Interesting Perspective

[Guest guest]

Good point....Until someone personally experiences such problems, they are often suspicious of claimed "problems". Case in point....This was part of someone's story whose positive EtG was up for review by their licensing board: "The attorney for the board admitted that they did an in-house test—two attorneys (one female and one male board employee) used Purell every two hours all day. They did an EtG test the next AM and one tested positive at 125 ng/mL and the other negative (don’t know the results by gender)." The case against him was subsequently dropped as a result.

Until there's a ruling against EtG in a court case or admin hearing that sets a precedence, I guess these programs are free to use whatever method they so desire. It's unfortunate.

Lorie

Interesting perspective

Hi,As many know I am part of a DUI court that tests for ETG and also uses the SCRAM device for some monitoring. I have discussed the ETG issue with the lawyer and have been told that we are stuck with it and it is considered 100% accurate. I hope that I do not have a false positive but I have been "warned" that I am being watched closely; my other tests were "high" but not over the threshold.The SCRAM has many issues. The drug court that we are not a true part of but share all the same resources decided last year that the SCRAM device was so inaccurate that it could no longer be used for alcohol monitoring. This test was determined by the coordinator of the court by wearing the monitor for a number of weeks and checking the results. She had many false positives and decided it was not accurate enough for the drug court participants.Our DUI court still uses it and considers the data 100% accurate. WTF? Same county, same basic program, same testing facility, same administrators yet widely differing views on what is accurate and what is not.I see little chance of changing their minds about the EtG test.

[Guest guest]

I greatly appreciate Dr. Mike's perspective.

In my opinion, he is 85 to 90 percent correct. He is certainly on

target with his feelings about the crazy, headlong " race " toward

developing more and more " magic bullet " treatments that do not take

into account the magnificent workings of the human body/human immune

system. The body is an amazingly resilient organism which, if given a

chance, and if supported rather than hindered in its efforts, can

heal all manner of dis-ease.

However, mainstream medicine should not be dismissed out of hand. It

should not and cannot be dismissed as " never curative. " It can and

does cure some cancers, and I have even heard recently that 75% of

all breast cancers, IF diagnosed at stage I or stage II, are curable

with chemotherapy.

But THE PROBLEM IS EXACTLY what Dr. Mike says: IF someone dx'd with

breast cancer is cured using chemotherapy, yet she simply keeps on

keeping on with her life the way she did before she was diagnosed

with breast cancer, THEN she stands an excellent chance of a

recurrance, or of getting sick and dying from some OTHER degenerative

dis-ease, such as diabetes, heart dis-ease, liver or kidney dis-ease,

etc.

The thing is that cancer often,(NOT always!), develops in a sick

body, or actually, in a sick person. Therefore, attacking the cancer

with mainstream treatment without addressing the total person is

short-sighted.

Certainly knowing what I do now, if I were to be dx'd with cancer, I

would try natural means of healing before I would seriously consider

mainstream treatment. But I have lived 17+ years with a dx of

lymphoma by DOING WHATEVER I feel I need to do at the time, and that

INCLUDES mainstream medicine IF I feel the up side outweighs the down

side.

I have, for instance, twice been treated with a mainstream treatment

called Rituxan. It is not chemotherapy. It is monoclonal antibody

treatment that specifically kills the B-cells in my immune system,

both the cancerous ones and the good ones. In about 6 months, the B-

cells grow back.

Rituxan caused phenomenal shrinkage in a tumor in my jaw/neck

recently, and now that it has, I am back to sticking with my natural

healing regimen of juicing, rebounding, lots of raw food,

supplements, avoidance of negative stress, etc.

My bottom line is: With regard to treatment of the body, use WHATEVER

you think will most benefit you, and that will hurt you least. Do not

rule out ANYTHING without at least investigating it to see what the

benefits and what the dangers might be. Consider yourself a CLIENT in

the healing market place, and purchase and use whatever appears

beneficial to you. But DO NOT just treat the body. Investigate and

treat the rest of your person, as well---the spiritual, emotional and

psychological parts of you in addition to your body.

[Guest guest]

Stop All Obesity Studies And Act Nowhttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/92878.phpAll obesity research, advice on diets, and food labeling should stop

and the money saved should be used to create a reliable, integrated

public transport network, says a letter in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), this week's issue.

How many more studies do we need to tell us that as a nation we are too

fat? Lavery, a community adviser in Northern Ireland, wonders.

Lavery believes we have now reached saturation point as far as studies

on this subject go.

What is the point of telling people they need to cycle, walk, and swim

more if the basic infrastructure is doing its best to stop people from

cycling, walking and swimming?

Action is needed to force planners, developers, councils and local

authorities to put an end to the present unsustainable, fat-making

practices, such as building roads without cycle lanes, Lavery argues.

This is much more important for preventing obesity than suggested

health assessments, advice on diets, government guidelines and food

labeling.

Lavery believes that the only way we will be able to tie our shoelaces

and not need cardiopulmonary resuscitation by the age of 35 is to

demand and build a functioning, cyclist and pedestrian centered,

integrated public transport network.

Having seen how the UK government ha approached public transport during

the last decades, Lavery believes there is " fat chance " that this will

happen.

Letter: " Stop all further research - and act. "

BMJ Volume 336, p 7

www.bmj.com