True Terpenes VISCOSITY extract liquifier LAB TESTS: Mineral oil but no terps!!

[JRace]

This. Just because coke is legal and subject to testing doesn't mean their ingredient list is known- the FDA isn't doing that kind of testing...

=============

Actually, yes, Presumably the FDA does know the ingredient list (or at least legally they should) and does (or at least, should) test coke to confirm it adheres to the submitted ingredient list.

A company does not get free reign to obfuscate their ingredients by claiming "trade secret". This is no way stops the FDA from testing, only stops them (FDA) from making the ingredients public.

They can claim "GRAS" ingredients, (generally regarded as safe) but they still have to prove those are the ingredients used.

 

[slant.i]

Actually, yes, the FDA does know the ingredient list (or at least legally they should) and does (or at least, should) test coke to confirm it adheres to the submitted ingredient list.

A company does not get free reign to obfuscate their ingredients by claiming "trade secret". This is no way stops the FDA from testing, only stops them (FDA) from making the ingredients public.

They can claim "GRAS" ingredients, (generally regarded as safe) but they still have to prove those are the ingredients used.

The FDA performs test to confirm ingredient lists on a molecular level? Can you provide more info on this, as in attempting to confirm I can't find any info directly, but considering the complexity of the tests this would require, it seems highly questionable.

I'm sure they perform compliance testing, but that isn't the type of testing that was being referred to earlier on in the conversation.

 

[slant.i]

It doesn't give us the answer we are looking for, and indeed adds to the mystery, because that sample was a triterpene.

If the new samples are different, it could be for a number reasons, including that TT changed the formula since that time.

If they haven't changed the formula and they are different, a whole different follow through investigation is called for, and yet another if my samples, Future4200, and Old Golds come out different from one another.

Of course another possibility is that all the above samples agree, but not with EN's sample results, sending the investigation in other directions, which include all the different ways that might be possible.

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?

 

[beta]

are you implying secret ingredients aren't tested by the fda?



coke is legal and subject to testing

Let me introduce you to my little buddy GRAS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_recognized_as_safe

You nor anyone else outside of a handful of people on the planet know the ingredients to Coke.

 

[ExtractNinja]

It doesn't give us the answer we are looking for, and indeed adds to the mystery, because that sample was a triterpene.

If the new samples are different, it could be for a number reasons, including that TT changed the formula since that time.

If they haven't changed the formula and they are different, a whole different follow through investigation is called for, and yet another if my samples, Future4200, and Old Golds come out different from one another.

Of course another possibility is that all the above samples agree, but not with EN's sample results, sending the investigation in other directions, which include all the different ways that might be possible.

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?

I notice you posted something close to this at futur4200 but you twisted the truth and said graywolf got viscosity tested. Thats a stright up lie. And it seems your spamming both forums. Heres your lie: "He also mentioned that a result he got back from an unsealed bottle showed a triterpene."

He did no such thing.

He wrote the lab once tested viscosity and found a triterpene but he didn't say they only found a triterpene. that triterp woudl be squalane not squalene. I had all labs looks for squalene and none was found and I had one of labs looks for squalane after someone suggstsed it, and that was also not found. What graywolf did say was someone he knows poured off a sample that graywolf is getting tested at the same lab as the two samples he himeslf purchased.

I also meniotned that the 3rd lab bought a bottle of mineral oil from the store and tested it, and both chromatagrams were so similar they think its some type of mineral oil. And like someone at futur4200 pointed out there are things extracted from plants that are plant based mineral oil substance (and arent terps) which shouldnt be vaped.

 

[Weird]

Let me introduce you to my little buddy GRAS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_recognized_as_safe

You nor anyone else outside of a handful of people on the planet know the ingredients to Coke.

I will just leave some of that wiki post here



On January 1, 1958, the FDA established the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, with a list of 700 food substances that were exempt from the then new requirement that manufacturers test food additives before putting them on the market.[2] On August 31, 1960, William W. Goodrich, assistant general counsel of the FDA, addressed the annual meeting (16 Bus. Law. 107 -1960-1961) of the FFDCA. The purpose of the meeting was the forthcoming March 6, 1961, effective date of the enforcement provisions of the "Food Additives Amendment of 1958", referred to as GRAS.[3]






A GRAS determination can be self-affirmed or the FDA can be notified of a determination of GRAS by qualified non-governmental experts:

1. Self-affirmed. The manufacturer of this chemical or substance had performed all necessary research, including the formation of an expert panel to review safety concerns, and is prepared to use these findings to defend its product's GRAS status.
2. FDA Response to GRAS notification.[4] The manufacturer has performed all the aforementioned due diligence, and submitted a GRAS notification to inform the Food & Drug Administration of a determination that the use of a substance is GRAS. Following evaluation the FDA provides three possible responses: 1. FDA does not question the basis for the notifier's GRAS determination,[4] 2. the notification does not provide a sufficient basis for GRAS determination, or 3. the FDA has, at the notifier's request, ceased to evaluate the GRAS notice.

As of June 2015 (beginning in 1998), 572 ingredient or food substances have been filed with the FDA.[4] These petitions, submitted by sponsors or manufacturers, are reviewed for the safety evidence contained in the document. FDA posts status of the review as either without further questions or the petition is withdrawn by the applicant.[4]
For substances used in food prior to January 1, 1958, a grandfather clause allows experience based on common use in food to be used in asserting they are safe under the conditions of their intended use.
The FDA can also explicitly withdraw the GRAS classification, as it did for trans fat in 2015.[5]

 

[Gray Wolf]

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?

 

[ExtractNinja]

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?

Truth in labeling. They said it was 100% terps, and nothing else. "No gimmicks or shenanigans."

People buy it assuming what they claimed is in there really is. And that seems not to be the case. Ima pretty sure there are laws about lying about ingredients, which tt has done if there are any non terps at all no matter what they are, and theres the moral issue that is also really concerning.

Did that lab that you are working with, that tested viscosity a while ago, find anything that wasn't a terpene? And when did they test it? And who sent in the sample, was it TT?

 

[Gray Wolf]

Truth in labeling. They said it was 100% terps, and nothing else. "No gimmicks or shenanigans."

People buy it assuming what they claimed is in there really is. And that seems not to be the case. Ima pretty sure there are laws about lying about ingredients, which tt has done if there are any non terps at all no matter what they are, and theres the moral issue that is also really concerning.

Did that lab that you are working with, that tested viscosity a while ago, find anything that wasn't a terpene? And when did they test it? And who sent in the sample, was it TT?

If they are lying, the samples will show that.

No non terpenes reported.

They tested it when it first came out.

They purchased the sample themselves.

 

[ExtractNinja]

If they are lying, the samples will show that.

No non terpenes reported.

They tested it when it first came out.

They purchased the sample themselves.

tnx for the info

 

[ExtractNinja]

. That means even if there is still squalane in viscosity, theres something else thats not a terp in there, because terps should dissolve isolated cbd. TT claims viscosity cannot dissolve CBD isolate so it cannot be only squalane as my pic shows. They wrote:

https://web.archive.org/web/20181216010142/https://buy-terpenes.com/faq/
"NOT to be used with CBD Isolate

When working with CBD isolate, it is important to know that terpenes (including VISCOSITY Extract Liquifier) WILL NOT dissolve crystallized CBD. Generally this includes CBD oils, distillate, and isolate."


.

 

[slant.i]

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?

Thank you for clarifying, I really appreciate your work and, even more, your fairness in all of this. A lot can be learned about professional conduct from you as well as science.

 

[JRace]

The FDA performs test to confirm ingredient lists on a molecular level? Can you provide more info on this, as in attempting to confirm I can't find any info directly, but considering the complexity of the tests this would require, it seems highly questionable.

I'm sure they perform compliance testing, but that isn't the type of testing that was being referred to earlier on in the conversation.

I have no idea, and now that I re-read my previous post I realize I was talking out my ass. I have no idea what the FDA does or doesn't do, and for all I know they just take the manufactures word for it.

This type of conjecture is doing this thread a disservice.

 

[slant.i]

I have no idea, and now that I re-read my previous post I realize I was talking out my ass. I have no idea what the FDA does or doesn't do, and for all I know they just take the manufactures word for it.

This type of conjecture is doing this thread a disservice.

Thank you for saying that. It takes a lot of humility to admit, but is the best way to move forward.

 

[ExtractNinja]

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?

I notice you posted something close to this at futur4200 but you twisted the truth and said graywolf got viscosity tested. Thats a stright up lie. And it seems your spamming both forums. Heres your lie: "He also mentioned that a result he got back from an unsealed bottle showed a triterpene."

He did no such thing.

He wrote the lab once tested viscosity and found a triterpene but he didn't say they only found a triterpene. that triterp woudl be squalane not squalene. I had all labs looks for squalene and none was found and I had one of labs looks for squalane after someone suggstsed it, and that was also not found. What graywolf did say was someone he knows poured off a sample that graywolf is getting tested at the same lab as the two samples he himeslf purchased.

I also meniotned that the 3rd lab bought a bottle of mineral oil from the store and tested it, and both chromatagrams were so similar they think its some type of mineral oil. And like someone at futur4200 pointed out there are things extracted from plants that are plant based mineral oil substance (and arent terps) which shouldnt be vaped.

just wanted to point out slant.i has not updated and corrected this lie over at future420. he posted a lie about what Graywolf wrote in reponse to a question by someone over there about an udpate to this issue.

Just in case anyone thought he was here for an honest discussion. He isnt.

https://future4200.com/t/true-terpenes/12544/174

 

[Weird]

I think the amount of effort to discredit the OP and a lack of the company to proactively address (unless there is something I am missing) the consumer concerns is the "red" flag for me.



In my experience if someone has an unreasonable resentment with a company and seeks sabotage the company has can establish this and address it as such. It doesn't seem to me that this is the case.


I appreciate the due diligence and protocol for driving this to fruition under professional review none of that changes the factors that have me quite skeptical which basically comes down to the comments in this thread.



However I won't lie I am curious to the tests results myself now and hopefully if nothing else it will create a better standard of "best practices" for consumer safety and satisfaction.

 

[Rico Swazi]

creating a better standard of best practices requires laws that make sense as I said earlier

This discussion should incite people everywhere to finally make a change to labeling laws worldwide

 

[Weird]

creating a better standard of best practices requires laws that make sense as I said earlier

absolutely not


they do not need a law to protect their own interest and clearly you do not understand the point


none of the product is tested by the fda in regards to proposed use and consequence on health


if the company is offering a formulation that they are keeping proprietary for the sake of market advantage that implies the value add of their product is the proprietary formulation itself



if their profit is predicated on this value add and the value add is tangible then delivering it as promised is in their best interest and all this failure to ensure delivery of said formula in and of itself speaks volumes of the businesses integrity on delivering that promise



be it innocent negligence or outright nefarious advertising none of it screams competence and integrity and this is gold rush unregulated waters



it is so cheap to enter the market at this placement and so profitable there is no excuse for not 'dotting I's and crossing T's' it isn't smart from a business perspective let alone a humanitarian one






t in their own interest create a best practices to ensure their proprietary formula they can implement their own best practice to guarentee the

 

[Rico Swazi]

absolutely not


they do not need a law to protect their own interest and clearly you do not understand the point

lemme stop you right there,


you say they as in TT?


I say the laws need to be changed to protect US and our interests

not their own (as in business)



hope that is clear enough for you now

 

[justcuzz]

This is a great read. Can't wait for the results to be posted. Lots of passion here from both sides.