We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
you can't look at hair mineral analysis it doesn't reflect total body levels of minerals and it you know it's something that your body is excreting it's putting in the hair so don't be don't be misled by hair or stool levels of minerals these are excretion they're coming out of your body
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the uh copper hair mineral analysis is inaccurate it's just i mean why would your body like tightly regulate how much copper goes in your hair it's not it's not a physiologic you this is a dead you know i mean i guess the strands of hair circle alive but they're just protein that you're out of your body you're going to shed it right and so people say like oh if you're eating copper you're going to put more copper in your hair but then your copper overloaded this makes no sense