Guest guest Posted August 25, 2005 Report Share Posted August 25, 2005 http://www.activeherb.com/qingdan/ I am just throwing stuff out here to see if anyone has used some of these products. so if you guys had any luck with anything let me know---tina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Did any of your contracts have the no other testing clause in them? When is your hearing? Soon I hope. What were the results from your most previous lock down testing? Positive I hope. The guy from the WSG replied to my Email and is interested in a phone interview. FIGHT THE FIGHT Lorie. > > Too bad " dough boy " (I think his name was Chris) couldn't do some " self testing " to see if the dough really was the culprit. But, like most of us, he couldn't do it while under contract. And now in CA, it's written right into the contract that you WON'T do any self testing! Heaven forbid you figure out what is causing your positives and it wasn't booze. I'm sure the DCA/board lawyers had a hand in that....maybe since my case is now on the docket and that is my main defense. > Lorie > another thought > > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre! > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Still no hearing date set. My atty is working on lining up witnesses first. As for my most recent "lock down" testing, the results will probably be thrown out since the baseline EtG was positive for whatever unknown reason. The EtS levels were all positive, too. So another $600 wasted.... Here were the normalized EtG levels: Day 1 morning (baseline): 334 Day 1 evening: 1135 Day 2 morning: 122 Day 2 evening: 475 another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 you wore gloves....but how about a mask???? Is this what we have come to?? Remember, skin absorption is NOT the problem...it appears to be inhalation!!! Could it be cleaning products in addition to perfume and hairspray...it was a very low positive!!! > > > > > > Too bad " dough boy " (I think his name was Chris) couldn't do > > some " self testing " to see if the dough really was the culprit. > But, > > like most of us, he couldn't do it while under contract. And now > in > > CA, it's written right into the contract that you WON'T do any > self > > testing! Heaven forbid you figure out what is causing your > positives > > and it wasn't booze. I'm sure the DCA/board lawyers had a hand > in > > that....maybe since my case is now on the docket and that is my > main > > defense. > > > Lorie > > > another thought > > > > > > > > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his > positive > > came > > > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol > is > > produced > > > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably > in > > the right > > > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably > from > > SMELLING > > > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! > > Perhaps > > > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is > > getting all > > > TOO bizarre! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Yes but EtS would be positive if you breathed alcohol! Wouldn't it? Re: Re: another thought Still no hearing date set. My atty is working on lining up witnesses first. As for my most recent "lock down" testing, the results will probably be thrown out since the baseline EtG was positive for whatever unknown reason. The EtS levels were all positive, too. So another $600 wasted.... Here were the normalized EtG levels: Day 1 morning (baseline): 334 Day 1 evening: 1135 Day 2 morning: 122 Day 2 evening: 475 another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 No mask....and unlike Clinton, I DID inhale! another thought> > > > > > > > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his > positive > > came > > > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol > is > > produced > > > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably > in > > the right > > > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably > from > > SMELLING > > > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! > > Perhaps > > > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is > > getting all > > > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 EtS was positive....all four times. another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 I know it was positive but wouldn't it have been if there was alcohol in your system?? I really don't know much about it. Re: Re: another thought EtS was positive....all four times. another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 It keeps getting worse and worse..it wouldn't be if the "powers that be would" open thier eyes/noses and (hehehe) SMELL the alcohol!!! another thought OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all TOO bizarre! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 I'm not sure what the question is....The advantage of running the EtG and EtS simultaneously is that, if you are a hyper producer of EtG, the EtS will be less than 20% of EtG (maybe not detectable at all). My ratio of EtS:EtG was all over the board: Day 1 AM: 17% Day 1 PM: 4% Day 2 AM: 30% Day 2 PM: 5% I did take 4gm Tylenol during the day on both days. That may be why the PM ratios were both so low (induction of enzyme system). another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Not looking at it from a hyper producer standpoint..just EtS testing it would be positive in the presence of alcohol right.so if you were breathing alcohol in it would basically yield the same results. Re: Re: another thought I'm not sure what the question is....The advantage of running the EtG and EtS simultaneously is that, if you are a hyper producer of EtG, the EtS will be less than 20% of EtG (maybe not detectable at all). My ratio of EtS:EtG was all over the board: Day 1 AM: 17% Day 1 PM: 4% Day 2 AM: 30% Day 2 PM: 5% I did take 4gm Tylenol during the day on both days. That may be why the PM ratios were both so low (induction of enzyme system). another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Like EtG, EtS is only formed when ethanol is metabolized by the liver. But you can't tell the source of alcohol (percutaneous, inhalation, or ingestion) or whether it was intentional or accidental. another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Yes that is my point it's just another biomarker. If you inhale/ingest alcohol it will still be positive along with EtG? right? Re: Re: another thought Like EtG, EtS is only formed when ethanol is metabolized by the liver. But you can't tell the source of alcohol (percutaneous, inhalation, or ingestion) or whether it was intentional or accidental. another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 I recall something about using EtS to nullify the EtG results but i'm not sure why it would? Bacteria? Re: Re: another thought Like EtG, EtS is only formed when ethanol is metabolized by the liver. But you can't tell the source of alcohol (percutaneous, inhalation, or ingestion) or whether it was intentional or accidental. another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Right. another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 If a urine sample is contaminated with a glucuronidase-producing bacteria, the sample could be NEGATIVE for EtG but POSITIVE for EtS. another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Right so you still don't get where I'm going with this..EtS can only nullify a result but it would be positive in the presence of alcohol so you would expect it to be positive too if you were exposed by breathing. Why is EtS a factor? Re: Re: another thought If a urine sample is contaminated with a glucuronidase-producing bacteria, the sample could be NEGATIVE for EtG but POSITIVE for EtS. another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 I'm confused. EtS could play a role if: (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, or (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. another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2006 Report Share Posted May 21, 2006 you were trying to prove #1 right? Re: Re: another thought I'm confused. EtS could play a role if: (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, or (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. another thought> > > OK...remember the 'dough boy' who was wondering if his positive came > from having his hands in bread dough all day (since alcohol is produced > by the rising yeast and also the baking)...He was probably in the right > church but in the wrong pew....his positive was probably from SMELLING > the alcohol produced all day..NOT having his hands in it!!! Perhaps > Jill was exposed to cleaning agents at the rehab! This is getting all > TOO bizarre!> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.