Printable View
I just had an idea. The phone number for this place is on the picture of the paperwork linked above. If someone is motivated call them and tell them you are an employer concerned about substituting and see what they say. I would do this myself, but no one would believe me anyways. I did just call spectrum though and the lady I talked to was shocked when I told her my story and wants my paperwork, which I will gladly pass onto them so they can make a better product.
Ok guys new update. I am contacting a lawyer, and we will see what s/he says about the situation. I will let you know.
As I earlier pointed out, no signature of the lab scientist is present on the form. So how do you know the gender of the person who performed the analysis?Quote:
I'm pretty sure the woman who administered the test was some kind of nazi who enjoys catching us when she can. Bitch.
I was referring to the person who physically took the sample from me and finished the paperwork while I was still there.
Why does this even matter to you? It has nothing to do with the topic.....
In his defense, he did say 'administered the test'.
I personally am interested to see where this goes, because it would benefit us all to see if the protocols and methods used by the labs are beginning to change because of the widespread use of substitution. Maybe they are securing the different brands, and when a UA sample comes in that matches exactly the chemical characteristics of a QF batch for example (exact same ph, SG, etc), it is subjected to further testing?
Healthy debate is good for all of us IMO.
It most certainly has everything to do with the topic in which you brought up. The person who took the sample from you and finished your paperwork is just a collector. She was not the person who "administered" the test, per se, and doesnt deserve to be called a "Nazi" or "bitch". Those names should be directed towards the individual who actually performed the analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by esh147
Pretty obvious protocols were not followed. Also as a side note. NEVER agree with a techs decision that you're a drug addict. Always raise hell. If you don't look pissed off at a positive they're going to think you are guilty. Drug tests are far from perfect and primarily because of the human element
Also I am not QuckFix salesman. Just a person who has used QF over 20 times in the last few years for pre-employement and randoms. And it has never failed me. I like QF because it has always worked and so have no reason to experiment with any of the other synthetic urines out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user616
and BTW - I am still thinking I passed with quick fix 5.7 this past week. Like I have posted, all pre-employment screening results are supposed to be at human resources by today (at the latest) and no one has called me to tell me not to show up on Monday morning. I'll follow up Monday.
Ordered my bottle of Quick Fix 5.7 for my test next week.
This will only be my 2nd time using it. I will definitely let everyone know how it goes. Damn straight if some schmuck tries telling me it failed for the same reasons as ESH all hell will break lose. Knowledge is power and power is knowledge. Thanks for the great information you all provide!!
Wish me luck :hippy:
I am disturbed by this thread too. I am a middle aged guy who has been smoking since the 1970's, off and on. Mostly on lately. I am responsible, good at my job and a good citizen. Yeah, I smoke to relax and to open creative thought paths but I am discrete and private and again, responsible. I have a corporate opportunity that requires a pre-employment drug test. Testing is unfair, intrusive and immoral, but to play the game, I - like most of you - have done what was necessary to pass. QF was a tool I was planning to use to get past it. I hope this was a one-time bad experience. Keep posting and stay free, people. Good luck to us all.