The patient submits samples of scalp hair for analysis performed by a company in Louisiana. A review of all material published by Kelley and Gonzalez shows neither to have had training in oncology or board certification in any medical specialty or to have performed or published experimental work verifying their conclusions about the cause of cancer or about their treatment. Different cancers do not have identical causes, growth characteristics, or responses to treatments. Monitoring of treatment progress is done through proved methods for evaluating effectiveness. Self-assessment questionnaires are of limited value in evaluating progress of cancer or its treatment.
Hair analysis yields little to no valid information about nutritional status.
He claimed that the machine, invented in England in the 1940s, measures biochemical factors in hair and provides biochemical and nutritional patterns. On questioning, Gonzalez could not identify these materials, did not know how the analysis was done, did not know the validity of the results or how the conclusions were drawn. He stated that the results were correct because they agreed wit his preconceived diagnosis. 16 In 1983 Rivlin reviewed the published scientific literature on the uses and misuses of hair analysis in making nutritional assessments. Among the numerous variables found to influence results were age, sex, rate of hair growth, sweat contamination, environmental contamination, shampoos, bleaches, dyes, and the location from which the sample was taken.