- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 15, 2008, 12:35 AMFor what it is worth, I took a tranquilizer (clonzepam) prior to my test and still failed.
I didn't take it to beat the test, I take it occasionally for nervousness and anxiety, and have a prescription. And yes, I told them I had taken it. Fer medicinal purposes, of course.
Bottom line, if you fall for their crap that you must be lying simply because you react on the machine, and consequently (and naively) make an insignificant admission regard a relevant question, they will blow it out of proportion and fail you. No matter how drugged up you are.
So, scratch your head, look like you are really cooperating and trying to come up with something to account for your "tremor in the blood", but no say nothing amigo!
TC
I didn't take it to beat the test, I take it occasionally for nervousness and anxiety, and have a prescription. And yes, I told them I had taken it. Fer medicinal purposes, of course.
Bottom line, if you fall for their crap that you must be lying simply because you react on the machine, and consequently (and naively) make an insignificant admission regard a relevant question, they will blow it out of proportion and fail you. No matter how drugged up you are.
So, scratch your head, look like you are really cooperating and trying to come up with something to account for your "tremor in the blood", but no say nothing amigo!
TC
Posted by beatthepolygraph
- Mar 14, 2008, 08:13 PMHello All.
I recently took a polygraph with a Department about two months ago I dont feel needs to be disclosed. However I PASSED, I cannot believe it but I did.
Here is the magic answer everyone on this site is looking for. Take Xanax, or Valium and ((YOU WILL PASS)) no matter what you have done and how long ago it was. I'm serious, I knew a guy who shot up some steroids about 3 days prior to his poly, he took a Zanny or (Xanax) and passed with flying colors.
For someone who has never taken this medication before, I reccomend that about 30min prior to your poly, take about 10mg of Valium, or the same mg worth of Xanax.
Good luck and remember, NO MATTER WHAT YOU'VE DONE, OR HOW LONG AGO IT WAS, OR EVEN HOW NERVOUS YOU ARE, BY THE TIME YOU ANTI ANXIETY MEDS KICKS IN, YOU COULD CARE A LESS IF YOUR MOTHER DIED (LOL)<--
GOOD LUCK ALL
I recently took a polygraph with a Department about two months ago I dont feel needs to be disclosed. However I PASSED, I cannot believe it but I did.
Here is the magic answer everyone on this site is looking for. Take Xanax, or Valium and ((YOU WILL PASS)) no matter what you have done and how long ago it was. I'm serious, I knew a guy who shot up some steroids about 3 days prior to his poly, he took a Zanny or (Xanax) and passed with flying colors.
For someone who has never taken this medication before, I reccomend that about 30min prior to your poly, take about 10mg of Valium, or the same mg worth of Xanax.
Good luck and remember, NO MATTER WHAT YOU'VE DONE, OR HOW LONG AGO IT WAS, OR EVEN HOW NERVOUS YOU ARE, BY THE TIME YOU ANTI ANXIETY MEDS KICKS IN, YOU COULD CARE A LESS IF YOUR MOTHER DIED (LOL)<--
GOOD LUCK ALL
Posted by skip.webb
- Dec 16, 2007, 10:45 AMMr. Maschke, I find it diffiuclt to believe that your response to "Syd123" was an error as much as it was your often quoted standard unsupported assertions. You tend to shoot from the hip more and more on this forum wihtout first aligning your target and checking your ammo. You cite Dr. Zelicoff's response to Dr. Ryan as if it were "The Gospel according to Luke" rather than merely an exchange of opinions voiced between two scientists. Your usual method...throw out something while you try to come up with something accurate. No change here.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 15, 2007, 01:19 AMQuote from: manly on Dec 14, 2007, 11:18 AMFirst to Mr. Mascke: Sir, you mislead "Syd123" by saying there are no studies on the effects of various drugs and the accuracy of polygraph and that there are no studies on the use of polygraph and medical conditions. In fact there are numerous studies on each. As early as 1965, Published in The National Institute of Police Science (Japan) "The effect of Tranquilizers on Polygraph Tests" reports a study in which participants were given both stimulants and anti-depressants/anti-anxiety drugs as well as a control group who were given a placebo. No significant differences in classifications were noted except those on tranquilizers showed stronger reactions (quite the opposite that one might expect.
There have been studies on beta blockers, on valium and methylphenidate with a result of no effect on identification rates with much higher than chance identification (100% on truthful and 88% on guilty) by Iacono, Boisvenu &Fleming in 1984.
Studies have been accomplished on diagnosed sociopaths and confirmed non-sociopath subjects in a prison with excellent identification results.
As early as 1962, Heckel, Brokaw, Salzberg and Wiggens tested non delusional psychoneurotic subjects against non-neurotic subjects with excellent results with 100% identification rate detection of "normals" and 87.5% on the neurotic group.
Skip,
Thank you for correcting my error. I was unaware of the studies you cite. In searching for references to them, I came across the text of a letter from DACA (then DoDPI) chief of research Andy Ryan to Al Zelicoff, M.D. in which the former replied to the latter's questions, "What reference(s) does [then DoDPI research Dr. Gordon] Barland have which demonstrates 'no effect of commonly used medication' on the utility of polygraphy?" and "What is the change in electrodermal potential response to questions (both calibration questions as well as standard polygraph questions) as a function of disease state or progression for the following diseases? [Please provide references from the medical literature]: Diabetes (Type I and Type II), Congestive Heart Failure, Hypertension, Asthma, Glaucoma (treated with anti-muscarnic drugs), HIV (not AIDS and not on treatment)."
Ryan's answers, and Zelicoff's critique and commentary, may be of interest to syd123.
http://www.spse.org/Polygraph_comments_Albuque.html#ZWritten
Posted by skip.webb
- Dec 14, 2007, 11:18 AMFirst to Mr. Mascke: Sir, you mislead "Syd123" by saying there are no studies on the effects of various drugs and the accuracy of polygraph and that there are no studies on the use of polygraph and medical conditions. In fact there are numerous studies on each. As early as 1965, Published in The National Institute of Police Science (Japan) "The effect of Tranquilizers on Polygraph Tests" reports a study in which participants were given both stimulants and anti-depressants/anti-anxiety drugs as well as a control group who were given a placebo. No significant differences in classifications were noted except those on tranquilizers showed stronger reactions (quite the opposite that one might expect.
There have been studies on beta blockers, on valium and methylphenidate with a result of no effect on identification rates with much higher than chance identification (100% on truthful and 88% on guilty) by Iacono, Boisvenu &Fleming in 1984.
Studies have been accomplished on diagnosed sociopaths and confirmed non-sociopath subjects in a prison with excellent identification results.
As early as 1962, Heckel, Brokaw, Salzberg and Wiggens tested non delusional psychoneurotic subjects against non-neurotic subjects with excellent results with 100% identification rate detection of "normals" and 87.5% on the neurotic group.
To "Jesper Paten": You sir have mislead Syd123 by telling him that the NAS study was a report following "extensive research into the accuracy of polygraph testing." The truth sir is that the NAS group conducted absolutely no scientific research at all. They merely evaluated a select sub-group of less that 100 previously conducted studies of polygraph and provided an evaluation of those selected studies.
To Syd123: Some of the people on this forum tend to paint with a very wide brush and throw out often unsupported and sometimes totally inaccurate statements and opinions. I hope that you will take what you read here and form an educated opinion on your own as education, unfortunately is often lacking here as emotions and virulent dribble tend to fill up all the available space.
There have been studies on beta blockers, on valium and methylphenidate with a result of no effect on identification rates with much higher than chance identification (100% on truthful and 88% on guilty) by Iacono, Boisvenu &Fleming in 1984.
Studies have been accomplished on diagnosed sociopaths and confirmed non-sociopath subjects in a prison with excellent identification results.
As early as 1962, Heckel, Brokaw, Salzberg and Wiggens tested non delusional psychoneurotic subjects against non-neurotic subjects with excellent results with 100% identification rate detection of "normals" and 87.5% on the neurotic group.
To "Jesper Paten": You sir have mislead Syd123 by telling him that the NAS study was a report following "extensive research into the accuracy of polygraph testing." The truth sir is that the NAS group conducted absolutely no scientific research at all. They merely evaluated a select sub-group of less that 100 previously conducted studies of polygraph and provided an evaluation of those selected studies.
To Syd123: Some of the people on this forum tend to paint with a very wide brush and throw out often unsupported and sometimes totally inaccurate statements and opinions. I hope that you will take what you read here and form an educated opinion on your own as education, unfortunately is often lacking here as emotions and virulent dribble tend to fill up all the available space.
Posted by Jesper Paten
- Dec 14, 2007, 08:30 AMQuote from: 58545B594C350 on Dec 13, 2007, 10:20 PMWhat is the NAS report ?
Sir,
The NAS report is a publication, following extensive scientific research into the accuracy, or more accurately, the inaccuracy of polygrapf.
Summarily, it should dismiss the polygrapf as an unreliable lie-detector. Also that all polygrapf research at that time (circa 2003) was biased, unscientific und unreliable witchcraft.
The report is titled: The Polygrapf and Lie Detection.
You can get it on Googel.
Respectfully,
JP
Posted by syd123
- Dec 13, 2007, 10:20 PMWhat is the NAS report ?
Posted by syd123
- Dec 13, 2007, 09:40 PMThanks Barry with those suggestions.
Could you point me a bit further towards how I can get access to those sources of information.
Much appreciated
Could you point me a bit further towards how I can get access to those sources of information.
Much appreciated
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 13, 2007, 08:24 PMAgain, read Offe and Offe or even your venerated NAS report to see that's wrong.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 13, 2007, 01:28 AMQuote from: 79757A786D140 on Dec 12, 2007, 02:29 AMI recently undertook a Polygraph test in California and performed poorly.
For the 4 weeks priot to the test I was taking prescribed medication for depression and just happened to stop taking the medication 3 days before the test.
The examiner never asked me about whether taking medication was appropriate or not, but I read in articles that its not such a good combination and not the right timing.
Is there anyone who can advise me whether such medication could have impacted my ability in taking the test, or what should I have done.
thanks
syd123,
There are no studies on the effects of any medical conditions or medications on polygraph "tests." More importantly, polygraphy has not been proven to reliably discriminate between truth-telling and deception in persons without any chronic or acute medical conditions.
Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis and is inherently biased against truth-tellers. See The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for a thorough debunking.
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 12, 2007, 07:28 PMWell, what does "performed poorly" mean?
Posted by syd123
- Dec 12, 2007, 07:09 PMThyanks for helping.
Let me clarify. The exaiminer asked if I was taking any medications at that time and I wasn't.
I was for the previous 4 1/2 weeks due to severe emotional issues around a relationship.
I have the prescription information that shows the medication I was taking, and can easily get a leter from that initially prescribed this.
So with that, should I go back tot he examiner or elsewhere to get this mater resolved ?
Let me clarify. The exaiminer asked if I was taking any medications at that time and I wasn't.
I was for the previous 4 1/2 weeks due to severe emotional issues around a relationship.
I have the prescription information that shows the medication I was taking, and can easily get a leter from that initially prescribed this.
So with that, should I go back tot he examiner or elsewhere to get this mater resolved ?
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 12, 2007, 06:18 PMIf you underwent a CQT, then the drug would have had to have only had an effect on the relevant questions to be a problem.
Why did you stop taking the drug? Most people are on anti-depressants for a while once they start. Were you depressed when during the exam?
Why did you stop taking the drug? Most people are on anti-depressants for a while once they start. Were you depressed when during the exam?
Posted by Twoblock
- Dec 12, 2007, 04:49 PMsyd123
Then the polygrapher did what he was supposed to do. The problem is you said no.
The only suggestion that I can make is, go back to your mental health provider and get a letter proving you were on anti-depressant meds and show it to the polygrapher. The call is his whether to reexamine you or not.
Then the polygrapher did what he was supposed to do. The problem is you said no.
The only suggestion that I can make is, go back to your mental health provider and get a letter proving you were on anti-depressant meds and show it to the polygrapher. The call is his whether to reexamine you or not.
Posted by syd123
- Dec 12, 2007, 03:58 PMThanks for the insight.
I was on anti-depressant drugs for 4 weeks beforehand and stopped 3 days before the test. The Examiner asked me if I was presently taking any drugs to which I replied no. There was never any questions about if I had been on any drugs at all. Then when I started to look at information online I got a clearer picture that the test should not have gone ahead.
Should I go back to the examiner and tell him this now ? Or are there any other suggested corses of action. Maybe I ask the American Polygraph Organisation and file a complaint ?
Any help/advice would be appreciated.
I was on anti-depressant drugs for 4 weeks beforehand and stopped 3 days before the test. The Examiner asked me if I was presently taking any drugs to which I replied no. There was never any questions about if I had been on any drugs at all. Then when I started to look at information online I got a clearer picture that the test should not have gone ahead.
Should I go back to the examiner and tell him this now ? Or are there any other suggested corses of action. Maybe I ask the American Polygraph Organisation and file a complaint ?
Any help/advice would be appreciated.