General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Hair Analysis

Started by Hawki63 · · Last activity · 2 posts · 295 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
9 September 2003
Last activity
9 September 2003
Original author
Hawki63
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
295
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. guess we used "different resources" Janny

    mine come from a more reliable source....like in the mail....

    and yours..why you just type as fast as you can into a search engine..

    as you have no "actual experience" in evaluating what you read..surely you
    simply just believe what it says

    I don't

    "the 1999 researchers from the Calif Dept of Health located nine labs and sent
    identical samples to six of them...the reported mineral levels,,the alleged
    significance of the findings and the recommendations made in the reports
    differed WIDELY from one lab to another...the researchers concluded that the
    procedure is still UNRELIABLE and recommended that government agencies act
    VIGOROUSLY to protect consumers (JAMA)...Even if hair mineral content were
    measurable with 100% accuracy,,,it makes no difference because the results are
    not useful for measuring the body's nutritional status"

    note the words:...not reliable
    differed widely
    protect consumers

    nuff said

    next time Janny...do a literature search..not just produce the first thing that
    pops up on your screen that SUPPORTS your craziness

    yep...HA exists...would I/do I use it...NOPE.....
    hawki

  2. Perhaps you will swear to this in court?
    "Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    guess we used "different resources" Janny

    mine come from a more reliable source....like in the mail....

    and yours..why you just type as fast as you can into a search engine..

    as you have no "actual experience" in evaluating what you read..surely you
    simply just believe what it says

    I don't

    "the 1999 researchers from the Calif Dept of Health located nine labs and


    sent

    Quoted message said:

    identical samples to six of them...the reported mineral levels,,the


    alleged

    Quoted message said:

    significance of the findings and the recommendations made in the reports
    differed WIDELY from one lab to another...the researchers concluded that


    the

    Quoted message said:

    procedure is still UNRELIABLE and recommended that government agencies


    act

    Quoted message said:

    VIGOROUSLY to protect consumers (JAMA)...Even if hair mineral content were
    measurable with 100% accuracy,,,it makes no difference because the results


    are

    Quoted message said:

    not useful for measuring the body's nutritional status"

    note the words:...not reliable
    differed widely
    protect consumers

    nuff said

    next time Janny...do a literature search..not just produce the first thing


    that

    Quoted message said:

    pops up on your screen that SUPPORTS your craziness

    yep...HA exists...would I/do I use it...NOPE.....
    hawki

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.