Misplaced Pages

Hair analysis (alternative medicine): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:47, 26 January 2007 editAlterrabe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,566 edits changed is to was.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:44, 30 July 2023 edit undoCyfal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers64,312 editsm spelling (WP:Typo Team) 
(164 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{main|Hair analysis}} {{Main|Hair analysis}}
{{Infobox alternative intervention
'''Hair analysis''' is the chemical analysis of a ] sample. It is used in some branches of ] as a method of investigation to assist ]. This use is controversial.
| image =
| caption =
| pronunciation =
| classification = <!--per NCCIH-->
| school =
| risks =
| legality =
| MeshID =
| other codes =
|}}
⚫ {{Alternative medicine sidebar |fringe}}


In mainstream scientific usage, ] is the chemical analysis of a ] sample. The use of '''hair analysis''' in ''']''' as a method of investigation to assist ] is controversial<ref name="barrett"/><ref name="seidel"/> and its use in this manner has been opposed repeatedly by the ] because of its unproven status and its potential for ].<ref name=AMA/>
⚫ == Background ==
The hair is analyzed, looking at the levels of minerals and metals in the hair sample. Using the results, advocates claim that they can diagnose ] ], ] and even conditions like ].<ref name="lathe">Lathe, Richard, and Michael Le Page. "Toxic metal clue to autism: a study has revealed startling differences in mercury levels in the hair of autistic and normal children. (This Week)." ''New Scientist'' 178.2400 (June 21, 2003): 4(2).</ref>


⚫ ==Background==
To summarize the debate about the usefulness of hair analysis in medicine, it is important to note that it is not so much one debate as three debates: one about the techniques of determining hair minerals and metals, and hence the reliability, credibility and comparability of individual labs (i.e. how do labs generate their values? Are these techniques sound? And can values that different labs obtained using different techniques be meaningfully compared?)<ref>Barrett S. ''JAMA'' 254:1041-1045, 1985. </ref>; a second one about the interpretation of hair tests<ref name="Holmes">Holmes AS, et al. Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children. <i>Int J Toxicol</i>. 2003 Jul-Aug;22(4):277-85. </ref> (i.e. what causes low mercury in a hair test?) and a third one, about the therapies that hair tests are purported to suggest (i.e. if polonium levels are two hundred times larger than uranium levels, should a physician do more than urge the patient to avoid sushi bars in the future?) These are complex questions for which science today does not always have clear unambiguous answers to offer.
In hair analysis the levels of minerals and metals in the hair sample are analyzed.<ref name="Kempson">I.M. Kempson & E. Lombi, "Hair analysis as a biomonitor for toxicology, disease and health status" Chemical Society Reviews, 2011 {{doi|10.1039/C1CS15021A}}.</ref> Alternative medicine advocates state that this allows them to diagnose ] ], ], and that autistic people have anomalous hair test results, a eugenicist belief.<ref name="lathe">{{cite journal |first1=Richard |last1=Lathe |first2=Michael |last2=Le Page |date=June 2003 |title=Toxic metal clue to autism |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3842-toxic-metal-clue-to-autism.html |journal=New Scientist}}</ref>


As of 1998, of the nine commercial 'nutritional hair analysis' laboratories operating in the ], three indicated that they primarily used ], four primarily used ], and one reported use of directly coupled plasma (DCP)-AES. DCP-AES is an older technique that is potentially less stable than ICP-AES. On average, these laboratories measure 26 elements per hair sample. Nutritional hair analysis laboratories require between 0.3 and 1&nbsp;gram for the AES methods, and 0.25-1&nbsp;gram for ICP-MS."<ref>Eastern Research Group. '''' SUMMARY REPORT, HAIR ANALYSIS PANEL DISCUSSION: EXPLORING THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE. ATDSR. June 12—13, 2001</ref> The amount selected depends on the analytical method used, but sample sizes in the 50 milligram range are reported.<ref>Eastern Research Group. '' 3.4 Other Methodological Considerations.'' SUMMARY REPORT, HAIR ANALYSIS PANEL DISCUSSION: EXPLORING THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE. ATDSR. June 12—13, 2001</ref>
== Unreliable and inconsistent results ==
⚫ In a 1985 investigation of 13 commercial laboratories published in the '']'' noted inconsistencies and questionable content in their reports and recommendations:


==Inconsistent results==
⚫ : "Hair samples from two healthy teenagers were sent under assumed names to 13 commercial laboratories performing multimineral hair analysis. The reported levels of most minerals varied considerably between identical samples sent to the same laboratory and from laboratory to laboratory. The laboratories also disagreed about what was "normal" or "usual" for many of the minerals. Most reports contained computerized interpretations that were voluminous, bizarre, and potentially frightening to patients. Six laboratories recommended food supplements, but the types and amounts varied widely from report to report and from laboratory to laboratory. Literature from most of the laboratories suggested that their reports were useful in managing a wide variety of diseases and supposed nutrient imbalances. However, commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal."<ref>Barrett S. ''JAMA'' 254:1041-1045, 1985. </ref>
In 1983, a '']'' article criticized the industry for inconsistent results, fraudulent practices, unscientific aspects, and being "a consumer ripoff that in some cases is dangerous".<ref name=Brody>Jane Brody. '']'' October 26, 1983</ref>


In 1984, the FTC successfully obtained an injunction to stop a hair analysis laboratory's false claims to the public, on the basis that it was "inaccurate, worthless to consumers and possibly harmful because it might prevent patients from seeking proper medical attention".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Av5LAAAAIBAJ&pg=5889,1789340|work=Spokane Chronicle|date=August 23, 1985|title=Hair analysis 'frightening'|page=10|department=National}}</ref>
In 2001 a follow up investigation was conducted to see if things had improved since the 1985 investigation. The authors concluded:


⚫ In a 1985 investigation of 13 commercial laboratories published in the '']'' noted inconsistencies and questionable content in their reports and recommendations:<ref name="barrett">{{cite journal |last1=Barrett |first1=S. |title=Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam? |journal=JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association |volume=254 |pages=1041–5 |year=1985 |doi=10.1001/jama.254.8.1041 |issue=8}}</ref>
⚫ : "Hair mineral analysis from these laboratories was unreliable, and we recommend that health care practitioners refrain from using such analyses to assess individual nutritional status or suspected environmental exposures. Problems with the regulation and certification of these laboratories also should be addressed."<ref name="seidel">Seidel S, Kreutzer R, Smith D, McNeel S, Gilliss D. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2001 Jan 3;285(1):67-72.</ref>


⚫ : Hair samples from two healthy teenagers were sent under assumed names to 13 commercial laboratories performing multimineral hair analysis. The reported levels of most minerals varied considerably between identical samples sent to the same laboratory and from laboratory to laboratory. The laboratories also disagreed about what was "normal" or "usual" for many of the minerals. Most reports contained computerized interpretations that were voluminous, bizarre, and potentially frightening to patients. Six laboratories recommended ]s, but the types and amounts varied widely from report to report and from laboratory to laboratory. Literature from most of the laboratories suggested that their reports were useful in managing a wide variety of diseases and supposed nutrient imbalances. However, commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal.
George Tamari, the owner of a medical and diagnostic laboratory, commented on this investigation and explained that this may be the result of lack of standardization in the analysis protocols, rather than a flaw in the concept. In addition, he stated that "any analytical laboratory, whether analyzing hair, blood or urine, has no valid rationale for recommending a supplementation program based solely on the specific analysis. Only a qualified health practitioner, who has all the necessary and appropriate information about the patient, is in the position to make proper interpretation and appropriate recommendations."<ref>George Tamari. Letter to the editor: ''Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients'', May, 2004</ref> Finally there is the problem that hair will be up to two weeks old meaning that the data obtained may not reflect the current state of the person the hair was taken from.


The author did not explicitly rule out further diagnostic uses for hair mineral analyses in the future, but listed three issues that prevent hair mineral tests provided by the sampled labs from being accepted as scientifically sound and clinically viable: a lack of standardization and general agreement on the techniques by which hair mineral content was to be determined, a lack of general consensus on the meaning of hair mineral content analyses, and a lack of agreement on treatments for putative imbalances.<ref name="barrett"/>
Its viability for use in forensics has also been questioned.<ref name="wennig">Wennig, R. ''Forensic Science International'' 107.1-3 (Jan 10, 2000): 5-12.</ref>


The labs suggested a variety of 'abnormal conditions' were indicated by the hair samples, none of which were actually present. These varied between samples from the same test subjects.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XbRhAAAAIBAJ&pg=4834,5871809|title=Hair Analysis Seen Harmful by Doctor|agency=Associated Press|work=The Victoria Advocate|date= August 23, 1985}}</ref>
⚫ Tests have shown that levels of heavy metal in the body may not be reflected by the levels in the hair.<ref name="teresa">Teresa M, Vasconcelos SD, Tavares HM. Sci Total Environ. 1997 Oct 20;205(2-3):189-99.</ref>


In 2001 a follow-up investigation was conducted to see if things had improved since the 1985 investigation. The authors concluded:<ref name="seidel">{{cite journal |last1=Seidel |first1=S. |title=Assessment of Commercial Laboratories Performing Hair Mineral Analysis |journal=JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association |volume=285 |pages=67–72 |year=2001 |doi=10.1001/jama.285.1.67 |pmid=11150111}}</ref>
== Peer-reviewed Findings that Support a Rôle for Hair Analysis in Medicine ==
Despite this lack of consensus, there is evidence to suggest that hair analyses can be a useful tool in both medical research and in clinical diagnostics. For example, a 2003 study in the International Journal of Toxicology found that hair mercury levels in autistic infants do, indeed, significantly differ from those in healthy children. <ref name="Holmes">Holmes AS, et al. Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children. <i>Int J Toxicol</i>. 2003 Jul-Aug;22(4):277-85. </ref> As one of the co-authors of this paper was the chairman of the ] department at the ], it would appear that this is serious science. <ref name="haley ">Haley B. Interview accessed at www.youtube.com January 26, 2007</ref>


⚫ : Hair mineral analysis from these laboratories was unreliable, and we recommend that health care practitioners refrain from using such analyses to assess individual nutritional status or suspected environmental exposures. Problems with the regulation and certification of these laboratories also should be addressed.
⚫ == References ==
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>


⚫ Tests have shown that levels of heavy metal in the body may not be reflected by the levels in the hair.<ref name="teresa">{{cite journal |last1=Teresa |first1=M |last2=Vasconcelos |first2=S |last3=Tavares |first3=H |title=Trace element concentrations in blood and hair of young apprentices of a technical-professional school |journal=Science of the Total Environment |volume=205 |issue=2–3 |pages=189–99 |year=1997 |pmid=9372630 |doi=10.1016/S0048-9697(97)00208-8}}</ref>
⚫ == External links ==


] has stated and restated twice in the last two decades their position: "The AMA opposes chemical analysis of the hair as a determinant of the need for medical therapy and supports informing the American public and appropriate governmental agencies of this unproven practice and its potential for health care fraud."<ref name=AMA>Hair analysis: A potential for ]. Policy number H-175.995,(Sub. Res. 67, I-84; Reaffirmed by CLRPD Rep. 3 - I-94)</ref>
⚫ *
⚫ *
*
*


In 2011 a comprehensive review was published of the scientific literature on hair elemental (mineral) analysis and is the most up to date resource on the current status. With regard to commercial practices offering services to individuals, assuming analysis is conducted correctly and compared to a suitable control population (which generally is not the case), it concluded: "offering a diagnosis as to the cause of an abnormal concentration is currently not feasible and is difficult to see as realistic".<ref name="Kempson" />
⚫ ]

⚫ ==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

⚫ ==External links==
⚫ *
⚫ * ]:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hair Analysis (Alternative Medicine)}}
]
]

Latest revision as of 20:44, 30 July 2023

Main article: Hair analysis
Hair analysis (alternative medicine)
Alternative therapy
Part of a series on
Alternative medicine
General information
Fringe medicine and science
Controversies
Classifications
Traditional medicine
Alternative diagnoses

In mainstream scientific usage, hair analysis is the chemical analysis of a hair sample. The use of hair analysis in alternative medicine as a method of investigation to assist alternative diagnosis is controversial and its use in this manner has been opposed repeatedly by the AMA because of its unproven status and its potential for healthcare fraud.

Background

In hair analysis the levels of minerals and metals in the hair sample are analyzed. Alternative medicine advocates state that this allows them to diagnose mineral deficiencies, heavy metal poisoning, and that autistic people have anomalous hair test results, a eugenicist belief.

As of 1998, of the nine commercial 'nutritional hair analysis' laboratories operating in the United States, three indicated that they primarily used ICP-MS, four primarily used ICP-AES, and one reported use of directly coupled plasma (DCP)-AES. DCP-AES is an older technique that is potentially less stable than ICP-AES. On average, these laboratories measure 26 elements per hair sample. Nutritional hair analysis laboratories require between 0.3 and 1 gram for the AES methods, and 0.25-1 gram for ICP-MS." The amount selected depends on the analytical method used, but sample sizes in the 50 milligram range are reported.

Inconsistent results

In 1983, a New York Times article criticized the industry for inconsistent results, fraudulent practices, unscientific aspects, and being "a consumer ripoff that in some cases is dangerous".

In 1984, the FTC successfully obtained an injunction to stop a hair analysis laboratory's false claims to the public, on the basis that it was "inaccurate, worthless to consumers and possibly harmful because it might prevent patients from seeking proper medical attention".

In a 1985 investigation of 13 commercial laboratories published in the Journal of the American Medical Association noted inconsistencies and questionable content in their reports and recommendations:

Hair samples from two healthy teenagers were sent under assumed names to 13 commercial laboratories performing multimineral hair analysis. The reported levels of most minerals varied considerably between identical samples sent to the same laboratory and from laboratory to laboratory. The laboratories also disagreed about what was "normal" or "usual" for many of the minerals. Most reports contained computerized interpretations that were voluminous, bizarre, and potentially frightening to patients. Six laboratories recommended food supplements, but the types and amounts varied widely from report to report and from laboratory to laboratory. Literature from most of the laboratories suggested that their reports were useful in managing a wide variety of diseases and supposed nutrient imbalances. However, commercial use of hair analysis in this manner is unscientific, economically wasteful, and probably illegal.

The author did not explicitly rule out further diagnostic uses for hair mineral analyses in the future, but listed three issues that prevent hair mineral tests provided by the sampled labs from being accepted as scientifically sound and clinically viable: a lack of standardization and general agreement on the techniques by which hair mineral content was to be determined, a lack of general consensus on the meaning of hair mineral content analyses, and a lack of agreement on treatments for putative imbalances.

The labs suggested a variety of 'abnormal conditions' were indicated by the hair samples, none of which were actually present. These varied between samples from the same test subjects.

In 2001 a follow-up investigation was conducted to see if things had improved since the 1985 investigation. The authors concluded:

Hair mineral analysis from these laboratories was unreliable, and we recommend that health care practitioners refrain from using such analyses to assess individual nutritional status or suspected environmental exposures. Problems with the regulation and certification of these laboratories also should be addressed.

Tests have shown that levels of heavy metal in the body may not be reflected by the levels in the hair.

The American Medical Association has stated and restated twice in the last two decades their position: "The AMA opposes chemical analysis of the hair as a determinant of the need for medical therapy and supports informing the American public and appropriate governmental agencies of this unproven practice and its potential for health care fraud."

In 2011 a comprehensive review was published of the scientific literature on hair elemental (mineral) analysis and is the most up to date resource on the current status. With regard to commercial practices offering services to individuals, assuming analysis is conducted correctly and compared to a suitable control population (which generally is not the case), it concluded: "offering a diagnosis as to the cause of an abnormal concentration is currently not feasible and is difficult to see as realistic".

References

  1. ^ Barrett, S. (1985). "Commercial hair analysis. Science or scam?". JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 254 (8): 1041–5. doi:10.1001/jama.254.8.1041.
  2. ^ Seidel, S. (2001). "Assessment of Commercial Laboratories Performing Hair Mineral Analysis". JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 285: 67–72. doi:10.1001/jama.285.1.67. PMID 11150111.
  3. ^ Hair analysis: A potential for medical abuse. Policy number H-175.995,(Sub. Res. 67, I-84; Reaffirmed by CLRPD Rep. 3 - I-94)
  4. ^ I.M. Kempson & E. Lombi, "Hair analysis as a biomonitor for toxicology, disease and health status" Chemical Society Reviews, 2011 doi:10.1039/C1CS15021A.
  5. Lathe, Richard; Le Page, Michael (June 2003). "Toxic metal clue to autism". New Scientist.
  6. Eastern Research Group. Appendix C. SUMMARY REPORT, HAIR ANALYSIS PANEL DISCUSSION: EXPLORING THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE. ATDSR. June 12—13, 2001
  7. Eastern Research Group. SECTION 3 3.4 Other Methodological Considerations. SUMMARY REPORT, HAIR ANALYSIS PANEL DISCUSSION: EXPLORING THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE. ATDSR. June 12—13, 2001
  8. Jane Brody. Article about hair analysis clinics. New York Times October 26, 1983
  9. "Hair analysis 'frightening'". National. Spokane Chronicle. August 23, 1985. p. 10.
  10. "Hair Analysis Seen Harmful by Doctor". The Victoria Advocate. Associated Press. August 23, 1985.
  11. Teresa, M; Vasconcelos, S; Tavares, H (1997). "Trace element concentrations in blood and hair of young apprentices of a technical-professional school". Science of the Total Environment. 205 (2–3): 189–99. doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(97)00208-8. PMID 9372630.

External links

Categories: