Live-blood Analysis

see also: blood fluid flow
714-X             
pleomorphism
ultramicroscopes

by Norman Allan
If you take a small drop of blood from a finger tip and place it on a slide under a darkfield microscope you can watch patterns in the live-blood. In standard microscopy light is shone directly through the sample (specimen) and viewed against a bright field or background. However, we cannot easily observe live material in this manner. Because a specimen must be thin to be observed, it is also virtually transparent. Therefore we must stain it to see it, and to do this we usually have to kill the specimen. This staining process has become very sophisticated. There are hundreds of stains and hundreds of questions you can ask about your specimen with these stains. And that, as far as most microscopists are concerned, is that.


Red Blood Cells as seen in Darkfield
With darkfield microscopy, however, the procedure is crucially different. The light does not travel directly through the specimen, but comes in from the sides and only light which is reflected by the specimen is viewed and viewed against a dark background, hence “darkfield microscopy�. In this way a highly contrasted image is obtained and there is no need to use a stain. We can therefore watch living material.
Practitioners of live-blood analysis claim they can spot cancer and other "degenerative immune system diseases" up to two years before they would otherwise be detectable. Some practitioners say that they can see parasites. Almost everyone who studies live-blood in detail comes up with their own story. Let me tell you about a few of these, and then I'll tell you what I think I could and what I could not see.

Quebec scientist Gaston Naessens is a controversial figure who invented a remarkable microscope using a complex UV light source. He called it a "somatoscope" and with it he was able to examine living material at 30 times the resolution available with conventional microscopes. This led him to the discovery of what he calls "somatids". Somatid means "tiny bodies". According to Naessens somatids are found in all living creatures. In a healthy organism somatids have a simple three stage life cycle (somatid, spore, and double spore). In this "microcycle" somatids are symbiotic: they perform essential functions in the regulation of cell division, Naessens claims.

However, when we are ill the somatids elaborate into a complex sixteen stage "macrocycle". The somatids of the macrocycle are bacteria-like and fungus-like. This change of form is an example of what is called "pleomorphism". Gaston Naessens' theory says that we see the macrocycle in ill health or with impending illness. It is also claimed that with the darkield microscope we may see the disease pattern in the blood up to two years before a disease (for example cancer) manifests. The somatid cycle (discovered by Naessens with the somatoscope and analyzed in culture) can be observed and monitored with darkfield microscopy. We can use this to alert us to incipient problems, or to monitor a patients response to therapies, both orthodox or alternative therapies.

A second approach to live-blood analysis has been assembled from many sources by Prof. Lida Mattman of the Wayne State University and her colleague Dr. Phil Hockstra. Micro-organisms, when challenged, shed their cell walls. While this leaves them less virulent, it also makes them less vulnerable. Shedding their skins they lose most of the markers that identify them as foreign bodies to our immune systems. They can also now change their shape - this simple change of shape is also called pleomorphism - and all this means they can easily invade and hide in the body's own cells.

In live-blood analysis as taught by Dr. Hockstra attention is paid to the microbes, to the shape and activity of the white blood cells (WBC) and red blood cells (RBC). By observing the red cells we can tell a lot about the state of metabolism in general and of the liver particular. Meanwhile, observing the white cells gives us a reading on the state of the immune system, and the pattern of microbes tell us if disease is overwhelming the body's defences. Note that while we call this "live-blood" analysis it is really dying blood that we are observing. In a sense we are watching how quickly rot sets in after we take the drop of blood out of the body and this tells us how much resilience and vitality there is in the body - it is a measure of the body's health.


Toxoplasma gondii: an intracellular protazoan parasite

In both Naessens' and Hockstra's systems the blood is observed for 30 minutes. There are however a large number of practitioners who observe the live-blood for about five minutes with a "phase-contrast" microscope and then make a "nutritional assesment". While one can observe the red cells as well with a phase contrast condenser as with darkfield, white cells, microbes, platelets and other blood elements are not as well visualized. I also fear, personally, that much of this "nutritional analysis" is spurious. But then I also disagree with Naessens and Hockstra on a number of points as well.

For instance, almost everyone puts undue emphasis on the fact that red cells clump together in coin-like stacks (or rouleaux formation) and treat this as pathological. In fact RBCs clump together in rouleaux stacks wherever space allows them to. They do this, actually, to reduce the viscosity of the blood and for the protection that the red cells receive by traveling in these train-like processions. This is a normal function of blood and, furthermore, its extent cannot be easily quantified with live-blood work. (This is because we can not calculate exactly how thick the sample is at any point.) The extent of this clumping, this rouleaux formation can however be easily measured in standard blood work as sedimentation rate, or SED rate. (If rouleaux formation is excessive the blood sediments settle more quickly.) SED rate is a general indicator of inflammation. We generally expect the SED rate to be elevated in inflammatory conditions such as arthritis. But SED rate is a very general and imprecise measure, and medicine pays little attention to it nowdays.

Some microscopists claim that live-blood can be used to diagnose for parasites. It is important to note that "parasites" are large and generally live in the gut. In live-blood analysis we take a small drop of blood, perhaps a billionth part. Your blood would have to be overrun with these "giants" before we would see them. I've looked at hundreds of bloods and perhaps I've seen a parasite once. We do, however, see a lot of break down products from the blood cells. In particular the cell walls of the red cells will often unravel just like a knitted jersey. Wiggly moving threads unravel from the red cell walls. Their scientific name is myelin spindles, but some practitioners are calling them "parasites". Just because it is moving does not mean that it is alive! At microscopic dimensions it is normal for inanimate objects to move. This is caused by thermal and by Brownian motion.

What do I see in live-blood analysis? In my practice (1994 to 1999*) I have integrated several schools of darkfield microscopy. I have been trained by Naessens step-sons in the somatidian analysis and by Dr. Hockstra in his more conservative, but still controversial, approach. It is my opinion that using these systems judiciously we can see, first, the health of the "ground" or "terrain" - how healthy is the organism? are the red cells well formed? We can see the pressure on the immune system - how stressed are the white blood cells? Note, while we see the pressure in the system, we don't see exactly when or how it is going to break down. We can see how close to being overwhelmed the system may be - is the rot, the bacteria and fungus, taking over? Finally, and most importantly, we can watch over time how a patient is responding to their treatment.

There are also, of course, more specific things we can tell at times. There are signs of free radical damage and oxidation http://www.kamagraoraljelly247.com/. And with yeasts, candida, we can see some indication of how prevalent these are in the whole body. Further, we always get a lot of information about the degree and the types of anemia that may be present. But primarily I find darkfield live-blood analysis a way of monitoring general health. It is particularly useful, as mentioned above, in tracking patient's response over time to their treatments indicating at the earliest moment a need to change a medication or therapy. In certain conditions, especially cancer or other life threatening disease, where time is a crucial factor, darkfield microscopy can possibly be of help in choosing and monitoring the effect of therapy.

see also: blood fluid flow
                 pleomorphism  
                 714-X       

*I did "live-blood analysis" from 1994 to 1999.
I have not done it since. It is a very interesting phenomenon,
but at present nobody understands it well, and many of the people claiming to
do live-blood analysis have a completely erroneous take on the matter!