Reflections on 15 Neydharting Round Table Conferences

1

Reflections on 15 Neydharting Round Table Conferences

GERD LÜTTIG

The make-up of scientific-technical associations is varying – with relation to the disciplines represented in them – in a great range between mono- and interdisciplinary constructions. In the case of an association which is, like the International Peat Society (IPS) covering various specialities the latter can be recognized by relevant commissions (or similar departments), and this polymorphy can be traced into these commissions, where in addition to the namegiving discipline other specialities may be active.

With respect to curative peat therapy, which is the speciality of IPS Commission VI (Peat Balneology, Medicine and Therapeutics) this common practice of the IPS --- interdisciplinarity --- is the way, we, the commission members, do our job. The author is using this apparently intricate way of introduction because he intends to point out that this practice is not only typical for the IPS but through and through interwaving the framework of medicine, as can be seen by studying the historical development of medicine and natural sciences.

Many of the famous medical doctors of the past were – at the same time ore in a deferred period – active in the territory of natural sciences, and in the same time of theology. On of the most remarkable persons of that type was the famous GEORG BAUER of Glauchau/Saxony, called GEORGIUS AGRICOLA (1494 – 1555) who, after having been active as teacher of Latin and Greek went to Italy where he learned to “cut stones” (standing for kidney stones) and got his doctorate in medicine. Coming back home he became municipal physicus and at the end lord mayor of the city of Chemnitz. In this capacity he had to take care for the mining concessions of his town in the Erzgebirge, and this he did with increasing knowledge and smashing success so that he, at the end, became the Worlds father of mining sciences and mineralogy. His somewhat older conpatriot ULRICH RÜLEIN VON CALW (1465 – 1523) was municipal physicus and up to 1519 lord mayor of the famous Freiberg city, later professor of medicine of Leipzig university. He published the first book on economic geology in German language, called the “nutzlich Bergbuchleyn” (= usefull little book on economic minerals). At the same university it was JOHANN C. GEHLER (1732 – 1796) who held the first lessons on mineralogy in1758 as an ordinary professor of medicine. And the famous Danish medical doctor NIELS STEENSEN, called NICOLAUS STENO (1638 – 1686) is one of the founders of geology and palaeontology. Not to forget the medical doctor CHRISTIAN FÜCHSEL (1722 – 1773) of Rudolstadt in Thuringia, who was introducing the idea off geological formations into international stratigraphy.

These examples could easily be multiplied, and it should not be forgotten that many theologicans opened new trends in natural sciences, and the opposite case is recorded in many examples as well.

In the same time there were famous scientific associations like the Society of German Natural Scientists and Medical Doctors, established in 1822 at Leipzig, and academies like the Academy of Common Sciences at Erfurt/Thuringia (established in 1754) following this line. At present many a society keeps that flag of interdisciplinarity and cooperation flying, like the International Society of Medical Hydrology and Climatology (ISMH, London 1921), the German Spa Association through it’s Academy of Balneology and Climatology and it’s Working Group of Natural Sciences and Technology, and the German Academy of Kurortology and Rehabilitative Medicine (Bad Elster). Sorry to say that the Committee on Peloid Research of the German Spa Association, which had been of special interest for IPS Commission Vi, was dismissed some years ago.

However, knowledge on these Golden Days of polyhistorism, known to every historian of medicine, got lost in these days of insensitive grayness – deplored by the famous M’BOW, former Director General of UNESCO (1982)as a sign of cultural and intellectuall decline – and, in our special case, the most regrettable fact is, that this traditional and genuine connection between two of man kind’s most important fields of sciences does not find the adequate reputation in some circles of modern medicine. This has to do with an interior problem of the medical community, namely the somewhat distorted approach to the spa and health resort, preventive and rehabilitative medicine. In the circles concerned it is not at all clear that achievement of long-term cumulative efficiency of health-political relevance is needing strong support by curative medicine, and that, therefore, the cure is the best way for health-maintainance. In complaining about this situation we should not withhold from saying that there is a deficit of efficiency-proofing for several methods and applications in curative medicine and a lack of economically proven models. Unfortunately, there exist a few attempts only to show the great health-political importance of natural medicine crowned with some success (e.g. BASSENGE et al. 1987, WIENCKE 1987, KIRSCHNER 1995).

In the same time there is not much enthusiasm to be found within the circles of common medicine, administration and insurances when trying to call upon the results of natural sciences research or knowledge on the raw materials applied in curative peat therapy, including research, prospection and exploration of peloids, curative waters and gases, although it is this way only to give an exact proof of efficiency and support to therapeutic practice in economic and ecologic terms.

This is why it is necessary to explain over and over again and in an understandable way how much use can be made of this knowledge, findings and explanations of processes and effects in the human and animal body, but mainly in the direction of laymen. And it is without any question that the use of these explanatory way can be helpful to the medical doctor himself, when he has to explain the success or failure of this and that application to his patient, when he can go back to the biochemical, biophysical, pharmacological and – indeed! – mineralogical-geological make-up of a special remedy he has used. And on the other hand, this doctor, knowing at least the essentials of this lay-out is very much more endowed with (human warmth and) capability of explanative approach to his patient than that blind agent in computer – medicine trusting the figures in his screen whom we meet more and more in the white-coat’s staffs, sorry to say!

Not to forget that this knowledge may be essential when it goes to the selection in between the existing applicative methods, materials and remedies.

This is no theoretical talk but can be proved by a large number of examples like the following:

---The impact of humic acids, including their pre-stages and related substances on the thrombine cascade in the case of coagulation processes has been discussed in extenso at Neydharting many times; the therapeutic role of the humic acids is like a standing topic there, and we may add: it is one of it’s achievements!

---The influence of crystallographic peculiarities (crystal lattice factors) of smektite and hormite minerals, used in medicine and veterinary medicine, is of decisive relevance to their behaviour in treatment of meteoric processes in the human and animal body. This knowledge is needing mineralogical attendence of course.

---Thermophysical peculiarities (like overheating, buoyancy effects) are the motor providing the effectiveness of peat-pulp mud baths in case of special dysregulations of the locomition system, so that the thermophysician is asked to assist and interprete.

Many other examples could be added within this domain.

The portrayel of the situation in which peat therapy is looking for its success may hopefully

help to understand its present day problems and the motives for the event which came to its

15th anniversary in October 2003. These Neydharting Spa RoundTable Conferences, traditionally held at Bad Wimsbach-Neydharting, a spa in the Prealpine foreland south of Linz, Austria, is going back to an idea of its founders Prof. OTTO STÖBER and the author. Years ago two international societies on peat affairs had been created, the International Society of MireResearch (IGM), Vaduz, and the International Peat Society (IPS) at Helsinki, devoted to the same topic. We came to the opinion that there was no sense for the two in living shoulder and shoulder and, sometimes acting against each other, but that, in using the German Peat Society (DGMT) as a vehicle which could enable mutual cooperation, we should follow the very simple judgement : better to talk with another than to talk at cross-purposes. Being chairmen of both, the IMG and the DGMT, on the base of sympathy which we became aware at the first go we outlined the following basic principle : we should come together and meet regularly in the privacy of Neydharting Spa, in an open-minded atmosphere, and chatter and unrestainedly discuss, dispute and fight, but without the presence of nonexperts, laymen and publicity makers, frankly and in a comradly manner and in fairness, so that we would come to a consense which we then could spread into the public sunlight. Because there is always a way to a compromise and an outlet for a purificated opinion to be transmitted to the public. But what seems more important is that we, from the very beginning, had our eyes on using the medical and therapeutic affairs in peat sciences as the topic of our talks and means to come to cooperation because we felt that this could be the best link to assist the idea of reunion of medicine and natural sciences. How was the advice of the famous PARACELSUS, whom we may call the initiator of pharmaceutic chemistry?: the real medical doctor is made by exploring nature and by his experience at the sickbed. This became our kick.

Experience in our open round showed very soon that we were able to obtain a brainstorming atmosphere and that our frank dialog could be transferred to an event of standing character, if we would observe some rules. We always tried to obstain from high-flown scientific superlatives and from prayer-wheel lectures and to keep our talk an open and unconstrained exchange of knowledge and ideas. As MAX LIEDTKE said in one of the famous “Matreier Gespräche” (Wien + Heidelberg, Ueberreuter, 1984): “Interdisciplinarity is not made by a plain string of statements of different disciplines, it is, on the contrary, characterized by the attempt to determine possible connecting regularities and in the same time by the endevour and effort to give the determinations of the own field into the consideration through other departments which then, possibly, may lead to modifications of these propositions”.

But this is not all: to draw the essentials for the own discipline from these unfamiliar statements is the further consequence. It goes without saying that this is all a matter of give and take and that, therefore, all has to be done to keep the talk sparkling and not running on. The monolog must be replaced by the dialog.

In this intention we started our first Round Table Conference in 1988 (April 20 – 22). In this style we managed to carry on. Since that time we could reach number 15 of the conferences. One of the meetings, following an invitation of the Hungarian National Committee of IPS was held at Héviz Spa, Hungary. For that we are cordially indebted to our friends JÓSZEF GYARMATI and ANDRAS TÓTH. The author gave two reports on the talks, the one after conference 6, the other after no. 10 (LÜTTIG 1993, 1997). The list of participants is given as table 1. This is a very interesting survey because it is not only showing steadiness and change of the participance but is proofing that in the course of time the grouping changed from an exclusively German speaking community to an agglomeration in which an increasing number of Non-Austrian and Non-German peat specialists was incorporated. This led to a slight linguistic change, that is to say English came into use, so that we got a two-language system, but without simultaneous translation. This procedure is working perfectly and did not bring any handicap in understanding, a good model for other similar international conferences!

We were not lucky with conference 9 which we tried to start on the base of invitations from abroad twice. At the end our hosts came into technical difficulties, and following OTTO STÖBERs philosophy (compare his pentagram monography, 1981!) we tried to get away from the “bad 9” and took the number 10 instead which means 2 times 5, a lucky configuration, leaving 9 invalid. Conference 12 was devoted to redactional work on the PEATHAL (Peat Therapy Almanach) project and therefore held in a limited number.

All the time we had the STÖBER family aside and could enjoy the overwhelming hospitality; there is certainly no participant who would not feel deep sympathy and gratitude from the bottom of his heart.

From the list of participants, by the way, another lesson can be drawn which is valid for practical work in almost every society or association : it is easy to read that with a total of 96 participants 61 ot them have only been present once. 15 persons took part 5 times or more often, but only two were present in all of the meetings, one more, the most honourable CLAUS GOECKE, in almost all. However, one should not fail to see that 4 of our members passed away – the unforgotten OTTO STÖBER amongst them – and that two of the founders and most faithfull and capable members, WOLFGANG FLAIG and WOLFGANG ZIECHMANN, have been forced to withdraw for reasons of age and health. They are unforgotten as well. And one should not fail to notice that some of the Commission VI members have been unable to come for reasons of travel and economic restrictions. By the way, this is a fact easily neglected – not only in the IPS – that the work of members of commissions and conferences is voluntarily done and in many cases on the base of the private budget. This is statement in force for the author as well, but of course, all the likes of us do this job with pleasure!

However, with table 1 the reader can understand that such a load and burden is regularly carried by a small number of persons, and there are others giving a faithful support, but cooperation is totally lacking from some members, and this is true for many a board. But this is a phenomenon of common character.

On the base of table 1 the phenomenon already mentioned, the flashing over of the Neydharting idea to other countries can be followed. In the meantime we can count participants from 14 countries. Besides the Austrian – German group our Hungarian friends have been the first to participate. No wonder: JÓSZEF GYARMATI was the preceding chairman of Commission VI. Nowadays we are able to list the following countries:

Australia

Austria

Belorussia

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Hungary

Norway

Poland

Ukraine

United Kingdom

USA.

Most astonishing is the participation of members from Australia and the USA, because curative peat therapy is either unknown there or estimated backward (which is not quite correct).

Although these details look like accessory matters they are not really unimportant.

After 15 conferences it looks legitimate to ask for the achievements of the events to the benefit of natural medicine in total. In answering this we should go back to the initial approach which was laid down in the Alexandersbad Spa Curative Peat Symposium held there in 1985 and published by GOECKE & LÜTTIG (1987) in the conference report. There the edifice of thoughts was created. At Neydharting the ideas have been developped further; in the preceding the manner has been portrayed, and like the alchemistic philosophers’ stones – to use a formula of OTTO STÖBER -- the crystallization of ideas took place, so that we were able to convey this wisdom to practical therapy. This crystallization of thoughts may be expressed by specifying the following keynotes:

--The peloid curative peat is, by origine, a soft rock, the main substance of which belongs to the humite group, a mixture of organic compounds (former biomass) rich in carbon, of different genesis, petrographic-palaeobotanic and geochemical character and humification degree, and this is responsible for the therapeutic effects (cf. LÜTTIG 2002). Regarded from this viewpoint curative peat (not at all to be called “moor”) is a medly of various substances, closely related to each other; this medley is comparable to phytopharmacological remedies like tea-mixtures, the parts of which have different actions, although the mixture itself is producing an unique impact. This is meaning that this mixture, the peat, is not a homogenous medium nor a pharmakon acting in an invariable way at all places where you may find and use it, not at all! It is a group of soft rock types the make-up of which is varying inspite of all similarity, the ingredient structure of which is not unique and the impact of which is like a world of difference. That’s why the author likes to broadcast: Peat is not like peat (LÜTTIG 2000)!

---This difference in the make-up is going parallel to a diversity of the substances within the peat which is furnishing that peculiarity called the “moorbukett” by OTTO STÖBER (1975), this mysterious something comparable to the bouquet of an outstanding wine which is responsible for some of the mysteria in effects of peat-baths. In addition to the thermal and physical impacts well known since ever from peat-pulp mud baths these effects of biochemical origin are in part responsible for the curative power of the peat. BOTH impacts stand for the success of curative peat therapy (GOECKE & LÜTTIG 1987, BEER, LÜTTIG & LUKANOV 1999, 2000, GOECKE 1994 and others).