another article regarding the merger, page-25

Hi TTH,

I rarely reply to posts but thought i could help with one of your questions. The one in regards to others trying to reproduce the test. others who tried to reproduce this test had done so very early on in the piece, even at the time the original founder had released her findings, they were trying, but couldn't do it for a range of reasons, for example the type of x-ray used and the other incompatible equipment used. Hence no one could do it, except the original founder and fermiscan who brought the right to this technology. Since this time however fermiscan has had issues with the test, noting that hair, that had been treated, or damaged in some way, would not work in their test, hence failing to produce a recognisable image for examination. Further to this originally fermiscan had plans to use pubic hair as well as scalp hair in the test, but as asked by myself to the company "i am assuming that the use of pubic hairs is no longer an option when using x-ray diffraction (The fermiscan test).", with the reply "Not yet officially confirmed but likely." hence leaving only scalp hair for the test. (pubic hairs ruled out because of the rubbing on a persons underpants and destroying the outer layer of hair) Moving back to damaged hair from the scalp fermiscan has over time reduced the amount of good hair needed to produce the test 15mm down to 5mm of new growth, hence allowing less growing time, between the damaged point of the hair, to the useable area. Further to this fermiscan has made it possible to secure the sample (hair) in the apparatus effectively, when concentrating extremely close to the cut end of the hair and also obtain a usable image. So things have developed somewhat. They also had another test to determine if the hair was damaged before the actual test, but I fail to remember details at moment.
Hope i haven't gone on and on to much, and hope it helps.
Kharma