Hair Mineral Testing

[Undisclosed]

With apologies in advance to the OP (and the mods)for not keeping to the Hair Mineral Testing topic, can I just ask you Kina when we "like" a post is the information of which members liked a post private, or is that available to the moderators?
Thanks,
Anne.

Mark has explained that we can't see who likes posts. I would like to add that on the Xenforo test site, I can see who has given me 'likes' but I can not see who has given anybody else 'likes'. So if you have 50 likes, that's all other members would know. Only you would know who has actually given them to you. The purpose of 'likes' is to save members from posting something like "wow, I really liked what you posted", you will know somebody appreciated what you posted when you look at your own 'likes' in Xenforo. In vBulletin, the only thing we see is how many 'likes' a person has, not the actually members who have clicked on the 'like' button.

Kina.

 

[anne_likes_red]

Thank you for clarifying that Kina.
Anne.

 

[jeffrez]

With all due respect Mr. Kite, that's not what she ever claimed -- even remotely.

Ok. ;-)


-10 characters-

 

[Little Bluestem]

I think it illustrates very well why there have been different perspectives on the commercial issues between those who have been offered free tests (apparently those with previous hair analyses to 'trade' for a further test) and those outside that "inner circle" for whom a commercial service from Christine is available.

Christine did not initially offer free hair tests to people with previous hair analyses to trade for them. She simply asked to see hair test results from people with ME/CFS. When the tests showed what she suspected they would, she apparently wanted a group of tests from the lab with which she is accustomed to work. She obviously could not offer a free test to every member here. It seems reasonable to me (who is definitely not impartial) that she should offer them to those who had already helped her.

The bottom line is that Christine has a service to sell, and her activity here has been promoting that business, and if some people are offered free testing, that does not change the fact that she is also promoting and selling her commercial service and we can't allow the forum to be used in that way.

That seems to me sufficient. I am getting more than a little tired of the accusations of being in a private club and an inner circle because I answered a request for information from someone I hoped might be able to help us.

 

[jeffrez]

Christine did not initially offer free hair tests to people with previous hair analyses to trade for them. She simply asked to see hair test results from people with ME/CFS. When the tests showed what she suspected they would, she apparently wanted a group of tests from the lab with which she is accustomed to work. She obviously could not offer a free test to every member here. It seems reasonable to me (who is definitely not impartial) that she should offer them to those who had already helped her.

It's called "seeding the cloud," or sometimes "chumming the waters." You throw some stuff out there for free with the aim of generating interest & getting a bigger return on your investment. Looks like it backfired here, as the mods are naturally very adept at recognizing the difference between a post from a regular user and from one who is doing marketing.

 

[richvank]

Hi, all.

I really don't believe that Christine offered to do some tests free in order to "drum up business." I think that what occurred was that she saw some interesting results in the hair test reports that people sent to her initially. However, in trying to draw conclusions from them, her concern was that there were some uncontrolled variables that could affect the results. For example, the tests were run by different laboratories, using somewhat different methods. Also, the sample preparation was not consistent from one lab to another. For samples taken some time ago, people are not always able to recall what hair treatments they had at that time. All these variables can impact the results. In doing an experimental scientific study, one of the important things is to try to limit the number of variables, so that your conclusions are more likely to be valid. I think this is what motivated Christine to offer to run some free repeat hair tests, using the lab she is experienced with, specifying a common sample preparation procedure, and getting up-to-date information about the history of hair treatment prior to taking the sample.

I hope that people will be able to assume good motives on the part of others unless and until there is good evidence to the contrary. I realize that there are unfortunately people who are willing to prey on others who are ill, and unhappy experiences with people like that tend to make everyone a little gun-shy, but my own opinion is that Christine is not one of those people, and that her motives are to be helpful and to learn some new science in the process. It costs money to do research, and people who do it have to have a source of it. One way is to operate a business and to charge for a service while doing research on the side. That's about the only option unless a person is affiliated with an institution and can apply for grants, or has the support of a philanthropist, or is independently wealthy. So please, let's not kill the geese who have the potential to lay the golden eggs!

Best regards,

Rich

 

[brenda]

the mods are naturally very adept at recognizing the difference between a post from a regular user and from one who is doing marketing.

Then it is a pity that they are not consistent in this "chumming the waters" in that Freddd is allowed to advertise his personal rewards code from iherb here which means that his own orders are discounted from the sales made from orders, and that Rich is allowed to solicit and charge a consultation fee from members here, all in the name of research of course.

Christine did not solicit for business on the main forum and if she gave the details privately, then why is it not accepted that she was swamped with requests for free tests or for payed for tests in private emails and phone calls and was merely giving the information that was being asked from her? There may by then of course have been an element of `why should I keep the rules` due to the inconsistency mentioned or perhaps to the responses she was receiving, I dont know, but I would not have blamed her for that.

 

[Undisclosed]

Brenda -- the forum rules apply to PM's, blogs, social groups, chat, and other types of communications in the Forums.

If you have issues regarding other members, please send us a PM and we will happily discuss those issues.

Thank you.

Kina.

 

[Shellbell]

Thank you Rich for given your opinion. This means a lot for all of us involved. I agree with you totally.

Shelly

 

[Mark]

I hope that people will be able to assume good motives on the part of others unless and until there is good evidence to the contrary. I realize that there are unfortunately people who are willing to prey on others who are ill, and unhappy experiences with people like that tend to make everyone a little gun-shy, but my own opinion is that Christine is not one of those people, and that her motives are to be helpful and to learn some new science in the process. It costs money to do research, and people who do it have to have a source of it. One way is to operate a business and to charge for a service while doing research on the side. That's about the only option unless a person is affiliated with an institution and can apply for grants, or has the support of a philanthropist, or is independently wealthy. So please, let's not kill the geese who have the potential to lay the golden eggs!

I quite agree Rich, and thank you for the opportunity for me to say that we don't wish to imply that Christine's motives are not, as you say, to be helpful and to further the science. We cannot know whether that is the case or not, but as individuals we can choose who to trust, and we do recognise that all work like this necessarily involves money; our intention is not to prevent Christine from carrying out her work. This is simply an issue about Christine having a business and using the forum to promote it, which has undeniably been the case. I'm sure you appreciate that it is not a feasible policy for us to waive the rules on commercial interests for individual businesses by deciding whether any given business is really, in practice, a purely non-profit venture or whether it is ultimately intended as a money-making one and a source of personal income. We can't get into assessing whether or not free promotions may or may not be a way of drumming up further business in the future, and making judgments on the motivations of the business persons - that's clearly impossible for us to know.

I have thought about what model for Christine's work would have made it possible to participate here, and it seems to me that there is a simple model which illustrates well where the line must be drawn - and it also demonstrates how that work can continue here. Although there are still risks with this model in that it is difficult for us to verify financial interests, perhaps Christine could have recommended a hair analysis lab or labs, in which she has no financial interest, suggested that members submit samples directly to the lab and post their results on the forum, and then post her analysis and recommendations for free on the forum. I hope that this model illustrates that it is possible to carry out the same kind of survey and work that Christine has been doing, in an open way and without personal financial gain. If this were the model, then I really don't think we would have a problem with it. There could always be suspicion that a person following this model may secretly have some stake in the recommended lab, but if the process all took place in open discussion then members would be free to suggest and submit to alternative labs, and offer alternative interpretations - and the entire process and the results of the research would all be in the public domain. The model where the submissions to the lab have to go through Christine and her business, and the correspondence with customers and interpretation of the results happens privately, makes it a commercial enterprise, however well-meaning, and we really have no option but to draw the line at that.

So I think my suggestion to Christine, if she wishes to pursue this research within online forums, is to close down her business and conduct the exercise in an entirely open and transparent way, without any potential personal financial gain. Of course, that would necessarily mean that she would be restricted to giving her time for free, but as I understand it that is what she has said she wants to do, and she's said or implied that she is not doing all this in order to earn a living from it, in which case there is really no need for her to run a business and charge money at all. One can offer considerable amounts of one's time and services for free in the service of something one believes in - all the moderators here do so, for example - and being in that situation myself I'm acutely aware of the importance of ensuring my integrity and independence in my work by transparently and rigorously ensuring that I do not profit in any way from it.

 

[Dreambirdie]

Hi, all.

I really don't believe that Christine offered to do some tests free in order to "drum up business." I think that what occurred was that she saw some interesting results in the hair test reports that people sent to her initially. However, in trying to draw conclusions from them, her concern was that there were some uncontrolled variables that could affect the results. For example, the tests were run by different laboratories, using somewhat different methods. Also, the sample preparation was not consistent from one lab to another. For samples taken some time ago, people are not always able to recall what hair treatments they had at that time. All these variables can impact the results. In doing an experimental scientific study, one of the important things is to try to limit the number of variables, so that your conclusions are more likely to be valid. I think this is what motivated Christine to offer to run some free repeat hair tests, using the lab she is experienced with, specifying a common sample preparation procedure, and getting up-to-date information about the history of hair treatment prior to taking the sample.

I hope that people will be able to assume good motives on the part of others unless and until there is good evidence to the contrary. I realize that there are unfortunately people who are willing to prey on others who are ill, and unhappy experiences with people like that tend to make everyone a little gun-shy, but my own opinion is that Christine is not one of those people, and that her motives are to be helpful and to learn some new science in the process. It costs money to do research, and people who do it have to have a source of it. One way is to operate a business and to charge for a service while doing research on the side. That's about the only option unless a person is affiliated with an institution and can apply for grants, or has the support of a philanthropist, or is independently wealthy. So please, let's not kill the geese who have the potential to lay the golden eggs!

Best regards,

Rich

Thank you Rich. This was my experience as well, and I couldn't agree more.

I have had many hair mineral tests in the past, and all of them have indicated both heavy metals and mineral imbalances. None of my practitioners have been as adept at reading these test results as Christine has been. She has made more sense than anyone else, and that's because she has more experience using these tests than anyone else I know.

When I read how she worked with her very sick dogs to correct their nutritional imbalances, which spared them from being euthanized by her veterinarian, and how she continues to cook all their food for them every day to make sure they stay healthy, that's when my doubts about her intentions were clarified. Christine might be a bit zealous about her theory, and she has some strong opinions about supplements, but IMO she is not a predatory spammer out to exploit sick people on health forums.

My hope was that Christine would continue to be part of the forum and would engage in edifying discussions with Rich about the B vitamins and about mineral imbalances present in PWMEs. But now that that option has been demolished, I feel sad for everyone here. For now, our crew on Facebook is going to continue to pursue this topic, and maybe in time (and possibly with Christine's help and Rich's additional input) we will find something useful from studying our hair mineral tests.

 

[Valentijn]

It is possible Dog Person was here for altruistic reasons, despite trying to convince a forum member to pay her to do a hair analysis when they mentioned their health problems in a public chat room.

But combining that solicitation with her many misleading statements (education, qualifications, association with Dr Lawrence Wilson), and the other forums she has hit in the past (diabetes, autism, Morgellons), it seems unlikely. Even when she claimed to have a disease or knew someone with a disease, she was not on those forums looking for information - and in fact, rejected advice given by others and began giving her own advice, despite saying she was new to the disease.

Instead of citing studies, she relied on statements that could not be refuted, while implying that her statements were correct because "world famous Dr. so-and-so agrees with my theory when I call him at home", etc. It makes me very uncomfortable when someone attempts to take complete control of a healthy debate by closing down my ability to access a source and analyze it myself.

She repeatedly referred to her "degree", which was in fact a diploma, and from an unaccredited university, given in exchange not for learning anything, but for paying someone some money. She repeatedly referred to her graduate professors, with no indication that she is enrolled in any graduate or other accredited schooling. She did all of this in such a way as to imply that her qualifications are much more impressive than they are - to help establish herself as a respectable authority, instead of allowing her hypotheses to stand on their own merits.

She repeatedly said she was not here to make money, but to research. Yet she has shown no interest in learning about ME/CFS and in fact almost never managed to use the right abbreviation. Yes, we do all have CSF, but it's not a disease! She claimed that she only wanted pre-existing hair analysis results, but once she got them, she declared them unreliable and needs them run through the lab she uses. What use are hair minerals anyhow, when you don't even know what the disease involves, and what symptoms people are having from that disease - do they even have the same problems?

She also invoked God on a regular basis, perhaps as yet another unquestionable authority, something else which makes me uncomfortable and is a tactic commonly employed by con artists. Perhaps she does feel that God inspired her, but to go about claiming you are on a mission from God to prove trustworthiness is a bit much.

Her utter failure to engage in debate about her ideas was, in my opinion, her biggest failing. Instead of discussing things, or answering questions forthrightly, she became defensive and attacked those who were asking legitimate questions. A forum is a place for all members to stand as equals and to respectfully discuss and challenge ideas. No member has an inherent right to present a hypothesis while keeping it immune from being challenged. I think this is one of the biggest difference between Dog Person other people with more of an interest in at least communicating bi-directionally: they listen to criticism and disagreements, and respond to them.

I do think it is unfortunate that she breached a very serious forum rule about commercial advertising, because she did have some interesting ideas I would have liked to hear more of. But since she was unwilling to discuss things constructively when someone disagreed with her, I think her ability to contribute constructively to the forum in an interactive manner was very limited.

 

[brenda]

Christine could have recommended a hair analysis lab or labs, in which she has no financial interest, suggested that members submit samples directly to the lab and post their results on the forum, and then post her analysis and recommendations for free on the forum.

Chistine has no financial interest in the lab she uses, she uses it primarily, paying for their services, because the results are more reliable than most due to their not using chemicals to wash the hair samples. And because she already uses it for her animal clients, in her one person business, from which she makes little profit, she is able to give a much more exact interpretation of the balance of the minerals found in order to judge the nutritional status of the client and give nutritional advice for which she is not charging, in order to further her research.

The results she had already received from members here were useful in that they confirmed her theories, but it is obvious that she decided that redoing the tests, some of which including mine were over 2 years old from various labs and some not reliable, would give her a clearer picture.

Thanls Rich for your comments.

 

[Dreambirdie]

Her utter failure to engage in debate about her ideas was, in my opinion, her biggest failing. Instead of discussing things, or answering questions forthrightly, she became defensive and attacked those who were asking legitimate questions. A forum is a place for all members to stand as equals and to respectfully discuss and challenge ideas. No member has an inherent right to present a hypothesis while keeping it immune from being challenged. I think this is one of the biggest difference between Dog Person other people with more of an interest in at least communicating bi-directionally: they listen to criticism and disagreements, and respond to them.

Valentijn--Have you ever tried to challenge Freddd's active B12 hypothesis? or slayadragon's mold avoidance agenda?

If you haven't, then you should and see what happens. Just saying!

 

[Mark]

Valentijn--Have you ever tried to challenge Freddd's active B12 hypothesis? or slayadragon's mold avoidance agenda?

If you haven't, then you should and see what happens. Just saying!

If someone challenges anyone's hypothesis respectfully within the forum rules, they will certainly not be moderated for doing so.

If someone breaks the forum rules when responding to such a challenge, and the post is reported, we will deal with the rule breach.

This applies equally to all forum members.

 

[SJB944]

Personally I don't doubt Christine's altruistic intentions, but this doesn't mean people should just accept what you have to say because you say it. For whatever reasons, Christine showed at the very least naivety as to CFS/ME not only as an illness, but what it is like to deal with the illness and the difficulties in deciding whether to try a new theory.

To try something new, many of us need a logic, a context, some science (however, loosely described) and clear and direct answers to basic questions. This is even more so, when the new theory contradicts strongly with existing theories.

I think Christine is on to something with the significance of Riboflavin, but from all that she said on this site and Privately (I corresponded with her via PM), clarity was given as to what to take and what not to take, but no clarity or support as to why.

For instance, I did test with Dr Sarah Myhill which revealed low Copper/Zinc Sodase levels. This is a functional test which Dr Myhill interpreted to mean I was low in copper and zinc, and thus I should supplement these minerals. Looking at my hair analysis, Christine told me I should NOT take these minerals as they further deplete B2 etc. So I have a clear contradiction, with no clear explanation other than the assertion from Christine that my Dr doesn't understand minerals or vitamins, and that she is a pioneer in this area. Fair enough, but how do I go about coming to a decision whether to accept such a claim or not? After all, Dr Myhill's experience with CF/ME is extensive, and approach is not inconsistent with say Rich or Fred.

Similar could be said, for whether to take B2 with a b-complex or not. General consensus is to take vitamin b's together, Christine asserts that is not the case - to only supplement individually. How do you work out which B's you need? The only way is to accept her interpretation of your hair analysis. She is the only person who can do this. I asked her what theory she based her analysis on, and she basically replied her experience with dogs and people. Which is not really an answer.

And can I just say with all due respect to Christine, that I'm not sure advocating that you've helped heal dogs, provides a basis for your ability to help humans. What support is there for the nutritional requirements of dogs being similar to humans? it's a grey area at best.


OK so the only way to test the theory ultimately is to try it (although ironically, Christine herself warned about the dangers of trying minerals and vitamins), but then there are still no answers to the basic questions. Only Christine can answer these, and yet she constantly was unable to (I accept for legitimate reasons), and when Rich put some good questions to her she answered him privately/ There is no clear guidance, no clear logic, no way way forward other than to have access to Christine.

I will not comment on her banning, other than to say even if you accept Christine's bona fides, her approach seems strange, inconsistent and elusive -- which all of us are perfectly entitled to be, but it makes it hard to give credibility to what she has to say.

This may seem extremely presumptuous, particularly to her ardent supporters, but if you want to help people who are chronically ill, then it is not as easy as simply having good intentions and a strong conviction that you are right.

 

[Dreambirdie]

I have no idea if Christine's theory will pan out to help me or others improve their health. Who knows? MAYBE or MAYBE NOT. So far, out of the 165 other health professionals I have consulted with in 35 years with this damned disease, I have found only two licensed practitioners who have helped me significantly, and a handful of others who would probably score a C+ for their efforts.

On the other hand, some of the most significant help I've gotten has come from people with absolutely NO credentials at all. In fact, the initial diagnosis for my illness (after years 8 years of no such luck with doctors) came from a book that a friend of mine picked up at the flea market for 25 cents back in the late 1980s. And the "cure" to my decade worth of weekly migraines and vomiting came from another friend who convinced me to try her digestive aid (which just happened to contain betaine HCl). After starting that, I never had a migraine again. No thanks to all the doctors who never figured that one out! My point being that in my case "help" and answers have often come from some the strangest and most unlikely places.

Because I have not done particularly well with the SMP and not at all well with Freddd's active protocol, I want to have the opportunity to investigate Christine's ideas further and find out if and how some of her suggestions might help. In time I will know. But I wouldn't know at all if I wasn't willing to check it out and see.

 

[SJB944]

Dreambirdie,

I certainly think not having had any help from Fred or the SMP certainly makes Christine's theory more attractive.

And I agree help can come from the most unlikely sources.

I hope information on her theory gets posted at some point.

 

[brenda]

Christine feels that the important thing is not what illness you have, the important thing is to get the cell to produce ATP. When this is improved, the body has the ability to repair itself. This is why she did not feel she had to understand ME/CFS.

I have heard it said that you should see a vet if you want to be healthy, not a doctor and I think there is a lot of truth in that. In fact I thought that Christine was a vet when I first heard her talk, and I became interested because of that. Vets dont get paid if the animals under their care dont stay heathy but that is not the case as far as doctors are concerned.

I have had a very bad experience with doctors having first of all been damaged by one at 5 months due to mercury poisoning from medications, leaving me with ME and then no help since including them failing to diagnose Lyme Disease 12 years ago and leaving me to reach stage 3 which is probably incurable.

In these many years of sickness I have tried many things and have turned to many people in alternative and traditional medicine and very little of it has been of help. I did have acupuncture for the pain I have in my hands and was quite surprised that it worked amazingly well but it boosted my immune system and led to a worsening of the autoimmune thyroid condition I have otherwise I would have continued with it were I to find an intergrative doctor like the one I found in Germany who uses Chinese medicine as well as western.

I was advised to try a naturopath in Australia but after advising me to get tests done, did a bunk on me. A naturopath in Germany who was supposed to be the best in Germany, became annoyed when I told him his herbal medicines would be rejected by my immune system which happened eventually so more money was wasted.

I was sceptical about the hair analysis at first especially since no-one had interpreted mine very well beyond telling me I was full of lead until I read that the reason why most labs give inconsistent results due to the way they treat the samples. Christine said I was very short of riboflavin and I thought that it was worth a try as her theories sounded sensible to me and explained why I still did not improve significantly during the time when I was on a perfect diet and taking b complex.

The result has been the most significant help I have ever experienced and I think that Christine`s theory is at genius level. She is not medically trained although she has a degree and may have her shortcomings like us all, but she has one quality that has enabled her to crack something and that is her devotion to her pets. There have been many times throughout history when a `man on the street` has made a significant discovery and I believe that this is one of them.

Christine has had to battle with the `experts` and has understandably been affected by it and has had to try to protect herself but at the same time, to try to get her message out. She is still learning and working on her theory, but again understandably keen to get her message out in order to help others.

There are a number on here who want to give her a chance because they see the potential and have already seen results but the few have spoiled things. I hope that she does not get so fed up with the way she gets treated. She deserves a chance and is getting one with the disparaged little `circle` who no-one else is helping.

I won`t follow her advice blindly - I am only alive today because I have never done this. I will weigh up what she says and listen to what my body is telling me then decide. Riboflavin deficiency has been a major factor for me and I now have hope.

 

[Little Bluestem]

It's called "seeding the cloud," or sometimes "chumming the waters." You throw some stuff out there for free with the aim of generating interest & getting a bigger return on your investment.

Well at least she is willing to put her money where her mouth is. If I am not feeling better when it is time to do a retest, I am not likely to pay her for one. If I report no improvement on this forum, other are not likely to seek her service.