Hair Mineral Testing

[Valentijn]

Mark, a consumer cannot just order a test from ARL. You have to be a licensed practitioner with an account with them.

I believe that is incorrect, in the case of ARL. "Practioners" are required to have a specific certificate, not a license. And they can get that certificate by basically paying for it.

 

[gu3vara]

I believe that is incorrect, in the case of ARL. "Practioners" are required to have a specific certificate, not a license. And they can get that certificate by basically paying for it.

Nice, a semantic debate now, much needed.

 

[Undisclosed]

129 dollars at ARL will get you:

A hair tissue mineral analysis performed by Analytical Research Labs, Inc., is a screening test for the level of 20 minerals and toxic metals in a sample of hair. It is a tissue mineral biopsy that is non-invasive, relatively inexpensive and extremely accurate. Our laboratory uses only the most advanced and sophisticated instrumentation available today, the Perkin Elmer Elan 9000 ICP Mass Spectrometer to assess mineral levels in parts per million or parts per billion. This profile includes the complete Multi-Element Laboratory Assay provided in Profile I, plus a thorough 15-20 page interpretation that reviews significant mineral levels and ratios and provides pertinent information related to the patient's metabolic rate, energy levels, sugar and carbohydrate tolerance, immune system, glandular activity, autonomic balance, metabolic trends, and a complete dietary supplement program designed to assist in balancing body chemistry. Doctors order provided, you receive the results.

 

[Undisclosed]

Also, this is clearly a thread about Christine's Hair Mineral Testing and her techniques with treatment.

Your request for analysis of business model and comparison of alternative services is a completely different subject altogether and deserves a completely separate thread.

If that is not clear by the thread title, maybe it needs altering to reflect the content of this thread.

Actually this thread is labelled as being about Hair Mineral Testing, therefore all relevant information related to HMA can be posted here.

Maybe those who are interested in discussing Christine's analyses/findings etc and don't want to discuss anything else could start a "Group" related to this. The leader of the group can define what is going to be discussed within the group. Generally, if a member comes in and starts and off-topic conversation that is not relevant to the group, the leader can kick the member out of the group. This is a public thread about hair mineral testing and as long as the conversation is relevant and within forum rules, posters should not be questioned or admonished. Please consider starting a Group if you wish to discuss specific things relevant to Hair Mineral Testing.

Kina.

 

[gu3vara]

129 dollars at ARL will get you:

A report done by a computer that is not necessarily tailored to your specific symptoms, health history, medications etc... No thanks, I prefer to have a human being capable of judgment to analyze my case and follow me through it, which is kindly done via email free of extra charge (as far as I'm aware off), call me old fashion.

 

[hixxy]

Mark, a consumer cannot just order a test from ARL. You have to be a licensed practitioner with an account with them. This is pretty typical for many of the labs we use for metabolic testing -- same goes for Doctor's Data, Great Plains, Genovations.
http://www.arltma.com/FAQ.htm
You could have established this with a couple of minutes on google.
A lot of the things you say reveal an irritating ignorance about the business of lab testing. For example, most labs do NOT reveal what they charge practitioners because it is up to the practitioners' to decide how much to mark up the test.

This is precisely the point I was making with quote:

It is reasonable to ask, but it is unreasonable to expect these answers from these forums, when they can make these enquiries themselves directly?

Thank you aquariusgirl for making it more succinctly for me.

 

[hixxy]

Actually this thread is labelled as being about Hair Mineral Testing, therefore all relevant information related to HMA can be posted here.

Maybe those who are interested in discussing Christine's analyses/findings etc and don't want to discuss anything else could start a "Group" related to this. The leader of the group can define what is going to be discussed within the group. Generally, if a member comes in and starts and off-topic conversation that is not relevant to the group, the leader can kick the member out of the group. This is a public thread about hair mineral testing and as long as the conversation is relevant and within forum rules, posters should not be questioned or admonished. Please consider starting a Group if you wish to discuss specific things relevant to Hair Mineral Testing.

Kina.

Would a thread titled Christine's technique's with hair mineral analysis interpretation and treatment suffice?

I've seen off-topic posts moved to other threads in the past. Can it be relied on for the moderators to facilitate this in the future if we went this path?

If placed within the confines of the "Alternative Medicine" forum, can we rely on other members to not troll this thread with their blanket anti-Alternative Medicine views? Especially as these views are often delivered in condescending and insulting tones.

The alternative medicine forum is clearly not the place for those with these views, but a place for those who wish to explore these treatment options to explore them in peace.

A group is too obscure. This information should be readily available to all those who are interested in it. Not many people even bother to check what groups exist, let alone use them.

A hair mineral analysis in my country costs upwards of $120 with a computer generated interpretation. $200 is a bargain for a human interpretation that also includes follow up assistance.

 

[barbc56]

Barb, if you personally have no interest or faith in hair analysis, why do you insist on spending so much of your energy in this neighborhood? I don't get it.



And your point is?



About you, or Christine?

With all due respect, we're not idiots, we can make choices for ourselves.

The last sentence is my point. It's about choices and getting all the information to make those choices. What people do with my or anyone elses information is a personal decision. I had a question after visiting Christine's site. That's all.

Barb C.:>)

 

[Undisclosed]

Would a thread titled Christine's technique's with hair mineral analysis interpretation and treatment suffice?

I've seen off-topic posts moved to other threads in the past. Can it be relied on for the moderators to facilitate this in the future if we went this path?

If placed within the confines of the "Alternative Medicine" forum, can we rely on other members to not troll this thread with their blanket anti-Alternative Medicine views? Especially as these views are often delivered in condescending and insulting tones.

The alternative medicine forum is clearly not the place for those with these views, but a place for those who wish to explore these treatment options to explore them in peace.

A group is too obscure. This information should be readily available to all those who are interested in it. Not many people even bother to check what groups exist, let alone use them.

A hair mineral analysis in my country costs upwards of $120 with a computer generated interpretation. $200 is a bargain for a human interpretation that also includes follow up assistance.

Hixxy, you really should not accuse members of trolling a thread because you don't like their opinion or asking questions about Hair Mineral Testing. Members are free to explore any forum, ask questions, post research, discuss research, discuss testing, discuss a business, discuss what they have found beneficial or no so beneficial if they remain within the stated forum rules. The Alternative therapy forum is for discussing Alternative therapies -- discussions involve all sorts of points of views and again as long as they are within forum rules, they will be allowed.

If a group is too obscure, then you will have to accept differences among members. Groups don't have to be obscure. Groups can be announced on the forum in a new thread or within a thread.

Thank you.

Kina

 

[Mark]

Would a thread titled Christine's technique's with hair mineral analysis interpretation and treatment suffice?

I've seen off-topic posts moved to other threads in the past. Can it be relied on for the moderators to facilitate this in the future if we went this path?

Naturally if a new thread is started, or this one is named or split, with one being about Hair Analysis in general and one being about Christine's business only, then however any such reshuffle might be organised, posts will be expected to stay on topic as always.

If placed within the confines of the "Alternative Medicine" forum, can we rely on other members to not troll this thread with their blanket anti-Alternative Medicine views? Especially as these views are often delivered in condescending and insulting tones.

If a post is ever delivered in "condescending and insulting tones" and it is reported as such, it is always dealt with, as that would be a clear rule breach. I don't recall ever seeing any reported posts from you regarding this subject. However, accusing others within a forum thread (rather than by a reported post) - whether specifically or as a general accusation against members of a certain point of view - of "condescending and insulting tones", is a personal attack, and another rule breach. Please read the forum rules, forum rules explained, and moderation pages, because you don't appear to understand the rules about this. To make such an allegation, do so by reporting the post. We have set this out very clearly in the documentation of the rules: please read that documentation.

You can rely on the moderators to act if somebody questions the subject you are discussing in a disrespectful way - provided that you report the post where they do so (you should not expect us to read everything, and you should not be complaining about alleged offences that you have not reported). You cannot, however, demand that other members may not ask questions or post information about the subject of discussion just because those other members' posts call into question whether (for example) a treatment is credible or reliable. The rule is that any such questioning must be done politely and respectfully.

The alternative medicine forum is clearly not the place for those with these views, but a place for those who wish to explore these treatment options to explore them in peace.

I think that is the core of the misunderstanding here. The alternative treatment forums are public discussion forums which happen to deal with the subject of various 'alternative' treatments. Nowhere is it written that you have to believe in a given treatment in order to be allowed to post on a thread about it. The same rules apply to any thread: nowhere is it written that members can demand to discuss a subject without other members being allowed to question them about that subject. Opposing viewpoints are not censored out. The requirement is that everyone be polite and respectful, even if they disagree.

A group is too obscure. This information should be readily available to all those who are interested in it. Not many people even bother to check what groups exist, let alone use them.

If you want a place where you can say whatever you like and where opposing views and questioning of your claims is not allowed, then you can have that on a private group. You can't demand that a general, public forum thread should be censored to only allow your side of an argument.

You appear to be asking, in the quote above, that Phoenix Rising should provide you with a public forum thread for information about Christine's business, and nobody on that thread may say anything asking questions about Christine's business; you wish to say that people who are sceptical about the subject may not post on that thread. You want it to be public because it's such important information, you want to use a Phoenix Rising thread to publicise that information (and this business) and yet you want that information to be free from scrutiny.

I do not understand why you do not see that this is not going to happen. Those are not the rules of these forums. You have been offered a group - whose posts can be public - and you can moderate such a group yourselves as you see fit. But it seems that's not enough: you want a Phoenix Rising public forum thread to get maximum publicity for this business. And on that thread, you want to decide who may and may not post: only those who support the subject you want to discuss.

The choice is clear, I hope. You may form a group to discuss the subject in your own terms, as your own group, excluding whoever you wish. Or you may discuss it openly on the forum, but you may not exclude other members and other points of view from that discussion. The "best of both worlds" option is not on the table, not for any particular point of view, and especially not for a specific business.

 

[hixxy]

I don't want the information to be free from scrutiny, but I also want people who follow these treatments to feel comfortable about their choices.

That is the whole crux of this argument nothing else.

I'm not even following the protocol. I am skeptical also, I voiced my opinion on my skepticism earlier in this thread. I didn't drag my skepticism through 27 pages worth of thread though. I voiced it briefly.

I'm quite happy to unwatch this thread now and move on with my life. This is far too draining and I'm quite sick of having my words twisted and for it being implied that I am advertising or promoting Christine's business.

Christine's well being is of no concern to me. I only care about the well being and freedom of those who are following her advice here on this forum, who are in many ways been marginalised.

I'm beginning to guess this is precisely why curezone has support forums and debate forums. The two things don't mix well together.

 

[brenda]

No thanks, personally I would rather not join a group here as we already have two, one public and one private, where we can discuss Christines theory and our experiences of her protocol in peace, without constantly having to defend our choice of treatment or to be asked to answer questions which should be directed to her from those who have no interest in HMA. There is too much hostility over this issue and very sick people can do without that.

If anyone is genuinely interested they can get in touch privately with those who are following this method, though our ability to give advice is limited due to lack of energy, time, and at present, the paper from Christine we are awaiting.

Kina

This profile includes the complete Multi-Element Laboratory Assay provided in Profile I, PLUS a thorough 15-20 page interpretation

Christine orders Profile 1, I believe which does not give the ARL interpretation.

 

[brenda]

More support for MHA from

http://www.jonbarron.org/natural-he...&utm_content=NL+Bob+Carroll+Part+II+-+5/21/12

A recent study out of Utah's Brigham Young University reports that doctors can use hair analysis to diagnose eating disorders. Here's a direct quote from MSNBC's coverage: "...hair could reveal information about a person's day-to-day nutrition." HealthDay quoted the study's lead researcher, BYU biology professor Ken Hatch, as saying, "Your body records your eating habits in the hair. So, we can use that to tell the nutritional health of an individual."

 

[taniaaust1]

A hair mineral analysis in my country costs upwards of $120 with a computer generated interpretation. $200 is a bargain for a human interpretation that also includes follow up assistance.

For those in Australia. I think I paid $110 for my hair analyses throu "InterClinical Laboratories". Its thou I think $130 if you dont have a doctors referal for it. (This is the lab which my CFS specialist recommended to me as he's finding this helpful)

Its very much like what some here described for the Analytical Reseach lab but actually may be even better then that one (InterClinical Lab screens 37 different minerals and toxic metals ..someone said the Analytical Research lab screened only 20 different things) .. InterClinical lab also has the ratios, metabolic trends, possible related illneses to your results, and dietary changes recommends based on your results. (my report is 11 pages long with a further 2 pages and graphs of the results).

For anyone interested in this one (you just post samples in, in the special envelop they provide with instructions on how much and how take the sample) .
InterClinical Laboratories is at www.interclinical.com.au or Phone (02) 9693 2888 or email lab@interclinical.com.au

Im very grateful for their findings as its helped me to know what other supplments I was needing and taking these has helped.

 

[xks201]

Does anyone know Dog Person's website? (user here)

 

[dmholmes]

www.hairstohealth.com

 

[Rand56]

"Not reliable or valid...." Says who? Of course there's many health care professionals with their heart and efforts in the right place, but the health care system as a whole is the biggest racket going. It's a money making golden goose the likes the world's never seen and my opinion (with the self serving cozy interrelationship of hospitals, doctors, big pharma, medical study grants, and insurance and with a regulating agency, the FDA which not only likes to turn the cover down but often slips right in bed with them is a closed looped big bubble that's sucked in the masses to preached their own agenda.

Hi Lou

Could not have said this any better myself. It's no wonder they try to discredit other points of view. They have to keep a bigger share of their big money pie.

 

[barbc56]

Results Laboratory differences in highest and lowest reported mineral concentrations for the split sample exceeded 10-fold for 12 minerals, and statistically significant (P<.05) extreme values were reported for 14 of the 31 minerals that were analyzed by 3 or more laboratories. Variations also were found in laboratory sample preparation methods and calibration standards. Laboratory designations of normal reference ranges varied greatly, resulting in conflicting classifications (high, normal, or low) of nearly all analyzed minerals. Laboratories also provided conflicting dietary and nutritional supplement recommendations based on their results.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jama.285.1.67

While the medical system is far from perfect, I don't understand why people go to the extreme opposite.

Barb C.:>)

​

 

[Lynn_M]

The JAMA article Barb cites refers to a 1985 JAMA study by Stephen Barrett. However, the author of that study, Stephen Barrett, and the study techniques he used have been discredited. I read a lengthy criticism of the 1985 JAMA piece years ago. One of the problems is the hair sampling technique used for this study: hair samples were collected from multiple people, from hairs of varying ages, not the recommended 1.5" closest to the scalp, mixed together, and then sent to the labs. So the sample each lab received could have varied widely from another lab's sample. Some labs washed the hair in solvent, ARL does not.

http://www.vrp.com/accessories/mine...ue-technique-to-analyze-tissue-mineral-levelssays:

"Despite its growing acceptance, a scathing attack on the reliability of hair analysis was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1985. The author, Stephen Barrett, MD, is a psychiatrist notorious for his frequent vicious attacks on alternative medicine. Barrett included in the study commercial laboratories that were already under fire from ethical hair analysis laboratories. Another of his criticisms was the variance in reference levels between laboratories. Barrett admitted that different analytical techniques were used, resulting in the variances, like comparing apples to oranges. Although this travesty of an article was accepted and widely cited by the medical establishment as a valid criticism of hair analysis, Barretts study was vigorously and soundly disputed and discredited by other physicians and scientists (Blaurock-Busch, et al, 1985; Hickok, 1985; Cranton, 1986)."

Given the precedence of JAMA publishing the 1985 study, I have no reason to expect the 2001 study that Barb cites to be any more objective. This is ARL's response at http://www.arltma.com/HairAnalysis.htmto that study:

"We are one of only two laboratories that do not wash the hair at the laboratory. Washing hair samples at the laboratory has been shown to erratically wash out the water-soluble elements. This creates much less accurate results. In a 2001 study in the Journal of the AMA (Seidel, S. et al., Assessment of Commercial Laboratories Performing Hair Mineral Analysis, JAMA, 285(1) Jan 3:67-72.) the two laboratories that did not wash the hair, of which we were one, showed superb reliability."

 

[Lynn_M]

More rebuttal in regards to the 2001 JAMA article Barb cited:
At http://drlwilson.com/Articles/explore article.htm, Dr. Larry Wilson wrote:

"In a study published in the Journal of the AMA in 2001 (10) , the authors concluded hair analysis was a fraud because hair samples from the same person sent to six laboratories yielded varying results. The JAMA study was poor because it only involved one person. Much more importantly, a critical finding was overlooked. Readings from the two labs that did not wash the hair were identical for six of nine elements tested and extremely close for all others. This is excellent reliability and supports the exact opposite of the authors’ conclusion. It also brings to light the problem of hair washing."

The fact that the two labs that didn't wash the hair sample had identical or extremely close readings for the nine elements tested tells me that the test results are probably technically accurate.

It is quite another thing to conclude that the interpretation of the tests results and recommendations given are valid. I don't know if there is anyway to know, except if the patient follows and benefits (or not) from the recommendations. You can't compare what is happening in the tissue to what can be measured in blood or serum. Hair mineral analysis is based more on pattern recognition, on the interaction among the minerals, rather than specific levels of minerals. I think there is quite a bit of room to disagree about the interpretation of results and what nutrients should be recommended. I think that part is an art.

Dr. Wilson writes further:

"Biounavailability. Another key systems principle that arose from agricultural science is that an element may be present, but not usable by a plant or animal. One may need to supplement a mineral or other substance in order to make another mineral biologically available. This principle has great application in human health, as even those with the best diets may develop deficiencies if minerals are biounavailable. It is also a key to hair analysis interpretation, as otherwise test results create confusion...... One is not interested in the "total body load" of a mineral. In fact, one may supplement a mineral such as manganese when the hair level is high. Manganese may be biounavailable, meaning present but not usable. A supplement in available form may be required to activate an enzyme system. A mineral that reads low may not be supplemented. It may be present in excess, but hidden in an organ or tissue and not revealed in the hair."

He discusses reference ranges further on. It's quite a lengthy article.