Quite a number of people have asked about learning darkfield microscopy. What follows are some general comments.
The correct assembly, use, and maintenance of a darkfield microscope can be taught in a weekend seminar, even online via Skype, but there is more involved than simply learning how to focus and take pictures.
Most people are a little frustrated by the difficulty involved in making a correct identification. Let me give some examples. In the usual darkfield training, people see bacteria and can, of course, see the difference between cocci and rod forms and so on and so forth. However, they cannot necessarily determine the exact bacteria.
Some people can see evidence of toxic metals, but most are not trained in this. If they do see the indications of metal toxicity, they cannot generally tell which metals they are seeing. They might not even be seeing metals but rather the consequences of the metal toxicity on free radical generation and then how the free radicals affect the blood.
Many people have used darkfield microscopes for years and never seen a parasite, but those who do see them have probably noted differences in foraging behavior and appearance.
Even fewer microscopists have seen mold, and, once again, if they do see it, they cannot identify it, and even those laboratories doing mold testing cannot rely on microscopic examination at all. I am totally certain about this because I went through mold testing and asked to observe when the testing was done. The actually handling of the samples relied on a chain of possession that was documented, but the procedures in the laboratory were stunningly casual compared to the legal precautions taken in handling the samples.
What darkfield microscopists do observe, usually, not invariably, is deformities in both red and white blood cells and sometimes issues of hydration and nutritional deficiencies. Of course, skills vary, but most people do not have a high level of training . . . for the obvious reason that when there are restrictions on using the scopes clinically, it is hard to develop the skills.
Let’s say one finds something, then what? Here is where each practitioner will probably rely on whatever system of healing is best known to him or to her. This means the gamut spans pharmaceuticals to emotional freedom technique . . . and everything in between. In Germany where many people were trained in the Enderlein approach, the practitioners would typically use isopathic remedies to correct whatever abnormalities were found.
Being an herbalist, I use herbs, not pharmaceuticals, no homeopathic or isopathic remedies, not nutritional supplements, and not things like hyperbaric oxygen or ozone therapy. I am not saying anything one way or another about the methods others use, simply that being more familiar with herbs, I rely on food and herbs to correct the issues found.
This said, it must be obvious now that there is a serious learning curve. One can set up a scope and start taking pictures in a day, but then what? Polishing the technique and building skills in identification still leaves a very steep learning curve for the actual corrective measures that will be used.
There are only a few big names in the world of darkfield microscopy. In my estimation, Dr. Royal Rife was the most innovative and credible, but his work followed on the heels of countless scientists a century earlier, many of whom were connected with Zeiss. There are a few features of the darkfield microscope that are unique. One is the use of oblique illumination, and the first publication on this topic is dated 1837, and was reported by Rev. J. B. Reade of Cambridge. What one sees is a function of illumination and many methods were tried: oblique, prismatic, parabolic, reflective, and various hybrids of these possibilities. Today, a combination of immersion oil and curved light is used, and there are several ways to configure scopes in order to work at high magnification.
So, equipment is one issue and observation is another. In the tiny world of darkfield, I have defined myself as as “blood behaviorist” because what is unique about my approach is how I observe and why. Sometimes, I like to quote my uncle who was an oceanographer. At the end of his life, he wrote a tiny book for family members in which he said that if one wants to understand Nature, one must not disturb her. I have not reached his level of neutrality because I do things that are not natural: (1) I remove a drop of blood from the body and put it on a slide, (2) I subject this sample to unbearably bright light, and (3) I don’t put the sample back where I found it after making my observations. Sometimes I am guilt-ridden over this because I am convinced that blood cells, not to mention bacteria and parasites, are sentient so my dedication to the doctrine of harmlessness is not fully expressed in this work. I am truly sorry and pray that my love and appreciation for the generosity of the blood cells will ultimately spare their kin from much unnecessary suffering.
I like to think of myself as a sort of medical anthropologist of the blood and traditional healing methods. My favorite courses as an undergraduate were all in anthropology. The great takeaway was to observe and learn. Anthropologists should not bring their ways of thinking or agenda into the field. They must learn the language and culture and cuisine of their study group, and I always enjoyed hanging out with anthropologists because I find they try hard to keep their slates clean and clear.
Philosophy was my second area of study, but I prefer what I learned as a practicing Buddhist than what was in lectures and texts. The goal of philosophy should be to discover the Truth but if one has doctrinal concepts mixed with the quest for understanding, biases sneak in . . . and universities are not monasteries so I was happier cultivating mindfulness as opposed to reading thousands of pages by academicians about what mindfulness is.
A clear mind is a keen observer and does not require footnotes so when I say I have brought my love of anthropology and philosophy into my work with blood and microscopy, I am saying that while I have read a lot of books as well as online material, but my observations are my observations and my ideas are based on what I have seen, not on precedents established by others. That may make me a maverick or heretic, but I take responsibility for reporting truthfully and more than that, I cannot say or do.
People have asked if they can study with me. I am not inclined to offer weekend seminars at this time. People need to observe many patients and protocols so they need to learn how and what to observe and then what to recommend to patients. I will allow two interns per study session. Priority will be given to active professionals with practices, to those living in countries where darkfield microscopy can be used in clinical situations, and to those who work in tropical areas or parts of the world with high levels of Lyme infection. There will be a fee for training.