I’d assume they’ve done some research for themselves, found a smooth blend that wasn’t giving some small sample sizes side effects.
They’ve (assumedly) done a small boatload of research to at least get where they have, though they wouldn’t be allowed to say they did.
They’re in a precarious position, working hand in hand with a market that is only partly legal. Filling a demand that exists to the best of their ability.
As soon as they make claims that it’s safe, and a single person files that they had “lung issues” with one of their products. Then the FDA can lay a hard and immediate cease and desist, then everyone’s out a job and a business.
F From a business perspective, I don’t think anyone could’ve expected them to post anything else.
@anon56994712, I do not think @tweedledew is commenting on that. Seems more like a direct response to what @DerekTTpdx is saying now in this thread. It explains both what was said and not said on TT behalf. There are fine lines we all have to walk in the industry when we make things that are consumed by the public daily. TT’s legal team will likely not allow them to comment publically on what happened. Not saying I have respect for it, but I do understand.
I personally find that TT’s lack of public accountability and apology/explanation for what happened to be unacceptable, and I will likely never buy a single product from them or from a company that has used them to formulate (not that that is always easy to find out when purchasing off the shelf of a dispensary). Their behavior and response to what we all know they did is a huge disappointment, one worthy of not forgetting.
God this got good. @tweedledew I don’t think anyone expected them to show their face or “stand behind their product”. Could you imagine being @DerekTTpdx and having to rep a product you know is crap. Having to go home at the end of the day happy with what you did to bring food to the table… I feel sorry for you.
Having a legal Corp requires a lot more nuances in the language in which you talk about something that a lot of people here don’t understand. I don’t believe itd be legal to say anything is safe to vape even if it was non carcinogenic and mostly oxygen.
Nebulizers are fda approved…I really can’t think of anything else.
Cigarettes sure as shit aren’t approved…nor cigars.
Terpenes for alcoholic beverages and selling to bars is a great idea.
The fact that none of these companies spent money on real testing:
What happens when these substances are vaped…
Is absolutely alarming and dumb.
First thing I would do after I self - tested…or even first. I wouldn’t subject my lungs to pure, high concentration terpenes.
That is the sad part.
Vaping and smoking honestly is not good:
MDIs (metered dose inhalers) and edibles.
If we all at GLG got together on MDI manufacturing that would Be
Again, not defending them. But I can’t imagine an actual clinical study not costing hundreds of thousands if not millions to get any data. You’d need to be testing each terpene individually, and on multiple type animal test subjects to get data that’s even remotely useful.
I don’t know if any terp company is making enough $$ to be shouldering that data cost. I think they should all be working together on it certainly, but wah wah capitalism.
Then you’ve got one company shouldering the PR burden of being the ones killing animals (though that’s probably a fringe concern)
We should absolutely have this data. But I don’t know who we’d be able to convince to mine it.
they sold cartridges up until a couple months ago but they covered this up when they said everything is for ointment and salves… i just want to know why they would go through hell defending their viscosity product being called mineral oil then as soon as shit hits the fan they suddenly drop a new version and still wont say what the old one is ?
but this is good. now you can finally be transparent about what you were selling for years. if youre not selling it anymore, why keep the old formula a trade secret? the only reason you would not provide this info is if you have something to hide.
and with everything going on with the cdc rn and your suspiciously timed reformulation of a product you sold for years… it smells like you do.
Vacuum applied to top X vape pens (maybe 5).
-variables: ohms, Watts, vaporization temp, time atomizing / heating, terpene(s) used, carriers (PG, MCT, et al).
-apply vacuum to draw smoke into condenser (try to mimic conditions of lungs as much as possible - maybe do three test condition groups).
-test all compounds collected after vaporization.
That’s pretty basic and might work, might be total shit. Idk. I think if I spent more than 1 minute like just now designing parameters…would be at least decent enough for me to say “it’s probably a good/bad idea to do…”
Animal testing and all that ya…that’s for pharma and major fda approval. BUT, if you did get fda approved, you may be the only one with a OTC or prescription vape device: I bet GW Has some serious work already there
I get the technicalities of not being able to say you can vape it then why masquerade as this super safe company who cares about the community and it’s customers. It’s misleading because the average joe who goes to that website will be tricked into thinking it is safe. Again deception to make a dollar.
Maybe it’s time to take a step back and wait while the cdc does the research And finds out what’s killing people
What is this mixing calculator for and why is there a vape pen in the picture
From my understanding in talking to testing labs is the lung machines cigarette companies use to test are very expensive. I’m working on creating my own for much cheaper, but even then, it’s hard to mimic how someone actually uses a vape. Do I only test 10 second draws?
@TrueTerpenes “We suggest possibly changing your formula to 4-5% viscosity and 9% terps, as well as following good capping procedures and making sure the carts don’t get too hot. We hope this helps!”
From a business perspective, I don’t think anyone could’ve expected them to post anything else.
