Originally Posted by slant.i
I thought I had replied to this, but I guess I had missed it. Looking on the Wikipedia for triterpene and I see the familiar name squalene.
I am confused, this would seem to contradict EN's test/claims that Viscosity is mineral oil, which would look very different than a triterpene? And you mention triterpene in the singular, correct?
Since there were two different samples involved, tested at different times at different labs, I don't see a contradiction, but an invite to resolving why they are different. The next round of controlled tests will narrow the focus in that regard.
The audit trail on the previously done sample is solid, as is the lab that did the GC/MS analysis, so it tells me that TT Viscosity was not mineral oil from day one, but sadly proves nothing about the current status, though it has narrowed down the possibilities.
I also mentioned somewhere back there that I wouldn't reveal proprietary secrets unless it was mineral oil, or not as represented on the label, or something of concern, sooooo leave us not play 20 questions.
There are several reasons for taking that position.
The first is justice. If it is not mineral oil or of obvious concern, what greater justice would be served by my revealing TT's trade secrets in this niche market, without doing so for all their competitors?
The second is trust. Without it, despite my abundant charm and sleek fur, fewer brothers and sisters would openly share process secrets with me, or invite me to tour their facilities, if I don't respect their secrets.
Included is that I still don't know who all the players are, or their motives, and have an aversion to pacts with unknown parties with un-vetted agendas.
If TT is selling mineral oil as Viscosity, they rightfully deserve to be taken to task and no quarter or mercy given.
If they are not and meet FDA truth in labeling laws (natural flavors and spices), why have we singled them out to pick on?