Printable View
for the nay-sayers, non-believers, too educated to learn more, check this out.
if you have a drug test soon, check this out.
i have searched long and hard for the scientific experiment to validate this claim. thank god for the interweb... i have found it.
http://www.tiaft2006.org/proceedings/pdf/DA-p-18.pdf
that study was done for the 2006 meeting of the International Association of Forensic Toxicologists....
need we say more about the scientific validity of fruit pectin?
because biologically, they are far more educated than myself, and likely you also.
I would like to hear fbr's take on this. It seems to be a legitimate test.
I've seen this before and it is a joke not a study. They are trying to sell strips to detect adulteration to go along with their drug testing strip. Whenever you see any kind of study you have to make sure it is a valid study or at least has some credibility.
Here's why this study is a joke:
1)Who are the authors as not much information is posted about them?
2) Who is funding the study? Are those conducting the study remaining unbiased?
3) Did they use proper Scientific Method?
4) Did they use procedures that other scientists would find acceptable?
5) What was the sample size? You have to use a large sample size and show statisical significance.
This study looks to be funded by the makers of the test strip and seems completely biased. There is no mention of sample size (maybe it's 3 I'm not sure) and they just gloss over how the experiments were conducted.
You realize they didn't even drink the pectin, they poured it into the urine sample. Notice how I call them authors and not scientists?
Imagine if I owned a drug company called FBR. I develope an antibiotic named boobacillin. I test it on 3 people with infections and they get better. I claim it works. Do you think any scientist or doctor or any one with any scientific background would say after a study conducted by me funded by my company on something that I plan to sell and make money that after testing it on 3 people would say, "Oh yeah he's right. Let's give it market approval and start letting doctors prescribe it." If this study was a science fair project I doubt a teacher would let a student turn in such crap.
Branan's goal is to scare people into thinking that pectin will beat a drug test and that to detect his adulteration you need to buy their product. Remember, they poured the pectin into the urine samples, they didn't drink it.
Thanks fbr for explaining this. Now that you mention it there is no author or collaberating evidence.
Wow, Thats why You gotta love FBR...:thumbsup:
Great to have you back FBR... You the man!:clap:
Just reading the conclusion will show that their 'study' holds no water ...
Sorry. But speculation is not evidence. No validation made here.Quote:
CONCLUSION: Pectin appears to be an effective adulterant for immunoassay drug screen.
We speculate that its mechanism of action is due to the drug molecules being trapped in the three-dimensional pectin structure and thus become unavailable to the antibody in the immunoassay system.