Not sure if anyone has checked the TT site but they changed the verbage in what is contained in Viscosity… It now reads:
VISCOSITY is the original flavorless odorless diluent made with a blend of botanically derived extracts. It does not contain PG, VG, PEG, MCT or Coconut oil. VISCOSITY is plant-derived, natural, non-GMO, and organic.
It would be nice to receive an explanation from TT regarding this change… does this mean the blend suddenly changed (unlikely) or they are no trying to cover their own ass? Regardless, anyone have any idea if anything can be done (compensation) for the people who purchased large volumes of Viscosity when the description that @MagisterChemist posted was presented. The original description was:
made from a blend of 100% organic terpenes. It does not contain PG, VG, PEG, MCT, Coconut oil, or any other non-terpene ingredients. No shenanigans, wordplay, marketing gimmicks, or Tom-foolery. Seriously, we only use terpenes.
Some follow up from the OP at this point should be expected.
I didn’t want to say anything until results are in, but thanks to a very kind individual who has helped me with cannabis testing in the past, we made arrangements for C-13 NMR testing. The lab performing analytics is not a cannabis testing lab.
Updates coming, my friends! (I would say “a couple weeks” is a fair timeframe. The sample is not yet in the testing lab’s hands, but on its way.)
Shouldn’t NMR be a sure method for identifying the carbon backbone of the molecule(s)? I am not too well studied on analytics, I admit.
I’m not sure that’s really going to do the trick. NMR is fantastic for taking an individual unknown compound and conclusively IDing it. But it is not very useful when applied to a mixture of compounds. What we really need is GCMS. The earlier GCMS results definitely showed the material was not all terpenes, the only defense TT had was to say it was fraud, so we just need a third party to confirm or deny those results.
Whatever it is, it’s a bell curve distribution of boiling points which implies a deliberate choice of this wide cut from a source with a even larger mix of compounds (most likely a distillate from a natural source of a mess o’ terpenes). It was chosen for viscosity and lack of smell. It’s a deliberate choice.
I’ll discuss it with the analytical guys and determine the best approach. I wish I had two bottles from the same Lot #. If the 2mL sample is large enough, maybe we can do both NMR and GC-MS.
Edit: Doing GC-MS first, then dealing with any discrepancies via NMR. The bottle seal will have to be broken prior to NMR in that case.
No, thats a lie. Just like I posted at icmag. After which you disappeared from the thread. Its clear you joined icmag and this site just to back up TTs lies. Hes what I posted to you on ic:
Graywold didn’t “get back” any test results. You implied he got HIS test results back. The only thing he wrote is the lab told him THEY tested Visocisty when it first came out like 4-5 years ago. He had nothing do to with that test. So your simply lying to try and muddy the waters its really obvious.
He wrote the lab once tested viscosity and found a triterpene but he didn’t say they only found a triterpene. That triterp would be squalane not squalene. I had all labs looks for squalene and none was found and I had one of labs look for squalane after someone suggested 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.
I cant post links yet but to read what slant.i was trying to do see posts 545, 555, 561, 562, 563, 565
I heard one new dilutant is only terps (they claim ) and its for CBD and THC called Thickener. But thats odd because they also claimed terps cant dissolve CBD way back when (2 monhts ago) when they were still claiming Viscosity is 100% terps.
That was a lie by TT when they claimed terps cant dissolove CBD. TT lied to provide an excuse for why Visocisty cant be used with CBD. That means TT lied about terps not dissolving CBD to cover up their other lie about Viscosity being 100% terps.
The lies just dont stop with this company. They will say only what suits them when it suits them and they dont care if its a lie or not. This shows even more that TT is shady AF. Seems like we cant believe one thing they claim.
From waybackmachine (i cant post linnks yet)
Can I use Viscosity with CBD?
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.
Another product I heard TT is reasling is a copy of the Abstrax dilutant made of TEC and terps. And also they are now selling c8 which is some type of mct as another dilutant.
Its also funny that TTs always raged on MCT and says it causes lipoid pneumonia but now they are using it to cut their terps in their ‘affordable’ line. Guess that shows how much they care about about people who cant afford their undiluted terps.
No results have been posted yet except by me. HOwever Cbdgoodlife wrote htis:
Heres the most current status of all testing. This is from me on icmag:
Graywolf: with all due respect what is taking so long? It has been almost 4.5 months since I started this thread and almost 2 months to the day that you posted, way back on page 19. I dont want to think your slow walking this tesitng but that is what its starting to look like.
What if Im write and it is mineral oil, even if its from plants, and this whole time people dont believe me are still vaping it and may be hurting themselves. All becuase they only believe you and they wont change until you post the test results
I know you said it took around two weeks to get the samples and then around two weeks to hear back from your scientist friend. But still nearly two months is a very long time to wait for such an important and critical topic. Please for the sake of people’s health give us an update! I dont care if its only a partial update even if the lab only completed one round of testing. We need info sooner not later. Can you please tell us when the lab says they will have testing completed?
This is a very serious health issue if true. I think it deserves to be put on a front burner. So I will pay your lab guys to hurry the heck up with their testing. How much will they charge to get this done ASAP?
Old Gold: can you give us an update on your testing? When does the lab say it will be completed?
Future: I see you have fled this thread, good idea I guess after seeing what you posted. But you did say many times if its proved TT is lying and there are non-terps in there you will ban TT from your site and light them up on IG and elsewhere (dont get me started about the stupid “terpenoid” argument you and TT are making).
And I saw on your site you wrote you got some testing back already. But you didnt write anything about the resutls. I think if it was found there are only terps in there you would have been screaming from the roof tops, but you arent.
My progress: I sent in samples to a lab but they misplaced it and didnt tell me for two weeks! once they finally found it it took them another two week to get it back to me. So im now speaking with a new lab, Pace Analytical. They do all kinds of testing, including with petroleum distillates. This is the deep testing I havent done yet and will probably cost more than $1000
Along with their own testing I am again having the lab look for squalane, squalene, phytol, isophytol, pristane, vegetiable oil like corn, petroleum crude oil derived mineral oil adn plant derived mineral oil-like substances.
in all three tests I have posted so far I asked the labs to looks for squalane, squalene, pristane, adn phytol. All are terps and none were found by any of the three labs.
I am going to pay for rush testing even if its a few hundred dollars extra because i worry about the people vaping Viscosity. They have a right to knon if theyre vaping something dangerous and I had assumed other people getting testing done felt the same way.
Has anyone taken you up on this? if not I will send you a bottle that I will buy this early this week. please contact me on icmag because i dont trust the guy who runs this site with my pesronal info.
Lets get this done! This will at least offer some poeple more faith in what ive posted so far. If no one else is every going to get this tersting done its up to us.
so exictted about this! finally getting someone else to do testing! we will finally get more tests and soon! heres whats going to happen this week:
it sure will. i will have it purchased from a store not the internet. I will try to have it filmed while its being purchased and then immediately placed into a shipping box and sealed in front of the store employee, and then a shipping label placed on the box all while being videoed. I will ask the store to include it in their next outgoing shipment. That way there is real chain of custody to you. From you to the lab breaks the chain but thats ok by me because you seem to be trusted by many poeple.
if the store wont add it to their next outgoing shipment I will video the uber trip from the store to the mail center while I drop it off at the counter.
So hopefully i can provide video evidence from point of purchase to shipping. Showing I have no contact withe the product.
i will try to get this in the first few days this week
Damn @hambread, Why you not say so earlier. Always remember your smurf icon over at ICmag. Really happy to see all the hash heads are here sometimes just under different names. Wonder if GOjoe is here too?
awesome thanks!! looking forward to more tests coming out!
I wonder the same thing. He contacted privately on ic to offer his sage advise on this issue. And speak of the devil G.O. Joe just posted this on icmag in my thread:
G.O. Joe:
If there are no peaks in the retention times mono-, sesqui-, and diterpenes are normally found in, it’s not a reach to say there are none present. Identification by MS other than mw is not trivial, because different MS can give different fragments and I wouldn’t depend on free databases - what I looked at from Agilent/HP was like the most expensive CD ever. Plant fats are of course triglycerides, and giving some the biodiesel treatment would change the chromatogram completely. If a sample of alkanes is boiled with acids, bases, and oxidizers, nothing changes. If you spike a sample with what you think it may be such as squalene or squalane, you can then see when that peak shows up on the FID and how much bigger it may be, so a competent operator can learn a lot and take a good guess at the number of carbons without actually identifying anything or using MS.
