Talk:Hair analysis

If the point is that hair analysis is only a pseudoscience when used for diagnostic purposes, which is how I read it, that should probably be clarified a bit. I understand that hair analysis can be a pretty useful technique in archaeology and similar fields. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:55, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I never even heard of that. If you can find more information about hair analysis in archaeological uses, feel free to add to it. My only point in the article is, as you said, that hair analysis is invalid as a diagnostic. Thunderkatz 10:17, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Isn't hair analysis also used to detect long-term drug use? Is that also quackery? --jtl^talk 13:01, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I believe it is. THC would degrade with exposure to shampoo and UV so testing for pot use would be invalid.--TimS 14:17, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

It is used, but the standard is urine and blood screening for some of the above reasons. --PalMD^-Goatspeed! 14:19, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Added by a Novadetox Sales Rep.

"novadetoxprovides a doctors report that is considered to have recolonised therapeutic value."

Poorly spelled, and poorly placed, but I guess we can investigate -either way, we are not going to make an endorsement, and not providing space for one. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's the same bullshit claim debunked throughout the rest of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[1] seems to be the report they generate. Major bullshit. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as much. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hair preparations

To what extent would 'fancy shampoos, hair dyes and other such products' influence or taint the readings from hair analysis?

And what about horse hair? Anna Livia (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)