JAMA published a negative study on hair analysis this past January regarding the clinical use of hair analysis. It was an incredibly poorly designed study and I was surprised to see that it was even published.

For the first fourteen years of my practice I was opposed to hair analysis testing as I bought the "traditional" perspective on this tool.

Later, I learned from some skilled clinicians, that this was indeed a useful clinical tool. However, it appears the issue complicating optimal interpretation, and what has seriously confused the issue of hair analysis, is the practice of washing the sample prior to analysis.

There are only two labs that I recommend using for proper readings for hair analysis. Trace Elements and Analytical Research. Both labs are based on the work of Paul Eck.

The major distinction from other hair analysis labs is that they don't wash their samples prior to the analysis. As far as I can tell all the other labs wash the hair and this has a tendency to disturb some of the essential mineral ratios. It does not seem to make much of a difference for the toxic metals.

If you are a licensed practicing health care professional I have made special arrangements with Analytical Research to provide you with three free kits to see how you enjoy their service. The only thing you need to do to obtain your kits is to call them (602-995-1580) and mention that you were calling regarding the special offer you saw on my web site.

They provide educational materials but they also have a book "Nutritional Balancing and Hair Mineral Analysis" for $18 written by Larry Wilson, MD, that helps one understand the biochemistry behind hair analysis.

The analysis has specific nutrient recommendations, mostly minerals. One can obtain them from the company, but substitutes from other high quality source, such as amino acid chelates, are acceptable. The company also uses glandular products, but I find energetic emotional stabilization to be far superior.

I am amazed at how many people do not actually need to take calcium based on this analysis. It is quite a remarkable way to identify which minerals a person needs to build their bones.

This offer is ONLY available to licensed practicing health care professionals.

JAMA Letter to the Editor; March 28, 2001 285(12):1576-7

Dr Seidel and colleagues (1) found that there is excessive variability between laboratories in the results of hair analysis.

This study should not be represented as a final, rigorous, and decisive condemnation of the entire commercial hair analysis industry, as other studies have established the validity of hair analysis evaluation. (2-6)

The study by Seidel et al simply shows that there is some variation among the laboratories' results, as would be expected. The study's design was critically flawed in several areas.

The authors compared test results and reference ranges for laboratories using different methods. They also failed to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate laboratories, as they did not use a specific standard or reference laboratory.

The authors' inclusion of a noncertified, unregulated, and illegally operating laboratory that represents less than 3% of the total hair analysis activity in the United States introduced bias and error into the analysis and conclusions. This unregulated laboratory was responsible for 12 of the 14 "statistically significant (P<.05) extreme values" cited in the study.

Furthermore, the bias of this study is further evident as the authors did not adhere to their own stated laboratory selection protocol.

This resulted in a certified laboratory with a significantly higher monthly sample volume not being included in the study in favor of the small uncertified laboratory that reported extreme and dubious measurements.

It should also be noted that blind proficiency testing, such as was used in this study, is the most stringent form of laboratory evaluation, so stringent in fact that it is rarely used in clinical laboratories.

Modern clinical proficiency testing is overt in that the test specimens are identified as such. This fact coupled with the absence of any criterion standard for identifying correct incorrect test results seems designed to unfairly target the entire hair analysis industry.

Such a standard applied to most clinical tests would result in similar findings.

We do acknowledge that this limited study does raise some challenging issues that the industry must deal with, such as, the identification of laboratories misrepresenting themselves as certified and yet operating illegally. Most commercial hair analysis companies, however, are on record for proficiency testing initiatives, data comparison, and clinical case presentations involving hair elemental analysis.

Joseph M. Mercola, DO
eHealthy News You Can Use
Schaumburg, IL

David L. Watts, PhD
Trace Elements Inc
Addison, TX

Disclosure:

References:

1. Seidel S, Kreutzer R, Smith D, McNeel S, Gilliss D. Assessment of commercial laboratories performing hair mineral analysis. JAMA. 2001;285:67-72.

2. Kintz P, Mangin P. What constitutes a positive result in hair analysis: proposal for the establishment of cut-off values. Forensic Sci Int. 1995;70:3-11.

3. Palmeri A, Pichini S, Pacifici R, et al. Drugs in nails: physiology, pharmacokinetics and forensic toxicology. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000;38:95-110.

4. Combs DK, Goodrich RD, Meiske JC. Mineral concentrations in hair as indicators of mineral status: a review. J Anim SCI 1982;54:391-398.

5. Druyan ME, Bass D, Puchyr R, et al. Determination of reference ranges for elements in human scalp hair. Biol Trace Elem Res. 1998;62:183-197.

6. Combs DK. Hair analysis as an indicator of mineral status of livestock. J Anim SCI 1987;65:1753-1758.