and in the tissues, living in harmony with the body in a symbiotic or mutually beneficial relationship. He considered the protit as one of the body's smallest, organized, biological units. The most interesting thing about this micro-organism is its ability to change and adapt to its environment. It was observed that when there was severe change or deterioration in the body's internal environment (mostly noted by changes in pH), these microorganisms would pass through several different stages of cyclic development, advancing from harmless agents to disease producing (pathological) bacteria or fungi. His book 'The Life Cycle of Bacteria' (Bakterian Cyclogenie) presented his theory. From his research he was able to produce natural biological answers to many of the degenerative disease processes plaguing western civilization today.
The Pioneering Microbiology of Guenther Enderlein
Protits - Flourish in the blood cells, plasma body fluids, tissues.
The body's smallest organised biological unit. It can change and adapt to its environment.
Other researchers have continued along the path blazed by Enderlein and have come to similar findings. Gaston Naessens discovered the protit and watched its life cycle. He calls the protit a "somatid". Naessens believes this protit/somatid predates DNA and carries on genetic activity. It is the first thing that condenses from light energy, and is the link between light and matter.Virginia Livingston-Wheeler also researched the protit but called it "progenitor cryptocides." Progenitor, meaning it existed through millennia, and cryptocides being a cellular killer - essentially the ancestral hidden killer, cancer. Like Naessens, Livingston did some excellent cancer research. Some of her best research was done along with two other women, Eleanor Alexander-Jackson and Irene Diller. They referred to this microbe as the cancer microbe. But in truth it is much more than that.
SEE HER BOOK THREE WOMEN AGAINST CANCER.
From all indications, Enderlein laid out some of the best and most original findings and others took his lead and furthered the research.Unfortunately, many scientists work in isolation and for one reason or another a lot of information known by one is unknown by the others.Because information is not shared, or given hierarchical credit, many who follow are left in the dark and without the full picture.
Blood is under pH control
Ideal around 7.3
If blood shifts outside the "perfect" range, the micro-organisms in the blood (protits) must change in order to survive.1000's of forms - overcome defense mechanisms - multiple disease situations.
Remember that blood is under pH control. Ideally it has a pH in a narrow range around 7.3, which is slightly alkaline. pH around 7.3 is the perfect environment in which the protit lives in harmony with the body. But when blood pH is disturbed and is shifted out of that narrow range, these tiny micro-organisms can no longer live. In order to survive, they will change to a form which can survive. It is these new forms that can become
aggressive, parasitic and pathogenic agents within the blood.Dr. Enderlein contended there are thousands of forms and many of these are able to overcome the body's defense mechanisms, causing multiple
disease situations.
Some Call it the Kleptic Microbe
Darkfield microscopic studies conducted by Dr. Rudolph Alsleben and Dr. Kurt Donsbach of the Hospital Santa Monica clearly illustrated the proliferation of mutated microorganisms in the blood of their sick patients. What they observed was the dance of these microbes in their pathogenic rage. They called it the 'kleptic microbe'. Examining their patients live blood revealed many of these microbes darting to and fro in the blood plasma. The more ill the patient, the more microbes observed. The sickest patients had swarming hordes of these parasitic mutated microorganisms within the blood, causing great stress to their immune systems. The doctors learned that cleaning the blood of these kleptic microbes allowed the rejuvenation of the immune system to progress in an orderly and rapid fashion.
Curious scientists who spend a lot of time in the laboratory looking at live blood under the microscope often start to wonder about the pleomorphic concept. When they see the changes in the blood taking place and correlate it with the progression of the disease process, many begin to see a pattern unfolding that prompts them to state that...
The over-acidification of the body, caused by an inverted way of eating and living, causes a proliferation of the "fungus among us" which debilitates the body and, if not corrected, will ultimately cause our demise.
Looked at in this light it could be said that all illness is but this one constitutional disease, the result is mycotoxicoses - toxicity caused by mycotic infection, or in other words, by a yeast and fungus infection. These are the great decomposers of living and dead bodies. From ashes to ashes and dust to dust, this is nature's decomposing mechanism at work.Fascinating isn't it? If you begin to understand this concept, you will begin to understand a prime reason why we get sick and how we get sick, and you will realize that much of modern medicine is looking under the wrong stones for answers to many disease questions. For years now, medicine has considered blood to be a sterile environment. But they're wrong. Unfortunately, dead wrong for some of their
patients.
Blood is not a sterile environment, nor is it a static environment. That environment can change (most notably through diet) and microorganisms in the blood can evolve and change too. The fact is, we can see this type of evolution and change going on throughout all of nature. If you leave a bowl of milk out on the kitchen table for a few days without refrigeration, it will turn sour fairly quickly. Did it turn sour because there was an outside
germ that got into the milk? No it did not. It turned sour because tiny microbes already in the milk changed their form to adapt to a changed environment.
The Disease Paradigm Shift
One school of thought (modern medicine and the monomorphic perspective) says most disease is caused by germs or some form of static,disease-causing microbe (the germ theory). In order to get well, you should KILL the germs. KILL the microbes. KILL whatever is making you sick. Drugs, antibiotics, chemotherapy, radiation, surgery.The other school of thought (which encompasses most other forms of the healing arts unrelated to mainstream medicine) says most disease is caused by some unbalance in the body. The unbalance occurs in some nutritional, electrical, structural, toxicological or biological equation. In order to get well, you need to re-establish balance in your body by working with your body, not against it.
For the pleomorphic scientists like Enderlein, Naessens, Livingston, and others, disease is in large measure a function of biology. It is a biologically driven event that takes place in the body when metabolic processes are thrown off. These metabolic processes are thrown off largely by dietary,nutritional and environmental factors.
Embracing the biological view gives new insights into the disease process and is truly another paradigm for understanding health.For some researchers, it all boils down to this...
Mycrozyma
Extracted from
HEALTH & SURVIVAL IN THE 21st CENTURY
by ROSS HORNE
see online at www.soilandhealth.org
"Before Bechamp's time the theory of the cell being the basic unit of life was well established, but Bechamp's investigations showed that the cell itself was made up of smaller living entities capable of intelligent behavior and self-reproduction. He referred to these as 'molecular granulations' and gave them the name of microzymas, which he said were the real basic units of life.
Monomorphism vs Pleomorphism
"Bechamp described how in certain conditions microzymas could develop into bacteria within a cell and could, if the right conditions persisted,become pathological, so that infection could develop in the body without the acquisition of the germ from an outside source. These observations supported the belief of Professor Claude Bernard (1813-78), who contended that no matter where germs came from they presented a danger only
if the body was in a run-down state due to a disturbed milieu interieur."
"Because other researchers without Bechamp's finesse, had not observed the changes in form capable by various microbes, it was believed in orthodox circles that each form of the same microbe, at the time it was observed, was an entirely different microbe in its own right which remained always the same. Thus as the 19th Century came to a close, two schools of thought existed: pleomorphism as propounded by Bechamp and Ernst Almquist (1852-1946) of Sweden, and monomorphism as propounded by Pasteur and Robert Koch* (1843-1910) of Germany.
"About this time Germany became predominant in world medical research, and because the germ theory of disease had become firmly entrenched in the minds of orthodox doctors, the research into microbiology became focused more on medical problems than on the general study of biology."
Monomorphism
http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/mono.html
Monomorphism is the cornerstone of Robert Koch (1843-1910) and Louis Pasteur's (1822-1895) Germ Theory of disease. This theory professes that disease has a microbial cause that is "caught" from the outside;"that there are differences among pathogenic bacteria (ones that can make you ill), and each has a constant nature ... each distinct bacterial form corresponds to a specific disease and that the form of this microbe always stays the same - monomorphism, and causes the same disease however often the disease is transferred from one animal to another, the kind always remains the same and never changes into other kinds". How You Rot
and Rust by Steve Denk In 1878 Robert Koch wrote Etiology of Wound Infections which was the beginning of the Germ Theory of Disease. Where Pasteur's views were shaped by the study of fermentation, Koch was affected by his contact with wounded soldiers. He noted that the bodies of animals that die of artificially infected wound diseases (pus from an infected animal injected into a healthy one) invariably contained many bacteria
... In each case a definite organism corresponded to a distinct disease ... and that for every individual, traumatic, infective disease, a morphologically distinguishable microorganism could be identified.
In 1880 Koch built on an essay of the relations between microbial diseases and their causes from the work of Jacob Henle, his professor of anatomy. These became known as the>Koch-Henle Postulates.
The following are these postulates which revolutionized medical epidemiology at the turn of the century, by laying out the standard proof of infectivity to the present day. The postulates dictate that a microbe must be:
1. found in an animal (or person) with the disease,
2. isolated and grown in culture and
3. injected into a healthy experimental animal, producing the disease in question; and then recovered from the experimentally diseased animal and
shown to be the same pathogen as the original. * * *
By the early twentieth century the whole landscape of medicine had changed. Most of the common killer diseases, including smallpox, diphtheria,bubonic plague, flu, whooping cough, yellow fever, and TB, were understood to be caused by pathogens. Vaccines were devised against some, and by the 1950s antibiotics could easily cure many others.By the 1960s and 1970s the prevailing mood was one of optimism. At least in the developed world, infectious diseases no longer seemed very threatening. Far more scary were the diseases that the medical world said were not infectious: heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and so on. That these diseases are now considered to be "infectious" (See Atlantic Monthly, A New Germ Theory, February 1999) , is what this web page is about.
Also, no one foresaw the devastation of AIDS, or the serial outbreaks of deadly new infections such as Legionnaire's disease, Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fevers, antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis, "flesh-eating" staph infections, and Rift Valley fever.
"The infectious age is, we now know, far from over. Furthermore, it appears that many diseases we didn't think were infectious may be caused by infectious agents after all. These include stomach ulcers, heart disease. The first cancer virus discovered in 1910 called the Rous sarcoma virus,certain leukemias, lymphomas, nasopharyngeal cancer common in south China, cervical cancer, stomach cancer, liver cancer, Kaposi's sarcoma with Herpes virus 8, mammary-gland tumors in mice, childhood obsessive compulsive disorder, Sydenhams's chorea which is a rare complication of streptococcal infection. Streptococcal antibodies find their way into the brain and attack a region called the basal ganglia, causing characteristic clumsiness along with obsessions. Schizophrenia has long been considered to be possibly "infectious" in nature."
The Atlantic Monthly, A New Germ Theory by Judith Hooper, February 1999, pg. 44.
The catalogue of suspected chronic diseases caused by "infection"/bacteria to David A Relman, an assistant professor of medicine, microbiology, and immunology at Stanford University, now includes;
"sarcoidosis, various forms of inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Wegener's granulomatosis, diabetes mellitus, primary biliary cirrhosis, tropical sprue, and Kawasaki disease. Likely suspects include many forms of heart disease, arteriosclerosis, Alzheimers's disease, most major
psychiatric diseases, Hashimoto's thyroiditis, cerebral palsy, polycystic ovarian disease, and perhaps obesity and certain eating disorders. Multiple sclerosis has been linked to the human herpes virus 6, the agent of Roseola infantum, a very mild disease of childhood" (ibid.)
* * *
Where do these bacteria come from...?
To modern science, this is still an unanswered question.
* * *
Regarding stomach ulcers;
In 1981 Barry J. Marshall became interested in incidences of spiral bacteria in the stomach lining. The bacteria were assumed to be irrelevant to ulcer pathology, but Marshall and J. R. Warren noticed, serendipitously, that when one patient was treated with tetracycline for unrelated reason, his painvanished, and in endoscopy, revealed the ulcer was gone.
An article by Marshall and Warren on their culturing of "unidentified curved bacilli" appeared in the British medical journal, The Lancet in 1984. No one listened until finally Marshall personally ingested a batch of the spiral bacteria and came down with painful gastritis, thereby fulfilling all of Koch's
postulates.There is now little doubt that Helicobacter pylori, found in the stomachs of a third of adults in the United States, cause inflammation of the stomach lining. In 20 percent of infected people it produces and ulcer, Nearly everyone with a duodenal ulcer is infected. H. pylori infections can be readily
diagnosed with endoscopic biopsy tests, a blood test for antibodies, or a breath test. In 90 percent of cases the infections can be cured in less than a month with antibiotics.
* * *
Where do these bacteria come from?You don't "catch" them, so infectious is not the correct word.
* * *
Regarding arteriosclerosis;
It has recently been discovered that arteriosclerosis is also a bacterial process. Notice I did not say, 'caused by bacteria'. The plaques of 99% ofpatients with hardening of the arteries have the bacteria Chlamydia pneumoniae in them.According to The Atlantic Monthly, Feb. 1999, Chlamydia pneumoniae is a newly discovered bacterium that causes pneumonia and bronchitis. The germ is a relative of Chlamydia trachomatis, which cause trachoma, a leading cause of blindness in parts of the Third World. C. trachomatisis perhaps more familiar to us as a sexually transmitted disease that, left untreated in women, can lead to scarring of the fallopian tubes.
Pekka Saikku and Maija Leinonen of Finland discovered the new type of chlamydial infection in 1985 though its existence was not officially recognized until 1989. Saikku and Leinonen found that 68 percent of Finnish patients who had suffered heart attacks had high levels of antibodies to C. pneumoniae, as did 50 percent of patients with coronary heart disease, in contrast to 17 percent of the healthy controls.
While examining coronary-artery tissues at autopsy in 1991, Allan Shor, a pathologist in Johannesburg, saw "pear-shaped bodies" that looked like nothing he had seen before. Cho-Chou Kuo, of the University of Washington School of Public Health, found that the clogged arteries were full of C.pneumoniae. Everywhere the bacterium lodges, it appears to precipitate the same grim sequence of events: a chronic inflammation, followed by a
buildup of plaque that occludes the opening of the artery (or, in the case of venereal Chlamydia, a buildup of scar tissue in the fallopian tube).
Recently a team of pathologists at MCP-Hahnemann School of Medicine, found the same bacterium in the diseased section of the autopsied brains of seventeen out of nineteen Alzheimer's patents and in only one of nineteen controls.Whether antibiotics help any of these diseases or not remains to be seen. The first major clinical trial is under way in the United States, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Pfizer Corporation: 4000 heart patients at twenty-seven clinical centers will be given either the antibiotic azithromycin or a placebo and followed for four years to gauge whether the antibiotic affects the incidence of further coronary events.
Whether the antibiotic helps coronary heart disease or not does not explain where these bacteria come from and thereby how to effect a causal or real cure. That this issue of Chlamydia in the tissues, is still being pursued by the modern pharmaceutical firms as "infectious" in nature, amenable tothe treatment with antibiotics and/or vaccines, is an another example of how entrenched Pasteur's and Koch's ideas are in the whole of medicine
from the profit orientation of the petro-chemical pharmaceutical companies on down.
The above reference to the article from The Atlantic Monthly, does add to its credit,
"Even if heart patients can be shown to have antibodies to C. pneumoniae, and even if colonies of the bacteria are found living and breeding in diseased coronary arteries, is it certain that the germ caused the damage? Perhaps it is there as an innocent bystander, as some critics have proposed."
As will be shown, the above bacteria, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Helicobacter pylori come out the red blood cells themselves The blood is teaming with microorganisms, especially if it sits on the microscope slide for a few hours. You can watch this process under any microscope, anywhere, anytime.
* * *
This is a funny situation really. Modern, allopathicly trained physicians <can't see these things, literally. You can see all these organisms in the blood with any microscope, so its not a matter of "seeing is believing". More, it's a mater of "believing is seeing<", so you can even dare to take a look in the first place.
In summary:
1. The blood is not sterile, as we were led to believe after the Second World War with Hitler's ideology of the creation of a 'pure' blooded race.
2. The cell is not the smallest living thing.
3. Organisms come out of the blood and tissues to decompose those tissues when they can no longer live and support their own metabolism within the
environment they find themselves in, in their internal milieu.
4. These same organisms can also come out of the blood and regenerate new tissues and organs; depends on which way we want to go. One
needs a source of Protits in the diet, organ meats provide these, organ specific Protits/Somatides. (See Live Cell Therapy )
Pleomorphism, Its Discovery and Suppression
[Editor's Note: Dave Cowan of Canada is a skilled operator of a computer based radionics machine developed by Bill Nelson called the QXCI machine. Skilful use of such a machine allows the operator to obtain information about the body from a distance and can even send "adjustment information" through the ether to help the body recover from its lowered energy state and disequilibriums generated by disease conditions. If interested in more information, you can always contact Dave by sending him an e-mail at: dcowan1@telus.net...Ken Adachi]
By Dave Cowan <dcowan1@telus.net>
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/pleomorphismdiscoverysuppresion16nov03.shtml
November 16, 2003
When Louis Pasteur (1822 – 1895) went public with his Germ Theory of disease, Europe continued to be ravaged by waves of infectious plagues, including Cholera, Typhus, Pneumonia (‘consumption’) and Tuberculosis; not to mention the not-too-distant memory of the Black Death. Pasteur’s discovery was due to the invention of the microscope.
The officials and public of the era were ripe for a simple and direct explanation from the emerging world of the Natural Sciences for these tragic and decimating diseases. However, at the time Pasteur was formulating and publicizing his work, a quiet, much more qualified and experienced researcher, Pierre Bechamp, was also looking at the new frontier-world of microbes, and came up with a more complex, but thorough,understanding of these miniature marvels. He identified a fundamental unit of microbiological life, named the ‘microzyma’, which he said was critical in supporting the life of cells, but could be triggered into pathogenic states, depending on specific changes in the state of the internal (particularly the blood) environment. Therefore, the
bacteria and other micro-organisms; viruses and fungi, that were being blamed as the cause of disease, were viewed by Bechamp as being part of Nature’s ‘clean-up crew’, breaking down sick tissue and ultimately decomposing a no-longer-occupied body. Bechamp also viewed these micro-organisms as ‘changing forms’ (pleomorphic): from seed to bacterial, viral and fungal states, rather than being seen as discrete species unto
themselves.
Once these bugs have done the job, they revert to the ‘seed’ stage once again ready to support new life. The very ground we stand on is teeming with these fundamental biological units. I once saw a video of a microzyma expiring and emitting a photon of light in the process. Perhaps these units represent the transitional point where Light becomes living Matter. The consciousness of the era, however, was, as noted, looking for a simpler, more linear explanation for disease, and as Pasteur was more of a PR man than Bechamp, he won the recognition of academia and society. Also, the simplistic notion of ‘kill the bug, cure the disease’ was very appealing
for the emerging Pharmaceutical trade, and continues to provide a major illusion in support of one of the newest ‘plagues’, the overuse of antibiotics. Pasteur’s conscience, however, moved him to say on his deathbed, “Bechamp was right!”. As Bill Nelson, developer of the QXCI machine likes tosay, "the Germ theory proposes you get rid of the flies, while it makes more sense to clean up the garbage attracting them."
As a result of the entrenchment of the Germ Theory in the western mind, other research pioneers who (often independently) corroborated Bechamp’s work, operated on the fringes of mainstream science and did not receive the financial support that would have promoted their findings.
One of the reasons there is some confusion about the concept of Pleomorphism is the language used to describe the various forms was drawn from different researchers who each used their own terminology, unaware of their colleague’s work. Thus, the "Micozyma" of Bechamp is also referred to as a "Protit", "Bion", or "Vion" by other researachers.
The QXCI machine
The QXCI machine, on the Pleomorphic Panel in the Dark Field Blood area, uses the terminology of "Enderlien" from Germany. We can also consider the work of Gaston Naesson of Quebec, Wilhelm Reich, and of course, Royal Rife.With the creation of Rife's Universal Microscope in the 1930’s, Rife was able to observe and prove the reality of pleomorphism. He was able to do this partly because of his advancements with optics, but also because he used light frequencies to highlight his samples rather than chemical dyes.Using dyes kills the specimen, so tissues cannot be viewed in the natural living state. Studying dead samples is a dumb as studying cadavers to
understand living processes. Further, Rife was able to isolate the particular viral form involved in all forms of Cancer, and discover a frequency signal that would neutralize it.
Maurice Fishbein, representing the AMA at the time, wanted to ‘buy into’ Rife’s discovery for personal gain. As Rife said ‘no’ to his offer, the once-supportive AMA establishment henceforth vilified him in print and his discoveries were driven underground. Government goon squads attempted to physically destroy all the evidence of Rife’s work. There are a handful of Rife’s Universal Microscopes in existence, but none of them
complete and functional. Instead, mainstream science uses the Electron Microscope, which kills the sample with radiation in the process of viewing the sample.
Factors for us to be aware of that create disturbances in the Pleomorphic chain of states include:
Low blood oxygen (arising from any variety of reasons…see the article on Low Cell Vitality on this topic);
Ongoing imbalances in PH;
Overgrowth of bowel-based Fungi (ie: the Candidas); and
Emotional trauma.
If you see numbers over 90 on the Pleomorph page, use the Blood Treatment panel for Pleomorphic Balance. We do not want to ‘zap’ each phase,as we may be upsetting the delicate balance the body is attempting to create. Most importantly is to address the causal factors.
Using the frequency 66.5 in the Manual Rife function balances the Pleomorphic counts, as does a drop of Essential Oil of Peppermint in each glass of water and using Grape Plant Extract.
For more insight into this fascinating topic I highly recommend Nina Silver’s book, ‘The Handbook of Rife Frequency Healing’. As the Pleomorphic Theory illustrates, life is incredibly complex and ordered. We must help our clients appreciate this complexity, and thus foster a sense of wonder and
respect for themselves as expressions of creative intelligence.
Dave Cowan
More information can be read at: http://www.qxciscio.com
Links
A Faulty Medical Model: The Germ Theory
http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html
Who is Antoine Bechamp? Why is he important, and what are microzymas, anyway?
http://www.squidoo.com/bechamp
Instead of incorporating Béchamp's discoveries to bring about a health revolution and save countless lives, greedy and power-hungry industrialists decided to ostracize his work and put their dollars behind Louis Pasteur's 'germ theory', because it was a way for them to build a colossal and profitable pharmaceutical/medical empire. No pharmaceutical company in the world today cares one iota about curing disease. They want to control disease and focus on symptom suppression so they can make huge profits by getting you to become a lifelong user of their products.
Pleomorphism of Microorganisms and Theories of Infectious Disease
http://rawpaleodiet.vpinf.com/pleomorphism-1.html
http://www.whale.to/v/pleomorphism.htm
http://www.whale.to/p/bird.html
Extreme pleomorphism and the bacterial life cycle: a forgotten controversey,
by Milton Wainwright
http://www.whale.to/y/wainwright.html
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.