Re: Attempting to clear confusion!

[Guest guest]

Ets is NOT the tool to distinguish intentional from incidental....we have proven that by positive Etg/Ets with purell! Early on when they thought Purell and other things could NOT cause a positive Etg..the thought was that all who had positives on incidental were hyperproducers of Etg...I think the case is now, we KNOW that smaller amounts of alochol...esp. inhaled..will cause a positive of both Etg (>500)and Ets. I think the hyperproducer theory is washed up...I believe the fact is that MORE things then first thought WILL cause positives in many people....and again, we come to the cut-off being too low on an inadequately researched test. That is my take...if anyone wants to dispute that...I am open to discussion.Lorie Garlick <lorieg@...> wrote: (1) A person was a hyperproducer of EtG. In this case, "incidental" exposure to alcohol which produces a level below 100ng/ml in most people could produce an EtG level above the 100ng/ml cutoff in a hyperproducer. However, the EtS pathway would be unaffected, and therefore would be below the 25ng/ml cutoff for EtS, thus "clearing" the person. Would help the person tested (low level positive EtG but negative EtS suggests person is a hyperproducer of EtG) (2) A person has an E. Coli UTI. If there was EtG present in the urine specimen (from some source of ethanol they were exposed to), the EtG could be negative, but the EtS would be positive, confirming alcohol exposure. Would screw the person being tested (Negative EtG but positive EtS suggests bacterial contamination covered up positive EtG) **PING**Lorie, Marsha, Ok, now I'M confused with this ETS. I remember at the conferencethinking it was possibly helpful..now it sounds like its just anotherway to detect incidental OR purposeful ingestion, and wouldn't helpthe innocent people at

all.OK, I know t's not that big a stretch to picture me confused, butplease straighten me out on this!And by the way Lorie...that letter you attached, I could neverfind..was it attached? Am I confused again? have I been eating turkeysandwiches? Ahhh, immortality at last ~~~~~~~~~~Keep the Faith~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Eva

Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

Good explanation! Don't know about the hyperproducer theory....Like so many things, it needs to be studied scientifically. I still think that there are multiple factors involved (metabolism/hyperproducer, inhalation, normalization), and until there is a large-scale study looking into these issues at the LOD, we will have to be satisfied with continued hypothesizing. Unfortunately, in the eyes of our boards, this appears like a desparate attempt to concoct an explanation for the obvious.

It shouldn't be up to us to find the answers. Anybody remember the movie "Lorenzo's Oil"? I would humbly suggest that our quest is not unlike the one portrayed in the movie. [As laypeople, the parents of a child with a rare disease seek a treatment for their son by studying the disease themselves and working tirelessly to convince scientists, doctors, support groups, and other skeptics to study their findings and produce an orphan drug that would prove to save their son's life.] For many of us, we already know the answer....we just have to find out the 'why' part!

**PING**Lorie, Marsha,

Ok, now I'M confused with this ETS. I remember at the conferencethinking it was possibly helpful..now it sounds like its just anotherway to detect incidental OR purposeful ingestion, and wouldn't helpthe innocent people at all.OK, I know t's not that big a stretch to picture me confused, butplease straighten me out on this!And by the way Lorie...that letter you attached, I could neverfind..was it attached? Am I confused again? have I been eating turkeysandwiches? Ahhh, immortality at last ~~~~~~~~~~Keep the Faith~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Eva

Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

The claims of false-positive point to the hyperproducer theory. However, I don't believe this is the only factor in erroneous reads, the prevalence of the contaminent should be considered. Inhalation of Purell probably doesn't compare to spraying disinfectants, and a combination may not discriminate. While the hyperproducer theory, ethynyl estradiol especially, may explain why one is higher than another, simply put, there should not be a cut-off! Was it 121,000 that was dismissed?

If one were working in a room where the carpets were cleaned, or a freshly painted room the contaminent may be enough to exceed a cut-off even if one was not predisposed! Fact, it is either a bio-marker of consumption or it is not, and justice cannot be acheived if it is not, for there will always be victims, especially in the legal community (where integrity is masked with zeal)!

[Guest guest]



"don't you think the effort shoud now be focused on admitting our mistakes..."

I'm a little confused. What mistakes have we made?

"Isn't it our obligation to provide others with the knowledge that we have gained??"

You mean about the inhalation factor? Who should we provide the knowledge to?

**PING**Lorie, Marsha,

Ok, now I'M confused with this ETS. I remember at the conferencethinking it was possibly helpful..now it sounds like its just anotherway to detect incidental OR purposeful ingestion, and wouldn't helpthe innocent people at all.OK, I know t's not that big a stretch to picture me confused, butplease straighten me out on this!And by the way Lorie...that letter you attached, I could neverfind..was it attached? Am I confused again? have I been eating turkeysandwiches? Ahhh, immortality at last ~~~~~~~~~~Keep the Faith~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Eva

Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

Chris...are you refering to labs and those promoting the test? FYI...neither Kunz or Barbieri offered any testimony that this test needed more research or that under 1000 could be legitimately questioned...that testimony can from cross-examination from my lawyer. In fact, quite the opposite...they stuck to a level of 780 would definitly lead to intentional drinking if someone knew about incidental use (they have NO clue about new things being found, such as inhalants, etc...and the AMOUNT of alcohol in the environment)!! I feel they are sticking to their guns until PUBLISHED research can PROVE them wrong! We all KNOW how long that takes! Admit they were wrong means opening up to legal responsibility....I don't think they will OFFER that admission until absolutely forced to!!Lorie Garlick <lorieg@...> wrote:

"don't you think the effort shoud now be focused on admitting our mistakes..." I'm a little confused. What mistakes have we made? "Isn't it our obligation to provide others with the knowledge that we have gained??" You mean about the inhalation factor? Who should we provide the knowledge to? **PING**Lorie, Marsha, Ok, now I'M confused with this ETS. I remember at the conferencethinking it was possibly helpful..now it sounds like its just anotherway to detect incidental OR purposeful ingestion, and wouldn't helpthe innocent people at all.OK, I know t's not that big a stretch to picture me confused, butplease straighten me out on this!And by the way Lorie...that letter you attached, I could neverfind..was it attached? Am I confused again? have I been eating turkeysandwiches? Ahhh, immortality at last ~~~~~~~~~~Keep the Faith~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Eva Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Messenger

with Voice.

[Guest guest]

“I feel they are sticking to their guns until PUBLISHED research

can PROVE them wrong!”

What if research PROVES them RIGHT? You

make an assumption (assertion?) that the research will prove you correct.  To

date there is no publish research to support your side of the debate.  Anecdotal

evidence is baseless.  Case Studies are worthless.  

From:

Ethylglucuronide-EtG

[mailto:Ethylglucuronide-EtG ] On

Behalf Of N

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:29

AM

To:

Ethylglucuronide-EtG

Subject: Re:

Attempting to clear confusion!

Chris...are you refering to labs and those promoting the test? FYI...neither

Kunz or Barbieri offered any testimony that this test needed more research or

that under 1000 could be legitimately questioned...that testimony can from

cross-examination from my lawyer. In fact, quite the opposite...they stuck

to a level of 780 would definitly lead to intentional drinking if someone

knew about incidental use (they have NO clue about new things being found, such

as inhalants, etc...and the AMOUNT of alcohol in the environment)!! I

feel they are sticking to their guns until PUBLISHED research can PROVE

them wrong! We all KNOW how long that takes! Admit they were wrong means

opening up to legal responsibility....I don't think they will OFFER that

admission until absolutely forced to!!

Lorie Garlick

<lorieg@...> wrote:

" don't you think the effort shoud now be focused on admitting our mistakes... "

I'm a little confused. What mistakes have we made?

" Isn't it our obligation to provide others with the knowledge that we have

gained?? "

You mean about the inhalation factor? Who should we provide the

knowledge to?

**PING**Lorie, Marsha,

Ok, now I'M confused with this

ETS. I remember at the conference

thinking it was possibly helpful..now it sounds like its just another

way to detect incidental OR purposeful ingestion, and wouldn't help

the innocent people at all.

OK, I know t's not that big a stretch to picture me confused, but

please straighten me out on this!

And by the way Lorie...that letter you attached, I could never

find..was it attached? Am I confused again? have I been eating turkey

sandwiches? Ahhh, immortality at last

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

Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Messenger

with Voice.

SPONSORED

LINKS

Article health wellness

Center for health and wellness

Health and wellness

Health and wellness program

Health wellness product

Health and wellness job

!

GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group

" Ethylglucuronide-EtG " on the web.

To unsubscribe

from this group, send an email to:

Ethylglucuronide-EtG-unsubscribe

Your use of

is subject to the Terms of Service.

Sneak preview the all-new

.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.

[Guest guest]

That's a no-brainer for me because I know I didn't drink and I tested positive. I know I'm not scientifically unique! The research is there, just not yet published. And there are yet no large-scale studies on EtG that prove anything!

**PING**Lorie, Marsha,

Ok, now I'M confused with this ETS. I remember at the conferencethinking it was possibly helpful..now it sounds like its just anotherway to detect incidental OR purposeful ingestion, and wouldn't helpthe innocent people at all.OK, I know t's not that big a stretch to picture me confused, butplease straighten me out on this!And by the way Lorie...that letter you attached, I could neverfind..was it attached? Am I confused again? have I been eating turkeysandwiches? Ahhh, immortality at last ~~~~~~~~~~Keep the Faith~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Eva

Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

Seems as if there is really very little research, period."Moering, " <rmoering@...> wrote: “I feel they are

sticking to their guns until PUBLISHED research can PROVE them wrong!” What if research PROVES them RIGHT? You make an assumption (assertion?) that the research will prove you correct. To date there is no publish research to support your side of the debate. Anecdotal evidence is baseless. Case Studies are worthless. From: Ethylglucuronide-EtG [mailto:Ethylglucuronide-EtG ] On Behalf Of N Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:29 AMTo:

Ethylglucuronide-EtG Subject: Re: Attempting to clear confusion! Chris...are you refering to labs and those promoting the test? FYI...neither Kunz or Barbieri offered any testimony that this test needed more research or that under 1000 could be legitimately questioned...that testimony can from cross-examination from my lawyer. In fact, quite the opposite...they stuck to a level of 780 would definitly lead to intentional drinking if someone knew about incidental use (they have NO clue about new things being found, such as inhalants, etc...and the AMOUNT of alcohol in the environment)!! I feel they are sticking to their

guns until PUBLISHED research can PROVE them wrong! We all KNOW how long that takes! Admit they were wrong means opening up to legal responsibility....I don't think they will OFFER that admission until absolutely forced to!!Lorie Garlick <lorieg@...> wrote: "don't you think the effort shoud now be focused on admitting our mistakes..." I'm a little confused. What mistakes have we made? "Isn't it our obligation to provide others with the knowledge that we have gained??" You mean about the inhalation factor? Who should we provide the knowledge to? **PING**Lorie, Marsha, Ok, now I'M confused with this ETS. I remember at the conferencethinking it was possibly helpful..now it sounds like its just anotherway to detect incidental OR purposeful ingestion, and wouldn't helpthe innocent people at

all.OK, I know t's not that big a stretch to picture me confused, butplease straighten me out on this!And by the way Lorie...that letter you attached, I could neverfind..was it attached? Am I confused again? have I been eating turkeysandwiches? Ahhh, immortality at last ~~~~~~~~~~Keep the Faith~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Eva Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

I KNOW my truth!!! That is how I KNOW I am right..it is just a

matter of time till it is proved scientifically!! Fact is, there is

NO adequate research to disprove anything either....how about the

published studies where 2 positives happened in placebo groups. We

have had DEVASTATING consequences....and NOTHING has been proven

about this test. WHO will pay for those when the proof does come??

Sorry to say, it is people like you with closed minds that are the

reason for this happening...people being punished when NO adeqaute

research is there....those false positives in placebo groups are just

a real as any other reseach!!

>

> (1) A person was a hyperproducer of EtG. In this

case, " incidental " exposure to alcohol which produces a level below

100ng/ml in most people could produce an EtG level above the 100ng/ml

cutoff in a hyperproducer. However, the EtS pathway would be

unaffected, and therefore would be below the 25ng/ml cutoff for EtS,

thus " clearing " the person. Would help the person tested (low level

positive EtG but negative EtS suggests person is a hyperproducer of

EtG)

>

> (2) A person has an E. Coli UTI. If there was EtG present in

the urine specimen (from some source of ethanol they were exposed

to), the EtG could be negative, but the EtS would be positive,

confirming alcohol exposure. Would screw the person being tested

(Negative EtG but positive EtS suggests bacterial contamination

covered up positive EtG)

>

> **PING**Lorie,

Marsha,

>

>

>

> Ok, now I'M confused with this ETS. I remember at the

conference

> thinking it was possibly helpful..now it sounds like

its just another

> way to detect incidental OR purposeful ingestion, and

wouldn't help

> the innocent people at all.

> OK, I know t's not that big a stretch to picture me

confused, but

> please straighten me out on this!

> And by the way Lorie...that letter you attached, I

could never

> find..was it attached? Am I confused again? have I

been eating turkey

> sandwiches? Ahhh, immortality at last

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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

>

> Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min

<http://us.rd./mail_us/taglines/postman11/*http:/us.rd..

com/evt=39666/*http:/voice.> with Messenger with

Voice.

>

>

[Guest guest]

What an arguementive meaningless statement. We are here because this

test does need more R & D

>

> (1) A person was a hyperproducer of EtG. In this

case, " incidental " exposure to alcohol which produces a level below

100ng/ml in most people could produce an EtG level above the

100ng/ml cutoff in a hyperproducer. However, the EtS pathway would

be unaffected, and therefore would be below the 25ng/ml cutoff for

EtS, thus " clearing " the person. Would help the person tested (low

level positive EtG but negative EtS suggests person is a

hyperproducer of EtG)

>

> (2) A person has an E. Coli UTI. If there was EtG present in

the urine specimen (from some source of ethanol they were exposed

to), the EtG could be negative, but the EtS would be positive,

confirming alcohol exposure. Would screw the person being tested

(Negative EtG but positive EtS suggests bacterial contamination

covered up positive EtG)

>

> **PING**Lorie,

Marsha,

>

>

>

> Ok, now I'M confused with this ETS. I remember at

the conference

> thinking it was possibly helpful..now it sounds like

its just another

> way to detect incidental OR purposeful ingestion,

and wouldn't help

> the innocent people at all.

> OK, I know t's not that big a stretch to picture me

confused, but

> please straighten me out on this!

> And by the way Lorie...that letter you attached, I

could never

> find..was it attached? Am I confused again? have I

been eating turkey

> sandwiches? Ahhh, immortality at last

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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

>

> Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min

<http://us.rd./mail_us/taglines/postman11/*http:/us.rd.

..com/evt=39666/*http:/voice.> with Messenger with

Voice.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Do you think that the research to date is enough to say PROVE

POSITIVE that a person, say with a level of 251 ng consumed alcohol?

I believe the response to your posting was one that is defensive to

those of us that have had numerous positives with no consumption of

ETOH. Thank you for clarifying your position with your post

> >

> > (1) A person was a hyperproducer of EtG. In this

> case, " incidental " exposure to alcohol which produces a level

below

> 100ng/ml in most people could produce an EtG level above the

> 100ng/ml cutoff in a hyperproducer. However, the EtS pathway would

> be unaffected, and therefore would be below the 25ng/ml cutoff for

> EtS, thus " clearing " the person. Would help the person tested (low

> level positive EtG but negative EtS suggests person is a

> hyperproducer of EtG)

> >

> > (2) A person has an E. Coli UTI. If there was EtG present

in

> the urine specimen (from some source of ethanol they were exposed

> to), the EtG could be negative, but the EtS would be positive,

> confirming alcohol exposure. Would screw the person being tested

> (Negative EtG but positive EtS suggests bacterial contamination

> covered up positive EtG)

> >

> > **PING**Lorie,

> Marsha,

> >

> >

> >

> > Ok, now I'M confused with this ETS. I remember at

> the conference

> > thinking it was possibly helpful..now it sounds like

> its just another

> > way to detect incidental OR purposeful ingestion,

> and wouldn't help

> > the innocent people at all.

> > OK, I know t's not that big a stretch to picture me

> confused, but

> > please straighten me out on this!

> > And by the way Lorie...that letter you attached, I

> could never

> > find..was it attached? Am I confused again? have I

> been eating turkey

> > sandwiches? Ahhh, immortality at last

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> >

> >

> > Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as

1¢/min

>

<http://us.rd./mail_us/taglines/postman11/*http:/us.rd.

> .com/evt=39666/*http:/voice.> with Messenger with

> Voice.

> >

> >