Copy that. We should be testing for everything used in the conversion soup2nuts. With preference for a nutt free conversion
2 Likes
Again thereās some confusion about what GMP actually is. And itās not very surprising because virtually none of you have worked in any type of regulated consumer products goods business like nutraceuticals or pharmaceuticals. GMPās are not a sampling protocol so to use GMP as some type of baseline for how effectively representative samples are pulled is misleading, inaccurate and ignorant.GMPās are not a sampling protocol so to use GMP as some type of baseline for how effectively representative samples are pulled is misleading in an accurate and ignorant
1 Like
Wow you are one ignorant fool. Please do not pass yourself off is some type of compliance /good manufacturing practices expert those of us that have worked at the pharmaceutical industry can see right through you and your bullshit.
CGMP and GMP virtually mean the same thing and often are used interchangeably in the pharmaceutical industry or nutraceutical industry or food industry or cosmetics etc. CGMP just means current good manufacturing practices and if youāre a GMP facility by default of course youāre following current good manufacturing practices
5 Likes
I truly am amazed by the complete lack of scientific literacy here yet many of you purport to be some type of lab manager or extraction specialist i.e. someone who is accustomed to wearing a scientific hat.
People thereās no such thing as pinpoint accuracy when it comes to testing. As @MagisterChemist Carefully explained that labs are susceptible to errors. Even well-established labs with fully documented quality programs in conventional long-standing industries like food and drugs have errors. Thereās nothing unusual about it.
Thatās because every time you take a measurement there is some error. This is due random and systemic errors. Some of the sources of error like electric noise generated by the circuitry of an instrument cannot be avoided. Some errors such as systemic error can be eliminated (ex. move a balance to a room with no draft or or air current)
But in the very best circumstances we can minimize these errors by by implementing a statistically-based quality control protocol on our results to ensure that our data has a high degree of confidence that it was not derived from errors. We can also take a large sample size and take averages . But just as @MagisterChemist said to qualify a 100kg batch with just TWO SAMPLeS is a joke! And would never fly in more quality focused industries. So the best we can hope for is that our results cluster around the true value. But in real life we never actually get to know what the true value is. Thatās why if you see a measurement and you donāt see an error associated with that measurement thatās probably a junk measurement and nobody will take that seriously. There should always be some error reported with any measurement.
I truly am amazed by the complete lack of scientific literacy here yet many of you purport to be some type of lab manager or extraction specialist i.e. someone who is accustomed to wearing a scientific hat.
so in summary: weāre a bunch of inbred, west vaginya illiterate fuktards, who would have no fukān idear how to understand and implement The Dietary Supplement (DS) CGMP rule in 21 CFR part 111. Or, the label requirements in accordance with 21 CFR 101.1, 21 CFR 101.2, 21 CFR 101.3, 21 CFR 101.4, 21 CFR 101.5, 21 CFR 101.9(j)(13), 21 CFR 101.9(j)(17), 21 CFR 101.15, and 21 CFR 101.36
Thank you for pointing this out. mommas lookin horny ā gotta run.
11 Likes
This person isnāt talk about pulling a representive sample. They are talking about not looking for the right things. For example, the USP monograph for alcohol only looks at methanol, acetaldehyde, acetal, and benzene. There can be up to 300 microliters/L of other impurities. These donāt have to be identified.
3 Likes
Industry testing available is unreliable. Weāve all known that for years coming from cannabis. Internal testing is a must.
4 Likes
2 Likes
Hey @anon1342 What do you call a deer w no eyes? No idear.
What if you chop his legs and dick off? Still no fuckin idear.
Couldnāt resist
7 Likes
LOL ā my boy keeps asking why iām laughing at my computer
3 Likes
I agree. If you arenāt doing in house analytics and you havenāt worked in a testing lab ā if youāve never actually ran these procedures ā you donāt know what running this type of quality testing is like.
And as far as āthis lab wonāt quantify the unknowns in my mystery peak soupā, a lab canāt do that in a quantitative way. They may be open to giving you a qualitative result, if they have some free time, and you tell them exactly what kinds of tests you want them to do. But it is fundamentally not their job to do your r&d for you and most people are not offering a lot of incentive for them to help out.
Iāve been nice to all the lab directors Iāve talked to, and came from a place of knowledge where i could give specific suggestions about testing protocol, and theyāve usually been willing to try and identify unknown compounds, to the extent that they can.
What i havenāt seen is any lab doing these conversions and actually having equipment that can identify an unknown. Havenāt been to one synthesis lab with a GCMS or NMR. That should scare people!
5 Likes
Looks like someoneās got some sand in theyāreā¦ downstairsā¦
Iām not even gonna bother to respond. You do you mr GMP expert scientist genius man you!
3 Likes
This kid lmaooo just went back and read all his ranting. You must be a PHD MD 10000 IQ pharma Jesus reincarnated as Einstein blessing us poor fools with your unending intellect. Hahahahaha some people manā¦ you make me laugh. I needed this thank you (:
4 Likes
Not reallyā¦ Itās pretty basic instrumental analysis.
Talking to me? Iām not talking about the analytics at all. Iām talking about him thinking heās Jesus born again
2 Likes
If you read the last statement of āyou clearly donāt careā it was a general statement to anyone thats actually doing conversions
2 Likes
I can certainly believe it was meant as a general statementā¦but it is still easy (for me at least) to read it as directed at the subject of the paragraph.
I did see after I posted that yāall had sorted it already.
text is hard.
especially since the machines have gotten so aggressive with editing our words. 
2 Likes
Yeah itās really not that difficult to get an instrument up and going so you can start doing some quality control and process validation. Itās not like launching a falcon rocket and then trying to get it to land on a barge in the ocean. And yeah itās not the job of a testing lab thatās accredited to test for specific analytes to do R&D to tell you whatās in your mystery poop soup. Part of the responsibility is on the person running these reactions to have an idea at least an educated guess about what type of side reactants are going to be generated in such a reaction.
The way instrumental analysis works is you have to have some idea of what it is youāre looking for because you need to have reference standards to compare an instrument response to an signal from an unknown. These guys on here crying about their testing labs really need to just take a little bit of time to learn how testing works. Yeah sometimes the labs do you make mistakes but at the end of the day theyāre not standing around black boxes that you could just drop a sample in and you immediately get some kind of accurate result .
Its really important to have some grasp of organic chemistry if youāre gonna start playing around with synthesis. Or have the resources to be able to accurately identify some of those unknowns.
2 Likes
If I were you I wouldnāt be laughing because it sounds like your business is going to go down the shitter in a few years if you donāt get your head out of your ass.
Dude the regulators are coming in GMPās are going to have to be implemented and you can sit here and laugh But you really have to start thinking about another line of work if you donāt want to put in the time try and understand the science what it is that youāre doing.
2 Likes
There arenāt a lot of people here with analytical backgrounds. I actually worked in testing before i worked in extraction and Iām surprised more people from that sector donāt post here. The problem is I donāt think people know much about formal error analysis. Itās industry lobbying that brought things down to this level. In Oregon you used to be able to report a test on a whole harvest after having only turned in 3.5 grams. Those are inherently never going to be accurate. But no growers or extractors wanted to give up product for testing so even today the sample pulls and number of replicates are extremely low.
5 Likes