From Psiram
Jump to: navigation, search


6,167 bytes added, 13:50, 26 October 2018
The procedure
It should be noted that in chelation therapy, the process of metal detoxification may involve the intravenous use of synthetic chemicals, called chelation agents. Chelation protocols state that a thorough laboratory evaluation, including that of renal function, must take place before chelation is started.
Can a chelation therapist base his evaluation on Oligoscan results? Even Oligoscan states that this should not be the case.
==Lack of plausibility and validation==
Plausibility checks are part of the analytical validation process.
The Oligoscan is said to simultaneously measure different elements in the cell interior. Since the elements are not in an unbound (elemental) form, but are incorporated into larger molecules, spectroscopic analysis requires that the metal compounds found in blood, urine or cells are broken down before measurements can take place.
For example, calcium is not present in the body in its elemental or inorganic form, but as a mineral compound such as calcium phosphate. To spectroscopically measure calcium in the body, the calcium compound (in this case calcium phosphate) must be broken down. If that process of sample digestion does not take place, the spectrophotometer cannot detect inorganic calcium. However, the Oligoscan reports inorganic calcium.
Another example would be the measurement of mercury. If mercury enters the body as methylmercury, that substance would have to be broken down, using acid digestion and heat, before inorganic mercury can be detected spectroscopically.
Oligoscan shows test results reflecting inorganic metals (including calcium or mercury), but no sample processing has taken place.
For colorimetric measurements, the sample must also be prepared. Oligoscan claims to measure metals without any sample preparation needing to take place. It is safe to say that at this time, Harry Potter may be able to achieve this in the cinema, but in today’s chemistry, no such thing is possible.
According to Oligoscan, the device is placed on the skin of the palm. If the light beam would pass through the skin, it would have to pass bones, tendons and flesh. Which cells would it measure, and how does the device decide which cells to select and deselect? How is the device able to focus/measure intracellular only?
On top of all this, there is the problem of calibration.
The Oligoscan is a color scanner and for this purpose, it is calibrated on a white point that is located on the device. Because it is a color scanner that is color-calibrated, it can define shades of skin color. No more.
If Oligoscan would measure metals at the cellular level as it claims, calibration would have to take place with tissue containing known amounts of analytes such as lead or calcium. Anything else would be comparing apples and oranges.
For instance, before a spectrometer can start testing urine samples, it must be calibrated with urine reference solutions containing known amounts of the elements to be tested. If blood metals need to be tested, the spectrometer needs to be calibrated on blood reference solutions containing specifically defined amounts of metals. If tissue needs to be tested, similar procedures take place.
To validate test results of a given specimen, measurements must be compared to the ‘known’ reference solutions.
Oligoscan calibrates on a white point. How does that relate to metal testing on a cellular level?
Furthermore, since each person has different skin properties (thickness, color, permeability, etc.), the device would have to be calibrated for each human and each element.
Since the Oligoscan measurement takes less than one minute, it would take Harry Potter magic to calibrate and perform the metal tests and print out the colorful report, all within that time frame.
Another argument against Oligoscan is that spectroscopic measurements of metals through the skin and inside the cell would be of very low concentrations. Such measurements require special sample preparation and special, highly sensitive equipment that can only be operated by highly trained personnel, all of which requires much more time than 20 seconds per test.
The basics and applications of spectrophotometry are described in more detail at Wikipedia [8]. The principle-related limitations - and thus the impossibility of the functioning of the Oligoscan - are described in the textbooks of Analytical Chemistry, in particular those on Instrumental Analysis.
In order to validate the suitability of Oligoscan for diagnostic purposes, studies would be needed that compare Oligoscan test results with those from conventional laboratory analysis obtained from blood, urine or tissue samples. It would also be necessary, for example, to examine to what extent measurements on the palm of the hand reflect the concentrations in the rest of the body. [9] Such studies do not exist, but when asked, Oligoscan promoters often state that studies are in process. Physioquanta confuses and misleads with a list of 35 publications entitled "Scientific References". [10] None of these publications concern itself with such research investigations or even about the Oligoscan process. Instead, listed articles reflect on the physiological importance of minerals, etc. The company Project Health Consulting GmbH, which distributes the device under the name Zell-Check, argues that the detection of mineral deficiencies on the basis of a blood sample is less accurate than the measurement with Zell Check, and that Zell-Check has the advantage that minerals are detected intracellularly and not only in the blood. [11] (Note. Red blood cell testing reflects on intracellular levels)
As of 2018, no serious report validating Oligoscan has been published. In discussion rounds of users, failed measurements that did not hold up in comparison are mentioned. Comparisons with laboratory results are said to have failed. There are also reports of patients with persistent chronic diseases, in which Oligoscan gave values "in the normal range".
It has not been proven that repeated measurements taken in one and the same patient hold up to comparison. In fact, the manufacturer does not seem to like such repetitive measurements. While the user has to pay a fee of 30 euros per test, the manufacturer also claims that repeat measurements lead to so-called "quantum physical changes", making a comparison impossible. With this argument, the method can practically not proven wrong and is therefore non-scientific.
Apparently, the user must believe results, and from the onset, a repeatability / replicability check is prevented.

Navigation menu