ExtractNinja
Member
4th test will begin soon.
Last edited:
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
True Terpenes VISCOSITY extract liquifier LAB TESTS: Mineral oil but no terps!!
- Thread starter ExtractNinja
- Start date
Future4200
Member
Their viscosity product is a mix of terps, which like all other terps, needs to be diluted to safely consume.
I was incorrect initially when I said there is mineral oil from plants. What I meant was there are plant based Alkanes that are very similar to mineral oil.
M
Mr D
VISCOSITY Extract Liquifier is the original flavorless odorless extract diluent made with a blend of 100% organic terpenes.
https://buy-terpenes.com/products/viscosity/viscosity-extract-liquifier/
Definition of diluent
: a diluting agent (such as the vehicle in a medicinal preparation)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diluent
Where does it say the diluent needs to be diluted?
Instructions for Use
Warm the extract until it is fully liquid (100°C)
Add up to 0.1g of VISCOSITY Extract Liquifier per 1g of oil
For additional flavor and effects, add up to 0.1 of True Terpene Profiles per 1g of oil
Mix well with either a magnetic mixer, stainless steel lab tool, or other mixer
Allow to return to room temperature and check thickness by tilting the glass container and watching the oil run
https://buy-terpenes.com/products/viscosity/viscosity-extract-liquifier/
Future4200
Member
The bold line. Where it says add up to 0.1g of Viscosity to 1g oil. They tell you specifically to dilute the Viscosity with cannabis oil.
Future4200
Member
Or dilute cannabis oil with viscosity, either way, both are being diluted by each other
M
Mr D
Thanks for the clarification I was a little confused about what you were saying above. I thought you meant viscosity needed to be diluted before use.
Future4200
Member
I'm probably using the wrong nomenclature
To be completely honest, I'm more interested in the outcome of this thread, than I am the Mueller report. 
@Future4200 - right or wrong in the end, I have to respect your dedication and willingness to go to war for those you've staked your reputation on. Your loyalty, is admirable. I don't see it as a fault or as a conflict, because you have been disclosing your position the entire time.
I only wish, the breeders which got their start here, who were given a platform on IC, showed as much loyalty to Gypsy. If they had your kind of loyalty, GLG might not even exist.
I don't mean that as a slam either. It's a reflection. You created more incentive and won them over. It's wise business. Not perhaps very moral on their part, but, money to be made, right.
dank.Frank
@Future4200 - right or wrong in the end, I have to respect your dedication and willingness to go to war for those you've staked your reputation on. Your loyalty, is admirable. I don't see it as a fault or as a conflict, because you have been disclosing your position the entire time.
I only wish, the breeders which got their start here, who were given a platform on IC, showed as much loyalty to Gypsy. If they had your kind of loyalty, GLG might not even exist.
I don't mean that as a slam either. It's a reflection. You created more incentive and won them over. It's wise business. Not perhaps very moral on their part, but, money to be made, right.
dank.Frank
S
Sertaiz
yup. interesting point in time. going through things in real time with people, getting to know personalities, much more interesting than daily drama. one trip. this shit is epic the seedhunter thread had me on the edge of my seat when dude went awol
You continually commit an appeal to nature fallacy, assuming something is good or safe because it is plant derived or naturally occurring. Many naturally occurring things are toxic to humans, and very little isn't toxic in high enough doses when consumed, especially via inhalation.
I'd challenge you to prove your claims in the same way you do future. Can you prove that the levels found in plant on concentrates are indeed safe? Can you provide claims that cannabis, in any form, is a non-toxic product? In your attempt to do so, I imagine you will find that even the beloved THC is toxic in high enough doses. Lead and mercury both have levels at which they can be considered non-toxic, and levels at which they are extremely toxic. In order to consider toxicity, you must consider the dose.
Which is why I think the questions should be at
what levels, if any, can these substances be safely used?
Do these substances have any business in the product?
You continue the strawman and have no clearly are ignorant to the fact that people have died from ingesting too much water but never from ingesting too much marijuana
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rosspo...water-than-smoking-too-much-pot/#2aa2d8475f37
The LD50 of thc and the benign nature of the plant are one of the factors that made legalization possible and is common knowledge among anyone with an inkling of knowledge.
These "arguments" have been had here before which is why I simply said it was a strawman argument to say that because other products we use might be dangerous what does it mater if the same dynamic is applied to pot. (same apathetic strawman argument made in the eagle20 thread)
What you are purposely trying to manipulate or too ignorant to understand is that "natural" means constituents of the cultivars chemovar expression none of which have a history of toxicity due to any constituent.
The only rare negative studies which have been challenged by peer reviewed studies as well as other means are based on smoke and behavior while intoxicated.
None of that makes any of the constituents toxic and none of them in natural form (pot or concentrates) have been linked to disease. Water is more dangerous in this regard.
The natural and evolutionary adaption comments go hand in hand because millennium of use and interaction with our gene pool is what makes the plant so interactively beneficial and benign.
Chemical alternatives and augmentations to the natural world have not been proven to have physiological compatibility and often do not, some effecting micorbiome and genes in ways we are still discovering.
The effectiveness of use as an alternative to opiates and other medicines that have real physiological consequences is one of many instances that the plant is already proving to be compatible in a superior manner.
Weird is literally a walking appeal to nature fallacy. I call him out on it all the time in the organic threads that he is (unsurprisingly) very active in.
He does not care, natural = good as far as he's concerned.
He's somehow convinced him self that people are capable of stepping outside of the 'natural' world, despite being purely natural beings with only natural resources at our disposal.
Future4200
Member
No "slam" inflected. To be clear, my forum is like the inverse of ICmag, we have a very diverse and detailed cannabis processing forum, with a small rarely used cultivation section. My intention was/is not to compete with ICmag, just to fill a niche they left open. My forum is completely free to use, and completely ad free, I pay for it out of pocket.
I've leveraged my personal and professional connections with all of the leading equipment manufactures in that industry to provide steep discounts to my GLG members (a separate entity entirely from the forum).
I don't let people join the GLG if they aren't going to immediately save more money than the cost of the membership.
There's a giant gaping hole on the growers side of this industry waiting for a similar discount club to arise, and if you build the model around empowering the members, they will flock to it
Future4200
Member
He also doesn't seem to understand the definition of strawman fallacy, and continues to improperly call it out. The classic fallacy fallacy, ie meta fallacy.
His whole point is very simple.
Cannabis, has earned a reputation for safety and not harming those who use it, which has contributed massively to the change of public perceptions.
Any adulteration of cannabis which could potentially make it harmful to the user, should be avoided and discouraged, for the sole purpose of not defeating the traction we've gained. His argument is, this includes concentrated terpenes as being more risk than the potential reward.
If vape carts are found to be unhealthy or bordering on dangerous even, then it's not the carts that will be blamed, but cannabis, the plant, itself. It will be fuel for the "see, I told you so crowd".
That aside, this thread has taken a twist. It started off, as a product which should be used to dilute concentrated forms of cannabis resins. Now, it's being described as a product that is intended to be diluted by cannabis resins.
So now it seems, the product itself, as is, is unsafe, and the only thing making it safe to use, is diluting it with cannabis resins?
THIS is the whole basis for Weird's argument. Why in the world would you take a product that is inherently dangerous on it's own and mix it with something that is otherwise wholly benign, in order to make the dangerous substance, safe as well.
I understand chemistry. I get the counter argument as well being re-stated ad infinitum about concentration and I understand it's accuracy.
Take acetic acid. Pure, it'll melt your face. Mixed with water to a 5% concentration, it's called vinegar and we use it in salad dressings and pickling food.
I don't think an understanding of such negates his underlying point though. It's a difference of opinions on what is deemed "appropriate".
dank.Frank
Cannabis, has earned a reputation for safety and not harming those who use it, which has contributed massively to the change of public perceptions.
Any adulteration of cannabis which could potentially make it harmful to the user, should be avoided and discouraged, for the sole purpose of not defeating the traction we've gained. His argument is, this includes concentrated terpenes as being more risk than the potential reward.
If vape carts are found to be unhealthy or bordering on dangerous even, then it's not the carts that will be blamed, but cannabis, the plant, itself. It will be fuel for the "see, I told you so crowd".
That aside, this thread has taken a twist. It started off, as a product which should be used to dilute concentrated forms of cannabis resins. Now, it's being described as a product that is intended to be diluted by cannabis resins.
So now it seems, the product itself, as is, is unsafe, and the only thing making it safe to use, is diluting it with cannabis resins?
THIS is the whole basis for Weird's argument. Why in the world would you take a product that is inherently dangerous on it's own and mix it with something that is otherwise wholly benign, in order to make the dangerous substance, safe as well.
I understand chemistry. I get the counter argument as well being re-stated ad infinitum about concentration and I understand it's accuracy.
Take acetic acid. Pure, it'll melt your face. Mixed with water to a 5% concentration, it's called vinegar and we use it in salad dressings and pickling food.
I don't think an understanding of such negates his underlying point though. It's a difference of opinions on what is deemed "appropriate".
dank.Frank
or you are lying to save face for the sake of income
dank.frank got the message as did many others
when have you ever made a valid argument in the organics threads?
please post any science based retort to any thing I have posted
you have none and I will put money on that as well as my stand on organic and natural methodology
I already have an open challenge out to the board and I am willing to bet you where in the thread I made it in and never had the proof to collect free money
people become irrational when their objectives are being compromised
if they possessed integrity they could simply or lacked unreasonable personal interest they simply wouldn't overshadow the unknown with presumption
it is a tool used to persuade in the process of making a sale
they can save that shit for instagram
funny thing is, same as was with the eagle20 thread, all I did was point out the same straw man argument (the fallacy in this regard is the concept that because we suffer low grade toxin exposure elsewhere in our lives we should not concern ourselves with additional toxic influences) and suggested they avoid using such methods for promoting something that has not be tested and has chemicals known to be toxic to man
if people where willing to be honest at face value there would be no argument
Future4200
Member
You missed the point. Which is that everything is toxic at some level of concentration. I said that the posoin is in the dose, and used other simple examples to help you understand that simple truth.
I never said you shouldn't concern yourself with additional toxic influences.
I did say I don't care if other people choose to consume poison though, as long as they understand what they are consuming
