|Testing The Urine Tests
|Urine tests are unreliable. The
public is told that they are scientific. But in operation they
can't stand up to scrutiny. Don't trust their results.
A test of the testers conducted by the government's
Center for Disease Control in Atlanta found: "...one of thirteen
labs given cocaine-spiked urine gave totally correct results. Five
of thirteen failed to find the drug in any of 34 spiked samples that
each lab received. On the other hand, the labs somehow detected cocaine
in as many as 6%, and amphetamines in up to 37% of urine specimens
that were 'blank' - those containing no drugs at all."
In the April 26, 1985 edition of the Journal of
the American Medical Association, Dr. Hugh Hansen reported shocking
results from blind tests conducted for the Center for Disease Control
and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. By sending in blind samples
spiked with drugs the following results were obtained from samples
sent to thirteen labs. FALSE NEGATIVES: Barbiturates best lab 11%
error rate, worst lab 94% error rate. Amphetamines 19% to 100%. Methadone
0% to 33%. Cocaine 0% to 100%. Codeine 0% to 100%. Morphine false
negative error rate ranged from 0% to 100%.
The range of FALSE POSITIVE error rates were: Barbiturates
0% to 6%. Amphetamines 0% to 37%. Methadone 0% to 66%. Cocaine 0%
to 6%. Codeine 0% to 7%. Morphine 0% to 10%. An official for the
Center for Disease Control commented, "If these labs dumped the samples
down the sink or tossed a coin, they would have come up with the
same reliability in their test results." In the May 1987 edition
of Laboratory Medicine, Dr. T.P. Moyer of the Mayo Clinic concluded
in testing for marijuana on the EMIT test, 15% of the positives would
Who would be more sensitive to drug testing errors than
physicians? In the August 22, 1990 volume of the Journal of the American
Medical Association, Dr. David Orentlicher draws a distinction between
impairment and positive drug tests results. He writes: "It is not
clear, however, that adequate justification exists for the use of
random urine testing to detect physician impairment from drugs of
abuse. ..there may be only a weak correlation between positive urine
tests and impairment by drugs."
The November 1992 issue of the Archives of Internal
Medicine, printed this surprising result. In a survey of 272 Michigan
doctors 38 per cent said they didn't believe drug tests were accurate.
Urine testing is less accurate that the lie detector tests that
have been banned from the work place. Employers who rush into urine
testing, wouldn't dream of giving every worker a lie detector test.
Dr. David Greenblatt, Chief of clinical pharmacology at Tufts medical
center called the most widely used tests "essentially worthless."
Because many employers do not want to pay the $100 plus
lab price for the sophisticated confirmation tests, many falsely
accused people are fired, or never hired, rather than retested. BEWARE
! New job applicants are usually given the EMIT(r) test, with no
follow up. If you fail, you're not informed. You're are just not