I thought they got it right when Malaysiakini ran an article Blood tests a big scam? but unfortunately quite a fair bit of it was about an “explanation” from an alleged Klang Valley doctor who touted Live Blood Analysis (LBA)’s “usefulness”. Unfortunate for this explanation amounts to pseudo-scientific hocus pocus.
The Malaysikini article contained the alleged doctor’s claims:
“Through LBA the activities of blood cells such as killing bacteria and fungus can be observed clearly,” said Lim, who has been conducting LBA in his center for 10 years.
He added: “To perform LBA, a single drop of blood is collected from a finger-tip for examination when the blood cells and microorganisms are still alive.
“Through LBA doctors are able to assess a patient’s immune, nutritional, circulation and toxicity (liver stress) status after the blood cells have been observed under a microscope.
“It thus gives us early signs of deterioration of our health conditions and provides vital information to formulate a nutritional or metabolic programme.”
The warning flag should be the “nutritional or metabolic programme” that someone is trying to sell you.
Unfortunately the notion that LBA can reliably detect one’s “immune, nutritional, and toxicity” status is extremely contentious to put it mildly. There are far better and more sensitive tests to detect liver function, infections and assays for specific deficiencies where these are indicated.
“Free radical test” as a follow-up to LBA? Please-lah, this is another scam test you see advertised in “natural health” websites and carried out by nutrition quacks.
I just want to quote Wikipedia which summarises it nicely, and at least this time gets it right:
Proponents believe that live blood analysis provides information “about the state of the immune system, possible vitamin deficiencies, amount of toxicity, pH and mineral imbalance, areas of concern and weaknesses, fungus and yeast.” Some even claim it can “spot cancer and other degenerative immune system diseases up to two years before they would otherwise be detectable” or say they can diagnose “lack of oxygen in the blood, low trace minerals, lack of exercise, too much alcohol or yeast, weak kidneys, bladder or spleen.” Practitioners include alternative medicine providers such as nutritionists, herbologists, naturopaths, and chiropractors.
Dark field microscopy is useful to enhance contrast in unstained samples, but live blood analysis is not proven to be useful for any of its claimed indications. Two journal articles published in the alternative medical literature found that darkfield microscopy seemed unable to detect cancer, and that live blood analysis lacked reliability, reproducibility, and sensitivity and specificity.
Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter and University of Plymouth, notes: “No credible scientific studies have demonstrated the reliability of LBA for detecting any of the above conditions.” Ernst describes live blood analysis as a “fraudulent” means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements.
Let me repeat the last line in case you didn’t get it in your heads:
Ernst describes live blood analysis as a “fraudulent” means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements.
LBA if done by a medical doctor is not necessarily better than if done by “nutritionists, herbologists, naturopaths, and chiropractors”. The issue is not who is doing it but the scientific basis (or lack of) behind LBA and the dubious claims practitioners make about it.
I am also surprised that according to Malaysiakini, “The Health Ministry and the Malaysian Medical Association declined to comment on this issue”. Nothing to say on this? What if the alleged doctor is indeed a registered medical practitioner on the MMC register? Isn’t it worse?
Any claim that a particular “test” has a clinical application should be properly evaluated. There should be publications which independently validate the tests and if one tries to search for Live Blood Analysis in the medical literature via Pubmed or Google Scholar, the precious few there are aren’t positive (see References below)
More reading:
Guardian: Intrigued by the spectacular claims made for Live Blood Analysis? Don’t be. It doesn’t work
Quackwatch: Live Blood Cell Analysis: Another Gimmick to Sell You Something
Skeptic Zoners: Live Blood Analysis – hocus pocus?
References:
1. Clinical utility of live blood analysis. J Korean Acad Fam Med. 2001 Jan;22(1):70-77.
There was no difference between patients and controls in observing 3 abnormal finding. CONCLUSION: We conclude that Live blood analysis may have no clinical significance.
2. Complementary and alternative allergy tests : review article. Morris, Adrian 2006
This article reviews the common tests employed by complementary and alternative medical practitioners to diagnose allergies and intolerances. These tests include VEGA, applied kinesiology, hair analysis, auriculocardiac test, stool and live blood analysis, leucocytotoxic tests and IgG ELISA tests. None of these tests has proven to be as accurate as specific IgE measurement in allergy diagnosis and they cannot be recommended.
3. eMJA 2004; 180 (12): 647-648: Good medicine and bad medicine: science to promote the convergence of “alternative” and orthodox medicine
- poses a question which those in charge of ethics should ponder (MMC, MMA Ethical committee):
Should Medical Boards (and indeed similar statutory authorities monitoring the quality of care given by nurses and allied health professionals) be more vigilant in challenging the appropriateness of renewing registration of those whose diagnostic and therapeutic approaches would not be acceptable to their peers (for example, the use of “live blood analysis”, inappropriate chelation therapy,infusing massive doses of intravenous vitamin C, colonic irrigation procedures)?
Related MMR posts:
Live Cell Analysis: High-Tech Hokum
Nutritional Live Blood Analysis