Potency Testing, Terpene Profiling, & Accuracy?

Here's a tip for peeps trying to get the highest thc% from their buds ......pull your plant(s) early before the thc starts to degrade ......my thc% is always low when I pull my buds for the effect I want when smoking them! Here's an example my Grape Stomper pulled before 60 is always @ 21% - 22%, pull her at 70 for a more narcotic buzz and she test @ 15% - 16% and waaaaay more potent than when she's picked at 60!

I prefer more mature, riper buds, never really been a fan of buds pulled early!!!

If you pick and its a higher THC % then later then you did not pick it early. Do you mean you had a higher % when the heads are clear instead of milky?

Daub Marley said:

If you pick and its a higher THC % then later then you did not pick it early. Do you mean you had a higher % when the heads are clear instead of milky?

Click to expand...

Yes, clear/milky ....no ambers = higher test % ....testing is so bogus to me, when my lungs can't tell me if the erbs good or not that's when I need to stop smoking, really wtf does thc % has to do with that! I have a bro whose erb test higher than mine does (same strains) people prefer my smokes overall taste & potency ....we both grow organically and his room (enviro, etc) is waaay more dialed in than mine!

Only Ornamental said:

If you want to talk about accuracy, reproducibility etc. of plant analyses just talk to a phytopharmacy or phytochemistry lab .
Nowadays, every douche with some spare coins can get an HPLC, GC or MS but it takes a good education and most of all a lot of experience to really be able to run the tests properly. It is not like Abby from NCIS who just has to switch it on, press start and get the whole thing done in 5 min. .

BTW: That crap with 20% THC really 'turns my bile'... No cannabis plant contains 20% THC of its dry matter! It is very important to state the % of what: extract, total cannabinoids or total compounds detected (and obviously with which detection method cause most aren't really quantitative).

Click to expand...

I feel sorry for anyone that has never seen a plant with 20% THC, and I do mean dry weight. I have been testing Cannabis for over 25 years now and I can assure you, you are wrong! I use or have used both GC/FID, GC/MS, HPLC, HPLC/MS, as well as various qualitative TLC systems including one we designed and built ourselves. I understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative, I understand if a test result is repeatable reproducible or not, and if
the results are the same at your lab and several leading experienced Cannabis labs others have run worldwide for decades. Not for testing by the public.
How many years have you been testing Cannabis? What methodology? Is it your years of experience that led you to this conclusion that there is no Cannabis with 20% THC?
-SamS

symbiote420 said:

Yes, clear/milky ....no ambers = higher test % ....testing is so bogus to me, when my lungs can't tell me if the erbs good or not that's when I need to stop smoking, really wtf does thc % has to do with that! I have a bro whose erb test higher than mine does (same strains) people prefer my smokes overall taste & potency ....we both grow organically and his room (enviro, etc) is waaay more dialed in than mine!

Click to expand...

So If I want erbs tested I can just send them to you and you will give the symbiote420 approval or not?
And if I want several hundred samples tested, how long will it take you? I do need the results yesterday, dude....
And dude get yer grow more dialed in, waaay more dialed in. Your plants deserve it, don't they?
If you think THC has nothing to do with good erb, I have some Hemp/'Haze you might be interested in, great looking, great smelling, organic as can be, but very very little THC, interested dude? It does smoke great, but no high, as no THC, get it?
-SamS

X

symbiote420 said:

Are we all the "stupid" stoners they think!?! I think not! So when did THC test % become the deal breaker? I thought good smoke was good smoke, if I smoke a j and it flattens me should I disregard it and call it garbage because I find the "test" comes back low? I've personally smoked meds that had lower THC scores like 15% that creamed other strains testing 22% or more .........they need a more accurate way of testing strains overall potency because THC ain't the only cannabiniod that adds to the high!

What are all the other Cannabinoids that add to a THC high?
CBD?
CBC?
CBG?
CBN?
THCV?
CBCV?
CBDV?
CBNV?
Have you ever smoked any of these? Which one did you like the "high" of?


And I agree, they need approved techs running these machines ...I know of a few cats here that have their own tester and they use it for their dispo and to help choose the strains they enter in local Cups too! A better test and testers are needed right along with better laws and growers!

Click to expand...

Well after you are done changing all the laws to better laws, and all the growers to better growers, and all the smokers to better smokers so they don't get flattened by a j, will you have any time left to smoke all the 317 samples I sent you for your stamp of approval? I really need the results as I was hoping to use it to enter the "best" into a Cannabis cup, once you tell which one it is?
Or I could try them myself, but I don't really like smoking herbal Cannabis, to me it is for a source of raw materials to make a drysift, that is worth smoking, but to each their own. With a Cannabinoid and terpene % profile you can get real a good idea what the strength and effects will be like, if you have the experience to know what the different Cannabinoids and terpenes do.
Kind of like knowing what good herb is from smoking, first you have to smoke good and bad herb to know which is the good and the bad to you, as each person likes different effects from their Cannabis and most will not agree that a great Haze is the best if they like knockdown OG KUSH, or visa versa, few people that prefer a psychedelic up NLD Haze will want or enjoy a couchlock WLD variety regardless of how good it is. I know plenty of people that only smoke real weak Cannabis, they do not even like the stronger ones, regardless of the effects. Variety is the spice of life, and terpenes are the key.

-SamS

Sam_Skunkman said:

So If I want erbs tested I can just send them to you and you will give the symbiote420 approval or not?
And if I want several hundred samples tested, how long will it take you? I do need the results yesterday, dude....
And dude get yer grow more dialed in, waaay more dialed in. Your plants deserve it, don't they?
If you think THC has nothing to do with good erb, I have some Hemp/'Haze you might be interested in, great looking, great smelling, organic as can be, but very very little THC, interested dude? It does smoke great, but no high, as no THC, get it?
-SamS

Click to expand...

If that's what you wanna do it's fine by me lol I'll try to smoke it all up, doesn't mean I'll like it all but hey send all the weed you want I'll blaze and tell ya what I like!!!

I never said THC didn't matter either, I said THC testing doesn't ...just tired of peeps letting that be the deal maker/breaker over actually smoking the buds and making a legitimate decision, that's all! Are you saying then that all 21% strains are better than every 20% one? That should be the case if we go by the numbers alone!!! Because I like Hazes, Sammy you may not and prefer something heavier ...it's the total combination of cannabinoids that contributes to the overall effect each individual gets! I know peeps who can't smoke sativas without getting a headache and vise versa. My buddy has won over 24 Cups and is starting to become a legend around here, his Ghost Train Haze #1 tested @25% and has won two Cups for him in the Sativa category ...his '95 Sensi Star cut test @16% it took a 2nd Indica Cup and people I know including myself prefer it hand over foot to the higher THC tested GTH#1 ....hmmmmmmm?!! He grew out my Zero Dark Thirty (LA Con x Purple Kush) I get only two phenos from that cross, a high thc (around 19%/20% THC, 2% CBD) ....the other is high CBD (2%/4% THC, 11%/12% CBD) it just won the Hybrids category this past March in Grand Rapids lol ...We're getting that one out to the med community for the folks that can really benefit from it!

I know I'm not known around these boards like you are, probably will never be no sweat off mine. You'll be surprised if you only spent a few hours with me ....probably end up being your best friend!! A wise woman once told me (my grandmother) "You learn something new everyday, you can even learn something from a child you just have to be willing to accept it!"

Sam_Skunkman said:

Well after you are done changing all the laws to better laws, and all the growers to better growers, and all the smokers to better smokers so they don't get flattened by a j, will you have any time left to smoke all the 317 samples I sent you for your stamp of approval? I really need the results as I was hoping to use it to enter the "best" into a Cannabis cup, once you tell which one it is?
-SamS

Click to expand...

Please send those samples!!! I hope we can meet one of these daze I luv to let my erb speak for me!

erb - "Sam you fucked up?"
Sam - "Hell yeah!"
erb - Do you care about my percentage right now?"
Sam - "Huh?"

Weren't you and others finding keepers waaaaay before they started testing? I know I was and still will, no way I'll try to deceive myself into letting some lab test scores decide what I'll grow or prefer to smoke, church!!!

Sam_Skunkman said:

I feel sorry for anyone that has never seen a plant with 20% THC, and I do mean dry weight. I have been testing Cannabis for over 25 years now and I can assure you, you are wrong! I use or have used both GC/FID, GC/MS, HPLC, HPLC/MS, as well as various qualitative TLC systems including one we designed and built ourselves. I understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative, I understand if a test result is repeatable reproducible or not, and if
the results are the same at your lab and several leading experienced Cannabis labs others have run worldwide for decades. Not for testing by the public.
How many years have you been testing Cannabis? What methodology? Is it your years of experience that led you to this conclusion that there is no Cannabis with 20% THC?
-SamS

Click to expand...

Hi Sam,
I never said I tested cannabis . And thanks for feeling sorry for me (that way, I'm not the only one who does) .
I sure can be wrong, could well be and right here I'd like to be wrong .
I simply put the info I could get (experience with extracting other plant species, scientific cannabis literature & fora/internet) together: In many cases (even published stuff) it is not clear which % or % of what. Someone here on board showed me the only publication I've seen so far where it's % dry weight; unfortunately, it's not reproducible because of an insufficient/unclear method chapter. Also, speaking of 20 % dry weight would in sensu stricto be % of the whole plant (at least aerial parts) but I understand that usually no one (not even the police!) does so but uses the buds (trimmed or not).

I still have doubts and think that most > 20 % samples are fiction... don't take it personal, I appreciate you chimed in and you're the only person I know who speaks of % AND does test himself.
Please follow my line of thought and tell me where I'm wrong: I did the maths for example with trichome size/diameter and density compared to leaf/calyx size/volume (estimated from pics here on ICMag) and I compared with extractable matter of plants in general: both seem to point that 20% is barely possible. I've seen a few chromatograms (for example lab results posted here) and where the axes/units and a legend were visible the % referred to % TIC or % AU (both of which could be taken as +/- % extracted matter). And also looking at the percentage folks get with BHO... a 20% strain should give maybe 25 to 30% yield; how many are there with that? Okay, could be that only weaker weed is used for BHO or I simply did see only the 'bad' results... dunno...
And finally, 20% of a pure constituent within a plant is really a lot and close to what's biologically possible. The good thing is that cannabinoids are mainly stored 'outside' the tissue (in glands and not intra-cellularly).

Can't help it but as a scientist I like having more than just words (then at least the word from someone who did it himself and not hearsay stuff or possible marketing humbug). Say, a proper method description and a clean chromatogram with calibration curve etc. à la 'pics or it didn't happen' would be nice .

Thanks for your time!

Question....... If these test test for the THC content of the resin glands, how does one accurately gauge a bud that is sparsely resinated but test @ 28% THC compared to a caked up densely triched bud that test @ 20%? Is it quality or quantity of resins when it comes down to it? Then what about the effect the other cannabiniods have on the THC too ,does that get tallied in the scores? Marketing ploy all day long, people I roll with hate dispo erb ...and most of that garbo gets tested at 20+% lol

Let's see: I went and measured a few dry calyxes and 'sugar leaves' with a calliper gauge, they are about 0.15 mm thick. Thinner than I first thought judging from microscopy!!

Now for some maths:
Destroyer by CBG has up to 92 trichomes (capitate-stalked?) per square-millimeter on its calyxes/bracts.
Let us assume that these trichomes have a diameter of 100 micrometers and obviously are only present on one side of the bract leaves. (They nearly completely cover the surface...)
But a sphere has ~55% the volume of a cube with the same edge length than the spheres diameter.

92 trichomes in this case have a volume of 0.0506 millimeter^3 per square-millimeter. For simplicity, let's say 70% is pure THC (20% essential oil, and the rest fibres, cuticle, a bit of water etc.) = mathematical 0.03542 millimeter^3 THC.
The calyx underneath has 0.15 millimeter^3 but consists of 80% water (I think I forgot about that last time I did the maths) resulting in a mathematical 0.03 millimeter^3 dry matter.

Given that most natural compounds are roughly at a density of 1, we go with that so we can directly compare above volumes and take them as weight. 0.03542/(0.03542+0.03)=54%.
Now we have neglected 'sugar leaves': they have about the same thickness between the veins (eventually a bit thicker) and trichomes on both sides but likely a lower trichome density which results in about the same final percentage.
If we add now a few stalks, veins etc. and take into account that not every bract leave has 92 trichomes (that's just the highest density) the result drops to what? 30-40%?
This whole calculation is based on approximations and the 'truth' will be a bit lower but *Fugg...* logic still dictates that 20 to 25% THC in a bud could be possible.
My apologies here for the comment earlier that this % is likely impossible!

BTW cloves are known to be one (or the one) of the plant organs (not whole plants) with the highest content in essential oil and a single constituent (eugenol and its acetate) of roughly 20%. So, cannabis beats 'em all .

Only Ornamental said:

Hi Sam,
I never said I tested cannabis . And thanks for feeling sorry for me (that way, I'm not the only one who does) .
I sure can be wrong, could well be and right here I'd like to be wrong .
I simply put the info I could get (experience with extracting other plant species, scientific cannabis literature & fora/internet) together: In many cases (even published stuff) it is not clear which % or % of what. Someone here on board showed me the only publication I've seen so far where it's % dry weight; unfortunately, it's not reproducible because of an insufficient/unclear method chapter. Also, speaking of 20 % dry weight would in sensu stricto be % of the whole plant (at least aerial parts) but I understand that usually no one (not even the police!) does so but uses the buds (trimmed or not).

Sure THC % can be express as dry weight of a manicured bud, what the smoker would smoke, That is how we normally did it. Or as the % in a wet plant, unmanicured. Or as a % of the total Cannabinoids in a plant wet or dry, manicured or not.
That said, almost all test for dry wight, manicured bud.


I still have doubts and think that most > 20 % samples are fiction... don't take it personal, I appreciate you chimed in and you're the only person I know who speaks of % AND does test himself.
Please follow my line of thought and tell me where I'm wrong: I did the maths for example with trichome size/diameter and density compared to leaf/calyx size/volume (estimated from pics here on ICMag) and I compared with extractable matter of plants in general: both seem to point that 20% is barely possible. I've seen a few chromatograms (for example lab results posted here) and where the axes/units and a legend were visible the % referred to % TIC or % AU (both of which could be taken as +/- % extracted matter). And also looking at the percentage folks get with BHO... a 20% strain should give maybe 25 to 30% yield; how many are there with that? Okay, could be that only weaker weed is used for BHO or I simply did see only the 'bad' results... dunno...
And finally, 20% of a pure constituent within a plant is really a lot and close to what's biologically possible. The good thing is that cannabinoids are mainly stored 'outside' the tissue (in glands and not intra-cellularly).

TIC with GC/MS I do not understand why it would help, I have little experience with it. Same with AU, Absorbance Units. I get results that is confirmed with the same samples being tested by other labs I respect, that have been doing Cannabis analysis for decades.



Can't help it but as a scientist I like having more than just words (then at least the word from someone who did it himself and not hearsay stuff or possible marketing humbug). Say, a proper method description and a clean chromatogram with calibration curve etc. à la 'pics or it didn't happen' would be nice .

Yet you have nothing with a calibration curve etc. à la 'pics or it didn't happen' to show that THC is only a max of 20%, would be nice if you did before you assume, it can't be.
-SamS

Thanks for your time!

Click to expand...

I have no agenda other then the truth. I am not promoting anything, or selling anything here on IC. Until you do analysis your self you are just guessing, your 20% limit is just a guess, nothing more. Show the science, not the opinions.
-SamS

symbiote420 said:

Question....... If these test test for the THC content of the resin glands, how does one accurately gauge a bud that is sparsely resinated but test @ 28% THC compared to a caked up densely triched bud that test @ 20%? Is it quality or quantity of resins when it comes down to it? Then what about the effect the other cannabiniods have on the THC too ,does that get tallied in the scores? Marketing ploy all day long, people I roll with hate dispo erb ...and most of that garbo gets tested at 20+% lol

Click to expand...

These tests do not test the THC content of the resin glands.
They test for Cannabinoid content. The test is for quanity.
The other Cannabinoids? Which one, as most western bred Cannabis is only THC with little to no other Cannabinoids.
Which other Cannabinoids get you high? Please list them....
As for buds that are covered with resin and only test low, maybe the resin is not just THC or the resin has only small resin heads and lots of resin stems and stalks like White Widow, resin. Or has a lot of chrysolith hairs that look like resin but is not.
I am getting together the samples for you to approve or not. Do you have a microscope?
-SamS

Sam_Skunkman said:

Sure THC % can be express as dry weight of a manicured bud, what the smoker would smoke, That is how we normally did it. Or as the % in a wet plant, unmanicured. Or as a % of the total Cannabinoids in a plant wet or dry, manicured or not.
That said, almost all test for dry wight, manicured bud.
That means the statement (of vendors) claiming a 'strain' to be 20% would be biased and only their cured buds are (eventually) 20% which would prove my 'guess' as you call it right .

TIC with GC/MS I do not understand why it would help, I have little experience with it. Same with AU, Absorbance Units. I get results that is confirmed with the same samples being tested by other labs I respect, that have been doing Cannabis analysis for decades.
I'm not saying anything against you Sam (just that we're clear about that ). You are correct, TIC and AU don't help but are obviously used by some to indicate/calculate/determine directly the % THC. That's maybe good for business but ain't the truth. And why would anyone lie/cheat if it were really possible? I've only came across a very few seemingly reliable publications and as I can recall tested drug strains (e.g. WW) at ~5% . Just saying...

Yet you have nothing with a calibration curve etc. à la 'pics or it didn't happen' to show that THC is only a max of 20%, would be nice if you did before you assume, it can't be.
How could I (test, not assume )? I would, given the opportunity...
Unfortunately and AFAIK, there's no reliable published data available so I stick with estimating and extrapolating. Furthermore, you decided to not publish your stuff and expect that people take your word for it (no offence meant, it's your choice). Hence, we could both do better .

Click to expand...

Sam_Skunkman said:

I have no agenda other then the truth. I am not promoting anything, or selling anything here on IC. Until you do analysis your self you are just guessing, your 20% limit is just a guess, nothing more. Show the science, not the opinions.
-SamS
Sam, I hope you do and suppose that there's no money in for you by saying it were possible and that makes you credible. But there's a lack of proper data (because either they contain errors or not enough information to be credible) and I really have to do it myself to know for sure.
And yes, I am guessing (never said I could prove that the 20% are not realistic), see post #32.

Click to expand...

Funny how people call me peacock when I say things in detail and explain meticulously and take it as an offence or get angry (I lack the proper words, sorry) when I do like most (stating my opinion as it were the truth)...
Greetings, OO

In

Only Ornamental, I think the problem here is due to the master/novice gap that is so commonly seen in every human endeavor. The master has so absorbed (maybe even created or helped to create) the conventions, and specialized terminology, and practical technique of a paradigm that it becomes difficult to communicate effectively with non-experts.

In any field of expertise, higher understanding is achieved by packaging concepts into blocks, then stacking the blocks to build more complicated abstract structures. Great care is taken to insure that the fundamental blocks, the conventions, are as sound as possible. Non-scientists, or even scientists outside of their field of specialty, will find obscure things taken for granted by the master because they do not have the very specific conceptual building blocks necessary to appreciate the wider canvas of the state of the particular art in question.

In this case the general analytical techniques in question are very robust, with literally millions of man-hours of collaborative effort and terabytes of documentation showing as much. In the specific application of these techniques to weed research, the things you are concerned with were the first things the researchers dealt with over 30 years ago. (By the way, in the specialized field of cannabis research, Sam, although he has no degree as far as I know, is very highly regarded, and considered a peer by the leading lights of the scientists in this field. When you read the body of knowledge in the journals, you will occasionally see an "anonymous contributor" credited. He has advanced our understanding of pot and hemp to a degree that is very unusual for the layman. He is the type of amateur that Faraday, Edison and Mendel were, where sheer passion and dedication fueled a higher understanding.)

So when the expert sees people speculating and professing about something that the expert actually investigated in the real world, exhaustively, over years (or decades) in order to make the building blocks of his understanding sound, it can be frustrating.

I think that it took Sam a while to understand that (not just in this thread, but others on this subject) that a convention so basic as the "% of what?" would be unclear to someone. That someone would not know that it was the percentage, by weight, of the dry, finished product that the end user would smoke just didn't occur to him. Just like the nutritional information for say, an orange, is for the endocarp, not the leaves or roots or branches.

Then for someone with that level of understanding to cast doubt on the fundamental soundness of the technique just because it doesn't "seem right to them" it can be exasperating.

Now of course, none of this applies to the myriad "testing labs" that have sprung up in say Callifornia (although the best of these are very good I think). Any joker could buy a piece of powerful equipment, but not use it properly. I could buy a MRI, and probably learn how to make a clear image with it fairly quickly, But as I am not a radiologist, my findings would be absolutely useless.

I see what you mean Mofeta. It does help me to understand the way Sam reacts better.

It's just that in my career (if you want it call that) I learned to look very sceptical at said paradigms and concepts. Even if the conventions in a given field are known to the corresponding specialists, they have the scientific (and here I speak not about Sam but those who actually publish; sad that Sam doesn't) obligation to remain very clear about what they do and how they do it. Like a bottle of milk (in Europe) isn't just indicated with a 1 but a 1 L ...
There's too much crap out there published by 'specialists' because they make errors or let their students do the work and don't care enough to correct properly.
It's a bit like the thing with spinach: For more than 50 years children like me were forced to eat that nasty stuff. Even a comic, Popeye, was invented to boost spinach... and all because a guy made a typo or calculation error. The whole world believed that it contains 10 times more iron than other veggies and no one until recently double checked. Imagine all the authors who just copy-pasted that crap. Oh, and it gets worse: Spinach actually contains two things against iron (oxalate and nitrate)!
Notably, spinach is only the tip of the iceberg and I've seen many other things alike (hemp and cannabis are no exception). That's why I'm very critical when confronted with inconsistent data or incomplete methods (especially when media and money are involved). Despite the overwhelming amount of information out there, Sam's remark on 'Do it yourself and you'll see' is unfortunately key to any scientific work... there's too often no reliance on others ;( . Because I can't with this subject, all I'm left with is a stick to poke a bit at Sam and the other to worm the things out of them .

Just to be clear, I know the used techniques for THC and terpene determination and so on very well, they are a part of my education and job. Hence, I know their pitfalls too. True, I'm a novice in cannabis breeding but not in the scientific context we're talking about; maybe that gives my 'behaviour' a stubborn or arrogant appearance?

Got to go, read you later .

Only Ornamental said:

I see what you mean Mofeta. It does help me to understand the way Sam reacts better.

It's just that in my career (if you want it call that) I learned to look very sceptical at said paradigms and concepts. Even if the conventions in a given field are known to the corresponding specialists, they have the scientific (and here I speak not about Sam but those who actually publish; sad that Sam doesn't) obligation to remain very clear about what they do and how they do it. Like a bottle of milk (in Europe) isn't just indicated with a 1 but a 1 L ...
There's too much crap out there published by 'specialists' because they make errors or let their students do the work and don't care enough to correct properly.
It's a bit like the thing with spinach: For more than 50 years children like me were forced to eat that nasty stuff. Even a comic, Popeye, was invented to boost spinach... and all because a guy made a typo or calculation error. The whole world believed that it contains 10 times more iron than other veggies and no one until recently double checked. Imagine all the authors who just copy-pasted that crap. Oh, and it gets worse: Spinach actually contains two things against iron (oxalate and nitrate)!
Notably, spinach is only the tip of the iceberg and I've seen many other things alike (hemp and cannabis are no exception). That's why I'm very critical when confronted with inconsistent data or incomplete methods (especially when media and money are involved). Despite the overwhelming amount of information out there, Sam's remark on 'Do it yourself and you'll see' is unfortunately key to any scientific work... there's too often no reliance on others ;( . Because I can't with this subject, all I'm left with is a stick to poke a bit at Sam and the other to worm the things out of them .

Just to be clear, I know the used techniques for THC and terpene determination and so on very well, they are a part of my education and job. Hence, I know their pitfalls too. True, I'm a novice in cannabis breeding but not in the scientific context we're talking about; maybe that gives my 'behaviour' a stubborn or arrogant appearance?

Got to go, read you later .

Click to expand...

You sound a lot like me ...good to know there's a like-minded person around here! How much scientific research gets trump when a better understanding is achieved? Commonsense is my science, not a book or a bunch of book taught scientist! The American diet is based off science, look at all those additives like aspartame, salts, & sugars ...science says they're all good for us, what a fuckin' joke!

Unplug yourselves from the Matrix

symbiote420 said:

You sound a lot like me ...good to know there's a like-minded person around here! How much scientific research gets trump when a better understanding is achieved? Commonsense is my science, not a book or a bunch of book taught scientist! The American diet is based off science, look at all those additives like aspartame, salts, & sugars ...science says they're all good for us, what a fuckin' joke!

Unplug yourselves from the Matrix

Click to expand...

You should try reading the science. It's not so bad when its done right. Your life is based off science. Its happening all around you... BTW, I have never seen a piece of literature that states aspartame is good for anyone. Salt is most definitely essential for life, Na is an electrolyte. Sugar? Needed for ATP.