HAIR ANALYSIS CONTROVERSY
By Lawrence Wilson, MD
Revised © March 2008
I
have used hair tissue mineral analysis for 28 years and reviewed over 20,000 of
these tests. I am familiar with all
the major commercial testing laboratories in America, and much of the
research. I have also written a
textbook and many articles about its use.
Controversy
concerns the accuracy and reliability of the test, as well as the
interpretation of the readings.
Also, some object to recommending diets and supplement programs based on
tissue mineral testing. I’ll
address these one at a time.
Regarding
the accuracy of the test, mineral analysis is a standard spectroscopic analysis
for which the technology has been known for some 75 years or more. The test is highly repeatable and
accurate. All commercial
laboratories are licensed and inspected annually by the federal government. They are given blind samples to
run. If they do not meet stringent
criteria for accuracy, they are not allowed to operate. The problem with accuracy arises from
different washing procedures used at different laboratories.
The
United States Environmental Protection Agency published a 300-page review of
hair analysis in which they reviewed 400 studies of hair analysis. Based
on this review, they concluded that hair analysis is a "meaningful and
representative tissue for biological monitoring for most of the toxic
metals". ("Toxic Trace Metals in Human and Mammalian Hair and
Nails", EPA-600 4.79-049, August 1979, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Research and Development.)
WASHING THE HAIR
I
only recommend using Analytical Research Labs or Trace Elements, Inc. because
they do not wash the hair. All
other laboratories insist that washing hair at the laboratory is
necessary. The time the hair is
washed varies from three to ten minutes.
Various detergents or solvents such as acetone and alcohol are employed
in the washing process.
Studies
by Dr. Raymond LeRoy, ScD published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine,
Vol.1, #2, show that washing for three and ten minutes, times used by many
labs, caused erratic and unpredictable removal of mineral. The conclusions reached in the research
in the above article, and backed up certainly by my experience and that of many
other practitioners, are that:
1) Errors due to the erratic effects of washing are far
worse than the possibility of contamination.
2) Hair is biopsy material and the washable sodium,
potassium, calcium, and magnesium are not exogenous, only loosely bound and
critical for interpretation.
3) Hair samples should not
be washed at the lab, except if there is known contamination. In this case the sample can be rinsed
quickly in alcohol so as not to remove the water soluble, loosely bound
minerals.
* Showering
is generally for only 15-30 seconds
* While
the hair is on the head, the oil and sweat glands of the scalp are able to
reestablish the equilibrium concentrations of the washed out minerals rapidly
after showering. These concentrations probably depend upon many subtle
factors, such as the electrostatic potential of the hair fibers.
*
Shampoos are not nearly as powerful as the detergents and solvents used at hair
analysis labs.
Daily
swimming in pools can increase sodium and copper readings. Selsun Blue Shampoo can increase
selenium levels. Head and
Shoulders Shampoo can increase zinc readings. Grecian Formula and Youth Hair hair dyes increase lead
levels. Otherwise hair products
have little effect upon the readings.
Before
using a tissue mineral analysis laboratory, practitioners should call and ask
the lab about their washing procedure. Even with washing, the test is
quite accurate for some minerals, but not for calcium, magnesium, sodium,
potassium, manganese, and iron.
The
differences due to washing the hair were exploited in two widely publicized
articles published in the Journal of the AMA that claimed hair analysis was
inaccurate.
THE 1985 AND 2001 JAMA HAIR ANALYSIS STUDIES
The
first article in JAMA appeared in 1985, 254(8)1041-1045. The author is a
psychiatrist and had never used hair analysis in his practice. He is also
a well-known medical quack-buster - that is, he writes negative articles about
many alternative therapies.
For
this study, he cut long pieces of his teenage daughter's hair. One should
never use long hair for hair analysis. This is specified in the
instructions from all commercial laboratories. Long hair unravels and mineral
readings become unreliable.
Then
the author washed the hair under the kitchen tap. One should never wash
hair that has been cut in tap water, which is generally replete with random
minerals. This is also specified in the hair sampling instructions supplied
by all hair testing laboratories.
Then
he cut the hair into small pieces and mixed them by hand. This is also
unacceptable protocol. Hair is quite electrostatic and sticks
together. It cannot be effectively mixed this way. He sent samples
of the hair to 13 laboratories but did not mention that some wash the hair
while others do not, and washing procedures vary among those that wash the
hair.
Four
of the laboratories showed excellent correlation, 3 showed moderate correlation
and the 6 others did not correlate well. Based on this, he concluded that
hair analysis is a fraud.
The
second study used to discredit hair analysis appeared in JAMA #285(1), Jan. 3,
2001. For this study, six hair samples were cut from one woman's
head. These were sent to six laboratories. One of them was an
illegally-operating laboratory, and it showed the poorest correlation of
results. Why anyone would use an illegally-operating laboratory for a
scientific study is beyond me. A
“study” involving only one person to me is hardly significant. I would call it anecdotal.
To
their credit, the authors mentioned that washing procedures vary among laboratories
and this will influence results. However, they ignored their own
statement in their conclusion where they did not attempt to separate out the
results by which labs washed the hair.
In
fact, the two laboratories that do not wash the hair showed superb correlation
of the readings. This finding was completely ignored by the
authors. The others showed moderate correlation. On the basis
of these findings, the authors suggested that hair analysis is unreliable and
should not be used.
THE NIGHTLINE MINERAL ANALYSIS EXPOSE
For
the 'Nightline' television expose on hair analysis, hair from a dog was sent to
a commercial hair analysis laboratory. The perpetrators of this scam from
'Nightline' led the laboratory to believe it was a human hair sample. They did not tell the laboratory it was
from a dog, although identifying the species from which hair is sampled is the standard
and an obvious procedure.
When
results came back, they were very odd because the normal mineral values for a
dog are very different than for humans. The television host claimed that
this was a healthy dog and that such odd results proved that hair analysis is a
fraud. If one sent a dog's blood to a blood laboratory and did not tell
the laboratory it belonged to a dog, the exact same thing would happen. This, of course, was not pointed out in
the Nightline piece.
2002
CDC REPORT ON HAIR ANALYSIS
Another
sad example of sloppy research is a review of hair analysis by the Centers for
Disease Control in 2002. The CDC
review of hair analysis was actually just a meeting of a panel of
"experts" that took place in mid-2002. I work in the field of
hair analysis and know most of the major people in the field. None were
on this panel.
The
panel reviewed 10 studies of hair analysis, at least that is all that are
reported. (Recall that the EPA reviewed 400 studies of hair analysis in
1979.) Among the 10 were the two
poor studies published in JAMA mentioned above. The main author of the
second JAMA study was one of the CDC’s "experts”.
No
independent research was done by the CDC. After a short meeting, the panel
concluded hair analysis is not reliable. I was quite disappointed in the
CDC review and wrote a letter to a CDC officer with my observations and
comments. I never received a
response.
MY EXPERIENCE WITH HAIR ANALYSIS
When
properly performed and interpreted, I have found hair mineral analysis is an
invaluable screening tool for evaluating nutritional status and general
biochemistry. Few doctors or other
practitioners understand it well.
Most of the laboratories do not understand it well at all. I was fortunate to spend 14 years
apprenticing with Dr. Paul C. Eck, a pioneer in this field and founder of
Analytical Research Laboratories.
If
mineral analysis did not work well, I would have stopped using it years ago, as
there are many methods of nutritional assessment. I continue to use it because, when done correctly, the
results are superb. More detail
about washing the hair and test interpretation is found in Nutritional
Balancing and Hair Mineral Analysis, published in Explore, for the
Professional, in 2003.
EVERY MINERAL LEVEL AFFECTS EVERY OTHER LEVEL
Another
area of controversy concerns the interpretation of the test. Often, hair analysis
is viewed like a SMAC 24 or other test, in which each mineral value is regarded
as a separate test.
While
some information can definitely be derived this way, the SMAC approach misses a
large part of the value of the test
‑ the knowledge derived from understanding the mineral
relationships.
Dr. William
Albrecht first described the 'mineral system' and designed the mineral wheel to
indicate some of the interactions that exist between minerals. Since
then, much more work has been done to identify mineral relationships.
By
analyzing the mineral ratios and relationships, information can be derived
about organ and gland function, mental and emotional tendencies, how the body
is responding to stress and how to support the body nutritionally. Many disease 'trends' can also be
identified, making hair analysis an excellent and cost‑effective
preventive and predictive tool.
If
the hair is washed at the lab, many mineral relationships won't be apparent,
because ratios involving the electrolytes will be inconsistent and distorted by
washing. But any clinician wishing
to test what I am saying, can note the following in unwashed samples:
The
sodium/potassium ratio is an excellent indicator of certain trends.
People in good health will generally have this ratio somewhere close to
2.5/1. When the ratio is less than one, there is a strong tendency to
joint pain, allergies, digestive disturbance, liver and kidney dysfunction.
THE ELECTROLYTE VALUES REFLECT STAGES OF STRESS
DESCRIBED BY DR. HANS SELYE
One
of the keys to making sense of the many interrelationships present on the
tissue mineral chart is to recognize that the electrolyte pattern can be
correlated with the Stages of Stress described by Hans Selye. Not only
does this make the stress theory a workable and measurable concept, but it
instantly simplifies interpretation of the hair chart because the chemistry of
each stage of stress has been studied. Knowing the stage of stress a
person is in, you immediately know a lot about him or her.
While
there is insufficient space to go into detail in this article about how the
stage of stress is calculated, the basics are covered in an article in Journal
of Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol 1, #2. by this author. The stage of stress can be determined at
a glance if the test report print‑out is calibrated properly. Once the stage of stress is known, many
other aspects of the hair analysis become easy to interpret. For example,
* Toxic
metal levels are higher in the alarm stage because metabolism tends to be
faster and toxic metals are eliminated more rapidly.
* Zinc
and copper levels tend to be lower in the alarm stage.
* Iron
and manganese levels are lower in the exhaustion stage,
EACH MINERAL READING ON A HAIR ANALYSIS IS A SUMMATION
OF MANY FACTORS, ALL OF WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE READING.
Many
criticize hair analysis because readings occasionally seem bizarre, and little
explanation can be found for a particular reading or change from one test to
the next. Much of the explanation lies in another fact of hair analysis,
another key to understanding the test.
This
is, each reading represents a sum of the metabolic events in the hair. While this must be obvious if one
thinks about it, the implications of this are important, and this phenomenon
has been thoroughly studied by Paul Eck.
* the
normal metabolism of hair tissue
* accumulation
of mineral in soft tissue, called biounavailability
* excretion
of mineral due to any number of causes
* displacement
(a high reading) due to a toxic metal which displaces a physiological mineral.
* loss
through the hair due to inability to retain a mineral
* a
low reading due to retention of that mineral elsewhere in the body.
* a
'defender' is a low or high reading that occurs to compensate or maintain
another more critical mineral level or ratio.
RECOMMENDING DIETS AND NUTRIENTS FROM A HAIR ANALYSIS
This
is not an odd thing to do once one understands the interpretation of the
test. The biochemistry of the
stages of stress is well known.
Certain nutrients assist the body in each stage of stress.
Also,
certain nutrients assist the body to eliminate particular toxic metals that may
be revealed on a tissue mineral test.
Without going into extreme detail, these are examples of how the test
can be used to recommend diet and supplementary nutrients to help restore
health. The text I wrote, Nutritional Balancing and Hair Mineral Analysis, covers this
subject in much more detail.
Home * Hair Analysis * Saunas * Books * Articles
Detoxification Protocols
* Courses * About Dr. Wilson