What Happened to Proven Sciences?

What Happened to Proven Sciences?

I've written this so that you can have a better understanding in knowing about other labs when results turn out negative. Before fully establishing RHR Plus I 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 the 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, salivia 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 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 ever 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. 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. 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, the set-up for failure includes mindset of medical establishment, robotic lab facilities and/or poor set-up, poorly trained technicians and/or microbiologists who are overburdened with work, mishandling of 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 is helpful to you, as you search for truth and freedom in regard to your own health.

Best of Health!

DD