October 15, 2009


An article from The Star (refer to the end of the post for the copy of the letter)claims that LBA is NOT junk science, BECAUSE LBA uses some of the same technical terms that medical science uses and BECAUSE someone doing LBA sees the same features of RBCs (red blood cells) that a medical lab technician sees.

To see the falsehood of those claims by the article consider the following analogies:

If someone says "myocarditis" for inflammation of the heart muscle and "hypertension" for high blood pressure, does that make the person a doctor? Of course not!

When someone watches an English Premier League game on Astro and sees the same goal kick a referee at the game sees, does that make a viewer seated in a Mamak shop watching the game an EPL referee? Of course it does not!

RBC defects can have many causes, genetic, parasites, medicines, etc. Doctors are trained to do the proper differential diagnosis, meaning determining the cause of the RBC defect, because obviously the treatment is different for different causes.

The author is a homeopathic doctor (an oxymoron). Homeopathy is NOT scientific, as you shall see.

Homeopathy claims to cure people by giving extremely dilute doses of a substance that would cause a healthy person the same symptoms as the ill person if the substance were given in larger concentration to the healthy person. (The homeopathic "law of similars".)

Thus, homeopathy states that if an ill person has a fever, treat them with a substance that would cause a healthy person to have a fever, but give the ill person an extremely dilute dose, literally diluted perhaps to 0.001 percent concentration, meaning one part in 100,000 parts.

Firstly, the "law of similars" is illogical, secondly how can anything extremely diluted have any effect?

Well, it CAN'T, not directly.

Any effect of homeopathy is the placebo effect, whereby someone's expectation of getting better makes them feel better OR the well-known fact that most fevers go away on their own after a few days, homeopathic treatment or no treatment.

LBA is truly junk science, anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

written by Pakac Luteb

"Thursday October 15, 2009

Live blood analysis is not really junk science

I AM a homeopathic doctor. Although we do not need to do live blood
analysis (LBA) in our practice, it has helped me to understand so much
more about the conditions of my patients.

When I took up this course, called live blood morphology, my teacher
and trainer stressed again and again that it is not to be used as a
diagnostic tool, but rather as a screening tool at most. We know that
certain people abuse LBA for monetary gains, but that does not make it
less scientific.

By looking at a drop of blood under a brightfield microscope, we will
be able to see the conditions of the blood, especially the red blood
cells (RBC’s). If the size and shape of the RBC’s are not normal, it
will surely affect their oxygen-carrying capacity.

When the RBC’s are too big (macrocytes) or too small (microcytes)
their oxygen carrying capacity diminishes.

When there is a mixture of macrocytes and microcytes, the condition is
called anisocytosis. Macrocytes and microcytes are most likely caused
by deficiencies in iron, folic acid and vitamin B-12.

Many times an operator will see cells with rough edges, a condition
called poikilocytosis. These are cells damaged by free radical
possessing agents such as chemicals, smoke from cigarettes,
preservatives, etc.

Target cells are indicative of a deficiency in hemoglobin “Hb” content
and are therefore incapable of delivering oxygen. The causes could be
lack of iron in the system and are common in menstruating women with
heavy blood flow.

The terms microcytes, macrocytes, anisocytosis, poikilocytosis, target
cells that often appear under the blood film report of a normal blood
test. When the knowledge and analysis of the RBC condition is already
in the mainstream of medical science, how can it still be called ”junk
science” ?

What we truly need now is regulation so that LBA is not abused in
whatever way. We have reached a stage when we can no longer brush it
aside as being unscientific or brand it as “junk science”.

Alor Star."

Source: THE STAR


w w said...

I refer to TheStar letter "Live blood analysis is not really junk science" by Stallion Chan, dated October 15:

I would like to point out that this Stallion Chan who wrote the letter is not a real doctor and has no real medical qualifications, but likes to go around giving talks on hocus-pocus cures for cancer and telling people that he is a Dr. For proof of this charlatan's activities, see:


Furthermore, the Malaysian Medical Association, the Director-General of the Ministry of Health, and several respected and qualified doctors have already stated very clearly in TheStar that LBA is a scam. So how is it that an unqualified medical practitioner like Stallion Chan can write in to TheStar and say that the MMA, Ministry of Health and all the qualified doctors are wrong?

I hope that Ministy of Health and all the relevant government authorities responsible for protecting the Malaysian public from con men will clamp down hard on charlatans like Stallion Chan. There has to be some kind of enforcement to check the real qualifications of all these medical quacks.


masterwordsmith said...

Dear LWW

Thanks so much for being a civic-minded and caring Malaysian to highlight the information and bring to our attention the link.

Like you, I also hope that the authorities concerned will really clamp down and take steps on such charlatans. Enforcement seems to be a main challenge as always...sighs.

Take care and please keep in touch.

Best wishes,