“Written by someone and put on their twitter.

"is stealing ideas from @dontgetfooled 's book to use in his Leicester Mercury column."”

“"We can agree to disagree on whether or not hair testing is 'alternative'. I don't much care." so why comment? I care.
Can we agree that a large percentage of these tests have been devised by scientists or conventional health care professionals and are conducted in laboratories using scientific and medical equipment?
Kudos on Leicester mercury for running the article, inserting a heading, which started this debate, then changing it.

"Simon has a national reputation for uncovering such shoddy commercial dealings and it is great that the Mercury is now publishing his stuff."

"Nice detective work Simon. Of course they'll pass of the dodgy results as 'an admin error' or some such,"


"Very well done to Mr Perry for exposing this"

He copied the story, a very quick google search would have given you the same format outcomes etc.”

“Sorry if you have been missing me me, ml. Re your 16/10 comments:
I didn't see the original sub-editor's headline. I understand it wasn't Simon Perry's, so your comment seems a bit pointless.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not hair testing is 'alternative'. I don't much care. However, you then move to an unsubstantiated attack on Simon Perry himself, apparently alleging that he plagiarised the article, and lied about carrying out this little test. That seems to me to be entirely typical of alternative medicine believers - you lose the argument, so you launch a personal attack. With regard to your 18/10, you provide no details to back up your claim, and appear to rely on an argument from authority (rather laughably in this context, from a physicist or engineer). Again, this is entirely typical of alternative medicine. Kudos to the Leicester Mercury, btw, for running this story.”

“Allo and Mr Perry have gone very quiet. Here is another company, scientist etc who provide hair allergy testing.

These are tests designed by scientist and conventional Health professionals and you would STILL claim it was alt med?

"It was developed by ex-NASA scientist, Prof William Nelson, in an effort to help his autistic son."”

“I still don't agree with the "old" title of this story, it was changed soon after, and I still don't agree that this test has anything to do with Alt Med. After all Mr Perry stated that the company replied with "a qualified allergist in equally qualified surroundings" What if this person was a scientist just using poor equipment? You don't know who did the test and how qualified they are. This test is obviously a con but does that mean a man of science wouldn't touch it with a barge pole? Or maybe somebody is hiding behind their qualifications to make a lot of money.
To finish, this is not a new story and was obviously copied from a which report some time ago.
The truth about allergy testing
Hair analysis

We contacted two companies, Bionetics and Integral Health, which use hair to diagnose intolerances. Bionetics uses a scanner to diagnose intolerances, claiming it tests ¿the vibrational energy pattern of your hair which represents the energy state of your body¿ to diagnose intolerances.


Using hair analysis to diagnose food allergies has never been proven
Integral Health claims to ¿genetically examine the DNA at the hair root¿ to investigate food intolerances. The hair analysis tests cost between £48 and £75, depending on the company.

What we did
Each researcher sent a few strands of hair to each hair analysis company. A few days later, Becky sent another sample to Bionetics under a different name and Dee did the same for Integral Health.

Our findings
The companies post a report with intolerances, and vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Integral Health successfully diagnosed Becky¿s lactose intolerance and she was told to avoid all dairy products.

But Bionetics told her to avoid only sheep¿s milk and no other dairy products on her first test, and on her second test only cows¿ milk and no other dairy products.

Becky¿s test results from both companies were very different.

Of 37 foods identified, only two appeared on both lists. The two tests sent to Bionetics also gave very different results, with only one of 31 foods appearing on both lists. Dee was told to avoid cows¿ milk by all tests, even though she has no lactose or cows¿ milk protein intolerance and has never shown any symptoms.

Experts¿ verdict
¿Despite exhaustive research, using hair analysis to diagnose food allergies has never been proven,¿ Dr Morris said. Integral Health claims that no two people are the same and that their test results are 98% accurate. ¿But Becky and Dee both received standardised reports advising them to avoid similar foods,¿ said Andrew Williams.
This is what is said about the founder of integral health

Dr Sam¿s background lies in conventional medicine, having started his career as a reconstructive dental surgeon.


Dr Sam He is one of the very few dental practitioners in the UK to be a member of the prestigious Royal College of Surgeons of England. He furthered his conventional training spending four years in anaesthetics, two years in hospital theatre dealing with road accident victims who had suffered head and neck injuries and seven years in Germany running a large practice.



And this is what biotecnics uses.

The technology used is manufactured in Germany under ISO regulations and carries CE Mark IIa approval for medical use.”

“Hi Ml,

You asked:

¿Do you beleive this was an alternative medicine test? ¿

I don¿t class it as ¿traditional¿ alternative medicine (although many current Western alternative medicine practices are rather remote from their traditional cultural meanings). I place it in the same category as kinaesthetic testing for allergies ¿ which you might call ¿new¿ alternative medicine. It remains ¿alternative¿ because it is not rationally based. It is being marketed through an alternative medicine venue, so its proponents also place it in this category.

¿Are all test that are shown not to work fall into this category?¿

No. Rationally designed tests can fail. How does this relate to Simon Perry¿s example? Well, to answer this effectively, scientists would use Bayesian approaches. Even the Wiki explanation of this is a bit complicated, but basically you would consider the Prior Probability of an event along with the actual outcome. Let me give you an example. A company is offering to sell magic flying carpets. The Prior Probability that they work is very low. But to be entirely fair, Simon and a friend buy two carpets, priced at £35 each. Neither of them fly. It would be fair to conclude that carpets don¿t fly from this test. Of course, they might have bought airline tickets for £35 each, and those planes didn¿t fly for some reason, but you could not conclude that planes can¿t fly from this test, even though the results look symmetrical.

¿and must every test be accepted by the scientific community to be valid?¿

Well, any sensible test would be accepted by the community of the rational. As you may be gathering, there is a huge body of sophisticated thought and work relating to testing, and the way to get to be famous is to add to it! If a test is not accepted by the scientific community, you would have to think, research and work at a very high level to show convincingly that they are wrong to reject it. Merely asserting that a failed test must be ¿unfair¿ or that an irrational test is worth considering doesn¿t hack it.

But let¿s go back to the relevant question. Do you think the hair testing approach works? What evidence can you bring forward that it does? I¿m always willing to learn!”

“@ml, Leics

It is alt-med because there was no evidence to imply that the test was effective in the first place.

If a type of test is believed to be effective due to good evidence then it is classed as "conventional medicine". If later more evidence is discovered to overturn the opinion of the scientific community, they will typically drop the test. I'm not saying that science will get everything right 100% of the time. But they will seek to test their claims and adjust their views based upon the best possible evidence. That is presumably why the test you quoted was dropped (note: I have not researched this test and have gone on what you've told me).

This is in contrast to the way alt-med is performed. In alt-med, practitioners are happy to launch a new service without any evidence for efficacy whatsoever. If any evidence that emerges to show it does not work, it will generally be ignored.

This is the case with this particular allergy test. There is no evidence to suggest it worked in the first place, so it cannot be classed as a conventional medical test. It is an alt-med test.”

“Thanks Allo. That is my point all tests can be wrong mistakes can be made, but you haven't mentioned what you think about this comment.
"@ml, Leics: This is an alternative medicine test because it has not been shown to work, nor accepted by the scientific community"
Do you beleive this was an alternative medicine test? Are all test that are shown not to work fall into this category and must every test be accepted by the scientific community to be valid?”

“@ml
Medical diagnostic tests have properties called 'Sensitivity' and 'Specificity'. Put simply, Sensitivity measures the proportion of those with an illness who are correctly identified by the test, and Specificity measures the proportion of those without the illness who are correctly identified by the test as not having the illness. There are no tests which are 100% sensitive and specific, so false negatives and false positives both arise. Before a test is introduced, the risks of false negatives and the costs of false positives have to be carefully considered.
In addition, any test which relies on someone making a judgement (scoring the condition of cells on a slide, for instance) will have an error rate (called the inter-rater reliability). Despite these difficulties, medical tests have overall benefits in the long run. Considerable research work is done on increasing sensitivity and specificity of tests, and on improving scoring methods, because errors can have serious consequences.
The test Simon describes appears theoretically likely to have zero sensitivity and zero specificity, since there is no rational method by which it can work. His little experiment is in accordance with this. It is therefore reasonable to draw attention to this in an article. In its defence, the company can always bring forward published evidence on sensitivity and specificity if they have it.

¿ " Put simply, Sensitivity measures the proportion of those with an illness who are correctly identified by the test, and Specificity measures the proportion of those without the illness who are correctly identified by the test as not having the illness."
Ok heres an example were illness is not be measured but still the science recognised test was wrong.
A DNA testing firm used by the Child Support Agency has admitted incorrectly telling a man that he was not the father of his daughter.

"Cellmark Diagnostics, one of seven Government-approved laboratories performing up to 10,000 paternity tests each a year, says staff "misinterpreted" the results in the case. A laboratory error occurred despite the company's claim that its tests were "99.99 per cent" accurate."

So again mistakes can be made with ALL tests. This is my point. DNA testing is not wrong or a con the test was wrong. Alt medicine is not wrong or a con the test was.
ml, Leics
commented on 13-Nov-2009 11:29
¿ Allo, you have explained how a test is judged very well thank you. My point is Mr Perry basically showed a flawed test, nothing else. He answered my question with this "@ml, Leics: This is an alternative medicine test because it has not been shown to work, nor accepted by the scientific community"
please can you explain in the same way how a flawed TEST is Alternative medicine and a scientific test that doesn't work is just OK.
And "The test Simon describes appears theoretically likely to have zero sensitivity and zero specificity" Appears and theoretically in a sentence from a skeptik!!!! You are making assumptions about what the test involves but you have NO evidence to back your theories up.
ml, Leics.
Hi Ml, I¿m glad you liked my explanation of sensitivity and specificity. I¿m just sorry ¿liking¿ doesn¿t seem to be the same as ¿understanding¿.

¿please can you explain in the same way how a flawed TEST is Alternative medicine and a scientific test that doesn't work is just OK¿.

I cannot understand your question. Isn¿t this article about this particular test, rather than alternative medicine per se?

¿And "The test Simon describes appears theoretically likely to have zero sensitivity and zero specificity" Appears and theoretically in a sentence from a skeptik!!!! You are making assumptions about what the test involves but you have NO evidence to back your theories up¿.

Use of unnecessary capitals is always a little worrying. However, my assumptions about what the test involves come from the description provided by the te”

“" Put simply, Sensitivity measures the proportion of those with an illness who are correctly identified by the test, and Specificity measures the proportion of those without the illness who are correctly identified by the test as not having the illness."


Ok heres an example were illness is not be measured but still the science recognised test was wrong.
A DNA testing firm used by the Child Support Agency has admitted incorrectly telling a man that he was not the father of his daughter.

"Cellmark Diagnostics, one of seven Government-approved laboratories performing up to 10,000 paternity tests each a year, says staff "misinterpreted" the results in the case. A laboratory error occurred despite the company's claim that its tests were "99.99 per cent" accurate."

So again mistakes can be made with ALL tests. This is my point. DNA testing is not wrong or a con the test was wrong. Alt medicine is not wrong or a con the test was.”