Discussion in 'General Treatment' started by brenda, Apr 4, 2012.
Just joined it. Thanks
We also started a facebook group, doh!
Either one is fine for me...
more pple on the fb page so far.....
At first, I thought it was going to be group about low maintenance hair styles for the fatigued!
(Recently, I've found that hair dangling over my face leads to roseacea - I need it short).
A quick google made it look like there has been problems with quackery and hair analysis in the past. Is this a new test? As ever, I'd encourage people to be cautious about what tests they pay for, what treatments follow, and what they put in their bodies. It's best to try to make decisions based upon published data, rather than trusting someone who claims to be an expert. Good luck all.
Yeah, the discussion on Facebook is definitely in full swing. See you all there!
I am gone from here for now. Too tiring to keep up with both.
will miss you! too tiring to add another forum
LOL, I thought the same thing about the forum. I could certainly use a hair style that is low maintainance.
I agree out the about the potential for quackery. There have been studies where the same hair has been sent to different labs and they come up with different results.
Hair analysis is neither a valid nor reliable test. Things from hair dye, the water used for washing hair, exposure to things like cigarette smoke, your shampoo or just being out in the sun can influence the results of hair analysis.
I will come back later with some citations about hair analysis.
Please be careful, people. There are too many scams out there when our money can be used more effectively. That being said, it's a personal choice so I can only speak for myself that I choose to go by the science than by a theory that has not been proven.
Just out of curiosity, why is this thread under general treatment and not under alternative treatments? Absolutely not my decision, that but as I said just curious.
The following study is just one of many but I chose it as it cites other studies.
Hmmm, speaking as a guy, I didn't think there was anything but a low maintenance hair style (one that usually lasts for life!)
Why is a birth date required to join? I understand the need for a full name for accountability. I am not in the habit of putting my full name and date of birth on the internet. That is just asking for identity theft.
Free sites do not generally have a high degree of security. I consider the term secure internet site to be an oxymoron anyway. I notice that it says, neither meandmyhair.freeforums.org nor phpBB shall be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.
P.S. I really am not trying to be difficult. I would just like a nice, safe place where we can get together and talk.
You can edit your birthdate after joining.
I asked my doctor about this and he said hair analyses is only reliable in spotting deficiencies as anything on your hair can make it appear like you have too much of something in your body eg hair dyes etc can make some things look higher then they actually are, environmental factors can get on and enter hair too.
My doctor has found it useful thou in picking up some deficiencies in his patients (there are some things which should show up in hair) but said to ignore all the other results eg so he wasnt concerned about very high copper showing on my hair test but he wanted me to supplement with things found deficient. What he said does make logical sense.
You can get blood tests that are reliable and can spot deficiencies, so why go with something that isn't validated as being an accurate test? I am/was deficient in Ferritin, a protein that binds with iron, B12 and Vitamin D so now supplement with these. I have had an iron infusion from a hematologist to bring my levels back to normal as I can't tolerate the iron and needed more than I could get in a pill.
That's how it seems to me too.
Perhaps I can take a too relaxed approach to my health (I don't think I've been tested for any of these things by validated or alternative testing), but it does seem as if it's only worth going to the trouble of having testing done when there is good evidence to show that the results will be accurate and meaningful.
My MD said that there was not a reliable blood test for zinc, which I wanted tested. She said that tissue testing was better and referred me to a particular dietitian. I assume she trusted the hair testing lab that that dietitian uses.
It is not so much the other members that I do not want to see my birth date as the message board provider. They can grab it before I change it.
They make the money to support the board with advertising. If you register, providing full name, birth date, and email address, you will see (fewer/no) ads. That means your personal info has some value to them. Since I do not know what they will be doing with it, I am reluctant to provide it.
I suppose the real problem here is that I want something for nothing. I would just not register and put up with the ads, but if I am not registered, I cannot post.
There was lots of things on my hair test in which doctors never tested me for.. eg how many doctors blood test someone for a molybdenum deficiency. If it wasnt for the hair test, I wouldnt have found out I was deficient.
The difficulty here is whether a hair test reveals deficiency or something else. There is no concensus on this.
Have these results been confirmed elsewhere?
eg: If hair testing has not yet shown to be reliable, could it be that it wrongly found you to be deficient in molybdenum? Or have you since had this result checked and confirmed by others?
For myself, I've only ever had very minimal testing of potential deficiencies (or anything much really), so it is possible that further testing would reveal some significant result, but I'd want to know that the testing used had itself been shown to be reliable.
It could be that hair testing allows for testing of a wide range of different things that would not normally be examined, but if the results aren't reliable, it would still not be of much use. I've really got no idea about how effective hair testing has been shown to be, but it certainly looked like there were problems with it in the past, and I'm not sure if there's been new evidence in support of it's accuracy since then.
Actually, this seems to me like a very positive point for hair testing. It might not be thoroughly reliable and validated, and maybe some of the factors mentioned (pollution from environment etc) mean that it can never be definitive, but it does appear that the low cost of performing the test might make it a good way to get a very rough idea of deficiency patterns, and a broad spectrum of clues as to what to look into next. I would imagine that the battery of blood and biopsy tests needed to explore all the various different deficiencies that hair tests explore would be very expensive indeed.
Another big factor that would seem to be important is the 'historical' aspect that hair tests can potentially demonstrate - blood tests just take a snapshot of the state of the body at the point in time when the blood was drawn, whereas hair tests are going to potentially show you the averages - and even the history - over the last months or years.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.