Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:26 am

I was going to put this under the Recovered: Is the universe a living organism? thread but realized that it probably warranted its own.

Hopefully, the link with Kervran's Biological Transmutation of the Elements and Sheldrake's morphic fields (morphogenetic fields) and morphic resonance (Papers on Morphic Resonance) will not be missed (reference Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc). Nor the link with EM polarity and acidity/alkalinity conditions.

First, a few links to start with as a jumping off point.

The Lost History of Medicine

Louis Pasteur And the Myth of Pasteurization

Welcome To The Website Of Royal Rife: This Website Reviews the Work History of Dr. Royal Rife as reported in The MEDIA & MEDICAL Journals Between 1930-1971

Books by Barry Lynes at Amazon (personal opinion; Lynes's The Cancer Cure That Worked is a MUST read for a summary of the work of Royal Raymond Rife; short, succinct, easy read)

Pasteur or Bechamp? Pleomorphic Organisms Part~1 Introduction by Ivor Hughes

Pasteur or Bechamp? Pleomorphic Organisms By Christopher Bird Part~2

Cancer ... conquered or conqueror? (section on pleomorphism)

Bacteria, Cancer & the Origin of Life Part One By Alan Cantwell, Jr., M.D.

Bacteria, Cancer & the Origin of Life Part Two By Alan Cantwell, Jr., M.D.

As one researches various topics at various scales, it's interesting how frequently "background noise" is observed and then summarily dismissed or ignored as unimportant to the more narrow focus of investigation.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:27 pm

Alan Cantwell Jr wrote:Bacteria, Cancer & the Origin of Life Part Two By Alan Cantwell, Jr., M.D.

After a century of “modern” medical science, we still don’t know the cause of cancer, heart disease, and many other chronic diseases that kill millions of people every year. The reason for this, in my view, is that medical science refuses to recognise the role that microbes (smaller than bacteria and larger than viruses) play in these diseases.

Much of the fault lies in the dogma left over from the nineteenth century by such scientific icons as Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, who are revered as fathers of microbiology and bacteriology. At a time when viruses, nanobacteria and astrobiology were unknown and when “the germ theory of disease” was in its infancy, both scientists held rigid views as to what was possible and not possible in biology. And neither Pasteur nor Koch could fathom the concept that living organisms might arise from non-living sources.

Unfortunately, Pasteur (1822-1895) had no medical training. He was consumed with fermentation experiments and with proving “air germs” were the basis for human disease, although he provided no explanation for the origin of atmospheric germs or how life began on Earth. Koch (1843-1910), who discovered the bacteria that caused tuberculosis, was obsessed with classifying microbes grown in the laboratory into exact species, depending on their size, structure, physical, and chemical properties. He insisted the species that were created were pure and stable; and that species were unable to change back and forth between each other. According to Koch, each species of bacteria produced a separate and distinct disease. Each germ also had to originate from similar “parent” germs – which reproduced by dividing in half by “binary fission.”

Not every physician of that era believed all the pronouncements of Pasteur and Koch. A few physician-scientists challenged them because they knew what was often “proven” in laboratory experiments might not always be applicable to what was going on with bacteria hidden within the human body.

Antoine Bechamp (1816-1908) was no slouch in the science department and was well-known as a scientific rival of the famous Pasteur. The Frenchman was not only a Doctor of Medicine and Science, but at various times was also Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacology, and Professor of Physics, Toxicology, and Biological Chemistry. There is also some evidence that Pasteur plagiarised much of Bechamp’s original research.

Pasteur, however, is credited in history with saving the French beer and wine and silkworm industries, and with pasteurisation and vaccine research. Bechamp, despite his brilliance, was eventually eclipsed by the younger man. The details of the scientific controversy and plagiarism accusations are chronicled in E. Dougles Hume’s book, Bechamp or Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology (1923), remarkably still in print.

Bechamp had his own ideas concerning the origin of life and the germ theory of disease. In animal and plant cells he observed infinitesimal microscopic “granulations” that he considered the incorruptible elements of all life. After many laboratory experiments and microscopic examinations of these granules, the physician-scientist claimed these so-called “microzymas” were capable of developing into common living organisms that go by the name of bacteria.

In his view, Pasteur’s “air germs” had nothing to do with the origin and appearance of these microzymas in tissue. In fact, Bechamp wrote that Pasteur’s air germs most likely derived from dying life-forms. Like Folk a century later [see Part One of this article], Bechamp found barely visible microzymas/bacteria in chalk and limestone that he interpreted as survivor life-forms of past ages. Although all the microzymes looked similar, they varied in their chemical abilities. Each tissue, or organ, or gland had microzymas that differed from each other.

Hume claims Bechamp and his colleagues showed these tiny microzymas were, in reality, “organised ferments” with the potential to develop into bacteria. In this development, they passed through certain intermediary stages. Some of these intermediate bacterial stages were regarded by people like Koch as different species, but to Bechamp they were all related and derived from microzymas. Adding more heresy to Pasteur’s dogma, Bechamp wrote that without oxygen, microzymas do not die – they go into a state of rest. Bechamp preached, “Every living being has arisen from the microzymas, and every living being is reducible to the microzymas.”

Like Bechamp, Henry Charlton Bastian’s (1837-1915) studies investigating the origin of life were closely tied into his understanding of the origin of infectious disease. He was also the last of the great scientists to uphold the theory of “spontaneous regeneration”, by concluding that life could come from non-life. Like Reich a century later, he argued that microorganisms were produced as by-products of the disease process, not as opportunistic infections, but from degenerating tissue by a process Bastian termed “heterogenesis.” Heterogenesis is the idea that living organisms can arise without parents from organic starting materials – an idea certainly not in accord with Pasteur and Koch.

Bechamp and Bastian’s research was also a threat to the followers of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), whose evolution theories revolutionalised science. Like Pasteur, Darwin was not a medical doctor and had no training in human pathology. And while doctors like Bechamp and Bastian and others were discovering new forms of life emanating from human diseased tissue and from the bowels of limestone, Pasteur, Koch and the Darwinians simply disregarded all this in favour of their own research and pronouncements.

Bastian paid dearly for his unorthodoxy (and for some well-publicised but failed experiments) and his once-famous name is largely forgotten. Microbiologist and science professor James Strick has recently revived interest in Bastian’s books and research and his books on the origin of life; and a six-volume set reprinting much of his work has been recently published. Strick is also the author of Sparks of Life (2000), which chronicles the famous nineteenth century scientific and bacteriologic debates over Darwinism and spontaneous generation.

Pleomorphism and the Classification of Bacteria

Koch, famous for his tuberculosis discoveries, was rigid in his belief that a specific germ had only one form (monomorphism). And he opposed all research showing some germs had more than one form (pleomorphism) and complex “life cycles.” Thus, from the very beginning of bacteriology there was conflict between the monomorphists and the pleomorphists, with the former totally overruling the latter and dominating microbiology to this day.

In the attempt to “classify” bacteria as the lowest forms of life known at that time, there was no consideration given to any possible “connection” between the various species of bacteria. The dogma was that a coccus remained a coccus; a rod remained a rod; and there was no interplay between them. There was no “crossing” from one species to another, and the research of the pleomophists suggesting otherwise was ignored.

When viruses were discovered they were made separate from bacteria, although bacteria are also known to be susceptible to viral infection. Viruses were put in one box; bacteria in another. As a result, the spectacular number of “filterable” pleomorphic microbial forms that form a bridge between the “living” bacteria and the “dead” viruses are still largely unstudied and considered of no great importance in clinical medicine.

Most doctors simply want to know the name of the microbe, if any, cultured in the lab from their specimens; and what antibiotics the germ is “sensitive” to. Thanks to Pasteur, common “skin” bacteria like cocci and bacilli are often viewed as suspicious “contaminants” or “secondary invaders” or “opportunistic infections” of no great importance as etiologic agents.

Koch’s postulates became dogma to prove that certain bacteria cause disease, but the postulates did not work very well for viruses. And even when “filterable” pleomorphic bacteria were shown to cause disease and Koch’s postulates were fulfilled, the research was still generally ignored because such germs were not considered “valid” life-forms.

As a result of all this dogma and rigidity, medical thought was completely turned off to the possibility cancer was caused by bacteria. But to the minds of some medical heretics, these century-old scientific beliefs were wrong, wrong, wrong.

Cancer and the “Cancer Microbe”

As some scientists are finally realising, there is a large realm of microbial life-forms that lie between “bacteria” and “viruses.” It is this relatively uncharted never-never land of microbiology that lies at the heart of life, disease, cancer, death, regeneration, and perhaps even immortality.

In the life of every researcher there is a person or group of people to whom a great debt is owed. In my scientific life as a practising dermatologist and as a clinical researcher, there are four women who are my icons in medical science. All four I knew personally as valued friends, and each contributed greatly to my understanding of the greatest mystery of medical science: the origin and cause of cancer.

The combined reported research of Virginia Wuerthele-Caspe Livingston (a physician), Eleanor Alexander-Jackson (a microbiologist), Irene Diller (a cell cytologist), and Florence Seibert (a chemist famous for developing the TB skin test), is indeed a treasure-trove for anyone seeking to learn about “the cancer microbe” and the heretical microbiology of cancer. I wrote about these now deceased women in my book, The Cancer Microbe (1990), and I connected their cancer research to Bechamp’s and Bastian’s discoveries in the nineteenth century, as well as to Wilhelm Reich’s condemned cancer and orgone research.

In 1950, Wuerthele-Caspe Livingston and Alexander-Jackson, along with John A. Anderson (head of the Department of Bacteriology at Rutgers), James Hillier (head of electron microscopy at the RCA Victor Laboratories at Princeton), Roy Allen (a cell histologist), and Lawrence W. Smith (author of a well-known pathology textbook used in medical colleges), all combined their talents to write a paper entitled “Cultural Properties and Pathogenicity Obtained from Various Proliferative and Neoplastic [cancerous] Diseases,” published in the December issue of The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. The characteristics of the cancer microbe in blood, tissue, and culture, were described in detail; and the extreme pleomorphic nature of the organism was revealed in photos taken with the electron microscope at a magnification of 31,000X.

The cancer microbe (which she later called Progenitor cryptocides) was filterable through a pore designed to hold back bacteria. But in the filtrate were “virus-sized” microbial forms, which grew in time to the size of conventional bacteria. For the next two decades these four women and their colleagues continued publishing details about the microbiology of cancer. Livingston’s two books, Cancer: A New Breakthrough (1972) and The Conquest of Cancer (1984) are unfortunately now out-of-print.

Livingston believed everyone carried cancer microbes in their blood and tissues. And the microbe was essential for life. In 1974, she discovered some cancer-associated bacteria produced an HCG-like hormone – the human choriogonadotropin hormone, which is an essential hormone needed to start life in the womb. But she also thought the microbe was the germ that did most people in as they aged. The microbe was Mother Nature’s built-in terminator to force old people off the planet and to make room for new life on the planet.

At the time of her death in 1990, Livingston was widely regarded among the cancer establishment as a quack. Even though her research was published for three decades in reputable medical journals, the American Cancer Society still claims her “cancer microbe” does not exist. An ACS-sponsored Internet web page states: “One report on the bacteria Progenitor cryptocides, which Dr. Livingston-Wheeler claimed caused cancer, found that the bacteria does not exist but is actually a mixture of several different types of bacteria which Dr. Livingston-Wheeler labelled as one.” Who was the author of the report claiming her microbe did not exist? According to the ACS, the author was “anonymous.”

Over the past four decades I have tried to keep this research alive by showing pleomorphic cancer bacteria in human cancer and in certain other diseases of unknown origin. For readers with Internet access, some of my photos of cancer microbes are presented on the web site of the on-line Journal of Independent Medical Research (; and abstracts of my medical publications can be found on the National Library of Medicine’s “PubMed” web site ( Simply type in “A Cantwell + cancer bacteria”.

In my research I have observed germs grown in the lab from cancerous tissue. Frequently they grow as simple round cocci, or as a mixture of cocci and rod-shaped bacilli, and rarely as streptococci. From diseases like scleroderma, I have seen “old” cultures evolve into peculiar and highly pleomorphic fungus-like “actinomycete” organisms, or evolve into bacteria resembling tuberculosis-type bacteria. Not infrequently, expert microbiologists could not agree on what to name these pleomorphic bacteria.

I have seen microbes change from one species to another, depending on what they are fed in the laboratory – staphylococcus germs that turn into rod-forms of corynebacteria and back again to “pure” staphylococcus, depending on the lab media for growth. But most importantly, I have seen these bacteria in specially-stained (acid-fast stain) tissue sections made from cancerous tissue, indicating these microbes are not contaminants falling out of the air. And decade after decade all cancer microbe research remains forgotten, ignored, and overlooked because physicians cannot conceive of such bacteria as causing cancer.

Milton Wainwright at the University of Sheffield, UK, is a rare microbiologist who has written sympathetically about the bacteriology of cancer, titling some of his recent publications: “Nanobacteria and associated ‘elementary bodies’ in human disease and cancer” (1999); “The return of the cancer germ; Forgotten microbiology – back to the future” (2000); “Highly pleomorphic staphylococci as a cause of cancer” (2000); and “Is this the historical ‘cancer germ’”? (2003).

In, Can Bacteria Cause Cancer?: Alternative Medicine Confronts Big Science (1997), David J. Hess charts the history of bacteria as etiological agents in cancer. An anthropologist at Renssalear University, he claims this research has not only been forgotten or disregarded, but actively suppressed. Hess cites financial and professional interests, as well as more general cultural factors to help explain the suppression.

Body Blood Bacteria

The idea that the blood contains bacteria related to cancer has been repeatedly raised by various cancer microbe researchers. But the idea was never taken seriously because bacteria grown from cancer patients were never considered anything more than inconsequential bacteria like staph, strep, and various common bacilli of no etiologic significance. Furthermore, these bacteria are believed to be frequent laboratory ‘contaminants.’ Physicians still expect disease-causing bacteria to be of a specific species type and to cause a “specific” disease. And medical doctors believe each form of cancer is “different.” The variety of different species of pleomorphic bacteria recovered from various forms of cancer makes physicians highly dubious about a bona fide cancer microbe specific for cancer.

In a series of papers (1970-1979) using the electron microscope and various testing procedures, an Italian team of researchers headed by Guido G. Tedeschi showed that the erythrocytes (red blood cells) and the blood platelets of both normal and diseased patients are cryptically infected with pleomorphic bacteria. Electron-dense “granular bodies” were found within the erythrocytes, and a variety of microbial forms and species were reported as mycoplasma-like and corynebacteria-like L-forms of bacteria, staphylococcus epidermidis, micrococci, cocci, and cocco-bacillary forms.

Such microbes are similar to what various cancer microbe researchers have reported over the past century. Some of Tedeschi’s microbes were acid-fast, a staining quality characteristic of Livingston’s cancer microbe.

All of this indicates that human blood is definitely not sterile, and should raise suspicion these tiny blood bacteria could be involved in the production of disease – a conclusion Wilhelm Reich came to a half-century ago. Like Reich, Tedeschi’s team suggested the evolution of cocci and diphtheroids taking origin from cell-wall-deficient forms seems not to be related to a particular state of illness, but to be the consequence of a generalised crypto-infection.

A more recent study entitled “Are there naturally occurring pleomorphic bacteria in the blood of healthy humans?”, by R.W. McLaughlin and associates in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology (December 2002), confirms the presence of a wide diversity of microorganisms within the blood of healthy people. And with new research showing nanobacteria in the blood, it is apparent there is much to learn about the bacteriology of the blood and what it contains normally and what it contains in disease.

As they have done for a century, microbiologists will undoubtedly quibble about what to name these organisms. But what is much more important than a name is to determine what they “do” – not in the laboratory, but in the human body. What is the energy force that allows these microbes to exist in harmony with us? And what turns them into killers?

Science, Soul, Spirit, and Immortality

Helena P. Blavatsky (1831-1891) is the controversial founder of the science of Theosophy, a philosophical and spiritual group with a keen interest in the origin of life. In researching this article, I came across her name on a web page connected to Bastian’s nineteenth century studies on tiny bacteria in limestone. Her ideas about the origin of life are amazingly prophetic in light of current findings of nanobacteria in microbiology and geology, and her idea of a “vital force” seems similar to Reich’s “orgone energy.”

Blavatsky wrote: “Life is not the expression of the organism, but, on the contrary, the organism is the expression of some prior and indestructible vital force. Nothing ever dies. Life’s opposite is not death, but latency. Indeed… one is compelled to ask whether all humanity, past and future is not imprisoned in latent form in the rocks and sands of our terrestrial sphere.”

In The Secret Doctrine (1888), she claims: “Everything that is, was, and will be, eternally IS, even the countless forms, which are finite and perishable only in their objective, not in their ideal Form. They existed as Ideas, in the Eternity, and, when they pass away, will exist as reflections.”

Science has little or nothing to say about spirit, soul, and the hereafter. And skeptics are always seeking “proof.” But if a disease like cancer is indeed caused by microscopic bacteria, it would indicate physicians have been unable to see what was quite plain for some nineteenth and twentieth century scientists to observe using simple light microscopy. And with powerful electron microscopes there is now little excuse for not “seeing” bacteria. With this in mind, it would behoove scientists, especially cancer experts, to do a little soul-searching (pun intentional).

In addition, scientists cannot seem to agree where life begins. So can we trust them completely to know when life ends? If human life continues after death, it must exist largely as energy. And can energy ever be destroyed? Einstein tells us matter and energy are interconnected and essentially different forms of the same thing. And physicists are excited about the possibilities of quantum physics, which is beyond my ken. Professor of Mathematical Physics, Frank Tipler, confidently proclaims physics will lead to the immortality of humankind. In his controversial book The Physics of Immortality (1994) he states, “Either theology is pure nonsense, a subject with no content, or else theology must ultimately become a branch of physics… The Goal of physics is understanding the ultimate nature of reality. If God is real, physicists will eventually find Him/Her.”

In the Bible, God tells us we came from dust – and to dust we shall return, which is not terribly encouraging for those not confident about an afterlife. But what if dust contained elements and building blocks that could re-make life over and over again for all eternity? And isn’t Earth basically a big pile of dust? And couldn’t this be “God’s little secret” He wants us to unravel?

And what is life if it is not pulsating with cosmic energy? If the tiniest of life forms can exist in meteors millions or billions of years old, and if we are composed and descended from the tiniest forms of life, why can’t we live forever?

All we might need is a speck of dust and a little “faith” to ignite that spark of life that would get us going again.

Bacteria, Cancer & the Origin of Life Part Two By Alan Cantwell, Jr., M.D.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:40 pm

One of the most significant points of Royal Rife's work with resonant frequencies was not so much that he had discovered and mapped the specific frequencies which could destroy microorganisms (TB, cancer-related, typhoid, etc etc) but that he had also reportedly mapped the frequencies that could reverse their morphology to benign forms. In other words he could create, reverse, destroy microorganism morphological structure/function. And while this would be an extremely valuable tool in the treatment of existing and immediate life-threatening conditions, the real key would be in understanding the basis of pleomorphism in terms of the environmental conditions and applications, that is, the true value and worth of a wholistic approach to living, healing, and dying. A focus not on The Cure®, but on resonant and harmonic, wholistic living. The trademarked barbaric cut-burn-poison (surgery-radiation-chemo) approach is so ... well ... barbaric. War on this, war on that; kill this, kill that. How unimaginative and how perpetually self-serving, those methods, that philosophy.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:33 am

Alan Cantwell Jr wrote:Bacteria, Cancer & the Origin of Life Part One By Alan Cantwell, Jr., M.D.

Is new life merely just the beginning of eventual death, as scientists believe? Or is death the beginning of “eternal life,” as religions teach? Or could life be a never-ending cycle of life/death/life/death reincarnations? Can new life develop from non-living things? Or was all life and the universe created eons ago by the Creator, or through some freak accident of the cosmos? Where did I come from? What will happen to me after death? These are questions human beings have attempted to answer for centuries.

Nanobacteria, NASA and Astrobiology

Robert Folk is a geologist who specialises in microscopic examinations of limestone. Working in Italy in the 1980s with a new scanning electron microscope (SEM) with magnifications up to 100,000X, he repeatedly came across “hordes of tiny bumps and balls” entombed within the rock that he initially passed off as artefacts or laboratory contamination, as had every other geologist using the SEM.

However, after a year of doubts and some reading in microbiology, Folk learned that exceedingly small cells called ‘ultramicrobacteria’ did in fact exist. With further microscopic work, he realised the enormous numbers of tiny grape-like and chain-like clusters were indeed bacteria. Most amazing was these “nanobacteria” could be easily cultured as common forms of bacteria, known as cocci, bacilli, staphylococci and streptococci.

His first scientific presentation of these astounding findings was met with “stony silence” and “howls of disbelief” from many microbiologists. To this day, some scientists contend these so-called nanobacteria are simply too small to contain the necessary genetic material for life.

In microbiology, the ultramicroscopic bacteria are regarded as stressed or resting forms of big bacteria, and are thought to be both rare and dormant. Geologists prefer the spelling “nannobacteria” to conform with the spelling of extremely tiny “nannofossils”, a common term in geology dating back to the nineteenth century.

But Folk claims nanobacteria are enormously abundant in minerals and rocks and they form most of the world’s bio-mass. If so, how could they have been missed for so long? Folk says microbiologists have little or no interest in bacteria found in soils or rocks; and for fifty years it has been standard microbiological dogma that bacteria smaller than 0.2 micrometers cannot exist.

Size does matter, even when discussing the tiniest forms of life. The term “ultramicroscopic” is applied to bacterial cells smaller than 0.3 micrometers. At this size, bacteria are still barely visible as the tiniest of dots discernable with the light microscope. The ordinary light microscope can magnify objects up to 1000X and objects smaller than 0.25 micrometers cannot be seen. The electron microscope is able to photograph objects at magnifications of 300,000X, or higher.

Nanobacteria are the smallest of living creatures, measuring in the 0.05 to 0.2 micrometer range (a micrometer is 1/1000 of a millimeter). This puts nanobacteria as an intermediate life-form between normal bacteria and viruses. Viruses are around 0.01 to 0.02 micrometers in size and cannot be seen with the ordinary light optical microscope.

The size of bacteria, nanobacteria and viruses is exceedingly important to bear in mind because it is connected to more than a century of microscopic study into the germ origin of infectious disease. Furthermore, the “dividing line” between bacteriology and virology has been the customary “filter pore size” of 0.2 micrometers. Microbiologists have always assumed such a filter pore will catch all bacteria, and fluid running through a 0.2 micrometer filter pore would be bacteria-free.

When geologists photographed 0.1 micrometer “bumps” they passed them off as contamination, never believing they could be living bacteria. Folk says, “You see what you are looking for and what you have faith in!”

By the early 1990s these nanobacteria were investigated by a team of biologists in Finland, headed by Olavi Kajander. Since that time nanobacteria have been found in kidney stones, dental plaque, the gall bladder, in calcified arteries and heart valves, and in certain skin diseases. Kajander’s team also reported nanobacterial forms as small as 0.05 microns in human blood, and have retrieved DNA on particles as small as 0.2 microns. Most disturbing are reports showing nanobacterial contamination of fetal bovine serum used in the production of many viral vaccines. This adds concern to the controversial problem of “vaccine-induced illness” and the fear some people have of contaminated vaccines.

Are nanobacteria connected with the origin of life on Earth? Nanobacteria-like “fossils” have been observed in several meteors, such as the Martian meteorite found on the Antarctic ice shelf in 1984. This meteorite is believed to be 4.5 billion years old, and is thought to have left Mars 16 million years ago. Supporters of nanobacteria research insist these bacteria have implications for how life began on Earth and other planets like Mars.

NASA, the US space agency, has an Astrobiology Roadmap program, which consists of more than 200 scientists and technologists. Astrobiology addresses three basic questions: How does life begin and evolve? Does life exist elsewhere in the universe? What is the future of life on Earth and beyond?

According to Roadmap, there are revolutionary changes going on in the world of microbiology.

“Our ongoing exploration has led to continued discoveries of life in environments that have been previously considered uninhabitable. For example, we find thriving communities (of microbes) in the boiling hot springs of Yellowstone, the frozen deserts of Antarctica, the concentrated sulfuric acid in acid-mine drainages, and the ionizing radiation fields in nuclear reactors. We find some microbes that grow in the deepest parts of the ocean and require 5000 to 1000 bars of hydrostatic pressure. Life has evolved strategies that allow it to survive even beyond the daunting physical and chemical limits to which it has adapted to grow. To survive, organisms can assume forms that enable them to withstand freezing, complete desiccation, starvation, high levels of radiation exposure, and other physical and chemical challenges.”

In addition, astrobiologists tell us that huge amounts of bacteria and possibly viruses are contained in Earth’s upper atmosphere. It is estimated a ton of these organisms arrive on Earth every day!

Quorum Sensing and Communication Between Bacteria

In an amazing discovery, scientists have learned that bacteria can communicate with each other. When enough microbes gather to form a “quorum”, they release a hormone (a pheromone) which allows them to “talk” to one another and plan strategies, and even make some genetic changes to allow survival. Not only do similar bacteria talk to each other, they also talk between species.

Barbara Bassler, a molecular biologist at Princeton University, is a leading pioneer in quorum sensing. Writing about her work for Wired magazine (April 2003), Steve Silberman says that communicating microbes are able to collectively track changes in their environment, conspire with other species, build mutually beneficial alliances with other types of bacteria, gain advantages over competitors, and communicate with their hosts – the sort of collective strategizing typically ascribed to bees, ants, and people, not to bacteria.”

Quorum sensing has profound implications in the war against disease, particularly now that so many bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics. According to Silberman, “Bassler’s research points to new ways of fighting disease that will aim not to kill but to scramble data in the bacterial network. One approach would be to block the receptors that receive the molecular signals so that cells never become virulent; another would target the DNA-replication mechanisms set in motion inside cells when the signals are received.”

Not everyone in microbiology is convinced bacteria can communicate. But if some clairvoyants can talk to dead people, why can’t bacterial cells talk to one another? And don’t all the cells in our body “talk” to each other in some way?

Viruses, Bacteria, and the Beginnings of Life

Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published in 1859 and is the seminal book giving rise to biology, as well as to the scientific and religious controversies that continue to this day. People were incensed to think humans could have arisen from monkeys and apes. Now some scientists think we developed side-by-side along with bacteria.

Every human, plant and animal cell has genetic material inside a nucleus. Surrounding the nucleus is a jelly-like cytoplasm which contains the “mitochondria”, which are considered to be tiny chemical factories that process the nutrients which provide energy to the cell.

Evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts believes the ancestors of all life are the bacteria, which fused into higher forms of life. Margulis follows in the footsteps of American biologist Ivan Wallin, who in 1927 first claimed mitochondria originated as free-living bacteria. Wallin thought ancient bacteria and their host cells evolved together to establish an inseparable symbiotic partnership. He even claimed to have removed mitochondria from cells and to grow them. Needless to say, Wallin’s ideas were ridiculed and almost universally rejected.

But Margulis also theorises the origin of the mitochondria in our cells is derived from separate organisms that long-ago moved into other cells and entered a symbiotic (sort of a co-dependant) relationship with multi-cellular forms of life. Remarkably, the DNA in the mitochondria is totally different from the DNA in the rest of the cell, which lends support to this idea.

Margulis subscribes to the vision that the Earth, as a whole, is a living being. In What is Life? (1955), co-written with Dorion Sagan, she maintains all life is bacteria – or descends from bacteria. In short, life is bacteria. And, as such, bacteria are closer to immortality than animals with bodies.

Bacteria account for the vast majority of life forms on Earth, and are essential to maintain the conditions for life on the planet. They are the smallest living cells that can replicate without a nucleus, and are indeed the building-blocks of life. In comparison, the fertilised human egg is about 150-200 micrometers in size – about the size of a grain of sand and barely visible with the naked eye.

What can microbes tell us about our origin and our destinies? And could we be immortal like our one-celled ancestors?

Creating “life” in the Laboratory

What is the lowest form of life? And can life be created from non-life? Some scientists believe viruses are the lowest form of life. We are told viruses need to penetrate a cell and use the cell’s genes to survive. In the process, disease can be produced. But are viruses “alive” or “dead”? Scientists can’t agree.

In 1991 Eckard Wimmer and his associates created a polio virus for the very first time – outside a cell and in a test tube. They extracted a soup of proteins from human cells, and then added genetic material from a polio virus. After a few hours, assembled polio viruses appeared in the mix.

According to a New York Times report (Dec. 13, 1991), Wimmer was asked, is the product in the test tube living or nonliving? Some consider viruses to be simple living organisms, others consider viruses to be very complicated chemicals, said Wimmer. But “when it hits the cell it is very much alive. Some argue that one attribute of life is that it can reproduce itself. Well, that is what viruses do when they get into the cells. The debate on whether viruses are alive has been going on since they were discovered 100 years ago.”

Although the cause of most cancers remains a mystery, research over the past half-century has focused on cancer viruses as a probable cause. With research focused on viruses, it would seem ludicrous to ask – can bacteria cause cancer?

The mere thought of bacteria causing cancer drives most cancer experts up the wall! However, with the recent interest in nanobacteria and their discovery in the blood and in various diseases of unknown origin, the question should not be so easily dismissed.

Furthermore, in the past decade physicians have come to accept the fact stomach ulcers can be produced by bacteria (Helicobacter pylori), and some ulcers eventually lead to stomach cancer. For many decades, it was dogma that bacteria could not live in the acid environment of the stomach. Also, pathologists could never see or detect bacteria in the stomach lining around ulcers. With the discovery of Helicobacteria and special staining techniques, doctors can now demonstrate bacteria in many ulcers – proving that microbiologists and pathologists were unable to “see” microbes, even though they are now clearly visible once they accepted the possibility microbes might be present.

Cancer, New Life, and Reich’s “T-Bacilli”

Although the origin and cause of cancer is mysterious, there is no doubt cancer is the body’s futile and often fatal attempt to create new life and new growth. That is why cancer is so intimately connected with theories about the origin of life.

One of the most controversial physicians of the last century was Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957), a psychiatrist and cancer researcher who claimed to discover “orgone energy” – an energy that pervades the world and is intimately connected with our physical and mental well-being.

In The Cancer Biopathy (1948), he wrote that cancer is a systemic disease caused by emotional despair and resignation and the chronic thwarting of natural sexual functioning. And this was just a few of his highly unorthodox beliefs based on his many observations and experiments.

Reich also uncovered infectious “T-bacilli” (bacteria) in cancer that resulted from the degeneration of cancerous tissue. In his view, these bacteria formed a bridge between the living and the non-living. The T-bacilli were present in the blood and tissue before the cancer tumour developed; and these microbes were intimately connected to “bions” and the loss of biological energy. Reich’s heretical bions were the carriers of biological energy; and the staphylococcus and streptococcus germs he found connected to cancer were actually formed from the degeneration of the bions.

Just as there is no clear dividing line between life and non-life, there is no clear boundary between healthy and diseased individuals. Reich claimed the cancer cell developed as the body’s attempt to resist the build-up of the T-bacilli in energy-depleted tissue.

“The first step in the development of the cancer tumour is not the cancer cell… it is the appearance of T-bacilli in the tissue or in the blood.” But T-bacilli were not only found in cancer; they were also present in the blood and tissues of both healthy and sick non-cancerous individuals. However, sick and cancerous patients showed a larger number of these forms, and Reich developed a blood test to show this. T-bacilli were always found where there is degeneration of protein, and in that respect, Reich wrote: “All humans have cancer.”

The orgone energy of the body determined the resistance of the body to these microbes. As long as the tissues and blood are “organotically strong, every T-bacillus will be destroyed and eliminated before it can propagate, accumulate, and cause damage”, wrote Reich. Because cancer germs were present in healthy people, Reich knew this would be a very difficult concept for physicians to consider and accept.

Reich wanted scientists to look at science in a new way and to try and see it from the point of view of “energetic functionalism.”

For example, “The bacteriologist, for instance, sees the staphylococcus as a static formation, spherical or oval in shape, about 0.8 micron in size, reacting with a bluish coloration to Gram stain, and arranged in clusters. These characteristics are important for orgone biophysics, but are not the essentials. The name itself says nothing about the origin, function, and position of the blue coccus in nature. What the bacteriologists calls ‘staphylococcus’ is, for orgone physics a small energy vesicle in the process of degeneration. Orgone biophysics investigates the origin of the staphylococcus from other forms of life and follows its transformation. It examines the staphylococcus in connection with the processes of the total biological energy of the organism and produces it experimentally through degenerative processes in bions, cells, etc.”

Through his scientific experiments with orgone energy, Reich hoped to harness orgone for the treatment of disease and the good of humanity.

Needless to say, Reich’s entire life’s work was considered hogwash, and a scientific inquisition eventually ensued. Branded a menace and a quack, he ran afoul of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which claimed his experimental “orgone accumulator” was being used illegally to treat cancer – and that it was nothing more than a perverted sex box.

Refusing to obey a court injunction, Reich was sentenced to prison. His books were burned, his equipment destroyed by FDA agents, and he died at the federal penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in March 1957, at age 60.

His research into the origin of life, and his belief orgone energy contained within the tiniest forms of life that could not be destroyed, make him one of the most misunderstood and hated physicians of the twentieth century.

But, as we shall discover, there are other heretics in medicine, now mostly ignored and forgotten, who also believed cancer was connected with bacteria of human origin. Like Reich, they claimed a study of these microbes would not only lead to the infectious cause of cancer – but to a cause of life itself.

Bacteria, Cancer & the Origin of Life Part One By Alan Cantwell, Jr., M.D.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:15 am

<snip> [EXTRACT]


For many reasons, our biography was never written (R4). Yet the two years spent researching it was hardly wasted, because it was through the opportunity given to delve into Reich's fascinating research that I first fell, like Alice down the hole or through the looking glass, into a wonderland of scientific "no-no's."

In many ways it was a thrilling, yet troubling experience. Disturbing because, as one long trained to accept things as they supposedly "were", I was brought face to face with an investigative world in which those same things actually "were not". As I went along my trail, I also found that there were many other "were note" and "are nots" that were and are!

One question was especially rankling: What was preventing new discoveries from being recognised for what they were? Was this because "established" researchers, comfortable with orthodox scientific thinking, or "received knowledge", could not change their mind-sets, in Dr. John Polanyi's words, their "worldview" to accommodate innovative thinking, or "vanguard knowledge?"

How was it that, in the precincts ruled by the "arbiters of knowledge", the evidencing of "unknown" things, instead of being viewed with excitement, was often castigated as "illusory" or tabooed as "fantasy"?

In 1965, I came across an article that more than just attracted my writer's attention in that, in 1944, it was published in, not just one, but two prestigious journals, that of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. and that of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia.

One third of its contents was devoted to the new electron microscope just put on the market by the Radio Corporation of America, the other two thirds, the lion's share, to a "Universal Microscope" that had been designed and developed in the 1920's by a Californian autodidact, Royal Raymond Rife.

The electron microscope, I knew, while capable of attaining magnifications surpassing 500,000X at excellent resolution, was incapable of examining living things because its radiation killed them.

But, as clearly stated in the article, Rife's instrument was able to view living matter at unheard of magnifications reaching at least 60,000X, also at excellent resolution (R5).

With this extraordinary device, Rife could easily view a family of microbes in the blood of sick people which seemingly miraculously transformed, under various conditions, one into the other, like so many caterpillars metamorphising into so many butterflies. Sixteen stages in all, the same number in Gaston Naessens' somatid cycle.

As a result, he came to the independent conclusion - to which as we shall see, others had come independently both before and after him -that, depending on its inner state, germs arose within the the body itself that, in Rife's opinion, were not the cause but the result of disease states.

That single conclusion completely overturned everything I had learned about bacteriology and disease during a four year course at general biology at Harvard.

Barely able to believe what I had read, and recalling what I had learned during my studies of Reich's bion research, I dropped a book (R6) I was working on to spend two months at the National Library of Medicine trying to track down everything I could on Rife and his superscope. Not only was there precious little printed on the subject but the microscope itself seemed to have vanished from the surface of the earth.

The story of my fruitless search has been told elsewhere (3), so here, I will simply say that my library research showed that for several decades up to 1930, a now all but forgotten, if not entirely lost, school of microliologists had maintained that, far from holding everlastingly to one shape, bacteria could be caused, under the right conditions of culture, to metamorphose into forms small enough to pass through filters capable of blocking any microbe smaller than a virus.

Because of their sharp disagreement with a camp of orthodox bacteriologists known as non-filtrationists", these rebels were known as "filtrationists".

One of the earliest members of this school was a Swedish Ernst Bernhard Almquist, who, because he was also an Arctic explorer had islands off the north Siberian coast named after him.

Almquist made hundreds of observations of pleomorphic bacteria in his laboratory as did researchers in France, Italy, Germany, Russia and the United States and probably other countries. In 1922, after two long decades of work, Almquist came to the conclusion that "nobody can presume to know the complete life cycle and all the varieties of even a single bacterial species. It would be an assumption to think so."

The furor unleashed in the microbiological world microscopic discoveries, as well as by his subsequent electromagnetically-based cure for cancer and other diseases, being put, like Reich, to trial by U.S. medical authorities. The trial proved so traumatic to the highly sensitive inventor that it led, first to a total nervous breakdown, then to alcoholism (R7).

The opposite fates of two microscopes, the electron and the "Universal", have ever since continued to plague my mind, incessantly pricking it with a philosophical question: How was it that the first, able to see only inert, inanimate matter was universally adopted in the world's laboratories while the second, able to view animate organism as they lived and breathed, went into universal limbo?

What did the triumphant success of the one, and the sad demise of the other, have to say about the basic 20th century outlook in the biosciences supposedly dealing with life?

While asking that question, let us add a few more. What is it about the "politics of science" that led two scientific titans - or three, if, by anticipation, we include our host, Gaston Naessens - men who were self-trained experts in microscopy, and cancerology, to be brought to trial?

How is it that the discoveries of all three have been put on an "Index" as bogus and worthless? What explains their being denounced, all three of them, as deceivers and charlatans in the United States, France and many other countries?

It would take a moment of silence to contemplate the answer to these questions." (R8)

(article continues)

Pasteur or Bechamp? Pleomorphic Organisms Part~1 Introduction by Ivor Hughes
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:46 pm

This link was forwarded to me by one of our forum members: The Nanobacteria Link to Heart Disease and Cancer . Too bad the researchers involved do not appear to be aware of the pleomorphic theory; or if they are, are ignoring its potential implications for what they are discovering.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by moses » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:33 am

arc-us wrote:This link was forwarded to me by one of our forum members: The Nanobacteria Link to Heart Disease and Cancer . Too bad the researchers involved do not appear to be aware of the pleomorphic theory; or if they are, are ignoring its potential implications for what they are discovering.
Excellent ! A whole new world to discover. Perhaps it has been found before.
What assists nanobacteria, and what kills them ? I'm betting wheatgrass
can clean up the calcium phosphate deposits. This is another link in the puzzle

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:22 am

From all the material preceding the posted link, my take on it would be that the nanobacteria are truly ubiquitous and their function, as well as structure - that is to say, their morphology - is malleable according to their environment. Not that it's a total one way cause-and-effect relationship (i.e. environment as complete cause) but that it goes both ways. So, while I might be interested in a short-term, solution to an acute life-threatening situation (i.e. "what kills them?") for long term holistic health and non-relapsing assurance I'd be more interested in finding and knowing those conditions in which their function and structure are benign and even vital to health. And, contrasted with that then, the conditions in which their function and structure transform to malignancy and "house cleaning." Such as conditions promoting their aerobic (oxygen metabolism) forms vs their anaerobic (sugar or fermentation metabolism) forms. Too bad the majority of our medical doctors' and research scientists' education is primarily spent towards the study of dis-ease and pathology vs the study of symbiotic conditions of health. Last I heard years ago, for example, was that MD's received about 2 weeks worth of nutritional information out of their eight year course of study - perhaps that's an exaggeration, I don't know; if so, probably not by much.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:45 pm

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 40,407-414, 1997



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 [1]. 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 in support 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 [2].

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" [4]. 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 [5, 6]. 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 [5, 6]. Alexander Fleming 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 [7].

Lohnis concluded that all bacteria live alternatively in first an organised and then an amorphous state [3]. 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 disintegration of 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 gonidia 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 physiological 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 its usual bacillary form, produce conidiophores, and grow as a "frank fungus" [8]. In the same year, the Swedish microbiologist Bergstrand journeyed all the way down this road by stating that bacteria are really Fungi imperfecti [9]. This view was also held by Melon, who stated that:
bacteria in their fundamental biology are in reality fungi 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 [10].
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 [11]. The best examples are provided by the work of Young, Clover and Gruner [12-14]. 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 [15, my italics].

Perhaps the most impartial historical analyses of pleomorphism are given by Handly and Henrici, with the first chapter of the latter's book providing a particularly useful introduction to the history of pleomorphism [16, 17]. 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 [my italics].

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" [18].

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 usher in a new era? [191].
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 [20, 21]. 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 [22]. 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 (see [23]).

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 [18]. 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" [27]. 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 [32]. Eleanor Alexander-Jackson even claims to have repeatedly grown cell-wall deficient bacteria from the blood of chickens infected with rous sarcoma [3 1]. Macomber apparently stated the obvious when he said that it goes against common sense to suppose that a virus can turn into a bacterium [32]. 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 [33].


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 [20].) 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 [32].

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 [33]. 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.


I. ALMQUIST, E. Variation and life cycles of pathogenic bacteria. J Infect. Dis. 31:483-293, 1922.

2. SMITH, T. A pleomorphic bacillus from pneumonic lungs of calves simulating actinomycoses. J Exper. Med. 28:333-334, 1919.

3. LOHNIS, F. Studies upon the life cycles of bacteria.Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. 16: 1-246. 1921.

4. CLARKE. P. F. Morphological changes during the growth of bacteria. In The Newer Knowledge of Bacteria, edited by E. 0. JORDAN and I.S. FALK. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1928.39-45.

5. HORT. E. C. The life history of bacteria. Brit. Med. J 1:571-575, 1917.

6. HORT. E. C. The reproduction of aerobic bacteria. J lHyg. 18:369-408, 1920.

7. FLEMING, A. On the bacteriology of septic wounds. Lancet ii:638-643, 1915.

8. WADE, 11. W. and MANALANG, C. Fungous development forms of Bacillus influenzae. J Exper. Med. 31:95-103, 1920.

9. BERGSTRAND, H. On the nature of bacteria. J Infect. Dis. 27:1-22, 1920.

10. MELON, R.R. The life cycle changes of the so-called C. hodgkini and their relation to the mutation changes in the species. J. Med. Res. 52:61-76, 1920.

11. WAINWPIGHT, M. The return of the cancer germ. Soc. Gen. Microbial. Quart. 22:48-50, 1995.

12. YOUNG. J. Description of an organism obtained from carcinomatous growths. Edinburgh Med. J. 27:212-213, 1921.

13. GLOVER, T. J. The bacteriology of cancer. Canada Lancet Prac. 74:92-111, 1930.

14. GRUNER, 0. C. Crvptomyces pleomorpha: A new organism isolated from the blood of a case of metastasised carcinoma of the breast. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 3:15-19, 1935.

15. WINOGRADSKY, S. Microbiologie du Sol. Paris: Mason. 1949.136-149.

16. HADLEY, P. Microbic dissociation. J Infect. Dis. 40:1-312, 1927.

17. HENRICI, A. T. Morphologic Variation and the Rate of Growth of Bacteria. London: Balliere Tyndall and Cox, 1928.

18. WUERTHELE-CASPE LIVINGSTON, V., and ALEXANDER-JACKSON, E. A specific type of organism cultivated from malignancy: Bacteriology and proposed classification. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 174:636-654, 1970.

19. YOUNG, J. the alleged sterility of present day bacteriology. Lancet ii: 1207, 1924.

20. FROBISHER, M. Fundamentals ofBacteriologv. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1949.

21. LAMANNA, C., and MALLETTE, ~ F. Basic Bacteriologv. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1965.

22. HIEINEINBERGER-NOBEL, E. Filterable forms of bacteria. Bact. Rev. 15:77-103, 1951.

23. THORNTON, H.G. The life cycles of bacteria. In A system of Bacteriology in Relation to Medicine. London: HMSO, 1930.170-178.

24. WOOD, A. P., and KELLY, D. P. Re-classification of Thiobacillus thyasiris as Thibacillus thyasirae comb., nov., an organism exhibiting pleomorphism in response to environmental conditions. Arch. Microbial. 159:45-47, 1993.

25. REDING, H.K., and LEPO, J.E. Physiological characteristics of dicarboxylate induced pleomorphic forms of Bradyrhizobium japonicuni. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55:660-671, 1989.

26. Unproven methods of cancer management-Livingston-Wheeler-Therapy. CA Cancer. J Clin. 40:103-108, 1990.

27. WHITE. M. W. Pathway to carcinogenesis: The role of bacteria. Med Hypotheses 32:111-119.1990.

28. PEASE, P. Discussion: Microorganisms associated with malignancy. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 174:782-785, 1970.

29. PEASE, P.E., and TALLACK, J. E. A permanent endoparasite of man. 1. The silent zoogleal/ symplasm/L-form phase. Microbios. 64:173-180, 1990.

30. ALEXANDER-JACKSON, E. A specific type of microorganism isolated from animal and human cancer: Bacteriology of the organism. Growth 18:37-51, 1954.

31. ALEXANDER-JACKSON, E. Mycoplasma (PPLO) isolated from Rous sarcoma virus. Growth 30: 1990-228,1966.

32. MACOMBER, P. B. Cancer and cell wall deficient bacteria. Med. Hypotheses 32:1-9, 1990.

33. HOLMAN, W. L., and CARSON, A. E. Technical errors in the study of bacterial variation. J Infect. Dis. 56:165-195, 1935.

34. MATTMAN, L. The role of pleomorphic organisms in disease. In Controversial Aspects of Aids, edited by J. MATTINGLY. New York: Hunter College, 1986.

Milton Wainwright, University of Sheffield, UK.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:43 pm

First (top) video on the page at the link below is a short intro to Gaston Naessens Somatoscope (microscope). It is 00:11:44 minutes in length. At around the 00:10:25 minute mark you can see a living example of a pleomorphic change. The 2nd link is to the site's page on Naessen.

This link below is:
The Centre expérimental de recherches biologiques de l'Estrie Inc. (C.E.R.B.E. Inc.) is Gaston Naessens' private laboratory where fundamental research in biology is conducted. Since 1974, CERBE Inc. focuses on the conception and manufacturing of health products and specialised instruments linked to the Somatidian Orthobiology.

This link below is:


More than just a cancer cure, Rife's discovery pointed to a new understanding of what we have mistakenly termed 'the germ theory'.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:47 pm

This site is dedicated to Professor Antoine Bechamp (1816--1908) and those whose work, consciously or otherwise, is building on what he started. For those unfamiliar with the notion of pleomorphism, some of the reading on the articles page will be a good place to start.
Any additions to this site -- links, pictures, articles -- are always welcome.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:59 pm

Excerpt from Royal Raymond Rife Jeff Rense 10-9-00

Modern electron microscopes instantly kill everything beneath them, viewing only the mummified remains and debris. What the Rife microscope can see is the bustling activity of living viruses as they change form to accommodate changes in environment, replicate rapidly in response to carcinogens, and transform normal cells into tumor cells.

But how was Rife able to accomplish this, in an age when electronics and medicine were still just evolving? Here are a few technical details to placate the skeptics...

Rife painstakingly identified the individual spectroscopic signature of each microbe, using a slit spectroscope attachment. Then, he slowly rotated block quartz prisms to focus light of a single wavelength upon the microorganism he was examining. This wavelength was selected because it resonated with the spectroscopic signature frequency of the microbe based on the now-established fact that every molecule oscillates at its own distinct frequency.

The atoms that come together to form a molecule are held together in that molecular configuration with a covalent energy bond which both emits and absorbs its own specific electromagnetic frequency. No two species of molecule have the same electromagnetic oscillations or energetic signature. Resonance amplifies light in the same way two ocean waves intensify each other when they merge together.

The result of using a resonant wavelength is that micro-organisms which are invisible in white light suddenly become visible in a brilliant flash of light when they are exposed to the color frequency that resonates with their own distinct spectroscopic signature. Rife was thus able to see these otherwise invisible organisms and watch them actively invading tissues cultures. Rife's discovery enabled him to view organisms that no one else could see with ordinary microscopes.

More than 75% of the organisms Rife could see with his Universal Microscope are only visible with ultra-violet light. But ultraviolet light is outside the range of human vision, it is 'invisible' to us. Rife's brilliance allowed him to overcome this limitation by heterodyning, a technique which became popular in early radio broadcasting. He illuminated the microbe (usually a virus or bacteria) with two different wavelengths of the same ultraviolet light frequency which resonated with the spectral signature of the microbe. These two wavelengths produced interference where they merged. This interference was, in effect, a third, longer wave which fell into the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This was how Rife made invisible microbes visible without killing them, a feat which today's electron microscopes cannot duplicate.

(article continues

Rife ignored the debate, preferring to concentrate on refining his method of destroying these tiny killer viruses. He used the same principle to kill them, which made them visible: resonance.

By increasing the intensity of a frequency which resonated naturally with these microbes, Rife increased their natural oscillations until they distorted and disintegrated from structural stresses. Rife called this frequency 'the mortal oscillatory rate,' or 'MOR', and it did no harm whatsoever to the surrounding tissues.

Today's Rife instruments use harmonics of the frequencies shown on the display screen. The wavelength of the actual frequency shown (770hz, 880hz, etc.) is too long to do the job.

This principle can be illustrated by using an intense musical note to shatter a wine glass: the molecules of the glass are already oscillating at some harmonic (multiple) of that musical note; they are in resonance with it. Because everything else has a different resonant frequency, nothing but the glass is destroyed. There are literally hundreds of trillions of different resonant frequencies, and every species and molecule has its very own.

It took Rife many years, working 48 hours at a time, until he discovered the frequencies which specifically destroyed herpes, polio, spinal meningitis, tetanus, influenza, and an immense number of other dangerous disease organisms.

(article continues

In 1934, the University of Southern California appointed a Special Medical Research Committee to bring terminal cancer patients from Pasadena County Hospital to Rife's San Diego Laboratory and clinic for treatment. The team included doctors and pathologists assigned to examine the patients - if still alive - in 90 days.

After the 90 days of treatment, the Committee concluded that 86.5% of the patients had been completely cured. The treatment was then adjusted and the remaining 13.5% of the patients also responded within the next four weeks. The total recovery rate using Rife's technology was 100%.

On November 20, 1931, forty-four of the nation's most respected medical authorities honored Royal Rife with a banquet billed as The End To All Diseases at the Pasadena estate of Dr. Milbank Johnson.

But by 1939, almost all of these distinguished doctors and scientists were denying that they had ever met Rife. What happened to make so many brilliant men have complete memory lapses? It seems that news of Rife's miracles with terminal patients had reached other ears. Remember our hypothetical question at the beginning of this report: What would happen if you discovered a cure for everything? You are now about to find out....

At first, a token attempt was made to buy out Rife. Morris Fishbein, who had acquired the entire stock of the American Medical Association by 1934, sent an attorney to Rife with 'an offer you can't refuse.' Rife refused. We many never know the exact terms of this offer. But we do know the terms of the offer Fishbein made to Harry Hoxsey for control of his herbal cancer remedy. Fishbein's associates would receive all profits for nine years and Hoxey would receive nothing. Then, if they were satisfied that it worked, Hoxsey would begin to receive 10% of the profits. Hoxsey decided that he would rather continue to make all the profits himself. When Hoxsey turned Fishbein down, Fishbein used his immensely powerful political connections to have Hoxsey arrested 125 times in a period of 16 months. The charges (based on practice without a license) were always thrown out of court, but the harassment drove Hoxsey insane.

But Fishbein must have realized that this strategy would backfire with Rife. First, Rife could not be arrested like Hoxsey for practising without a license. A trial on trumped-up charges would mean that testimony supporting Rife would be introduced by prominent medical authorities working with Rife. And the defense would undoubtedly take the opportunity to introduce evidence such as the 1934 medical study done with USC. The last thing in the world that the pharmaceutical industry wanted was a public trial about a painless therapy that cured 100% of the terminal cancer patients and cost nothing to use but a little electricity. It might give people the idea that they didn't need drugs.

And finally, Rife had spent decades accumulating meticulous evidence of his work, including film and stop-motion photographs. No, different tactics were needed...

The first incident was the gradual pilfering of components, photographs, film, and written records from Rife's lab. The culprit was never caught.

Then, while Rife struggled to reproduce his missing data (in a day when photocopies and computers were not available), someone vandalized his precious virus microscopes. Pieces of the 5,682 piece Universal microscope were stolen. Earlier, an arson fire had destroyed the multi-million dollar Burnett Lab in New Jersey, just as the scientists there were preparing to announce confirmation of Rife's work. But the final blow came later, when police illegally confiscated the remainder of Rife's 50 years of research.

Then in 1939, agents of a family which controlled the drug industry assisted Philip Hoyland in a frivolous lawsuit against his own partners in the Beam Ray Corporation. This was the only company manufacturing Rife's frequency instruments (Rife was not a partner). Hoyland lost, but his assisted legal assault had the desired effect: the company was bankrupted by legal expenses. And during the Great Depression, this meant that commercial production of Rife's frequency instruments ceased completely.

And remember what a universal cure meant to hospitals and research foundations? Doctors who tried to defend Rife lost their foundations grants and hospital privileges.

On the other hand, big money was spent ensuring that doctors who had seen Rife's therapy would forget what they saw. Almost no price was too much to suppress it. Remember that, today, treatment of a single cancer patient averages over $300,000. It's BIG business.

Thus, Arthur Kendall, the Director of the Northwestern School of Medicine who worked with Rife on the cancer virus, accepted almost a quarter of a million dollars to suddenly 'retire' in Mexico. That was an exorbitant amount of money in the Depression.
Dr. George Dock, another prominent figure who collaborated with Rife, was silenced with an enormous grant, along with the highest honors the AMA could bestow. Between the carrots and the sticks, everyone except Dr. Couche and Dr. Milbank Johnson gave up Rife's work and went back to prescribing drugs.

To finish the job, the medical journals, support almost entirely by drug company revenues and controlled by the AMA, refused to publish any paper by anyone on Rife's therapy. Therefore, an entire generation of medical students graduated into practice without ever once hearing of Rife's breakthroughs in medicine.

The magnitude of such an insane crime eclipses every mass murder in history. Cancer picks us off quietly...but by 1960 the casualties from this tiny virus exceeded the carnage of all the wars America ever fought. In 1989, it was estimated that 40% of us will experience cancer at some time in our lives.

In Rife's lifetime, he had witnessed the progress of civilization from horse-and-buggy travel to jet planes. In that same time, he saw the epidemic of cancer increase from 1 in 24 Americans in 1905 to 1 in 3 in 1971 when Rife died.

He also witnessed the phenomenal growth of the American Cancer Society, the Salk Foundation, and many others collecting hundreds of millions of dollars for diseases that were cured long before in his own San Diego laboratories. In one period, 176,500 cancer drugs were submitted for approval. Any that showed 'favorable' results in only one-sixth of one percent of the cases being studied could be licensed. Some of these drugs had a mortality rate of 14-17%. When death came from the drug, not the cancer, the case was recorded as a 'complete' or 'partial remission' because the patient didn't actually die from the cancer. In reality, it was a race to see which would kill the patient first: the drug or the disease.

The inevitable conclusion reached by Rife was that his life-long labor and discoveries had not only been ignored but probably would be buried with him. At that point, he ceased to produce much of anything and spent the last third of his life seeking oblivion in alcohol. It dulled the pain and his acute awareness of half a century of wasted effort - ignored - while the unnecessary suffering of millions continued so that a vested few might profit. And profit they did, and profit they do.

In 1971, Royal Rife died from a combination of valium and alcohol at the age of 83. Perhaps his continual exposure to his own Rife frequencies helped his body endure abuse for so many years.

(article continues
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:00 am

A video (about 42 minues) that contains archival footage of Royal Rife for about the first 6 minutes. I have no experience with or knowledge of the "Beam Ray" company that produced the promotional video, but they do claim to have purchased the estate of one of Rife's principle collaborators, including much original lab equipment and film footage. ... itesearch=

A 7 1/2 minute audio excerpt of Royal Rife's own words from a 1950 interview with John Crane describing his discovery of the cancer microorganism. Includes archival photographs. ... itesearch=

15 minute excerpt of The Royal Rife Story documentary ... itesearch=

15 minute excerpt of The Royal Rife Lab File narrated by John Crane ... itesearch=

Downloadable complete versions of the excerpts above

Wow. They're all great, but I really enjoyed The Royal Rife Story. Highly recommended to view it. Talks about the M.O.R. (Mortal Oscillatory Rate) and from a 1950's audio recording Rife himself speaks about Coordinative Resonance which is shown from archival film footage. The downloadable version from is about 29 minutes in length.

The information below is at the end of The Royal Rife Story video. Again, I have no direct knowledge of, or experience with, any of the companies or people who may be associated with any of the modern Rife instruments. I also have no idea if the producers of the videos at are associated with any commercial enterprise outside of their selling their DVD collections or not. So caveat emptor and due diligence on the part of anyone interested in pursuing this further in the case of personal health and well-being.
Many people after watching this DVD may wish to purchase a Rife machine. As the producers of the video we feel we have an obligation to give this information. There are no real Rife machines built today. This is because Dr. Rife died in 1971. Dr. Rife realized that any frequency generator with the correct frequency range could do the same thing his instrument did. This is why he could not patent his instrument. Dr. Rife, in the 1934 clinic used the Colin B. Kennedy Model 110 and Model 281 regenerative receivers. This equipment was standard off-the-shelf frequency generating equipment.

By the 1940's FCC regulations required Dr. Rife to change his instrument. Almost all of his RF frequencies were in the AM band and would interfere with radio stations. Dr. Rife's instruments were changed and only used low audio frequencies. These low audio frequencies never worked as well as his high RF frequencies. Dr. Stafford reported that the low audio frequency instrument would not kill any microorganisms he tested.

Though Dr. Stafford did report many amazing results using low audio frequencies, he reported they were never able to get the same results as the 1934 clinic. Dr. Johnson treated 16 terminal patients who had cancer or tuberculosis with Dr. Rife's high RF frequencies. The majority had cancer. Dr. Johnson reported that all recovered. Dr. Stafford treated 16 cancer patients with low audio frequencies and reported that none recovered.

Today almost all frequency generators sold as Rife machines use only the low audio frequencies used by Dr. Stafford. Many purchase these instruments and wrongly believe they are using the same high RF frequencies used by Dr. Johnson and Dr. Rife in the 1934 clinic.

Most people are not informed enough to know what they are purchasing. For this reson we are listing both the low audio frequencies and the high RF frequencies that were used in Dr. Rife's 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's instruments. This way you will know what frequencies were used by Dr. Rife and purchase a frequency generator that will output all of his frequencies.

All of the modern ray tube instruments that output 50 to 100 watts of power only output low audio frequencies like the 1950's AZ-58 used by Dr. Stafford.

We regret to say that because of FCC regulations there are no ray tube instruments built today that can output Dr. Rife's high RF frequencies at the power level he used. Dr. Rife's 1934 instrument output 50 watts of power.

Today some build ray tube instruments that output Dr. Rife's high RF frequencies, but they only output 1/10th of one watt (the FCC legal limit) of power. The 1934 instrument output 50 watts and Dr. Rife increased the power level of his 1935 instrument to about 100 watts because he believed the 1934 ray tube instrument was under-powered. The 1935 instrument was 1000 times more powerful than this style of modern 1/10th of a watt instrument.

Pad instruments make contact with body and do not need the same power output as a ray tube instrument. Because of the body contact one watt of power is equal to about 10 watts from a ray tube.

Pad instruments can output all of Dr. Rife's high RF frequencies (with power) without violating any regulations. Because of this, pad or contact type instruments that can output Dr. Rife's high RF frequencies (with several watts of power) are more versatile than ray tube instruments.

For a complete understanding of how Dr. Rife's instruments worked, go to and read the paper "A History of Rife's Instruments and Frequencies."

Below all the frequencies are given in hertz or cycles per second. Please note only the high RF frequencies are the true M.O.R.s Dr Rife found which killed the microorganisms. The low audio audio frequencies will not kill the organizsm they are associated with under microscope observation.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by junglelord » Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:58 am

Nanobacteria – Are They Alive?
Tiny particles called nanobacteria have intrigued researchers in many ways since their discovery 20 years ago, but perhaps the most controversial question they pose is whether or not they are alive.

Nanobacteria – which sometimes go by the name “nanobes” or “calcifying nanoparticles” – don’t seem to fit scientists’ criteria for life. Researchers at a workshop hosted by the National Academy of Sciences for this specific reason concluded that the minimal cellular size of life on Earth must exceed 200 nm in diameter in order to contain the cellular machinery based on DNA replication. But nanobacteria can be as small as 80 nm – so, unless they contain some novel replicating mechanism, it seems unlikely that they constitute a form of life.
No mention of the Architecture of Life which is Tensegrity and I know for a fact Tensegrity is the interanal construct of all biololgical forms from Virus to Humans, including Nano-Bacteria. I still think its a good think to be able to relate Structure and Function. At least to be aware of it....
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread post by bboyer » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:56 am

Above, Nanobe colony
Tiny new life forms inflame Mars debate

Friday, 19 March 1999
nanobe2.jpg (11.48 KiB) Viewed 25803 times
CAPTION: Life as we know it? Nanoscopic nanobes from deep Down Under

One of the key objections to claims a Martian meteorite showed evidence of extra-terrestrial life may have been overturned.

The debate has been renewed by Australian scientists' discovery of a new kind of life form, ten times smaller than previously known.

The scientists from Queensland University found the miniature life forms in a sample of rock from deep beneath the sea bed off Western Australia.

Measuring as little as 20 nanometres - or 20 millionths of a millimetre - the so-called "nanobes" are not only smaller than any other life forms previously observed, but they are also smaller than thought possible under current biological theory.

"The smallest bacteria accepted [under existing theories] are the mycoplasmas, which are 150 nanometres in diameter whereas ours range from 150 nanometres right down to as low as 20 nanometres," said Dr Philippa Uwins, a senior research fellow in microscopy and microanalysis.

Anything smaller than around 50 nanometres had been considered too minute to contain the genetic and enzymatic material essential for life, Dr Uwins said.

The team had tried to address whether any non-biological materials could account for the structures they had observed but had discounted the notion of crystalline minerals, carbonates, fullerenes, carbon nano-tubes and non-living polymers.

The discovery is of major scientific interest in itself, but it is also a significant development in the debate about life on Mars.

In 1996, NASA scientists in Houston reported the existence of fossil nano-organisms in a 4.5 billion-year-old Martian meteorite, which crashed to Earth in Antarctica about 13,000 years ago.

The scientists suggested the tiny egg-shaped fossils - which measured between 20 and 100 nanometres across - were evidence of ancient extra-terrestrial life on the red planet.

However their claims were disputed by many in the scientific community, with one of the main objections being the lack of proof of any other known organisms in this ultra-microscopic size range.

"The trouble was they were only mineralised structures. There's been no living things reported with these dimensions. That's where we come in. We have living cells in this small size range."

The discovery was made by accident when the Queensland scientists were carrying out routine microscopic examination of rock samples as part of a consulting project for an oil exploration company.

Dr Uwins noticed "ball-like filamentous structures" on her rocks. "I thought this is some strange form of illite [a clay mineral]. But when we revisited the samples over a number of weeks, these structures continued to grow in storage containers, which isn't exactly typical of a clay mineral. There was nothing for it to really grow from."

When no textbooks turned up reference to such tiny organisms, she eventually called in a colleague microbiologist who "got really excited and said: 'You've found nanobacteria!'."

While most biological tissue needed to be fixed and dehydrated in order to resist the strong vacuum created in the scanning electron microscope used to inspect the rocks, these creatures were "very tough".

"They just go in and out of the microscope. They seem to be able to withstand vacuum and the electron beam, which has implications for theories about interplanetary travel. It'll certainly increase debate on extra-terrestrial life because people can start looking for cells with these sorts of dimensions in space."

The team will perform further molecular and structural analyses to determine whether the organisms were related to bacteria or fungi, or belonged to an entirely different evolutionary tree.

"We will be the first group to perform DNA sequencing on a new life form with important and significant implications in many areas of research," Dr Uwins said.

The discovery comes as NASA scientists are expected to reveal findings on mineral formations in a second, and possibly third, Martian meteorite that support their 1996 claim for evidence of extraterrestrial life.
Again, sadly, these scientists appear to be monomorphists ignorant of pleomorphic possibilities.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests