Law: Is EtG Testing the Answer (part 2)

I stumbled on this theory when I saw ethynyl estradiol caused fasle-positives, ethynyl made sense but estradiol? Today, the vast majority tested with this seem to be women, yet the founding research was mostly men, which leaves me to believe Dr. Skipper (responsible for bringing EtG testing to the U.S.) after dubbing it an absolute bio-marker of alcohol consumption despite gender bias research, was well aware of gender bias and/or the possibility of, and his continued stride to use the test while custody, liberty and livelihood are purloined by the claims of surrepititious drinking only add verocity to my assumption. His newest little study inspired some more research of my own to corroborate with my hypothesis, or prove it wrong. I found in conjunction with my gender bias thoery," But, when normalized for total body water, women metabolize ethanol 33% faster than men, due to a proportionally larger liver." Accelerated UGT1A1 (primary enzyme responsible for production of EtG, stimulated by necessity) expression due to the elimination of E2 (natural estrogen, estradiol), ADH (first pass, first elimination of ethanol) less prevalent among, and a proportionally larger liver logically equals a hyperproducer. Dr. Skipper has started a research protocol to establish how these false-positives are occuring. The list of contaminents range from anything that has the molecular structure of ethanol such as vinegar, foods cooked with wine, even over ripened fruit, and an inhalation issue has been raised as well. If this test is positive for anything that had the molecular structure of ethanol such as vinegar, any substance in the "meth" catagory would as well create a false-positive. It is also noted that Tylenol may create false-positives, most likely due to the fact that it as well as many over-the-counter remedies are methylated (1.To mix or combine with methyl alcohol. 2.To combine with the methyl radical.), yet his protocol states:
Some individuals have tested positive for EtG but deny drinking. There are only threepossibilities for this phenomenon.
1. They are being dishonest or in denial and they actually consumed beverage alcohol
2. They are being honest and are not in denial but consumed “incidental” alcohol(from OTC meds, food, hygiene products, or other).
3. They produced alcohol in the GI tract in sufficient quantity to trigger a positivetest. (This is only a theoretical possibility at this time and hasn’t beendocumented.)
Endogenous- ADH is known to eliminate a small percentage of endogenous alcohol, how does the Doc believe the remainder is eliminated? True, .02 is a high endogenous level, but not as uncommon as one might think with certain food combinations (chocolate doughnut), which again would stimulate 1A1 expression leaving one vulnerable to outside influence and adding to the existing EtG. Make no mistake, the only possibility for this phenomenom is the vast amount of contaminents in corroboration with the lack of research on such contaminents, hyperproducers etc... and hiding behind the facade of the virtuous goal of identifying these secret drinkers. I am confident the majority of claims of erroneous reads are not "surrepititious drinking" as the Dr. would have you think, again referring to the list of contaminents and incredible amount of claims, Bayes Rule applies, and of course common sense.
Impressive is the fact that Skipper is going to conduct tests in a supervised setting:
Auto-Brewery Syndrome Test Protocol
(May be performed initially in an unsecured setting, however, for forensic purposes thetest should be performed (or repeated) in a secure environment (search belongings, in asecurely supervised setting where no ethanol is available, etc))
Well skeptics say this has been done before, and they continue to impute guilt rather than address the seemingly obvious. It has been said that one study was conducted with nuns and a regular rinse with mouthwash, when one tested positive they stated that self-reports of consumption are usually not reliable, so the nun lied.