Pleomorphism asserts that the host organism or patient is an active participant in infection and disease – in contrast to Koch and Pasteur and the mono-morphists who held the microbe to be all-powerful, the host organism a passive victim. Pleomorphism is downgrading the microbe, since the host, by resisting the latter’s onslaught, could alter its characteristics and make it return to a normal form. The patient has control over the bacteria, not the other way around. The microbes are the result, not the cause of disease.
Even the common “communicable” diseases, e.g. strep throat or chickenpox, can not take hold, grow, if the internal milieu is not conducive to their reproduction. This is what base powder does. As stated before, one third of people in Europe did not get bubonic plague. In treating cancer with isopathic medicine, for example, one does not attack the tumor at all, instead one changes the environment, the internal milieu that caused the cancer in the first place.
What this all means then, this pleomorphism / monomorphism controversy, is that at its most fundamental level it has socio-economic dimensions that still affect us profoundly today.
“Accepting Pleomorphism means acknowledging the patient’s capacity to defend against, and dominate, the microbe.
Monomorphism, on the contrary, enhances the role of the microbe in disease, and consequently that of the physician who combats the microbe. This is the principal reason for the instinctive hostility of the majority of physicians to Pleomorphism and Wholistic/Alternative Medicine in general.”
from Divided Legacy by Harris Coulter