[Rosentty]

I drank a limerita (8% alcohol) and a blue moon (5% alcohol) Monday starting at 2pm ended at 3pm.. had a surprise EtG the next day and dropped at about 3:50pm.. do I have a chance for it being negative? I've read some stories and for the most part, what I drank is considered a low amount (120pds, female)

[Curlyben]

What happens when you FAIL ?

[AntC]

You certainly have a good chance of testing negative at 24 hours after 2 drinks. In the following study, all the participants who drank similar amounts tested negative at 24 hours using the lowest level of ETG in commercially available tests.

Sensitivity of commercial ethyl glucuronide (ETG) testing in screening for alcohol abstinence

[odinn7]

And of course, you have a good chance of failing as well. Popular belief is that you could test positive out to 60 hours or so.

Pretty much, you are not going to get any accurate answer here that is going to make you feel better. All of this information is subjective. Too many variables for a complete and accurate answer.

[CravenMorhead]

Which is good if you were one of the 19 participants of that study. Dimes to Doughnuts she wasn't. Nor is she going to be using that testing facility. Nor is the guaranteed that the test she's going to take is the same one that was used in that study. It is meaningless when it comes to predicting whether a person will pass an ETG test. If you're willing to accept this as evidence in support of an opinion than you might as well tell her that she has a good chance of getting autism from her vaccines.

Two drinks and 24 hours probably isn't enough to pass a ETG test.

[ScottGem]

do I have a chance for it being negative?

Yes you do. You also have a chance of it being positive. No way anyone can tell you for sure one way or the other. So the question is what are the consequences if you fail?

[AntC]

I have not been able to locate any published data that shows anyone testing positive at 24 hours and just 2 drinks. I have found 3 studies, all published in Peer reviewed Addiction Medicine journals that show particpants testing negative at 24 hours.
The 60-80 hours that is widely publicized by the testing companies, is all based on studies where ALL the participants were extremely heavy drinkers.
Please send me any references you have to the contrary.

[Curlyben]

AntC you are assuming these are standardized drinks, but as we all know homemade beverages tend to be on the generous side.
Without knowing the actual volumes of alcohol concerned how can an accurate answer possibly be given? While your references are interesting, they are not a panacea and, in fact, could be given people false hope and the ability to cheat court mandated testing.
Also a sample of a mere NINETEEN can hardly be classed as scientifically conclusive evidence either way.

[CravenMorhead]

I am so sorry for thread jacking this.

I find this post more interesting. For a board certified medical professional in the field of addiction medicine, I would dearly love to see what university granted you your MD, you seem REALLY unsure of the tests and science behind the bread and butter of your own profession. Regardless of doing this for free.

I am not going to provide you with anything. This isn't how you use studies. Anyone who has any experience in any scientific field knows that you can't prove anything. Those are meaningless when it comes to telling a person whether they will pass a test. Unless they're in the Same circumstances as those tests then it can't be anything more than a lose reference. You don't know if they've used alcohol based hand sanitizers, you don't know if they're using the same test in the paper, you don't their metabolism will over or under produce ETG/ETS, you don't know if they're using the same test. Nothing in that paper correlates to this person's, or any other person's you've posted them on, situation. They're not proof of anything. They're just what some graduate student did to get funding for their thesis. It isn't a guide on who can or cannot pass the test.

Figure out papers and how they're used.

[CravenMorhead]

In response to your negative reputation comment of:

"why": "He is basing his answer strictly on his opinion. I based mine on peer reviewed studies. I will post the links below.", "source": "http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/4/317.full http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/1/74.f

What I give is my opinion. I don't give it as anything more than that. I have a minor in molecular and microbiology. I have study and understand metabolic pathways and how this stuff works. I have worked in biology labs, studying cystic fibrosis, I understand how this journalling and peer review stuff works. I let my reputation here, as well as education stand for itself.

I don't give misinformation and bad advice based upon papers that precious few people here will be able to understand. That's what you do.

[Alty]

Oops! You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CravenMorhead again.

Damn the reputation spreading thingy! :(

[CravenMorhead]

Oops! You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CravenMorhead again.

Damn the reputation spreading thingy! :(

Thanks. :-) Appreciate it!

[ScottGem]

Ant, and you have no idea how heavy a drinker any of these OPs are. You are possibly giving these people false hopes by stating positively that they can pass. That is not in keeping with the standards of this site.

[Alty]

Scott, sadly I've discussed this with AntC, and pointed all of this out, but AntC chooses not to listen, or simply cannot understand. He thinks he's well within site standards, and seems to think he can say and do what he wants.

Glad this is finally being put out in the open. Sadly, I don't think AntC will back down, not based on my PM's with him.