Damages, documentation and deep pockets

September 12, 2006

Maybe I'm all riled up by taking the time to sit and review the posts

here. Maybe I'm just becoming afraid. What's missing is a unified

approach to combat irresponsible administration of a sensitive and

specific test.

In this day and age, that comes down to money, influence and

reputation. These are the tactical targets to focus upon. As

individual people in recovery, we lack money, influence and

reputation. With shared values from a position of honesty and self-

respect I believe this group could easily become useful fodder to

influence changes in the use of EtG testing. It's a tough issue,

because most of the regulatory bodies for monitored professionals are

under state jurisdiction, not federal. In several states these

boards enjoy absolute sovreignty that frees them from following the

administrative and appelate court rulings. Also, to sue any

regulatory body, you would have to sue the State, and at the same

time demonstrate malice. That won't work.

Over time what will work is to attack the testing companies

themselves, and hold them accountable. It's probably not an original

thought, but I've used the rule of 3-D's to assess the value of a

liability case. That is, for any attorney to take interest in a case

these three D's must be present: Damages, documentation and deep-

pockets.

This site does a good job of documenting these things. And I do not

believe it unreasonable to consider having a group librarian. That

is someone who downloads and time stamps the postings in an unedited

forensic fashion. The amount of money at stake is enormous. I used

to think it paranoid, but no longer. It's not a complicated matter

to invalidate the integrity of the history of these postings.

Also, compromise is not a bad thing. I'm not against EtG testing per

se. I'm against irresponsible and predatory marketing of test

misuse. The unspoken truth behind this marketing is that a " casualty

rate " of x percent is acceptable in the interests of some

vague " greater good " .

So I think it good practice to not just struggle with articulating

the issues to outsiders in succint and meaningful words. I also think

it essential we take the high road spiritually and ethically, and

document it. After that, I think we should carefully create our own

registry independent of the physician who introduced this test to the

United States. He's an ethical man, it seems, but an independent

third party-not us, not them is the only proper methodology to

employ. Until that happens, we must make our own registry, our else

subject ourselves to the results of a single registry administered by

the gentleman who introduced this test. (And I wish to stress very

much here, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Dr. Skipper.

He seems straight up and with integrity. My suggestion has nothing

to do with distrusting him. In fact, I may end up paying him -

gladly-for his time to review my case.)

Once we have a registry that documents names, dates, values, damages,

agencies involved, marketing labs, etc.--This is a LOT of work, then

we have the most important thing done. Then, no matter how long it

takes, we will find out the truth.

I don't believe this is being grandiose here. I think it's simply a

logical conclusion of what you all have begun. I am simply the first

one proposing it.

September 12, 2006

--- God Luv Ya Dr. Dan,

Im sure you are as frustrated as the rest on this list. It's ok to

be afraid. Talk about fanatics. You will be dealing with the

biggest bunch of fanatics you will ever have the pleasure of

encountering. And you are so right.....FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

I think what you have proposed is a very good idea and I think

between you and Lorie, the two of you have plenty of smarts to pull

this off. Great idea.

On a side note, I know of a couple of organizations that could use

smart members such as yourself. Please check them out.

They don't condone drug use , but they also don't condone putting

people in prison or ruining their lives simply because they take

drugs. You would be a great member. You can still do the " in

recovery " thing, but I guarantee you, these groups believe in people

with addiction far more than those who pretend to help you.

(trickment centers)

http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm

http://www.leap.cc/

In Ethylglucuronide , " Dainiel DiBona "

<danieldibona@...> wrote:

>

> Maybe I'm all riled up by taking the time to sit and review the

posts

> here. Maybe I'm just becoming afraid. What's missing is a

unified

> approach to combat irresponsible administration of a sensitive and

> specific test.

>

> In this day and age, that comes down to money, influence and

> reputation. These are the tactical targets to focus upon. As

> individual people in recovery, we lack money, influence and

> reputation. With shared values from a position of honesty and

self-

> respect I believe this group could easily become useful fodder to

> influence changes in the use of EtG testing. It's a tough issue,

> because most of the regulatory bodies for monitored professionals

are

> under state jurisdiction, not federal. In several states these

> boards enjoy absolute sovreignty that frees them from following

the

> administrative and appelate court rulings. Also, to sue any

> regulatory body, you would have to sue the State, and at the same

> time demonstrate malice. That won't work.

>

> Over time what will work is to attack the testing companies

> themselves, and hold them accountable. It's probably not an

original

> thought, but I've used the rule of 3-D's to assess the value of a

> liability case. That is, for any attorney to take interest in a

case

> these three D's must be present: Damages, documentation and deep-

> pockets.

>

> This site does a good job of documenting these things. And I do

not

> believe it unreasonable to consider having a group librarian.

That

> is someone who downloads and time stamps the postings in an

unedited

> forensic fashion. The amount of money at stake is enormous. I

used

> to think it paranoid, but no longer. It's not a complicated

matter

> to invalidate the integrity of the history of these postings.

>

> Also, compromise is not a bad thing. I'm not against EtG testing

per

> se. I'm against irresponsible and predatory marketing of test

> misuse. The unspoken truth behind this marketing is that

a " casualty

> rate " of x percent is acceptable in the interests of some

> vague " greater good " .

>

> So I think it good practice to not just struggle with articulating

> the issues to outsiders in succint and meaningful words. I also

think

> it essential we take the high road spiritually and ethically, and

> document it. After that, I think we should carefully create our

own

> registry independent of the physician who introduced this test to

the

> United States. He's an ethical man, it seems, but an independent

> third party-not us, not them is the only proper methodology to

> employ. Until that happens, we must make our own registry, our

else

> subject ourselves to the results of a single registry administered

by

> the gentleman who introduced this test. (And I wish to stress

very

> much here, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Dr.

Skipper.

> He seems straight up and with integrity. My suggestion has

nothing

> to do with distrusting him. In fact, I may end up paying him -

> gladly-for his time to review my case.)

>

> Once we have a registry that documents names, dates, values,

damages,

> agencies involved, marketing labs, etc.--This is a LOT of work,

then

> we have the most important thing done. Then, no matter how long

it

> takes, we will find out the truth.

>

> I don't believe this is being grandiose here. I think it's simply

a

> logical conclusion of what you all have begun. I am simply the

first

> one proposing it.

>

September 13, 2006

Music to my ears, ! I love you! You have inspired me to grab my pom poms, jump onto my soapbox and launch a pep rally here to try to gain some enthusiasm and support! (Yikes! ...That's quite an ugly visual...)

I have contact info for about 50 people who have shared their story here, in Dr. Skipper's group, or privately. Most are part of this group. I contacted each person over a month ago and made a personal plea that you write to SAMHSA and give them an impact statement on how EtG has impacted your life (See attached letter).

So far, I have received 3 responses with a commitment to forward me a letter soon and four actual letters. There is power in numbers, people, and if SAMHSA thinks that , Tina, me, and the 4 letterwriters are the only ones impacted by this thing, I seriously doubt if they are going to do anything! I'm hoping that maybe some people sent their letters to SAMHSA w/o forwarding or me a copy. That's absolutely fine! Maybe some of you plan on doing it this weekend. We leave a week from today.

I'm not here to lecture anybody. I'm hoping to inspire you! My intention in asking for some support is not to make my own case more important or make me feel grandiose. This is certainly not all about "me". Am I the only one here who is absolutely sickened by the stories like those of our newer members? I feel the pain, the fear, the desparation, the helplessness, and the devastation of , and Judy as they share their stories. And I care about what happens to each of you, some of whom have been part of this for well over a year now. I hope that each of you will be inspired by these stories enough to write a brief letter to SAMHSA. If you feel comfortable doing so, I hope that you will forward a copy to or myself. It doesn't need to be a literary masterpiece--Just tell your story and make a plea for some help!

OK, I'm off the soapbox now. I fully expect my inbox to be FLOODED by next Monday!

----------------------------------

SAMHSA/CSAT will be discussing the adoption of an EtG advisory that they have written at their National Advisory Council meeting on September 20-21st in Rockford, MD. and I will be attending this meeting in person and plan on speaking towards adopting an advisory that is worded strongly to require some concrete clinical correlation of alcohol relapse prior to any action being taken solely on an EtG level. It is also important to point out the problems surrounding cutoffs and incidental alcohol exposure, including the lack of scientific research in these and other areas, in an attempt to elicit some restraint by both the monitoring boards and criminal justice programs utilizing the test as well as the overzealous labs marketing it.

Nobody has any idea how big this EtG problem really is. But we DO know that it's bigger than just and myself, and we think this would be an ideal opportunity to make SAMHSA aware of this, prior to the September hearing.

and I are asking anyone who has experienced a positive EtG test that was NOT the result of drinking alcohol to please send an impact statement to SAMHSA, with the emphasis on your positive EtG test(s) and the consequences. They need to know that the lives of recovering people are being dramatically effected as a result of this particular test. THEY have the power to change this!

Letters or emails can be addressed to:

H. Westley , M.D., J.D., M.P.H., CAS, FASAM

SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

Chair, National Advisory Council

1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 5-1015

Rockville, land 20857

Westley.@...

A. Graham

SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

Executive Secretary, National Advisory Council

1 Choke Cherry Road, Room5-1036

Rockville, land 20857

.Graham@...

In addition, and I would like to hand carry copies of these letters with us to make sure that the entire council is aware of them. If you could please forward a copy to either of us, it would be greatly appreciated.

We thank you in advance for taking the time to help elicit this much needed change. Please feel free to pass this letter along to anyone you know of who has had problems with the EtG test. There is power in numbers!

Sincerely,

Lorie Garlick

lorieg@...

nautiques5@...

>> Maybe I'm all riled up by taking the time to sit and review the posts > here. Maybe I'm just becoming afraid. What's missing is a unified > approach to combat irresponsible administration of a sensitive and > specific test.> > In this day and age, that comes down to money, influence and > reputation. These are the tactical targets to focus upon. As > individual people in recovery, we lack money, influence and > reputation. With shared values from a position of honesty and self-> respect I believe this group could easily become useful fodder to > influence changes in the use of EtG testing. It's a tough issue, > because most of the regulatory bodies for monitored professionals are > under state jurisdiction, not federal. In several states these > boards enjoy absolute sovreignty that frees them from following the > administrative and appelate court rulings. Also, to sue any > regulatory body, you would have to sue the State, and at the same > time demonstrate malice. That won't work.> > Over time what will work is to attack the testing companies > themselves, and hold them accountable. It's probably not an original > thought, but I've used the rule of 3-D's to assess the value of a > liability case. That is, for any attorney to take interest in a case > these three D's must be present: Damages, documentation and deep-> pockets.> > This site does a good job of documenting these things. And I do not > believe it unreasonable to consider having a group librarian. That > is someone who downloads and time stamps the postings in an unedited > forensic fashion. The amount of money at stake is enormous. I used > to think it paranoid, but no longer. It's not a complicated matter > to invalidate the integrity of the history of these postings.> > Also, compromise is not a bad thing. I'm not against EtG testing per > se. I'm against irresponsible and predatory marketing of test > misuse. The unspoken truth behind this marketing is that a "casualty > rate" of x percent is acceptable in the interests of some > vague "greater good".> > So I think it good practice to not just struggle with articulating > the issues to outsiders in succint and meaningful words. I also think > it essential we take the high road spiritually and ethically, and > document it. After that, I think we should carefully create our own > registry independent of the physician who introduced this test to the > United States. He's an ethical man, it seems, but an independent > third party-not us, not them is the only proper methodology to > employ. Until that happens, we must make our own registry, our else > subject ourselves to the results of a single registry administered by > the gentleman who introduced this test. (And I wish to stress very > much here, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Dr. Skipper. > He seems straight up and with integrity. My suggestion has nothing > to do with distrusting him. In fact, I may end up paying him -> gladly-for his time to review my case.)> > Once we have a registry that documents names, dates, values, damages, > agencies involved, marketing labs, etc.--This is a LOT of work, then > we have the most important thing done. Then, no matter how long it > takes, we will find out the truth.> > I don't believe this is being grandiose here. I think it's simply a > logical conclusion of what you all have begun. I am simply the first > one proposing it.>

September 13, 2006

I've been around this place long enough to know that if anyone wants

to get anywhere with this it is going to take an independent

registry. The fox can't watch the chickens. This group seems to be

the only venue to launch such a thing. I'm happy to assist in

writing registry questions that are in a valid format, and

confidential. Dr. Skipper, as much as I like him (and I stress

again, I think he is a fine man, with absolute integrity) has a

registry that doesn't take anything other than anecdotal

information. There is a charge for case by case analysis. A true

registry becomes a repository not just for demographic data, but

dates, times, test results (authenticated) as well as safe-keeping of

documented predatory marketing. The fact of our culture is this, if

you want something to change, then you have to monitor it. All of

it. And that is what a true registry would do, regardless of the

test result (positve or negative). I guarantee you that when the

billion dollar EtG market wakes up to the fact that they are being

tracked in a statistically meaningful way by a patient group of

people with a collective memory that their stance will change. The

people running these businesses aren't stupid. It's a matter of the

numbers. Simply pulling together a competent independent registry

for all EtG test results would gurantee their rapt attention. It's

powerful, and I would contribute my time towards it.

> >

> > Maybe I'm all riled up by taking the time to sit and review the

posts

> > here. Maybe I'm just becoming afraid. What's missing is a unified

> > approach to combat irresponsible administration of a sensitive and

> > specific test.

> >

> > In this day and age, that comes down to money, influence and

> > reputation. These are the tactical targets to focus upon. As

> > individual people in recovery, we lack money, influence and

> > reputation. With shared values from a position of honesty and

self-

> > respect I believe this group could easily become useful fodder to

> > influence changes in the use of EtG testing. It's a tough issue,

> > because most of the regulatory bodies for monitored professionals

are

> > under state jurisdiction, not federal. In several states these

> > boards enjoy absolute sovreignty that frees them from following

the

> > administrative and appelate court rulings. Also, to sue any

> > regulatory body, you would have to sue the State, and at the same

> > time demonstrate malice. That won't work.

> >

> > Over time what will work is to attack the testing companies

> > themselves, and hold them accountable. It's probably not an

original

> > thought, but I've used the rule of 3-D's to assess the value of a

> > liability case. That is, for any attorney to take interest in a

case

> > these three D's must be present: Damages, documentation and deep-

> > pockets.

> >

> > This site does a good job of documenting these things. And I do

not

> > believe it unreasonable to consider having a group librarian. That

> > is someone who downloads and time stamps the postings in an

unedited

> > forensic fashion. The amount of money at stake is enormous. I used

> > to think it paranoid, but no longer. It's not a complicated matter

> > to invalidate the integrity of the history of these postings.

> >

> > Also, compromise is not a bad thing. I'm not against EtG testing

per

> > se. I'm against irresponsible and predatory marketing of test

> > misuse. The unspoken truth behind this marketing is that

a " casualty

> > rate " of x percent is acceptable in the interests of some

> > vague " greater good " .

> >

> > So I think it good practice to not just struggle with articulating

> > the issues to outsiders in succint and meaningful words. I also

think

> > it essential we take the high road spiritually and ethically, and

> > document it. After that, I think we should carefully create our

own

> > registry independent of the physician who introduced this test to

the

> > United States. He's an ethical man, it seems, but an independent

> > third party-not us, not them is the only proper methodology to

> > employ. Until that happens, we must make our own registry, our

else

> > subject ourselves to the results of a single registry

administered by

> > the gentleman who introduced this test. (And I wish to stress very

> > much here, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Dr.

Skipper.

> > He seems straight up and with integrity. My suggestion has nothing

> > to do with distrusting him. In fact, I may end up paying him -

> > gladly-for his time to review my case.)

> >

> > Once we have a registry that documents names, dates, values,

damages,

> > agencies involved, marketing labs, etc.--This is a LOT of work,

then

> > we have the most important thing done. Then, no matter how long it

> > takes, we will find out the truth.

> >

> > I don't believe this is being grandiose here. I think it's simply

a

> > logical conclusion of what you all have begun. I am simply the

first

> > one proposing it.

> >

>

September 13, 2006

private message

September 13, 2006

hi again dan...this activity has already begun but cannot be discussed in this forum for obvous reasons...pm lorie or nancy for further info...regards,rDainiel DiBona <danieldibona@...> wrote: Maybe I'm all riled up by taking the time to sit and review the posts here. Maybe I'm just becoming afraid. What's missing is a unified approach to combat irresponsible administration of a sensitive and specific test.In this day and age, that comes down to money, influence and reputation.

These are the tactical targets to focus upon. As individual people in recovery, we lack money, influence and reputation. With shared values from a position of honesty and self-respect I believe this group could easily become useful fodder to influence changes in the use of EtG testing. It's a tough issue, because most of the regulatory bodies for monitored professionals are under state jurisdiction, not federal. In several states these boards enjoy absolute sovreignty that frees them from following the administrative and appelate court rulings. Also, to sue any regulatory body, you would have to sue the State, and at the same time demonstrate malice. That won't work.Over time what will work is to attack the testing companies themselves, and hold them accountable. It's probably not an original thought, but I've used the rule of 3-D's to assess the value of a liability case. That is, for any attorney to take

interest in a case these three D's must be present: Damages, documentation and deep-pockets.This site does a good job of documenting these things. And I do not believe it unreasonable to consider having a group librarian. That is someone who downloads and time stamps the postings in an unedited forensic fashion. The amount of money at stake is enormous. I used to think it paranoid, but no longer. It's not a complicated matter to invalidate the integrity of the history of these postings.Also, compromise is not a bad thing. I'm not against EtG testing per se. I'm against irresponsible and predatory marketing of test misuse. The unspoken truth behind this marketing is that a "casualty rate" of x percent is acceptable in the interests of some vague "greater good".So I think it good practice to not just struggle with articulating the issues to outsiders in succint and meaningful words. I also think it

essential we take the high road spiritually and ethically, and document it. After that, I think we should carefully create our own registry independent of the physician who introduced this test to the United States. He's an ethical man, it seems, but an independent third party-not us, not them is the only proper methodology to employ. Until that happens, we must make our own registry, our else subject ourselves to the results of a single registry administered by the gentleman who introduced this test. (And I wish to stress very much here, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Dr. Skipper. He seems straight up and with integrity. My suggestion has nothing to do with distrusting him. In fact, I may end up paying him -gladly-for his time to review my case.)Once we have a registry that documents names, dates, values, damages, agencies involved, marketing labs, etc.--This is a LOT of work, then we have the most

important thing done. Then, no matter how long it takes, we will find out the truth.I don't believe this is being grandiose here. I think it's simply a logical conclusion of what you all have begun. I am simply the first one proposing it.

September 13, 2006

What does PM mean? Can someone do that with me as well?

> Maybe I'm all riled up by taking the time to sit and

review the posts

> here. Maybe I'm just becoming afraid. What's missing is a unified

> approach to combat irresponsible administration of a sensitive and

> specific test.

>

> In this day and age, that comes down to money, influence and

> reputation. These are the tactical targets to focus upon. As

> individual people in recovery, we lack money, influence and

> reputation. With shared values from a position of honesty and self-

> respect I believe this group could easily become useful fodder to

> influence changes in the use of EtG testing. It's a tough issue,

> because most of the regulatory bodies for monitored professionals are

> under state jurisdiction, not federal. In several states these

> boards enjoy absolute sovreignty that frees them from following the

> administrative and appelate court rulings. Also, to sue any

> regulatory body, you would have to sue the State, and at the same

> time demonstrate malice. That won't work.

>

> Over time what will work is to attack the testing companies

> themselves, and hold them accountable. It's probably not an original

> thought, but I've used the rule of 3-D's to assess the value of a

> liability case. That is, for any attorney to take interest in a case

> these three D's must be present: Damages, documentation and deep-

> pockets.

>

> This site does a good job of documenting these things. And I do not

> believe it unreasonable to consider having a group librarian. That

> is someone who downloads and time stamps the postings in an unedited

> forensic fashion. The amount of money at stake is enormous. I used

> to think it paranoid, but no longer. It's not a complicated matter

> to invalidate the integrity of the history of these postings.

>

> Also, compromise is not a bad thing. I'm not against EtG testing per

> se. I'm against irresponsible and predatory marketing of test

> misuse. The unspoken truth behind this marketing is that a " casualty

> rate " of x percent is acceptable in the interests of some

> vague " greater good " .

>

> So I think it good practice to not just struggle with articulating

> the issues to outsiders in succint and meaningful words. I also think

> it essential we take the high road spiritually and ethically, and

> document it. After that, I think we should carefully create our own

> registry independent of the physician who introduced this test to the

> United States. He's an ethical man, it seems, but an independent

> third party-not us, not them is the only proper methodology to

> employ. Until that happens, we must make our own registry, our else

> subject ourselves to the results of a single registry administered by

> the gentleman who introduced this test. (And I wish to stress very

> much here, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Dr. Skipper.

> He seems straight up and with integrity. My suggestion has nothing

> to do with distrusting him. In fact, I may end up paying him -

> gladly-for his time to review my case.)

>

> Once we have a registry that documents names, dates, values, damages,

> agencies involved, marketing labs, etc.--This is a LOT of work, then

> we have the most important thing done. Then, no matter how long it

> takes, we will find out the truth.

>

> I don't believe this is being grandiose here. I think it's simply a

> logical conclusion of what you all have begun. I am simply the first

> one proposing it.

>

September 13, 2006

private email(pm-em), dan like lorie or nancy will be happy to share stuff a tad too dilacate for prime time...regards,r Dainiel DiBona <danieldibona@...> wrote: What does PM mean? Can someone do that with me as well?> Maybe I'm all riled up by taking the time to sit andreview the posts > here. Maybe I'm just becoming afraid. What's missing is a unified > approach to combat irresponsible administration of a sensitive and > specific test.> > In this day and age, that comes down to money, influence and > reputation. These are the tactical targets to focus upon. As > individual people in recovery, we lack money, influence and > reputation. With shared values from a position of honesty and self-> respect I believe this group could easily become useful fodder to > influence changes in the use of EtG testing. It's a tough issue, > because most of the regulatory bodies for monitored professionals are > under state jurisdiction, not federal. In

several states these > boards enjoy absolute sovreignty that frees them from following the > administrative and appelate court rulings. Also, to sue any > regulatory body, you would have to sue the State, and at the same > time demonstrate malice. That won't work.> > Over time what will work is to attack the testing companies > themselves, and hold them accountable. It's probably not an original > thought, but I've used the rule of 3-D's to assess the value of a > liability case. That is, for any attorney to take interest in a case > these three D's must be present: Damages, documentation and deep-> pockets.> > This site does a good job of documenting these things. And I do not > believe it unreasonable to consider having a group librarian. That > is someone who downloads and time stamps the postings in an unedited > forensic fashion. The amount of money at stake

is enormous. I used > to think it paranoid, but no longer. It's not a complicated matter > to invalidate the integrity of the history of these postings.> > Also, compromise is not a bad thing. I'm not against EtG testing per > se. I'm against irresponsible and predatory marketing of test > misuse. The unspoken truth behind this marketing is that a "casualty > rate" of x percent is acceptable in the interests of some > vague "greater good".> > So I think it good practice to not just struggle with articulating > the issues to outsiders in succint and meaningful words. I also think > it essential we take the high road spiritually and ethically, and > document it. After that, I think we should carefully create our own > registry independent of the physician who introduced this test to the > United States. He's an ethical man, it seems, but an independent > third

party-not us, not them is the only proper methodology to > employ. Until that happens, we must make our own registry, our else > subject ourselves to the results of a single registry administered by > the gentleman who introduced this test. (And I wish to stress very > much here, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Dr. Skipper. > He seems straight up and with integrity. My suggestion has nothing > to do with distrusting him. In fact, I may end up paying him -> gladly-for his time to review my case.)> > Once we have a registry that documents names, dates, values, damages, > agencies involved, marketing labs, etc.--This is a LOT of work, then > we have the most important thing done. Then, no matter how long it > takes, we will find out the truth.> > I don't believe this is being grandiose here. I think it's simply a > logical conclusion of what you all have begun.

I am simply the first > one proposing it.>

September 13, 2006

I'm interested, but simply can't figure out how to do it predictably.

So, I've opened my email up (I think) where others can send me a

message. I was up on call through the night, and it's time to wind

down and quit thinking for now. I appreciate your help.

Dan

> > Maybe I'm all riled up by taking the time to sit and

> review the posts

> > here. Maybe I'm just becoming afraid. What's missing is a unified

> > approach to combat irresponsible administration of a sensitive and

> > specific test.

> >

> > In this day and age, that comes down to money, influence and

> > reputation. These are the tactical targets to focus upon. As

> > individual people in recovery, we lack money, influence and

> > reputation. With shared values from a position of honesty and self-

> > respect I believe this group could easily become useful fodder to

> > influence changes in the use of EtG testing. It's a tough issue,

> > because most of the regulatory bodies for monitored professionals are

> > under state jurisdiction, not federal. In several states these

> > boards enjoy absolute sovreignty that frees them from following the

> > administrative and appelate court rulings. Also, to sue any

> > regulatory body, you would have to sue the State, and at the same

> > time demonstrate malice. That won't work.

> >

> > Over time what will work is to attack the testing companies

> > themselves, and hold them accountable. It's probably not an original

> > thought, but I've used the rule of 3-D's to assess the value of a

> > liability case. That is, for any attorney to take interest in a case

> > these three D's must be present: Damages, documentation and deep-

> > pockets.

> >

> > This site does a good job of documenting these things. And I do not

> > believe it unreasonable to consider having a group librarian. That

> > is someone who downloads and time stamps the postings in an unedited

> > forensic fashion. The amount of money at stake is enormous. I used

> > to think it paranoid, but no longer. It's not a complicated matter

> > to invalidate the integrity of the history of these postings.

> >

> > Also, compromise is not a bad thing. I'm not against EtG testing per

> > se. I'm against irresponsible and predatory marketing of test

> > misuse. The unspoken truth behind this marketing is that a " casualty

> > rate " of x percent is acceptable in the interests of some

> > vague " greater good " .

> >

> > So I think it good practice to not just struggle with articulating

> > the issues to outsiders in succint and meaningful words. I also think

> > it essential we take the high road spiritually and ethically, and

> > document it. After that, I think we should carefully create our own

> > registry independent of the physician who introduced this test to the

> > United States. He's an ethical man, it seems, but an independent

> > third party-not us, not them is the only proper methodology to

> > employ. Until that happens, we must make our own registry, our else

> > subject ourselves to the results of a single registry administered by

> > the gentleman who introduced this test. (And I wish to stress very

> > much here, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Dr. Skipper.

> > He seems straight up and with integrity. My suggestion has nothing

> > to do with distrusting him. In fact, I may end up paying him -

> > gladly-for his time to review my case.)

> >

> > Once we have a registry that documents names, dates, values, damages,

> > agencies involved, marketing labs, etc.--This is a LOT of work, then

> > we have the most important thing done. Then, no matter how long it

> > takes, we will find out the truth.

> >

> > I don't believe this is being grandiose here. I think it's simply a

> > logical conclusion of what you all have begun. I am simply the first

> > one proposing it.

> >

>

September 13, 2006

Good idea, and thanks for the offer to help. If you can present what you

come up with, that'd be a great start.

> > >

> > > Maybe I'm all riled up by taking the time to sit and review the

> posts

> > > here. Maybe I'm just becoming afraid. What's missing is a unified

> > > approach to combat irresponsible administration of a sensitive and

> > > specific test.

> > >

> > > In this day and age, that comes down to money, influence and

> > > reputation. These are the tactical targets to focus upon. As

> > > individual people in recovery, we lack money, influence and

> > > reputation. With shared values from a position of honesty and

> self-

> > > respect I believe this group could easily become useful fodder to

> > > influence changes in the use of EtG testing. It's a tough issue,

> > > because most of the regulatory bodies for monitored professionals

> are

> > > under state jurisdiction, not federal. In several states these

> > > boards enjoy absolute sovreignty that frees them from following

> the

> > > administrative and appelate court rulings. Also, to sue any

> > > regulatory body, you would have to sue the State, and at the same

> > > time demonstrate malice. That won't work.

> > >

> > > Over time what will work is to attack the testing companies

> > > themselves, and hold them accountable. It's probably not an

> original

> > > thought, but I've used the rule of 3-D's to assess the value of a

> > > liability case. That is, for any attorney to take interest in a

> case

> > > these three D's must be present: Damages, documentation and deep-

> > > pockets.

> > >

> > > This site does a good job of documenting these things. And I do

> not

> > > believe it unreasonable to consider having a group librarian. That

> > > is someone who downloads and time stamps the postings in an

> unedited

> > > forensic fashion. The amount of money at stake is enormous. I used

> > > to think it paranoid, but no longer. It's not a complicated matter

> > > to invalidate the integrity of the history of these postings.

> > >

> > > Also, compromise is not a bad thing. I'm not against EtG testing

> per

> > > se. I'm against irresponsible and predatory marketing of test

> > > misuse. The unspoken truth behind this marketing is that

> a " casualty

> > > rate " of x percent is acceptable in the interests of some

> > > vague " greater good " .

> > >

> > > So I think it good practice to not just struggle with articulating

> > > the issues to outsiders in succint and meaningful words. I also

> think

> > > it essential we take the high road spiritually and ethically, and

> > > document it. After that, I think we should carefully create our

> own

> > > registry independent of the physician who introduced this test to

> the

> > > United States. He's an ethical man, it seems, but an independent

> > > third party-not us, not them is the only proper methodology to

> > > employ. Until that happens, we must make our own registry, our

> else

> > > subject ourselves to the results of a single registry

> administered by

> > > the gentleman who introduced this test. (And I wish to stress very

> > > much here, I have nothing but the greatest respect for Dr.

> Skipper.

> > > He seems straight up and with integrity. My suggestion has nothing

> > > to do with distrusting him. In fact, I may end up paying him -

> > > gladly-for his time to review my case.)

> > >

> > > Once we have a registry that documents names, dates, values,

> damages,

> > > agencies involved, marketing labs, etc.--This is a LOT of work,

> then

> > > we have the most important thing done. Then, no matter how long it

> > > takes, we will find out the truth.

> > >

> > > I don't believe this is being grandiose here. I think it's simply

> a

> > > logical conclusion of what you all have begun. I am simply the

> first

> > > one proposing it.

> > >

> >

>

September 14, 2006

I am all for the registry and will help develop it in any way I can. My question is what are we tracking? Most of us don't know what caused the positives, we don't have the means to prove that inhalation is a valid absorption route, we don't have the means to prove that environmental exposure causes positives and we can not remember specifics of that particular day we were tested never mind the bodily functions that were involved ( I just realized both of my positives were during my menses). So what are we going to register??

Just looking for the details.

Re: Damages, documentation and deep pockets