Re: marcellus new blog entry

[Guest guest]

just the case where ONE drink rings up at 6,000 ..I am so frustrated so what does walking by a beer cap???

[Guest guest]

I was under the impression from his words that the 121,000 case was a court case. If it was his liscensee and he had doubt on 121,000, what the hell is he doing with a 1500 cut-off. Did he create the monster or is he?My favorite "new term" in the whole story was sobriety enforcement- what the hell is this world coming to, I personally only have one resentment and that is towards the idiot that does my random PBTs. He constantly threatens to violate me even when he knows I'am at work- sobriety enforcement, only in the Peoples Republic of America.

I thought it was Indiana, or did both?

[Guest guest]

--- That would be The Peoples' Republik of Amerika

Please watch V for Vendetta. Rent the DVD and watch it with the

subtitles. He speaks very quitely and quickly and there is alot of

background music. If you miss the dialogue, you will miss the point

of the movie.

In Ethylglucuronide , " marcellus91872@... "

<marcellus91872@...> wrote:

>

> I was under the impression from his words that the 121,000 case was

a court case. If it was his liscensee and he had doubt on 121,000,

what the hell is he doing with a 1500 cut-off. Did he create the

monster or is he?

> My favorite " new term " in the whole story was sobriety enforcement-

what the hell is this world coming to, I personally only have one

resentment and that is towards the idiot that does my random PBTs. He

constantly threatens to violate me even when he knows I'am at work-

sobriety enforcement, only in the Peoples Republic of America.

> I thought it was Indiana, or did both?

>

[Guest guest]

If anyone does find out about the 121,000 case, please post.........my last EtG was >1700.........I have no idea why........hormonal? I could sure use the information for my case. Is there any recent information about the effects of Hepatitis on EtG...........the toxicologist that we hired seems to think that any liver damage would impact the reliability of the test due to the inablility of the liver to process any form of ETOH normally, I agree. Thank you, Joy"marcellus91872@..." <marcellus91872@...> wrote: I was under the impression from his words that the 121,000 case was a court case. If it was his liscensee and he had doubt on 121,000, what the hell is he doing with a 1500 cut-off. Did he create the monster or is he?My favorite "new term" in the whole story was sobriety enforcement- what the hell is this world coming to, I personally only have one resentment and that is towards the idiot that does my random PBTs. He constantly threatens to violate me even when he knows I'am at work- sobriety enforcement, only in the Peoples Republic of America. I thought it was Indiana, or did both? __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Joy, Here's the original post where Dr. Skipper talks about that case:

"Recently a doctor who had supposedly been in recovery for over 10 years, seemingly doing well, had a random urine drug test (he only gets 4 per year now) which returned positive for urine alcohol of .83 mg/dl and subsequently on the same specimen an EtG of 121,000 ng/ml. When the was provided the information that demonstrated the likelihood that he'd been drinking again, he denied drinking. He was adamant. There was no evidence of a problem at that time, although there was no significant other supervision of the doc (no therapists or group reports, etc) since he was 10+ years out. The doctor said since he wasn't drinking he was wondering if the high level could be from the fact that he rubs "grain alcohol" on his joints during the day. Well it seemed unlikely but we decided to have him undergo an evaluation with an addiction doc, and do a lie detector test, which he was very willing to do, to give him the benefit of the doubt. I just received a call today from the addiction doc stating that his wife revealed in an interview that the guy had been drinking regularly for some time. In other words, even with a level of 121,000 we looked into the situation and gave him the "benefit of the doubt."

Re: marcellus new blog entry

If anyone does find out about the 121,000 case, please post.........my last EtG was >1700.........I have no idea why........hormonal? I could sure use the information for my case. Is there any recent information about the effects of Hepatitis on EtG...........the toxicologist that we hired seems to think that any liver damage would impact the reliability of the test due to the inablility of the liver to process any form of ETOH normally, I agree. Thank you, Joy"marcellus91872netzero (DOT) net" <marcellus91872netzero (DOT) net> wrote:

I was under the impression from his words that the 121,000 case was a court case. If it was his liscensee and he had doubt on 121,000, what the hell is he doing with a 1500 cut-off. Did he create the monster or is he?My favorite "new term" in the whole story was sobriety enforcement- what the hell is this world coming to, I personally only have one resentment and that is towards the idiot that does my random PBTs. He constantly threatens to violate me even when he knows I'am at work- sobriety enforcement, only in the Peoples Republic of America.

I thought it was Indiana, or did both?

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

---I apologize if this shows up twice, I typed the whole thing out

then hit the wrong button. I don't think it will cross over.

I just had a few comments on this.

First, if there was no evidence of a problem, then gee, I guess the

Dr. was drinking in moderation without problems. What's wrong with

that? Oops, fergot, the prohibitionists.

Second, WTF was his Dr. doing talking to his patients wife? Oops

fergot, addictionologists, NOT REAL DRS. So I guess the same laws

for real Drs. don't apply

Third, Whether the Dr. was drinking or not, he should bitch slap his

wife for ratting him out.

In Ethylglucuronide , " Lorie Garlick " <lorieg@...>

wrote:

>

> Joy, Here's the original post where Dr. Skipper talks about that

case:

>

> " Recently a doctor who had supposedly been in recovery for over 10

years, seemingly doing well, had a random urine drug test (he only

gets 4 per year now) which returned positive for urine alcohol

of .83 mg/dl and subsequently on the same specimen an EtG of 121,000

ng/ml. When the was provided the information that demonstrated the

likelihood that he'd been drinking again, he denied drinking. He was

adamant. There was no evidence of a problem at that time, although

there was no significant other supervision of the doc (no therapists

or group reports, etc) since he was 10+ years out. The doctor said

since he wasn't drinking he was wondering if the high level could be

from the fact that he rubs " grain alcohol " on his joints during the

day. Well it seemed unlikely but we decided to have him undergo an

evaluation with an addiction doc, and do a lie detector test, which

he was very willing to do, to give him the benefit of the doubt. I

just received a call today from the addiction doc stating that his

wife revealed in an interview that the guy had been drinking

regularly for some time. In other words, even with a level of

121,000 we looked into the situation and gave him the " benefit of

the doubt. "

>

> Re: marcellus new blog entry

>

>

> If anyone does find out about the 121,000 case, please

post.........my last EtG was >1700.........I have no idea

why........hormonal? I could sure use the information for my case.

Is there any recent information about the effects of Hepatitis on

EtG...........the toxicologist that we hired seems to think that any

liver damage would impact the reliability of the test due to the

inablility of the liver to process any form of ETOH normally, I

agree. Thank you, Joy

>

> " marcellus91872@... " <marcellus91872@...> wrote:

>

> I was under the impression from his words that the 121,000

case was a court case. If it was his liscensee and he had doubt on

121,000, what the hell is he doing with a 1500 cut-off. Did he

create the monster or is he?

> My favorite " new term " in the whole story was sobriety

enforcement- what the hell is this world coming to, I personally

only have one resentment and that is towards the idiot that does my

random PBTs. He constantly threatens to violate me even when he

knows I'am at work- sobriety enforcement, only in the Peoples

Republic of America.

> I thought it was Indiana, or did both?

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

What was the point of posting the link (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1122492295.html)? That was the biggest

piece of crap I’ve read in a long time.

Let’s keep this list serve for real issues not some propaganda BS. The RWJF does some incredible work and has

funded millions for research, treatment, prevention of abuse an dependence,

etc. I’m sure some of the money

they’ve given out over the years (and a very small percentage I’m

sure) has ended up going to bad causes/research/programs/etc., but that should

not detract from the good they do. Shame

for posting such a worthless link.

From:

Ethylglucuronide [mailto:Ethylglucuronide ] On Behalf Of madisonxyz2000

Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 7:35

PM

Ethylglucuronide

Subject: Re:

marcellus new blog entry

--- http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1122492295.html

In Ethylglucuronide ,

lilibit007@... wrote:

>

> just the case where ONE drink rings up at 6,000 ..I am so

frustrated so

> what does walking by a beer cap???

>

********************************************************************************************The USF Health Mail Protection System has scanned this email and found that it violates the USF Health Mail Guidelines for one of the following reasons: (1) It contains a virus, (2) It is an attempt to relay mail, or (3) It contains other hostile content. The specific reason is shown in the details listed below. Please note that if a virus was found and could not be removed, it was deleted. For further information or if you have any questions, please contact the USF Health IT Help Desk at (813) 974-6288.********************************************************************************************\HTML Active Content: Found invalid IMG Tag, Found Web-beacon, Object Removed: 1 'img'

[Guest guest]

Think RWJF would be interested in funding some EtG research? Probably not. Problem is, there is no advocacy group for us. Research in the area of EtG would be beneficial to a very small (but important!) group of people. It doesn't directly impact teenage drinkers, the food/beverage industry, or medicine. It impacts a group of functioning and contributing professionals. So WHO wants to fund THAT research? It's apparent that nobody wants to do it. Who is responsible to fund it? THE LABORATORIES who are promoting and selling the test! And why aren't they doing it? If you were making $500K a month off a test, and the research had the potential to not only dry up that income but also open up a liability nightmare, would you volunteer to do it?

RE: Re: marcellus new blog entry

What was the point of posting the link (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1122492295.html)? That was the biggest piece of crap I’ve read in a long time. Let’s keep this list serve for real issues not some propaganda BS. The RWJF does some incredible work and has funded millions for research, treatment, prevention of abuse an dependence, etc. I’m sure some of the money they’ve given out over the years (and a very small percentage I’m sure) has ended up going to bad causes/research/programs/etc., but that should not detract from the good they do. Shame for posting such a worthless link.

From: Ethylglucuronide [mailto:Ethylglucuronide ] On Behalf Of madisonxyz2000Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 7:35 PMEthylglucuronide Subject: Re: marcellus new blog entry

--- http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1122492295.htmlIn Ethylglucuronide , lilibit007@... wrote:>> just the case where ONE drink rings up at 6,000 ..I am so frustrated so > what does walking by a beer cap???>

********************************************************************************************The USF Health Mail Protection System has scanned this email and found that it violates the USF Health Mail Guidelines for one of the following reasons: (1) It contains a virus, (2) It is an attempt to relay mail, or (3) It contains other hostile content. The specific reason is shown in the details listed below. Please note that if a virus was found and could not be removed, it was deleted. For further information or if you have any questions, please contact the USF Health IT Help Desk at (813) 974-6288.********************************************************************************************\HTML Active Content: Found invalid IMG Tag, Found Web-beacon, Object Removed: 1 'img'