This website updated 5/3/2008

In brief the methodology in obtaining a signal with the standard ECG is to monitor the Electro Magnetic Field (EMF) emanating from the heart.
With BioLecTracer (BLT) we monitor the actual electricity generated by the heart.

Why knock ECGs devices?

Bluntly the ECG is still back in the 20th century and is condemned to stay there and unfortunately so is the establishment that solely relies on it.

ECG devices may continue being of use and may need to remain in some areas

But NOT embracing this new technology is holding back progress.

"What's wrong with the ECG. It works well?"

 ECG traces are just about as good as they are ever going to get.

BioLecTracer produces a heart trace:- easier / quicker / cheaper / consistent and easily readable and should have a healthy easy future.

Let's compare the two!

BLT

The clarity of the trace

With BioLecTracer all the inherent mechanical, training and usage, problems that an ECG device suffers, just don't exist. With the ease of use and clarity of the trace, this gives for instance and for the first time the definitive end to the T wave and any person with a modicum of intellect and a relatively small amount of time can see BASIC heart problems.

With the knowledge of how the methodology of ECG's has been allowed to be misused under individual interpretations and implementations the other problems can also be avoided.

The BLT trace is taken by placing JUST the two index fingers into two indentations that contain a saline solution in the SMALL unit. (NO stripping off). Only two leads so only one possible error and that is obvious because the trace is just upside down and can easily be flipped by the software. The small unit connects to any computer including laptops via the USB port. With the small size, low cost, portability and ease of use means that every GP should? Have a system. Hopefully SOON - All GPs have computers nowadays.

My preferred test itself takes precisely 30 seconds both resting and stressed so time is not a factor. Just imagine - this can be REAL preventive medicine because on each visit to the doctor you could be routinely tested. The trace could be done by a nurse in the waiting room or even by the receptionist and the data would be available instantly to the doctor on a computer network. When properly quantified the software would be able to give the diagnosis based on absolute data. BioLecTracer is an innovative way of monitoring and logging the + or - voltage of electricity OF the body, at a given instant. Utilising the electricity generated by the heart we simultaneously show the trace on a computer screen in real time. Saving the encrypted file allows it to be viewed anytime and by anyone with authority or you email it to anyone in the world.

The electricity OF the body is very important and a better ability to "see" "read" and "understand" it would enable one to make better use of it in ways as yet not used. It is a complex thing and I set out in this document NOT to completely explain everything (YET) but in some cases just to provoke discussions and hopefully to instigate investigation by OTHERS maybe YOU.

ECG Devices
Until NOW the only way to see a trace of a heart beating was by carrying out a costly, time consuming Electrocardiograph (ECG) on the half-naked body,
The first ECG was produced around 1890 and evolved up to 1965. But in order to get ANY sensible readings in those days it was found that you had to have some 10 leads, 6 being very close to the heart, 3 of the 4 limb leads are connected via meg-home resistors that provides a base line to get any usable result. That was also providing that you multiplexed or summed the signals from different leads and used different leads to denote different parts of the trace. Ending up with only a representation or montage.
The components used in 1965, were inefficient and susceptible to noise. All signals required considerable amplification and that also amplified the noise but because that was the only way to get (at that time) any readings of the electricity from the body they had to go with it. The trace or graph on calibrated chart recorders showed peaks and troughs that were called waves arbitrarily named P,Q,R,S,T waves and that shape of trace on a standard lined printout is "At present" accepted as the only way to measure and study the cardiology.
ECG manufacturers presumably use the best components around now but are cornered into retaining the shape of the accepted trace. Multiplexing the signals from different leads and using different leads to denote different parts of the trace has to remain with the problems therein. They have had to refrain from developing and updating and possibly even have to modify or corrupt the signal they do get, (with up to date components) to retain the consistency of shape.
Nowadays the ECG machine is connected using around 10 electrodes. This is still normally done in hospitals and requires specially trained personnel to interpret the hard to understand combination of the 12 traces. Therefore an ECG will only be taken if a problem is suspected and never as a matter of routine in preventive medicine. Exercise or Stressed ECGs take even longer consuming large amounts of staff time and the staff must be fully trained in resuscitation.
In use the complicated ECG has a number of things that can be done wrong and ARE done wrongly compounded exponentially resulting in misdiagnosis or missed problems. In order for ECG traces to be properly comparative everything SHOULD be done in exactly the same way with electronic equipment that is also consistent from device to device in each case, and it is NOT and in reality cannot. It starts with the placing of the leads on the body and I have to say the first problem has no cost-effective way to be eliminated and that is the 6 chest leads must be at the same distance from, and same orientation to, the heart. In extreme cases the heart can be on the other side. So you are on a hiding to nothing to start with. OK that's over the top but this is the basis of this part of the problem. The limb leads should at least always be consistently in the same place and they are NOT. I have seen the arm leads on - inside wrist - outside wrist - inside biceps - outside biceps - top shoulder etc and the leg leads inside ankle - outside ankle and on the front bone etc. This serves only to move the base line.
Cardiologists and ECG technicians STATE
"It makes no difference where the Limb leads are placed"
This is WRONG!!
It is common to find two different technicians in the same cardiology department placing the limb leads in any position.
This is not surprising because according to the American Heart Association,
"The electrodes may be placed on any part of the arms or of the left leg as long as they are below the shoulders in the former and below the inguinal fold anterioly and the gluteal fold posterioly in the latter.
WRONG again!
Why take that chance anyway?
It would cost nothing to demand the limb leads be placed ONLY inside wrist & inside ankle,
In my opinion the best position and at least some consistency would be achieved!
As demonstrated below IT MAKES A DIFERANCE