ENG

home science faq consults contact

What Happened to Proven Science?
Written by DD Rose - Consultant on Infectious Pathogens
Restorative Health Research Plus™ - www.rhrplus.com

Before fully establishing RHR Plus™ I had two long-time friends call me about their health problems. Each had negative results with reputable labs. One had predicted that their results would come out negative stating, “If They aren’t looking for it, they’re NOT going to find it. We’re going to do it because we need to start somewhere.” I, too, had had my own negative experiences with wasted false hopes, time, and money. I knew the scenario all too well and didn’t like the fact that people were being taken advantage of with endless “tests and examinations”.

When digging deeper into the problem, here’s what I discovered and possible reasons as to why labs seem to have negative results, even when a person is obviously not feeling well.

Problem #1 - A Medical Mindset
First, let’s look at the mindset of an establishment that may have pegged your condition prior to “tests” without your realization. Here two very important questions that I should have asked myself long time ago!

  • Do they believe that “parasites” exists in the Western or “civilized” world?
  • Will someone think out-of-the-box and look harder to find something?

In answering these questions, I quickly discovered that the conventional establishment doesn’t believe parasites exist; therefore, I’ve deluded myself into believing that parasites exist! To put it politely (they seem to think), “delusional”. It’s interesting to see how quickly a medical consultation of ill symptoms turns into a session for taking psycho drugs! Since “delusional” became a diagnosis and NOT parasites, in addition to skepticism, why should “they” really look for parasites -- right? If someone actually considered the possibility of a parasitic infection or a microbial cause for an illness, then they themselves might be looked at as delusional too because “these things don’t exist”.

The establishment is so well set-up with isolation for every medical subspecialty that not even an Infectious Disease doctor or GI doctor will feel obligated to take a stool, salvia or blood sample with a quick look at a live specimen -- how simple is that!? Someone established that it was BETTER to observe “dead” specimens rather than live ones. Years ago, when alternative health consultants were finding results with live blood cells analysis, they were scoffed at as frauds. What in the world happened to proven scientific studies that worked? Isn’t it better to look at something alive or barely alive rather than completely dead?

Even worse, some doctors may not have a microscope on the premises. Why is it that the Infectious Disease or GI doctor won’t tell you, “I have a scope here and will be observing the sample to see if we can find the problem”? Think about it for a moment. Did you know that your doctor gets a kick back for lab referrals whether they find results or not? When samples are out of their hands someone else is “responsible” for finding results, which means they aren’t responsible for finding YOUR problem! Therefore, samples are sent off to labs, which is the second major problem.

Problem #2 – Lab Technician Could be a Robot
Is it possible to set-up hundreds of certified medical labs across the country to fail? Possibly, yes!

Admittedly, technology is a wonderful thing, but it can have serious drawbacks against microbe detection. Most, if not all, conventional labs large or small are set up with automated lab equipment. This was designed purposely to cutback on human lab technicians at facilities for the purpose of making a profit. Computers will only read data IF it has been programmed to look for “something”; otherwise, it doesn’t exist (again, medical mindset who set the program). Think of it this way, the sample that you spent time to collect could be on “an assembly line” along with a host of other specimens that had a quick read by a computer. If the computer detects something out of the norm, then a technician might look at the sample which brings us to the next problem.

If a lab doesn’t use automation, it is likely that some facilities could be using old equipment. This would include outdated microscopes that are unable to detect minuet details on specimens.

Problem #3 – Mishandling, Inexperienced & Observations
There is the likelihood that a lab technicians and/or microbiologists mishandles a specimen for preparation BEFORE the computer automation assembly line. In many other cases, a person will only spend THREE MINUTUES observing a specimen which is not long enough.

This practice is very common in labs where microbiologists work where they may not have any breaks or lunches. 100 patients x 3 minutes/patient = 100 minutes = 5 hours. 100 patients x 5 minutes/patient = 500 minutes = 8.2 hours.

If lab technicians or microbiologists are under pressure to screen a certain amount of specimens per day, as a moneymaker operation, then no one will be interested in working harder to find “something”.

It is no secret that specimens on a slide can and will morph into something when given proper observation. The problem with the 3-minute rule is that microscopists know that in order to “find something” it will take considerable patience and time to observe each specimen properly. Additionally, it takes a trained eye with experience to know what is being observed. For instance, a parasite could be mistaken as a “fiber” or vise-versa and the entire sample could be possibly dismissed as “negative”. If ova are ever found, it is against a fixed numerical count; meaning, if the number is too low the results are “negative”. If a physical parasite is included along with the specimen, they are never examined because an extremely small portion of stool is examined and the rest discarded; the other possibility is that the robotic microscopic was unable to identify the specimen because of programming showing a “negative” result. Lastly, fixatives could be a problem which is another issue.

Problem #4 - Fixatives
Several fixatives and methods are used for samples -- a fixative is the liquid solution added to specimen containers. In short, the wrong fixatives or improper chemical-laden pre-mixtures are far too often used by labs to kill the specimen. These fixatives can degrade samples. Also the wrong fixatives can be used skewing results on the slide making identification difficult. The best method for detection is to use a fixative that won’t be harsh with specimens so that they can be properly observed by a qualified person.

In summary, set-up for failure includes the mindset of a medical establishment, robotic lab facilities and/or poor set-up, poorly trained technicians and/or microbiologists who are overburdened with work, mishandling samples, and/or improper use of fixatives.

Considering all of these things, is it any wonder why labs fail to find anything? Whoever your lab provider is, please make sure these issues can be addressed properly with proven methods. I hope this information helps in regard to own health.

To Your Health!

 

Experience, Live Observations & Comments
Post Excerpts from a forum
by Lab Analyst

Post 1
One of the techniques looks for ova (eggs) rather than for the actual parasites, which most personnel tend to mistake for "fibers" when inspecting them directly under the scope, as I've observed, but I can't speak about every lab or m.d. of course.

In most cases where PERSONALLY I've found a great deal of parasites by visual inspection without any doubt about their presence and with photographs of them showing their structures unmistakably -including digestive tracts and such-, the labs have reported NO parasites AT ALL in, I'd say, 95 cases out of 100. I know better than to confront docs with this data, of course.

In a commercial clinical lab where I know personnel, I've been told by them that what they do to test for parasites is: they take a few grams of stool, they mix it thoroughly with Lugol's solution and let it rest for a couple of minutes with a slide resting on top of the uncovered container, waiting for ova to float up towards the slide. Then they take the slide and look at it under the microscope, and if ova are present and visible, they report "parasites", and then the 'level' of the infestation, according to the number of eggs found compared against some fixed count.

Of course, in this manner physical worms will NEVER be visible, or any other structure in the stool for that matter, how about that?

Post 2
From experience, most of the time that I've encountered people infested with parasites, upon microscopic examination of the stool by LIVE wet mounts, I've found not just one species of parasites, but several. This is a fact that for reasons that elude me continues to be, let's say.. "overlooked", by the scientific medical community.

In such cases, usually I'll find a PREVALENT species, meaning a species which prevails mostly in numbers against the others. That species is the one usually detected by the commercially available stool screenings, possibly because it's the one laying the greatest number of eggs. This isn't always necessarily true, but it generally is.

Post 3
By the way, just today I received a patient who'd come from a lab in which saliva and stool tests were performed. Results = negative. Out of sheer curiosity, afterwards I had the patient spit directly onto a slide, a very small amount of saliva, and just about under 5 minutes I found Ascaris spp. "swimming" more than comfortably in the sample. How about that?

 

Please feel free to use the articles on this website. They may be reproduced in whole or in part provided that the reproduction includes a credit of authorship to Restorative Health Research Plus™ at www.rhrplus.com. Additionally we'd appreciate a crawlable link to either http://www.rhrplus.com/ or a link to the original article on this site. Thank you.

Top of page

Terms & Conditions

Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

Website is managed by RHR Plus™, LLC. All rights reserved on rhrplus.com Copyright © 2006-2015. Updated October 19, 2010