Breast Cancer, Swollen Lymphnodes Armpit

Breast Cancer Is Caused By Pleomorphic Bacteria

By Alan Cantwell, MD

© Copyright 2014


Dr. Cantwell is a retired dermatologist. He is the author of The Cancer Microbe; and Four Women Against Cancer, both available through Email:

“For the prevention and treatment of cancer to advance significantly in this new century we have to understand clearly that “we” are microbes, and microbes are “us.” We are inseparable and we share an existential existence. Perhaps with that knowledge, we can begin to conquer cancer by maintaining and restoring the symbiosis between “them” and “us”.

Bacteria were firmly rejected as a cause of cancer by medical science a hundred years ago. So why would any researcher claim that “cancer germs” cause breast cancer? It’s because pleomorphic bacteria can actually be seen in cancerous tissue; and a few physicians have been describing these unusual (and extremely controversial) bacteria since the late 19th century. Pleomorphic bacteria associated with cancer have more than one morphological form or appearance. When grown in lab culture and injected into mice they have been reported to increase the animals’ incidence of cancer. The microbe has been re-cultured from the animal cancer, this fulfilling “Koch’s postulates” — the proof required to establish a causative connection. For more details on pleomorphism in bacteria, consult the Wikipedia.

Since the “War on Cancer” in the 1960s, billions of dollars have been spent trying to find a viral (but not bacterial) cause of breast cancer. However, as of 2013 it now appears that viruses have finally been eliminated as a cause. Ka-Wei Tang, MD, one of the authors of a genetic analysis study of 4000 tumors, states: “In cancer research and treatment, there has been a lot of focus on associations that have not been proven, some of which have actually have been shown to be wrong. Researchers are starting to realize that we need truly unbiased methods to uncover meaningful associations.”

Unlike bacteria, viruses are too small to be viewed with the ordinary light microscope. But bacteria are large enough to be seen at the highest magnification (usually 1000 times, with an oiled lens) of the microscope.

William Russell (1852-1940) and “the parasite of cancer”

Near the close of the nineteenth century when major diseases like tuberculosis, leprosy, and syphilis were finally being widely accepted as bacterial infections, it was also thought that bacteria might also be implicated in cancer. On December 3, 1890, William Russell, a pathologist at the School of Medicine in Edinburgh, gave an address to the Pathological Society of London in which he outlined his microscopic findings of “a characteristic organism of cancer” that he observed in fuchsine-stained tissue sections from all forms of cancer he examined. He also noticed them in certain cases of tuberculosis, syphilis and skin infection.

The parasite was seen within the tissue cells and outside the cells (intracellular and extracellular). Their granular and round coccoid-shaped forms ranged in size from barely visible, up to “half again as large as a red blood corpuscle.” The largest round forms suggested a fungal-like or yeast-like parasite. Russell provisionally classified the parasite as a possible “blastomycete” (a type of fungus); and called the tissue forms “fuchsine bodies” because of their bluish-red staining qualities.

At the time, it was thought that each species of microbe could only give rise to a single disease. In 1899, in yet another report on “The parasite of cancer” (The Lancet, April 29), Russell admitted he could sometimes detect cancer parasites in diseases other than cancer, and that this was indeed a “stumbling block.” At this point a considerable number of scientists concluded that Russell bodies were merely the result of cellular degeneration of one kind or another. Furthermore, no consistent microbe was cultured from tumors; and attempts to induce cancer tumors in animals gave conflicting and often negative results. Russell was a pathologist, not a microbiologist, and he avoided controversies surrounding the cancer microbe theory. He simply concluded, “It seems almost needless to add that there remains abundant work to be done in this important and attractive field.”

After three years’ work at the New York State Pathological Laboratory of the University of Buffalo, Harvey Gaylord confirmed Russell’s research in a 36-page report titled “The protozoon of cancer”, published in May, 1901, in The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. Gaylord found Russell’s bodies in every cancer he examined, as well as large spherical bodies 2 to 3 times larger than red blood cells. But the most frequently seen round forms were the size of ordinary staphylococci.

Russell’s “parasites” became widely known to pathologists as Russell bodies. They are currently considered to be “immunoglobulins” and non-microbial in origin. This report will suggest that pleomorphic Russell bodies actually represent extreme bacterial pleomorphism, a feature of so-called call wall-deficient bacteria described in recent decades. (For more on this, view ‘The Russell body: The forgotten clue to the bacterial cause of cancer’ (2003) and ‘The return of the cancer parasite’ (2011) online.

The heresy of the cancer microbe

The death kneel for a cancer germ resulted when famous pathologist James Ewing declared in 1919 that “Few competent observers consider it (the parasitic theory) as a possible explanation in cancer.” Doctors eventually assessed cancer bacteria as laboratory contaminants or as secondary invader microbes that infect tissue after cancer has formed. Subsequently, few researchers dared to contradict Ewing by investigating bacteria in cancer.

Nevertheless, during the 1920s a few persistent physicians, such as pathologist John Nuzum of the University of Illinois College of Medicine; surgeon Michael Scott from Butte, Montana; and obstetrician James Young of Edinburgh, Scotland, published research showing that a particular type of bacteria was consistently observed and cultured in breast cancer. The pleomorphic germ defied the established laws of microbiology by its ability to change shape and form, depending on how it was cultured in the laboratory, the age of the culture, and the amount of oxygen supplied for growth.

At first, the germ in culture was barely visible as tiny round coccal forms. Later, these cocci might morph into rod-shaped bacteria, which could connect together to form filamentous chains resembling a fungus. Small cocci could also enlarge into yeast-like and fungal-like spore forms.

Nuzum grew his “micrococcus” from 38 of 41 early breast cancers, and from cancerous lymph nodes and metastatic tumors resulting from spread of the cancer to other parts of the body. With special stains he detected these small round coccoid forms within the breast cancer tumor cells. During his 6 years of intensive bacteriological study, he learned the microbe could pass through a filter designed to hold back bacteria, indicating that some forms of the microbe were as small as some viruses. Although Nuzum couldn’t produce cancer tumors in mice, he was able to induce breast cancer tumors in 2 of 5 dogs injected with the microbe.

Young found his microbe in 16 cases of breast cancer, and in two mice with breast cancer. He identified “spore forms” and clumped “spore balls” in microscopic sections prepared from the mouse tumors. Scott described three stages in the life cycle of his pleomorphic bacteria —the rod forms, the spore or coccus-like forms, and larger spore-sacs resembling a fungus. He claimed to treat cancer patients with an effective antiserum against these microbes, and spent the rest of his life trying to alert colleagues to the infectious cause of cancer. But the antagonism to Scott’s parasites and his antiserum was overwhelming, and he died a broken man. His sad story is told in The Cancer Conspiracy [1981] by Robert Netterberg and Robert Taylor.

The full papers of these men are seminal and valuable reading for anyone interested in the microbiology of breast cancer. They were retrieved for me by dedicated medical librarians who resurrected these totally forgotten scientific reports “long buried in the medical literature,” as my old dermatology profession used to say. It is unfortunate that they are not posted on the Internet by some well-funded breast cancer foundation seeking a cause and a cure.

Four women and their cancer bacteria discoveries

During the last half of the 20th century cancer microbe research was barely kept alive by a quartet of women, who were my friends but now have all passed away. The combined published research of Virginia Wuerthele-Caspe Livingston-Wheeler (a physician), Eleanor Alexander-Jackson (a microbiologist), Irene Diller (a cellular biologist) and Florence Seibert (a biochemist) provides indisputable evidence that bacteria are implicated in cancer.

Livingston independently discovered the cancer microbe in the late 1940s and never stopped promoting it until her death in 1990, at the age of 84. She stressed the pleomorphic microbe could be identified in tissue and in culture by use of the “acid-fast stain,” a traditional stain used to identify the rod forms of the tubercle bacillus and stains them a red color. She was greatly aided by TB microbe expert Alexander-Jackson, who supplied the bacteriologic expertise. Like previous researchers they confirmed the microbe was filterable and virus-like in some stages.

In 1965, they wrote: “This organism is a great simulator, whose various forms may resemble micrococci, diphtheroids, bacilli, fungi, viruses and host-cell inclusions. Yet if the developmental cycle of the organism is studied by following it through all its transitional stages, it can be identified as a single agent.” In 1974, the two women named their microbe “Progenitor cryptocides” (Greek for “hidden-killer”), causing an uproar among cancer experts, microbiologists, and the American Cancer Society, all of whom insisted such a perverse microbe did not exist!

In the 1950s Irene Diller of the Institute for Cancer Research at Fox Chase, Philadelphia, discovered fungus-like spicules emanating from cancer cells. Joining forces with the Livingston team, Diller worked with specially bred mice with a proven cancer incidence. By injecting them with bacteria cultured from breast cancer and other tumors, she was able to more than double the cancer incidence of the mice. When cancer tumors developed she successfully cultured the microbe from them — fulfilling Koch’s postulates. Diller also grew the microbe from the blood of cancer patients.

In the early 1960s Florence Seibert, noted biochemist and tuberculosis icon became so impressed with the three women’s research that she came out of retirement to help prove that bacteria caused cancer. Back in the 1920s Seibert devised a method to make intravenous transfusions safe by eliminating contaminating ubiquitous bacteria. Later, she perfected the skin test for tuberculosis that has been used worldwide ever since. In 1938, she was awarded the famed Trudeau Medal, the highest prize given to tuberculosis research.

Experiments conducted by Seibert and her team showed these TB-like cancer microbes were not laboratory contaminants because they were able to isolate bacteria from every tumor (and every leukemic blood) they studied. And when “immediate imprints” of fresh cancerous breast tissue were smeared onto a slide and stained, the coccus forms of the bacteria were easily identified. (See Figure 6A in her 1972 paper ‘Bacteria in Tumors’, written with Irene Diller and colleagues.)

In her autobiography, Pebbles on the Hill of a Scientist, published privately in 1968, she wrote: “One of the most interesting properties of these bacteria is their great pleomorphism. For example, they readily change their shape from round cocci, to elongated rods, and even to thread-like filaments depending upon what medium they grow on and how long they grow. This may be one of the reasons why they have been overlooked or considered to be heterogenous contaminants… And even more interesting than this is the fact that these bacteria have a filterable form in their life cycle; that is, that they can become so small that they pass through bacterial filters which hold back bacteria. This is what viruses do, and is one of the main criteria of a virus, separating them from bacteria. But the viruses also will not live on artificial media like these bacteria do. They need body tissue to grow on. Our filterable form, however, can be recovered again on ordinary artificial bacterial media and will grow on these. This should interest the virus workers very much and should cause them to ask themselves how many of the viruses may not be filterable forms of our bacteria.”

Seibert’s provocative papers, some published by the prestigious Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, should have caused a stir. But with the quartet slowly closing in on the bacterial cause of cancer, funds from previous supporters (like the American Cancer Society) suddenly dried up. All cancer microbe researchers eventually discovered that studying cancer bacteria was the kiss of death as far as funding was concerned. And without adequate funding, cancer microbe research was made more difficult, if not impossible.

But coming from thirty years of TB research, Seibert knew that the discovery of a pleomorphic and intermittently acid-fast microbe in cancer was tremendously important. She fervently believed that knowledge of this microbe would be instrumental in developing a possible vaccine and more effective antibiotic therapy against cancer. In Pebbles she confided: “It is very difficult to understand the lack of interest, instead of great enthusiasm, that should follow such results, a lack of certainty not in the tradition of good science.” Like the other women, Seibert theorized the virus-like forms could disrupt and transform nuclear genetic cell material leading to malignant change. Even though cancer microbes might appear in the laboratory as simple and common microbes (like staphylococci and corynebacteria), their ability to infiltrate the cell nucleus meant they were far from harmless.

In 1990, at the age of 92, Florence B Seibert was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame. When she died the following year her passage was noted in Time and People magazines, and in major newspapers like The Los Angeles Times. All the obituaries mentioned her contributions to the safety of intravenous fluids and her great achievement with the TB skin test. But not a word was written about her cancer microbe research, to which she devoted the last years of her life.

Breast cancer bacteria in tissue and in culture

In early lab culture cancer bacteria may appear as ordinary staphylococci, particularly the coccus form of Staphylococcus epidermidis. The isolation of this common “normal” skin bacterium from any kind of cancer is generally considered insignificant. However, the demonstration of staph-like coccoid forms in breast cancer suggests this rejection may prove unwarranted. Furthermore, there is a little-known non-acid-fast coccus form of the TB bacillus (the mycococcus form), which is staphylococcal-like and indistinguishable from ordinary cocci. Using Google Scholar, one can view Anna Csillag’s entire 1964 paper ‘The mycococcus form of mycobacteria.’ British microbiologist and medical historian Milton Wainwright, in “Highly pleomorphic staphylococci as a cause of cancer” (2000), also provides scientific evidence to show why staph grown from cancer should be taken seriously and not be subject to automatic ridicule.

The following six microphotographs show the appearance of the intra- and extracellular, pleomorphic staphylococcus-like forms observed in acid-fast stained breast cancer tissue and in culture. All are derived from a 37 year-old woman, reported in 1981 by Cantwell and Kelso, diagnosed with “infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast” and treated with surgery and chemotherapy. Within months she developed metastatic skin tumors of her chest, and died the following year with widespread metastases. Acid-fast (red) and non-acid-fast (blue) rods forms (bacilli) were never seen. The size of the blue-stained round forms ranged from barely visible “granules,” but most of the coccoid forms were the size of ordinary staphylococci. Some attain the size of larger yeast-like and spore-like forms. (For more images of microbes in cancer tissue, Google my online postings: “Coccoid forms of bacteria and the cause of cancer,’ and ‘Bacteria cause cancer: The microscopic evidence’.)



Figure 1. Histopathologic tissue section of original breast cancer showing grape-like clumps of variably-sized non-acid-fast coccoid forms. Intensified Kinyoun’s (acid-fast) stain, magnification x1000, in oil.



Figure 2. Breast cancer showing a clump of intracellular coccoid forms (long arrows) and scattered extracellular coccoid forms. Acid-fast stain, x1000, in oil.



Figure 3. Breast cancer showing a tightly-packed intracellular clump of still larger round coccoid forms. Acid-fast stain, x1000, in oil.



Figure 4. Breast cancer showing a focus of extracellular tiny “granular” coccoid forms. Acid-fast stain, x1000, in oil.


Figure 5. Staphylococcus epidermidis cultured from metastatic breast cancer to the skin.

The cocci are not acid-fast. Compare the size and shape of these cocci to those seen in the original

breast cancer. Ziehl-Neelsen (acid-fast) stain, x1000, in oil.


Figure 6. Staphylococcus epidermidis cultured from metastatic beast cancer to the skin.

The staining quality of the cocci varies from Gram-positive (i.e. purple-stained) to pink. Gram stain, x1000, in oil.

Recent discoveries pertaining to cancer bacteria

In 2005 the Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren for their discovery in the 1980s of the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease. This infection can sometimes result in stomach cancer. The discovery proved that stomach ulcers were not due to diet, spicy food, alcohol, or psychiatric disorders, as previously believed. Physicians also previously believed that bacteria could not survive and flourish in the acid environment of the stomach. What was also essential in showing Helicobacter was the use of a special stain to identify these pleomorphic bacteria in stomach tissue. To also illustrate how one physician can be correct — and the rest wrong — is the fact that American pathologist A. Stone Freedberg [1908-2009] found similar bacteria in stomach ulcers decades before, in 1940. Unfortunately, he discontinued this research when doubting colleagues could not confirm his work and considered such an infection impossible.

In this new century the Human Microbiome Project has already revealed that 90{0ad5881c2192913025db5bf2180b2e0b17ede26560c7c351a451156c0b06bc98} of the cells of the human body are not human cells. In actuality, the estimated 100 trillion cells are mostly bacterial in origin. Some writers now refer to us as “superorganisms.” Little is known about most of these germs and their affect on health and disease, especially diseases of old age and cancer. Livingston often said these body bacteria live peacefully within us in “symbiosis.” However, when the immune system is weakened and/or when tissue is damaged, these bacteria proliferate and cause cellular inflammation. Inflammation is a precursor to the development of cancer; and cancer kills off one-third of the world’s population. According to the World Health Organization, one-third of the world’s population also has latent tuberculosis (TB).

The tragically forgotten cancer microbe

Why do so many physicians automatically reject cancer microbe research? Medical historian Lawrence Broxmeyer, MD, in ‘Cancer: A new perspective,’ (2011) posted online, believes James Ewing (now widely regarded as “the father of oncology”) condemned the research in 1919 because it conflicted with his radium interests and his financial investment in newly described radiation cancer therapy. In the 1950s prestigious pathologist Cornelius Rhoads also saw the research as a threat to his lucrative cancer chemotherapy interests. Broxmeyer’s controversial views are also expressed online in, ‘Is cancer just and incurable infectious disease?’ (2004) , as well as our co-authored ‘Is HIV a virus-like form of acid-fast tuberculosis type bacteria?’ (2008), posted on the website.

In the years before her death Livingston was widely condemned as a quack by her colleagues. When she used an “autogenous” vaccine from the patient’s own cultured cancer bacteria to try to enhance the immune system response, she was highly criticized. (For more, read ‘Virginia Livingston: Cancer quack or medical genius?’) A damning report on her bacteria and vaccine entitled, ‘Autogenous vaccine: A defence against the bacterial organism that causes cancer, [2001]’ is presented online by Saul Green, PhD. Published by The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, he references 47 published papers, some of which are the same ones I use here to defend her work. However, he omits references to any of my 11 papers published in peer-reviewed journals illustrating cancer microbes in cancer tissue and in lab culture taken from patients with breast cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, and various forms of lymphoma. He also omits the formidable cancer research of Florence Seibert.

In my experience as a physician and octagenarian, I have learned that once doctors are carefully taught an important “fact” —such as “bacteria do not cause breast cancer” — it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to change their mind. I suppose it has to do with the security of being in sync with what your colleagues believe to be true and not making waves. With the demise of the “breast cancer virus” that so many oncologists believed in, perhaps we can again take a second look at cancer bacteria.

Sherlock Holmes once famously said to Doctor Watson: ‘You see but you do no observe.’ In this regard it took me a decade of observation of the microbe in various skin disease tissue to convince myself that Livingston and her women colleagues were correct. When I first met her in the mid-1960s, our mutual interest was primarily the very rare red-stained acid-fast TB-like rod forms we independently discovered in scleroderma tissue . For a long time I could “see,” but I did not carefully observe the other pleomorphic bacterial forms that were plentiful in scleroderma (especially the spectacular “large body” fungus-like forms I rarely observed). I was taught nothing about them in medical school and they weren’t found in medical textbooks. As a dermatologist in training, I couldn’t understand why expert microbiologists and pathologists did not report them, or provide a clear understanding of their origin. Finally, through painstaking observation, I developed the confidence to realize that microbes could indeed be seen in cancer, as other researchers had demonstrated years before.

For the prevention and treatment of cancer to advance significantly in this new century we have to understand clearly that “we” are microbes, and microbes are “us.” We are inseparable and we share an existential existence. Perhaps with that knowledge, we can begin to conquer cancer by maintaining and restoring the symbiosis between “them” and “us”.



Alexander-Jackson E: A specific type of microorganism isolated from animal and human cancer: Bacteriology of the organism. Growth 18:37-51, 1954.

Cantwell AR Jr, Kelso DW: Microbial findings in cancer of the breast and in their metastases to the skin. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 7:483-491, 1981.

Cantwell AR Jr: The Cancer Microbe: The Hidden Killer in Cancer, AIDS, and Other Immune Diseases. Aries Rising Press, Los Angeles, 1990.

Diller IC: Growth and morphologic variability of pleomorphic, intermittently acid-fast organisms isolated from mouse, rat, and human malignant tissues. Growth 26:181-209, 1962.

Hess DJ: Can Bacteria Cause Cancer? Alternative Medicine Confronts Big Science. New York University Press, New York, 1997.

Livingston-Wheeler VWC, Addeo EG: The Conquest of Cancer. Franklin-Watts, New York, 1984.

Nuzum JW: A critical study of an organism associated with a transplantable carcinoma of the white mouse. Surg Gynecol Obstet 33:167-175, 1921.

Nuzum JW: The experimental production of metastasizing carcinoma in the breast of the dog and primary epithelioma in man by repeated inoculation of a micrococcus isolated from human breast cancer. Surg Gynecol Obstet 11:343-352, 1925.

Scott MJ: The parasitic origin of carcinoma. Northwest Med 24:162-166, 1925.

Scott MJ: More about the parasitic origin of malignant epithelial growths. Northwest Med 25:492-498, 1925.

Seibert FB, Yeomans F, Baker JA, et al: Bacteria in tumors. Trans NY Acad Sci 34(6):504-533, 1972.

Wainwright M: Extreme pleomorphism and the bacterial life cycle: A forgotten controversy. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 40:407-414, 1997.

Wainwright M: Highly pleomorphic staphylococci as a cause of cancer. Med Hypothesis 54:91-4, 2000.

Wuerthele Caspe (Livingston) V, Alexander-Jackson E, Anderson JA, et al: Cultural properties and pathogenicity of certain microorganisms obtained from various proliferative and neoplastic diseases. Amer J Med Sci 220:628-646, 1950.

Wuerthele-Caspe Livingston V, Alexander-Jackson E: An experimental biologic approach to the treatment of neoplastic disease. J Amer Med Women’s Assn 20:858-866, 1965.

Wuerthele Caspe Livingston V, Livingston AM: Demonstration of Progenitor Cryptocides in the blood of patients with collagen and neoplastic diseases. Trans NY Acad Sci 34(5):433-453, 1972.

Wuerthele Caspe Livingston V, Livingston AM: Some cultural, immunological, and biochemical properties of Progenitor cryptocides. Trans NY Acad Sci 36(6):569-582, 1974.

Young J: Description of an organism obtained from carcinomatous growths. Edinburgh Med J (New Series) 27:212-221, 1921.

Young J: An address on a new outlook on cancer: Irritation and infection. Brit Med J, Jan 10, 1925, pp 60-64.


Can Calcium Actually Make Your Bones Weaker?

By Dr. Mercola

Osteoporosis is a very common problem. It’s characterized by porous and fragile bones, which over time increases the risk of fractures, most often to hips, vertebrae and wrists.
The following information is important for a number of reasons, because there’s a lot of confusion about this condition, but I want to specifically clear up two major misconceptions.
Clearing Up Two Major Myths About Osteoporosis and Its Treatment
The first myth is that osteoporosis is due to a calcium deficiency. As you’ll soon see, that’s not simply the case.
The second misconception is that the treatment for it is to use bisfosphonate drugs like Fosamax, Actonel, or Boniva. This is one of the worst strategies for treating this condition, because even though it will increase your bone density, it is a poison! The reason these drugs work is because they actually kill certain cells in your bone called osteoclasts. These are the cells that destroy bone as part of your natural bone regeneration process.
When these cells die off, you’re left with only osteoblasts, which build bone. Hence you get bigger bone that is denser, but NOT stronger. Your bones actually become weaker, and in the long term increase your risk of developing a fracture.
Your bone undergoes a dynamic process, constantly being remolded based on the forces in your body, and you need to have both osteoblasts and osteclasts to remove old bone and rebuild new bone.

Another drug you want to avoid, especially if you have asthma or any other autoimmune disease, is steroids. Steroids are very detrimental for bone density, and will increase your risk of osteoporosis.

Eating Right for Healthy Bone Density and Strength
One of the important strategies for healthy bones is to eat the right kind of foods. If you eat a diet full of processed foods, it will produce biochemical and metabolic conditions in your body that will decrease your bone density, so avoiding processed foods is the first step in the right direction.
Eating high quality, organic, biodynamic, locally-grown food will naturally increase your bone density and decrease your risk of developing osteoporosis.
One food in particular worth mentioning are onions, which are high in gamma-glutamyl peptides that have been shown to increase bone density. But generally, you’ll want to eat lots of fresh vegetables.
There’s a common concern that eating a high protein diet will secrete calcium into your urine. But the truth of the matter is that more people are now eating low-protein diets, and your body needs protein, because amino acids are part of the bone matrix. If you don’t consume enough of specific amino acids your body can’t form strong, dense bones. So you’ll also want to make sure you eat plenty of high quality protein like free-range eggs and grass-fed meats.
One food you may want to consider avoiding is gluten — a specific protein in many grains, specifically wheat, but also barley, rye, oats and spelt. Gluten has been shown to decrease bone density.
Beneficial Supplements
Along with your foods, your omega 3 fat content has a lot to do with building healthy bone. Most everyone needs to take a high quality, animal-based omega 3 fat. I recommend krill oil, as I believe it’s a superior source of omega 3’s.
At the same time, to balance out your omega 3 and omega 6 ratio, you’ll want to reduce the amount of processed vegetable oils you consume. Oils like corn oil, safflower- and soy oil are loaded with omega 6’s. Additionally, canola should be avoided for other reasons.
Another supplement you may want to consider if you already have osteoporosis is vitamin K2, which has been shown to radically improve bone density. Fermented foods, such as natto, typically have the highest concentration of vitamin K found in the human diet and can provide several milligrams of vitamin K2 on a daily basis.
Additional Components that are Vital for Bone Density
Two additional components that are vital for building bone density and strength are vitamin D and proper exercise.
Vitamin D — Interestingly, you don’t need much vitamin D to protect you against osteomalacia (the term for the softening of bones due to defective bone mineralization, also known as rickets in children). In fact, most of our RDA’s are based on that observation, which is why they’re up to ten times lower than what many people need for optimal health.
Now we know that vitamin D is enormously important for an ever-growing number of conditions, which is why I recommend you regularly expose large amounts of your skin to safe amounts of sunshine (or use a safe tanning bed) to optimize your vitamin D levels.
If neither of those is available, then you’ll want to use an oral form of vitamin D3. However, if you take oral vitamin D, make sure you’re measuring your vitamin D levels with a reputable reference lab (in the U.S. I recommend LabCorp). Getting your levels up to about 60 ng/ml will help you optimize your bone density.
Proper exercise — The second component you can’t ignore if you want strong, healthy bones is weight bearing exercises like strength training. Remember, bone-building is a dynamic process, so you want to make sure you exert enough force on your bones to stimulate the osteoblasts to build new bone.
You may want to see a personal trainer or exercise therapist to give you specific exercises to build up the muscles around the bone that are most at risk, such as your arms and hips, as that’s where most of the damage occurs.
The Calcium Lie
Dr. Robert Thompson M.D. wrote an entire book, The Calcium Lie, addressing this important issue. Although he’d been able to resolve many illnesses with supplements and herbs and other less toxic alternatives to drugs, he’d come to realize that similar to the pharmaceutical industry, the nutrition industry had its own flaws.
He concluded that enormous amounts of money were being wasted on supplements that had little or no health benefit, and in some cases could actually worsen your health.
One of the tenets of his book is that bone is composed of at least a dozen minerals, and if you focus exclusively on calcium supplementation you are likely going to worsen your bone density, and will actually increase your risk of osteoporosis!
Dr. Thompson believes that the over consumption of calcium in the goal of preventing osteoporosis creates other mineral deficiencies and imbalances that will also increase your risk of heart disease, kidney stones, gallstones, osteoarthritis, hypothyroidism, obesity and type 2 diabetes.
Interestingly, he proposes that one of the best practical alternatives is the use of naturally occurring ionic supplements, as ionic minerals are the most plentiful form of minerals found on earth.  He believes that almost everyone needs trace minerals, not just calcium, because you simply cannot get all the nutrients you need through food grown in mineral depleted soils.
Unprocessed Salt – A Better Alternative to Calcium Supplementation
Dr. Thompson believes that unprocessed salts are one of the best sources of these ionic trace minerals responsible for catalyzing many important functions in your body.
I have been a long time fan of high quality salt, and even more so once I learned of Himalayan salt, which I believe is one of the healthiest salts on the planet. High quality salts like Himalayan contain vitally important trace minerals from the ancient oceans that are not contaminated with toxins, and which are very difficult to get in your food due to the challenges of modern agricultural practices.
Live Blood Online

Just How Does Live Blood Analysis Help Prevent Disease?


We are on week 1 of the September training course and our tutor is
going through some very important information on blood analysis to help students understand what one can and cannot do with this technique and what they will be able to assess by looking at clients’ blood.

We also viewed a few videos on how to take blood samples correctly for live and dry blood analysis and what settings to use on a microscope to view these samples.


Our tutor then went on to explain that live blood analysis (LBA) is especially helpful as part of a preventative approach to healthcare and is a valuable test to those who are pro-active about their health.

Many of the so-called preventative measures are really just early detection measures. For example, having a regular blood sugar test is not part of prevention – it will only show an imbalance once the body has failed at all its attempts to regulate the blood sugar.

When you get an abnormal blood sugar reading it is at quite a late stage already and one should really have had preventative measures in place years before the abnormal result.


“LBA detects imbalances that may lead to disease and one can then implement measures to help minimise the likelihood of serious conditions developing in the future.”

One of the questions that came was – “Why is the visual impact of LBA so important?


“The visual impact of LBA is very important. It was shown in a study that people who were given the actual images of their damaged arteries were significantly more compliant in making changes to their diet and lifestyle than those who only saw the images once.”

“Being able to see the impact of poor dietary and lifestyle choices and to refer back to those images has a very powerful effect on keeping people motivated.

Live Blood Online

Could Live Blood Analysis help you and your clients too?

Watch this short video where our tutor at Live Blood Online Dr Okker explains some of the huge benefits of adding live blood analysis to your practice.

How Live Blood Analysis can help you in your practice

Here are the top 5 benefits LBA has to offer:

  1. Live Blood Analysis or LBA helps to confirm and better detect imbalances and health issues.
  2. It helps you decide the best course of treatment.
  3. With LBA you are able to monitor the results of any given treatment.
  4. LBA gives you a as a practitioner, a very unique and powerful edge.
  5. Live blood analysis can show issues not yet manifested with symptoms.

New Blood Analysis Online Training Course Starting Tue Sept 27th


If you have any questions about the short video, feel free to email us at
You may follow us on Twitter: @liveblooduk
For more updates on Live Blood Analysis, you may also like us on Facebook: @LiveBloodLondon

Live Blood Analysis Course

Live Blood Analysis Course – Choosing The Best Training course

Choosing the best live blood analysis course:

There are a number of live blood analysis courses available, either on line or at training centres. So, how do you choose the best one for you?

Dr Okker from Live Blood Online has been practicing practising and teaching live blood analysis for 15 years now and has trained many successful practitioners all around the world. We asked him for his advice on finding the best training course and what to look out for.

Is the organisation well known and recognised? Choose to train with a well-known establishment that has trained many practitioners, do they have a directory or list of attendees? Is the tutor well known and established?

What is being offered? You should expect to receive wall charts, a substantial and well written manual, good clear, concise training covering naturopathic, pleomorphic and allopathic perspectives. Ask about what on-going support is provided and what will be required for certification. Will the establishment be able to list you as a practitioner who has trained with them? Microscope and equipment advice should be available.

What does the course cover? Make sure the training covers use of the microscope, correct sampling techniques for live and dried/dry blood analysis, all of the anomalies in live and dry/dried blood analysis as well as showing how to join the dots and put it all together to get a clear and precise picture of what is being viewed.

How is it being taught?  Is the training In-House or Online Training? Dr Okker advises that online training has the edge over in-house training for a few reasons; 1) In house training often involves expensive travel and accommodation as well as being tiring when you need to be at your most alert. In-house training courses are very intensive and you need to be alert and ready to take notes or use your memory. 2) Online training offers the huge advantage of being able to study from your home, office or practice at your leisure without the expense of travel & accommodation. Another big advantage is that you are provided with videos of the lessons so you are able to go over the material as many times as you like, a much better way of learning than struggling to take notes and/or remember as at in-house training.

Do they offer help and advice on choosing the right microscope? This is a big investment and the right advice here is very important to avoid any costly mistakes. Does the establishment have a microscope expert on board?

Is Dark field & Bright field microscopy taught? In Dr Okkers view dark field microscopy is superior to phase contrast as some anomalies can only be seen by a good quality darkfield system and not seen by phase contrast.

Ask about your tutors experience: Look for an establishment that has a well-known tutor with lots of experience (preferably a live blood analysis practitioner) as well as being a good teacher.

Certification: Do they provide a certificate after the training course? Is it recognised by insurance co’s?

Accreditation & Recognition; Are they a member of a recognised body or organisation? Look for membership of naturopathic bodies such as the CMA Complementary Medical Association (UK).

Do they offer back up and support? Dr Okker advises to look for training where on-going support is offered after training– maybe through access to a private group, a training site or some form of continuing back-up.

Dr Okker Botha: Masters: Homeopathy (M.Tech. Hom), HID – Naturopathy (SNSH UK) Adv. Nutrition (SNHS UK), Adv. Applied Microscopy for Nutritional Evaluation & Correction (NuLife Sciences).

Dr Okker Botha is a registered homeopathic doctor who has established himself as a leader in Live and Dry Blood Analysis. He is the tutor at Live Blood Online where the course draws on information from the leading researchers in microscopic blood analysis in the world.

He has over 15 years experience in his live blood analysis clinical practice as well as training many practitioners world-wide in this exciting technique.

Dr Okker is considered one of the leading authorities in the field of Live Blood Analysis.

“Our blood analysis courses are training systems for those who want to learn how to use blood analysis to its full potential.”

Due to the lack of comprehensive training in many countries across the world, many practitioners are under-utilizing this amazing technique.

Bright Field Microscopy

Bright Field Microscopy

In bright field microscopy a specimen is placed on the stage of the microscope and incandescent light from the microscope’s light source is aimed at a lens beneath the specimen. This lens is called a condenser.

The condenser usually contains an aperture diaphragm to control and focus light on the specimen; light passes through the specimen and then is collected by an objective lens situated in a turret above the stage.

The objective magnifies the light and transmits it to an oracular lens or eyepiece and into the user’s eyes. Some of the light is absorbed by stains, pigmentation, or dense areas of the sample and this contrast allows you to see the specimen.

For good results with this microscopic technique, the microscope should have a light source that can provide intense illumination necessary at high magnifications and lower light levels for lower magnifications.

Darkfield Microscopy

Dark Field Microscopy

Dark Field microscopy is a microscope illumination technique used to observe unstained samples causing them to appear brightly lit against a dark, almost purely black, background.

When light hits an object, rays are scattered in all directions. The design of the dark field microscope is such that it removes the dispersed light so that only the scattered beams hit the sample.

The introduction of a condenser and/or stop below the stage ensures that these light rays will hit the specimen at different angles, rather than as a direct light source above/below the object.

The result is a “cone of light” where rays are diffracted, reflected and/or refracted off the object, ultimately, allowing you to view a specimen in dark field.

A dark field microscope is ideal for viewing objects that are unstained, transparent and absorb little or no light.

These specimens often have similar refractive indices as their surroundings, making them hard to distinguish with other illumination techniques.

Dark field can be used to study marine organisms such as algae and plankton, diatoms, insects, fibres, hairs, yeast, live bacterium, protozoa as well as cells and tissues and is ideal for live blood analysis enabling the practitioner to see much more than is possible with other lighting methods.

Live Blood Online Affiliate Marketing

Live Blood Online Affiliation Scheme

Live Blood Online Affiliation Scheme

Many of you have kindly spread the word about the Live Blood Online Training Course, thank you kindly, we are very grateful. As we promised, we have now set up an affiliate scheme to reward you.

How the affiliate scheme works

Once you sign up as an affiliate you will be able to access your dashboard to get your link that you can use anywhere on your site, emails, promotional materials etc.


You will have access to banners for your site, emails, promotional materials etc


You will be paid automatically. There is no time limit and you will get credit for everyone that is directed to the site from your affiliate link on your site.

How does affiliate marketing work?

Affiliate marketing allows you to recommend products and services from other companies and be paid a commission if someone buys the product as the result of your recommendation. To track which purchases happens as a result of your recommendations, the merchant (Live Blood Online)will  provide you with a special link to use when linking to their website that contains a unique referral code assigned to you.

When people click that unique link, and buy the product or service within a specified time frame (we have made the time – lifetime), you get a commission on the sale.

The products cost the consumer the same amount of money as it would if they didn’t buy it through your affiliate link, but the merchant (Live Blood Online) automatically pays you a referral fee for generating the sale.

Is affiliate marketing free?

Yes. You should never pay to become an affiliate for a merchant’s program. Joining and promoting an affiliate program is a free opportunity.

While joining affiliate programs is a free opportunity, it’s a business – and like any business, it will cost some money to start and run it. But those costs will be associated with building, running and promoting your blog or website. There are many tools – free and paid – you can use to assist you with all of these processes.

Can you really make passive income with affiliate marketing?

Yes. Affiliate marketing can generate passive income. We have multiple sites earning passive income, but each of those sites took some work to build. Some sites require some work and maintenance though the revenue they generate pays for that maintenance, this really is a great income generator for any business.

Is affiliate marketing legitimate?

Absolutely. Affiliate marketing is a viable and legitimate way to monetize your blog or website. It is important to work with companies that are in your field of work and complement your business and website.

Where can I get more information?

Email us at and we will send you all the information and/or arrange a Skype call to explain how the scheme works and suggest ideas to get you going.

Live Blood Cell Analysis

Could Live Blood Cell Analysis Be A Good Addition To Your Complementary Health Practice?

Live blood cell analysis, the analysis of live unmodified capillary blood, was pioneered by several independent researchers worldwide and has evolved over the course of many years with the advancement of microscopy. Some focused only on the nutritional aspects of blood morphologies, others approached it within a medical frame of reference, whilst others made staggering discoveries that defied (and continue to defy) the accepted paradigms of modern medicine.
If you were to look at their findings, you would see that although there are differences in opinion, there is also a central truth that was proven and uncovered by all of the researchers: that the human body (which is a natural system) cannot live with an unnatural diet and lifestyle.
As practitioners of natural medicine this concept naturally resonates with us.
However, most patients are not convinced of this and hold on to the delusion that you can fool or cheat nature. They believe that you can take a pill to counter and cure almost anything – and continue to eat what you like!

Most people will not follow the advice you give them and need visual proof that their unnatural habits are having a negative impact on their health.
Live blood analysis allows you to do just that. Read more

Red Ball Blood Test


During the war, the “Red Ball Blood Test” was used as a quick test on the battle lines. If a soldier claimed to be sick, they pierced his finger with a needle for a drop of blood. If a “red ball” appeared, the soldier would be handed his rifle and sent off to battle.

If the blood layer on the finger looked watery and not bright red, the solder was deemed ill, and would usually not be sent off to fight.

This test could quickly determine an individual’s overall health.


Blood is the fluid that circulates through the heart, arteries, capillaries, and veins. It is the chief means of transport within the body. It transports oxygen from the lungs to the tissues and carbon dioxide from the tissues to the lungs. It transports nutrients and metabolites to the tissues and removes waste products to the kidneys and other organs of excretion.

Blood has an essential role in the maintenance of fluid balance.

The total blood volume for an average adult is about 5 litres, approximately 8{0ad5881c2192913025db5bf2180b2e0b17ede26560c7c351a451156c0b06bc98} of the total body weight.

Blood varies in colour from an oxygenated bright red in the arteries to a duller red in the veins.

The blood can be divided into two main components: the liquid portion (plasma) and the formed elements (blood cells). Plasma accounts for about 55{0ad5881c2192913025db5bf2180b2e0b17ede26560c7c351a451156c0b06bc98} of the total blood volume. It consists of about 92{0ad5881c2192913025db5bf2180b2e0b17ede26560c7c351a451156c0b06bc98} water, 7{0ad5881c2192913025db5bf2180b2e0b17ede26560c7c351a451156c0b06bc98} proteins and less than 1{0ad5881c2192913025db5bf2180b2e0b17ede26560c7c351a451156c0b06bc98} inorganic salts, organic substances other than proteins, dissolved gasses, hormones, antibodies and enzymes. The formed elements (blood cells) of the blood comprise the other 45{0ad5881c2192913025db5bf2180b2e0b17ede26560c7c351a451156c0b06bc98} of the total blood volume. These formed elements are produced in the bone marrow and include erythrocytes (red blood cells), leukocytes (white blood cells) and thrombocytes (platelets).

The normal pH of the blood is maintained at about 7.35.

The blood is a very sophisticated colloidal system that is absolutely essential for life. It performs many important functions, including:

Blood supplies oxygen to the body cells.
It delivers nutrients such as glucose, amino acids and fatty acids to the body cells.
It removes waste such as carbon dioxide, urea and lactic acid from the tissues.
It is involved with immunity in that it circulates leukocytes and antibodies.
It plays a central role in repair through the process of coagulation.
Circulating blood is important in several messaging systems in the body (e.g. hormones, chemical messengers such as leukotrienes).
It helps to maintain the normal, narrow pH range of 7.35 to 7.45.
Blood and its distribution within the body help to regulate the core body temperature.
Blood plays a role in hydraulic functions in the body.