some reading, page-14

Captain,

Hence my previous comment that you really need to speak to Dr Sun to clarify this matter.

You seem a little too keen to read scientific studies as gospel. There is good science and bad science - just as there is good and bad in any field. An the old adage that 'who pays the piper, plays the tune' is just as true in science as anywhere else. Always interesting to see who pays for the research.

I remember a discussion with management many months ago about the poor methodology used in many so called 'scientific tests' on drug testing devices. For example, in one series of tests the scientists did not follow SBN's instructions for use and used an intermediary foam collector device which contraindicated for use with Oraline (which correctly collects whole saliva deposited directly into the spoon which is critical for obtaining the low levels of detection for THC).

As well, be wary of the allegation of 'false positives'. It's not necesarily a bad thing. Why? Simply because, if a device states a cut off level of 4ng/ml and the testing gets a positive confirmation at 2ng/ml this, by definition, is described as a false positive in being below the manufacturers cut off level.

Here is at least one study done since Rosita, that is worth looking at:


Oral fluid testing for cannabis: On-site OraLine1
IV s.a.t. device versus GC/MS
Vincent Cirimele a,*, Marion Villain a, Patrick Mura b, Marc Bernard c, Pascal Kintz a
a Laboratoire ChemTox, 3, rue Gru¨ninger, F-67400 Illkirch, France
b Laboratoire de biochimie, Poitiers, France
c Urgences Me´dico-judiciaires, Compie`gne, France
Received 27 November 2005; received in revised form 11 January 2006; accepted 17 January 2006

Abstract
Saliva or ‘‘oral fluid’’ has been presented as an alternative matrix to document drug use. The non-invasive collection of a saliva sample, which is relatively easy to perform and can be achieved under close supervision, is one of the most important benefits in a driving under the influence situation. Moreover, the presence of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in oral fluid is a better indication of recent use than when 11-nor-D9-
tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH) is detected in urine, so there is a higher probability that the subject is experiencing pharmacological effects at the time of sampling. In the first part of the study, 27 drug addicts were tested for the presence of THC using the
OraLine1 IV s.a.t. device to establish the potential of this new on-site DOA detection technique. In parallel, oral fluid was collected with the Intercept1 DOA Oral Specimen Collection device and tested for THC by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/MS) after methylation for THC (limit of quantitation: 1 ng/mL). The OraLine1 device correctly identified nine saliva specimens positive for cannabis with THC concentrations ranging from 3 to 265 ng/mL, but remained negative in four other samples where low THC concentrations were detected by GC/MS (1–13 ng/mL). One false positive was noted. Secondly, two male subjects were screened in saliva using the OraLine1 and Intercept1 devices after consumption of a single cannabis cigarette containing 25 mg of THC. Saliva was first tested with the OraLine1 device and then collected with the Intercept1 device for GC/MS confirmation. In one subject, the OraLine1 on-site test was positive for THC for 2 h following drug intake with THC concentrations decreasing from 196 to 16 ng/mL, while the test remained positive for 1.5 h for the second subject (THC concentrations ranging from 199 to 11 ng/mL). These preliminary results obtained with the OraLine1 IV s.a.t. device indicate more encouraging data for the detection of THC using on-site teststhan previous evaluations.