Skip to heading: Cholesterol discoveries | The history of the term alcohol | Ethanol, the boogeyman alcohol | Breathalyzer operation and logic | DUI quotas | LARPing as an anesthesiologist | Test result confidentiality | The unknown breath multiplier
This morning, I took three cookies out of my cupboard. I ate two and threw one on the ground. Answer the following two questions truthfully under the penalty of losing your driver's license and imprisonment: 1) what is the number of cookies I have left in my cupboard, and 2) am I or am I not drunk? Those are trick questions — there could be anywhere between 0 and infinity cookies left; the number of cookies remaining in the cupboard has no obvious logical connection to my drunkenness; it is not obvious that drunkenness is a yes/no state; it is wrong to take someone's driver's license away and imprison him for failing to answer such trick questions. There is no scientific method to conclusively or "truthfully" answer either of those questions, yet they use the same logic as breathalyzers and blood alcohol tests, which we're told use proven science to analyze breath and blood samples to reach a numeric determination of the alcohol acting on the test subject's body, on the basis of which it is possible to make a yes/no determination of his drunkenness and whether he should be imprisoned or not.
What you're about to read is a scandalous text that will plumb the depths of the government-approved scam known as blood alcohol testing. All the information presented here is public knowledge, and all did was gather it and present it in one place. I will show to you all the handwaving and shortcuts taken to produce as many false positives and to justify as many interruptions, false accusations, false stops, searches, arrests, imprisonments, seizures, character assassinations, convictions, deprivations of rights and privileges, and inflated police budgets as humanly possible. There is some science behind blood alcohol testing, but it is carefully presented in a way that gives the concept the appearance of legitimacy, which proves intent to scam, and that appearance unravels under any scrutiny, with some judges already being aware of the magnitude of the scam. That appearance of legitimacy is not nearly enough to have blood alcohol testing defined by law as mandatory tests, the results of which are used as irrefutable proof of drunkenness, on the basis of which the test subject's right of travel and freedom can be limited.
Breathalyzers are not and will never be scientific or medical devices, and their results have no medical relevance. If you used the same logic behind breathalyzers to create a startup that offered a similar diagnostic service and used a small sample of bodily emissions, such as farts, to reach a conclusion about the entire body and lured in investors with promises of medical relevance, you would surely be investigated for fraud and pounded hard and fast by the iron fist of law, which is what happened to Elizabeth Holmes and her infamous Theranos startup, though she tried it with blood instead of breath or farts. Everyone who is involved in the deployment and use of breathalyzers knows they're a scam, and they'll keep using them no matter if you protest it or not, so save your breath and challenge the underlying law in court instead.
In 1928, Adolf Otto Reinhold Windaus won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work on sterols and their relation to vitamins, especially vitamin D. The Nobel Prize website's page titled "Speed read: Connecting vital functions" explains that some biological processes seem worlds apart but are chemically similar and explains his discovery in these words (emphasis added):
The key link in all these processes is a series of chemicals found widely in animals, plants and vegetables called sterols, of which the best known is cholesterol. Correctly believing that all sterols are derived from a parent substance, Windaus isolated digestive chemicals formed in the liver called bile acids, and showed that they are closely related to the sterols by successfully transforming cholesterol into one of these bile acids, cholanic acid. Windaus found the same to be true for several of the cardiotoxic compounds derived from the foxglove plant.
In perhaps his best-known achievement, Windaus discovered that the chemical precursor of vitamin D is also a member of the sterol group, and he showed how sunlight breaks one of the chemical bonds in the parent molecule, converting it into the active vitamin. The finding had major implications outside of chemistry; it revealed why exposure to sunlight can prevent rickets, a disease caused by vitamin D deficiency in humans.
The presentation speech was given by Professor H.G. Söderbaum and in part reads:
The so-called sterols are also an extremely interesting group from the physiological viewpoint. They too occur both in vegetation and in animals. Most numerous are the vegetable sterols, the so-called phytosterols, but the best-known is certainly cholesterol, which occurs in the animal organism, and which was first found about 150 years ago in gall stones. This substance occurs not only in bile but also in the brain, in nerve substance, in the egg, in blood, and presumably in all cells. Thus we can conclude that it plays an extremely important part in the life process of man and the animals, just as the phytosterols play an extremely important part in the life process of plants.
In 1964, Konrad Bloch and Feodor Lynen jointly won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries related to cholesterol. Their findings were in part summarized by Professor S. Bergström thusly (emphasis added):
The word cholesterol means gallstone and the reason for this name is that cholesterol was isolated almost 200 years ago from human gallstones. Another connection between cholesterol and human diseases has been established more recently. During the last decade there has been a lively discussion, also in the newspapers, about the correlation between atherosclerosis and the amount of cholesterol and other fats in diet and in blood. This discussion has perhaps concealed from many the fact that cholesterol is a necessary constituent of all our cells and that it fulfils important functions.
At an early stage Bloch made another discovery of fundamental importance in showing that cholesterol is the precursor of bile acids and of one of the female sex hormones. These discoveries opened up a new field of research that has engaged a great number of scientists in different disciplines. We know now that all substances of steroid nature in our body are formed from cholesterol.
In 1985, Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein jointly won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries related to cholesterol and atherosclerosis, the disease caused by its accumulation inside the blood vessels. In short, the two discovered the existence of cholesterol receptors on the surface of cells in the body, and they discovered that some people lack these receptors, causing them to accumulate cholesterol in blood, especially if their cholesterol intake is higher than they can process. The Nobel Assembly press release for their discovery states in part that:
The cholesterol debate during the last decade may have given the public the impression that cholesterol is something you have to avoid to survive. This is, however, neither possible nor desirable: cholesterol is present in all our tissues and is produced in the body. Cholesterol is also vitally important for several of the normal processes in the body.
A 2008 study titled "Cholesterol: a Century of Research and Debate" states that cholesterol is the most highly decorated molecule in history and that a total of 13 Nobel Prizes have been awarded because of discoveries related to cholesterol. None of that would be problematic or concern any of us, except that sterols are alcohols and cholesterol is an alcohol, which we are told is a dangerous, prohibited substance and the consumption of which is allegedly determined by the use of a breath-testing machine aka. breathalyzer. When cops tell the test subject that he is going to undergo an "alcohol test," they are not lying to him, but they are not telling him the entire truth either — alcohols are so numerous and so key to the existence of life itself that the test is meaningless and doesn't conclusively prove anything.
To understand what an alcohol was and is, we should examine the word itself and how it changed over time. Pre-modern chemistry had unusual naming conventions because its roots were in random experiments and discoveries; we would have to wait for the early 19th century for a proper scientific naming method. For instance, EtymOnline.com tells us that helium got its name in the following way (emphasis added):
1868, coined from Greek hēlios "sun" (from PIE root *sawel- "the sun"), because the element was detected in the solar spectrum during the eclipse of Aug. 18, 1868, by English astronomer Sir Joseph N. Lockyer (1836-1920) and English chemist Sir Edward Frankland (1825-1899). It was not actually obtained until 1895; before then it was assumed to be an alkali metal, hence the ending in -ium.
Therefore, a chemical element or a substance could get a placeholder name based on the assumptions surrounding its discovery, and that placeholder name could stick around even after they were refuted and there was a better name for it. Now we'll see how a placeholder name can extend to an entire class of compounds related to the original discovery. In the case of alcohol, EtymOnline.com reveals the origins of the name and how it changed over time thusly:
1540s (early 15c. as alcofol), "fine powder produced by sublimation," from Medieval Latin alcohol "powdered ore of antimony," from Arabic al-kuhul "kohl," the fine metallic powder used to darken the eyelids, from kahala "to stain, paint." The al- is the Arabic definite article, "the."
Paracelsus (1493-1541) used the word to refer to a fine powder but also a volatile liquid. By 1670s it was being used in English for "any sublimated substance, the pure spirit of anything," including liquids.
The sense of "intoxicating ingredient in strong liquor" is attested by 1753, short for alcohol of wine, which then was extended to the intoxicating element in fermented liquors. The formerly preferred terms for the substance were rectified spirits or brandy.
In organic chemistry, the word was extended by 1808 to the class of compounds of the same type as this (a 1790 translation of Lavoisier's "Elements of Chemistry" has alkoholic gas for "the combination of alkohol with caloric").
You can clearly see how the word "alcohol" initially described what it was, where it came from, and how it was used, and that the word evolved to cover an entire class of compounds. Now let's go back to our good friend cholesterol and see what EtymOnline.com has to say about its name (emphasis added):
white, solid substance present in body tissues, 1894, earlier cholesterin, from French cholestrine (Chevreul, 1827), from Latinized form of Greek khole "bile" (from PIE root *ghel- (2) "to shine," with derivatives denoting "green, yellow," and thus "bile, gall") + steros "solid, stiff" (from PIE root *ster- (1) "stiff"). So called because originally found in gallstones (Conradi, 1775). The name was changed to the modern form (with chemical suffix -ol, denoting an alcohol) after the compound was discovered to be a secondary alcohol.
Note that cholesterol seems to be present in inorganic matter as well; it can create stones.
How we define alcohols today, based on Wikipedia article "Alcohol (chemistry)" is "organic compound that carries at least one hydroxyl (−OH) functional group bound to a saturated carbon atom." What it basically means is that we expect certain effects from the -OH group, which is also present in fats and sugars. In plain English, substances are joined together like Lego blocks, and if they have a specific Lego block, such as the -OH functional group, the entire shape becomes more or less alcohol-y, sugar-y, or fat-ty, and that also changes with their size and the position of the -OH group. What alcohols, sugars, and fats have in common is that they're all dealt with by common pathways in the liver. Without going too much into it, this already indicates that, if a person's liver is burdened with processing fats and/or sugars because of a poor diet, that person's liver might not be as equipped to handle alcohols and that person might have more alcohol in the blood, with or without alcoholic drink consumption.
Today, the word "alcohol" has basically lost its entire original meaning, and it might as well be replaced with "thing" or "spirit" or "cloud." We know of many alcohols with different properties: some are sweet and liquid, and others are greasy and solid. We somewhat improved the naming convention for novel alcohols, and today we describe their structure by joining together the names of their constitutents and ending the name in "-ol." Names of some distinct alcohols defy that convention and are still widely used because of force of habit. The most relevant of these distinct alcohols is ethanol, which is present in alcoholic drinks such as vodka and tequila.
The modern meaning of "alcohol" most often refers to ethanol, which EtymOnline.com defines as:
"ethyl alcohol," 1900, contracted from ethane, to which it is the corresponding alcohol, + -ol, here indicating alcohol.
Ethanol is a naturally occurring alcohol that has unusual properties on mammals, putting them in a state of relaxation, numbness, and sleep. How much ethanol it takes to relax, numb, or put the mammal to sleep depends on many factors, including body weight, age, and whether the mammal has eaten anything before the consumption of ethanol. Wikipedia's article "Ethanol" describes ethanol as (emphasis added):
Ethanol is naturally produced by the fermentation process of sugars by yeasts or via petrochemical processes such as ethylene hydration. Historically it was used as a general anesthetic, and has modern medical applications as an antiseptic, disinfectant, solvent for some medications, and antidote for methanol poisoning and ethylene glycol poisoning. It is used as a chemical solvent and in the synthesis of organic compounds, and as a fuel source for lamps, stoves, and internal combustion engines. Ethanol also can be dehydrated to make ethylene, an important chemical feedstock.
(...) Ethanol can commonly be found in overripe fruit.(...) Ethanol has been detected in outer space, forming an icy coating around dust grains in interstellar clouds. Minute quantity amounts (average 196 ppb) of endogenous ethanol and acetaldehyde were found in the exhaled breath of healthy volunteers. Auto-brewery syndrome, also known as gut fermentation syndrome, is a rare medical condition in which intoxicating quantities of ethanol are produced through endogenous fermentation within the digestive system.
Ethylene is a plant hormone released by ripening fruits that causes other nearby fruits to ripen, which is why a single rotting apple can cause a chain reaction of rotting apples in the vicinity. You can read up on ethylene on your own, but the point of it is that you can't escape the effects of ethanol on your body, and if you somehow could, that would probably mean you're dead. Also note that yeast turns sugars into ethanol, meaning that bread with yeast contains ethanol too, which probably explains why Jews eat unleavened bread (matzo) during Passover. The presence of ethanol by itself does not signify that it was a consequence of a mammalian metabolic process, consumption of overripe fruit, alcoholic drinks, or anything else.
Ethanol might appear on its own inside anyone's body, and if it does, the body will try to dispose of it in the most efficient way possible. Wikipedia states that ethanol boils at 78.2 °C, which means ethanol easily evaporates, and it makes sense that the body will try to release it through breath. Any device that tests the breath for ethanol presence and tries to establish conclusions about the person's sleepiness based on those readings is at best quasi-scientific and at worst fraudulent, and I intend to conclusively prove that breathalyzers are the latter because they are knowingly used with presumption of guilt to interrupt and harass people who have no way of disproving that presumption or proving their innocence.
The human diet regularly involves sugars, which are a similarly vast category of substances as alcohols to the point the word "sugar" is meaningless, and there is actually some overlap between the two categories. The gut bacteria might be able to eat some of the sugar and may cause fermentation, which, as explained by Wikipedia above, may produce ethanol, while the liver may use some of other sugars, and so on. There are plenty of so-called "sugar alcohols," which are used in candy because they are sweet and low in calories. The human body struggles to digest them and they just run through the gut. The image below shows the ingredients of Airwaves Black Menthol chewing gum containing such sugar alcohols and a diarrhea warning (click the image below for a 756.92 KB, 2,801x955px JPG version):
The ingredient list shows the following alcohols:
Did you catch the hidden alcohol in the chewing gum? By now, your mind should be trained enough to spot alcohols, but if not, it's in the name: menthol. That one is produced by the peppermint plant. I've gathered the most interesting parts from Wikipedia articles on all four (emphasis added):
Sorbitol — a sugar alcohol with a sweet taste which the human body metabolizes slowly.(...) Most sorbitol is made from potato starch, but it is also found in nature, for example in apples, pears, peaches, and prunes. (...) Sorbitol is an isomer of mannitol, another sugar alcohol; the two differ only in the orientation of the hydroxyl group on carbon 2. While similar, the two sugar alcohols have very different sources in nature, melting points, and uses. (...) Too much sorbitol trapped in retinal cells, the cells of the lens, and the Schwann cells that myelinate peripheral nerves, is a frequent result of long-term hyperglycemia that accompanies poorly controlled diabetes. This can damage these cells, leading to retinopathy, cataracts and peripheral neuropathy, respectively.
Isomalt — like most sugar alcohols (including the chemically similar maltitol), isomalt carries a risk of intestinal distress when consumed in large quantities (above about 20–30 g per day). Isomalt may prove upsetting to the intestinal tract because it is incompletely absorbed in the small intestine, and when polyols pass into the large intestine, they can cause osmotically induced diarrhea and stimulate the gut flora, causing flatulence. As with dietary fibers, regular consumption of isomalt can lead to desensitization, decreasing the risk of intestinal upset.
Mannitol — a type of sugar alcohol used as a sweetener and medication. It is used as a low-calorie sweetener as it is poorly absorbed by the intestines. As a medication, it is used to decrease pressure in the eyes(...) Mannitol is a natural constituent of most microorganisms and plants, having an essential role in maintaining cell and tissue water balance, and responding to environmental stresses, such as drought or low temperature.
Menthol — organic compound that occurs naturally in the oils of certain plants in the mint family, such as corn mint and peppermint. It is a white or clear waxy crystalline substance that is solid at room temperature and melts slightly above. (...) Commonly used in oral hygiene products and bad-breath remedies, such as mouthwash, toothpaste, mouth and tongue sprays, and more generally as a food flavor agent; such as in chewing gum and candy. (...) Menthol reacts in many ways like a normal secondary alcohol.
We have a general idea of how these alcohols act inside the human body, but that's only while they're in organs. When in the blood, these compounds have a negligible effect on the body, unless they're found in extreme concentrations. It makes sense: the organs are the ones that perform various functions in the body, and blood is the medium of exchange between them, but it isn't an organ, and thus, the presence of alcohols in it does not mean anything. Therefore, even when a blood alcohol test is done by drawing a blood sample and analyzing it, its results are still neither meaningful nor conclusive because it doesn't tell us how much alcohol is in organs, which organs have which alcohols, or how those alcohols influence those organs. The brain is the one responsible for sleepiness, so anything other than an alcohol test on the brain is pointless. It is possible that blood alcohol tests are designed to specifically detect those alcohols only found in the blood that don't impact the brain at all, and nobody would be any wiser to it.
As seen from the section on sorbitol, metabolic dysfunction changes the way body handles sugars/alcohols. The liver of a diabetic apparently can't clear them fast enough, so they get deposited where they shouldn't be, and it makes sense that the body will try to remove as much as possible, such as through breath, though it's probably a slow and steady process that gets accelerated when taking deep breaths and exhaling lungfuls of air. Physical exercise increases the heart rate, makes the blood flow faster, and increases the breathing rate, which helps expel more alcohol, which is exactly what happens when taking a deep exhale that is mandatory when using a breathalyzer.
Another interesting possibility is that a positive breathalyzer reading might indicate a pre-diabetic or diabetic state or just a metabolic dysfunction rather than drunkenness, but we can never be sure because a handheld device can never provide definitive medical results. I'm obviously not the first one to connect these dots, because here is an interesting article titled "New Breathalyzer Can Test Blood Glucose Levels" and published on Diabetes365.com on May 8, 2026, stating that (emphasis added):
The new device that is still in development would work similarly to an average breathalyzer. But how does a breathalyzer detect abnormal glucose levels in a person’s breath? The breathalyzer device contains polymers which react with acetone, which is one of the ketones produced in diabetics. The higher glucose levels in the body, the higher amount of acetones found in the breath. (...) While the goal of the new device is to completely replace finger pricking, it’s still unknown exactly how accurate these breathalyzers are going to be. It’s been proven that a higher amount of acetone in the breath is a side effect of high blood glucose, but it still isn’t known if the higher acetone has a direct correlation between glucose levels.
The Wikipedia page "Acetone" states the following (emphasis added):
It serves as a solvent in household products such as nail polish remover and paint thinner. (...) Since it is a byproduct of fermentation, acetone is a byproduct of the distillery industry. Acetone is naturally occurring. It is produced by terrestrial vegetation, undefined ocean processes, incomplete combustion of biomass, or oxidation of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.
What we're told about breathalyzers is that they analyze the breath sample of the test subject and, through the use of some proprietary sensors inside the device, detect vaporized "alcohol" in the breath sample, on the basis of which the breathalyzer does some unknown calculations and comes up with a number that supposedly shows the test subject's blood "alcohol" level, and if that number is higher than some predetermined number written in some law somewhere, the test subject is drunk and should be detained or arrested and his driving license suspended or revoked. Therefore, it is logical that a breathalyzer requires that there is: a) a reservoir of alcohol near it, and b) this reservoir produces vapors that contain alcohol and that are pushed into the breathalyzer. Do you see the problem with it?
To explain the problem with the above two requirements, let me offer a slightly more fair variant of the cookie question. Let's imagine that you're holding a balloon with 500 ml of vodka in it. Vodka contains ethanol and your body heat alone will cause it to evaporate, but let's say that you're holding the balloon's outlet tightly and thus no alcohol can leave the balloon and that next to the balloon's outlet is a breathalyzer. As vodka evaporates, the alcoholic vapors will mix with the air inside the balloon until the air is saturated and then the vodka will stop evaporating. The condition a) is satisfied, since we have a reservoir of alcohol near a breathalyzer, but condition b) is not satisfied, and therefore, the breathalyzer should indicate a 0.00 reading because there is no air with alcoholic vapor entering the device.
In short, this setup mimics a "drunk human body" about to breathe into a breathalyzer. The human body is far more complex than a vodka-filled balloon, but for the purposes of examining the logic behind breathalyzers, it will do. If you now imagine yourself slightly releasing your grip, the air inside the balloon will escape, producing an air current rich in alcoholic vapors that will rush outside and into the breathalyzer. However, this slight air current will not be enough to trigger the breathalyzer reading, which is why the cops will always command the test subject to "blow harder" when using the breathalyzer. If you imagine yourself releasing your grip even more, the air current will become stronger and the breathalyzer should indicate a positive number, say, 0.06. Now let's go back to the cookie question, this time written fairly and so it's answerable conclusively.
Under the penalty of imprisonment, answer the following question truthfully: at the time of testing that indicated a positive number, did the balloon have more vodka in it, the same amount, or less than before testing? Matter cannot spontaneously appear, so we can eliminate the first answer. We know that ethanol evaporates and there was at least some vodka that turned into vapor while we held the outlet, so it's not the second answer either. Therefore, the only possible answer is that there is less vodka than at the start. Do you see it? A positive breathalyzer test simply means that the test subject's body is expelling alcohol and that he has less alcohol in his body than before, and the higher the reading, the more efficiently the body is working and the more sober he is! This is the exact opposite of how we're told breathalyzers work and what their readings mean!!! They don't indicate drunkenness but the rate of sobering up!!
This also explains the occasional news article with the headline in the vein of "cops stunned as a drunken man gets a breathalyzer reading that should mean he's in a coma or dead." One such article was published in 2012 in the Boston Herald under the title "Breath analyzer debate blows up over ‘amazing’ .384 reading" and contains some interesting statements. For archival purposes, I have created a full-page screenshot of the article, but the most interesting part of it is seen below (click the image for the 986.08 KB, 1,748x2,837 PNG version):
Sadly, lawyers are inside the system, and though they may protest its flaws as a whistleblower, they can rarely, if ever, take any effective action regarding the prevention of injustice. From my experience talking to lawyers and from observing the judicial system in action, courts prefer to entertain lawsuits that involve some amount of material damage or physical injury. I can't sue the cops if they plan to use a breathalyzer on me; I have to wait for the cops to order me to use one, and when I reject, I need to be arrested, perhaps get beaten and my nose broken by them, lose my job, lose my reputation and my professional license, if any, and only then can I launch a lawsuit against the government and/or the police department, and even then, I have to prove injuries and damages on my own. At that point, the damage is already done, and it's a question whether any amount of money can restore my peace of mind, faith in the government, and reputation.
Breathalyzers are supposed to be calibrated from time to time. I asked a licensed traffic expert here in Bosnia and Herzegovina about the process and he said that here they need to be calibrated once a year in an institute qualified to perform scientific measurements. A YouTube video titled "How Do Breathalyzers Work?" published March 10, 2014, by the channel Reactions shows the US calibration process, which is done by a cop using a gas mixture at the police station, and contains an explanation of how a breathalyzer works by Corporal Michael Rose from Prince George's County, Maryland. I've recorded the audio of it, which you can listen to by clicking here. The most interesting part is this:
With your breath, there is a direct correlation between the percentage of alcohol that's in your blood and the breath that's expelled. There's a 2,100:1 ratio. We can measure the amount of the air, and the air is going to have the same proportion of alcohol in the air that's coming back out as was in the blood that's flowing through your body.
That 2,100:1 ratio is a very interesting number. First, it is very specific and we're not told how it is determined, and second, it is remarkably high. I don't know of any measurement process where a measurement is made and the result multiplied by 2,100, which indicates the breathalyzer he showcased is way too small for testing humans, and maybe, it was originally made for testing some other mammal with a smaller frame, like a rodent. I'd say a typical person weighs 80–100 kilograms, or 80,000–100,000 grams. Divided by 2,100, this gives 38–47 grams, which I'd say is the weight of an adult lab mouse, and a cursory internet search shows that adult laboratory mice can weigh between 20 to 40 grams, depending on the strain, which lines up with the concept.
It is therefore logical that the breathalyzer shown in the video, the Alco-Sensor III sold by Intoximeters, was originally designed and sold to be used for laboratory testing of mice, and that it failed to meet the scientific standards of reliability and accuracy, which is why the labs stopped buying and using it, and Intoximeters decided to pivot and sell it off to police stations to be used on humans. In fact, if you look at the product page for that breathalyzer on the Intoximeters webpage, you will see an interesting remark (red font color present in the original):
NOTE: The Alco-Sensor III is only available as a refurbished instrument. Please request product information for details.
That sounds like a legal disclaimer, which shouldn't be necessary unless there are some legal issues around the validity of the test results. Perhaps they were repeatedly thrown out of court because they're not scientific? The remark was then included to prevent police departments who might want to purchase and use that breathalyzer from complaining to Intoximeters about the invalid results. I also clicked around on the Intoximeters website and landed on the page titled "Physiology", where I found the following text (emphasis added):
Intoximeters, experts in Breath Alcohol Testing since 1945, provides the following white paper as a public courtesy. We specialize in evidential breath alcohol testing instruments and training, and are trusted by law enforcement and government regulatory agencies world-wide as a leader in the industry.
Can you see what is missing there? Law enforcement is the executive branch; government regulatory agencies are the legislative branch, so where is the judicial branch? If Intoximeters' breathalyzers were trusted by the judicial branch, I'm sure that would be mentioned in the text, and since it isn't, it means that judges don't trust Intoximeters' breathalyzer results. Why wouldn't judges trust Intoximeters? Perhaps because their devices are unreliable and meant for testing lab animals of a smaller frame, which gives false positives in humans and causes their breathalyzers' test results to be repeatedly thrown out of court. Once you open your mind and think clearly, you can see everything like it's in the palm of your hand, no matter how well it's hidden.
One case in which irreparable damage was done to a test subject's reputation appeared on People.com on April 27, 2026, under the title "Bride Files Lawsuit Over DUI Arrest on Day After Her Wedding Following Negative Breathalyzer and Blood Tests." Brianna Longoria was placed under a breathalyzer test, which she passed, and the cop still arrested her because "her eyes were red and her pupils were really big." That same cop, Mary Metheny, was caught on her bodycam admitting that she needs to meet her DUI quota or she'll be punished. The highlight of the story is shown below (click the image for the 1.26 MB, 1,286x7,445px JPG version):
What you probably noticed is that, although Brianna was punished by a cop, the punishment was reversed by a judge, who belongs to a different branch of the government than the cop and is thus responsible for the correction of police mistakes. The law that mandates breathalyzer use is created by the legislative branch of the government aka. politicians; that same law is executed by the executive branch of the government aka. cops; the validity of the law and its execution is verified by the judicial branch of the government aka. judges. Therefore, if you want to undo any harm or damage done by breathalyzer use, you need to wait for them to happen and then sue, but if you want to prevent them, you need to petition the appropriate court and ask for the offending law to be stricken from the books in its entirety, including all its consequences, such as fines, fees, restrictions, honors, offices, judgments, and so on.
When you're arguing with a cop, you are asking him to act as a judge in his own case, which he isn't equipped to do, and even if he were, he would be in a conflict of interest and would obviously find his own actions correct and true. Therefore, as I said, save your breath, don't argue with the cops, don't participate in their demented schemes, and don't agree to be the test subject in their LARPs. Instead, refuse to sign anything and preserve all paperwork given to you because it is evidence of wrongdoing and will help you find others who have also undergone the same abuse.
When I was a kid, I used to play Dungeons & Dragons with my older brother. It's a game where you pretend to be a warrior, a sorcerer, a monster, or whatever else, and you "fight" against other players according to some predetermined rules. It's a fine game for kids, but I later learned that adults do it too, and they call it LARP (live action roleplay). What I didn't expect is cops to be doing it too. When Mary Metheny observed Brianna Longoria's "red eyes" and "big pupils," Mary concluded that those are signs of marijuana use, and the problem with such descriptive language, with that conclusion, and with field sobriety tests in general is that they are an attempt to determine a person's drunkenness/intoxication level based on how the test subject's body looks and acts, and there is already a branch of medicine that deals with exactly that: anesthesiology. In other words, Mary was LARPing as an anesthesiologist, who are among the best paid medical professionals because they serve as the right hand of the surgeon during operations. In the US, the median salary for an anesthesiologist in 2024 was $336,000.
Their job is to put the patient under and bring him back, safely, by administering microdoses of anesthetics and watching for signs of numbness and sleep, such as by asking the patient to count down backwards and observing the delay between numbers. They take 12–15 years of medical training to become fully competent in their field because, if they make one wrong move, the patient is gone forever, and all those people who die due to fentanyl overdose are arguably dying because they are practicing anesthesiology on themselves without medical training. When you drink alcoholic drinks, you are practicing anesthesiology on yourself, so you better watch what you're doing.
When a cop stops someone and performs an assessment of intoxication or orders him to perform a field sobriety test, that cop is essentially practicing anesthesiology without a license. That is a felony across the US. How do we know the cop isn't qualified to practice anesthesiology? If he were, he would be doing that instead of stopping random test subjects and ordering them to hop on one leg, tap their head while scratching their tummy, and recite the alphabet backwards. Let's assume that he is qualified or that each cop is accompanied by a fully licensed anesthesiologist. Does that make the breathalyzer or the field sobriety test valid?
As a patient, your test results are protected by law, which is in the US called HIPAA. If you want to do a medical test, only qualified personnel may perform it, and its results, no matter what they are, are revealed only to you. That applies to pregnancy tests, surgery outcomes, and any other diagnoses, tests, and lab results, and it's logical that HIPAA would apply to blood alcohol tests as well, unless there was a court order in a specific case. I showed that breathalyzers do not adhere to scientific standards, but even if they did, they would not adhere to medical standards unless they were administered by a licensed anesthesiologist, and even if that was the case, he would be obliged by law to keep their results, whatever they are, confidential from everone else except you. If someone wanted to make him reveal that information, that could only come by a court order, and he would have the right to challenge that order in a separate legal process, and only when all his appeals were exhausted, he could be forced to reveal that information.
If you are taken to a police station and asked to give a blood sample so that there can be a blood alcohol test done on it, only qualified personnel may draw your blood and do one such test and they have to use proper methods and certified and properly calibrated equipment, and even then, the result of one such test, as inconclusive as it might be, is confidential and would be revealed only to you. If a cop wanted to compel you to reveal it, he too would have to seek a court order, and you too would have the right to appeal that order in front of a judge, and only when all your appeals were exhausted could you be compelled to reveal that information.
Therefore, the only way breathalyzers and field sobriety tests could provide accurate results is if they were based on science and medicine, in which case they could only be performed by qualified personnel, and revealing their results would breach HIPAA. Since they are obviously not performed by qualified personnel and revealing their results is not in breach of HIPAA, the only logical conclusion is that breathalyzers and field sobriety tests are not based on science, they are not valid medical methods, and their results, whatever they are, are meaningless and cannot be used as basis for any restriction, fine, or whatever action or determination.