3.0 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Live blood analysis | 2/2 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_blood_analysis | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T09:22:26.561564+00:00 | kb-cron |
== Regulatory issues == In 1996, the Pennsylvania Department of Laboratories informed three Pennsylvania chiropractors that Infinity2's "Nutritional Blood Analysis" could not be used for diagnostic purposes unless they maintain a laboratory that has both state and federal certification for complex testing. In 2001, the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General issued a report on regulation of "unestablished laboratory tests" that focused on live blood cell analysis and the difficulty of regulating unestablished tests and laboratories. In 2002, an Australian naturopath was convicted and fined for falsely claiming that he could diagnose illness using live blood analysis after the death of a patient. He was acquitted of manslaughter. He subsequently changed his name and was later banned from practice for life. In 2005, the Rhode Island Department of Health ordered a chiropractor to stop performing live blood analysis. An attorney for the State Board of Examiners in Chiropractic Medicine described the test as "useless" and a "money-making scheme... The point of it all is apparently to sell nutritional supplements." A state medical board official said that live blood analysis has no discernible value, and that the public "should be very suspicious of any practitioner who offers this test." In 2011, the UK General Medical Council suspended a doctor's licence to practise after he used live blood analysis to diagnose patients with Lyme disease. The doctor accepted he had been practising "bad medicine". In 2013, following several Advertising Standards Authority adjudications against claims made by LBA practitioners, the Committee of Advertising Practice added new guidelines to their AdviceOnline database advising what LBA marketers may claim in their advertising material. These state that "CAP is yet to see any evidence for the efficacy of this therapy which, without rigorous evidence to support it, should be advertised on an availability-only platform." One of these practitioners, Errol Denton, who practised out of a serviced office in Harley Street, was prosecuted in December 2013 under the Cancer Act 1939, and chose to use a Freeman on the Land defence. On March 20, 2014, he was convicted on nine counts under the Cancer Act 1939 and fined £9,000 plus around £10,000 in costs. In April 2018, Denton was further convicted of two counts of "engaging in unfair commercial practice" and one of "selling food not of the quality demanded", for selling a bottle of colloidal silver drink to an undercover trading standards officer in February 2016, after examining a drop of her blood and claiming that it indicated that she had dislocated her shoulder. He was made the subject of a Criminal Behaviour Order, fined £2,250, and ordered pay £15,000 in costs.
== See also == List of ineffective cancer treatments
== References ==