Enderlein Perspective in the 21st Century

Enderlein Perspective in the 21st CenturyPart 3: The Super- Microscope
© Copyright 2003 by Michael Coyle for NuLife Sciences; USA(Explore Issue: Volume 12, Number 1)
All images by permission of Professor K. Olbrich and Dr. Bernard Muschlein, Germany
The following article is Part 3 in a series. Part 1 appeared in Volume 10, Number 6, and Part 2 appeared in Volume 11, Number 3, of Explore ! For the Professional. Copies of the Part 1 and 2 articles are available for the special rate of $1.50 each, for a limited time. To order, mail a check payable to Explore! Publications (no credit card orders) to 318 N. Rush St., Prescott, AZ 86301.
For those of you who haven't read or need a reminder regarding the first two installments of this commentary, I present a short review.
The original article was a response to an article authored by Ronald Ullman on Magistrate Gerner's paper, on the subject of analyzation of the so-called 'darkfield bodies' that are viewed in the native blood evaluation. Mr. Gerner had filtered out some of the smallest components and through laboratory means had made determinations, proving them to be non-DNA bearing artifacts of cellular breakdown, primarily comprised of two blood proteins, namely albumin and globin. This information as presented by Mr. Ullman was presumed to herald a new scientifically provable perspective that has been used by darkfield microscopy critics, as a way to show or prove how Von Brehmer, Enderlein, Naessans, Rife and most who describe polymorphism of the microorganisms which are viewed in the native blood were 'wrong'. It is true that we have scientifically verifiable means of testing today that Dr. Enderlein did not have in his time, but the body of information that has been produced over many years by many very intelligent people, short of DNA testing, is enormous in comparison to this one report by Mr. Gerner. Mr. Gerner's report intends to prove what the darkfield bodies that were filtered down to extremely small sizes are. The general conclusion is that they are non-DNA bearing polymerizations of primarily albumin and globin. This information addresses only a small fraction of what needs to be understood. In fact, the report actually raises many more questions than it answers. My attempt in writing these articles has been to present for consideration additional potential avenues of exploration along these lines. Please see the two earlier articles for a more detailed presentation.
The classical Enderlein perspective shows a direct line of progression from one phase of development to the next, and was described by him as being the viral, bacterial and fungal phases of the Endobiont, Mucor racemosus Fresen, culminating in Leptotrichia Buccalis in the blood and Mucor mycosis in the tissues. This was based on visual examination and also laboratory testing, based on the scientific means of the early 20th century. Therefore, for the sake of argument, we may concede that this is not the best way to technically describe these microorganisms, as they may be some combinations of species that may not be determinable by visual inspection... This understanding still does not address what we are looking at in the darkfield. To illustrate this, I submit that after training thousands of people in the native blood examination technique, regardless of their technical background, I have never met an individual who could give a reasonable explanation of what is being viewed. People are awestruck when they view the blood at high resolution in a true darkfield. I have had sophisticated Ph.D. researchers, experts, chiefs of testing in large hospitals, University Professors, etc., and all of them were either shocked or totally mystified by what they were seeing, and the universal question is, "Why doesn't anyone look into this and align it with what is known?" Part of the answer to this is that 'what is known' is too narrow of a field of information at present to address it, apparently. What we are finding is that a somewhat fractional proving is heralded as a huge accomplishment, and in a way, it is. The reason that more science isn't performed on this subject is that it is not funded by the usual sources; i.e. invested interests. What is universal is that no one, dissenter or promoter of these ideas, can give a full (or anything like it) explanation of what they are looking at. One thing is for certain though, and that is that the organism developments that occur in the native blood evaluation are fertile ground for investigation.
People often marvel at the difference between what they are viewing using the NL2000 over the equipment that they presently have. Without the potential to view in high resolutions with the proper match of numerical aperture in both the condenser and the objective, etc., etc., how can you evaluate it if you can't see it? We find that most people are working with less than half the information that they should be getting through a microscopic viewing. With this in mind, I decided to visit a physicist, Prof. Kurt Olbrich and his colleague, Dr. Bernard Muschlein in Ober-Hilterslingen, Germany during June of 2002. Prof. Olbrich is a physicist who has developed a breakthrough technology in optical microscopy that in some way rivals and in other ways surpasses electron-microscopy for both biological and industrial purposes. I was greatly pleased, upon viewing the work, to see that the equipment actually surpassed what I could imagine, providing 25,000X magnification at under 200nm resolution. These numbers are unheard of in optical microscopy and should not be in any way confused with the claims of marketers who are talking about so called "high magnification/high resolution" microscopy systems which are just ordinary compound microscopes with a ZOOM lens capacity that degrades the image until it is poorly resolved. These are useful for clinical demonstration but should not be confused with true optical magnifications and resolutions as required in research. We were able to view at extremely high magnifications and resolution the activity of viruses, moving in and out of the erythrocytes, and leukocytes removing mycelia and spores from the erythrocyte membranes. The intracellular parasitism was very evident and we were able to view the organisms in their unstained, unfixed state, operating in their usual manner.

I would like to address the Rife Universal Microscope in this context, for the sake of clarification. I am in a unique position to do so, being one of the very few people who has ever used the Rife Universal Microscope.
The Rife Universal Microscope was and remains to be a very sophisticated step beyond the usual understanding of light optics. The system provided reportedly 30,000X magnification with extremely high resolving power. It is capable of employing monochromatic light in order to fluoresce all strains of microorganisms individually, thereby marking them for examination and treatment. It also utilized a series of prisms to provide both outstanding clarity and magnification. Due to numerous reasons such as political resistance, theft of the instrument, poor understanding of the working principle, greed, and downright blundering, the instrument was never properly researched and redeveloped and to this day represents a technology that is 'just out of reach', regardless of any efforts that have been made to the contrary by myself or others. The Rife system is based on older technologies, and there have been significant advances in optical coatings, overcoming spherical aberration, illumination, etc. that have been arrived at since Rife's time. It wasn't Rife's equipment that was the key, it was his understanding of the physics of light optics. Basically, we have a lot more to choose from today when selecting the components of the overall system. Therefore, improvements have been made by Prof. Olbrich that incorporate the end results of what Rife had accomplished, regardless of the method. These results overcome the dead-ends that many researchers have encountered due to optical limitations, illustrating visible details and structures that are not even known to exist.
I include a description of the functionality of the microscope in order to illustrate its potential. Please see the pictorial examples in order to grasp the full importance.
The Ergonom 500 is not dependent on the usual relationships of depth of field, magnification and resolution. As anyone knows who has ever used a 100X objective in viewing the native blood has observed, the depth of field is very shallow. First you are looking at the top of the cell and cannot really see the bottom of it with any clarity, and then with the finest adjustment of focus, you are looking at the bottom of the cell and no longer can see the top. With the Ergonom 500 the depth of field can be adjusted at any time between "very large" and "0", a feature providing an unprecedented depth of field effect. The physical formula of maximal resolution does not apply for the Ergonom. It can resolve objects far below 200 nm. (nanometers). Because no pretreatment of specimens and preparations is required, and because there is no coating or surface treatment or staining, the system provides true visualization without distortion and can employ all techniques, including incident illumination, transillumination, polarization, darkfield, phase contrast, differential interference contrast, brightfield and fluorescence, all utilizing the same condenser with minimum adjustment. During observation, specimens are heated to no more than 5° C above room temperature. True color reproduction is observable even at very high magnifications. Please see the following pictorial examples in order to grasp the full import. All pictures are used by permission of Prof. Olbrich and Dr. Muschlein.
IMAGES FROM THE ERGONOM 500 MICROSCOPE

As you may have observed from the relatively low magnifications that are utilized in the biological images, it is not always the magnification that counts, but rather the resolving capacity or power. Clinical microscopists usually use magnifications of around 500X for viewing the native blood, because this allows for them to see highly resolved minute particles (not individually) while also being able to scan the terrain for the state of the cells, degree of dysbiosis, free radical effects and numerous other factors.
The Ergonom high resolution/magnification microscope has confirmed (for me) organism and cellular activities that I could previously only presume. My overall conclusion is that without having experienced such viewing capacity, one who is intending to define what is occurring is really just guessing or hypothesizing, even though those educated guesses may be right on the mark. Doubt vanishes in the face of such a viewing.
The following are some examples of what can be proven at the higher magnifications/resolutions:
The viral sized particles come and go continually in and out of the cells.
Spore forms, mycoplasmas, use the cells as an environment in which to culture.
Upward movement in the cyclogeny per Enderlein is a matter of communalization of proteins, which is also viewable on the NL2000.
Internal parasitism of the erythrocytes is easily observable and without question. This is due to the incredible depth of field capacity.
External parasitism of the erys is also visible discernible. This includes bacterial forms developing on the erythrocytes.
Other viruses such as the Legionnaire's and HIV virus are easily observable, although not definable.
Rife 7S original frequency research can be revisited by utilizing this imaging technology.
Organisms accumulate on the cell membranes and are also removed by the leukocytes.
Structures that I have only been able to view on the NuLife N12000, such as flagellation of the membranes.
of pathogenic leukocytes and colored micro-nuclei in lymphocytes. I have been told for years by microscopists that they have never viewed these previous to viewing with the NL2000
In closing, I would like to make my final points:
Regardless of the proposition regarding whether DNA will be ultimately found to be involved or not in the organisms described from the Enderlein morphological perspective, that important information must still be arrived at on the basis of the testing of cultures that include the higher, more developed forms as described by Enderlein. No scientific explanation that does not encompass this factor will suffice. It is not only necessary to say what it isn't (the Emperor's new clothes) but it is also necessary to define what it is, from an informed perspective.
It is clear from viewing the native blood that there is much more going on there than has ever been defined by conventional science. My final question is this: O.K., so we have a finding regarding a small slice of the morphologies. What about the rest of it?
About the Author
Michael Coyle is a Nutritionally Oriented Natural Therapist and Microbiological Researcher who has worked extensively with herbal, homeopathic, isopathic, nutritional, nootropic and energetic therapies. Since 1994, Michael has devoted his time to training medical doctors and complementary health professionals at the NuLife Sciences training facility in Petaluma, CA, in the art and science of native blood evaluation and the associated applications of wholistic therapies. He also has developed two literary source texts; the 430-page Applied Microscopy For Nutritional Evaluation and Correction, an explanation of what Michael has coined "The New Biology", and the accompanying volume The Four Underlying Causes of Illness and What To Do About Them, a treatise on the causative factors underlying illness. Michael is the designer of a breakthrough, high-resolution microscopy system which is ideal for clinical applications of the native blood imaging. He is the technical representative and spokesperson for NuLife Sciences, Inc., a corporation created to provide educational services.

more info at: www.dreddyclinic.com