Happy to compare data. If @THCA_Synthase wants to let me know who he/she is and gives me permission to share data we can put it all out there.
If we’re proven incorrect I’ll start a CAPA and bring it up to the team for continuous improvement.
6 Likes
Have you guys had any tests come back d9 compliant yet?
1 Like
You are incorrect. The strictures are just new to OK, but not in previously legalized states.
As a generalization, recreational testing laboratories suffer much greater oversight right now than national hemp laboratories do. In my experience, there is no effective policing of analytical laboratories under the Farm Bill.
I get why these assertions would provoke a defensive reaction in analytical groups. I am admittedly blunt, and I apologize. It’s a very, very difficult business running a commercial laboratory, it is nearly impossible to both run good analysis and turn a profit in a mature market.
2 Likes
Of course Mechoulam is not irrelevant to me, but I didn’t mention him. He is a niche and respectable chemist! I find–observing your responses to others–that you draw a lot of facile connections with things in the literature that strike me as frequently unsubstantiated and in error.
Our results will definitely differ, that’s always the case? A client running analysis in a new locale needs to understand their results within the testing environment around them. We run ring tests on a variety of samples for them to better understand the meaning of their results to THEIR clients.
Western recreational states under much stricter oversight tend to coincide with my methods, because I have calibrated them as such for MY accuracy. Hemp laboratories operating predominantly west of Colorado, tend ti disagree with our established methods, and with trusted entities with a long track record.
I call bullshit
Take me to thc testing labs in Oregon, Colorado, Ohio, California, Nevada that have more oversight than a DEA registered testing lab. I’ll afford the plane ticket and give you a pat on the back. Just because I used Oklahoma as a reference doesn’t mean it isn’t so for other states as well.
Blunt but without validity to your statements…
Best joke all night
West coast oversight. GTFO of here lol
Now I know you’re not from the industry.
I needed a good late night laugh. Thanks…
If I had a dollar from every shitty coa on the west coast. 
Or a dollar for every thc testing lab that can’t get d8 right lol isomerization products invaded rec too
They still think d8 is compliant mostly
Here’s the truth. $$$$ Good testing labs are being out moneyed by shitty ones. 40% flowers sell better than 14%. Compliant d8 sells better than hot d8.
Meanwhile Doug Varin is supposed to have d9thcv
Someone wanna go test this and tell me it’s got no d8thcv? Because I’m at the stage of betting money this recreational product is isomerized and sold as natural.
They claim their strain has d9thcv. Of which I believe. I however know they’re subsidizing d9thcv with d8 in a rec environment for vaporizers and other products. Why? The answer is simple. $
Crave away product is pure d8thcv.
So here they state their cbn sleep has d8thc, but what do you think their thcv advertised products without the d8 in the ad… have? Go test and report back
I wanna see 30% d9thcv vape results.
You mean to tell me this has more oversight? Because I don’t believe it. Dudes selling hemp at above Cali weed prices lol (prove me wrong please I hope you do) because I’d like some d9thcv concentrate I can trust and their obvious involvement with Isomerized products has me believing they’re backdooring d8thcv also as their THCV line of products. 3% thcv pre rolls… You’d think they’d pump out flower… But they list CBDv and CBG and THCV as what they grow. Hmmm. Idk fam. I’m seeing a hemp outlet with a thc license playing the game hard.
This competitors product however I want to definitely try. But then again SC Labs…? That one rings a bell too. Idk if good or bad. Just remembered reading about them. Shady Lab Results
5 Likes
FYI. DEA doesn’t even look at your methods during the registration process. They check your security and sample disposal.
5 Likes
That would be federal government oversight. Logged samples. By the team that raids people…
Nobody has standardized testing methods for our industry obviously or rather the standards in place aren’t good enough.
State thc inspectors or hemp inspectors don’t come with 10+ other units and guns. The comparison is a joke. The DEA/cops is who they call if they have problems.
Hell they give you a heads up when they’re coming.
Don’t get me wrong. Inspectors do their jobs and get facilities nailed too. OLCC buckled down on hiring inspectors. It’s just not the same as if the DEA were to be involved directly. Hell florida has the police handle their medical stuff I think. That’s a step more intimidating than west coast. In parts of Oklahoma your inspection can be a phone call.
1 Like
Please show me examples of my facile connections to the unsupported literature. If my sources are discredited then it is surely the duty of such an esteemed truth teller of this scientific community to enlighten us all. I don’t quote literature often on here.
We see our job in this industry as ensuring we efficiently and accurately analyze and characterize each sample coming through our door. We are constrained by lack of standards and all the other methods we’d like to employ.
What does this even mean? Our results are what they are. If we don’t meet our own internal quality controls then we reanalyze the sample. We don’t adjust limits or concentrations. Additional work and confirmatory analysis comes from our regulatory background as scientists.
If you’re doing it best for your clients then by all means. I’m not coming into your backyard anytime soon and I won’t be undercutting prices.
Tell all the people which lab you represent so they know who to trust.
4 Likes
The tenth sample in this experiment was our in-house testing but didn’t include our data for this very reason!! 
3 Likes
What a great way to learn to improve though.
2 Likes
KCA likes to… assert things they have not proven, much much too frivolously.
God damn… the projection here is killing me.
2 Likes
Honestly the separation between isomers they are showing on their CoA’s is pretty atrocious.
That would be their HPLC chromatogram, the only one they actually show on the CoA. However they are saying the GC is what they quantify by… even though it clearly indicates quantification by HPLC-PDA above quantaties … generally that would be seen as “not proven” by most CoA scrutinizes (and generally dismissed by people on the D8 coolaid it seems). Certainly is honest practice (and the law in most states?) to accurately say how you quantified an analyte on a CoA, and certainly ISO/TNI would not allow that on an actually accredited test.
But this D8 stuff is all wild west so WTF ever, just really proves you are kind of a cruddy lab really. And you are accepting hot ass samples mailed in from out of state but again WTF, no enforcement amiright.
And if it did not come from that method you should damn well put an astrik next to it and explain yourself. Lather in the transparency… or not in good faith.
1 Like
I think it’s pretty safe to say the more machines GC / HPLC etc you have to your arsenal the better. That said, they’re doing incredible work on HPLC and are often joined by GC users with the same consensus on results.
You can’t know what you receive in the mail is hot without testing… What kind of scapegoating excuse is that? Passing blame on the labs that test criminal samples?
All I read* is lab dogs barking. Added an asterisk
Yes I bark when I see BS, man this whole board stinks of BS folks doing BS work for hard green. I will point that out.
It is not safe to put BS on a CoA, that is an official document. There are ways of making it not official, or being transparent about how not official it is… It is called comments. And again they are the law. That document is enough to get the lab prosecuted for lying on an official document, as in misrepresenting where the results came from.
You understand there are business practices analytical labs are held to? They cannot misrepresent results… unless that damn astrik says “not accredited analyte” or other reason. Not so on this CoA, it says ISO 17025 accredited and that can get yanked about this type of shit. This is not you moms processing lab, this is an accredited analytical testing lab. And they are lying to the general public (and maybe some health/ag authorities if they do compliance testing) right on their CoAs.
3 Likes
Hi, have you seen testing labs in market?
All of them are lying except a small few that do what they can for transparency…
This isn’t news. It’s common place.
1 Like
Dangit man, have i seen the testing lab market? I help make the rules for some markets, I directly address issues like this, transparency is defiantly a common practice among ANALYTICAL TESTING LABS… of which cannabis labs are included and they need to step up their damn game or shit like this is what you get.
Just because they test weed does not mean they can fucking lie. The analytical testing industry is quite robust and it is people like me that will keep it that way. FucknA
Does that ISO 17025 not mean anything to any of you guys? Because it should be hard as fuck to get, and these fok really dont deserve it I feel. Unless they can back up some stuff.
2 Likes
I like you. You can keep barking in my book.
XD good luck with them rules. Transparency in lab results isn’t common place in cannabis or hemp testing results. Not since d8 greed took over.
Don’t get me started with shitty weed results. Or what labs do to fake them beyond an analysis control (kiefing flower)
The fact testing labs are calling each other out means the world to me. Just focus on the labs not doing their part to add transparency (95%)
I’m over here not believing thcv flower I’ve physically smoked now that they’ve gotten into d8thcv. I question everything.
3 Likes
You’re right and moving forward we’re listing both HPLC-PDA and GC-MS/MS on the d8-THC COAs that get run on both platforms.
The GC-MS/MS chromatogram will be posted on all samples moving forward.
We changed the SOP today.
8 Likes
Fap. Fap. Fap.
Gotta appreciate transparency eh
Double. Tested. 
3 Likes