Articles

Live Blood Analysis: The Modern Auguries

I saw a patient last week who was self referred. He had been seeing a DC/ND for a variety of symptoms that turned out to be asthma. Not that the DC/ND made that diagnosis. His DC/ND diagnosed him with an infection, based on live blood analysis, and offered the patient a colonic detox as a cure. My patient thought he should get a second opinion before he submitted to a cleansing enema, always a good policy

Live blood analysis to diagnose an infection. I had never heard of the technique, but thanks to the google and the interwebs, I was soon immersed in the field.

In live blood analysis, the “physician” takes a drop of the patients blood and examines it under a high power phase contrast or a darkfield microscope. Changes in the constituents of the blood are noted and linked to a variety of ills.

It is an impressive and expensive system: microscopes and various support equipment start at around $5000 (3). However, live blood analysis has the opportunity to be lucrative in the right hands as the patient often gets weekly analysis to see how the interventions (usually supplements sold by the blood analyst) are working. Evidently in the hands of a skilled snake oil salesman, an income of $100,000 a year to more can be generated (8).

Live blood analysis is one of these alternative methodologies that has a hint of legitimacy that is extrapolated far out of proportion to its validity.

Phase contrast and darkfield microscopes are used in medicine, in my world primarily to look for syphilis. As a rule, most pathologic changes in the blood are best seen when various stains are applied to the blood sample. Most commonly a Wright”s stain is used on blood cells, because many diagnostic features are invisible on phase contrast. There are many different stains used in the pathology laboratory to help identify what you are observing under the microscope. Using different stains on microbial specimens can help categorize organisms before they can grow. It is not either-or, both phase contrast and other modalities are used in clinical medicine. More practical clinical information is derived from light microscopy on stained specimens.

An evaluation of the cells of the blood can give hints to the presence or cause of many diseases, from vitamin deficiencies to infection to leukemia. The CBC (complete blood count) with or without a differential (the types of cells seen) is part of any initial evaluation of ill patients.

With live blood analysis, practitioners take the seed of truth that the evaluation of the blood constituents can give valuable information and grow a forrest of fantasy and magic. It is something to behold.

Besides live blood, some practitioners also practice dry blood analysis, where they examine clot to look for patterns that are allegedly indicative of diseases.

Let’s evaluate each diagnosis made on live blood analysis. Note the key feature of each alleged diagnosis. The problem lies in diet, and supplements are the solution to the problem, which, it just so happens, are sold by the live blood analyst. Curious that while I am alleged to be a shill of big pharma, I do not get dime one from any supplements or other products sold in my office because I don’t sell stuff to my patients. Any alternative provider who makes part of their living from selling supplements has far more conflict of interest than most physicians.

Someone may argue that I am an Infectious Disease doctor, what do I know about blood analysis. I also showed these photographs to a hematopathologist and a hematologist. It was refreshing how they laughed and laughed and laughed at the descriptions I showed them of live blood analysis.

Live blood analysis evidently began with Gunther Enderlein at the turn of the last century. He was in the Bechamp school of disease etiology and his concepts are unintelligible in the context of modern biology and physiology. Enderlein placed blood under a darkflield microscope and interpreted the artifacts he saw as quasi-life forms, which he called protits, symbionts or endobionts, that could transform into pathogens (11). Only Live Blood analysts can see these forms. As one site says “Enderlein’s “Endobiont” only had meanings to dark field microscopists following his teaching (10).” There is large inter-operator variability in analyzing live blood and no two live blood analysts see the same pathologic changes on the same slide (7). Live blood analysis is the N-Ray of microscopy.

Overtime live blood analysis expanded to include multiple diet related diagnosis, and is sometimes called nutritional blood analysis, the better, I suppose, to sell expensive supplements.

Here is where I apologize.

It appears that copyright laws prevent me from showing specific examples to blood analysis, so I add the link instead. Lots of clicking back and forth, I know, but I do respect intellectual property, although to apply the word “intellectual” to live blood analysis is akin to calling a naturopath a doctor. Lets say I respect their property. These photographs are widely reproduced on the net, but I am uncertain as to who, if anyone, owns the copyright, so I will be careful. There is evidently one lawyer for every 265 Americans.

Rouleau (http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/hematology/HessEDD/BenignHematologicDisorders/redbloodcelldisorders/rouleaux.cfm)

In real medicine rouleau is an anomaly seen with paraproteinemias such as multiple myeloma. The extra proteins in the blood alter the charge on red cells, causing them to stack like coins.

In the world of live blood analysis, the are more causes:

“Often poor protein digestion. The pancreas may be off. Excess dietary protein, poor assimilation. Eating too much animal protein. Blood too toxic (altered blood pH) from stress, coffee, cigarettes, meat, etc. Dehydration, not drinking enough water (2).” None of these issues is known to cause rouleau formation. However, it you have multiple myeloma and you see a live blood analyst, the chance of having a serious and important diagnosis misdiagnosed and incorrectly treated is high.

Other photos here: http://healthenlightenment.com/live-blood-cell-analysis.shtml

RBC Aggregation    http://www.betterblood.net/gallery.htm

“The loss of the negative surface charge; this is a more disorganizing symptom where plasma acids act as molecular glue, causing RBCs to stick together (0).”

The “Live Blood Analysis Diploma Course (1)” says it is due to “ingestion of high fat meals, high blood cholesterol levels, and blood fat chemistry imbalances.”

No. That is not the cause of red cell aggregation outside of Dr. Young, the acid maven. There are no plasma acids that act as a molecular glue. Diet does not make red cells stick together, unless you dine on Elmer’s.

Protein Linkage   http://www.betterblood.net/gallery.htm

“Over acidity and blood pH imbalance. The diet is high in strong acids from proteins and carbohydrates. (0)” Perhaps “digestive insufficiency, excess protein consumption, imbalanced electrolytes, and inability to assimilate lipids or toxicity (1). ” A pathologic finding due to an excess and an insufficiency.

This is a made up nonsense. Blood pH is constant at 7.4 and varies not at all except under severe metabolic derangements like diabetic ketoacidosis and sepsis.

Macrocytes, Microcytes   http://www.betterblood.net/gallery.htm

“Ingestion of an excessive amount of over acidic food and drinks which causes a deficiency of sodium bicarbonate in the alkalophile glands (4).”

Macrocytes are most often due to B12 or folate deficiency, although there are other causes like AZT and hypothyroidism. Microcytes are most often due to iron deficiency and can be a marker of bowel cancer. Microcytes and macrocytes on a smear can represent serious underlying diseases, but are not due to “a deficiency of sodium bicarbonate in the alkalophile glands. ” Missing the real cause of these abnormalities could prove fatal, which, with their erroneous understanding of blood cell morphology, live blood analysts would be prone to do.

Echinocytes   http://www.betterblood.net/gallery.htm

“Latent tissue acidosis in the extra cellular fluid and the body’s inability to remove acid waste build up in the blood causing the cells to break down (0).”

No, latent tissue acidosis is not the cause of echinocytes. These are pathologic and a marker of liver disease.

Fibrous Thallus   http://www.betterblood.net/gallery.htm

“Indicates a nationalization of bacteria, yeast/fungus, mold, and their acid wastes and acid crystals lying in a dormant/inactive state (0).” Sounds worrisome. Biomedx says “The presence of large numbers of protoplast structures in peripheral blood is an unfavorable sign. Some authors propose they are a collection of progenitor cryptocides (Livingston-Wheeler). Progenitor meaning existing across millennia at the beginning, cryptocides meaning cellular killer. Protoplasts are thought to be related with infectious disease or neoplastic activity and or L-form bacteria. They are thought to be viral in origin (5).” Try as I might, I cannot understand what any of this means.

When you look at the photograph, what is seen is artifact of the slide, not a constituent of blood. Schmutz. Slides are not pristine and stray bits of cloth, cells and environmental dirt is common on the cells. A skilled microscopist understands the difference between artifact and real pathology. The patient, however, does not, and if I were not knowledgeable about cellular morphology I would be most impressed to see a large fibrous thallus in my blood. The explanation of fibrous thallus is nonsensical pseudoscientific gibberish.

Fibrin Spicules   http://www.betterblood.net/gallery.htm

“Involved in clotting to prevent internal bleeding. There is usually an increase during detoxification with the complete program and effective diet because the body is pulling acids stored in the connective tissues back into bloodstream for elimination (1).”

Glass is good at causing fibrin to precipitate out of blood, so occasionally you will see clot on the slide. Some of the photos in the net are artifact, some are fibrin, and all are the normal response to blood on glass. Again, the explanation is nonsense.

Mold   http://www.betterblood.net/gallery.htm

“Yeast overgrowth, collection of yeast, bacterial, fungus, mold. very toxic. Indicated in advanced stages of latent tissue acidosis. Highly disruptive to normal blood circulation (0).”

You never see mould in the blood in people who are not in the ICU dying of sepsis and profound immunocompromise.

These are not mold, they are artifacts on the slide.

Target Cells   http://www.betterblood.net/gallery.htm

“Fermenting RBCs; White spots or white yeast forms inside RBCs; Indicates the diet is too high in carbohydrates/simple sugars; sugar intolerance and/or imbalance; endocrine system/ pancreas stress (0).”

Red cells do not ferment and yeast do not live in red cells. This is fiction.

Yeast http://www.betterblood.net/gallery2.htm

“Born out of RBCs due to blood pH Imbalance from latent tissue acidosis; diet too high in protein, carbohydrates/ sugars; may be caused by excess antibiotic use, hormonal therapy, steroid use; fungal outfection (0)”

This is artifact, not yeasts. Yeasts can only been seen in people dying of overwhelming sepsis from profound neutropenia. Yeasts are not “born out of RBC’s.” More nonsense.

Platelets  http://www.betterblood.net/gallery2.htm

“High counts are due to latent tissue acidosis and excess acids in the bloodstream not being eliminated through the urinary tract causing RBCs to biologically transform giving birth to “filthy, dirty, platelets.”

Red blood cells do not biologically transform into platelets, much less filthy dirty ones.

Rod Forms  http://www.betterblood.net/gallery2.htm

“Bacterial forms born out of RBCs and found in the blood when there is latent tissue acidosis which alters the blood pH; due to acidic diet, emotional or physical stress, low nascent oxygen (O1); waste products of bacteria and yeast/ fungus (0). “

Bacteria are not born out of red blood cells. More fiction and fantasy. The rod forms, like the L forms seen in some slides, are artifacts. The rods are many times larger than any known bacteria.

Anesthetized WBC”s  http://www.betterblood.net/gallery2.htm

“Indicates recent consumption of excess sugars/ carbohydrates or proteins; WBCs are paralyzed by the acids (acetyl aldehyde, ethanol alcohol, lactic, nitric, uric, sulfuric, and phosphoric) for up to 5 hours (0).”

White cells cannot be anesthetized, although I can be when reading these sites. The photo to me and others appears to be a normal cell. Of course, if you can diagnosis a normal cell as paralyzed by a dietary lack, then everyone can benefit from supplements.

Basophiles   http://www.betterblood.net/gallery2.htm

“Perceived to be related to allergies and/or sensitivities to foods or the environment; exotoxic and mycotoxic reactions; histaminea. Alergic reactions to dairy (0).”

The only way you can diagnose a basophile is by staining it.

Crystals  http://www.betterblood.net/gallery2.htm

“Crystals are observed when there is excess acidity. It is the body’s preservation mechanism to buffer acidity and create a solid form which is less toxic than the liquid acids. Crystal are perceived to be he signature of the microzyma fermenting sugar, protein or fat (0).”

Making more stuff up. I feel like there should be a midget shouting “Boss, Boss, Da live blood, the live blood” as they only place such physiology exists is on fantasy island.

The crystals on every live blood site are artifact not of blood, but of schmutz on the slide. One practitioner noted some of the crystals looked like glass, but were in cholesterol. No, it was glass, a by-product of making the slides from glass. Microzyma are not the small empress of Oz, but the imaginary micro organisms of Bechamp and are artifacts of darkfield microscopy.

Black Crystals  http://www.betterblood.net/gallery2.htm

More schmutz/artifact on the slide.

“Tobacco, marijuana; chemical, recreational and prescription drugs. Brown is also associate with the fermentation of protein (0).”

I can imagine some gullible person losing a job because of drug use found on live blood analysis. If companies will use handwriting analysis or, in Japan, blood type as a basis for hiring and firing, live blood analysis will be next.

Cholesterol  http://www.betterblood.net/gallery2.htm

More schmutz on the slide. You cannot see cholesterol on a blood smear.

“Usually indicates high blood pressure, arterial sclerosis, high cholesterol. Diet is too high in animal source proteins. Dehydration, acidosis (0).”

Taking the blood pressure usually indicates high blood pressure. It is a simple enough diagnostic procedure and more reliable than looking at live blood. Similarly, a fasting lipid panel may be the more accurate way to diagnosis hypercholesterolemia.

In summary, virtually every diagnosis in live blood analysis is nonsense and much of the alleged pathology is either normal or artifact on the slide. The alleged pathophysiology is also nonsense; they just make this stuff up.

Live blood analysts tend to make up words and processes that sound scientific and cromulous (6): several sites refer to seeing orimbryonic bacteria, but the google cannot find a definition. This pseudoscientific jargon and imaginary physiology combined with the a microscope and a view of their own blood, which most people have never seen, gives the live blood analysis proponents the trappings of real science. A nickel says they wear white coats.

There is no validity behind almost all of the claims made by the practitioners. The one study that looked at the ability for blinded live blood analyzers to make the same diagnosis demonstrated that no two viewers saw the same thing (7). The one diagnostic trial of live blood analysis demonstrated that practitioners were unable to accurately diagnose patients with known metastatic cancer (9).

Many of the web sites show before and after slides to demonstrate the benefits of the detox or supplements or diet have had on the blood. It all depends on what microscopic field on a given slide you choose to present. If you were to show the front of my scalp as the before and the back as the after, you would conclude that something made my hair grow in the interim.

Live blood analysis is a remarkable the combination of artifacts being diagnosed as pathology combined with an imaginary pathophysiology that is completely divorced from reality. It is microscopic paradolia, with the practitioners seeing their own imagining in the structures on the slides. When I was a child, before I learned to cursive writing, I would make squiggles on paper occasionally crossing a ‘t’ and dotting an ‘i’. It was gibberish but I called it real writing. I didn’t realize I was in training to be a live blood analyst.

Live blood analysis does not resemble most alternative medicine modalities, but is more akin to high tech reading of tea leaves or the entrails of pig to divine the future. It is the cargo cult of quackery, with the trappings of science but none of the substance.

=====

0) http://www.betterblood.net/gallery.htm

1) www.collegenaturalmedicine.com/images/LBA/LBACOURSES/interpretng%20blood%20morphologies-8-1.pdf

2) http://biomedx.com/microscopes/training/LB1.html

3) http://biomedx.com/microscopes/systems/pricing.html

4) “alkalophile glands” appears to be an invention of Dr. Young, a major shill for acids as the cause of every diseases. As he says “alkalophile glands that need these quick bases in order to build up their strong sodium bicarbonate secretions. These glands and organs are the stomach, pancreas, Brunner”s glands (between the pylorus and the junctions of the bile and pancreatic ducts) Lieberkuhn”s glands in the liver and its bile with its strong acid binding capabilities which it has to produce.” http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com/2008/10/get-off-your-fat-acid.html

5) http://biomedx.com/microscopes/training/LB6.html

6) Thanks Steve.

7) Altern Ther Health Med. 2006 Jul-Aug;12(4):36-41. Reliability of Enderlein’s darkfield analysis of live blood.

CONTEXT: In 1925, the German zoologist Günther Enderlein, PhD, published a concept of microbial life cycles. His observations of live blood using darkfield microscopy revealed structures and phenomena that had not yet been described. Although very little research has been conducted to explain the phenomena Dr. Enderlein observed, the diagnostic test is still used in complementary and alternative medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To test the interobserver reliability and test-retest reliability of 2 experienced darkfield specialists who had undergone comparable training in Enderlein blood analysis.

SETTING: Inpatient clinic for internal medicine and geriatrics.

METHODS: Both observers assessed 48 capillary blood samples from 24 patients with diabetes. The observers were mutually blind and assessed their findings according to a specific item randomization list that allowed observers to specify whether Enderlein structures were visible or not.

RESULTS: The interobserver reliability for the visibility of various structures was kappa = .35 (95% CI: .27-.43), the test-retest reliability was kappa = .44 (95% CI: .36-.53).

CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study indicates that Enderlein darkfield analysis is very difficult to standardize and that the reliability of the diagnostic test is low.

PMID: 16862741

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/livecell.html

(8) http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/livecell2.htm

(9) Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2005 Jun;12(3):148-51. Epub 2005 Jun 23. [Does dark field microscopy according to Enderlein allow for cancer diagnosis? A prospective study]

BACKGROUND: Dark field microscopy according to Enderlin claims to be able to detect forthcoming or beginning cancer at an early stage through minute abnormalities in the blood. In Germany and the USA, this method is used by an increasing number of physicians and health practitioners (non-medically qualified complementary practitioners), because this easy test seems to give important information about patients’ health status.

OBJECTIVE: Can dark field microscopy reliably detect cancer?

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the course of a prospective study on iridology, blood samples were drawn for dark field microscopy in 110 patients. A health practitioner with several years of training in the field carried out the examination without prior information about the patients. RESULTS: Out of 12 patients with present tumor metastasis as confirmed by radiological methods (CT, MRI or ultra-sound) 3 were correctly identified. Analysis of sensitivity (0.25), specificity (0.64), positive (0.09) and negative (0.85) predictive values revealed unsatisfactory results.

CONCLUSION: Dark field microscopy does not seem to reliably detect the presence of cancer. Clinical use of the method can therefore not be recommended until future studies are conducted.

(10) http://www.drseeger.com/endobiontprion.html

(11) A miniature form of Venom.

Posted in: Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (83) ↓

83 thoughts on “Live Blood Analysis: The Modern Auguries

  1. Harriet Hall says:

    Thanks for this, Mark. I knew about live blood analysis, but only in a general way. Your analysis of each spurious finding is very helpful, and will be a great resource for patients who inquire about the test.

    Stephen Barrett has an article about this on Quackwatch at http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/livecell.html He asks, “If you encounter anyone who performs any type of live cell analysis, please report this to your state department of laboratories and send a copy of your notice to me.”

  2. JayHawkDoc says:

    I found myself typing “I can’t believe this is real”, when I caught myself, thought of all the other ridiculousness passed off as science and died a little inside. Sigh.

  3. Jayhox says:

    Great article as always, Mark. I can’t believe what people fall for.

    Wait. Yes I can.

    Shout out to JayHawkDoc. Rock Chalk! I’m a Jayhawk Doc too!

  4. Pman says:

    Guys, don’t lump probiotics in with this one! Great double-blinded placebo controlled prospective trial, certified by my gastroenterologist academic mentor @ UNC.

    Needs to be replicated on a larger scale, but guys – this stuff works. Don’t take too long to jump on board!

    Effect of a probiotic preparation (VSL#3) on induction and maintenance of remission in children with ulcerative colitis.
    Miele E, Pascarella F, Giannetti E, Quaglietta L, Baldassano RN, Staiano A.
    Department of Pediatrics, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy.
    OBJECTIVES: Several probiotic compounds have shown promise in the therapy of ulcerative colitis (UC). However, a strong sustained benefit remains to be seen. Uncontrolled pilot studies suggest that a probiotic preparation (VSL#3) maintains remission in mild to moderate UC and reduces active inflammation in adult patients. Aims of our prospective, 1-year, placebo-controlled, double-blind study were to assess the efficacy of VSL#3 on induction and maintenance of remission and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the probiotic preparation therapy in children with active UC. METHODS: A total of 29 consecutive patients (mean age: 9.8 years; range: 1.7-16.1 years; female/male: 13/16) with newly diagnosed UC were randomized to receive either VSL#3 (weight-based dose, range: 450-1,800 billion bacteria/day; n=14) or an identical placebo (n=15) in conjunction with concomitant steroid induction and mesalamine maintenance treatment. Children were prospectively evaluated at four time points: within 1 month, 2 months, 6 months, and 1 year after diagnosis or at the time of relapse. Lichtiger colitis activity index and a physician’s global assessment were used to measure disease activity. At baseline, within 6 months and 12 months or at the time of relapse, all patients were assessed endoscopically and histologically. RESULTS: All 29 patients responded to the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) induction therapy. Remission was achieved in 13 patients (92.8%) treated with VSL#3 and IBD therapy and in 4 patients (36.4%) treated with placebo and IBD therapy (P<0.001). Overall, 3 of 14 (21.4%) patients treated with VSL#3 and IBD therapy and 11 of 15 (73.3%) patients treated with placebo and IBD therapy relapsed within 1 year of follow-up (P=0.014; RR=0.32; CI=0.025-0.773; NNT=2). All 3 patients treated with VSL#3 and 6 of 11 (54.5%) patients treated with placebo relapsed within 6 months of diagnosis. At 6 months, 12 months, or at time of relapse, endoscopic and histological scores were significantly lower in the VSL#3 group than in the placebo group (P<0.05). There were no biochemical or clinical adverse events related to VSL#3. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first pediatric, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that suggests the efficacy and safety of a highly concentrated mixture of probiotic bacterial strains (VSL#3) in active UC and demonstrates its role in maintenance of remission.

  5. DoctorLaw says:

    Watch out: The analysts’ lexicon is still in its orimbryonic state.

    When the argot is fully developed, it will embiggen the science-i-ness to even greater cromulousness.

  6. daijiyobu says:

    Dr. C. wrote:

    “to apply the word ‘intellectual’ to live blood analysis is akin to calling a naturopath a doctor.”

    Love it, and I went to ND school for 4 years and left because it was wounding my integrity!

    ND = not-a-doctor.

    I always am shocked at the complete lack of ND intellect:

    a) an ND State Board will basically ban blood cell analysis

    (see http://www.npbomex.az.gov/UserFiles/File/LBA%20Notice(1).pdf )

    presumably because they’re acknowledging that the science ain’t there [but more likely due to external pressures];

    b) yet NDs mandate completely stupid antiscience stuff that isn’t even rational never mind scientific

    (see http://www.oregon.gov/OBNE/Aboutnaturopathy.shtml ),

    since they label premises and claims that are completely science-ejected as able to survive scientific scrutiny.

    I see the NDs’ strategy this way:

    we’ll redefine science at our convenience, internally

    while pretending towards scientific integrity externally.

    -r.c.

  7. Sastra says:

    I have a friend who is a trained nurse, and yet fell for this stuff. She seemed to be very impressed by the fact that the quack would show her before and after pictures, pointing out changes made with the nutritional supplements so she could “see if all for herself.” My protests that this was all pseudoscience couldn’t outweigh the fact that she had seen photos.

  8. pmoran says:

    It is all very silly, but at least they are not pretending to be diagnosing and treating *real* illnesses, ones that might require anything more than the usual mainstays of AM — diet, supplements and detox. (I wonder what the treatment for “spiritual discopnnection” is?)

    However, enemas are too dangerous to be used as placebo or hobbyist medicine. Everyone should know that even within hospitals with supposedly well-trained staff bowels are occasionally perforated by enemas, and there can be other unpleasantnesses from the misdirection of enema nozzles.

  9. skeptik says:

    Its like reading tea leaves or entrails. The major difference being that instead of entrails, you read the lint on microscope slides! Why do they even bother to put the blood on the slides, dramatic effect?

  10. shadowmouse says:

    The “gallery” presented is a great primer about how poor slide prep produces worthless diagnostic smears – and how anyone can pull captions outta their ass to “interpret” what they supposedly show.

    I see poor technique, artifacts, and loads of BS.

    The macro/mico cytes and target cells are indicative of bigger problems that need more than just supplements – say, like, real diagnostics by an actual physician??

    Yeast is born from RBCs?

    The “dry” preps all show normal physiologic changes such as cell agglutination and component separation of the samples by desicating (aka drying).

    The rouloux pic makes me think that a horse sample got slipped in…

    The ‘anesthetized WBC’? – Ummm, a normal large lymphocyte.

    The ‘basophile’ slide looks like a very common monocyte cell, basos are very uncommon. As stated by Dr. C, a Wright stain would be needed to identify it by the taking up the basophillic stain and beautiful blue cytoplasmic granules (‘causing it to pine for the fjords…)

  11. The Blind Watchmaker says:

    I think I saw this in the 80′s version of the “The Thing”. Kurt Russell wanted to find out which of his crew was really an alien. He took blood samples from each crew member and put a hot poker into each one. The blood sample that screamed and jumped in pain was the alien blood.

    Other than than, this sounds ridiculous.

  12. Joe says:

    pmoran on 13 Feb 2009 at 6:42 pm wrote

    “It is all very silly, but at least they are not pretending to be diagnosing and treating *real* illnesses …”

    In this case, the quack was mis-diagnosing and offering bogus treatment for real disease.

  13. Tuomas Kaasalainen says:

    I would like to hear Mark Crislip`s comments on the following video. It shows some interesting blood “artifacts” made visible by a microscope tehcnique that has higher resolution and depth of the field than traditional microscopes. You can see some pathogens in action in cancer patient`s blood.

    http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/symbiosis_or_parasitism.html

  14. pmoran says:

    Yes, that is serious, Joe, and I would not defend it Yet the patient showed some ability to appropriately mete out allegiance in medical matters. I think most “alternative” users do this, using proper doctors for diagnosis and the initial treatment of major illness and resorting to alternative health care practitioners mainly with intractable problems and those that are not seen as too threatening. People would be dying like flies from “alternative” mismanagement if it were not for such a discriminatory capacity in most of the public.

    While we are unable to completely ban such practitioners, and while so many skeptics are against registration and thus better regulation of alternative practitioners, about all we can do is try and foster such discrimination, when allegiance is divided.

    So by all means attack the bad science and the blatantly false claims, but there should also be a simple, insistent, drum beat: “Yes, alternative methods are helping some people with some kinds of problem but they should not be relied upon for diagnosis, or as stand alone treatments of serious conditions.”

    I think that will ring true with most people, because it is the truth.

  15. Joe says:

    pmoran on 14 Feb 2009 at 4:06 pm wrote “… While we are unable to completely ban such practitioners, and while so many skeptics are against registration and thus better regulation of alternative practitioners …”

    In the US, registration does not result in better regulation. Instead, it leaves the inmates in charge of the madhouse. A case in point, an unlicensed ND in Utah (where they can be licensed) killed a woman and was criminally charged. His lawyer complained that- if the state had only granted the guy a license, there would be no criminality. That is a chilling idea- same offense, no criminality if he was licensed.

    With respect to civil action, a chiropractor who adjusts the spine of a child with appendicitis (who, subsequently, has an acute episode) may be held harmless since s/he was applying the licensed “standard of care.”

    In practice, quack licenses are licenses to kill with impunity.

    How would one license an ND/DC? What would you permit them to do? They are not competent in any aspect of health care (except where they parrot health professionals).

    The only rational and effective regulation is to enforce laws against practicing medicine without a license.

  16. pmoran says:

    Joe, you may well be right, but do we really have clear evidence one way or the other as to whether any kind of regualtion or registration reduces or increases the risks of AM? There is also the question as to what is feasible, given the public and political outcry whenever we try to restrict access to CAM.

    Are incidents of harm greater or less in those American states that license naturopaths? Do you know? Chiropractors have been licensed forever and only occasionally kill people, despite a cluelessness of some that rivals that of any other “alternative” modality.

    There has to be a relatively rare conjunction of practitioner stupidity and exceptional patient naivety for serious harm to occur within the offices of “alternative” practitioners. There is furthermore no assurance that those so committed to AM as to come to harm from it would have turned to proper doctors if the “alternative” options were closed to them. Even if you have cancer, you can go to Mexico or buy a “cure” over the Internet.

    I don’t know all the answers, but I am trying to better understand the ballgame.

  17. wertys says:

    I have to say I think Dr Crislip’s point about naturopaths et al selling the exact ‘cures’ to the imaginary illnesses they are diagnosing is a much bigger conflict of interest than getting a free lunch from a drug company, or more to the point, having a drug company pay for an educational event that hospitals, primary care organizations or individuals won’t pay for.

    As a card-carrying member of the medical-industrial complex, I’m still waiting for my cheque to arrive for all the drugs I prescribe. Particularly where I live, as our local state government pays us a generous allowance as part of our public hospital employment to spend on professional development, so we don’t in fact have to rely on drug company sponsorship to attend overseas or interstate conferences or other expensive professional development interests.

    can’t imagine altmed types having that as part of their pay arrangements…

  18. DLC says:

    “Free” lunch from a drug rep ?
    Rubber chicken at some seminar ?
    this compares to a profit sharing deal with so-called supplements?
    Sorry, I’m not buying that.

  19. Mikkoscopist says:

    Crislip states “Blood pH is constant at 7.4 and varies not at all except under severe metabolic derangements like diabetic ketoacidosis and sepsis.”

    If you think so, then you better check this out:
    http://www.armila.com/admin/uploaded_files/IMAGE52-Latent%20Acidosis.pdf

    The article shows that blood pH buffering mechanism is breaking after age 30+. Blood pH drops and the bicarbonate concentration also goes downwards. Therefore Crislip’s opinion is incorrect.

    People over 30 years might well benefit from more alkaline diet or alkaline supplements.

  20. Mikkoscopist says:

    According to Crislip, yeast and crystals are just artefacts on the slide.

    Well, according to videos neutrophils seem to be skilled in gathering those artefacts away from the blood:
    http://users.jyu.fi/~mikvapa/ValkosoluRaahaaHiivaa.mpg
    http://users.jyu.fi/~mikvapa/ValkosoluRaahaaKristallia.mpg

    And it is quite strange that these “artifacts” appear every time a blood sample is drawn from the same persons fingertip whereas with some other person’s blood these “artifacts” never show up. Strange thing :)

    According to Crislip, basophils can be only diagnosed by staining the blood.

    Basophils have granules which are moving in the live blood view in contrast to neutrophils, which do not have granules. Here is an example of a basophil in a still picture and they are easy to diagnose without staining with a bright-field phase contrast microscope:
    http://users.jyu.fi/~mikvapa/Basophile.jpg

    But continue on finding bugs about the live blood method. Some of them were really helpful.

    Maybe someday also serious researchers will start publishing articles without so many errors as in Crislips article. Also dry blood method would be worth checking with scientific tests. Now PubMed seems to be completely silent about the dry blood method.

  21. Joe says:

    pmoran on 15 Feb 2009 at 1:12 am asked “[D]o we really have clear evidence one way or the other as to whether any kind of regulation or registration reduces or increases the risks of AM?”

    pmoran is probably familiar with this; but for the rest, there is a succinct argument, with links to more information, see: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/atwood.html

    I am not aware of any studies. However, since the problem with quacks is not simply lack of education; rather, it is dangerous mis-education. Licensing certainly gives a false impression of validity, and that cannot be good. It is also certain that licensure protects the quack from some legal actions.

    Licenses also allow the quack to work in the open to recruit customers more easily. And there are other kinds of harm than physical. In particular, I am thinking of financial harm from the sales of supplements, or the never-ending trips to the chiro.

    Some chiropractor’s want to be primary care physicians http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=53668&MERCURYSID=752e47645398c3dc1dc764b7ceb02fec despite their utter lack of knowledge in diagnosis. One can find similar arguments (and rebuttal) linked in the URL about naturopathy, above. This must lead to more delayed treatment.

    It is incumbent on the quacks to explain what benefits derive from licensure and regulation. As usually done, the benefit accrues entirely to them in the ability to practice as if they are health care professionals.

  22. Newcoaster says:

    Thanks for this article, it was another area of medical woo that I had only heard about, but haven’t yet looked looked into. I’m not aware of anybody offering this “service” in my community, but I do get requests for unusual blood test all the time from patients that have been to naturopaths. There is currently a (sneaky backdoor ) move by the Minister of Health of British Columbia to allow Naturopaths to refer to themselves as “doctor”, be able to order (and interpret !!) various diagnostic tests, and to prescribe Class 1 and 2 medications.

    (a link to the summary of the proposed changes, as well as some responses from appalled family doctors is here

    http://campaign.constantcontact.com/render?v=001JNnNfsqzXkuOymOk4L8BO7oWkqPpZWijBe_247HDDpxMYeq-PoIuiaVXq4CZPcVMmoRFyE8fXTvsxTPbchh1ZE7Lw9ML6lKcd7V6kB4JDsmgPlpLEbKDezK4jsg18fQj5ThxYrlWBgZZdSxWfIOI9wK0Q_EuuuzAQdOpdBh10k3WxrIR6HLb5vB2oN2Hb3Fwc8FKn3H8r5DNbyZnnlwPTg4DuD2gPJAxP4P_EHWc2n_pSeSF67oCra1pmW0DjIvO6w2UXl1lPTeht_7jiKIrQFgUOCsx00WU7qb3-8R8AUE%3D#LETTER.BLOCK5

    You also point out a topic that keeps coming up with various SCAM practitioners, the blatant conflict of interest between being the person who both diagnoses the problem, and sells the cure. This is something that has been denied to doctors (and to a lesser extent pharmacists) for many years. It is endemic to Naturopaths, Homeopaths and many other practitioners of health care fraud.

  23. Prometheus says:

    Mikkoscopist claims:

    “The article [note: failed to load despite repeated trials] shows that blood pH buffering mechanism is breaking after age 30+. Blood pH drops and the bicarbonate concentration also goes downwards. Therefore Crislip’s opinion is incorrect.

    Although I was unable to get the “article” to load, the “opinion” that blood remains at pH 7.4 (arterial) except under life-threatening conditions is supported by decades of data, mostly in the form of arterial blood gas tests, done by the millions in people of all ages (although people over 30 are probably over-represented).

    Mikkoscopist is, therefore, utterly incorrect to [a] assume that this is simply Dr. Crislip’s opinion and [b] to believe that arterial or venous blood pH buffering “breaks” after age 30+.

    I suspect that “Mikkoscopist” does “live blood analysis” and “dried blood analysis” as part of his/her occupation. What else could account for the combination of staggering arrogance with stupefying ignorance?

    Another interesting question. In my state, “naturopaths” (ND’s) are allowed to prescribe a large number of prescription drugs, including antibiotics, analgesics, statins, etc. Why would they want this privilege? Aren’t they supposed to abhor “chemicals” in favor of “natural” remedies (e.g. Coniine, the “natural” cure for social dissidents)?

    It is certainly revealing to see that ND’s want to have prescribing privileges, since it is tacit admission on their part that their teachings about “natural” and “herbal” cures are nothing but errant nonsense. When they get out into the real world, the ND’s want to be able to use real medicines, not the “natural” garbage they learned about in school.

    Why do some state license them? Purely political pressure, as with the chiropractors, homeopaths and other practitioners of fantasy-based “healing” arts. Why don’t the states also license dowsers, psychics, astrologers and witches? They haven’t provided enough campaign money, that’s why.

    Prometheus

  24. Yay, Mark! Thanks for the rundown and link to the betterblood.net site; I needed a good laugh this evening!

    Prometheus, I have a Socratic crush on you– I love you for your arguments!

  25. superdave says:

    I think this is the worst kind of pseudoscience because it blurs the line so well that the layman is really not prepared at all to evaluate this sort of claim.

  26. shadowmouse says:

    Mikkoscopist, err, Full-of-crapist:

    The most common granular-cytoplasmic WBC is an eosinophil, basophils are very rarely seen in circulating blood. A stain such as Wrights must be used to positively identify any WBC.

    Each individual has their own unique mix of yeast, bacteria, and other debris on their skin – so it’s no wonder that the junk artifacts show up consistant with each patient, especially with the poor collection and prep of the samples.

    Neutophils that have ingested yeast or bacteria have a much different appearance than junk artifacts on the slide. Again, it boils down to proper collection and prep – something that this bogus ‘living analysis’ totally lacks.

    You lose.

  27. Mikkoscopist says:

    Prometheus can try to load the article via this link and see Figure 3:
    http://www.ganzheitsmedizin.ch/gm_articles/2006_vol_18/issue_5/gm_2006_18_5_255_266.pdf

    And yes I do live and dry blood tests, but haven’t been able to find published scientific results about the methods.

  28. Mikkoscopist says:

    For shadowmouse there is a picture of two basophiles and one eosinophil:
    http://users.jyu.fi/~mikvapa/2BasosAndEosinophil.jpg
    Eosinophils have two nucleus inside which are lacking from basophiles and also the granules are not as clearly seen as in basophiles.

    Taking pictures of different kind of white blood cells is easy without stains. Eosinophils and basophiles are not very common in live blood samples for example compared to neutrophils, but some amount of eosinophils and basophiles can be seen almost in every sample.

  29. qetzal says:

    Mikkoscopist wrote this stunningly ironic sentence:

    And yes I do live and dry blood tests, but haven’t been able to find published scientific results about the methods.

    Does it occur to you to wonder why that is? Do you ever question whether you’re doing it right ? Or even whether there’s any right way to do it at all?

    Probably not.

  30. Harriet Hall says:

    Mikkoscopist,

    You are showing your ignorance by not knowing the correct plural of nucleus (nuclei) and by asserting that eosinophils have two of them. The typical eosinophil has one bilobed nucleus, although there is a great deal of variation.

    As for the picture in your link, how could you verify which is which? “It looks like it” isn’t enough. Where are the double-blinded controlled trials showing that your interpretation of such pictures corresponds to identification of the cells by conventional means?

  31. shadowmouse says:

    Hrmm…my last reply seems to have gotten lost…

    ——————————————-

    Mikkoscopist,

    Harriet is correct, you are waaaay wrong.

    Those 3 cells are most likely eos, but they would need to be stained to be correctly identified.

    “Taking pictures of different kind of white blood cells is easy without stains.”

    Your point??

    “Eosinophils and basophiles are not very common in live blood samples for example compared to neutrophils, but some amount of eosinophils and basophiles can be seen almost in every sample.”

    Basos are rare, but there eos are fairly common, along with monos, lymphs, and various nucleated, immature RBCs that can mimic WBCs
    when viewed without proper prep/staining.

  32. Canucklehead says:

    To Newcoaster:

    I followed your link and sent a letter to the Minister of Health of BC stating my belief that Naturopaths should not be called doctor. They are in the main practitioners of Woo, and if this ‘live blood analysis’ blog is representative of their treatments then BC might even be better off without them altogether, titled or not.
    Canucklehead

  33. Mikkoscopist says:

    Harriet’s description of eosinophils is correct, one nucleus with a bilobed structure.

    But agreeing with shadowmouse is hard. Live blood’s “eosinophils” can be mixed up with live blood’s “monos”, “lymphs” and “sleeping neutrophils” because they are not moving and can be formed in many ways. However, mixing live blood’s “basos” with “eosinophils” is not very likely because the granules of “basos” are moving all the time and the whole “basophil” crawls like “moving neutrophils” in the plasma. “Eosinophils” do not do that. I use quote marks to emphasize that at least I haven’t find any research articles correlating stained blood sample with a live blood sample and therefore their identification is not proven. Such kind of a test should be quite easy to do with proper equipment for some medical researcher.

    Also concerning qetzal’s question about the right way of doing live blood. The procedure has been described at least by Bessis in Living blood cells and their ultrastructure:
    http://www.getcited.org/pub/101344170

    In overall identifying different white blood cells does not bring benefits, because all samples have some amount of different white blood cells. The effort of proving different features of live blood method should be targeted to identifying non white blood cell “artifacts” like different kind of “crystals” (green, red, yellow and black ones are most common), “yeast” etc. which remain unseen in stained or laser-beam scanned blood samples. Designing such an experiment is at least to me unknown and no idea of what kind of an equipment would be suitable for such task. Also it would be good to correlate whether different kind of red blood cell structures (acantocytes, echinocytes etc.) in live blood view correlates with conventional blood tests. The microscopist can for example make an error by pressing the cover slide on the bottom slide and thus break some parts of the live blood sample.

    Considering the use of live blood method in diagnosis the main idea is to see what things might be wrong in the blood and after live blood view conducting exact conventional blood tests to verify the diagnosis. This would save some effort because guessing conventional blood tests beforehand is sometimes hard and many times the selected conventional blood tests produce results which are within normal range. For a live blood microscopist the task is to point out possible problems and direct the client to hospital for exact diagnosis.

  34. shadowmouse says:

    # Mikkoscopiston:

    “Harriet’s description of eosinophils is correct, one nucleus with a bilobed structure.”

    Maybe you can learn some facts.

    “But agreeing with shadowmouse is hard.”

    I’ll type slower and try to use small words…

    “Live blood’s “eosinophils” can be mixed up with live blood’s “monos”, “lymphs” and “sleeping neutrophils” because they are not moving and can be formed in many ways. ”

    WTF?

    “However, mixing live blood’s “basos” with “eosinophils” is not very likely because the granules of “basos” are moving all the time and the whole “basophil” crawls like “moving neutrophils” in the plasma. “Eosinophils” do not do that.”

    What the…?

    “I use quote marks to emphasize that at least I haven’t find any research articles correlating stained blood sample with a live blood sample and therefore their identification is not proven.”

    Ding ding ding – we have a winner….

    “Such kind of a test should be quite easy to do with proper equipment for some medical researcher.”

    No, really???

    Also concerning qetzal’s question about the right way of doing live blood. The procedure has been described at least by Bessis in Living blood cells and their ultrastructure:
    http://www.getcited.org/pub/101344170

    Break out the Magic 8 Ball…

    “In overall identifying different white blood cells does not bring benefits, because all samples have some amount of different white blood cells.”

    Different pathologies do produce characteristic differentials. Ooops, big words…

    “The effort of proving different features of live blood method should be targeted to identifying non white blood cell “artifacts” like different kind of “crystals” (green, red, yellow and black ones are most common), “yeast” etc. which remain unseen in stained or laser-beam scanned blood samples.”

    Ohhhh, lets identify some dust and debris contaminates that show a poor sample collection, then diagnose it as some bad stuff that requires selling some overpriced ‘supplements.’

    “Designing such an experiment is at least to me unknown and no idea of what kind of an equipment would be suitable for such task.”

    Oh, bother…

    Also it would be good to correlate whether different kind of red blood cell structures (acantocytes, echinocytes etc.) in live blood view correlates with conventional blood tests.

    They don’t.

    “The microscopist can for example make an error by pressing the cover slide on the bottom slide and thus break some parts of the live blood sample.”

    Or make an error in flogging this woo and insisting it’s ‘science’.

    “Considering the use of live blood method in diagnosis the main idea is to see what things might be wrong in the blood and after live blood view conducting exact conventional blood tests to verify the diagnosis.”

    Pass the tea leaves.

    “This would save some effort because guessing conventional blood tests beforehand is sometimes hard and many times the selected conventional blood tests produce results which are within normal range. For a live blood microscopist the task is to point out possible problems and direct the client to hospital for exact diagnosis.”

    Gee, so in conclusion, your method is so much better at ‘guessing’ than going to an actual physician with access to proven diagnostic methods.

    Damn, how have I been so blind???

  35. qetzal says:

    For a live blood microscopist the task is to point out possible problems and direct the client to hospital for exact diagnosis.

    Yes, but how can you hope to do this if there’s no research to prove that live blood analysis correlates to clinical diagnosis?

    If you were only saying that you think there’s potential value there, and you think it should be studied under properly controlled conditions, I’d have no great problem. But you’ve already said you do live blood analysis now.

    Are you admitting that you’re doing an analysis and making conclusions without any proven basis that your methods are sound and clinically relevant? Who taught you how to do this? How did they supposedly determine what methods are correct and what the different ‘findings’ mean if there’s no actual research?

  36. Prometheus says:

    OK, I had some extra time and I looked up Vormann and Goedecke (2006) Acid-base homeostasis: Latent acidosis as a cause of chronic disease. Schweiz. Zschr. GanzheitsMedizin (Swiss Journal of Integrative Medicine).

    The authors’ claim of declining pH and buffering capacity was based on a meeting abstract and a review article both by Frassetto et al [http://ajprenal.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/271/6/F1114].

    The Frassetto et al article shows a graph with much more scatter than the graphs “derived” from it in the Vormann and Goedecke article, which gives cause to question the reliability of the Vormann and Goedecke review.

    From the data in the Frassetto et al article, the pH of a healthy 20 year-old should be 7.42 and that of a healthy 90 year-old should be 7.39 – a difference of 0.03 pH units or 2 neq/L. I’m not an internist, but I suspect that the difference between 7.42 and 7.39 is not clinically significant.

    Frassetto et al attributed this change to the well-documented decline in renal function seen with advancing age – something that can’t be corrected by giving bicarbonate.

    In short, I have grave doubts about the analysis of Vormann and Goedecke and their “adaptation” of the Frassetto et al data into their graph takes significant license with the data.

    Of course, if Mikkoscopist had any relevant medical or biological education, he/she would have known that.

    Prometheus

  37. Mikkoscopist says:

    For shadowmouse:
    Can you be more specific in your WTF? and What the…? questions?

    “Different pathologies do produce characteristic differentials. Ooops, big words…”
    Well, the point was that estimating the amount of different white blood cells from live blood view is not easy to do by calculating WBC to RBC ratios compared to normal blood scanning devices in hospitals. Therefore why bother use live blood for something which is more efficiently done in hospital.

    “Ohhhh, lets identify some dust and debris contaminates that show a poor sample collection, then diagnose it as some bad stuff that requires selling some overpriced ’supplements.’”
    Nothing is required. People can buy supplements if they want. Many people may improve their blood just by drinking sea salt water (not proven). And for example if “yeast artifacts” are present in the blood it is not a big deal to go to hospital and verify with candida test that such condition really exists.

    “Also it would be good to correlate whether different kind of red blood cell structures (acantocytes, echinocytes etc.) in live blood view correlates with conventional blood tests.”
    “They don’t.”
    Do you have reference for this claim? :)

    “Or make an error in flogging this woo and insisting it’s ’science’.”
    I have consistently pointed out that I haven’t found scientific references about live blood method so where am I insisting that live blood method is backed up by science? I think the whole idea of these discussions is to come up with a clear picture what kind of test cases should be conducted for live blood. Perhaps then some skilled researchers can prove the method false or correct.

    “Gee, so in conclusion, your method is so much better at ‘guessing’ than going to an actual physician with access to proven diagnostic methods.”
    Proven diagnostic methods are exact, but there are hundreds of them. Why should we guess beforehand what of these hundreds of tests to take when we could get in couple of minutes whole picture of blood conditions with live blood method and thus afterwards select the right ones. This would reduce unnecessary tests, unnecessary costs and would speed up the diagnosis process. Also proving/disproving the features of live blood does not require many years of work so I am wondering why nobody does it.

  38. Mikkoscopist says:

    For qetzal:
    “Yes, but how can you hope to do this if there’s no research to prove that live blood analysis correlates to clinical diagnosis?”
    Live blood microscopists get feedback of live blood method’s accuracy by directing clients to hospital tests. Therefore there is some level of knowledge which features correlate and which do not.

    “If you were only saying that you think there’s potential value there, and you think it should be studied under properly controlled conditions, I’d have no great problem. But you’ve already said you do live blood analysis now.”
    I am not a medical doctor so what restricts me from doing non-science based live blood tests? There is no law that forbids me to use the method. For a medical doctor the controlled trials are needed and thus I am wondering why nobody does those trials because the method seems to have potential value in aiding the diagnosis.

    “Are you admitting that you’re doing an analysis and making conclusions without any proven basis that your methods are sound and clinically relevant?”
    Yes. The test results are in form “it looks like you might have condition X, go to hospital to get a diagnosis for condition X”

    “Who taught you how to do this?”
    Robert O. Young

    “How did they supposedly determine what methods are correct and what the different ‘findings’ mean if there’s no actual research?”
    Live blood microscopists get feedback of live blood method’s accuracy by directing clients to hospital tests. Therefore there is some level of knowledge which features correlate and which do not. Of course without controlled blinded trials nothing can be proven.

  39. Mikkoscopist says:

    For Prometheus:
    OK, Frassetto et al was new to me and the article is not public so I cannot access it. But it seems to me that Frassetto’s original data and your conclusions invalidate Vormann & Goedecke’s graph.

  40. qetzal says:

    Mikkoscopist,

    I am not a medical doctor so what restricts me from doing non-science based live blood tests? There is no law that forbids me to use the method.

    I don’t know if that’s true, but I wouldn’t be so quick to make that assumption if I were you.

    Are you drawing blood from people to perform your analysis? At least in the US, that’s normally considered a medical procedure. When you do the analysis, that’s arguably a diagnostic procedure. When you tell someone to “go to hospital to get a diagnosis for condition X,” you are arguably making a provisional diagnosis and referring the person for more medical tests.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if some or all of that amounts to the legal equivalent of practicing medicine without a license (at least, here in the US). Topping it off, it sounds like you’re charging people money when you do this. (You refer to them as “clients”.) That makes it sound even more like practicing medicine. You’re not just offering people an unprofessional opinion, you’re charging people money for your opinion.

    To be clear, I don’t know if any of that does or doesn’t meet the legal definition of practicing medicine in the US or any other country. I’m not a lawyer; I’m just speculating. But I wouldn’t do what you’re doing and just assume that it’s all legal. If any of those people decide you’ve done something wrong to them (whether you did or not), they could make a complaint. Even if what you’re doing is clearly legal (which I doubt), you could face significant civil liability. If the legality is even open to question, you could be in huge trouble.

    Live blood microscopists get feedback of live blood method’s accuracy by directing clients to hospital tests. Therefore there is some level of knowledge which features correlate and which do not.

    Really? How do you find out the results of the hospital tests? Do you rely on the client to tell you what happened? Do you ask for copies of the hospital tests? It sounds extremely haphazard to me.

    I get the sense that you believe what you’re doing is worthwhile, and that you’re not just trying to scam people out of their money. But seriously, it doesn’t sound like you have any rational basis to think that what you do is clinically useful. If people have a reason to think they’re sick, if they have symptoms, why should they come to you? You do a live blood analysis and say you think they have condition X, but they should see an MD to be sure. Why shouldn’t they go directly to the MD?

  41. Harriet Hall says:

    Mikkoscopist’s idea of diagnostic tests is bizarre. We don’t just randomly guess which tests to order. We order tests for good reasons derived from our patient’s history and physical exam. We have no reason to think findings of live blood cell microscopy could guide selection of diagnostic tests in any meaningful way. And we have even less reason to think it could outperform the conventional history and physical as a guide to test selection.

  42. shadowmouse says:

    “Proven diagnostic methods are exact, but there are hundreds of them.”

    Basic diagnostics are done first (ie CBC and chem screen),then other tests may be ordered based on those results and patient symptoms as evaluated by a legitimate physician.

    “Why should we guess beforehand what of these hundreds of tests to take when we could get in couple of minutes whole picture of blood conditions with live blood method and thus afterwards select the right ones.”

    Because the live blood method is not diagnostic, just vague guesses, just like a fortune teller.

    “This would reduce unnecessary tests, unnecessary costs and would speed up the diagnosis process.”

    No, it slows it down by wasting time, money, and giving false diagnostics.

    “Also proving/disproving the features of live blood does not require many years of work so I am wondering why nobody does it.”

    One more time: Because it is junk ‘science’. Modern snake-oil.

    ‘Round and ’round we go…

  43. James Fox says:

    But can Live Blood Analysis spot Thetan residue???

  44. Prometheus says:

    Mikkoscopist replies:

    But it seems to me that Frassetto’s original data and your conclusions invalidate Vormann & Goedecke’s graph. [emphasis added]

    Absolutely! Now we are on the same page!

    Frassetto et al had data that was seriously scattered – their linear regression had an r-value of 0.4 (r-squared of 0.16), which indicates the degree of scatter. The p-value (less than 0.001) was only for the slope of the data being different from zero (flat).

    The graph in Vormann and Goedecke shows nice, discreet points all on or nearly on their trend line. I can only surmise that they took the equation of Frassetto et al and used it to generate their “data points”.

    In addition, the Vormann and Goedecke graphs are severely truncated, with the pH graph running from 7.36 to 7.41. This serves to visually exaggerate the changes.

    Finally, I note that nobody has published data confirming the findings of Frassetto et al, so we are left wondering if their data is truly representative of aging or if it is an anomaly.

    That Vormann and Goedecke (or Mikkoscopist) could draw so many conclusions from such thin data is remarkable.

    Another example of their ability to make bricks without mud is their conclusion that since the pH of synovial fluid in rheumatoid arthritis (7.19) is lower than that seen in osteoarthritis (7.35) and “other arthritides” (7.40), low pH has something to do with the cause of rheumatoid arthritis, rather than simply being a consequence.

    Curiously, that is not the conclusion that the researchers who published that data [Farr et al, Significance of the hydrogen ion concentration in synovial fluid in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol, 1985 Apr-Jun;3(2):99-104.] drew from their findings.

    The “take home message” is that people who fancy themselves to be scientists (but lack the education, discipline or both to actually be scientists) can make almost any conclusion they wish from data, so long as they see themselves as “empowered” by the data rather than constrained by it.

    Prometheus

  45. shadowmouse says:

    James Fox:

    Oh, wow, could they be the “non white blood cell “artifacts” like different kind of “crystals” (green, red, yellow and black ones are most common), “yeast” etc. which remain unseen in stained or laser-beam scanned blood samples.” ???

    Must go to my audit session now…

  46. Mikkoscopist says:

    For qetzal:
    I know about law in Finland and blood microscoping is controlled only under consumer protection law. This information has also been verified from medical professionals. Consumer protection law is only broken if I am not delivering the client a report which I have promised before the live blood examination.

    Clients many times bring their hospital test results to the live blood test and have visited MD before. And many times live blood tests are done after hospital tests have shown that everything should be ok. But still even though basic hospital tests have shown that everything should be ok, the client might not feel well. Just as an example yeast tests are not very commonly done in Finnish hospitals, but still a lot of yeasty people seem to live in Finland.

    And also for Harriet:
    I didn’t mean that different tests would be just guessed in hospitals. I meant that sometimes it is hard to figure out from patient history and default blood tests why candida/yeast/mycoplasma/uric acid/hypercalcemia/hypomagnesia/hyperthyroidism etc. tests should be done and therefore they won’t be done to the patient. Also it can many times take months to run different tests iteratively searching what value is out of normal range. With live and dry blood tests getting a big picture would be just simply faster (nothing proven for this claim).

    For shadowmouse:
    It seems we have come into conclusion. You are claiming live blood method to be snakeoil without bringing any evidence that it is not working. I am claiming blood method to be useful without bringing any evidence that it is working. The conversation can then go forward, when somebody is proving/disproving live blood method is working/is not working.

  47. Harriet Hall says:

    It’s not up to shadowmouse to show it doesn’t work, it’s up to Mikkoscopist to show that it does work. He can’t. We have a word for someone who offers untested treatments or tests: the word is quack. The FDA defines health fraud as “the promotion, for profit, of a medical remedy known to be false or unproven.”

  48. pmoran says:

    Snake oil it is, whenever the proponents of a proposition fail to take the simple and obvious steps necessary for its confirmation.

    To take just one example herein: where are the “yeasts”. “fungi” and “molds” in live cell preparations confirmed to be so by other tests, such as Gram stain or culture?

  49. Mikkoscopist says:

    OK, based on that definition of term “quack” live blood method is a quack. Still it doesn’t tell anything about whether live blood method is working or not. Somebody with proper research background and education should bring new evidence about the method and we could discuss further.

  50. shadowmouse says:

    Mikkoscopist sez:

    “I am claiming blood method to be useful without bringing any evidence that it is working.”

    Two words: HEALTH FRAUD

    “OK, based on that definition of term “quack” live blood method is a quack. ”

    Correct. And not just by ‘that definition’.

    “Still it doesn’t tell anything about whether live blood method is working or not.”

    Then why promote something unproven?

    “Somebody with proper research background and education should bring new evidence about the method and we could discuss further.”

    There is a mountain of evidence we legitimate medical professionals have brought to this discussion, you continue to ignore it as well as admit you are uneducated.

    Here duckie, duckie…

  51. Tuomas Kaasalainen says:

    It seems that Mark Crisplip decided not to comment the following video:
    http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/symbiosis_or_parasitism.html

    How about Harriet Hall, shadowmouse, Prometheus or qetzal, do you have some kind of explanation what is going on in the blood samples?

  52. Mark Crislip says:

    it seems mark crislip is on vacation with his kids participating in life with only a dial up connection.

    when i am back to broadband and have time ill take a gander at the video

  53. qetzal says:

    Tuomas,

    I haven’t watched the video, and can’t say whether I will. If I decide to view it and have a comment, I’ll post it here, but don’t hold your breath. I don’t pretend to have any knowledge of blood cytology. My expertise is in molecular biology and biotechnology (mainly for new drug development).

    My discussions with Mikkoscopist are not based on any personal knowledge that live blood analysis is 100% bogus, although what I’ve read on this blog certainly makes me suspect that’s likely. My main question/complaint to Mikkoscopist is that he’s doing a ‘test’ to reveal possible medical conditions, yet he admits he has no scientific foundation to show that his test actually provides relevant data. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a dishonest business practice (whether or not it’s technically legal where he lives).

    I acknowledge that Mikkoscopist may not think so, since he seems to truly believe his test has value, but I don’t see that his belief changes the actual facts of the matter.

  54. Prometheus says:

    Tuomas,

    I can’t get the video to play.

    Prometheus

  55. Harriet Hall says:

    I watched most of the video but was too disgusted to watch it all. This is classic pseudoscience. They have a high-powered microscope and they are seeing things that they interpret as some kind of multiform microorganism that they think they have related to cancer. This appears to be a new re-working of the nonsense first proposed by Royal Rife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife

    I don’t know what these objects are, but neither do they. Instead of trying to find out, they are content to make up their own fanciful explanation. A real scientist would (1) study paired samples with electron microscopy at much higher resolution and try to identify what these objects really are (2) try to culture the alleged organisms, and (3) publish a tightly controlled double blind study to see whether microsopists can distinguish between samples from people with and without cancer. They have done none of these things, but have been content to immerse themselves in self-delusion and confirmation bias.

  56. shadowmouse says:

    I can’t get the video to play for me either.

    Harriet sums up altmed woo well:

    “Instead of trying to find out [facts], they are content to make up their own fanciful explanation.”

  57. pmoran says:

    I agree with Harriet and speak with some background in virology and the use of similar microscopes.

    This video has been around for many years, and the claims much, much longer, without any supportive evidence arising. Some of the objects are consistent with normal bacterial rods or other possible contaminating organisms, others would seem to be well within the bounds of biological or non-biological artifacts.

    The trustworthiness of the observers is seriously undermined by the speculative and extremely extrapolative nature of the claims. There is no body of objective scientific work confirming that any of the changes seen are definitely associated with any disease process (such as that a particular non-motile cellular projection is a sign of diabetes — such unsupported claims are the sign of someone caught up in a hypothesis they are not prepared to either shake off or test out properly — to destruction if necessary).

    There are other signs of “seeing what you want to believe”. A Y-shaped “organism” is said to change shape, which is almost certainly simply due to rotation around its long axis.

    Polymorphism as a theory also belongs to the dark ages of evolution of microbiology. Viruses cannot develop into larger, more complex organisms because they are the simplest possible forms of “life” and lack the genetic code to do so. Most microrganisms have now been passed though thousands of generations of passage through animal hosts and tissue culture without ever changing into anything else. It just does not happen, except over evolutionary time scales.

  58. Kultakutri says:

    Heh, I took an unvoluntary holiday from teh internetz due to my computer’s infections and I missed the advent of cray-zee Finns. Out of sheer curiosity I checked where Mikkologist’s profile may lead me and oddly enough, it’s a website, that, among others, sells dietary supplements. About Mikko, it says that he studied ‘new blood microscopy’ in the U. S. and that you can visit his studio in Mandala Building in Jyväskylä…. well, Mandala Building says it all.

    I guess that the methods of dealing with lousy US economy shouldn’t be exporting the quackery, could we Europeans get something worthier, please?

  59. Prometheus says:

    OK, I was finally able to view the video on my home computer.

    I can’t speak to the technical issues of the microscope, as I am not well-versed in optics. However, as a microbiologist and virologist, I can address the “organisms” seen.

    To begin with, let’s dispose of the idea that viruses can “morph” into bacteria or fungi. That idea should have died a long time ago, back when we discovered that the genome of an organism (virus, bacteria, fungus or human) determines its form, development and reproduction.

    There are viruses that are of a physical and genomic size comparable to the smallest bacteria (e.g. Mimivirus, a virus of amoebae), but none of them encode for ribosomal RNA (ribosomes synthesize proteins) in their genome (see: Forterre et al on ribosome-encoding organisms vs capsid-encoding organisms).

    Both bacteria and fungi encode for ribosomal RNA in their genomes, but the ribosomal RNA of bacteria is significantly different than that found in eukaryotes such as fungi.

    I could go on – for years – about the reasons that viruses don’t become fungi (and vice versa), but I think I’ve given anyone who wants to learn more a good start.

    Now, what about the “animacules” seen in the video?

    Well, most of what I saw looked like debris, some possible bacteria and the “fibers protruding from the red cell membranes” look like fibrin strands. Of course, I could be wrong about that – it could have all been debris and fibrin.

    The distortions of the red cell membranes looked very much like typical crenation, seen when cells dehydrate (perhaps from the heat of the light source).

    Since I have a dark-field ‘scope available to me (right behind my desk), I took a fresh sample of blood (ouch!) and looked at it. I saw exactly what was seen on the video. Even better images were obtained by using the phase contrast microscope.

    The dark-field microscope is a useful instrument, but it is rather dated. Phase contrast gives better resolution and doesn’t over-enhance debris in the field (and it allows you to tell debris from small “animacules”). Confocal miscroscopy is even better, although it is out of the price range of the health-care hobbyist.

    If the folks claiming that these particles are “viruses” or “fungus” wanted to make their point, all they have to do is stain the sample with a fluorescent DNA stain (like DAPI or Sybr Green) and look at it under a fluorescence microscope.

    The particles with double-stranded DNA (i.e. the “organisms”) will fluoresce brightly and the debris and fibrin strands will not. It has been repeatedly shown that even small viruses can be detected in this way.

    Now, if one of these “researchers” would put this “virus-bacteria-fungus” through a few tests and show that it truly had the ability to do what they say it does, they would be a shoe-in for the next Nobel Prize in Medicine.

    Funny that they haven’t done that already, isn’t it?

    Prometheus

  60. pmoran says:

    “If the folks claiming that these particles are “viruses” or “fungus” wanted to make their point, all they have to do is stain the sample with a fluorescent DNA stain (like DAPI or Sybr Green) and look at it under a fluorescence microscope.

    The particles with double-stranded DNA (i.e. the “organisms”) will fluoresce brightly and the debris and fibrin strands will not. It has been repeatedly shown that even small viruses can be detected in this way.”

    There it is — failing to take simple, obvious, NECESSARY steps in support of core claims — a sure sign of bad science and/or quackery.

  61. TsuDhoNimh says:

    I spend quite a few years looking at blood smears, preparing blood smears, and preparing manual RBC counts. I’ve also seen “live blood analysis” at a so-called health fair. The claimed abnormalities are the normal distortions and ruptures you see as blood cells die under a scope.

    Nothing that site is showing as “abnormal” is out of the ordinary: just pick the right spot on the smear, even a well-prepared one, and you can show rouleaux, fibrin blobs, platelet tangles and other crud. The crenated cells are often seen in patients with uremia, and if you happen to get a sample post-splenectomy the blood is full of bizarre forms because the spleen is not there to clean out the trashed cells.

    The macro and microcytic cells are suggestive of various deficiencies: iron deficient microcytic anemia, the macrocytes of B12 deficiency, the pale target cells of … (DUH! I brain farted and don’t remember which deficiency)

    But unless I look at a smear and see way too many WBC and/or immature RBC … it’s not going to make me think of cancer.

  62. Militant Agnostic says:

    The day after I first read this post, I found an “Integrative Medicine Clinic” in Canmore Alberta (A former coal mining town that is now a tourist town in the Rocky Mountains west of Calgary). Dark field live blood analysis was among the many flavours of quackery on offer. The others included accupuncture, chiropractic and colon hydrotherapy. The whole thing appeared to headed by an MD. That’s MD not ND. It is sad that this doesn’t surprise me any more.

    Mikkoscopist’s process for verifying live blood analysis is a sure recipe for confirmation bias.

  63. Tuomas Kaasalainen says:

    Thanks to everyone for their comments.

    Prometheus:
    “Since I have a dark-field ’scope available to me (right behind my desk), I took a fresh sample of blood (ouch!) and looked at it. I saw exactly what was seen on the video. Even better images were obtained by using the phase contrast microscope.”

    If I give my email to you, could you send me the images? I´m a scientist by myself, but unfortunately I don`t have an access to a dark field microscope.

    I don`t have the competence to comment on the bacteria-virus-fungus theory. Of course I know that it`s against our school books. As far as I have understood, Grayfield Optical is a company that sells microscopes and not a research organization. So I would not attack them for presenting some controversial ideas. It`s our duty as scientist to explain the phenomenon that their technique reveals and find out whether it has significance to patient`s health or not. Scientists` acts can not be based on faith and beliefs. It`s a fact that fungal infections are a problem for immunocompromised patients (cancer, AIDS).

    ps. For Kultakutri: It seems that your attack was targeted against Mikkoscopist, but since you used a plural (crazy Finns), I decided to comment: you can send your ad hominem arguments directly to my email (just ask for it) or we can sometimes have a talk over a cup of coffee. Let`s keep this blog scientific.

  64. Fifi says:

    Why should commercial enterprises be immune to being called out on promoting quackery that potentially endangers lives to sell their product? Apologists (and vendors) of quackery like to do ritual performances of “being scientific” (while rejecting actual science) and “science” (such as using microscopes and xrays as part of their fantasy of being a scientist and/or doctor). That this is just one more arm of Big SCAM, doesn’t surprise me in the least. It seems you scratch a medical pseudoscience and up pops Big SCAM and, by association and promotion of marketing techniques, Scientology. (Essentially, Scientology is using science as a smokescreen for their profit motivated activities in much the same way they use religion.)

  65. Harriet Hall says:

    Tuomas,

    Yes, you do “have the competence to comment on the bacteria-virus-fungus theory”

    If someone said he saw a tree turn into a toad, you would question it. This amounts to the same thing.

  66. Tuomas Kaasalainen says:

    To Harriet Hall:
    I have not read Rife`s theories thoroughly enough to comment on them. As a scientist I can`t call bogus something that I`m not familiar with.

    “Candida albicans is responsible for the most common fungal infections in humans (Edwards, 1990). It is capable of growing in a budding form (blastospore) or in various filamentous forms ranging from pseudohyphae to true hyphae (Odds, 1985; Scherer and Magee, 1990). Mass conversion of a culture from one form of growth to the other can be affected by a number of environmental conditions including temperature, pH and nutrient composition (Soll, 1986).

    In addition to the bud–filament transitions, C.albicans is capable of undergoing a different type of morphological change that has been termed ‘phenotypic switching’. This switching is most easily observed in the morphology of colonies (Soll, 1992; Soll et al., 1993). A single cell can divide and—in the absence of environmental signals—give rise to several distinct types of colonies. This switching occurs spontaneously at frequencies well above those produced by point mutation and has been reported to be reversible. In addition, cells isolated from each type of colony usually produce the same type of colony on replating, indicating that a variant colony morphology, once formed, is heritable.”

    http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v18/n9/full/7591680a.html

    Could it be that the Grayfield video shows some fungi undergoing phenotypic switching?

  67. Mark Crislip says:

    “Could it be that the Grayfield video shows some fungi undergoing phenotypic switching?”

    nope.

    ps I trained under edwards and spent four years of my life fretting about candida

  68. Harriet Hall says:

    Tuomas,

    Candida changing from one morphology to another is one thing; viruses changing into bacteria or fungi is something else entirely. Candida has the same genome no matter what it looks like. Bacteria, viruses and fungi have very different genomes. You have the right to call something bogus if it is incompatible with everything we know about science and if its advocates have not made any attempt to test their ideas.

    If Rife had said he’d seen trees turn into toads, wouldn’t you feel qualified to comment? Isn’t this the same thing?

  69. Tuomas Kaasalainen says:

    Thank you Mark for confirming my assumption that medical science has no explanation for the phenomenon seen on the Grayfield video yet. Whatever it is, in my opinion doctors should pay more attention to preventing and treating the candidiasis in cancer patients. Plant secondary metabolites are usually very effective antifungal agents. It`s a shame that they can`t be patented, so it is not in anyones interests to promote their wider use.

    To Harriet Hall.
    Rife presented his hypothesis almost 80 years ago (a way before doctors started to advertise cigarettes http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/PopularScience/3-1946/camel_doctors.jpg). It has since been developed further by Gaston Naessens (somatid theory). I don`t know Naessen`s writings well, but as far as I have understood, his hypothesis does not include virus-bacteria-fungus metamorphism.

    Anyway, I´m still waiting for Prometheus to present his images.

  70. shadowmouse says:

    Q: Why should these shillers provide testable proof their products/tests actually work as touted?

    A: They have [i]TESTIMONIALS[/I] instead – so why bother with facts??

    Also, they will provide straw-man arguments and dodge the questions when asked to provide facts.

    Tuomas: what part of ‘nope’ didn’t you understand?

  71. Prometheus says:

    Tuomas states:

    “I don`t have the competence to comment on the bacteria-virus-fungus theory. Of course I know that it`s against our school books.”

    Tuomas, it’s not just “against our school books”, it has been definitively shown that it is FALSE.

    “Thank you Mark for confirming my assumption that medical science has no explanation for the phenomenon seen on the Grayfield video yet.”

    Tuomas, I think you missed the point – the objects in the Grayfield video are not fungi turning into viruses (or vice versa) and they are not fungi undergoing phenotypic switching.

    I think that Mark and I and a number of other people have told you that the “phenomena” you see on that video are debris and normal cells showing normal physiological responses.

    I doubt that you are open to this idea yet, but I’ll try anyway. There is nothing magical, mysterious or even particularly interesting on that video.

    It is the explanations on the video that are “magical”, “mysterious” and “interesting”. Unfortunately, the “explanations” are also ABSOLUTELY WRONG. They are, in fact, fabricated out of moonbeams and pixie dust.

    Prometheus

  72. TsuDhoNimh says:

    Tuomas, medical science DOES know what that video shows. It shows the usual crap, crud and debris that dying blood cells produce as they lyse, with some degenerating platelets, dirt from the slide, etc.

  73. catfitz says:

    Hi,

    I am interested to know how the proponents of this “technique” would define “live blood” to start with?

    At what point is the blood “dead”?

    In blood banking we can give blood (packed red cells) back to a patient weeks after it was removed from the body, do they think this is “dead” blood?

    Maybe fresh or unstained? would be a better description?

    My thought is that if it was really that much more effective to look at unstained blood, that is what we would still be doing in a pathology lab, (that’s how it all would have started!). But we don’t, it is obvious that there is much more information to be gained by accurately counting the cells and staining them to differentiate them. Decades of research and studies have gone into this field and we can review the information and refine the methods as new discoveries are made. Yes I do occasionally look at unstained blood as part of my work but this is a quick check for things like platelet clumping to confirm low platelet counts. Also with unstained blood yes there is an amount of differentiation you can see between the white cells but you miss so much information I cannot see it’s value.

    Also you can keep a stained slide, review it later and compare it with other slides from another day. You can also get second opinions on them from people in remote locations.

    I agree with the descriptions of the debris on the slides, unless the collection technique is flawless and the slide has been freshly cleaned with lint free cloth you will always get some form of debris on the slide. Also the amount of blood placed on the slide, the degree to which the cover slip is pressed onto the sample and the part of the sample examined will change the way a normal cell looks. I would be able to find nearly all of the so called defects on every sample of unstained blood
    I looked at.

    I don’t event want to start with the “dried blood”!

    As for the Greyfield video, I couldn’t watch it all the way though, I gave up halfway as it was becoming obvious they were making up names for things randomly with no reference to any current scientific knowledge. I also liked that at the beginning they carefully showed Brownian motion using latex particles, then later in the video they called exactly the same bacterial particles?!? I have seen a similar picture in an unstained slide and promptly did an gram satin on the same sample out of curiosity, guess what? No bacteria! I won’t claim to know what it was but I can say it was not due to bacteria in the blood. It would be a massive infection if it was and the patient would almost certainly have died.

    I guess I am annoyed because this is the work I do every day and they are degrading the real scientist, GRRRRRRRR!

  74. Prometheus says:

    I missed one from Tuomas:

    blockquote>”Anyway, I´m still waiting for Prometheus to present his images.”

    Tuomas, I don’t have any images to dazzle you with – the darkfield ‘scope in my office doesn’t have a digital (or even film) camera. Yes, the technology is that old!

    As a number of people have been trying to tell you, nothing on the Grayfield video is in the slightest bit “inexplicable” or even “interesting”.

    It’s debris, cell fragments, fibrin, possibly some mundane bacteria (which speaks to how “fresh” the sample is) and dirt and glass fragments from the slide itself.

    One of the many reasons phase contrast microscopy (itself not a particularly new technology) has eclipsed darkfield is that it allows the microscopist to reasily differentiate between high index-of-refraction crud and cells.

    That’s one of the reasons I was instantly suspicious when I saw that “live blood analysis” uses darkfield ‘scopes. Why use outdated technology unless it was because darkfield microscopy higlights the “crud” and “debris” so well?

    Prometheus

  75. Divine says:

    Hi Sir,
    Greetings from Philippines
    I am Divine Grace Boaging. 23 years old, I am so interested about the Live blood analysis, I’ve lot a question to ask about the Live blood analysis, well the truth is I am doing live blood analysis here in my country and I am on the research about the LBA.
    Sir I’ve been searching for 5 months. Can you help me regarding about the live blood analysis.?

    Thanks so much Sir

    Divine

  76. Chris says:

    Dear Divine, you might start your research by actually reading the words that make up this blog posting. It may be hard to understand for someone where English is a second language, but in short:

    It is a scam! It does not show anything! Don’t waste your time on it!

    Though do try to continue your education, work on your English, and take some basic science.

  77. ned ludd says:

    “Beware the rational kernel in the mystical shell”.

    Whatever the advocates of live cell analysis have to say with respect to the theory and practice of the matter has no bearing on its underlying empirical reality. If someone were to found a Church of Darwin – a cargo-cult religion – that claimed Charles I was a divinely inspired Messenger, should we discredit his otherwise truthful message?

    There’s ample raw evidence that there’s something going that darkfield microscopy shows up. It’s not clear – on the available evidence – what exactly is going on. Maybe we’re being blinded by paradigm biases, maybe it’s just a lack of appropriate data. We should investigate further and withhold judgment for the moment.

    And, there is no avoiding that this entire subject is inextricably bound up with the larger and thus more contentious issue of pleomorphism. Is this all a surrogate fight over this matter?

    Let’s grant all of the objection/criticisms made in the original article. So what? A rebuttal from technicians in the service of a counter-ideology counts for nothing. Shooting their fish in your barrel isn’t very impressive. You’ve blasted a ‘straw man’ apart but not advanced the debate.

    That was Karl Marx who said that, more or less.

  78. shadowmouse says:

    “Whatever the advocates of live cell analysis have to say with respect to the theory and practice of the matter has no bearing on its underlying empirical reality.”

    Duh, Sherlock.

    “If someone were to found a Church of Darwin – a cargo-cult religion – that claimed Charles I was a divinely inspired Messenger, should we discredit his otherwise truthful message?”

    This is irrelevent.

    “There’s ample raw evidence that there’s something going that darkfield microscopy shows up.”

    Again, smutz from poor technique.

    “It’s not clear – on the available evidence – what exactly is going on.”

    It’s clear you how you keep ignoring the obvious facts and evidence presented above.

    Maybe we’re being blinded by paradigm biases, maybe it’s just a lack of appropriate data. We should investigate further and withhold judgment for the moment.

    “And, there is no avoiding that this entire subject is inextricably bound up with the larger and thus more contentious issue of pleomorphism.”

    Yeah, extraneous debris has many forms…

    “Is this all a surrogate fight over this matter?”

    No.

    “Let’s grant all of the objection/criticisms made in the original article. So what? A rebuttal from technicians in the service of a counter-ideology counts for nothing.”

    Just WTF??

    “Shooting their fish in your barrel isn’t very impressive.”

    Neither is misuse of metaphors, tsk tsk.

    “You’ve blasted a ’straw man’ apart but not advanced the debate.”

    There’s no debate to ‘advance’.

    Quack.

  79. William.engelhardt says:

    At one time the earth was believed to be flat. Does that mean it was flat until “science” proved it was round?
    At one time, some heretics within the medical field believed that unseen forces had ill effects on a person’s health. Did that mean bacteria, viruses, and genetic mutations did not exist until “scientifically” proven?
    The “religion” of science has proven itself to be just another “ism”- a belief system.
    This is particularly the case in medical science. Studies funded by mega-corporations to push pharmaceutical has no foundation to or ownership to what is real or not real. Take for instance cholesterol. How many millions of people are put on cholesterol lowering medications, when cholesterol does not cause heart disease (there is NO proof that it does). It is associated with heart disease. Does this keep MD from pushing their quackery? Same goes for angioplasty (clinically proven to have NO effect on long term survival of heart patients), yet pushed as a “scientific” solution. How many studies are done on multiple drug interactions….ZIP! Yet this is how pharmaceuticals are prescribed. Is this not unscientific quackery? How many unnecessary bypass surgeries are performed in the US every year? Thousands! Talking about quackery. The only real leg modern medicine has its leg to stand on is emergency medicine where it reins king. The rest is speculative quackery that in no way honors the human body as a complex ecosystem, and not just a series of parts and biochemical reactions. This is why modern medicine is in the business of disease continuation and not reversal or prevention.
    I am a doctor and have studied both standard dried blood samples and live blood samples. Neither are definitive diagnoses of anything (except leukemia’s and anemia’s- which is a very general term) and certainly don’t point to the real cause of a dis-ease. Since you can do cell counts and observe abnormal blood morphology on LBA, it can be as relevant as stained blood samples. I do believe it is also useful for seeing general inflammation and oxidative stress to the system (most always correlating to a patient’s symptom history or other tests like CRP or elevated liver enzymes). I also believe that anybody who claims to be able to observe specific pathologies in a live blood sample is possibly creating reality. Point being, both practices have a place.
    For those who claims chiropractics, hydrotherapy (both disciplines deal with simple laws of physics, hydraulics, and gradients), and acupuncture (acknowledged for its therapeutic benefits in Asia for thousands of years) are quackery, I’m afraid you are still living on flat earth

  80. shadowmouse says:

    William (or is it Tony??), cut the crap.

    Same old bullshit lies and snake-oil tactics constantly being thrown about. Who needs facts, right??

    You must be an ND/DC or a ‘microscopist’, not legitimate physician.

    If you are truly a physician, what degree did you earn and what university did you attend? What area of medical expertise do you claim? Where do you practice so we may avoid you?

    Quack^^

  81. shadowmouse says:

    William (or is it Tony??) -

    Same old bullcrap lies and snake-oil tactics flogging a worthless diagnostic modality.

    You must be a ND/DC or ‘microscopist’ who attended some fly-by-night seminar to ‘earn’ a certificate of attendence.

    If you are a legitimate physician, when did you open that Cracker Jack box for your diploma?

    Quack bastard.

  82. shadowmouse says:

    Damnit – ‘scuse the double post. Grrrr.

  83. Gabriella says:

    I think the reason people go to see these analysts is because they are not getting what they need from legitamit doctors. I have actually considered going to an analyst, not too sure now. I have had bothersome symptoms for over a year, and nothing has been confirmed. The only thing the regular blood test concluded was that my IgM was 3.36 g/l which is a apparently a little higher than normal yet no doctor cares to investigate or send me for any farther tests. I have lost 8lbs. for no reason, and gained back 3 by eating 6 meals a day(This is why my scope exam was cancelled), now weighing 90lbs. Have had upper right abdominal pain since April 2008. My neck and throat are constantly sore(since September 2008), but apparently there is nothing wrong with me…so why do I feel ill. I used to be super fit and a circus performer, I do have better things to do than be a hypocondriact(don’t know if I spelled that right) WTF is wrong with me? When people like me feel desperate they want solutions, and if doctors ignore them, they will look elsewhere.

Comments are closed.