Jump to content

Talk:Live blood analysis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Providence journal

[edit]

Validity of live blood cell analysis

[edit]
  • Looking at this topic in more detail, it looks like live blood cell analysis with dark field microscopy is a valid technique. The problem lies more with some of the claims made by some users as they are not properly of sufficiently validated by published research. US State agencies seem to see a benefit in this form a lab analysis and suggest proper regulation instead of elimination, to insure public protection against unqualified users. We have to be careful no to throw the baby with the water so to speak. NATTO 05:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wikipedia article seems to me highly skewed toward an anti-LBA stance rather than an objective explanation of what LBA is. I would think that a better approach would be to provide enhanced (more thorough) description of what LBA is, followed then by a subhead on any controversy surrounding this issue. While anti-LBA information seems to abound on the web, there is nonetheless quite a lot of supporting information to be found as well. For example, I've read articles in magazines and in printed books comparing live blood microscopy photos/screenshots from healthy individuals with blood photos/screenshots from those who are terminally ill. The difference is dramatic. However, since LBA is not currently a practice commonly utilized or written about by mainstream doctors, it would be difficult to find a source from this group. However, it would likely be rather easy to find pro-LBA information from alternative medical practitioners (naturopaths, etc.). Acknowledging the controversy is fine, but this article does it in a skewed fashion. I'd like to see this article flagged as such, but do not know how to do that. (Sorry, I'm new to the Wiki.) HealthyOpinion (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Weight and WP:PSCI. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd comment

[edit]

I found this odd comment. "We know today, from the use of Darkfield Microscopes that microorganisms are pleomorphic, that they can change and often do. A virus can become a bacterium which can mutate into a yeast or fungus. Modern medicine has yet to acknowledge this because it would turn the pharmaceutical interests on their backs like a helpless tortoise." I found it here. What I would like to know is where this person got this idea from. I can understand the theories of the medical industry being all about money. The question is though... can anyone find information as to what gave this person the idea that microorganisms are pleomorphic? Might help with the article, and might merit an inclusion as something to debunk, if information can be found on this idea. SadanYagci 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one Morphological and biochemical features of Borrelia burgdorferi pleomorphic forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.177.200 (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria of analysis

[edit]

What are the criteria such practitioners use to evaluate the blood cells they see under the microscope, and where are they published? Badagnani (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FDA

[edit]

I think the FDA is very fast in claiming something complementary does not work in favour of the farmaceutical industry, which discribes lots of medicine which "maybe work, maybe not". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.85.213.99 (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to play devil's advocate, the pharmaceutical industry does conduct double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of their products prior to marketing them, and reputable laboratory tests are verified as accurate against a known gold standard before they are licensed by regulatory agencies. Are you aware of complementary medicines which met similarly high scientific standards of utility but were unfairly denied approval by the FDA? MastCell Talk 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LBA in the Malaysian Media

[edit]

Talk of LBA as "junk science" has popped up extensively in the Malaysian media over the past few days.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/10/5/starprobe/4824574&sec=starprobe

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/10/6/nation/4850643&sec=nation

http://www.guangming.com.my/forward/emailref/58119

http://search.sinchew-i.com/node/416945?k=%E9%A1%AF%E5%BE%AE%E9%8F%A1%E8%A7%80%E8%A1%80 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.232.239 (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely poor taste of biased behavior.You are quoting from people who draws conclusions based on personal opinions and biased websites,they just decided to put it on a newspaper.There are countless records of live blood analysis and darkfield microscopy being valid techniques worldwide.Dr.Luis Vitetta,MD from Australia has a comprehensive assessment from his paper marked "The live blood analysis technique".Dr.Hilbert Seeger,MD,PhD a well known Hematologist has countless papers on it,however it is not known to be a diagnostic test.Its a screening tool and the article states its an unestablished diagnostic test.It was written with an agenda and most other alternative forms of testing or methods on wikipedia are promoting misleading statements about CAM therapies also.Yet there is documented evidence that over 65000 lawsuits within a 6 year period against pharmaceutical companies for killing thousands of people worldwide.Some examples of drugs are Avandia,Paxil,Zoloft,Vioxx,Accutane etc.Yet for some reason the lobbyist try to attack anything alternative.LBA has wider research and this is a very short and meaningless description from a few individuals like Stephen Barrett and Ernst Edzard who only gave there opinions and Stephen Barrett were involved with a number of lawsuits and have lost every single one of them.Its funny how editors here pick at the nastiest words to use eg.Fraudulent-which refers to people who use an agenda to falsely lie to the public and to fool them into believing something does not work.Yet the clients actually see for themselves the function of the immune system eg.Hypersegmented Neutrophils which have been proven to determine if a client lacks B12 and Folic Acid,uric acid crystals,fibrinogen,platelet,microcytes,echinocytes etc.This is very valuable and can be used to identify hematological status of the blood.However,biased editors prefer to delete edits that can improve the biased views from certain people attacking alternative practice.The authorities should deal with people like them and I have even noticed certain alternative medicine practitioners are constantly being attacked on wikipedia and this web page is supposed to be edit friendly.Instead promoting lies,propaganda and pure vilified information and basically anyone who tries to put truthful or factual information is banned from further editing.I have to say the information by Dr.Barbara Starfield,MD states from the AMA that over 106000 deaths a per are due to properly prescribed prescriptions and that the dangers of drugs and deadly side effects continue to plague the lands of innocent people just for the love of money.I hope the lawyers will continue to deal with the pharmaceutical companies for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives around the world.Wikipedia needs unbiased and objective writers and its editors are not fooling anybody by covering up there removals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medboy1 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation

[edit]

It's not correct to say that live blood analysis is "unregulated". In the European Union, laboratory tests on blood and other fluids are classed as medical devices (as are associated reagents, equipment, calibrators, quality control material, software, etc) and must comply with the EU regulations on in vitro diagnostics. In the UK this is regulated via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Furthermore, the service itself may also be regulated, as well as the test. For example, in England any person or organisation offering a laboratory diagnostic service must be registered with and inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The scope of the services they cover can be found here. Similar regulation exists in many countries, for example CLIA in the USA. Xedo (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The EU regulations you quote are on devices. Would a microscope be considered as a device in this context? The service regulated by the CQC in the UK specifically excludes blood taken by pin prick so that would exclude LBA. It would appear that stating that this procedure is regulated is moot to say the least. Acleron (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The EU regulations define an in vitro diagnostic medical device as:
“any medical device which is a reagent, reagent product, calibrator, control material, kit, instrument, apparatus, equipment, or system, whether used alone or in combination, intended by the manufacturer to be used in vitro for the examination of specimens, including blood and tissue donations, derived from the human body, solely or principally for the purpose of providing information:
• concerning a physiological or pathological state, or
• concerning a congenital abnormality, or
• to determine the safety and compatibility with potential recipients, or
• to monitor therapeutic measures."
So any apparatus or reagents used to perform a test (and by my understanding, the test principle itself) is covered by the directive and must comply. From here. (there are some exemptions for "in house" tests, but this does not generally apply unless the test is developed and used within a hospital. Search the MHRA site for "in house manufacture"). The regulation is little known and poorly applied, but it does exist.
The CQC say they exclude tests where the sample is not sent to a laboratory for analysis. It depends what they define as laboratory analysis. They are governed by Schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. It specifically exempts fingerprick samples where "it is not necessary to send such samples for analysis to a place which is established for the purposes of carrying out tests or research in relation to samples of bodily cells, tissues or fluids". By my interpretation, this would mean a "live blood analysis" clinic/facility would not be exempt, as blood testing is the stated purpose of the establishment. Also, I think the fingerprick exemption is aimed at excluding simple tests like fingerprick blood glucose etc, not complex analysis and interpretation. Xedo (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to us to review the EU statutes. We have a reliable source, the BBC, added by a generally respected editor. Unless there are reliable sources that state otherwise or someone shows that the editor has misinterpreted the source, we go with what we can verify, not our own interpretations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your example of blood glucose may very well be what the regulators had in mind, unfortunately they didn't state it.
While, supposedly, we cannot interpret for Wikipedia but we are interpreting all the time. While the BBC is a source, it is hardly an authority on regulatory matters. The text of the BBC reference does not distinguish between is not regulated ie there is no regulatory law and is not being regulated ie nobody is policing the test. This is an important part of the article. Readers need to know the legal status if eg they want to argue against LBA. Perhaps the article text should say the position is unclear with the references that Xedo supplied. Acleron (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Live blood analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Live_blood_analysis&oldid=1195531161"