Blood Detective - Finding Causes

Blood Detective - Finding Causes Dr. Michael Wald – Pioneer of the Blood Detective Approach to Enhanced Quality of Life and Disease Prevention & Treatment

Dr. Michael Wald Your blood and other body tissues hold clues to your state of health. Within these living streams may be the answers to a current medical crisis or the silent warning signs of a developing disease -- if you know where and how to look.

Dr. Michael Wald, the Original Blood Detective, searches for obvious and subtle clues often not too obvious on your blood tests to construct a custom plan of food and nutritional supplement recommendations supporting optimal wellness.

Dr. Michael Wald, the “brain-child” behind the Blood Detective Logic & Interpretive Systems, has developed sophisticated computer technologies based upon years of research and clinical experience that allows patients and practitioners to “focus-in” on the health needs of individuals reducing years of guess work and wasted efforts. Your doctor says that your lab work is “just fine”; this is your cue to let the Blood Detective take a look!

Does This Sound Familiar?

When medical doctors order "standard tests," like cholesterol and cell counts, the results may give only a glimpse of the total picture missing vital clues to your health problems. How many times have you not felt well only to be told, your blood results are "normal" even though you feel un-well? The Blood Detective technology evaluates standard blood results and other important laboratory measurements from a holistic and medical perspective often uncovering obvious and subtle nutritional imbalances. Dr. Wald incorporates one’s health history, health goals and other assessment tools when developing individualized healing plans.

The Blood Detective approach often uncovers what’s at the “core” of why you are not well

Complementary tests, like allergy screening and microscopic surveys or analyses of amino acids, essential fatty acids, hormones and pH levels may be suggested, but only after Blood Detective determines whether performing these tests might actually yield information that is useful, or that otherwise could not be determined directly from blood analysis.

What You Need to Know

Employing a wellness model, the Blood Detective system compares the results of comprehensive laboratory tests against medical laboratory ranges, known as "clinical ranges," but also against "healthy ranges" (a.k.a. functional ranges). Healthy ranges are blood values that are based upon maintaining the health of body tissues, rather than merely detecting disease once it is present. In other words, the healthy or functional values are predictive and preventative in nature. Clinical and Healthy (functional) approaches are both important, and are considered equally valuable in the context of a Blood Detective Interpretive Report...and recommendations given.

The "clinical (average/normal)" ranges are based upon study groups that may include blood donors, laboratory personnel and hospital employees -- not necessarily healthy people, but segments of the population that appear well. "Healthy (functional)" ranges are based on studies of healthy people who have a lower incidence of illness, disease and symptoms compared to the general population.

"Healthy (functional) ranges" are more narrowly defined than the “clinical (average"/"normal") ranges. What this essentially means is that early problems with cells, tissues and organs can be discovered before they become disease conditions. The “clinical” range for cholesterol, for instance, is typically below 200; while the "healthy range" is generally 140 - 160. The Blood Detective matches laboratory findings against both the "clinical" and "healthy" populations for the entire laboratory values tested. Remember – the average doctor compares your blood results to average people in a population…the average person may not be exceptionally healthy. With the Blood Detective approach, you are compared to the average and to the healthy – the best of both worlds!

Healthy ranges have been studied for their nutritional implications and can provide clues to hidden deficiencies that would not be obvious if only standard values were considered

The bottom line is this, if you are not feeling well, suspect that something is “not right”, and have been told or have been made to feel that, “it’s all in your head”, and then consider a, Blood Detective health evaluation. Dr. Michael Wald, the originator of the Blood Detective technology and concept, is available for consultation and can be reached at 914-242-8844 or 914-552-1442

The studies below are a small representative sample that exposure the fact that many of the so called “reference ranges” used on blood test reports by virtually all doctors in the United States and abroad are often incorrect. In short, many of the “reference or clinical ranges” are too wide creating many false negative test results (i.e., seemingly normal test results when the patient actually had a health problem). If the range of cholesterol or blood glucose, thyroid stimulating hormone or liver enzymes (or any test for that matter) are too wide then a person may not feel well or manifest outright disease while their blood testing appears “normal”. It is not at all unusually in our office that we find individual patients with serious diseases such as cancer, autoimmune disease, chronic fatigue and pain, etc. who have been told that, “my blood work is normal”.

Dr. Michael Wald, is the originator of the Blood Detective technology that pioneered the concept of “optimal blood ranges” as opposed to “reference or clinical ranges”. These optimal ranges are more narrow having the potential to find “hidden” biochemical abnormalities that would otherwise be “lost” within the far wider “clinical or normal” blood reference ranges used by mainstream physicians. Dr. Wald uses both the optimal (aka healthy) and clinical (normal) laboratory ranges to develop preventative and novel treatment approaches or his patients who have not received adequate help elsewhere.

A detailed laboratory report is produced that examines the patients blood and other test results to both the clinical and optimal reference ranges. In this way, both disease presence and disease prevention can be appreciated.

Scientific References – Blood Detective:
Optimal (healthy) vs. Clinical Reference Ranges

The studies below are a small representative sample that exposure the fact that many of the so called “clinical reference ranges” used on blood test reports by virtually all doctors in the United States and abroad are often incorrect. In short, many of the “reference or clinical ranges” are too wide creating many false negative test results (i.e., seemingly normal test results when the patient actually had a health problem). For example, an individual with a TSH of 0.8 is considered “normal”, but an optimal TSH value is closer to 2.5.If the range of cholesterol or blood glucose, thyroid stimulating hormone or liver enzymes (or any test for that matter) are too wide then a person may not feel well or manifest outright disease while their blood testing appears “normal”. It should be kept in mind that the method used to establish the so called, “clinical reference ranges” put 95% of the age adjusted man or women at the crest of the bell curve with a distribution (standard deviation) of individuals to the right and to the left of this bell curve establishing the low and high end of the clinical reference range (see chart directly below).

A standard reference range denotes ranges determined by independent laboratories in seemingly healthy individuals (without any obvious condition) that might affect the ranges. However, so called “normal reference ranges” inevitably include individuals with health issues “under the surface”. Therefore, so called “normal ranges” are really average ranges of people in a population. Considering that most “average “ individuals suffer from every increasing acute and chronic causes of death it seems apparent that the criteria used (“normal reference ranges) are simply not predictive enough for detection and/or prevention of the major causes of death experienced in high income countries like the United states (see table below). It is not at all unusually in our office, or any clinical setting, to find individual patients with serious diseases such as cancer, autoimmune disease, chronic fatigue and pain, etc. who have been told that, “my blood work is normal” ; according to normal or average reference ranges they are, but almost never according to optimal or healthy ranges (a.k.a functional ranges). It is important to also realize that the optimal ranges provided within Dr. Wald’s Blood Detective program also consider scientific data including how reference ranges should be adjusted to pick up individuals with smaller degrees of dis-ease as opposed to disease; the former often producing laboratory results either on the high or low end of the normal ranges, but appearing obviously outside of the optimal-functional-healthy ranges.

A detailed laboratory report is produced that examines the patient’s blood and other test results to both the clinical and optimal reference ranges. In this way, both disease presence and disease prevention can be appreciated.

From a practical and clinical perspective, if an individual is not feeling well, and there are medical tests whose clinical reference values are “normal” but on the low or high end of normal, it is reasonable for the practitioner to consider that such “normal” results may not be “optimal results”. Here are three examples of tests the results of which may be normal, which we know are inaccurate to reflect actual deficiency of the nutrient in question or disease prevalence:

1. Ninety-percent of North Americans may actually suffer more or less from folate deficiency, but only 2.5% have the lowest levels that fall below the standard clinical reference range; therefore, the optimal level of folic acid is substantially higher than the standard clinical reference range. (Reference: Folic Acid: Don't Be Without It! by Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE, retrieved on July 7, 2009. In turn citing:

Boushey, Carol J., et al. A quantitative assessment of plasma homocysteine as a risk factor for vascular disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 274, October 4, 1995, pp. 1049- 57
Morrison, Howard I., et al. Serum folate and risk of fatal coronary heart disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 275, June 26, 1996, pp. 1893-96

Vitamin D has a similar tendency as compared to folic acid.
In contract, for e.g. uric acid, having a level not exceeding the standard clinical reference range still does not exclude the risk of getting gout or kidney stones.

It is essential to keep in mind that optimal/healthy/normal/functional ranges, by definition, are not based on a standard method for their calculation, as are clinical/normal ranges. The optimal/healthy/normal/functional ranges are based on scientific data oriented towards Personalizing Health Care and not simply identifying (and not particularly accurately) disease prevalence and early detection. The Blood Detective technology is fundamentally based on a “fix what the clinician finds” approach and not orienting healing methods solely towards the diagnoses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=optimal%20clinical%20blood%20ranges%20tsh - This paper marshals arguments in support of a narrower, optimal or true normal range for thyrotropin (TSH) .

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16148345 - Recognition and establishment of a more precise and true normal range for TSH have important implications for both screening and treatment of thyroid disease in general and subclinical thyroid disease in particular.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16645008 - Is there a need to redefine the upper normal limit of TSH?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14651790 - A consistently abnormal TSH probably indicates that T(4) and T(3) are not normal for the individual even when inside the laboratory reference range.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14722150 - Subclinical thyroid disease: scientific review and guidelines for diagnosis and management.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20418229 - Subclinical thyroid disorders: significance and clinical impact.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310313 - The cost-effectiveness of C-reactive protein testing and rosuvastatin treatment for patients with normal cholesterol levels.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22040842 - Usefulness of the High Triglyceride-to-HDL Cholesterol Ratio to Identify Cardiometabolic Risk Factors and Preclinical Signs of Organ Damage in Outpatient Children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22011803 - Patients with severe forms of DR are at risk for the presence of coronary artery disease regardless of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17890445 - Altered uric acid levels and disease states.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8283191 - The anemia of infection and chronic disease confers protection from pathogen or neoplastic invasion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=low%20alkaline%20phosphatase%20and%20zinc%20deficiency - Recalcitrant generalized eruption and low alkaline phosphatase: think zinc.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724538 - Vitamin D deficiency in white, apparently healthy, free-living adults in a temperate region.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22040839 - Vitamin D Levels and Asymptomatic Coronary Artery Disease in Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Elevated Urinary Albumin Excretion Rate.