HAIR ANALYSIS CONTROVERSY
by Dr. Lawrence Wilson
© August 2012, L.D Wilson Consultants, Inc.
All
information in this article is for educational purposes only. It is not for the diagnosis, treatment,
prescription or cure of any disease or health condition.
I
have used hair tissue mineral analysis for more than 35 years and reviewed over
50,000 of these tests. I am
somewhat familiar with all the major commercial testing laboratories in
America, and a number of hair testing labs in other nations. I have also written a textbook and many
articles about the use of hair tissue mineral testing.
Controversy
about the hair mineral test concerns:
1. The accuracy and reliability of the test.
2. The interpretation of the readings.
3. Whether one can recommend diets and supplement
programs based on the test.
Let
us address these issues one at a time.
THE
ACCURACY OF HAIR MINERAL ANALYSIS
Mineral
analysis by spectroscopy is a very standard laboratory procedure. The technology has been known for at
least 75 years or more, and has improved greatly with the advent of
computer-controlled mass spectrometers and induction-coupled plasma (ICP)
instruments that are used today at all the hair testing laboratories in
America, and probably around the world.
All
commercial hair testing laboratories in the United States are licensed and
inspected annually by the federal government, as part of the CLIA act. They are given blind samples to run. If they do not meet stringent criteria
for accuracy, they are not allowed to operate.
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency published a 300-page review of hair analysis in 1979 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 AT THE LABORATORY
A
major controversy surrounding hair mineral analysis concerns the preparation of
the hair samples for testing at the laboratory. Most of the
laboratories wash the hair samples before performing the analysis.
Arguments in favor of washing the hair at
the laboratory.
1. Hair is exposed to the elements and may be
contaminated with dust, dirt, bacteria and other possible contaminants.
2. Hair may contain residues of hair products such as
shampoo and other skin care products.
Even the water that the patient bathes in could be contaminated with
toxic metals or other minerals.
3. Any minerals that would be washed out due to washing
the hair at the lab are ÒexogenousÓ, meaning they are not really part of the
biopsy material and are thus not important.
4. Therefore, they contend, the advantages of washing
the hair outweigh any possible negative consequences that might result.
Arguments against washing the hair at the
laboratory.
1. Most people wash their hair frequently, and the lab
requires that the hair be washed within about 24-48 hours of cutting the sample
2. Washing the hair with harsh chemical solvents and
detergents can and does remove large amounts of the water-soluble elements, and
perhaps others. This is reported
in all of the studies of this subject.
3. Hair is about 10-15% porous, so the washing agents
not only remove exogenous minerals, but affect the interior of the hair tissue
as well.
I
am aware of the following studies on this topic:
á Leroy, R. (J Ortho Med., 1986;1(2)).
á
Seidel,
et al. (JAMA, 2001, 285, #1). The authors compared hair test results
from about six labs. The results
of the two laboratories that do not wash the hair samples showed excellent
correlation, whereas the results from the laboratories that wash the hair were
not quite as consistent. One must
obtain the actual test numbers or data to realize this, as the details are not
mentioned in the body of the study.
á
Assarian, GS and Oberleas, D., (Clin Chem.,
1977;23(9):1771-1772).
Results of the studies. All of the above studies indicated that
washing hair samples at the laboratory causes some degree of erratic and
unpredictable removal of minerals from the hair sample. This is also my clinical experience,
based on reviewing about 40,000 hair mineral analyses. A number of these were repeat tests
done in close succession by different laboratories. In most cases, there were significant variations in the
results when one of the labs washed the hair and the other did not. Results were very close, however, when
both labs did not wash the hair.
Conclusions
that I draw from these studies. These include:
1. Errors in the levels of particularly the water
soluble minerals (sodium, potassium, and gto some degree zinc, copper,
manganese, and magnesium) due to the erratic effects of washing are far worse
than the possibility of contamination.
2. Hair is a human tissue that is porous, and thus
applying harsh chemicals to it is likely to penetrate inside the biopsy
material and wash out some of the loosely-bound minerals.
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.
Damaging
the reputation of hair mineral analysis.
A second, related problem with washing the hair at the
lab is that most laboratories use 1) different washing chemicals and 2)
different washing duration. The
agents used to wash the hair include alcohol, detergents such as Triton-x, and
solvents such as acetone. The
duration of washing the hair samples
varies from lab to lab, from three minutes to about ten minutes.
These
differences result in some variation in the test results from laboratory to
laboratory. It means that
researchers and physicians will not receive the same results from two different
labs that wash the hair. There have been efforts
to standardize the laboratory procedures.
So far, the laboratories that wash the hair have been unwilling to cooperate
on hair washing standards, however.
For
the best accuracy, I can only recommend using Analytical Research Labs. A poor second choice is Trace Elements,
Inc. They do not wash the hair,
either, but their graph is
difficult to read, their products are not as good, and their corrective
programs are terrible.
What about the effect of daily showering?
Research performed at Accutrace Laboratories indicates that showering is
not the same as washing at the lab because:
* The
hair is under the shower usually for only 15-60 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.
Other common sources of hair contamination. 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, in my experience, hair products have little effect upon the
readings. None of these instances
invalidates the hair test, in my experience. Practitioners can simply ask the patients which hair
products they are using, and if they swim often in pools. Most laboratory tests, including blood
tests, urine tests and others, have certain situations that tend to affect the
test that must be considered when interpreting the test. Hair testing is no different from other
tests in this regard.
Ask
about washing procedures before submitting hair samples. Practitioners
using hair mineral analysis should call and ask the lab about their washing
procedure. This will affect particularly the levels of magnesium, sodium,
potassium, manganese, zinc, copper and perhaps a few others. The toxic metal readings are not too
affected by washing, presumably because they are less water-soluble and/or they
are more tightly bound to the hair tissue or perhaps less easily dislodged by
the washing chemicals.
CONTROVERSY DUE TO TWO AMA JOURNAL STUDIES AND OTHER MEDICAL REVIEWS OF
HAIR TISSUE MINERAL ANALYSIS
Two
widely publicized articles published in the Journal of the AMA claimed hair
analysis was inaccurate. Both were
so poorly done that in my view they hardly deserve to be analyzed. However, in the interest of fairness,
let us review them.
The
first article appeared in 1985 (JAMA
254(8)1041-1045). The author is a psychiatrist who admitted he had never
used hair analysis in his medical practice and had no experience with it.
He is also a well-known medical ÒquackbusterÓ who controls some 30 websites
dedicated to discrediting and debunking holistic therapies.
For
this study, he cut long pieces of his teenage daughter's hair. This is a
direct violation of the protocol for hair sampling. 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.
The
author then washed his daughterÕs hair samples in kitchen tap water. This
is another direct violation of hair sampling protocol. One should never wash hair that has
been cut for sampling in any kind of water. Tap water, of course, generally contains a variety of random
minerals. This warning is also mentioned in hair sampling instructions
supplied by hair testing laboratories, but was ignored.
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. The proper way to mix samples would
have been to powder the hair and then mix it properly with a mixing machine.
The
author then sent samples of the hair to 13 laboratories. Four of the laboratories showed
excellent correlation between the results. Three others showed moderate correlation between the
results, and six others did not correlate as well. Based on this, the author concluded that hair analysis is a
fraud.
In
the study conclusion, no mention was made of the fact that hair testing laboratories
use different hair washing procedures that will yield differing results, and
this fact was not taken into account in the discussion of the results of the
testing.
Also,
the references for the study were wholly inadequate and no mention was made,
for example, of the US EPA review of 400 hair analysis studies that had been
completed only 6 years before.
This review concluded that hair testing was reliable and meaningful for
testing the levels of the toxic metals, which is all the study addressed.
This
JAMA study was widely circulated to the mainstream media and has influenced
many physicians, even though it was so poorly done that it should never have
been published in the first place.
The 2001 JAMA ÒStudyÓ. The second study appeared in JAMA #285 (1),
Jan. 3, 2001. For this study, six hair samples were cut from one woman's
head. The hair sampling procedure
was correct, and the hair samples were sent to six different hair testing
laboratories to compare the results.
The
odd thing about this study was that one of laboratories chosen to test the hair
was operating illegally, as it had performed badly on tests and had lost its
operating licence. The authors could have chosen many other labs for
their study.
When
the results came back, the worst performing lab was the illegal one. Based on this fact alone, the authors
concluded that hair mineral analysis is inaccurate and probably a fraud.
The
flaws in this study are obvious:
1.
Why anyone would use an illegally-operating laboratory to study a scientific
procedure makes very little sense unless the goal was to discredit hair mineral
testing. It is like testing a new
operation, but having someone who is not qualified do the operation.
2.
Another flaw in this study is that only one person was involved. I learned in medical school that this
is nothing but anecdotal evidence, rather than a study, and one should not draw
any conclusions from it.
3.
The references were horribly inadequate.
As with the first JAMA study, no mention was made of the hundreds, if
not thousands of previous studies of hair mineral testing that show it is a
valid, accurate, reliable testing method.
4.
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.
5.
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
'Nightline' expose on hair analysis. In this report from the late 1980s, hair from a dog was sent
to a commercial hair analysis laboratory. The Nightline personnel led the
laboratory to believe it was a human hair sample. They did not tell the laboratory it was from a dog. 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.
Of
course, 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.
The June 12-13, 2001 Centers For Disease
Control Report On Hair Analysis. The CDC review of hair analysis was
actually just a meeting of a panel of "experts". The panel reviewed 10 studies of hair
analysis. Among the 10 were the
two poor studies published in JAMA mentioned above. (Recall that the EPA
reviewed 400 studies of hair analysis in 1979.)
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.
EVERY
MINERAL LEVEL AFFECTS EVERY OTHER LEVEL
Another
area of controversy concerns the interpretation of the hair mineral
analysis. Often, hair analysis is viewed like a SMAC 24 or other test, in
which each mineral value is regarded as a separate test. While this will yield some information,
others suggest that the test must be interpreted as a whole system, not as 20
or more separate tests.
Dr. William
Albrecht, PhD first described the 'mineral system' of the body, which are the
way the minerals in the body relate to one another. He designed the Òmineral wheel Òto 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.
DOES
HAIR ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION INVOLVE METABOLIC TYPING AND THE STRESS THEORY OF
DISEASE?
Dr.
Paul Eck and a few other researchers interpret hair analysis by identifying the
stage of stress a person is in, and the oxidation type and rate. However, this idea is quite
controversial. Those who do not
believe this are content to interpret the test much like one would interpret a
blood or urine test for minerals, and not bother with metabolic typing and
stress theory.
I
cannot prove that Dr. Eck is correct, except that from a clinical perspective
his approach has proven extremely accurate in its ability to predict a clientÕs
symptoms, and the ability of this theory to suggest a correct diet and proper
supplementation to balance body chemistry. The use of stress theory and metabolic typing also
simplifies the interpretation and makes it much easier to understand and learn.
IDEAL HAIR MINERAL LEVELS AND RATIOS VERSUS REFERENCE RANGES
This
is a very critical area of controversy having to do with the interpretation of
hair mineral analyses. Almost all
mineral testing laboratories use reference ranges. These are usually calculated mathematically to be one, two
or three standard deviations from a mean or average value of a large population
of those tested at the laboratory.
In
contrast, Dr. Paul Eck, and the laboratory he founded, Analytical Research
Laboratories, ignores reference ranges and instead focuses upon ideal mineral
levels and ratios in their graphs, their information and their interpretations
of hair mineral analyses. This difference
causes confusion and controversy among doctors, patients and laboratories.
Dr.
EckÕs reasoning for using ideals was that we are aiming for optimum health and
wellness, not some average level of functioning. Also, most people tested at mineral and other laboratories
are ill. Therefore, using their
average or mean values as a basis to judge others is faulty reasoning.
Dr.
Eck viewed the human being more like a performance automobile that should be in
perfect tune or alignment for optimum performance and health. Therefore, he reasoned that optimum or
ideal values would be of more usefulness to assess peopleÕs health and guide
their healing programs. In this
assertion, I concur. In fact, many
of the most exciting hair mineral patterns that have been discovered depend
wholly upon the use of ideal mineral levels and ratios. Without this concept, the patterns
cannot be seen or appreciated nearly as well.
For
more on this important subject, read the article on this site entitled Ideal Mineral Levels Versus Reference Ranges.
CAN
ONE RECOMMEND A DIET AND NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS FROM A HAIR ANALYSIS?
Some
say this is not possible, as the test only reads mineral levels. However, those who use hair analysis
clinically find that it is
possible to suggest food and nutrient therapies from the test for several
reasons:
á
Some foods and nutrients assist the body when it is in a
particular stage of stress or metabolic type. Dr. Geroge Watson found that slow oxidizers need more
B-complex vitamins, for example, and less fat in their diets.
á
Some foods and nutrients are more helpful to correct
certain mineral deficiencies. For
example, cooked vegetables are rich in many minerals such as manganese, iron,
chromium and selenium.
á
Certain
foods and nutrients can assist the body to remove toxic metals. For example, vitamin C can chelate and
lower copper, while calcium-containing foods or supplements can help reduce the
level of lead and cadmium.
The
textbook I wrote, Nutritional Balancing and Hair Mineral Analysis,
covers this subject in much more detail.
WHY ARE HAIR TEST RESULTS SOMETIMES DIFFERENT FROM BLOOD
AND URINE TEST RESULTS?
Their meaning is not different at all, in my experience. However, one must be able to interpret the hair and the blood tests correctly to understand how they relate to each other. Few doctors understand both types of tests well enough to do this. A few of the major differences between hair testing and other common tests include:
á The hair measures a different body compartment than the blood or urine. Each has its own metabolism.
á
The
blood is maintained at the expense of tissues such as the hair. This means the hair will change first,
often years before the blood. The
blood is far more buffered. It has
to be because it touches every cell.
Large variations in mineral levels here would be fatal. This is not the case with the hair.
á The hair is a storage organ and, to some degree, an excretory tissue. The blood is a transport medium.
á Blood, urine and saliva provide short-term or even instantaneous readings, whereas a hair test provides a 3-month average or a longer-term reading.
á Homeostatic mechanisms at work in the blood such as buffering of pH and osmotic balance are extremely different from homeostatic mechanisms at work in the tissues and at the cellular level in the hair.
IF HAIR TESTING IS SO HELPFUL, WHY IS IT NOT USED MORE?
I believe it is a combination of factors that include:
á Ignorance of the importance of trace mineral nutrition, toxicology and the critical importance of toxic metal poisoning in the causation of all the major killer diseases.
á
Opposition
from allopathic medical boards, and mainstream journals such as JAMA that have
published phony studies to discredit hair testing.
á Misuse of the test just to measure toxic metals. This does not work well.
á Misuse of the hair test to do replacement therapy. This does not work well, either. Replacement therapy is when the doctor prescribes the minerals that read low on the test, and tells the patient to avoid the minerals that read too high. This way of using hair tests completely ignores important principles such as the bioavailability of a mineral, mineral defenders, mineral displacement and others. The failure of replacement therapy unfortunately causes most doctors to abandon hair mineral testing. My teacher and mentor in hair analysis, Dr. Eck, found the same thing. For this reason, he changed course and used the test was to measure and correct the stress response, a far more sophisticated and elegant use of this test.
Home
| Hair Analysis | Saunas | Books | Articles
| Detox Protocols
Courses | About Dr. Wilson | Contact Us | The Free Basic Program