[slapjack]

I hadn't had a drink in two weeks but failed an ETG test. I ended up admitting I had a drink so that I wouldn't get sent back to court even though I really didn't drink. I eat fruit daily and I have no idea if my everyday items may trigger a positive response. What can I do to absolutely clean out my system from now on??

[massplumber2008]

Hi Slapjack...

Click on this link... interesting read:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/addict...rs-458746.html

Good luck!

Mark

[DrBill100]

First let me point out that you are part of that class that the promoters of this program so proudly proclaim. The 50% that test positive, deny it, and then confess**. The fact that you wrongly admitted to drinking isn't unusual nor unpredictable. It is an operational strategy of the testing procedure. The test has no independent scientific validity* and is entirely dependent on an admission by the client.

More to the point of your question, how could it happen? It could be in something you ate... even the fruit you mentioned, can contain small amounts of ethanol, consumption of non-alcoholic beers or wines, plain fruit juices, or sauerkraut. It could be from eating pizza, home baked breads, biscuits, etc.

Or it could be a result of something you inhaled. Shaving lotion, after-shave, cologne, perfume, hair restoration (ex. Rogaine), hair coloring, skin cleansers, acne treatment, shampoos. It could be in household cleansers or deodorizing products, most heavy in ethanol and inhalable. If you spend any time outside then charcoal starter is a good prospect, as are insect repellants or swimming pool chemicals. If you drive it may be inhaling fumes from gasoline, brake fluid, tire cleaners, engine cleaners.

Working around the house? Paints, laquers and adhesives frequently contain ethanol that is readily inhaled.

But it might not be external at all. It could be yeast in your gastrointestinal tract, it could be yeast overgrowth due to a mild infection in the presence of any sugar you may have ingested. It could be any one of thousands of medications whether in pill or liquid form.

But it could be nothing to do with you at all...

The EtG content of the urine sample that you provided may very well have changed and created EtG in the container during shipment or storage . It may have occurred after arrival at the laboratory. A major testing laboratory recently retested positive EtG urine samples and after only 24 hours found that 52% of the samples had chagned by more than 20%. 40% of specimens showed decline in EtG (ranging from 26-97% decrease in initial concentration) within the first 24 hs of testing and the number increased to 60% of the specimens within 7 days. 12% of specimens showed an increase in EtG (35-84% of original concentration) within the first 24 hs. [If you consider these figures, after the sample is provided, the testing agency could obtain more accurate results by flipping a coin; Heads = drinking, Tails = not. That's after the sample is provided and not considering the error possibilities previous noted]

Now add the possibility of shortcut testing. All of the above assume that the test was properly administered, first screened by immunoassay and then confirmed by LC/MS/MS (or equivalent) It could also be that the test was shortcut. Many agencies and private employers have now begun to limit EtG testing to the initial immunoassay screen. That saves the cost of the expensive confirmation test. It also tacks on an additional error rate of 15-20%.

This shortcut procedure violates the recommendations and testing protocol carried in every relevant study ever conducted. Yet many testing laboratories are now offering this service under the official sounding term “non-forensic testing”

I would be remiss by failing to point out that false positives, as in your case, are in the minority. For every false positive that issues there are 3 false negatives. So while you were wrongly accused perhaps it is of comfort to know that three others that actually did drink went undetected.

*That is it cannot do what it was designed and purports to be able to do. It cannot distinguish alcohol ingestion from other sources.

**This figure is often cited by proponents of EtG testing but is never referenced or otherwise documented.