ESSENTIAL OILS ONLINE
SPECIAL REPORT

This Special Report comes on the heals of a article published
in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
on January 3, 2001, which concluded hair analysis should be
discarded as being unreliable and unscientific. But as you will
learn, the JAMA conclusion is biased and based on a flawed
study which some believe was purposely set-up to discredit
anyone associated with natural remedies for health issues.

Hair analysis, when done by known acceptable standards,
continues to provide accurate, trusted, valuable data people
may use to improve their health. JAMA, Stephen Barrett, M.D
and others who oppose using natural substances to improve
ones health know this. What makes them look so evil is their
underhanded, "we know better than you" tactics used to
discredit honest, hard working people in the natural health
industry. Barrett, the AMA and JAMA are worms in the apple
of health.

I hope you take the time to read this report which exposes
how supposed "professionals" undermine good works. Editor!

ееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееее
Essential Oils Online
Published by LynnGroup Int'l
E-mail: EOOhealth-owner@yahoogroups.com
********************************************
Special Report March 2001
********************************************
SUBSCRIBE EOO
EOOhealth-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

UNSUBSCRIBE EOO
EOOhealth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

********************************************

HAIR MINERAL ANALYSIS AND THE JAMA ARTICLE
An early assessment of the study

Once again, the science of hair mineral analysis is forced to
respond to denigrating journal articles, based upon clearly flawed
studies. The particular article of reference was published in the
January 3rd, 2001 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA). The authors of the article expressed the
specific intent of re-assessing a study printed in 1985, as
performed by one Stephen Barrett, M.D. Dr. Barrett's original
study was roundly criticized at the time of publication as being
seriously flawed, and much of this same criticism is applicable
to the study currently in question.

Barrett is an avowed opponent of all espoused natural or holistic
therapies and a staunch proponent of the pharmaceutical and
chemical cartels in the United States. Barrett testified for a
government commission in New Zealand, regarding the regulation of
the profession of chiropractic. The commission was quoted as
stating in effect, that they were not prepared to grant any
credibility to Dr. Barrett's testimony. "It is plainly propaganda.
It is apparent that the enthusiasm of The Lehigh Valley Committee
Against Health Fraud (Barrett's group) is greater than its respect
for accuracy." Barrett has printed textbooks and articles regarding
alternative methods that continue to be attacked as of questionable,
if any merit

Barrett participated as a major contributor in a recent fraudulent
presentation on DATELINE, the television news show. This laboratory
was the victim of a nationally televised fraud. DATELINE submitted
a sample of poodle hair for analysis, used human patient forms for
sample submission, and gave the dog a first and last name,
specifically, "Dakota Goldstein." Poodle hair resembles human
hair, and since the laboratory rarely if ever is allowed
identification of the sample other than a laboratory control
number, an analysis was dutifully performed.

This laboratory regularly tests animal hair for veterinarians,
and values for animals differ from humans, and further differ
between animal species. Presuming in error, that the sample was
from a human patient, the report detailed our interpretive findings
as though it was an assessment of the health of a human. Barrett
and the DATELINE contingent claimed that the laboratory was in
effect a fraud, knowing full well that they had submitted a
fraudulently labelled specimen.

DATELINE was recently discovered to have perpetrated another fraud
on the consumer, by placing incendiary devices beneath a pickup
truck, to demonstrate the danger of trucks with "side saddle" gas
tanks. Several controlled crashes failed to cause the expected
explosion, until the incendiary device was utilized. The program
was exposed and subject to significant criticism.

According to T. Bolen, Barrett claims to be a retired Psychiatrist,
but is not currently licensed to practice and has not been board
certified in his claimed specialty.

In this day of more and more exposure of scientific fraud,
especially in research, it is difficult not to consider much
of the same is not at play in this recent article.

Analytical Research Laboratories has identified the patient and
doctor who submitted the patient's hair sample for this "study."
The article states that the patient is a "40 year old white,
female", and her submitted case history form states that she is 43
years of age. Who shall we believe? She is further identified as
in generally good health in one instance and as a healthy adult in
another. Her case history, signed by her physician, states that
she is suffering from hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid),
allergies and fatigue. Are we to believe that she is healthy
as claimed, or really has some health problems as her written
notation declares, and as attested to by the submitting physician?

The authors of this study present the hypothesis that "there should
be no significant variations from test results on scalp hair from a
single donor." That hypothesis is ill-founded, is seriously
incorrect, and dooms the study to the realm of being invalid.

Passwater and Cranton, in their volume on Trace Elements, Hair
Analysis and Nutrition, (Keats Publishing, 1983) state that hair
sampling without powdering and thoroughly mixing the sample will
lead to erroneous conclusions, because of how the human body lays
down minerals in the hair. They state that at least 1/3 of the
hair shafts are "resting" at any given time, therefore, hairs
adjacent to each other will have differing mineral concentrations.
Laboratory B in the JAMA write-up may well have been the recipient
of some hair follicles that were in fact "resting" or certainly
subject to differing mineral concentrations. Accordingly, by any
reasonable scientific standard, the study as run is invalid, and
one can easily come to the conclusion that it may have been
performed for reasons other than pure scientific inquiry.

Hair analysis laboratories perform 225,000 hair analyses per year
in the United States, according to the authors. These laboratories
have long recognized that there are significant differences between
varied hair samples from the same donor. Rarely is a patient's hair
all gray, for example. Some patients have shocks of all white hair
in the midst of dark black or brown hair. Some hair strands give
the appearance of striping, i.e., 1 part gray, one part black and
alternating the length of the shaft.

Additionally, the authors state that the mixed sample was then
divided according to the individual requirements of each laboratory,
i.e., 25 mg to 400 mg. Differing quantities of this questionably
mixed sample would lend an even greater possibility of errors due
to variances in the hair strands that were included in each
laboratory sample.

Recognizing significant experience with variations in hair mineral
deposition between samples of the same patient's head hair, each
laboratory virtually powders the submitted sample, thoroughly mixes
the result, and proceeds through an acid digestion process prior to
testing the substance. The objective is to determine an average of
mineral levels throughout the sample.

The accurate and honest method of laboratory comparison would be
testing the acid-digested sample by each laboratory, versus a
manually "split" sample as described, considering the large
chance of interpretative error.

Dr. Barrett's original "study" used six-inch strands of hair,
cut at varying lengths, and then sent to various laboratories.
The sample tested at 6 inches will always be significantly
different from the sample tested at 1 inch. Subsequent to cutting
the hair, he washed the sample under ordinary tap water, which is
highly charged with minerals, again invalidating the sample for
testing purposes.

His study was invalid then, is invalid today, and the study in
question is invalid for the same reason. And once again, an invalid
study is given the appearance of accuracy by a journal allegedly
of impeccable credentials and ethics. The ethics of so-called
scientific studies and published reports are more and more
seriously subject to scrutiny. Dr. Barrett claims to be an
expert in hair mineral analysis. We have not seen evidence
supporting that claim.

A letter to the editor of JAMA was submitted subsequently to this
January 2000 article, by Steven J. Steindel, PhD, and Peter J.
Howanita, M.D. They address the problem of the submitted sample
not being homogeneous. They state: " The authors most likely chose
not to distribute the samples as powder, which differs greatly from
the usually submitted specimens". (Italics added) They further
state: "It is easy to envision the scenario in which pockets of
trace metals collect in areas that are different from hair to hair
and within the shaft, and thus, results in a heterogeneous sample,
again perhaps explaining the difference observed among the
laboratories."

Most revealing is the comment by these contributors; "Hence,
reasonable explanations exist for the observed extreme disparity
in interlaboratory results that are independent of the laboratory
methods." (Italics added)

They suggest that most of these laboratories (hair testing
laboratories) in the field have deviations less than 10%, and
usually less than 5%. These results are well within acceptable
laboratory variables. In fact, accordingly to the authors, some
test results commonly vary from laboratory to laboratory from
15% to 50%. A quick assessment of multiple test results according
to leading texts on laboratory diagnosis is shown below. There is
clear and significant differences in the so-called normals from
laboratory to laboratory.

COMPARISONS OF TARGET RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS BY THREE LABORATORY
TEXTS.

SERUM AMYLASE, AN ENZYME

1. Amylase, Serum 25 - 125 U/L "Normal values vary
widely, according to method of testing."

2. Amylase, Serum 25 - 160 U/L "More than 20 methods
of measuring Serum Amylase exist with different ranges
of normal values."

3. Amylase, Serum 35 - 115 U/L "Values may vary according
to the laboratory performing the test."

ACID PHOSPHATASE- A MARKER FOR PROSTATE CANCER

1 Acid Phosphatase 0 - 3.1 ng/ml

2 Acid Phosphatase 2.5 - 3.7 ng/ml

3.Acid Phosphatase 0.1 - 5.0 U/dl (King-Armstrong)
0.1 - 0.8 U/dl (Bessey-Lowrey)
0.5 - 2.0 U/dl (Bodansky)

CARCINOEMBRYONIC ANTIGEN;
A MARKER FOR COLON CANCER

1 Carcinoembyonic antigen up to 10 ng/ml in smokers

2 Carcinoembyonic antigen less than 5 ng/ml (Non-smokers)
No value listed for smokers.

3 Carcinoembyonic antigen Less than 2.5 ng/ml (Non-smokers)
Less than 5.0 ng/ml (smokers)

1 A Manual of Laboratory and Diagnostic Tests.,
Fischbach, F. 6th Ed, Lippincott, 2000
2 Handbook of Diagnostic Texts. Springhouse Corporation
2nd Ed., 1995
3 Davis's Laboratory and Diagnostic Test Handbook.,
Jaffe, M.S., McVan, B.F. F.A. Davis, Phila. 1997.

Assessments on laboratories that perform blood and urine analyses
commonly demonstrate testing errors greater than 20% in the printed
test results . Based upon that statement and the opinions of the
study's authors, blood and urine analysis should be discarded as
being unreliable and unscientific.

These authors have seriously impugned the reputations and reliability
of the laboratories in question.

Listed below are the protocols in place at this lab, to minimize
errors in interpretations. When levels of minerals are found that
are out of expected normal ranges, Analytical Research Laboratories
always proceeds through a retest mechanism to verify the accuracy of
the reported results, and will at no additional cost, provide a
complete re-analysis when requested by the doctor. One-half of the
submitted sample is retained for two years as a back-up, considering
the possibility of error. Subsequent re-checks of any given sample
consistently fall within a maximum 1-2 % error range or better.

SOME TESTING PROTOCOLS AT
ANALYTICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES...

1. Each month, this laboratory is sent a sample of animal feed
with a relative known target level of mineral content, obviously
subject to some variability due to large quantities being tested.
The large quantities come into consideration, since 150 -180 labs
share in this substance, and then test their sample, comparing
the results for data gathering. Analytical Research Laboratories
consistently ranks in the top 20 percent for accuracy. Those
laboratories that find results to be considered abnormal, rarely
go over 1.5% standard deviation in error.

2. The Induction Coupled Plasma unit (ICP) which performs the
testing procedure, is calibrated for accuracy each morning.
Subsequently, on a twice daily schedule, a sample of a standard
solution of minerals is run through the unit. The standard solution
is provided by an outside vendor who specializes in preparation of
the test substance. Until recently, the sample control was provided
by the United States Bureau of Standards.

3. After the hair is digested by acid and then rehydrated with ultra
pure water, it is of course tested by the unit. Any residual liquid
is saved in a common container, subsequently analyzed for its mineral
content, and that known sample is again tested monthly, by the
instrument, for quality control purposes.

4. We also participate in analyzing common samples with other labs
that do hair mineral analysis on a regular basis,

5. Finally, after every twenty samples from patients are tested, a
control sample is tested by the instrument. If the known control
sample is in error over 10%, recalibration and multiple procedures
are instituted to determine the reasons for the error.

A RECENT STUDY BETWEEN LABORATORIES
THAT ANALYZE TRACE MINERAL LEVELS IN HAIR

Five laboratories in cooperation with Analytical Research
Laboratories recently analyzed 2 samples prepared in the manner
describe above, i.e. virtually powdering the hair sample for a
homogeneous sample and then dissolving the mixture in acid.
A portion of the liquid was then submitted to each lab for
analysis and the results compared. The error in all of the minerals
were less than 2%, excepting magnesium, which exhibited a deviation
coefficient of less than 5%. That means in the case of magnesium,
a reading of 30 mg% would be subject to an error of 1.5 mg%.
Blood laboratories that can reach that deviation should be
applauded.

The study that is printed in JAMA is flawed seriously, from the
beginning procedure of sampling and the hypothesis as presented,
based on the authors description. In fact any study that suggests
the analysis of a hair sample is not reliable, is a study written
by persons incompetent in the field or those with a vested interest.
The science of testing a sample substance for minerals is performed
countless times throughout industry as well as the healing arts, and
the methods have been accepted as accurate and reliable for several
decades. While sampling protocol, manipulation of the sample in the
laboratory, and interpretation of the results are all areas subject
to error, the technical analysis itself is minimally subject to
criticism.

Even considering the errors by the participants, eliminating
Laboratory B, allows a generally accepted level of accuracy in the
other 5 laboratories. Perhaps Laboratory B received that portion
of the sample that was already maximally charged with minerals
before it was cut from the patient.

Laboratories A and E have been identified, and they are known to
use the same analytical technique, i.e., induction coupled plasma.
Here is a comparison of their results.

Mineral Laboratory A Laboratory E Difference

Calcium 270 PPM 270 PPM -0-
Magnesium 30 40 -10-
Sodium 70 70 -0-
Potassium 0 40 -10-
Iron 5 5 -0-
Manganese .1 .1 -0-
Zinc 16 16 -0-
Chromium .2 .1 -.10-
Phosphorous 120 120 -0-

The sample was clearly a poor test substance due to the
described reasons, and yet these two laboratories were identical
in their test results for 6 of the nine most commonly utilized
minerals. The 3 that were deviant, included Chromium at 1/10th
parts per million, Magnesium at 10 PPM and Potassium at 10 PPM.
Considering the errors regarding the sampling of the patient's
hair, these results suggest very high compliance to laboratory
standards.

The participants failed to maintain strict scientific standards in
their study, or have willingly or unwillingly been duped into
publishing erroneous information, which does serious damage to many
parties involved, not to mention the patient population. JAMA has
assisted this seriously flawed study. Their reputation drops another
several points. Criticism of the American Medical Association as a
vested medical business is not blunted by continued publication of
such poor science.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now you can have a complete hair analysis done
without paying professional fees.

Health professionals typically charge from $120 to $150 for hair
analysis. The fee is high because of over-head cost. But now you
can bypass high costs, and have the same hair analysis done from
the same lab used by many health professionals for only $69.
Best of all, you will receive the same information and be given
recommendations from a licensed M.D., who is also one of
America's leading hair analysis experts.

Honestly, you will be thrilled when you receive your report.
Here's an unsolicited response from a customer:

I got my test results yesterday. How impressive! I didn't
expect it to be so thorough. It was a real eye opener for me,
almost like a "personal reading" (o: THANK YOU so much for
giving me the opportunity to have this done. It's giving me
the inspiration to put my health first.

Thanks,
Christina

What the Tissue Mineral Analysis Contains:
Your report will contain a four page personalized letter, plus a 24
page personalized report detailing nutrient mineral ratios, nutrient
mineral levels, what toxic metals are present and ratios, inform-
ation on how to read your chart, along with information about
lifestyles, eating habits and more.

How to Proceed:
Send a written request and check for $69 made payable to:

LynnGroup Int'l
2395 New Milford School Rd.
Rockford, IL 61109

I will mail you a Hair Analysis Kit along with complete instructions
on how to proceed. It's simple. Just enclose a hair sample and
mail it to the address printed on the envelope that comes with
your hair kit. You'll receive extensive test results back in the
mail that can change your life.

Most hair dyes are of vegetable origin and will not affect the
readings. Grecian formula and Lady Grecian will add lead into the
hair. Selsun Blue shampoo will add selenium, Head and Shoulders
will add zinc. Bleached hair cannot be tested until it grows out
and the new or virgin regrowth can be sampled. Permanent waves
should not be sampled as well, until new growth can be obtained.

Attention New Yorkers:
New York residents are excluded from this offer. The lab is
registered in all states to do business except NY. Therefore the
lab is unable to process requests coming from a New York address.

If you have questions, please feel free to write to me
at: Jim@...

Jim
LynnGroup Int'l