Darkfield microscopy is not
new. However, to put everything in context, it might be
worth noting that magnification of objects has fascinated and
challenged many careful observers for countless centuries. Anton
van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) is generally credited with the invention
of the microscope, but it took his successors 150 years to match
the quality Leeuwenhoek had managed with much simpler optics.
Likewise, Royal Raymond Rife's
microscopes of more than half a century ago remain unrivaled
today, this despite the advent of fiber optic illumination and
other advances that, all other things equal, should have furthered
the development of improved microscopes.
Points to Understand
The splitting of the light beam
is achieved by blocking the light from coming up straight through
the condenser. This little obstacle causes the light to
refract and appear to come from the edges. Because darkfield
permits the observer to see liquid samples, no stains are required
and the objects in the sample may live for many days following
removal from their source. So, in addition to being able
to see objects that are not visible in brightfield, darkfield
microscopy facilitates the study of behavioral patterns that
cannot be observed with stained or fixed specimens.
Since what we understand is
often as not based on what we see, it goes without saying that
opinions about blood, immunity, germs, and illness can be permanently
transformed after only a few hours of darkfield viewing.
The ramifications of this statement
are so vast that it will probably be wise to allow the understanding
and appreciation of darkfield microscopy a little time to unfold
and mature. However, before doing so, let me simply make
a couple of comments:
The idea that blood is
sterile is based on the inability to see what is floating
"recognized" blood components such as red blood
cells, white blood cells, and platelets.
An entire century of medicine
was based on theories of germs and germ transmission that
are tied to observations that are limited and possibly dubious.
Copyright by Ingrid Naiman 2006