Re: innocent victims

[Guest guest]

This is

excellent advice.

innocent victims

As Lorie wrote earlier, I

know this is a sensitive subject, but I

want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind.

Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the

regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of

this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may

be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take

total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and

figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they

are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that

trust. That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry much

weight.

Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has

been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from

incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published research at all on

incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research

does not qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan

has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that

dance around the facts.

In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards

to do when their function is 'to protect the public'.

In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I

was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters

and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did

increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they did NOT know everything about

this test and attempted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they

say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated

he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time

was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase

in cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears

they are confused as to what to do with this test (showing lack of

proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a

statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false

positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am

sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up

to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not

account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a

board be expected to adequately interpret results when the

information is not available. I think it is very important to

document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding

from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to

where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of

this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test

without proper research and still maintain their justifications.

Just my thoughts on what to focus on. nancy

[Guest guest]

i,too,agree nancy that the boards were marketed deceptively by the lab companies... they jumped at the too easy incorrect absolute diagnostic solution to a very complex clinical diagnosis,that of of relapse,thereby harming the innocent...regards,r DiBona <danieldibona@...> wrote: This is

excellent advice. -----Original Message-----From: Ethylglucuronide [mailto:Ethylglucuronide ] On Behalf Of nautiques5Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:54 AMEthylglucuronide Subject: innocent victims As Lorie wrote earlier, I know this is a sensitive subject, but I want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind. Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that trust. That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry much weight.Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published

research at all on incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research does not qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that dance around the facts.In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards to do when their function is 'to protect the public'. In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they did NOT know everything about this test and attempted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase in

cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears they are confused as to what to do with this test (showing lack of proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a board be expected to adequately interpret results when the information is not available. I think it is very important to document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test without

proper research and still maintain their justifications. Just my thoughts on what to focus on. nancy

[Guest guest]

I agree; most board members and Prosecuting Attorneys employed by the State are only regurgitating what they have been fed by the Lab Co.'s DiBona <danieldibona@...> wrote: This is excellent advice. innocent victims As Lorie wrote earlier, I know

this is a sensitive subject, but I want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind. Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that trust. That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry much weight. Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published research at all on incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research does not

qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that dance around the facts. In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards to do when their function is 'to protect the public'. In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they did NOT know everything about this test and attempted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase in cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears they are confused as to what

to do with this test (showing lack of proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a board be expected to adequately interpret results when the information is not available. I think it is very important to document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test without proper research and still maintain their justifications. Just my thoughts on what to

focus on. nancy

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[Guest guest]

you are too kind!! if you are going to use a test or some other indicator to ruin people's lives you better know what you are getting into. That would be no excuse in any other business atmosphere. Don't give them a way out they are just as responsible. I do not believe everything I hear nor do I believe everything that I am told!!!

innocent victims

As Lorie wrote earlier, I know this is a sensitive subject, but I

want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind.

Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the

regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of

this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may

be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take

total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and

figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they

are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that

trust. That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry much

weight.

Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has

been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from

incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published research at all on

incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research

does not qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan

has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that

dance around the facts.

In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards

to do when their function is 'to protect the public'.

In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I

was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters

and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did

increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they did NOT know everything about

this test and attempted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they

say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated

he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time

was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase

in cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears

they are confused as to what to do with this test (showing lack of

proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a

statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false

positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am

sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up

to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not

account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a

board be expected to adequately interpret results when the

information is not available. I think it is very important to

document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding

from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to

where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of

this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test

without proper research and still maintain their justifications.

Just my thoughts on what to focus on. nancy

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

[Guest guest]

I feel compelled to

comment..., your ability to stay focused and refrain from placing

blame, after all you've been through BLOWS ME AWAY. You are truly a

model of integrity and recovery. If the only thing that comes of this

whole mess is that I got to spend time with you, Marsha and Lorie, then

it is worth it.

*****RECOVERING ADDICTS ROCK****~~~~~Keep the faith~~~~~~~Eva

>>

you are too kind!! if you are going to use a test or some other

indicator to ruin people's lives you better know what you are getting

into. That would be no excuse in any other business atmosphere. Don't

give them a way out they are just as responsible. I do not believe

everything I hear nor do I believe everything that I am told!!! > > > innocent victims> > > As Lorie wrote earlier, I know this is a sensitive subject, but I > want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind. > Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the > regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of > this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may > be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take > total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and > figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they > are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that > trust. That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry much > weight.> Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has > been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from > incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published research at all on > incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research > does not qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan > has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that > dance around the facts.> In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards > to do when their function is 'to protect the public'. > In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I > was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters > and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did > increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they did NOT know everything about > this test and attempted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they > say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated > he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time > was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase > in cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears > they are confused as to what to do with this test (showing lack of > proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a > statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false > positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am > sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up > to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not > account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a > board be expected to adequately interpret results when the > information is not available. I think it is very important to > document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding > from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to > where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of > this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test > without proper research and still maintain their justifications. > Just my thoughts on what to focus on. nancy> > > > ________________________________________________________________________>

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and

security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from

across the web, free AOL Mail and more.>

[Guest guest]

I

second that, . You and Lorie maintaining focus on the testing and not the

entity trying to do their job of protecting the public has become mission

critical to credibility. It is the only reason I began posting here. Thank

you, both of you, for creating a venue that could easily grow into a force

fertile for the return of sanity.

innocent victims

>

>

> As Lorie wrote earlier, I know this is a sensitive subject, but I

> want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind.

> Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the

> regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of

> this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may

> be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take

> total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and

> figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they

> are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that

> trust! . That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry much

> weight.

> Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has

> been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from

> incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published research at all on

> incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research

> does not qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan

> has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that

> dance around the facts.

> In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards

> to do when their function is 'to protect the public'.

> In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I

> was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters

> and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did

> increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they ! did NOT know everything about

> this test and attem pted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they

> say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated

> he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time

> was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase

> in cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears

> they are confused as to what to do with this test (showing lack of

> proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a

> statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false

> positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am

> sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up

> to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not

> account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a

> board be expected to adequately interpret results when the

> information is not available. I ! think it is very important to

> document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding

> from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to

> where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of

> this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test

> without proper research and still maintain their justifications.

> Just my thoughts on what to focus on. nancy

>

>

>

> ________________________________________________________________________

> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security

tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free

AOL Mail and more.

>

[Guest guest]

WHY do you think that the entity that is trying to protect the public has no resonsibility in this?? Am I missing something?? My anger does not interfere with my judgement. You do not conduct business on the sellers claim, yea the labs are at fault for thier lack of disclosing information, however the boards need to be sure in thier information and throughly investigate prior to taking such harsh actions.

innocent victims

>

>

> As Lorie wrote earlier, I know this is a sensitive subject, but I

> want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind.

> Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the

> regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of

> this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may

> be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take

> total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and

> figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they

> are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that

> trust! . That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry much

> weight.

> Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has

> been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from

> incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published research at all on

> incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research

> does not qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan

> has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that

> dance around the facts.

> In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards

> to do when their function is 'to protect the public'.

> In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I

> was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters

> and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did

> increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they ! did NOT know everything about

> this test and attem pted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they

> say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated

> he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time

> was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase

> in cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears

> they are confused as to what to do with this test (showing lack of

> proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a

> statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false

> positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am

> sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up

> to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not

> account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a

> board be expected to adequately interpret results when the

> information is not available. I ! think it is very important to

> document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding

> from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to

> where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of

> this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test

> without proper research and still maintain their justifications.

> Just my thoughts on what to focus on. nancy

>

>

>

> ________________________________________________________________________

> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

>

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

[Guest guest]

I

believe any momemtum requires precise focus and efforts on fronts most likely

to yield benefit manifest as a generalized voluntary refined use of urine EtG

testing results pending a good, prospective, double blinded (reviewer/investigator)

study producing real predictive values and reviewer variability measurement.

I don’t disagree with you one

bit. It’s a tactical matter. The Boards are specifically

charged with protecting the public and enjoy immense immunity. It’s

public opinion that determines the degree of their action manifest by whom the

Governor of the State appoints to the Board and who they select to lead the

Board. In most states the Boards enjoy “absolute sovereignty”,

so it ends up being fruitless. You’d have to sue the State, not the

Board, and demonstrate that the State was negligent with malice. Negligence

alone won’t help one bit, as they did their best. If some

casualties from friendly fire occurred, it is only because the public tolerated

or wanted that degree of “protection”. It’s not about

science with the Boards. It’s about the desire of the public.

Everyone assumes that chemical dependency results in a person being a threat to

the public. Are you aware there is not a shred of evidence that chemical

dependency or alcoholism is linked to substandard clinical care? That

doesn’t change a single thing. Only public opinion by who they vote

into office changes State Board personalities.

It’s against many State Board rules

to speak or write disparagingly about them (I’m not saying I agree or

disagee), so be careful.

innocent victims

>

>

> As Lorie wrote earlier, I know this is a sensitive subject, but I

> want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind.

> Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the

> regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of

> this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may

> be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take

> total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and

> figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they

> are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that

> trust! . That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry much

> weight.

> Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has

> been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from

> incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published research at all on

> incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research

> does not qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan

> has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that

> dance around the facts.

> In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards

> to do when their function is 'to protect the public'.

> In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I

> was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters

> and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did

> increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they ! did NOT know everything about

> this test and attem pted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they

> say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated

> he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time

> was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase

> in cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears

> they are confused as to what to do with this test (showing lack of

> proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a

> statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false

> positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am

> sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up

> to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not

> account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a

> board be expected to adequately interpret results when the

> information is not available. I ! think it is very important to

> document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding

> from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to

> where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of

> this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test

> without proper research and still maintain their justifications.

> Just my thoughts on what to focus on. nancy

>

>

>

> ________________________________________________________________________

> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security

tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free

AOL Mail and more.

>

Check out the new AOL.

Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to

millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

[Guest guest]

if I came off as preachy or anything, I'm really sorry-I

certainly didn't mean it that way. I was simply overwhelmed that

someone who had lost so much could be so magnanimous...I certainly do

hold the boards responsible for their part ( such as refusing to look

at any data we provide). I do think, though, that the labs own a

bigger part. And yes, I get PISSED AS HELL...thus my admiration for

's attitude.

You are not alone in your feelings,Chris!The Boards are not

COMPLETELY innocent victims,we all know it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Keep the Faith~~~~~~~~~ Eva

> >

> > you are too kind!! if you are going to use a test or some

other indicator to ruin people's lives you better know what you are

getting into. That would be no excuse in any other business

atmosphere. Don't give them a way out they are just as responsible. I

do not believe everything I hear nor do I believe everything that I am

told!!!

> >

> >

> > innocent victims

> >

> >

> > As Lorie wrote earlier, I know this is a sensitive subject, but I

> > want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind.

> > Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the

> > regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of

> > this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may

> > be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take

> > total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and

> > figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they

> > are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that

> > trust! . That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry

much

> > weight.

> > Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has

> > been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from

> > incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published research at all on

> > incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research

> > does not qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan

> > has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that

> > dance around the facts.

> > In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards

> > to do when their function is 'to protect the public'.

> > In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I

> > was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters

> > and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did

> > increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they ! did NOT know everything

about

> > this test and attem pted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they

> > say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated

> > he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time

> > was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase

> > in cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears

> > they are confused as to what to do with this test (showing lack of

> > proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a

> > statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false

> > positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am

> > sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up

> > to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not

> > account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a

> > board be expected to adequately interpret results when the

> > information is not available. I ! think it is very important to

> > document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding

> > from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to

> > where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of

> > this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test

> > without proper research and still maintain their justifications.

> > Just my thoughts on what to focus on. nancy

> >

> >

> >

> >

________________________________________________________________________

> > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and

security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from

across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

> >

>

> ________________________________________________________________________

> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and

security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from

across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

>

[Guest guest]

I do not hold the boards SOLEY at fault This is a very complicated issue. I do hold them responsible for not looking at evidence presented to them from other sources. I do also hold the labs as responsible, they are the ones profiting from all of this. As to the fact that "I lost so much" I'm not so sure that I lost so much..I lost (have given up) a license to practice nursuing..I did not lose my knowledge I did not lose my integrity..I did not lose myself...what I did lose is the fear of daily living..the fear of not being able to breathe beacause I was afraid to use my inhaler..the fear of getting gas..trying to hold my breath in gas stations..the fear of walking through revolving doors as the housekeeping dept was cleaning them.. the list goes on and on...so in reality what did I lose??

I know what I have gained..and that is my sanity..I do not live in fear of a test that kept me in chains of paranoia..So soon I may suffer some other consequences of my decision but for now......

innocent victims

> >

> >

> > As Lorie wrote earlier, I know this is a sensitive subject, but I

> > want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind.

> > Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the

> > regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of

> > this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may

> > be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take

> > total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and

> > figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they

> > are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that

> > trust! . That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry

much

> > weight.

> > Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has

> > been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from

> > incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published research at all on

> > incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research

> > does not qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan

> > has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that

> > dance around the facts.

> > In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards

> > to do when their function is 'to protect the public'.

> > In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I

> > was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters

> > and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did

> > increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they ! did NOT know everything

about

> > this test and attem pted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they

> > say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated

> > he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time

> > was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase

> > in cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears

> > they are confused as to what to do with this test (showing lack of

> > proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a

> > statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false

> > positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am

> > sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up

> > to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not

> > account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a

> > board be expected to adequately interpret results when the

> > information is not available. I ! think it is very important to

> > document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding

> > from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to

> > where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of

> > this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test

> > without proper research and still maintain their justifications.

> > Just my thoughts on what to focus on. nancy

> >

> >

> >

> >

__________________________________________________________

> > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and

security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from

across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

> >

>

> __________________________________________________________

> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and

security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from

across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

>

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

[Guest guest]

oops realized that you were talking about losing so much, but I'm in the same boat!

innocent victims

> >

> >

> > As Lorie wrote earlier, I know this is a sensitive subject, but I

> > want everyone to look at these ideas with an open mind.

> > Early in Dr. Skipper's discussion group the focus was on the

> > regulating boards as the 'bad guy' with the mis-interpretation of

> > this test. More and more, I have come to believe that the boards may

> > be as much innocent victims of this test as we are. Not to take

> > total responsibility off of them....if we could research this and

> > figure this out, they also had that responsibility. However, they

> > are being spoon fed the information from the labs and go with that

> > trust! . That is why letters sent by accused addicts do not carry

much

> > weight.

> > Tesimony at my hearing from the lab 'experts' stated that there has

> > been no published research to show a level of 780 could be from

> > incidental use. Fact is....there is NO published research at all on

> > incidental use...to prove or disprove....the LACK of that research

> > does not qualify for research which PROVES it cannot. I think as Dan

> > has so wonderfully pointed out...the labs substitute wording that

> > dance around the facts.

> > In a situation where a statement is made like that, what are boards

> > to do when their function is 'to protect the public'.

> > In looking at PA state board....their cut-off was originally 250...I

> > was then suspended on a level of 370. I sent all kinds of letters

> > and advisories, research, etc about this test and after that they did

> > increase the cut-off to 500 (seems they ! did NOT know everything

about

> > this test and attem pted to 'do the right thing'). Even though they

> > say 'they don't care where it came from', the hearing examiner stated

> > he did not believe I drank and no further suspension or extra time

> > was warranted. He states about the possible need for another increase

> > in cut-off and controvery surrounding this test. Again, it appears

> > they are confused as to what to do with this test (showing lack of

> > proper information from the labs). Knipe from PA made a

> > statement to Helliker that 'he was not aware of any false

> > positives'...again, no information being provided by the labs. I am

> > sure the labs feel it takes the pressure off of them to say 'it is up

> > to the clients how to interpret results', however, this does not

> > account for their negligence in their 'duty to warn'. How can a

> > board be expected to adequately interpret results when the

> > information is not available. I ! think it is very important to

> > document, and get in writing, if possible, the lack of understanding

> > from the boards about this test. I think the focus needs to go to

> > where the responsibility lies....the negligent mis-representation of

> > this test! It was the labs that jumped into marketing this test

> > without proper research and still maintain their justifications.

> > Just my thoughts on what to focus on. nancy

> >

> >

> >

> >

__________________________________________________________

> > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and

security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from

across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

> >

>

> __________________________________________________________

> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and

security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from

across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

>

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.