Re: Hair analysis unreliable: study

[Guest guest]

Hi Myrl,

I've been " on the sofa " since Dec. 4th, having to keep right leg elevated to

hip level until Feb 6th, so have not been able to do much research or

respond to much on net.

Have you found anything on hair and nail sample showing 'toxins' in the

body, as this was the basis of the original Baylor/Houston studies, in

addition to blood samples, etc.?

Many thanks, if you find any follow up on the toxins!

Blessings,

Martha Murdock, Director

National Silicone Implant Foundation

Dallas Texas HQ

-----Original Message-----

From: Myrl Jeffcoat <myrlj@...>

myrlj@... <myrlj@...>

Date: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:44 PM

Subject: Hair analysis unreliable: study

Hair analysis unreliable: study

http://www.msnbc.com/news/510641.asp

Method should not be used to diagnose nutritional problems

MSNBC NEWS SERVICES

Jan. 2 — Hair analysis is generally an unreliable method of diagnosing

nutritional problems and exposure to environmental toxins, according to a

study of six commercial laboratories.

A HAIR sample sent to all six labs produced widely varying and often

opposite results. One lab called the patient a “fast metabolizer” and

recommended that she abstain from vitamin A; another said the sample showed

she was a “slow metabolizer” who should take vitamin A supplements.

“Health-care choices based on these analyses may be ineffective or even

detrimental to the patient’s overall health,” the researchers said in

Wednesday’s Journal of the American Medical Association.

“Physicians and other health care professionals who are considering ordering

hair analysis to assess nutritional status or who are basing nutritional

counseling or therapy on hair analysis results should reconsider this

approach unless and until the reliability of hair analysis value is

established and evidence becomes available that clinical recommendations

based on hair analysis improve patient outcomes,” they wrote.

A similar study made a similar warning in the same journal 15 years ago.

Because laboratory methods have generally improved since then and a federal

law was passed in 1988 to regulate testing, the researchers decided to

re-examine the issue.

The hair — supplied by one of the researchers — was not tested for illegal

drugs such as cocaine, which is another common use of hair analysis. The

researchers did not pass judgment on the reliability of hair tests to detect

drug use.

The authors, from the California Department of Health Services, said the

federal government should refrain from certifying hair analysis laboratories

until standards for proficiency testing are developed.

ANNUAL TAB: $10 MILLION

Nine U.S. laboratories promote mineral analysis of hair as a diagnostic

tool, and the public spends nearly $10 million a year on the tests that the

researchers concluded were worthless.

They focused on six, whose charges ranged from $30 to $69 per sample to test

for levels of poisons such as arsenic and 18 other elements, including lead

and mercury.

The laboratories’ findings of mineral content varied considerably, and they

also provided conflicting dietary and nutritional supplement recommendations

based on their results.

The results of hair analysis can be skewed by hair treatments, contamination

from environmental sources and inconsistent lab techniques, the study

authors said.

An editorial in the journal supported the researchers’ findings.

Written by Steindel of the Public Health Practice Program Office at

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Chamblee, Georgia, and

Howanitz of the State University of New York, Health Science Center at

Brooklyn, it questioned the value of hair analysis.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.