Neue Deutsche Heilkunde
Driven by prominent Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler, who were ardent supporters of alternative healing practices, the movement sought to create a unified German medical system that emphasized natural and holistic approaches to health.
Reichstag of the North German Confederation passed the Commercial Code of 1869 which reinstates Kurierfreiheit, allowing both licensed and unlicensed practitioners medical freedom.
[2][3] Furthermore, there was a growing lack of trust in the medical profession among the public, attributed in part to the reductionist perspective of medicine and the widening gap between diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities, as well as social insurance systems.
Among the most prominent critics of contemporary medicine was Erwin Liek (1878-1935), a renowned surgeon and gynecologist, who argued for doctors to assert leadership in health policy, which should also encompass eugenic considerations.
The precursor to the Neue Deutsche Heilkunde was the Deutscher Verband der Ärzte für physikalische-diätetische Behandlung (German Association of Doctors for Physical-Dietetic Treatment), which gathered in November 1934, at the Rudolf Hess Hospital in Dresden.
[3] In May 1935, during the Nuremberg conference "Volksheilkunde aus Blut und Boden," Julius Streicher announced the establishment of the Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft für eine Neue Deutsche Heilkunde (Reich Working Group for a New German Medicine), to be led by Dr. Karl Kötschau.
The merged organization had seven corporate members, including leading associations of homeopathic and naturopathic physicians, alongside the League for Biodynamic Healing.
During this gathering, Wagner criticized the traditional approach to medical education, highlighting its narrow focus on producing doctors, natural scientists, and technicians.
He advocated for a new orientation in medical training, emphasizing the need for a revamped German medicine that would be more inclusive of diverse therapeutic methods and open-minded in its approach to scientific inquiry.
For instance, Wagner advocated setting aside naturopathic practices that clashed with public health measures like vaccination, pharmaceutical treatments, and localized diagnostic methods.
Furthermore, the wartime demand for healthcare professionals to tend to military personnel and address public health issues at home necessitated licensed doctors with academic backgrounds.
Following the war, there was a noticeable surge in the popularity of natural therapies, medicines, and consumer products in the postwar West, a trend that continues in Germany's medical marketplace.
However, in the Western context, both consumers and practitioners often prioritize addressing individual bodily concerns over engaging with social criticism within the realm of alternative medicine.
They advocated for anthroposphist medicine within Nazi health policies, receiving support from government officials like Dr. Eugen Stähle and Ludwig Müller.
Reports on the November 1934 meeting of naturopathic doctors at the Rudolf Hess Hospital in Dresden highlighted the role of biodynamics and praised Dr. Josef Schulz's presentation on Demeter products.
[13] According to Historian Michael H. Kater, the law introduced specific certification requirements and made membership in the regime-approved natural healers association mandatory.
[14] Gerhard Wagner and Dr. Kurt Blome thought that combining traditional medicine with naturopathy helped better study the cause (aetiology) and treat cancer, which was increasingly recognized as a common ailment in the general population also known as Volkskrankheit (people's disease.
At the Institute for Nutrition Doctrine, led by physician Sigwald Bommer, advocacy for a "healthy, natural, and simple" diet for racial hygiene was prominent.
His claims were met with skepticism in Hippokrates, the main journal of New German Medicine, where Erwin Liek countered with a passionate defense of fresh foods.
Advocates of homeopathy were inclined to highlight remarkable symptoms observed during the pathogenetic trials when confronted with placebos, while disregarding the lack of therapeutic efficacy in their patients.
[18][19] Himmler's interest in folk medicine, particularly homeopathic treatments, prompted him to initiate experiments to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathy in treating purulent diseases.
Under the direction of Prof. Grawitz, a medical team, including Dr. Heinrich Schütz, Dr. Hermann Kiesewetter, and Prof. Theodor Laue, conducted tests supervised by concentration camp physicians like Karol Babor and Waldemar Wolter.
[20] One such case of misuse involves the homeopathic manufacturer and physician Gerhard Madaus (1890-1942), who conducted experiments with the plant Dieffenbachia seguine, demonstrating its capacity to induce sterility.
The prospect of using Dieffenbachia to sterilize the three million Bolsheviks in German prisons, rendering them as laborers but incapable of reproduction, was deemed appealing and offered "the most far-reaching perspective.
For example, in 1934, Dr. Reichard, a well-liked general practitioner, made offensive remarks against National Socialism without causing disturbances, indicating the population's trust in their doctors over political ideologies.
[5] According to Dr. Edzard Ernst, historical evidence suggests that the scientific validation of Contemporary/Alternative medicine (CAM), such as homeopathy, conducted by the Nazi government yielded negative results.
Similarly, the utilization of unproven, debunked, or unsafe treatments on ill-informed patients, as seen in alternative medicine, represents a glaring ethical breach in healthcare.
