9 Questionable Diagnostic Methods

Photo by Fugue

Look for a magic cure and you're bound to find someone willing to take your money. The same goes with magic diagnostic tests. 

The Internet has made it incredibly easy to promote and post validations of diagnostic methods that are highly questionable. The recent push for whole-body scans is an excellent example. While CT scans are an excellent way to diagnose specific problems, simply scanning for random potential problems means you're likely to find "something" wrong. Whether that something is actually a valid problem is another matter entirely.

The desperate, the alienated, the unsuspecting all make excellent targets for these fraudmeisters. Here are the top nine questionable diagnostic methods presently being pushed, according to the USDA Extension Service. 

1. Applied Kinesiology
The basic notion of Applied Kenesiology is that every organ dysfunction is accompanied by a specific muscle weakness. Practitioners claim to diagnose diseases by testing muscles but double-blind studies suggest nearly all AK tests are subjective, relying solely on the practitioner's assessment. AK has been characterized as pseudoscience and quackery and a review of peer-reviewed studies concluded the evidence to date doesn't support the use of AK.

2. Chelation Therapy
Chelation Therapy is a series of pills or intravenous infusions containing disodium EDTA and various other substances. Proponents claim it is effective against atherosclerosis, as well as many other serious health problems, and can replace coronary bypass surgery. However, there is no scientific evidence that this is so. CT also is used to treat lead poisoning, mercury poisoning and other alleged toxic states that practitioners diagnose with tests on blood, urine, and/or hair. Between 1963 and 1985, independent physicians published at least 15 separate reports documenting the case histories of more than 70 CT patients. They found no evidence of change in the atherosclerotic disease process, no decrease in the size of atherosclerotic plaques, and no evidence that narrowed arteries opened wider.

3. Cytotoxic Testing
In cytoxic testing, food extracts are mixed with a drop of the patient's blood to diagnose food allergies but researches have been unable to reproduce results of claimed results. Also called Bryan's test, the Metabolic Intolerance Test or sensitivity testing, cytoxic testing advocates blame food sensitivity for acne, anxiety, arthritis, asthma, back pain, baldness, bed wetting, conjunctivitis, constipation, depression, diarrhea, eczema, excessive sweating, fatigue, headaches, hearing loss, hoarseness, hypertension, hyperactivity, insomnia, learning disorders, nosebleeds, obesity, rashes, sinus trouble, stomach disorders and susceptibility to cancer.

4. Hair Analysis
Hair testing can be used to determine the status of a few minerals. However, hair minerals are influenced by pollution, age, race and hair products. Hair analysis is ineffective in determining vitamin deficiencies and the technique is often misused to sell unnecessary dietary supplements. According to the American Medical Association, "The state of health of the body may be entirely unrelated to the physical and chemical condition of the hair...(T)here are no data that indicate that low concentrations of an element signify low tissue levels nor that high concentrations reflect high tissue stores."

5. Herbal Crystallization Analysis (HCA)
In HCA, a drop of saliva and a drop of copper chloride are placed on a glass slide and left to dry. The spot is then visually analyzed to see if any crystals form "curative patterns." The resultant crystal patterns are then matched to those of about 800 dried herbs to determine which of "24 body systems" supposedly have problems and which herbs or homeopathic remedies should be used to treat them This method has never been proven.

6. Hydrazine Sulfate
It has been known since the early 1900s that hydrazine compounds are toxic to animals and humans. More than 400 hydrazine-related compounds have been tested for their ability to kill cancer cells but no proof exists hydrazine sulfate in any way diminishes or eliminates cancers. According to the National Cancer Institutes, In 1994, the Journal of Clinical Oncology published reports of three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of hydrazine sulfate sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Researchers concluded hydrazine sulfate caused an increase in lung, liver and breast cancers.

7. Live Cell Analysis
This diagnostic test is the latest in a seemingly endless succession of questionable tests used as the basis for prescribing food supplements. The procedure is carried out by examining a drop of the patient's blood with a dark-field microscope to which a television monitor has been attached. Both practitioner and patient can then see the blood cells, which appear as dark bodies outlined in white. The practitioner may also take Polaroid photographs of the television picture for himself and the patient. If unhealthy cells are present, the patient is given an enzyme tablet (which costs over $100) and magically all cells are now normal. This test is both unreliable and unproven.

8. Muscle Strength Testing
This method involves putting pressure on the patient's extended arm or leg. Any weakness indicates allergies or impaired function, and an appropriate nutritional supplement is prescribed to help the patient get better. According to a double-blind test by the Jakobsberg Hospital in Sweden, this method is ineffective.

9. Whole-body CT Scans
Using a technology that "takes a look" at people's insides and promises early warnings of disease and abnormalities, clinics and medical imaging facilities nationwide are touting this new service for health-conscious people. This typically involves scanning the body from the chin to below the hips with a form of X-ray imaging that produces cross-sectional images.Taking preventive action, finding unsuspected disease, uncovering problems while they are treatable all sound great, almost too good to be true! In fact, at this time the FDA knows of no scientific evidence demonstrating that whole-body scanning of individuals without symptoms provides more benefit than harm.