Quick Fix Warning

I understand that you guys want to dispute the validity of my claim because if I am not lying this is a pretty big problem, and its easier to just think I am full of shit and ignore it. Its your choice, but don't say I didn't warn you. All the evidence is right there.
As to why it displays five results I wondered about that too, and have no reasonable explanation for that other than they never even really tested the stuff for metabolites, but who knows.
And if you do some reading on quick fix somewhere I read that color differs from batch to batch. Besides, mine was hardly even bright, I have definitely pissed brighter yellow taking vitamins. I'm pretty sure the woman who administered the test was some kind of nazi who enjoys catching us when she can. Bitch.
If you do use quick fix I hope it does work for you, and if it does then tell us about it, but if it doesn't, and you get similar results as mine I guarantee you will curse yourself for being stupid and not taking the safe route just because you couldn't abstain for thirty days. Thats how I feel right now, especially because thirty days is nothing really. You even save money abstaining instead of spending more buying something that may or may not work on top of buying your smoke.
But whatever guys, the only thing I ask is that you let people read this and decide for themselves. Don't post that this is a bunch of shit and mislead people into believing quick fix is foolproof, because everything I have said and shown you guys is what really happened, and if I had had this information a month ago I would still have a job.
My offer to contact or be contacted by a trusted forum reg still stands.

I would normally ask for a confirmation test but in a case like this there's nothing for them to check for. This is very odd. Only a 3 panel test, which is unusual, no uric acid? Doesn't make sense. And as far ass color,foaming and smell not really relevant. And again who is dumb enough to go around smelling someones urine? Not a medical professional for sure.
I would fight this. Call the lab and find out how they tested for uric acid. Ask why any medical professional would be smelling urine. And tell them you think that the urine sample must have been mixed up with somebody elses.
Tell us what all happened in the lab when you took your test. Did they follow procedures for chain of custody and documentation.
You may be able to get your states dept of Labor and industries to help you investigate. Just claim wrongful termination and they will check to make sure everything was done legally.

Went to there website. They do seem to be a flunky little company based in Oregon. I would really expect they have made a mistake somewhere in there handling and testing. This is another example of why drug testing should be done away with. Too unrelaible.

Do you not think it is possible that some testing companies are trying to crack down on the use of synthetic urine?

If so, why would it be inappropriate to test for that kind of substitution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

I would normally ask for a confirmation test but in a case like this there's nothing for them to check for. This is very odd. Only a 3 panel test, which is unusual, no uric acid? Doesn't make sense. And as far ass color,foaming and smell not really relevant. And again who is dumb enough to go around smelling someones urine? Not a medical professional for sure.
I would fight this. Call the lab and find out how they tested for uric acid. Ask why any medical professional would be smelling urine. And tell them you think that the urine sample must have been mixed up with somebody elses.
Tell us what all happened in the lab when you took your test. Did they follow procedures for chain of custody and documentation.
You may be able to get your states dept of Labor and industries to help you investigate. Just claim wrongful termination and they will check to make sure everything was done legally.

---

Read the sticky about the guy who worked at a testing facility. How you decided that color, smell, and foaming aren't relevant is beyond me. Everyone knows what urine looks and smells like, so yeah anything that deviates from that is potentially relevant. Add that to the fact that there was no uric acid and it's pretty obvious really.

Yeah this is a post from lew scannon on another site. One of the true experts in the field. There is definitely something wrong with this labs protocols.
C/P
Sounds like your boss BS'd you big time. You shouldve asked for a copy of the MRO report. Never accept verbal info by itself.

For starters, color is not too much of a concern to the labs as long as its not some foreign color thats not supposed to be present in normal human urine ( ie, blue, purple, etc) . A lack of odor is not a concern since this can be exhibited in some human samples. Samples that exhibit no foam are not a concern. What raises the red flags are samples that exhibit excessive foaming when shaken.

Cortisol and uric acid is not tested in a urine sample. There are no standards established nor cutoff levels established. So how can a sample pass/fail this when there are no established cutoff levels to go by?

I'm not going to keep trying to justify their actions. What happened happened. If you are convinced its going to work then do it. I truly hope it does work for you. This post is only here so people are aware that it is not 100%. I know four people in real life who have used this and it worked for them. So if 80% is good enough for you than gamble away. But if you cannot afford to lose your job and have time to quit then just be aware that you are taking a gamble if you choose to trust quick fix.
My boss on the other hand doesn't care what I do in my free time. He already told me that he will hire me back as soon as I am eligible. We have talked about how drug testing is an unfair practice and shouldn't be done until they find a test that will tell you if the person is high right now at this moment. I get the perception that he helped them out me, but that is not how it happened in this instance.

One more link:
Erowid Drug Testing Vaults : The Basics

SAMPLE VALIDITY VERIFICATION TESTING
SAMHSA's testing protocol also requires that labs verify the 'validity' of the urine samples collected to check to make sure they are not adulterated or have been tampered with to interfere with the results. They require that the lab "(1) Determine the creatinine concentration on every specimen; (2) Determine the specific gravity on every specimen for which the creatinine concentration is less than 20 mg/dL; (3) Determine the pH on every specimen; (4) Perform one or more validity tests for oxidizing adulterants on every specimen; and (5) Perform additional validity tests when the following conditions are observed: (i) Abnormal physical characteristics; (ii) Reactions or responses characteristic of an adulterant obtained during initial or confirmatory drug tests (e.g., non-recovery of internal standards, unusual response); or (iii) Possible unidentified interfering substance or adulterant. The choice of additional validity tests is dependent on the observed indicators or characteristics as described in (i), (ii), and (iii) of this section.". Source Federal Register: April 13, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 71), Page 19659.

Another thing to consider. You got online, found and ordered this product no problem right? What makes you think the lab testing you didn't do the same thing? It's not hard to see that if they did then there is a pretty good chance they found a way to distinguish synthetics from the real stuff if they choose to put the effort in. And the argument that if there is no standard cut off level of uric acid is valid, but there was NONE in my sample (according to them).
Seriously this is starting to piss me off. I am just relating my story, and trying to help people not end up in my situation. If anything I have said time and again that quick fix might work for you, not that it is a bogus product. I am only advocating for people to abstain instead of using quick fix if that is an option for them. Again, if that is not an option then yeah, I would probably try quick fix (as long as it was a different lab).

I seriously doubt the veracity of that report altogether.

In addition to the panel discrepency pointed out by tign8r, I found other anomolies:

- The fact that there is no signature provided by both the lab scientist, nor the MRO, which is a must on all CCF forms.

- The report is stated to have been verified on 6/16/09 - 1 day after the sample has been collected. And all this after the sample has been sent off to another site for analysis. Sorry, but even if the sample was rush-couriered to another facility, and that the sample was analyzed with the most instant means of methodology available, the process would still take longer than 1 day.

- Uric acid is not tested in a urine sample. If it was, it would be clearly outlined in the criteria set by the US Deptartment Of Health & Human Services (the governing body that overlooks the operations of all labs practicing in the US), complete with cutoff thresholds established, just like it is for creatinine, pH, SG, etc. As you see in the regulations, no such criteria has been established. Therefore its highly improper for a lab to flag a sample for a lack of uric acid when there is no criteria established for uric acid.

- A lack of smell is not a sufficient cause to flag a urine sample because this condition can be had in human urine samples too. Therefore its improper for a lab to flag a urine sample due to a lack of smell present.

- A sample with a "bright yellow color" is not a sufficient cause for a red flag. Therefore its improper for a lab to reject a sample because of this condition. Samples with foreign colors to them (blue, black, purple, or any other color thats not supposed to be present in human urine) are cause for red flags.

- A lack of foaming, like a lack of odor, can be had in some human samples as well. Therefore its improper for a lab to reject a sample due to a lack of foaming. What will raise the flags is excessive foaming when the sample is shook (due to the use of some adulterants).


My decision? In total agreement with Deejay - either you are telling one big BS story, or you have been screwed over big time by the lab not following established protocols. The bad thing is this couldve happened to you even if you gave them a clean human sample. The report in no way, shape, or form proves from an evidentiary standpoint that you have used a synthetic substitute for the U/A.

If this whole story is actually true, then you need to fight this all the way to the end. As I said, this couldve happened to anyone who was truly drug-free and had submitted their own clean sample.

People have been using this product for years. I have never heard of a fail untill this post and one other. If quick fix was failing everybody on this board would let people know. So exactly 2 in the world have had this problem?