In the last century, medical breakthroughs that take off in Europe, tend to stay in Europe. At least for the better part of the century or half of. Then when a theory takes off, it immediately is sent to California to pass the smell test (50 years of review). Then if that takes place, then it ends up in New York for the Ultimate critical review. This week’s topic is such that fits that classic criteria, and its name is dark field microscopy.

So, to emphasize my point, let’s go back in time to 1925 Germany. Professor Gunther Enderlein observed under the lens of a dark field microscope specific pathogenic structures develop in size and appearance depending on the progress of a particular illness (Endobiosis). Today, dark field microscopy has had a limited exposure to the medical community in North America, much less to physicians in the United States.

Yet, in San Diego, Calif., PassmoreLabs, known for its cutting-edge capability in the area of live-action three-dimensional video production of nature-oriented documentary films, including technical development for scientific research, education and entertainment is taking on experimentation with the use of steropsis with dark field and phase contrast microscopy.

So, what is dark field and what is it good for. First, to simplify things, let’s draw a comparison with what’s familiar, then expand out from there.

Imagine viewing the cosmos, or our solar system during the middle of the day, then add smog to the mix, and then let’s throw in a nuclear blast, just to make things interesting. We’re not going to see much. Then let’s imagine viewing the moon, the stars at midnight from a crisp clean mountain top, with occasional shooting star, a comet fly by, or the aurora borealis. This emphasizes the contrast between light field and dark field. The characters in the play change dramatically.

Now that we have a picture in our mind, let’s apply this to health care. Now during a typical blood analysis, the blood is taken, it sits in a tube for how ever long it takes the lab technician to look at it, then when its put on the slide, stain is added to it, so we can actually see the cells or crystals in the bright light.

This whole process kills off a lot of what dark field relies on to make a diagnostic observation. Part of the evaluation relies on the fact that the blood is taken as fresh as possible, which would require the patient to be actually in the laboratory environment.

And if anyone has ever watched “NCIS,” they know that Abby wouldn’t tolerate a patient in the lab while she makes that time critical evaluation before the blood and its inhabitants die off. Dark field evaluation is time sensitive, and doesn’t allow for delay or backup in workload.

We have to also take into consideration, that blood contains a whole lot more than just red blood cells. There are white blood cells, immune cells, microbial activity, such as bacteria, yeast, parasites and fungi.

Now, comes the interesting part, the behavior of the cells. Cells interact with each other, communicate as it were. Through dark field, we can observe bacteria actually punching their way through the blood cell on live TV if you will.

Its not the fact that the red blood cells are producing these bacterium, but how many are producing them. We can also tell if organs are stressed or if they are exhibiting weaknesses such as: pancreas, liver, kidneys, prostate, heart, breast and reproductive organs early, through these key note characteristics. These features and early warning signs are associated with known degenerative conditions, that can be identified and treated through the patients own interventions before they become the ever popular “diagnosed condition.” Preventative health care is far more effective, then trying to address it after its gone too far.

So, why isn’t dark field in main stream modern use?

First: It requires fresh live blood, i.e. the same as that from a diabetic home test kit, one single drop of blood for immediate analysis. This now brings the patient into the lab setting as noted before. Most hospitals or private practice doctors’ offices don’t want to put up with that.

Second: It now involves the patient in their own health management. As the technician reads the sample, they are able to give a live play-by-play of what they are seeing. This includes what the patients have been eating, have they been overdoing it with stimulants, including the immediate reaction to vaccinations.

When I attended dark field school in New Mexico, I had recently been vaccinated by the military prior to deployment to the Persian Gulf. The typical immune reaction the body takes is clearly visible in the fresh blood sample. One thing in particular is the immense size of the blood clotting as a result to the cocktail of vaccines I just received. The unique method of acquiring the sample, the comparison of the other students’ blood, and the general perfect health of a 38-year-old member of the military, ruled out clotting from the obvious. The professor teaching the class said I needed to take it easy for the next few days, as I was prime candidate for a stroke.

This point alone emphasizes the nature of why we don’t see dark field analysis in mainstream medicine. But, since I’m on a roll, let’s examine the third point.

Three: It would require a complete revamping of the current health care model, based on the things it reveals, nutritional deficiency, effects of vaccines based on visible, tangible levels, and a complete review by the FDA. Something we know takes decades if the funding, research, pressure and so forth are not present from the pharmaceutical companies.

So, in closing, look for this to come up in the future, or ask your doctor if they have heard about dark field or are willing to review it and get back to you. The benefits are far better than the current methods being offered. The waiting list to get an evaluation in New York alone is months if not years. Patients have had to routinely travel to Germany for this revolutionary, simple evaluation. It’s going to be a long time before it’s offered here on the scale it’s offered in Europe.

Doctors in New York, for example, are on waiting lists to get certified in dark field microscopy, assuming they can find a certified medical school in their area. Our college was fortunate to have connections with a college in New Mexico, where as our board of directors arranged for a private, off-season certification.

Since you ask, why would doctors become certified in dark field? Because they need to be able to identify the new terminology, results and treatment options put before them by the lab technician.

Dr. Thomas Coffman is the medical director of the British Clinic Health System, host of Integrative Medicine Radio, and author of four books on homeopathic psychology, ancient Egyptian medicine, and managing the spectrum. Coffman lectures for the British Institute of Homeopathy in the United States and England.