It’s important to understand both what’s established and where this technique is still evolving.
Firstly, it’s worth noting that many of the signs we see in live blood analysis actually come directly from standard haematology. We’re looking at real human blood under a microscope, so naturally, we observe the same kinds of blood cell shapes and abnormalities that are recognised in conventional medicine. Things like acanthocytes, codocytes, leucocytosis, keratocytes, hypersegmented neutrophils, these are all well-documented in medical literature and have been studied for decades. So there’s solid science behind a large portion of what we observe in live blood.
Now, where it gets particularly interesting is that in live blood, we’re viewing the sample in its natural, unaltered state, it hasn’t been stained or fixed like it is in a lab. That means we can often pick up on dynamic changes and more subtle indicators of nutritional imbalances or oxidative stress that may not be visible in standard blood tests.
Over the years, live blood analysts around the world have made clinical connections between certain blood patterns and issues like poor digestion, liver stress, free radical damage, etc and unhealthy lifestyle choices. These connections are based on thousands of hours of observation and practical experience, and help guide successful treatment protocols.
That said, it’s important to add that not all the findings in LBA have been validated through large-scale clinical trials. While some smaller studies have shown good correlation between LBA findings and conventional diagnostic markers, the lack of broader scientific research is one reason why live blood analysis isn’t yet widely accepted in mainstream medicine.
And when it comes to dry blood analysis, which is another test we use with live blood analysis, well, that’s even further outside the realm of conventional science. There are a few small published studies, and the correlation between some dry blood patterns and oxidative stress refer to solid, conventionally-accepted science. But again, no large-scale studies exist to justify support by conventional medicine.
So in summary, a significant part of LBA is rooted in recognised science, especially when it comes to blood cell morphology. But there’s also a more clinical, observational aspect that’s still developing scientifically. Over the years, many of the protocols and patterns used in LBA have been confirmed by emerging research. I believe that future research will continue to validate and expand what practitioners have been seeing in practice for years.