Is there any research to back LBA up?

Yes, there have been a number of studies. It’s often called a “pseudo-science” and criticised in that there is no research behind it. That it’s some kind of gimmick. However, much of what we see in live blood samples have been researched and proven in conventional hematology. There are other anomalies in live and dry blood that were identified clinically by researchers working with live & dry blood analysis many years ago. Many of these relate to conditions that can’t be tested for with conventional investigations, but we always see the anomalies respond to the recommended interventions.

There have been a number of small studies that have shown a very strong correlation between findings in LBA and conventional blood tests. Because LBA is much more sensitive than conventional blood tests this is not something that can be done for all LBA anomalies, but in some of these studies they looked at anomalies that can be easily detected in conventional blood tests, eg anemia indicators in patients with iron deficiency anemia, liver indicators in patients with liver disease etc. LBA was shown to be very accurate in these cases. There was also another study done fairly recently that showed a very strong correlation between specific LBA indicators and metabolic syndrome. These studies are not to the scale required by conventional medicine, but they do show that what we’re seeing in the blood is reliable and stands up to scientific testing.