Re: Joke for all you bacteriologists . . .

I have not seen this proof. Please point me to a study that confirms what you are saying.

How can candida species exist chronically at low numbers in the blood?
If the patient is healthy and they're only there in low numbers, where are the neutrophils and why aren't they doing their job?
If the candida has evaded and/or overwhelmed the immune system, why are they only there in low numbers?
If you're seeing fungus on a live blood dark-field examination, do you, at the very least, do a gram stain?

The numbers vary from population to population, but 30-75% of patients with candidemia do not survive. Candidemia is diagnosed whenever ANY candida is found in the bloodstream. There are numerous studies on the seriousness and fatality rate of patients with this condition.

Live blood analysis, as far as I know, has not validated for the diagnosis of any medical condition. I imagine that it would be either spectacular or horrifying for ANYONE to see their blood under dark-field on a video screen.
Since it would be so friggin easy for its practitioners to validate the technique, the fact that I cannot find any studies showing live blood analysis to be valid (in fact, quite the opposite!) makes me believe that it is unreliable (which is not to say that it is necessarily useless, but that I would not trust what someone performing a live blood analysis told me was wrong with me without serious confirmation by valid methods). I think it is far too easy for someone without serious training in pathology and microbiology to misidentify what they are seeing as pathogens. If you have any information to the contrary, I'm willing to keep an open mind.