Talk:Hair analysis (alternative medicine)

message: Looks like a POV fork to me--TheNautilus 09:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It separates the subject into its extremely different elements. Right now the hair analysis article is a disambiguation page that causes confusion. The current content here should be removed from the other article, with only a mention and a link to this one left in place. -- Fyslee 10:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Now this article can concentrate on one aspect without any confusion. -- Fyslee 10:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should try to participate in writing a technically coherent hair analysis article before running off with a negative POV fork in an unfamiliar subject area. Then it will be less confusing.--TheNautilus 12:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: This link is dead:
* AETNA Clinical Policy Bulletin: Hair Analysis
I removed it.  Others may wish to update it.--Alterrabe 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found the new location and have added it. It's better to find the new link (or use the Internet Archives), than to undo or delete links. We're here to build up, not tear down, articles. -- Fyslee 22:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fyslee, I deliberately put the url of Aetna's policies and the fact that I was removing it onto the talk page.  Even if I had found an new URL (making sure that bad data is not in the article takes a precedence over finding good data) I would not have wanted to go to the trouble of making sure that Aetna still stands by their policy.  There is a lot of outdated information on the internet, sometimes even on corporate homepages.--Alterrabe 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I just realized that Tamari (George Tamari. Unreliability of hair analysis. Letter to the editor: Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, May, 2004) is a letter to the editor.  As such, as dicussed in "Holmes" vide supra it is not (WP:RS).  Out it goes.--Alterrabe 12:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How stupid of me

message: The Wenig article footnote #6 in the article is about the use of hair analysis in toxicology, i.e. assays of drugs and drug metabolites in the hair.  This is described in Hair Analysis main article.  Furthermore the article does not say that it doesn't work, but that it "needs further research."
Does anyone believe that an article about the use hair analysis in toxicology has anything to do with the an article on practitioners of alternative medicine measuring hair minerals?--Alterrabe 20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wennig Article 

message: * Mercury exposure in children with autistic spectrum disorder: case-control study.
* Mercury, lead, and zinc in baby teeth of children with autism versus controls.
* Mercury and autism: accelerating evidence? - Review
* Mercury in vaccines - Review
Brangifer (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting studies 

message: The article says that hair testing is unreliable, but doesn't say what testing is reliable for determining vitamin and mineral deficiencies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.9.155 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Blood tests can be reliable for some nutrients; in some cases, if nutrients are excreted, it indicates too much is being taken in, but, for most, there are no reliable tests.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What testing methods should be used?

message: Hair analysis is supported by vast amount of literature and the references given in the article are no more scientific than the ones available to support Hair analysis. It is also used by institutions and universities to assess toxic metal exposure. I have also noticed that a significantly large part of the article was deleted throughout the article's history and only the section with 'Inconsistent results' and a very small section describing its use has been left.
A good article should assess all the information available and to have a section named criticism or anything similar which would present to the reader an overall look about the topic. 
Besides this, the practitioners who use this screening tool also use other information to obtain the patients nutritional requirements. Its unfortunate to see that an excellent screening tool is biased to this extend when people with not enough knowledge about the subject label it as fraud or unscientific. 
Its known that many controversial studies are the result of poor statistics and/or poor science. Hair analysis has undergone a lot of research especially by Dr. David Watts and its ridiculous to that is compared with forms of 'alternative medicine' such as homeopathy, acupuncture, etc.
The information on the article is biased and I am willing to edit this page and also flag this to the other authors which seem to provide only little view of this screening test.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypts1 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you are undoubtedly the same person, the problem is that this article is a WP:POVFORK of Hair analysis, being used only to refer to the uses which have no medical reliable sources, having spun off from main article describing the justified uses in medicine, both non-alternative (any word I use will offend some people), and alternative.  The only clean approach is to combine them, and then possibly split off an article based on different characterizations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the article is short enough that a merge back to Hair analysis would be feasible. Yobol (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is biased