Hair test results- looking for guidance-Andy?

[Guest guest]

Hi

We recently had these hair test results back from The Great Plains Lab in

Lenexa analyzed by DDI for our twin boys.

Having looked at the 'counting rules' am I right in thinking we haven't got a

mineral transportation issue, but still have a toxicity issue with several

metals ?

1st set

POTENTIALLY TOXIC ELEMENTS

element result ref range color

=============================================

aluminum 8.3 <8.0 just yellow

antimony 0.1 <.066 mid yellow

arsenic 0.14 <0.08 mid yellow

beryllium <0.01 <0.02 nil

bismuth 0,025 <0.13 low green

cadmium 0.036 <0.15 low green

lead 0.58 <1.0 mid green

mercury 1.8 <0.4 high yellow

platinum <0.003 <0.005 nil

thallium <0.001 <0.01 nil

thorium <0.001 <0.005 nil

uranium 0.005 <0.06 low green

nickel 0.04 <0.04 low green

silver 0.07 <0.2 mid green

tin 0.18 <0.3 mid green

titanium 1.2 <1.0 low yellow

Toatl toxic representation is on the 96th percentile.

ESSENTIAL AND OTHER ELEMENTS

element result ref range color under/over 50%

============================================================

Calcium 298 125-370 green over 50%

Magnesium 24 12-30 green over 50%

Sodium 36 12-90 green under 50%

Potassium 43 12-40 green over 50%

Copper 10 8-16 green under50%

Zinc 160 100-190 green over 50%

Manganese 0.13 0.2-0.55 yellow under 50%

Chromium 0.31 0.26-0.5 green under 50%

Vanadium 0.023 0.03-0.1 yellow under 50%

Molybdenum0.067 0.05-0.13 green under 50%

Boron 2.0 0.6-4.0 green over 50%

Iodine 0.17 0.25-1.3 yellow under 50%

Lithium 0.015 0.007-0.023 green over 50%

Phosphorus 317 160-250 red over 50%

Selenium 0.48 0.95-1.7 red under 50%

Strontium 0.33 0.16-1.0 white neither

Sulfur 48400 45500-5300 white neither

Barium 0.25 0.16-0.18 green under 50%

Cobalt 0.003 0.013-0.035 red under 50%

Iron 12 8-19 white neither

Germanium 0.055 0.045-0.065 white neither

Rubidium 0.033 0.016-0.18 green under 50%

Zirconium 1.0 0.04-1.0 green over 50%

2nd set of results

POTENTIALLY TOXIC ELEMENTS

element result ref range color

=============================================

aluminum 12 <8.0 low yellow

antimony 0.15 <0.066 high yellow

arsenic 0.18 <0.08 high yellow

beryllium <0.01 <0.02 nil

bismuth 0.1 <0.13 high green

cadmium 0.063 <0.15 mid green

lead 0.85 <1.0 high green

mercury 1.8 <0.4 high yellow

platinum <0.003 <0.005 nil

thallium <0.001 <0.01 nil

thorium 0.002 <0.005 low green

uranium 0.006 <0.06 low green

nickel 0.09 <0.4 low green

silver 0.13 <0.2 mid green

tin 0.36 <0.3 low yellow

titanium 1.3 <1.0 low yellow

Total toxic representation is on the 98th percentile.

ESSENTIAL AND OTHER ELEMENTS

element result ref range color under/over 50%

============================================================

Calcium 244 125-370 green over 50%

Magnesium 16 12 -30 green under 50%

Sodium 58 12-90 green over 50%

Potassium 82 12-40 yellow over 50%

Copper 11 8-16 white neither

Zinc 140 100-190 green over 50%

Manganese 0.21 0.2-0.55 green under 50%

Chromium 0.33 0.26-0.5 green under 50%

Vanadium 0.033 0.03-0.1 green under 50%

Molybdenum 0.083 0.05-0.13 white neither

Boron 3.0 0.6-4.0 green over 50%

Iodine <0.03 0.25-1.3 off red under 50%

Lithium 0.017 0.007-0.023 green over 50 %

Phosphorus 250 160-250 green over 50%

Selenium 0.73 0.95-1.7 yellow under 50%

Strontium 0.32 0.16-1.0 white neither

Sulfur 48200 4500-5300 white neither

Barium 0.29 0.16-0.8 white neither

Cobalt 0.007 0.013-0.035 yellow under 50%

Iron 9.6 8-19 green under 50%

Germanium 0.04 0.045-0.065 yellow under 50%

Rubidium 0.067 0.016-0.18 green over 50%

Zirconium 1.2 0.04-1.0 yellow over 50%

Ratios were all in the expected ranges for both boys.

We are unsure as to what our next steps should be bearing in mind these

results.

We have had subsequent results (hair) carried out in the UK, which do not

correspond with this set at all (used hair from the same cut and no toxicity

problems highlighted).

Can you offer any guidance ??

Thanks and regards

Stuart in Scotland

[Guest guest]

> We recently had these hair test results back from The Great Plains

Lab in

> Lenexa analyzed by DDI for our twin boys.

> Having looked at the 'counting rules' am I right in thinking we

haven't got a

> mineral transportation issue, but still have a toxicity issue with

several

> metals ?

Looks like.

And probably the minerals are OK, so probably some selenomethionine

and some B-12 will help a lot (most of your cobalt is in B-12).

>

>

> 1st set

>

> POTENTIALLY TOXIC ELEMENTS

> element result ref range color

> =============================================

> aluminum 8.3 <8.0 just yellow

> antimony 0.1 <.066 mid yellow

> arsenic 0.14 <0.08 mid yellow

> beryllium <0.01 <0.02 nil

> bismuth 0,025 <0.13 low green

> cadmium 0.036 <0.15 low green

> lead 0.58 <1.0 mid green

> mercury 1.8 <0.4 high yellow

> platinum <0.003 <0.005 nil

> thallium <0.001 <0.01 nil

> thorium <0.001 <0.005 nil

> uranium 0.005 <0.06 low green

> nickel 0.04 <0.04 low green

> silver 0.07 <0.2 mid green

> tin 0.18 <0.3 mid green

> titanium 1.2 <1.0 low yellow

>

> Toatl toxic representation is on the 96th percentile.

>

> ESSENTIAL AND OTHER ELEMENTS

> element result ref range color under/over 50%

> ============================================================

> Calcium 298 125-370 green over 50%

> Magnesium 24 12-30 green over 50%

> Sodium 36 12-90 green under 50%

> Potassium 43 12-40 green over 50%

> Copper 10 8-16 green under50%

> Zinc 160 100-190 green over 50%

> Manganese 0.13 0.2-0.55 yellow under 50%

> Chromium 0.31 0.26-0.5 green under 50%

> Vanadium 0.023 0.03-0.1 yellow under 50%

> Molybdenum0.067 0.05-0.13 green under 50%

> Boron 2.0 0.6-4.0 green over 50%

> Iodine 0.17 0.25-1.3 yellow under 50%

> Lithium 0.015 0.007-0.023 green over 50%

> Phosphorus 317 160-250 red over 50%

> Selenium 0.48 0.95-1.7 red under 50%

> Strontium 0.33 0.16-1.0 white neither

> Sulfur 48400 45500-5300 white neither

> Barium 0.25 0.16-0.18 green under 50%

> Cobalt 0.003 0.013-0.035 red under 50%

> Iron 12 8-19 white neither

> Germanium 0.055 0.045-0.065 white neither

> Rubidium 0.033 0.016-0.18 green under 50%

> Zirconium 1.0 0.04-1.0 green over 50%

>

>

>

>

> 2nd set of results

>

> POTENTIALLY TOXIC ELEMENTS

> element result ref range color

> =============================================

> aluminum 12 <8.0 low yellow

> antimony 0.15 <0.066 high yellow

> arsenic 0.18 <0.08 high yellow

> beryllium <0.01 <0.02 nil

> bismuth 0.1 <0.13 high green

> cadmium 0.063 <0.15 mid green

> lead 0.85 <1.0 high green

> mercury 1.8 <0.4 high yellow

> platinum <0.003 <0.005 nil

> thallium <0.001 <0.01 nil

> thorium 0.002 <0.005 low green

> uranium 0.006 <0.06 low green

> nickel 0.09 <0.4 low green

> silver 0.13 <0.2 mid green

> tin 0.36 <0.3 low yellow

> titanium 1.3 <1.0 low yellow

>

> Total toxic representation is on the 98th percentile.

>

> ESSENTIAL AND OTHER ELEMENTS

> element result ref range color under/over 50%

> ============================================================

> Calcium 244 125-370 green over 50%

> Magnesium 16 12 -30 green under 50%

> Sodium 58 12-90 green over 50%

> Potassium 82 12-40 yellow over 50%

> Copper 11 8-16 white neither

> Zinc 140 100-190 green over 50%

> Manganese 0.21 0.2-0.55 green under 50%

> Chromium 0.33 0.26-0.5 green under 50%

> Vanadium 0.033 0.03-0.1 green under 50%

> Molybdenum 0.083 0.05-0.13 white neither

> Boron 3.0 0.6-4.0 green over 50%

> Iodine <0.03 0.25-1.3 off red under 50%

> Lithium 0.017 0.007-0.023 green over 50 %

> Phosphorus 250 160-250 green over 50%

> Selenium 0.73 0.95-1.7 yellow under 50%

> Strontium 0.32 0.16-1.0 white neither

> Sulfur 48200 4500-5300 white neither

> Barium 0.29 0.16-0.8 white neither

> Cobalt 0.007 0.013-0.035 yellow under 50%

> Iron 9.6 8-19 green under 50%

> Germanium 0.04 0.045-0.065 yellow under 50%

> Rubidium 0.067 0.016-0.18 green over 50%

> Zirconium 1.2 0.04-1.0 yellow over 50%

>

> Ratios were all in the expected ranges for both boys.

>

> We are unsure as to what our next steps should be bearing in mind

these

> results.

>

> We have had subsequent results (hair) carried out in the UK, which

do not

> correspond with this set at all (used hair from the same cut and no

toxicity

> problems highlighted).

>

> Can you offer any guidance ??

>

> Thanks and regards

> Stuart in S