CHAPTER 47:
HAIR ANALYSIS: VALIDITY & ACCURACY
INTRODUCTION
Not That I Am Poisoned, Chapter 1, has tried to discredit the science of hair analysis altogether with this statement:
“Hair analysis for arsenic is a very unreliable indicator of serum arsenic levels when a specific individual is tested without a range of reference values from a group of the same time and place for comparison. This unreliability is even more marked when a small amount of hair sample is tested.”
At first look this statement sounds righteous, scientific, and profound, causing readers to think that hair testing for metals and poisons is very unreliable. However, these words are highly misleading and we will see that it makes no sense at all. Also NTIAP needs to diffentiate between serum (blood) and hair.
One should not be misled that individual hair analysis is unreliable. Group studies are required to establish norms and to understand variances due to local factors of pollution, occupation, and so on. But to compare an individual (such as Srila Prabhupada) to the average normal values found in various unexposed groups IS in fact a valid and reliable, scientifically accepted method of determining abnormal exposure or poisoning.
HAIR ANALYSIS IS A RELIABLE INDICATOR
(1). The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) published an authoritative study in 1979 in which more han 400 reports on hair testing were reviewed. The authors concluded that hair is a “meaningful and representative tissue for biological monitoring of most of the toxic metals.”
(2). The Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratories states: “There are numerous papers on the accuracy and efficacy of hair testing, particularly for toxic metals such as mercury. For more than 30 years, the significance of measuring element concentrations in scalp hair, blood, and urine has been studied.”
(3). A 1986 study by V Bencko, T Geist, et al called “Biological monitoring of environmental pollution and human exposure to some trace elements” states:
“In addition to analyses of plant and animal specimens, the element content of human hair as an indicator of exposures to arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, antimony, manganese, nickel and cobalt has been repeatedly confirmed as reliable, provided the analyses were carried out and evaluated on group diagnostic basis and were done in groups of individuals occupationally not exposed to these metals.”
(4). From Nutri-Test Analytical in Edmonton, we read: “Blood, urine and hair are the most accessible tissues in which to measure elements in our body, and they are sometimes referred to as indicator tissues. Blood and urine concentrations usually reflect recent exposure and correlate best with acute effects. Hair is useful in assessing variations in exposure to metals over the long term. It is a useful tool for… diagnosis of heavy metal exposure…”
(5). A 1980 study by JS Lee and KL White called “A review of the health effects of cadmium” found that “hair values correlate well with exposure” to cadmium, whereas blood values did not.
(6). A 1979 study published by the EPA by DW Jenkins called “Toxic metals in mammalian hair and nails” found that “hair analysis, when properly performed, is a reliable measure of tissue levels of cadmium.”
(7). A 1973 study by RW Thatcher et al called “Effects of low levels of cadmium and lead, etc” found that “hair analysis is superior to blood in reflecting long term cadmium exposure.”
(8). WIKIPEDIA: Arsenic poisoning: (2015) “Tests on hair and fingernails can measure exposure to high levels of arsenic over the past 6–12 months. These tests can determine if one has been exposed to above-average levels of arsenic… Hair is a potential bio-indicator for arsenic exposure due to its ability to store trace elements from blood. Incorporated elements maintain their position during growth of hair.”
CONCLUSION:
Hair analysis is not a very reliable indicator of total body burden, in other words, it does not directly correlate to the exact state of contamination in the body beyond the hair itself. But hair levels do give excellent relative indicators of abnormal contaminations that the body has been exposed to. In other words, the muscle, fat, organs, blood, and urine levels of any element may not be indicated by hair tests. But hair tests do show the presence of elements in the body that are compared to known normal levels in human society. Thus it is an excellent indicator of cadmium poisoning although it may not show much about the total body burden of cadmium or the state of health of internal organs.
ARE HAIR TESTS BY DR. STEVE MORRIS ACCURATE OR NOT?
Continue reading →
