Researching and reporting shocking stories like this one can only make me more enemies, I know. Yet I do think they need to be told; if we cannot learn from history, what hope is there?

I first became aware of Sigmund Rascher‘s work when I was studying the effects of temperature on blood rheology at the University of Munich. I then leant of Rascher’s unspeakably cruel experiments on exposing humans to extreme hypothermia in the Dachau concentration camp. Many of his ‘volunteers’ had lost their lives, and the SS-doctor Rascher later became the symbol of a ‘Nazi doctor from hell’. In 1990, R L Berger aptly described Rascher and his sadistic pseudo-science in his NEJM article:

“Sigmund Rascher was born in 1909. He started his medical studies in 1930 and joined both the Nazi party and the storm troopers (the SA) three years later. After a volunteer internship, Rascher served for three years as an unpaid surgical assistant. He was barred temporarily from the University of Munich for suspected Communist sympathies. In 1939, the young doctor denounced his physician father, joined the SS, and was inducted into the Luftwaffe. A liaison with and eventual marriage to Nini Diehl, a widow 15 years his senior who was a one-time cabaret singer but also the former secretary and possibly mistress of the Reichsführer, gained Rascher direct access to Himmler. A strange partnership evolved between the junior medical officer and one of the highest officials of the Third Reich. One week after their first meeting, Rascher presented a “Report on the Development and Solution to Some of the Reichsführer’s Assigned Tasks During a Discussion Held on April 24, 1939.” The title of this paper foretold the character of the ensuing relationship between the two men. Because of Rascher’s servile and ingratiating approach to Himmler, his “connections were so strong that practically every superior trembled in fear of the intriguing Rascher who consequently held a position of enormous power.

Rascher’s short investigative career included a leading role in the infamous high-altitude experiments on humans at Dachau, which resulted in 70 to 80 deaths. He was also involved in testing a plant extract as a cure for cancer. The genesis of this project illustrates Rascher’s style and influence. Professor Blome, the deputy health minister and plenipotentiary for cancer research, favored testing the extract in mice. Rascher insisted on experiments in humans. Himmler sided with Rascher. A Human Cancer Testing Station was set up at Dachau. The deputy health minister collaborated on the project, held approximately 20 meetings with Rascher, and visited the junior officer at Dachau several times.

Another of Rascher’s major research efforts focused on the introduction of a pectin-based preparation, Polygal, to promote blood clotting. He predicted that the prophylactic use of Polygal tablets would reduce bleeding from wounds sustained in combat or during surgical procedures. The agent was also recommended for the control of spontaneous gastrointestinal and pulmonary hemorrhages. Combat wounds were simulated by the amputation of the viable extremities of camp prisoners without anesthesia or by shooting the prisoners through the neck and chest.

Rascher also claimed that oral premedication with Polygal minimized bleeding during major surgical procedures, rendering hemostatic clips or ligatures unnecessary and shortening operating times. He published an enthusiastic article about his clinical experience with Polygal, without specifying the nature of some of the trials in humans. The paper concluded, “The tests of this medicine ‘Polygal 10’ showed no failures under the most varied circumstances.” Rascher also formed a company to manufacture Polygal and used prisoners to work in the factory. A prisoner who was later liberated testified that Rascher’s enthusiasm for Polygal’s antiinfectious properties was probably sparked by news of the introduction of penicillin by the Allies and by his eagerness to reap fame and receive the award established for inventing a German equivalent. He initiated experiments in humans apparently without any preliminary laboratory testing. In one experiment, pus was injected into the legs of prisoners. The experimental group was given Polygal. The controls received no treatment. Information filtered to Dr. Kurt Plotner, Rascher’s physician rival, that the controls were given large, deep subcutaneous inoculations, whereas the victims in the experiments received smaller volumes of pus injected intracutaneously. Plotner reportedly investigated the matter and discovered that the Polygal used was saline colored with a fluorescent dye.

The frequent references to Rascher in top-level documents indicate that this junior medical officer attracted extraordinary attention from Germany’s highest officials. His work was reported even to Hitler, who was pleased with the accounts. Rascher was not well regarded in professional circles, however, and his superiors repeatedly expressed reservations about his performance. In one encounter, Professor Karl Gebhardt, a general in the SS and Himmler’s personal physician, told Rascher in connection with his experiments on hypothermia through exposure to cold air that “the report was unscientific; if a student of the second term dared submit a treatise of the kind [Gebhardt] would throw him out.” Despite Himmler’s strong support, Rascher was rejected for faculty positions at several universities. A book by German scientists on the accomplishments of German aviation medicine during the war devoted an entire chapter to hypothermia but failed to mention Rascher’s name or his work.”

For those who can stomach the sickening tale, a very detailed biography of Rascher is available here.

I had hoped to never hear of this monster of a man again – yet, more recently, I came across Rascher in the context of alternative medicine. Rascher had been brought up in Rudolf Steiner’s anthroposophical tradition, and his very first ‘research’ project was on a alternantive blood test developed in anthroposophy.

A close friend of Rascher, the anthroposoph and chemist Ehrenfried Pfeiffer had developed a bizarre diagnostic method using copper chloride crystallization of blood and other materials. This copper chloride biocrystallization (CCBC) became the subject of Rascher’s dissertation in Munich. Rascher first tried the CCBC for diagnosing pregnancies and later for detecting early cancer (incidentally, he conducted this work in the very same building where I worked for many years, about half a century later). The CCBC involves a visual evaluation of copper crystals which form with blood or other fluids; the method is, of course, wide open to interpretation. Bizarrely, the CCBC is still used by some anthroposophical or homeopathic doctors today – see, for instance, this recent article or this website, this website or this website which explains:

“Hierbei werden einige Tropfen Blut mit Kupferchlorid in einer Klimakammer zur Kristallisation gebracht.
Jahrzehntelange Erfahrung ermöglicht eine ganz frühe Hinweisdiagnostik sowohl für alle Funktionsschwächen der Organe, auch z.B. der Drüsen, als auch für eine Krebserkrankung. Diese kann oft so früh erkannt werden, daß sie sich mit keiner anderen Methode sichern läßt.” My translation: “A few drops of blood are brought to crystallisation with copper chloride in a climate chamber. Decades of experience allow a very early diagnosis of all functional weaknesses of the organs and glands as well as of cancer. Cancer can often be detected earlier than with any other method.”

The reference to ‘decades of experience’ is more than ironic because the evidence suggesting that the CCBC might be valid originates from Rascher’s work in the 1930s; to the best of my knowledge no other ‘validation’ of the CCBC has ever become available. With his initial thesis, Rascher had produced amazingly positive results and subsequently lobbied to get an official research grant for testing the CCBC’s usefulness in cancer diagnosis. Intriguingly, he had to disguise the CCBC’s connection to anthroposophy; even though taken by most other alternative medicines, the Nazis had banned the Steiner cult.

Most but not all of Rascher’s research was conducted in the Dachau concentration camp where in 1941 a research unit was established in ‘block 5’ which, according to Rascher’s biographer, Sigfried Baer, contained his department and a homeopathic research unit led by Hanno von Weyherns and Rudolf Brachtel (1909-1988). I found the following relevant comment about von Weyherns: “Zu Jahresbeginn 1941 wurde in der Krankenabteilung eine Versuchsstation eingerichtet, in der 114 registrierte Tuberkulosekranke homöopathisch behandelt wurden. Leitender Arzt war von Weyherns. Er erprobte im Februar biochemische Mittel an Häftlingen.” My translation: At the beginning of 1941, an experimental unit was established in the sick-quarters in which 114 patients with TB were treated homeopathically. The chief physician was von Weyherns. In February, he tested Schuessler Salts [a derivative of homeopathy still popular in Germany today] on prisoners.

Today, all experts believe Rascher’s results, even those on CCBC, to be fraudulent. Rascher seems to have been not merely an over-ambitious yet mediocre physician turned sadistic slaughterer of innocent prisoners, he also was a serial falsifier of research data. It is likely that his fraudulent thesis on the anthroposophic blood test set him off on a life-long career of consummate research misconduct.

Before the end of the Third Reich, Rascher lost the support of Himmler and was imprisoned for a string of offences which were largely unrelated to his ‘research’. He was eventually brought back to the place of his worst atrocities, the concentration camp in Dachau. Days before the liberation of the camp by the US forces, Rascher was executed under somewhat mysterious circumstances. In my view, the CCBC should have vanished with him.

15 Responses to The sickening story of an ‘alternative cancer test’

  • “A close friend of Rascher, the anthroposoph and chemist Ehrenfried Pfeiffer”

    I studied Anthroposophy quite extensively in my 20s, before quitting it due to lack of connection to reality and inherent racism. I recently found out that the movement had some quite close connections with the Nazis. One of the authors I read and whose books I owned — Günther Wachsmuth was on record as being a Nazi sympathizer.

    They were always saying that “the Nazis closed all the Waldorf Schools”. What they never told me though was that although Himmler did close the schools, Rudolf Hess was a big supporter of Anthroposophy and lobbied to keep them open. And while Himmler did indeed close the schools, he had no problem with Bio-Dynamic agriculture. There was a BD farm in Dachau concentration camp (to which, incidentally, the Weleda Company supplied chemicals – I don’t know what for), and there were plans to convert all the farms in Eastern Europe to Bio-Dynamic.

    A couple of links regarding this-
    (And this goes to my own blog, to an article about Anthroposophists’ failure to deal with their Nazi past and racism)

    • Hello,
      Rudolf Hess was not a “close supporter of Waldorf-Schools”. His wife Ruth Hess was a friend of the Waldorf -Teacher Elisabeth Klein. Klein teaches Ruth Hess in bio-dynamic agriculture. And Klein asked Ruth Hess, to beg Rudolf Hess to help the Waldorfschool at Dresden. Rudolf Hess decided that the Waldorfschool Dresden was the only Waldorfschool in the Third Reich which gets a permission to work on. Rudolf Hess by himself has no contact to Anthroposophy or Waldorf-Schools.

  • “Intriguingly, he had to disguise the CCBC’s connection to anthroposophy; even though taken by most other alternative medicines, the Nazis had banned the Steiner cult.” To my knowledge this is not correct, at least insofar as it suggests a total ban on anthroposophy during the nazi era. As with all political parties and movements, there were factions within the nazi party/movement. While *some* aspects of Steiner’s ideology didn’t sit well with *some* quarters of the nazi movement, other aspects of his lunacy (mainly the practical ones referring to agriculture and pedagogics) where able to carve out a comfortable niche at the very heart of the Third Reich. There existed “biologic-dynamic” farms on the grounds of several nazi concentration camps (for instance Dachau and Ravensbrück), and they did so until the very end of the nazi rule (s. the German speaking article of Andreas Lichte linked to down below). This doesn’t mean anthroposophy and the nazi ideology are one and the same (which they aren’t), but there is a lot of common ground between those two. In fact, there is enough of it to void the repeated claims of anthroposophists their movement as a whole was a victim of nazism. Their nonsense was much less “verboten” than they claim it to have been.

    • Thank you for the link it was very interesting. I for personal reasons have been following (in the sense of observing!) Anthroposophy for the last 2 years, prior to that I had never heard of it or Rudolf Steiner.

      The Nazi/Anthro connections are obviously highly sensitive and when you dig connections can be found, but that is probably, sad to say, the case with many German societies, institutions and companies. Crucially were Anthroposophists more inclined to Nazism than the rest of the population?

      With regard to Sigmund Rascher it is my understanding that he himself wasn’t an Anthroposophist but his father was and sent him to a Waldorf school.

      Interesting for me would be to know the attitude of the Anthroposophical Society at its HQ in Switzerland during WWII. Being based in neutral Switzerland would have allowed them to be more vocal in their condemnation of the Nazis. From what I can gather they kept a low profile during this time – no doubt the Swiss authorities were happy with that also.

      Also did former Nazis after the War re-join/join the Anthroposophical Society? This I think more than anything else would signal Anthroposophy’s attitude to Nazism.

      • “The Nazi/Anthro connections are obviously highly sensitive and when you dig connections can be found (…)

        The problem here is the depth to which you need to dig. Nazism and anthroposophy have been cross-influencing each other on so many occasions (on an ideological and a practical level) that hardly any digging is required. Reading seems to be well enough.

        “Crucially were Anthroposophists more inclined to Nazism than the rest of the population?”

        This is hard to evaluate in absolute numbers, but it’s made more probable by several ideological building blocks shared between nazism and anthroposophy. Important ones (among others) being: racism, anti-rationalism and cult of personality.

        “Also did former Nazis after the War re-join/join the Anthroposophical Society?”

        Yes. A prominent case is Werner Georg Haverbeck, whose influence in post war anthroposophy in Germany was massive, in spite of his open support for right wing extremism (s. below). Another, more recent case is that of Andreas Molau, who professed his right wing views openly while being a Waldorf teacher (for classes in history and political science, of all things) and was only banned from acting as such when his involvement with right wing politics gained national notoriety. Other relevant names here (among many): Friedrich Benesch and Wolf-Dieter Schröppe. You can easily find a host of other instances, which allows for the conclusion that there is a significant “spike” in right wing extremism within in a relatively small segment of Germany’s overall population. The fact that right wing extremism and anthroposophy have gotten along so well for such a long time isn’t covered by coincidence.

        • and it seems to be the personality cult, amongst other things, that put some Nazis against anthroposophy: put simply, they did not allow Steiner to compete with Hitler.

          • I think this is true, and it worked the other way round as well: for some anthroposophists, Hitler didn’t qualify for messiah quite the way Steiner did.

          • Thanks Marcus, Georg Haverbeck seemed to have lived a pretty full life!
            Most Anthroposophists I have met are to the left of the political spectrum. They still espouse the ideas of Steiner’s threefolding movement and even think that one day it might be implemented; quite how, given a complete lack of interest from Joe public, is another matter.

  • Dear Mr. Ernst
    Your report is a short look to the Nazis and the Anthroposophy and it seems one-sided. Dr.S.Rascher and several other individuals, specially some farmers in the biodynamic part, who looked for healthy ground and nutrition, have had in part connection to the Nazis. That is known and can be cleared up more distinctly.
    If we look into present times, we need to recognize the further development of individuality and with it all different acts of big mistakes (!) or acts of beginning progress. What sort of anthropology do we use? Anthroposophie points to a learnig process, it is not this or that. The most of more famous people in A. have given strong counter-statements to Nazis, much earlier then 1933, also that should be worked out.

  • “He was also involved in testing a plant extract as a cure for cancer.” While I would assume the plant was toxic, can anyone provide its identity?

    • I’ve no direct evidence concerning what Rascher used, but mistletoe is the favourite anti-cancer plant for anthroposophists.

      • I don’t think it was mistletoe; the plant is mentioned in the biography that I lined to in the post – but I don’t have it currently with me to look it up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.