Technical question re Hair VS Serum minerals

[Guest guest]

I am seeing a huge discrepancy between a hair analysis done my

Anamol labs here in Canada and serum minerals done at our Md`s

standard lab.

For example....Copper in Hair 11 on a scale of 15 to 25

Copper in Serum 13.2 on a scale of 10 to 22umol/l

Sodium in Hair 14 on a scale of 18 to 85

Sodium in Serum 140 on a scale of 135 tp 145

Potassium in Hair 6.4 on a scale of 5 to 40

Potassium in Serum 4.1 on a scale of 3.3 to 5.1

If one follows the " counting rules " system as a proper diagnosis

of mercury involvement in health, then these low hair readings

indicate toxicity.

I would like an explanation as to why serum tests are not in

agreement with hair analysis, which has obviously been the gold

standard for medical diagnosis for 100 years.

Since this seems to be the core of the mercury/autism theory

what research studies have been done to prove the efficacy of hair

analysis over serum. In searching PUBMED I found nothing....

[Guest guest]

there are lots of differences.

My understanding is that blood shows what is going on at a time 't',

versus hair shows what happend in a long period of time (2-3 months?).

Also hair does not always reflect what's in the body.

Sometimes, that is true for blood too, especially for very high

levels.

> I am seeing a huge discrepancy between a hair analysis done my

> Anamol labs here in Canada and serum minerals done at our Md`s

> standard lab.

> For example....Copper in Hair 11 on a scale of 15 to 25

> Copper in Serum 13.2 on a scale of 10 to 22umol/l

>

> Sodium in Hair 14 on a scale of 18 to 85

> Sodium in Serum 140 on a scale of 135 tp 145

>

> Potassium in Hair 6.4 on a scale of 5 to 40

> Potassium in Serum 4.1 on a scale of 3.3 to 5.1

>

> If one follows the " counting rules " system as a proper diagnosis

> of mercury involvement in health, then these low hair readings

> indicate toxicity.

> I would like an explanation as to why serum tests are not in

> agreement with hair analysis, which has obviously been the gold

> standard for medical diagnosis for 100 years.

> Since this seems to be the core of the mercury/autism theory

> what research studies have been done to prove the efficacy of hair

> analysis over serum. In searching PUBMED I found nothing....

[Guest guest]

When a blood sample is drawn you could send to 3 different labs and

get 3 differnet results, it is based on averages, if you have one or

two really high levels from one or two different people you get a

different average, remember mean median mode from high school

statistics,same holds true for low numbers, the results are not going

to be the same.I would think that a hair analysis would be more true

to that particular person, but I am not a statistician. Another

thing to remember, if a person is toxic, something is preventing the

body from utilizing these minerals, they maybe in the blood but not

getting to where it is needed.Also, serum levels are not going to be

the same, a sodium level in blood ranges from 135-145 a sodium of 14

in serum and you would not be living. Also potassium between 3.5-5.1

in serum is normal, a serum level of 6.4 is not compatible w/life.The

measurements are not equivocal, like apples to oranges.

Mercury , " couvrette2002 " <paul@c...> wrote:

> I am seeing a huge discrepancy between a hair analysis done my

> Anamol labs here in Canada and serum minerals done at our Md`s

> standard lab.

> For example....Copper in Hair 11 on a scale of 15 to 25

> Copper in Serum 13.2 on a scale of 10 to 22umol/l

>

> Sodium in Hair 14 on a scale of 18 to 85

> Sodium in Serum 140 on a scale of 135 tp 145

>

> Potassium in Hair 6.4 on a scale of 5 to 40

> Potassium in Serum 4.1 on a scale of 3.3 to 5.1

>

> If one follows the " counting rules " system as a proper diagnosis

> of mercury involvement in health, then these low hair readings

> indicate toxicity.

> I would like an explanation as to why serum tests are not in

> agreement with hair analysis, which has obviously been the gold

> standard for medical diagnosis for 100 years.

> Since this seems to be the core of the mercury/autism theory

> what research studies have been done to prove the efficacy of hair

> analysis over serum. In searching PUBMED I found nothing....

[Guest guest]

> I am seeing a huge discrepancy between a hair analysis done my

> Anamol labs here in Canada and serum minerals done at our Md`s

> standard lab.

I would not expect these 2 mediums to agree.

> For example....Copper in Hair 11 on a scale of 15 to 25

> Copper in Serum 13.2 on a scale of 10 to 22umol/l

>

> Sodium in Hair 14 on a scale of 18 to 85

> Sodium in Serum 140 on a scale of 135 tp 145

>

> Potassium in Hair 6.4 on a scale of 5 to 40

> Potassium in Serum 4.1 on a scale of 3.3 to 5.1

>

> If one follows the " counting rules " system as a proper diagnosis

> of mercury involvement in health, then these low hair readings

> indicate toxicity.

um, it is an OVERALL pattern of skewed minerals that you

are looking for--- so I cannot comment on whether the 3 above

indicate anything like toxicity.

> I would like an explanation as to why serum tests are not in

> agreement with hair analysis, which has obviously been the gold

> standard for medical diagnosis for 100 years.

> Since this seems to be the core of the mercury/autism theory

I don't see ANY testing method or lack of method as the core of

the mercury/autism theory. I guess it depends on what theory

exactly you are thinking of.

> what research studies have been done to prove the efficacy of hair

> analysis over serum. In searching PUBMED I found nothing....

no, this is not something that you'll find in pubmed.

Looking for skewed minerals is NOT a well established method,

and it has not been studied. Far from it.

good wishes,

Moria