Fat guy needs advice

Hello, I am a newbie. I found this forum quite by accident. I wish I had the info earlier.

I am fat, and I already am aware of this. I am 5'11", and 290 pounds, down from 340. After toking a pipe 2-3 times a year, maybe. I started experimenting with weed for pain management about the 2nd week of December. It worked so well that I quit taking pain meds which made me a zombie. Ohio does not have MM laws yet. I smoked about 4 bowels a day until 16 days ago.

I was just hired by a temp to hire technical service for a killer 90 day to hire contract. No one has mentioned a UA screen yet. I start tomorrow. I read the drug screen agreement for the agency, and it dictates that I maintain my dignity while providing a sample for a 10 panel screen. The sample must be the standard US standards, etc. The creatinine must be the standard 20g/dl, specific gravity 1.033333, etc.

When I interviewed last week, I went to the local head shop, and bought the fat people's Emergency Detox product from Applied Sciences. It is 32 oz. of product, and 16 ounces of water, then pee a few times. The product contains massive amounts of the B vitamins, and creatine.

I started a test run today, and have drank 3 qts of a low cal sports drink I already had called Spark. It contains the 3 main B vitamins, as well as creatine. I also chased the Spark with 4 gts of water. I have had red meat meals today, and have taken 12 creatine tabs, as well as 600 mg of Zinc supplement. I plan on eating a big steak tonight, and continue loading zinc, and creatine. I took a cheap test strip after 6 hours of all of the aforementioned slamming. It was + for THC metabolites.

I have not faxed the drug screen papers, with the other 20 forms yet. I will do this during the weekend, so I will buy 5 more days before a potential test, legally.. I have inside info from a trusted friend that it is not a big deal there. The ultimate company I will be hired by may not require a pre employment screen for 90 more days when I should be a permanent employee. I may be worried for nothing.

I have not read any info on this site regarding zinc as an adulterant.
Zinc Reduces the Detection of Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and THC by ELISA Urine Testing

Last year, a spot test for the presence of zinc was developed. As slow as the govt works, this may not be standard lab procedure for some time.
Novel Spot Tests for Detecting the Presence of Zinc Sulfate in Urine, a Newly Introduced Urinary Adulterant to Invalidate Drugs of Abuse Testing

My questions, are:

Am I on the correct path here? Has anyone successfully used zinc as an adulterant? Advise for fat smokers?

I read all of the stickies. I have learned some info. I understand, YMMV.

I look forward from some of the experts here.

Thank you in advance.

The use of ANY adulterants is not recommended. Labs are testing for adulterants of any kind and this practice have become SOP in recent years.

If a person is brave enough to sneak something inside a facility, s/he might as well make it count and sneak in something that will work - a urine sample from a clean donor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burnt Toast

The use of ANY adulterants is not recommended. Labs are testing for adulterants of any kind and this practice have become SOP in recent years.

If a person is brave enough to sneak something inside a facility, s/he might as well make it count and sneak in something that will work - a urine sample from a clean donor.

---

Thank you for the reply. Reading your post, you almost imply that one would sneak zinc into the collection cup. The abstract I linked to is from Oxford's Journal of Analytical Toxicology. I only read the abstract published in 2011. It states that test groups ingested zinc before a Urine test. I did not read the details in the full paper. The subjects tested negative for THC, metabolites, and other drugs not discussed here.
Apparently the zinc was undetectable in 2011.

Two years later, (2013) a spot test was developed to detect zinc in the sample. I cannot find any data that the zinc detection processes where incorporated into the standard lab screen panels yet.

My Google Fu may not be up to par on this. Maybe I misunderstood, maybe I should have read more than the abstracts.

I agree, if I am going to sneak something in the collection, it will be clean pee. I am just a bass player, sometimes it is obvious. :P

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Reading your post, you almost imply that one would sneak zinc into the collection cup.

---

That because youve mentioned zinc as an "adulterant". When you spike a urine sample with an agent thats known to destroy drug metabolites, thats referred to as adulteration in the eyes of the DHHS.

According to the article in your first link, the ingesting of zinc interferes with the function of the ELISA Immunoassay, in much the same way aspirin used to interfer with the function of the first-generation EMIT screen. Theres no evidence that zinc has any effect on THC metabolites in ones body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burnt Toast

That because youve mentioned zinc as an "adulterant". When you spike a urine sample with an agent thats known to destroy drug metabolites, thats referred to as adulteration in the eyes of the DHHS.

According to the article in your first link, the ingesting of zinc interferes with the function of the Immunoassay, in much the same way aspirin used to interfer with the function of the first-generation EMIT screen. Theres no evidence that zinc has any effect on THC metabolites in ones body.

---

Yes, I get that the zinc was found to trick the I/A. It was interesting to see that in 2011, the zinc was undetectable in the sample of diluted urine. I started the job today, they only seemed interested in me agreeing not to have a firearm on their property. I may have 90 days for nature to do it's thing with the metabolites. I am 17 days, and counting on abstinence.

When I get time, I will do some research and see if the spot check for the presence of zinc has been widely incorporated.

Thank you for your patience.

You guys have a wonderful community, and I will endeavor to be a thoughtful contributor.

Quote:

---

Yes, I get that the zinc was found to trick the I/A. It was interesting to see that in 2011, the zinc was undetectable in the sample of diluted urine.

---

Whether or not the zinc was responsible for the negative test results is a big question mark. Due to the fact that another factor was involved: dilution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burnt Toast

Whether or not the zinc was responsible for the negative test results is a big question mark. Due to the fact that another factor was involved: dilution.

---

I rechecked the abstract from the Oxford website. The word "diluted" is not mentioned. I am too cheap to buy the full paper, as I would probably not understand most of it anyway. I do not know why I added the word, "diluted". See what abstaining from weed does to me?

Quote:

---

Urine samples from acute marijuana smokers were also obtained in order to study the effects of zinc supplements on THC drug testing. All urine drug testing was performed using ELISA detection kits manufactured by Immunalysis. Both zinc sulfate and zinc supplements are effective in interfering with the detection of all three drugs by Immunalysis drug detection kits. Also, no suitable method could be established to detect zinc in urine samples. Zinc can be an effective adulterant in urine for some illicit drugs that are commonly screened under routine drug testing.

---

Zinc Reduces the Detection of Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and THC by ELISA Urine Testing

I would guess that it will only be a matter of time for zinc to be added to list of detectable adulterants. Spot testing was developed in 2013. Old news, but hey, I'm old too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5stringRUMBLE

I rechecked the abstract from the Oxford website. The word "diluted" is not mentioned. I am too cheap to buy the full paper, as I would probably not understand most of it anyway. I do not know why I added the word, "diluted". See what abstaining from weed does to me?



Zinc Reduces the Detection of Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and THC by ELISA Urine Testing

I would guess that it will only be a matter of time for zinc to be added to list of detectable adulterants.

---

If zinc was ingested rather than added to a urine sample, it is erroneous to label zinc as an "adulterant". A more accurate label in this case would be an "interferant".

Just setting the record straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burnt Toast

If zinc was ingested rather than added to a urine sample, it is erroneous to label zinc as an "adulterant". A more accurate label in this case would be an "interferant".

Just setting the record straight.

---

I agree with you on the definitions. These men are the authors of the paper: Nathan H. Lents, Abhishek Venkatratnam. They chose the word "adulterant" for some reason. One is a grad student, the other appears to be some sort of genius. Meh, I have a few 500, and 600 level courses under my belt, but my brilliance is often equated with a small appliance light bulb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5stringRUMBLE

I agree with you on the definitions. These men are the authors of the paper: Nathan H. Lents, Abhishek Venkatratnam. They chose the word "adulterant" for some reason. One is a grad student, the other appears to be some sort of genius.

---

Even so, this doesnt necessarily bolster the articles credibility. Frankly, their conclusion on their experiment exhibits a few holes. If zinc were ingested, the test subjects would have to ingest some fluids with the zinc. Its a pretty safe bet that these test subjects did not ingest zinc "dry" and without any fluids to follow. With this being noted, it becomes a question mark as to whether zinc was actually responsible for these tests being ruled a negative.

For any scientific experiment to have any validity, you can only change one variable. In that experiment, there are two variables obviously involved and these experimenters are attempting to change the two varibles: the amount of zinc being ingested and the amount of fluids consumed with the zinc. Never mind that there was no baseline established for the pot-using test subjects before the experimenters had attempted to change the two variables.
You cannot change two variables.

So that begs the $64,000.00 question: Did the zinc actually performed its interfering duties, or did the chaser fluids had succeeded to dilute the THCA concentration in the bladder to the point where the urine sample registered a negative on the Immunoassay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burnt Toast

Even so, this doesnt necessarily bolster the articles credibility. Frankly, their conclusion on their experiment exhibits a few holes. If zinc were ingested, the test subjects would have to ingest some fluids with the zinc. Its a pretty safe bet that these test subjects did not ingest zinc "dry" and without any fluids to follow. With this being noted, it becomes a question mark as to whether zinc was actually responsible for these tests being ruled a negative.

For any scientific experiment to have any validity, you can only change one variable. In that experiment, there are two variables obviously involved and these experimenters are attempting to change the two varibles: the amount of zinc being ingested and the amount of fluids consumed with the zinc. Never mind that there was no baseline established for the pot-using test subjects before the experimenters had attempted to change the two variables.
You cannot change two variables.

So that begs the $64,000.00 question: Did the zinc actually performed its interfering duties, or did the chaser fluids had succeeded to dilute the THCA concentration in the bladder to the point where the urine sample registered a negative on the Immunoassay?

---

I guess the apparent lack of peer review speaks volumes. I moderate a small hobby forum. Reading your very consistent posts, I must say that I am impressed. I admire people who make it their business to help others. To paraphrase a few of your posts, 'testing is serious business, family income, and livelihood is a stake.'