I was asked to present our program to the Silicon Valley Health Alliance a couple of months ago. In this LONG video, I explain the rationale behind the interpretation of lab values from a CHRONIC perspective. The standard of care lab "reference ranges" are a very poor indicator of you true health status. In the traditional system, they are looking to determine if you are very ill or at VERY high risk of an impending adverse event.... Nobody really wants to be in that state of poor health.
Do you think someone who just had a heart attack was perfectly healthy the day before? In many cases, I can assert that their standard lab values like lipids and A1C were "normal." It's reasonable to believe that someone who just had a heart attack was on the path to this event for many years, even decades. There is ample evidence in the literature to corroborate this. And, many lab values, when interpreted from a chronic perspective could have anticipated the event with reasonable statistical accuracy. MORE importantly, the right lab values, and interpretation thereof, often provide information to prevent such events.
In the standard of care, the "normal" limits are intended to measure a "fire" in your body. We look to determine if you have a "smoldering" condition that may lead to that fire.
Here is the link to my Silicon Valley talk.... Yup it's long - so consider watching the beginning as I explain reference interval values vs our SCIENTIFIC normal lab values.
Here are a couple examples:
EXAMPLE 1: White blood cells are your primary defense against disease, mainly caused by infection. In the standard of care, the "reference range" for normal is a WBC count of 3,400 - 10,800. However, a very large and comprehensive study by Harvard Medical School shows that people who have a WBC of 6,700 are twice as likely to DIE of a heart attack compared to people with the WBC of 4,700, over a 6-year period. Clearly there is something terribly wrong with the standard of care reference values.