The Great Horned Moth
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
As a disclaimer: Sorry for the huge effort-post. Drug-testing isn’t my field of expertise and I’m not claiming it is, I just read a lot of scientific papers for work. This is not a thorough analysis of testing methods for cocaine consumption. It’s just dabbing on a scientifically illiterate retard who I believe read the Wikipedia pages of a few things and now thinks he is an expert. Drug-testing is an ever-evolving field and I don’t want to put in more effort than I already have to something that isn’t my job. This post is fueled solely by irritation at his mispronunciation of scientific terms and my general hatred of smug narcissists.
I had no idea where this fucking retard had come up with his theories of environmental exposure. I chalked it up to a quick Google search. However, after reading the above post, I took a look into the Wikipedia page for Norcocaine and found what I believe to be Balldo’s “research” into false positives. His research seems to be reading the abstracts of the papers cited on the Wikipedia page, specifically under “Controversy.” They all date to ~1991 and essentially say “outside exposure to cocaine and crack smoke can cause false results, you should test for norcocaine and cocaethylene.”
I’m trying to find anything at all where he would get the Benzoylecognine environmental exposure theory. There’s nothing on its Wikipedia page about that. My only idea is that he read about it being in water supplies (caused by consumption of cocaine and its subsequent release into the water supply by crackheads). I think, because Balldo is a sociopath who operates entirely in the realm of implications and innuendo, he can’t read a paper for what it is. So if it says “test for norcocaine and cocaethylene,” what it means is “don’t test for benzoylecognine.” Sorry creative writing major, that isn’t this case. I highly doubt he’s paying the piper for these papers and he’s too lazy to look for free versions, so I’m assuming he’s just reading the abstract and digging no further. P.S. this doesn’t count as “reading a scientific paper,” Balldo.
So is Balldo wrong? Certainly if they’re asking for other metabolites to be tested, that means the current tests are incorrect and benzoylecognine is a lousy indicator? Unsurprisingly, no, he does not understand what he is reading and is in fact scientifically illiterate. The issue these studies had with the tests is that it’s hard to wash specifically cocaine off of hair samples. This is because cocaine can be present on the outside of the hair (environmental exposure) and the inside of the hair (consumption), as it is not all metabolized. So testing directly for cocaine will give you many more false positives than testing for metabolites. I am not reading further than the abstracts because I don’t feel like putting in any more effort than Nick. Feel free to hunt down free versions from the links if you feel like going further or if my analysis is incomplete. Again, not reading past the abstract because that’s more effort than I feel like putting in when this isn’t my job. This means my interpretations could be different than the full paper. As the quote says below, abstracts aren’t the most reliable way to interpret a paper’s reliability and results.
I believe these studies are the ones he read from the Wikipedia page. I have excluded any that don’t have a direct link from Wikipedia, as I believe Nick is not just scientifically illiterate, but also criminally lazy. I think, even if it meant getting his daughter back, he wouldn’t copy and paste article names from Wikipedia to do any further research. I’m also including this article because Nick may have read it, but I doubt it because it’s listed as one that says benzoylecognine is a good indicator of cocaine usage. (Links using the article numbers from Wikipedia).
[10] [14] [15]
[16] is extra fun, because it states that even norcocaine and cocaethylene can be found in cocaine samples, so the wash is extra important to avoid false positives.
Now, it sounds like they did test for those two metabolites and they weren’t positive, why is this? This has already been touched on in the thread, but Cocathylene is produced by poly-substance abusers. Specifically ones that use alcohol and cocaine. Unless the 8 year old was getting in daddy’s whiskey stash (possible due to it apparently being right in the open next to the front door per Aaron), she’s not going to test positive for this one. Norcocaine is more interesting. If you look at some 2017 research, you’ll notice that norcocaine and cocaethylene are present in the case of heavy cocaine usage, but not for lighter cases. What is present in those case? Good ol’ benzoylecgonine. The primary metabolite of cocaine and a much more reliable indicator of light drug use (according to this paper).
Balldo: the state did you a favor by not pursuing these charges, maybe don’t spit in their face and act like a belligerent retard.
Bonus fun quote from the 2017 paper: “This study on hair samples with no chance of false positive cases highlights the very limited applications of testing minor cocaine metabolites for definitive proof of active cocaine consumption.” Good criticism of the earlier studies. As a side-note, the “with no chance of false positives” here doesn’t mean there are no false positives in cocaine tests, merely that this study used exclusively hair from confirmed drug users.
The posts quoted earlier also have wonderful articles to read or insights and there’s a lot more info earlier in this thread and others on drug testing and its issues/methodology. If anything was off, my apologies, trying to be as accurate as possible while not putting in more time or effort than I want to.
TL;DR: Balldo is scientifically illiterate and probably uses Wikipedia as his source. He should stick to things he knows, but that’s a small and ever-shrinking pool to draw from.
I had no idea where this fucking retard had come up with his theories of environmental exposure. I chalked it up to a quick Google search. However, after reading the above post, I took a look into the Wikipedia page for Norcocaine and found what I believe to be Balldo’s “research” into false positives. His research seems to be reading the abstracts of the papers cited on the Wikipedia page, specifically under “Controversy.” They all date to ~1991 and essentially say “outside exposure to cocaine and crack smoke can cause false results, you should test for norcocaine and cocaethylene.”
I’m trying to find anything at all where he would get the Benzoylecognine environmental exposure theory. There’s nothing on its Wikipedia page about that. My only idea is that he read about it being in water supplies (caused by consumption of cocaine and its subsequent release into the water supply by crackheads). I think, because Balldo is a sociopath who operates entirely in the realm of implications and innuendo, he can’t read a paper for what it is. So if it says “test for norcocaine and cocaethylene,” what it means is “don’t test for benzoylecognine.” Sorry creative writing major, that isn’t this case. I highly doubt he’s paying the piper for these papers and he’s too lazy to look for free versions, so I’m assuming he’s just reading the abstract and digging no further. P.S. this doesn’t count as “reading a scientific paper,” Balldo.
So is Balldo wrong? Certainly if they’re asking for other metabolites to be tested, that means the current tests are incorrect and benzoylecognine is a lousy indicator? Unsurprisingly, no, he does not understand what he is reading and is in fact scientifically illiterate. The issue these studies had with the tests is that it’s hard to wash specifically cocaine off of hair samples. This is because cocaine can be present on the outside of the hair (environmental exposure) and the inside of the hair (consumption), as it is not all metabolized. So testing directly for cocaine will give you many more false positives than testing for metabolites. I am not reading further than the abstracts because I don’t feel like putting in any more effort than Nick. Feel free to hunt down free versions from the links if you feel like going further or if my analysis is incomplete. Again, not reading past the abstract because that’s more effort than I feel like putting in when this isn’t my job. This means my interpretations could be different than the full paper. As the quote says below, abstracts aren’t the most reliable way to interpret a paper’s reliability and results.
I believe these studies are the ones he read from the Wikipedia page. I have excluded any that don’t have a direct link from Wikipedia, as I believe Nick is not just scientifically illiterate, but also criminally lazy. I think, even if it meant getting his daughter back, he wouldn’t copy and paste article names from Wikipedia to do any further research. I’m also including this article because Nick may have read it, but I doubt it because it’s listed as one that says benzoylecognine is a good indicator of cocaine usage. (Links using the article numbers from Wikipedia).
[10] [14] [15]
[16] is extra fun, because it states that even norcocaine and cocaethylene can be found in cocaine samples, so the wash is extra important to avoid false positives.
Now, it sounds like they did test for those two metabolites and they weren’t positive, why is this? This has already been touched on in the thread, but Cocathylene is produced by poly-substance abusers. Specifically ones that use alcohol and cocaine. Unless the 8 year old was getting in daddy’s whiskey stash (possible due to it apparently being right in the open next to the front door per Aaron), she’s not going to test positive for this one. Norcocaine is more interesting. If you look at some 2017 research, you’ll notice that norcocaine and cocaethylene are present in the case of heavy cocaine usage, but not for lighter cases. What is present in those case? Good ol’ benzoylecgonine. The primary metabolite of cocaine and a much more reliable indicator of light drug use (according to this paper).
Balldo: the state did you a favor by not pursuing these charges, maybe don’t spit in their face and act like a belligerent retard.
Bonus fun quote from the 2017 paper: “This study on hair samples with no chance of false positive cases highlights the very limited applications of testing minor cocaine metabolites for definitive proof of active cocaine consumption.” Good criticism of the earlier studies. As a side-note, the “with no chance of false positives” here doesn’t mean there are no false positives in cocaine tests, merely that this study used exclusively hair from confirmed drug users.
The posts quoted earlier also have wonderful articles to read or insights and there’s a lot more info earlier in this thread and others on drug testing and its issues/methodology. If anything was off, my apologies, trying to be as accurate as possible while not putting in more time or effort than I want to.
TL;DR: Balldo is scientifically illiterate and probably uses Wikipedia as his source. He should stick to things he knows, but that’s a small and ever-shrinking pool to draw from.
