Re: Andy - Hair Test legitimacy documentation required

[Guest guest]

Hi

Empathise with your situation, in UK too. Gave up after 11 doctors, trawling

the country, paying priavtely. Studied lists, parent reports, Andy's

comments, Amy's website etc etc and got on with it after wasting time for 2

years!! Tip for UK - see if your local area has a single handed GP, I find

them most useful for ordering tests I want, if they are the only Dr in

practice they know they have to see you every time. Works for me, good luck

Mandi in UK

> I have had my son's hair analysis done at GSDL (didn't know of this list at

> the time) and will post the results shortly (once I have tabulated them).

>

> I live in the UK and we have socialized (ie run by the state) medicine. I

> took the results to our peadiatrician - with all sorts of obviously high

> heavy metals (including Mercury, Lead, Antimony) - she took it (with the

> best of bureaucratic intentions) to her lab guys, with the results of the

> GSDL Comprehensive Stool Analysis with Parasitology, and rather than come

> up

> with anything that resembled constructive suggestions...they both came back

> and said, in a nutshell, that both tests were rubbish.

>

> They basically have dismissed the results of both without even really

> looking at them - ie. If my son has a mercury reading that is 4 times what

> the max in reference range is, certainly the smart thing to do would be to

> suggest that even if you didn't know about the lab or testing proceedures

> or

> whatever...that it would make sense to test our son with their " reliable "

> test for MERCURY TOXICITY!!! (Stupid idiots....)

>

> I quote from the letter addressing the stool analysis:

>

> " To be honest and frank I do not think these sorts of tests are helpful at

> all either for the family, in whom they inlame anger and confusion, nor for

> the medical team looking after the family. I think these test from a

> microbiological point of view are nonsense and uninterpretable. "

>

> The comment about " enraging " me from lab results will pale in comparision

> to

> the letter that she will get when my blood stops boiling....

>

> Anyway, that's mostly why I am writing this:

>

> I need irrefutable evidence that two things are the case:

>

> 1. That hair (and stool if you can get it) testing is a valid means of

> testing for these abnormalities. This should be lab-independent,

> peer-reviewed research that validates the type of results that Hair

> analysis

> can provide as it relates to both heavy metal toxicity and trace element

> analysis.

>

> 2. That GSDL is a reliable source for these types of tests and some

> information on the types of proceedure that they use - Note: I have

> information from them directly, I am looking for independent information

> that references either THEM or the TECHNIQUE THAT THEY USE - so that I can

> supply that information to the powers that be to make them take notice. I

> have also looked at the JAMA for an article and letters to the editor that

> related to their review of the Hair Analysis industry. If someone could

> tell me what Lab represented GSDL (or even if they were represented), it

> might be helpful.

>

> In addition, what are the criteria for FDA approval on things like Hair

> Element Testing? Is it just money? Is there documentation out there as to

> why this sort of testing is not approved by the FDA?

>

> I will include the files as attachements and also post them to my website

> (in case they are stripped off)...

>

> thanks in advance

>

>

>

> www.scottsandford.com/Hair-Analysis-Review.gif

> www.scottsandford.com/Stool-Analysis-Review.gif

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I have a copy of " Trace Element Concentratins in Hair From Autistic

Children " : Lynn Wecker, Shifra B. , Cochran, L. Dugger

and D. , Departments of Pharmacology, Psychiatryl, Allied

Health and Biometry, Louisiana State University Medical Centre, New Orleans.

Published in J. Mental Defic. Res. (1985) 29, 23-27

If you send me your address off list I'll post you a copy. I persuaded

Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital to do hair analysis on my son as

well as their blood tests. They didn't seem to think it was not valid as a

test.

BW

Celia

[ ] Andy - Hair Test legitimacy documentation required

> I have had my son's hair analysis done at GSDL (didn't know of this list

at

> the time) and will post the results shortly (once I have tabulated them).

>

> I live in the UK and we have socialized (ie run by the state) medicine. I

> took the results to our peadiatrician - with all sorts of obviously high

> heavy metals (including Mercury, Lead, Antimony) - she took it (with the

> best of bureaucratic intentions) to her lab guys, with the results of the

> GSDL Comprehensive Stool Analysis with Parasitology, and rather than come

up

> with anything that resembled constructive suggestions...they both came

back

> and said, in a nutshell, that both tests were rubbish.

>

> They basically have dismissed the results of both without even really

> looking at them - ie. If my son has a mercury reading that is 4 times

what

> the max in reference range is, certainly the smart thing to do would be to

> suggest that even if you didn't know about the lab or testing proceedures

or

> whatever...that it would make sense to test our son with their " reliable "

> test for MERCURY TOXICITY!!! (Stupid idiots....)

>

> I quote from the letter addressing the stool analysis:

>

> " To be honest and frank I do not think these sorts of tests are helpful at

> all either for the family, in whom they inlame anger and confusion, nor

for

> the medical team looking after the family. I think these test from a

> microbiological point of view are nonsense and uninterpretable. "

>

> The comment about " enraging " me from lab results will pale in comparision

to

> the letter that she will get when my blood stops boiling....

>

> Anyway, that's mostly why I am writing this:

>

> I need irrefutable evidence that two things are the case:

>

> 1. That hair (and stool if you can get it) testing is a valid means of

> testing for these abnormalities. This should be lab-independent,

> peer-reviewed research that validates the type of results that Hair

analysis

> can provide as it relates to both heavy metal toxicity and trace element

> analysis.

>

> 2. That GSDL is a reliable source for these types of tests and some

> information on the types of proceedure that they use - Note: I have

> information from them directly, I am looking for independent information

> that references either THEM or the TECHNIQUE THAT THEY USE - so that I can

> supply that information to the powers that be to make them take notice. I

> have also looked at the JAMA for an article and letters to the editor that

> related to their review of the Hair Analysis industry. If someone could

> tell me what Lab represented GSDL (or even if they were represented), it

> might be helpful.

>

> In addition, what are the criteria for FDA approval on things like Hair

> Element Testing? Is it just money? Is there documentation out there as

to

> why this sort of testing is not approved by the FDA?

>

> I will include the files as attachements and also post them to my website

> (in case they are stripped off)...

>

> thanks in advance

>

>

>

> www.scottsandford.com/Hair-Analysis-Review.gif

> www.scottsandford.com/Stool-Analysis-Review.gif

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is an unfortunate situation.

There are in fact joournal articles on semi-relevant issues, but for

practical purposes it doesn't matter whether you can put an infinite

amount of proof in front of them. They will never do anything to help

you. The only way to get help is to get the GP to accept that she has

to just help you and not talk to them about it.

If the GP will agree that, given some reasonable literature papers on

the subject she will actually do what you need, let me know and I'll

dig up some references.

Andy

> I have had my son's hair analysis done at GSDL (didn't know of this

list at

> the time) and will post the results shortly (once I have tabulated

them).

>

> I live in the UK and we have socialized (ie run by the state)

medicine. I

> took the results to our peadiatrician - with all sorts of obviously

high

> heavy metals (including Mercury, Lead, Antimony) - she took it (with

the

> best of bureaucratic intentions) to her lab guys, with the results

of the

> GSDL Comprehensive Stool Analysis with Parasitology, and rather than

come up

> with anything that resembled constructive suggestions...they both

came back

> and said, in a nutshell, that both tests were rubbish.

>

> They basically have dismissed the results of both without even

really

> looking at them - ie. If my son has a mercury reading that is 4

times what

> the max in reference range is, certainly the smart thing to do would

be to

> suggest that even if you didn't know about the lab or testing

proceedures or

> whatever...that it would make sense to test our son with their

" reliable "

> test for MERCURY TOXICITY!!! (Stupid idiots....)

>

> I quote from the letter addressing the stool analysis:

>

> " To be honest and frank I do not think these sorts of tests are

helpful at

> all either for the family, in whom they inlame anger and confusion,

nor for

> the medical team looking after the family. I think these test from

a

> microbiological point of view are nonsense and uninterpretable. "

>

> The comment about " enraging " me from lab results will pale in

comparision to

> the letter that she will get when my blood stops boiling....

>

> Anyway, that's mostly why I am writing this:

>

> I need irrefutable evidence that two things are the case:

>

> 1. That hair (and stool if you can get it) testing is a valid means

of

> testing for these abnormalities. This should be lab-independent,

> peer-reviewed research that validates the type of results that Hair

analysis

> can provide as it relates to both heavy metal toxicity and trace

element

> analysis.

>

> 2. That GSDL is a reliable source for these types of tests and some

> information on the types of proceedure that they use - Note: I have

> information from them directly, I am looking for independent

information

> that references either THEM or the TECHNIQUE THAT THEY USE - so that

I can

> supply that information to the powers that be to make them take

notice. I

> have also looked at the JAMA for an article and letters to the

editor that

> related to their review of the Hair Analysis industry. If someone

could

> tell me what Lab represented GSDL (or even if they were

represented), it

> might be helpful.

>

> In addition, what are the criteria for FDA approval on things like

Hair

> Element Testing? Is it just money? Is there documentation out

there as to

> why this sort of testing is not approved by the FDA?

>

> I will include the files as attachements and also post them to my

website

> (in case they are stripped off)...

>

> thanks in advance

>

>

>

> www.scottsandford.com/Hair-Analysis-Review.gif

> www.scottsandford.com/Stool-Analysis-Review.gif

>

>

> [Non-text portions

[Guest guest]

I should metion that we have an excellent (in terms of open-mindedness

anyway) Peadiatrician on the NHS. The problem, which I sympathise with, is

that this is here career, as such, and although she is willing to stick her

head above the ramparts...not without a leg to stand on! She has a

many-to-many relationship with her patients and the services offered by the

NHS and therefore cannot spend all of her energy and time on a problem that

only represents a small fraction of her case load (and sadly interest -

although she is very interested!! She is just more interested in other

things as far as research goes...). So I really look to her as a " bank

manager " and the NHS as a " bank " of medical services. So similar to when

applying for a business loan or a mortgage - sure the " bank " has the

money...but you have to convince them to give it to you!! She is a very

sympathetic NHS-Manager and is open and willing to listen to our points of

view and the research we present and actually HELP us in presenting it - but

sadly the burden of proof and education falls on our shoulders and we really

have to convince her bosses of the merits of treatment. Hence the

requirement for supplimentary support documentation which I can happily hand

over to her and preferably shove somewhere else for the other Dr in question

;-)

I am also planning to develop a FEAT like (maybe affiliated) organization to

ensure that there is a solidarity and equallity in how all of the ASD people

in our community are treated. But that is for the fall...

scott

[Guest guest]

In particular, I have a paper on " Trace element concentrations in hair from

autistic children. " by Wecker et al comming my way - which sounds (from the

abstract) that it at least will back up that hair analysis is statistically

reliable in identifying ASD from non-ASD control group.

If I can add to that articles on the standards of the Lab - GSDL

(hopefully good)

If I can identify them in the article in the JAMA (ie which one) then I can

refute the inevitable use of that article

If I can identify and validate the technique used by them

If I can also add separate articles that relate to hair analysis being used

to relyably identify Heavy Metal Toxicity - to then be checked by other

means if necessary.

In addition I would like to add articles that relate to children with ASD

being statistically more likely to be Heavy metal toxic.

If I can piece together these threads of information then I can at least

have a good case that if they do nothing then I can SUE THE PANTS OFF OF

THEM!!! If for no other reason, that could motivate them to move into gear.

I will gladly post the collation of these articles/resourses to the web once

I have them as I believe that this is the type of information pack that can

be used to inform/gag/educate in a number of different scenarios

Hope you can help

scott

[Guest guest]

> In particular, I have a paper on " Trace element concentrations in

hair from

> autistic children. " by Wecker et al comming my way - which sounds

(from the

> abstract) that it at least will back up that hair analysis is

statistically

> reliable in identifying ASD from non-ASD control group.

Hi ,

It occurs to me that you may want to take a look at the posts

from Dr. Amy Holmes that are included in the file

/files/HOW_TO_hair_test

This is the sort of thing that would fall under " not proof "

but possibly supporting evidence. I believe there may be

posts where she talks about using hair tests and seeing

VERY DIFFERENT values in ASD kiddos vs. NT. Just a thought.

Similarly (in the category of " not proof " ), in Jaqueline

McCandless' new book, she talks about use of the counting

rules with hair tests.

Similarly, Dr. Cave's book (page 73-74) mentions that they

use hair tests (among others). " We conduct hair and blood

analyses for toxic metals... " " The hair analysis usually

shows several toxid metals, including mercury, aluminum

(both found in vacinnes), arsenic, lead, and tim. "

[i wish she would state that mercury value is unreliable!]

Anyhow, don't know if that is any help...... but it came

to mind.

best wishes,

Moria

[Guest guest]

In this case I guess the questions are whether they insist on the most

sanitized of all sources, medline indexed papers, or whether other

journal papers, books, clinical reports, etc. will be adequate. E. g.

would citing polls on this listserver that most people notice progress

after a few rounds of DMSA at most be convincing they should prescribe

some DMSA and see how it goes in a month?

Do the multitudinous papers by Marlowe et al. in J. Orthmol Med count

(I posted them here some months ago at message 50013)?

Does the paper Celia posted count?

Do the results of research in progress by Jim at ASU, and Amy

Holmes as posted on the DAN! website count?

Andy . .. . .

> I should metion that we have an excellent (in terms of

open-mindedness

> anyway) Peadiatrician on the NHS. The problem, which I sympathise

with, is

> that this is here career, as such, and although she is willing to

stick her

> head above the ramparts...not without a leg to stand on! She has a

> many-to-many relationship with her patients and the services offered

by the

> NHS and therefore cannot spend all of her energy and time on a

problem that

> only represents a small fraction of her case load (and sadly

interest -

> although she is very interested!! She is just more interested in

other

> things as far as research goes...). So I really look to her as a

" bank

> manager " and the NHS as a " bank " of medical services. So similar to

when

> applying for a business loan or a mortgage - sure the " bank " has the

> money...but you have to convince them to give it to you!! She is a

very

> sympathetic NHS-Manager and is open and willing to listen to our

points of

> view and the research we present and actually HELP us in presenting

it - but

> sadly the burden of proof and education falls on our shoulders and

we really

> have to convince her bosses of the merits of treatment. Hence the

> requirement for supplimentary support documentation which I can

happily hand

> over to her and preferably shove somewhere else for the other Dr in

question

> ;-)

>

> I am also planning to develop a FEAT like (maybe affiliated)

organization to

> ensure that there is a solidarity and equallity in how all of the

ASD people

> in our community are treated. But that is fo

[Guest guest]

I will collect litterally everything - hoping to overwhelm them. In my

opinion, all of these should count! and much more than a couple of articles

written by a random doctor/journo for a website called Quackwatch.

However, the more " peer-reviewed " type articles (which always seems to be

the establishment's escape clause: " no double-blind placebo peer-review

journal research done on subject X " ) then the less chance they have to

squirm out of it...and these are obviously the squirming types.

BTW, my Pead will already be recieving a copy of the DAN! protocol

(specially ordered for her by me with highlights included...) - as it

relates to my son's condition and sets out a comprehensive, consolidated,

well researched plan that we can follow and has appropriate reseach to go

with it - this is important as it is a fairly information-packed and

efficient explaination of what is going wrong - that way she can protect her

back in what is obviously a very synical medical establishment and we can

use it as a tool and we can get what we want - and expand upon it on a

treatment by treatment basis.

For now, I just want to throttle the two lab techs and want to gather enough

evidence to bung them up for weeks. Doubt it will change THEIR minds, but

might change the minds of my Pead as it relates to them...and that's

progress.

As it relates to chelation, we have yet to bring this up with our Pead, as

we are currently " fighting " for her to even really look at what the tests

say. I'll post them properly soon but I'm a bit manic for these few days -

but, for now:

LAB: GSDL Elemental Hair Analysis

Element Reading(ppm) Ref Range(ppm) Colour

Mercury 3.43 0.00-1.00 Off Scale Red

Antimony 0.259 0.000-0.030 Off Scale Red

Arsenic 0.283 0.000-0.100 Mid Red

Lead 6.39 0.00-0.50 Off Scale Red

Sodium 487 8-60 Off Scale

Potassium 329.6 1.5-30.0 Off Scale

Rubidium 0.328 0.004-0.45 Off Scale

Now I'm no genius...but even though I know I haven't given you all the

information you need to do a comprehensive opinion - the facts speak for

themselves...the fact that Mercury, Lead and Antimony alone are off the

scale and between 2.8 to 9 times the highest statistical reference range -

should at least have warranted them suggesting a " proper " test (in their

world anyway) to discount heavy metal toxicity. At this stage bringing up

the " means " of chelation would be premature...at this stage I'm still trying

to see that he NEEDs to be detoxified!!!

You can perhaps understand my sense of urgency to refute the suggestions

made in the letters in question in terms that THEY will understand.

And again...yes all evidence is good evidence - peer-reviewed or otherwise.

However, the more medline-based, the more credible and irrefutable it will

be to THEM - the fact that it may be correct if it isn't published there

seems to have passed them by.

It is sad that valuable bio-medical treatments are confined to the medical

netherworld by the prevailing establishment at the expense of my son.

Thank you again for your interest and input, it is very valued and valuable.

scott

[Guest guest]

I think if you want to supply your doctor with compelling information,

there's no better book than Jaquelyn McCandless' " Children with Starving

Brains; A Medical Treatment Guide for Autism Spectrum Disorder " has the

latest and most comprehensive info on medical intervention (including diet).

It's a great book to share with a doctor who is unfamiliar with treating an

autistic from a medical perspective, and who needs to see the facts backed

up by references to previous studies.

The book is available now at <http://www.autism-rxguidebook.net>. In

September it will also be shipping from amazon.com and bookstores.

HTH, Lynne

> From: " Sandford " <scott@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:12:54 +0100

> < >

> Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Andy - Hair Test legitimacy documentation

> required

>

> I will collect litterally everything - hoping to overwhelm them. In my

> opinion, all of these should count! and much more than a couple of articles

> written by a random doctor/journo for a website called Quackwatch.

>

> However, the more " peer-reviewed " type articles (which always seems to be

> the establishment's escape clause: " no double-blind placebo peer-review

> journal research done on subject X " ) then the less chance they have to

> squirm out of it...and these are obviously the squirming types.

>

> BTW, my Pead will already be recieving a copy of the DAN! protocol

> (specially ordered for her by me with highlights included...) - as it

> relates to my son's condition and sets out a comprehensive, consolidated,

> well researched plan that we can follow and has appropriate reseach to go

> with it - this is important as it is a fairly information-packed and

> efficient explaination of what is going wrong - that way she can protect her

> back in what is obviously a very synical medical establishment and we can

> use it as a tool and we can get what we want - and expand upon it on a

> treatment by treatment basis.

>

> For now, I just want to throttle the two lab techs and want to gather enough

> evidence to bung them up for weeks. Doubt it will change THEIR minds, but

> might change the minds of my Pead as it relates to them...and that's

> progress.

>

> As it relates to chelation, we have yet to bring this up with our Pead, as

> we are currently " fighting " for her to even really look at what the tests

> say. I'll post them properly soon but I'm a bit manic for these few days -

> but, for now:

>

> LAB: GSDL Elemental Hair Analysis

>

> Element Reading(ppm) Ref Range(ppm) Colour

> Mercury 3.43 0.00-1.00 Off Scale Red

> Antimony 0.259 0.000-0.030 Off Scale Red

> Arsenic 0.283 0.000-0.100 Mid Red

> Lead 6.39 0.00-0.50 Off Scale Red

> Sodium 487 8-60 Off Scale

> Potassium 329.6 1.5-30.0 Off Scale

> Rubidium 0.328 0.004-0.45 Off Scale

>

> Now I'm no genius...but even though I know I haven't given you all the

> information you need to do a comprehensive opinion - the facts speak for

> themselves...the fact that Mercury, Lead and Antimony alone are off the

> scale and between 2.8 to 9 times the highest statistical reference range -

> should at least have warranted them suggesting a " proper " test (in their

> world anyway) to discount heavy metal toxicity. At this stage bringing up

> the " means " of chelation would be premature...at this stage I'm still trying

> to see that he NEEDs to be detoxified!!!

>

> You can perhaps understand my sense of urgency to refute the suggestions

> made in the letters in question in terms that THEY will understand.

>

> And again...yes all evidence is good evidence - peer-reviewed or otherwise.

> However, the more medline-based, the more credible and irrefutable it will

> be to THEM - the fact that it may be correct if it isn't published there

> seems to have passed them by.

>

> It is sad that valuable bio-medical treatments are confined to the medical

> netherworld by the prevailing establishment at the expense of my son.

>

> Thank you again for your interest and input, it is very valued and valuable.

>

> scott

[Guest guest]

> LAB: GSDL Elemental Hair Analysis

>

> Element Reading(ppm) Ref Range(ppm) Colour

> Mercury 3.43 0.00-1.00 Off Scale Red

> Antimony 0.259 0.000-0.030 Off Scale Red

> Arsenic 0.283 0.000-0.100 Mid Red

> Lead 6.39 0.00-0.50 Off Scale Red

> Sodium 487 8-60 Off Scale

> Potassium 329.6 1.5-30.0 Off Scale

> Rubidium 0.328 0.004-0.45 Off Scale

With these results you brits should re-instate capital punishment and

apply it to your opponents - there is no question that any MAINSTREAM

doc in the US would immediately work this kid up!

Even the US FDA states hair is a good screening test for lead.

Find the papers by Grandjean on the Faeroes study and by son on

the Seychelles study (through medline) as these discuss problems as

they relate to hair mercury levels.

Go see your elected representatives and start climbing all over them,

specifically naming the people who are trying to condemn your child to

a life on welfare as a disabled person by denying medically necessary

care at this point in time when it would help and is relatively

inexpensive.

You do have the advantage of an " impressive looking " test.

If you can find a copy of Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry, it

does talk about hair testing and is a very mainstream source.

And

[Guest guest]

I haven't found anyone to chelation yet, as we are a couple of stages away

from that now - nutrification and bowel function - but you might try some of

the DAN doctors listed in the UK. I haven't called them yet, as I currently

have my hands full with an ABA startup and working with the local NHS/LEA.

There are a couple of DAN doctors on the DAN list somewhere in the Midlands.

If I find anything, I'll let you know.

scott

> hi,

> i have my son's hair analisys results and his doctor doesn't want

> to support to go for more tests or treatment for it. it is

> terrifiying that you have to listen so much nonsense from them

> but how you can get them to help you. they always ask for more

> documents and info when they are the ones that have to do the

> search to help us. i see in any way that they don't have any idea

> of the problem.

> any info. i live in ireland and do you know any place for

> chelation in the uk please i'll like to know.

> thank you very much for any info in advance.

> silvia