上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]kdub114 127ポイント128ポイント  (51子コメント)

Here is the FAQ's from the company that is basically the 800 pound gorilla of the hair testing industry.

http://www.psychemedics.com/faq/

This is a key point here:

Is there a risk that the results of a hair test can be affected by environmental contamination?

Psychemedics utilizes several independent approaches which, in various combinations, rule out the possibility of a positive result from external contamination. The first method involves extensive chemical washing of the hair specimen prior to screening, followed by analysis of the content of the wash. This wash analysis is a critical step to ensure that any contamination is effectively accounted for. Additionally, Psychemedics measures the presence of metabolites. If drugs were in the air or on a person’s hands and thereby got on a person’s hair from outside, the drug would be present as the drug substance itself, and not as certain metabolites or with metabolite/parent drug ratios which are known to be produced by ingestion. Psychemedics’ ability to distinguish and measure metabolites with its highly sensitive GC/MS/MS or LC/MS/MS equipment is one criteria used to eliminate the possibility of false positives from external contamination. In addition, any positive internal contamination (e.g., from passive inhalation or even poppy seed consumption) is distinguished from deliberate drug use by setting GC/MS/MS or LC/MS/MS cut-off levels above those which can be produced by passive internal exposure. Studies have shown that the combination of extensive washing, metabolite analysis, and proper cut-off levels are necessary to avoid false positives due to external contamination.

[–]Forsaken_BulgeBS | Biology 37ポイント38ポイント  (2子コメント)

It says it started in 1987. Sounds maybe like government hasn't given this practice a second look as to its effectiveness/accuracy to prove a positive consumption.

[–]LordDongler 74ポイント75ポイント  (43子コメント)

(e.g., from passive inhalation or even poppy seed consumption) is distinguished from deliberate drug use by setting GC/MS/MS or LC/MS/MS cut-off levels above those which can be produced by passive internal exposure.

This is literally impossible and honestly makes me question their entire "FAQ"

[–]Espard_ 43ポイント44ポイント  (42子コメント)

Why is it impossible?

[–]fataggression 81ポイント82ポイント  (20子コメント)

Its the implication within the sentence that is impossible. XX/MS systems will more or less give you the concentration of a analyte (in this case specific metabolites of THC) within a given sample (hair). They are effectively saying passive inhalation and deliberate inhalation can be distinguished from each other by the test result of a specific concentration cut off point. If the metabolite is present and less than the cut off its "passive" if its higher then its "deliberate".

The problem with this is there is nothing to set that level. People metabolize things differently and at different rates so the same passive inhalation for me and you would show up as different concentrations in our hair samples. If they are establishing that threshold at a set concentration it is impossible for that level to correctly assess all samples (each person's hair).

[–]meodd8 41ポイント42ポイント  (9子コメント)

It's all about confidence intervals at that point. If 99% of the population can be accounted for by their cut-off levels, then that would be a very good test.

[–]AntManMax1 11ポイント12ポイント  (5子コメント)

Is that a good test? How many people get drug tested on a yearly basis? 1 in 100 false positives isn't good enough for that scope IMHO.

[–]Zarmazarma 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

It would only be 1 in 100 if everyone was exposed to passive inhalation. The actual figure would be 1 in 100 of everyone who was passively exposed to marijuana, but did not actually consume it.

That's probably an incredibly low number of people. There's a difference between actually consuming the drug and getting a whiff of it from down the hall.

[–]lazyear 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

You're forgetting that cannabis is not just THC. There is a surely a difference between compounds found in the body from passive vs active inhalation. MS/MS is incredibly sensitive.

[–]DrStalker 12ポイント13ポイント  (4子コメント)

If one person breathes in smoke on purpose, and another person breathes in the same smoke because they walking through the room, why would they end up with different chemical byproducts? It's literally the exact same smoke, just in different amounts. Claiming the body recognizes legitimate deliberate smoking and metabolizes it differently is like claiming female bodies can recognize legitimate rape and self terminate the pregnancy.

[–]LebronMVP 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do you have data on the rates of metabolization across a population>?

[–]NAmember81 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

It would just be pure speculation. Say 1ng of a drug metabolite showed up on a drug test and it was under the "cutoff level" of say 15ng. They can't distinguish if you ate a poppy seed bagel or just quit smoking opium a week ago and it was almost all out of your system.

A drug metabolite is a drug metabolite, they can only speculate based on the amount if it was intentional drug use or not.

[–]LordDongler 10ポイント11ポイント  (10子コメント)

Because poppy seeds contain the alkaloids morphine and codeine. Someone could be doing those drugs or they could just be a big fan of bagels, you just can't tell from a drug test.

[–]alcalde 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

So tiny sample size and they didn't do even a modicum of research before doing their study? :-(

[–]seanbrockest 90ポイント91ポイント  (28子コメント)

Where I work we get pee tested. If we show positive they take blood to confirm.

[–]LordDongler 69ポイント70ポイント  (17子コメント)

Which is funny because blood tests have less metabolites than pee tests do

[–]seanbrockest 45ポイント46ポイント  (6子コメント)

They tell us that pee tests are susceptible to false positives from foods and over the counter drugs where blood is more accurate

[–]LordDongler 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yes, it's true that some OTC drugs will show up a meth and some foods will show up as opiates on a pee test, but if you pee positive but blood test negative that doesn't mean that's what's going on. You may pee positive but happen to be under the blood cutoff point because the last time you shot up was 5 days ago

[–]seanbrockest 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah... don't tell the company that :)

Seriously though, people only get tested when there is an incident, and even then it's only ever alcohol that gets you fired (at least where I work).

[–]most_low 54ポイント55ポイント  (8子コメント)

I imagine the point of the blood test is to eliminate false positives.

[–]jxuereb 9ポイント10ポイント  (7子コメント)

You got so worried about failing the test you, used your drug dealers pee

[–]goldman105 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Blood is only 12 to 24 hours where as pee is anywhere from a week to 100 days. Pricing is also very expensive for blood and cheap for piss. Which is odd whatever they are trying to prove.

[–]dudemanxx 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

For anyone reading this and panicking a bit, 100 days is ABSURDLY extreme a case.

[–]Psotnik 124ポイント125ポイント  (18子コメント)

They only used 3 people for this test, 2 at a low dose and 1 high dose. How robust is this study really? I understand that what it's saying even based a tiny sample size is important, those follicle tests should not be used because they fail for at least a portion of the population. But I don't think the sample size is nearly large enough to draw broad conclusions from. It's a great start but not rigorous enough to be conclusive in my opinion.

[–]demonicpigg 51ポイント52ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ideally, this is to be used to draw attention to the matter and prove the concept. Hopefully someone larger, with more resources, will step in and do a better study. It's a good thing that at least the ball has started rolling.

[–]orfane 17ポイント18ポイント  (6子コメント)

While a high N is always nice, sometimes that isn't the point. Sometimes you use a small N on purpose to make sure that the effect can show up even in a small population. Luckily statistics exists so we can test quantitatively if the effect is real or now.

[–]thebruce 22ポイント23ポイント  (2子コメント)

One or two people is not a small population. They're single data points. Not only that, but they didn't perform any statistical analyses on this data. They just showed that some amount of THC is present in hair samples in the couple weeks before or after intake. Note that for THC to be present at all in these samples, you still must have recently ingested THC (by this data).

And for the "group" with two participants? The second participant only was accounted for, in the beard test, for 3 of the 16 weeks tested, and that didn't start until 8 weeks after THC ingestion?

They essentially have an N of 1 for these tests, did not perform statistical analysis, and did not show that THC would EVER be present if you did not ingest it. There is nothing statistics can do here.

[–]thijser2 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

The point is that sometimes you want to prove something can happen, if that is what you are trying to do a small sample set is not really that bad.

[–]ritus 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Been getting hair follicle tests for years. At some point in the 90's a guy got fired for failing the test. He was adamant that he never touched the stuff. They insisted the test was infallible. He got a lawyer that told him to immediately get further tests from other labs. They came back negative. The company finally contacted the testing facility and they ended finding an employee got the samples mixed up. He got his job back. He was lucky. I've been around smokers and never failed though and have heard that the level is set relatively high to trigger a positive. Still makes me nervous.

[–]timmyotc 69ポイント70ポイント  (5子コメント)

Is anyone here bothered by the sample size of THREE people?

[–]Just_A_Dinosaur 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really. They are showing that it is possible that one can test positive without smoking. You don't need a lot to show that it is possible. If you wanted to show how often it happened or to what portion of the population, sure. But for court purposes (which is where this would be most applicable) 3 people is enough to show reasonable doubt.

[–]swarley77 23ポイント24ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are attempting to prove that this test isn't totally accurate for it's intended purpose. You only need a few cases to prove that.

[–]thej00ninja 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

There was a comment I was about to reply to with 1100+ comment score that just disappeared a minute later... wtf?

[–]MinimalisticUsername 14ポイント15ポイント  (10子コメント)

When getting a job at the Toyota Technical Center (emissions lab technician) One must get urine, hair, AND blood tested

[–]KeithFuckingMoon 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Might as well give them a stool sample too

[–]hopelessmatt 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

And semen. Just mix it all up in a Tupperware container and drop it off at the lab.

[–]AnAssyrianAtheist 41ポイント42ポイント  (4子コメント)

Drug testing expert here, no it does not... But it is one of the chemicals tested for. If we see that, we look for thc. If we find it at a certain level, it's positive. Cbd is not a positive test for weed

[–]TheoryOfSomething 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did you read the article though? It's literally all about how most of the THC in hair seems to come from environmental contamination. They couldn't find any THC or THCA-A in the hair of these people who were ingesting the stuff in pill form.

[–]jmarks7448 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

What the hell happened in this comment thread? Someone went on a damn removal spree.

[–]Forsaken_BulgeBS | Biology 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hair testing may be more prevelent than you may think. Here is a website that has a continuing list of companies that hair test (and urine test). http://www.testclear.com/dtcompanies/companyresults.aspx

[–]yarzospatzflute 12ポイント13ポイント  (12子コメント)

Hopefully the day comes soon when this type of issue won't even be relevant.

[–]Batraxin 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I never smoke, this sucks for me. Damn friends....