DOC

Reflections on 15 Neydharting Round Table Conferences

By Roy Dixon,2014-06-28 10:26
6 views 0
Reflections on 15 Neydharting Round Table Conferences ...

    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-

     2

    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

    th 15anniversary in October 2003. These Neydharting Spa Round Table 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

     3

    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

     4

    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).

--- The specific impact of substances in peat, responsible for its biochemical efficiency, is going back

    to small quantities of them (R. KLÖCKING & HELBIG 1992, ZIECHMANN 1996, BEER,

    LUKANOV & SAGORCHEV 2000), a fact supporting the application of peat suspension baths (like

    at Neydharting Spa). Comparing the main applicative types of peat baths one may, therefore, say,

    that the one type, the pulp mud bath is besides of its high biochemical efficency, going back to

    high concentration mainly efficient for its thermophysical mode of action, whereas the other type,

    the suspension bath, has its confederates in the field of biochemical allies, so that some effects

    like overheating, buoyancy forces, radiant heating a.s.o. are of secondary importance. In the same

     5

    time one should not forget to mention in the course of this comparison that there is a great psychological-parapsychological influence from the black and hellish mud of the pulp-bath (compare e. g. BAATZ 1978, LÜTTIG 1989).

    --- This discovery and promotion of the effects of the biologically active substances is not to forget

    of great support to the utilization of peat extracts and preparations, also with respects to veterinary medicine (KÜHNERT & KNAUF 2000, LÜTTIG 2000) and for cosmetics (cf. WENZEL &

    KLICKERMANN 2003).

    --- The use of curative peat and its derivates is a decisive element in health resort and rehabilitative

    medicine and in addition to the application of thermal and mineral water, including some gases

    a prerequisite for the standard of spas and health resorts, mainly because of its influence on prevention and long-term provision measures. But, as already stated, we have to learn that good and convincing statements showing the benefits of this applications seem to be insufficient. This has to do in some respect, in the opinion of the author and his friends with a lack of

    argumentation based on natural sciences, better understandable for the public than complicated medical explanations based on comments of long-year experience a.s.o..

     Again the author likes to stress that use of econometrical dates would support a better acceptance

    by administration, health insurance and public authorities and help to adjust the socioeconomic obliqueness of curative health measures in the public discussion.

    --- Filling gaps in the efficiency proof is one of the most severe problems of curative medicine, and

    this is true for peat therapy in particular. Polishing the appearance and public reputation by propagandistic efforts, as mentioned , is one side of the path, but the other is better substantiation of the material and the applications of remedies on the base of modern and practical standards. This, by the same token, is asking for better specification of every variety of peat applied, and the worst comes to the worst and this is not a theoretical view therapeuts consider curative peat

    an unique product and a remedy of ubiquitary character. Doing this is applying antiquated medicine, not to say irresponsible, incomprehensible. In order not to be misunderstood, the author is adding the following: This is not a plea for complicated (and expensive) analyses! Standards

    and analyses should be as simple, short and cheap as possible! The cheaper they are the more the respective spa director will order them. Because he will remember the old-fashioned (but prescribed) system with reports full of detailled but useless elements, which one was forced to follow, with details without medical interest but missing those details which are important therapeutically after modern knowledge. On the other hand, applicants of curative peat have to give a clear and precise declaration on what they offer, precise like in case of a pharmakon. And they should apply the raw material after correct selection and separation of the lithofacies of the peat which is really curative and in accordance to the specific impact wanted.

    --- Moreover the doctor in charge should take care for a long-term follow-up observation of his patient.

    This is part of a correct efficiency proof. To say good-bye to the patient after his cure, writing report and bill and then trust in God is no curative but wiper-blade medicine!

    --- There are some further sorrows the author would like to speak about, as all he says is no

    imaginary theory but unvarnished truth, and these are practical observations he gathered during preparation of the Peat Therapy Almanach. The one is the observation on re-use of peat, which one had already made use of in the bath-tubes. In some places this re-use is handled with some sloppiness; new analytical research has been forgotten totally. In other places curative peat is distributed and sold to the consumer without any medical control, and the relevant and other producers manage their business without any medical escort. Peat products of unclear or unknown quality are on the market, some are sold with declarations consciously incorrect which is deliberate consumer-deceit and punishable by law. There are some health resorts where the responsables have unsufficient knowledge on the material they use, others have no modern analyses, don‟t control the material and are not controlled by their supervisory boards (if the latter really know that they are responsible). If the author would have time (and money) and nothing else to do he could be busy with this task to bring all this party of fault to the court! What follows is discredit of natural medicine.

     The author is really unhappy in being forced to add such sorrows to the report of success of our

    Neydharting talks and to the positive results. Unfortunately there is no end of the problems.

     6

    th Another problem which we had to discuss during the 15 Neydharting Conference is the administrative

    handling of peat products on a national and international level. For that reason some of the peat

    preparations‟ producer had come to Neydharting. These firms – and one should not forget that they

    are small firms or middle class entrepreneurs are more and more suffering from unclear, unpractical

    and inconsiderate allowance and authorizing procedures. In part this has to do with the cancellation of

    validity of national pharmaceutical laws for many peat products and preparations and their transfer to

    medical products, some to foodstuff supplements‟ regulations and the handling and application of the

    relevant orders and laws. Many a confusion has been created by these changes. This disorder has

    been accelerated by some efforts of the European Community lacking sense and professional

    knowledge. The EC tends to assign peat products and preparations to the order for “Registration,

    Evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictions of Chemicals” (REACH). The producers, already in

    difficulties in preparing the acquisition of the relevant allowances, are getting increasingly uncertain by

    allocating their products in the accurate category. Shall they declare it, following e.g. ? 109a of the

    pharmacological law, or as a medical product, or as foodstuff supplement, or as cosmetic product?

    The decision is in many cases not made by the producer and then not in a proper way. In the same

    time attibutes to the product are not promised in a way which could be veryfied, and the increasing

    distribution by internet makes it more and more impossible to control origine and peculiarity of the

    product. In this place it must again be pointed out that peat is extremely variable, so that a peat

    species and deposit is, striktly speaking, an unicum because of the differences in lithofacies,

    distribution of types and geological make-up of the deposit. This means survey, drilling, exploring

    before mining. Of course one should come to a golden mean with these measures; mining must be

    feasible, there must be an equilibrium between demand for separation and the technical-economical

    input. But there shouldn‟t be any chance for the miner to use so called technical difficulties as an

    excuse for not following this golden rule. The welfare of the patient is the overriding aim, and for that

    no measure is too sumptuous!

     It is one of the main tasks of Commission VI to assist in following this principle, and this can be done

    by developing clear and simple advice for survey, designation and technical separation of the correct

    and feasable peat variety.

     th In the 15 Neydharting Talk we, beyond our discussion on these problems, had a chance to complete

    our knowledge on modern peat substances research, a topic which is always in discussion, mainly on

    the role of the humic acids group, which is a terrain in which we use to ask for extensive support by

    our members RENATE and HANS-PETER KLÖCKING. In addition this conference was aimed to get

    detailled information on peloids closely related to peat, like marine and lacustrine muds of Estonia, the

    curative peat situation in the Czech Republic and from saunaland Finland by our relevant guests, and

    on the Italian fango practices. It is a point of honour for the peatbog-family to pay a tribute to our

    friends from the other side of the peloid business.

     Thanks to all participants and fellow-combatants, to our host, the Curative Peat Bath Company Bad

    Neydharting Ltd., and our assistants working in the background, faithful and silent!

     Thoughts come and go, most fly away with the wind … What remains is the small, tiny feeling of

    happyness: We could move something. How says the poet?:

     “Es gibt nichts Gutes, außer: man tut es!“

     Which means: There is nothing good, expect you do it (ERICH KÄSTNER).

     References:

     BAATZ, HANS (1987): Aus der Praxis für die Praxis. 3 Jahrzehnte Erfahrung mit der klassischen

    Moortherapie. Z. phys. Med. Balneol. Med. Klimatol. 16: 223 226, Stuttgart.

     [BASSENGE, E. et aliae] (1987): Grundlagen der Kurortmedizin und ihr Stellenwert im

    Gesundheitswesen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 223 S., Bonn (Deutscher Bäderverband).

    BEER, A.-M., LUKANOV, J. & SAGORCHEV, P. (2003): A new view on quality controlled application

    of peat and medical treatment. Peatlands internat. 2003, 1: 25 29, Jyväskylä.

    [BEER, A.-M., LÜTTIG, G. & LUKANOV, J.] (1999): Die Moortherapie auf dem Wege ins nächste

    Jahrtausend. Abstr. Vortr. internat. Moortherapie-Symp. Bad Kissingen 21. 24. Okt. 1999, 80

    s., Bad Kissingen (Balneol. Inst).

     7

     --- (2000): Moortherapie 2000. Vorträge des Internationalen Moortherapie-Symposiuns Bad

    Kissingen, Oktober 1999. 280 S., 104 Abb., Bad Kissingen (Balneol. Inst.).

     [GOECKE, C. & LÜTTIG, G.] (1987): Wirkungsmechanismen der Moortherapie. 36 S., 56 Abb., 49

    Tab., Stuttgart (Hippokrates).

     KIRSCHNER, CHRISTOPH (1995): Die Entwicklung des Heilbäderwesens unter der Last

    vordergründiger, vorurteilsvoller Wertungen und Alternativen. Heilb. u. Kurort 47, 9/10: 211

    216, Gütersloh.

     KÜHNERT, M. & KNAUF, H. (2000): Der Einsatz von Huminsäuren in der veterinärmedizinischen

    Therapie, Prophylaxe sowie Dätetik. In: [BEER, A. M., LÜTTIG, G. & LUKANOV, J.]: Moortherapie

    2000: 162 171, Bad Kissingen (Balneol Inst.).

     LÜTTIG, GERD (1989): Gedanken zur Wirkung von „Moorbädern“ aus menschheitsgeschichtlicher

    und psychologischer Sicht. Telma 19: 157 164, Hannover.

     --- (1993): Sechs Bad Neydhartinger Rundgespräche. Telma 23: 327 335, 1 Abb., Hannover.

     --- (1997): Zehn „Bad Neydhartinger Rundgespräche“ – vorbildlich für Erfahrungsaus-tausch zum

    Thema Moortherapie. Heilb. u. Kurort 49, 9/10: 285 286, Gütersloh.

     --- (2000): Torf ist nicht gleich Torf Torfart und-beschaffenheit als Bais aller therapeutischen

    Effekte. In: [BEER, A.-M., LÜTTIG, G. & LUKANOV, J.]: Moortherapie 2000: 175 201, 3 Tab.,

    5 Abb., 5 Taf., Bad Kissingen (Balneol. Inst.) (2000 a).

     --- (2000): Torf und Torfpräparate in Tiermedizin und Tierernährung. Telma 30: 77 95, 3 Abb.,

    Hannover (2000 b).

     --- (2002): Vernichtet die Humifizierung die Inhaltsstoffe Torf bildender Heilpflanzen? .. Teil I und II.

     Ärzte-Z. Naturheilverf. 43, 8: 525 533, 9: 586 593, Uelzen.

     M‟BOW, AMADOU-MAHTAR (1982): World problems and the lines of emphasis of the Medium-Term thPlan (1984 1989). UNESCO Gen. Conf., 4 ordin. Sess. 4 c/4, Draft Medium-Term Plan (1984

     1989) 1: 1 38, Paris.

     STÖBER, OTTO (1975): “Moor-Bukett” – die Anthologie „55‟ aus Neydharting. – Bad Neydharting

    (Stadt-Verl.).

     WENZEL, P. & KLICKERMANN, C. (2003): Altes Naturheilmittel Moor. Neues Wissen für die

    praktische Anwendung. 112 S., Laufen (Klickermann).

     WIENCKE, HARALD (1987): Wie effektiv ist eine gynäkologische Badekur?. In: [GOECKE, C. &

    LÜTTIG, G.]: Wirkungsmechanismen der Moortherapie: 285 301, Stuttgart (Hippokrates).

     Author‟s address: Prof. em. Dr. GERD LÜTTIG, Chairman of Comm. VI, IPS, D-29223 Celle, Wittinger

    Str. 126.

    Abbildungs-Unterschriften

    Fig. 1: Part of the Neydharting Spa complex of bulding thFig. 2: Part of the participants of the 15 Round Table Conference

    Fig. 3: Neydhart what‟s what?

     Saint

     Three old Neydh. pals: ANDRAS TÓTH, JOSZEF GYARMATI & GERD LÜTTIG

     All phot. FAUSTA PICCINI-STÖBER

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com