True Terpenes VISCOSITY extract liquifier LAB TESTS: Mineral oil but no terps!!

[calisun]

MaryJanesMassage oil is a scam too.

It's hard to trust any of the manufactures of cannabis concentrates weather it's CBDs or terpenes.
My friend bought a couple bottles of CBD oil at a hemp fair. They claimed it had 1000 mgs of CBD in it. He sent one bottle to the lab. The lab result showed 0.0 thc and 0.0 cbd. He sent the test result to them and asked for his money back and they refused to refund him any money.

 

[141ironlung]

I asked them to clarify why they changed the wording, their response is that they are concerned about the slight difference in Terpene vs Terpenoid.

I told them that their website needs to reflect this, and that the current wording, and their untimely changing of said wording, is suspect af.

I also mentioned that this would be an appropriate time to open source the ingredient list, albeit a more appropriate time would have been upfront.

How they respond will dictate how I respond.

Do you believe their reasoning for the explicit wording change after the OP started this thread, right before they released their statement?


If my memory servers a terpenoid is a type of terpene, and it is not considered a non-terpene. There are many terpenoids that are found in cannabis and everyone calls them and considers them terpenes.

 

[Ringodoggie]

This entire thing is about to become a word game.

It's all about intent. Not word games.

 

[dank.frank]

Ringo - that is exactly what TT wants, and in part, why I keep trying to quit responding. The more actors in the scene, the more he said she said, the more convoluted it all becomes.

They take the back seat, let Future drive and take the hits, let the 100% reasonable questioning dissolve into conjecture and confusion...

Then they can shrug and dust off, while everyone else, who took a stance, is left to defend it.

Nothing about how they have handled this gives me any confidence that they aren't, at their core, all about one thing and one thing only - raking in as much $6,000 a gallon cash as they can, before someone eventually called them on their game.

Nothing about this has gone smoothly, and honestly, I feel just awful for Future. Guy is trying to do his due diligence and those he is talking to face to face are giving him a bigger run around than complete strangers over a screen.

I'm glad I'm not him right now. He's taking WAY too much flack for a company that isn't even willing to defend itself, but would rather, spend their time, "adjusting their wording for consumer clarity" - what a crock of bull.

I don't care what the tests say at this point; I wouldn't put a dollar in their pocket. Not because of potential poisons - but because of how they have done Future in this whole debacle. Who does something like this to someone they call a friend OR a business partner.

Nah. They are shady af. $$$$ changes people. It may not be who they started off as, but it is certainly who they have chosen to become.

Good luck, Future. Sincerely. You're catching the blunt end of the stick.



dank.Frank

 

[Mr D]

It's inevitable when you let business interests "suggest" or dictate how to consume cannabis.

 

[MJPassion]

According to MagisterChemist over on f4200, TT original statement 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."

So clearly there is some shenanigans, wordplay, marketing gimmicks, and tom-foolery going on here. And the rest of the statement now looks highly questionable as well.

What a surprise.. you can't trust a marketer even when they tell you that you can...

I seem to recall reading this statement on my very first visit to TT's website.

 

[G.O. Joe]

Nah. They are shady af. $$$$ changes people. It may not be who they started off as, but it is certainly who they have chosen to become.

It wouldn't surprise me if other posters in the thread either sell terpenes contaminated with pesticides or organisms or heavy metals, or sell hempseed oil as CBD.

 

[Gray Wolf]

This thread has wandered pretty far afield from the question “is TT Viscosity a terpene blend, or mineral oil”, and covered some worthy philosophical and moral subjects, as well as others less so.

Until the unbiased chain of custody test results are in of course, the truth is conjecture, and looking at it from that stand point, not everyone posting on this thread is right.

Given there will be plenty of time to fricassee and roast any weasel’s once the facts are established, whose needs are served by pummeling any suspects up front?

Sooo, where are we with regard to gold standard empirical results that you can take to the bank on this end?

My second sample didn’t arrive last Friday as planned, but promised this week. Not the fault of any players here, my secret buyer got sidetracked.

I discussed the issue with an internationally respected molecular biologist, whose name I will reveal if he and the pharmaceutical lab he works for accepts the project after reviewing it among themselves.

He says more than one test is required and is reviewing test possibilities, as well as developing a budget for their lab to perform the tests. More on his thoughts as they develop.

While we wait for sample number two, I would like to cover a couple reoccurring points which are valid, but not black and white, so can be misleading.

What is ISO 9000, and what are the implications?

ISO 9000 certification is by a certified 3rd party agency who audited and certified the company’s operations as meeting the various ISO 9000 standards, which are stringent.

To get that certification your process sheets, process control, your record keeping, testing, and the 3rd party audit must demonstrate that you say what you are going to do, then you do what you said you are going to do, followed by demonstrating that you did what you said you were going to do.

No longer is 99.99% accuracy acceptable, ISO 9000 processes typically use Six Sigma techniques in setting up processes, controls, and inspections, which includes statistical process review and control to the millionth place.

It is here that a point may be under appreciated, and that is when you order from a ISO 9000 source, instead of a non ISO 9000 certified source, the standard sampling rates for you drop, because they have demonstrated and been certified to be performing the testing for you. You are only testing the testers.

Sampling rates are how many samples you take per N number of product. Coming from aerospace, most of our sample rates were 100%, by multiple inspection processes (typically at least 5), because a single failure could result in loss of life and property, but if you go through the major terpenes, you will find that there are no exposure limits for many, because they have been regarded as a food stuff/herb/spice, et al and never been tested.

After all, it is “organic” and from Mother Nature’s kitchen, plus frequently consumed without issues, so what could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong? More on that later.

My Juran Quality Control Handbook, 1974 Third Edition has the formulas for determining the sample size required to achieve a specific precision in an estimate, on pages 22-51 and 22-52 for those interested, but so as not to glaze over the eyes of those not, may I summarize by saying that frequency of sampling is typically based on how many errors you have found in the past.

If your sampling plan has never detected any rejections, the recommended sampling frequency is reduced.

If the producer is 3rd party certified to meet ISO 9000, and supplies their certified lab results with each lot, the sampling rates are not necessarily every lot.

The empirical test results will be what ever they are, but they won’t illuminate the thought processes leading up to those results, or who shot the duck.

Back to the later that I spoke of regarding Permissible Exposure Limits. [FONT=&quot]Unfortunately, I'm unable to post Sweet Mary's Charms in its entirety, which addresses issues such as the MSDS for the most common terpenes, because of its length and all the tables.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The central theme however is that we've concentrated both Sweet Mary's cannabinoids and terpenes, and some of those terpenes sanitize toilet bowls and strip paint in sufficient concentration.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another issue is that most of the common terpenes from plants haven't been studied close enough to set standards, as they’ve been looked on as herbs and spices.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Some other common food items have and the MSDS is scarry. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] Check out its MSDS for d[/FONT]rinking alcohol (Ethanol) for instance. and tell me if you would touch it with a ten-foot pole?:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/89308.htm[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here is the MSDS for water and not forget that water borne illnesses is the leading cause of death at 3.4 million a year. As you may recall Benjamin Franklin recommended wine and beer over water because of the bacteria in water:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]https://www.labchem.com/tools/msds/msds/LC26750.pdf[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2005-03-17-voa34-67381152/274768.html[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Poison as has been noted, is clearly in the dosage. How about digitalis from Belladonna? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]https://www.caymanchem.com/msdss/22266m.pdf[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But wait, we were talking about mineral oil! How did we get this far afield??[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]https://www.chemistry.mcgill.ca/msds/msds/8042-47-5.pdf[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304428/[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ummm, what grade of mineral oil are we talking about? Crude grades, or the refined grade that is perfumed and used for baby oil?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ooops, I guess it really doesn’t matter, because if it were not for the prestige and admiration from our friends, we wouldn’t consider paying such a steep price to have it in our lungs? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Which brings us back to the central theme of this thread on Page 47. Can anyone share the details and status of the other 3rd party samples?[/FONT]

 

[solsummit710]

I think this is great knowledge to get out there, browsing xtractor depot today and i see non-cannabis derived terpenes are 50% off and offering discounts for bulk pricing SMH

 

[Gray Wolf]

OK, got both my samples and am awaiting confirmation from my chosen molecular biologist and pharmaceutical lab for the testing, which is due next week.

 

[Ringodoggie]

Kudos to Gray Wolf for the time and effort.

 

[Cvh]

@Graywolf, If the tests show that TrueTerpenes is telling the truth and they are indeed selling Terpenes/Terpenoids and not a solution of mineral oil or derivative. Would you plz keep their recipe secret? There is no need then to publicly release their secret recipe or parts of it.

Your word is enough for me.

Big up's for the time and money you're putting into this.

 

[Sertaiz]

you must like buying laundry detergent with no ingredients as well. secret smell good formula.....nothing too carcinogenic, trust us!

 

[Gray Wolf]

@Graywolf, If the tests show that TrueTerpenes is telling the truth and they are indeed selling Terpenes/Terpenoids. Would you plz keep their recipe secret? There is no need then to publicly release their secret recipe or parts of it.

Your word is enough for me.

Big up's for the time and money you're putting into this.

[FONT=&quot]Yup, no issues on this end. I've already committed to reporting content only if it is indeed mineral oil, or if it is something of equal concern.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Enough issues have been raised that I believe we owe it to ourselves to resolve them empirically in self-defense, but agree we should stop short of revealing proprietary industrial secrets for a number of reasons.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]That does highlight a couple of the remaining issues without any resolution or plans to resolve, and that is that we still don’t know who all the players are. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If TT is guilty as charged and the burden falls on them as opposed to their ISO supplier, they should be beaten with a dead rabbit and hung out to dry. I think that we all agree that we should have less than zero tolerance for that type of behavior, and mere hanging is too good for them.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Given that the tests results are not yet in, another question is possibly, “what should we say to TT if they aren’t guilty and we’ve been played by an unnamed party?” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]One of the reasons that at age 75 I try to not judge until the facts are in, is I just hate the taste of crow, which to my discredit I've savored more than once over the years.
[/FONT]

 

[JRace]

Part of the issue (for me and maybe others) is that they are releasing and profiting from a product whose ingredients are purposely being kept secret from the customer.

Why are the ingredients being kept secret?
-Presumably to prevent a competitor from copying their formula.

But...is the end product so simple that all one needs are an ingredient list?
Is there no process involved that sets TT apart from others?

All we know is that
a) They were accused of selling Mineral Oil
and
b) They denied selling Mineral Oil

The test results will hopefully determine one or the other...but how will we know what they are selling is actually safe to vaporize?

 

[ExtractNinja]

[FONT=&quot]Yup, no issues on this end. I've already committed to reporting content only if it is indeed mineral oil, or if it is something of equal concern.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Enough issues have been raised that I believe we owe it to ourselves to resolve them empirically in self-defense, but agree we should stop short of revealing proprietary industrial secrets for a number of reasons.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Great to here!![/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But who decides what is something of equal concern? I think that responsibility rests with each individual. I think we need full transparency here, stopping short of giving away the terpenes they use if you find any. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think any non-terps should be identified, but any terps shouldn't be. ANd if my tests had found any terps at all I would have kept them private as well. I really dont care whats in Visocity if its 100% terps.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The problem you point to is that for years TT has claimed Viscosity is 100% terpenes and nothing else. My tests showed that not to be the case. My tests showed no terps at all, including squalene, squalane, phytol. Instead the labs found what they call mineral oil and some unknown heavy nonvolatile nonaromatic materials.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If testing finds any non-terp substances in Visocity I think it should be reported publicly. There is to much public demand to know if TT is lying about whats in Viscosity. Because if my lab tests were right TT has been lying and stealing from people by selling them some unknown material. People purchase Viscosity because they believe they are buying 100% terpenes. People deserve to know if htey are getting ripped off and if they are inhaling something they dont want to inhale. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]At the very minimum I think we need to read every labs findings from all tests. We don't need to see the chromtaogram or peaks identified as terps.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What are terpenes? How are we defining them? That is something that needs to be stated now before more test results come back. Because OldGold is getting Viscosity tested and so is Future. I define terpenes including heavy things like phytol and squalane. But there are many things that are not terpenes, like all the peaks identified by Dr. Pappas:[/FONT]

Heptadecane
3-methylheptadecane
Octadecane
3-methylnonadecane
5-methyloctadecane
3-methyloctadecane
Nonadecane
9-methylnonadecane
5-ethyl-5-methylheptadecane
4-propylheptadecane
5-butylhexadecane
4-methylnonadecane
2-methylnonadecane
Eicosane
Heneicosane
5-methylhenicosane
3-methylheneicosane
6-methyldocosane
Tricosane

[FONT=&quot]

That does highlight a couple of the remaining issues without any resolution or plans to resolve, and that is that we still don’t know who all the players are.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] If TT is guilty as charged and the burden falls on them as opposed to their ISO supplier, they should be beaten with a dead rabbit and hung out to dry. I think that we all agree that we should have less than zero tolerance for that type of behavior, and mere hanging is too good for them.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Given that the tests results are not yet in, another question is possibly, “what should we say to TT if they aren’t guilty and we’ve been played by an unnamed party?” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]One of the reasons that at age 75 I try to not judge until the facts are in, is I just hate the taste of crow, which to my discredit I've savored more than once over the years.
[/FONT]

I am sending you a personal messagae.

For my next round of testing I got the new sample already. I am sending to a new lab next week. Ill post the lab Im going to use later.

 

[Gray Wolf]

Part of the issue (for me and maybe others) is that they are releasing and profiting from a product whose ingredients are purposely being kept secret from the customer.

Why are the ingredients being kept secret?
-Presumably to prevent a competitor from copying their formula.

But...is the end product so simple that all one needs are an ingredient list?
Is there no process involved that sets TT apart from others?

All we know is that
a) They were accused of selling Mineral Oil
and
b) They denied selling Mineral Oil

The test results will hopefully determine one or the other...but how will we know what they are selling is actually safe to vaporize?

A very good question, and one that in most cases will be answered only by time, because there are no standards for many of the terpenes and terpenoids. Up to this point, many have been considered food/herb/spices rather than chemicals.

Some are used in aroma therapy, but at lower concentrations than we do when dabbing, and I know of no historical studies on the long term effects of dabbing concentrates with or without added terpenes.

My suspicion is that when the long term effects study is complete, we will discover that dabbing hot vapors is insalubrious to our lungs, and that the more frequent and harsher the exposure, the greater the health risk.

I suggest that we find out what the samples show it is first, to see if debating its wholesomeness is necessary.

 

[Gray Wolf]

[FONT=&quot]But who decides what is something of equal concern? I think that responsibility rests with each individual. I think we need full transparency here, stopping short of giving away the terpenes they use if you find any. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think any non-terps should be identified, but any terps shouldn't be. ANd if my tests had found any terps at all I would have kept them private as well. I really dont care whats in Visocity if its 100% terps.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The problem you point to is that for years TT has claimed Viscosity is 100% terpenes and nothing else. My tests showed that not to be the case. My tests showed no terps at all, including squalene, squalane, phytol. Instead the labs found what they call mineral oil and some unknown heavy nonvolatile nonaromatic materials.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If testing finds any non-terp substances in Visocity I think it should be reported publicly. There is to much public demand to know if TT is lying about whats in Viscosity. Because if my lab tests were right TT has been lying and stealing from people by selling them some unknown material. People purchase Viscosity because they believe they are buying 100% terpenes. People deserve to know if htey are getting ripped off and if they are inhaling something they dont want to inhale. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]At the very minimum I think we need to read every labs findings from all tests. We don't need to see the chromtaogram or peaks identified as terps.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What are terpenes? How are we defining them? That is something that needs to be stated now before more test results come back. Because OldGold is getting Viscosity tested and so is Future. I define terpenes including heavy things like phytol and squalane. But there are many things that are not terpenes, like all the peaks identified by Dr. Pappas:[/FONT]

Heptadecane
3-methylheptadecane
Octadecane
3-methylnonadecane
5-methyloctadecane
3-methyloctadecane
Nonadecane
9-methylnonadecane
5-ethyl-5-methylheptadecane
4-propylheptadecane
5-butylhexadecane
4-methylnonadecane
2-methylnonadecane
Eicosane
Heneicosane
5-methylhenicosane
3-methylheneicosane
6-methyldocosane
Tricosane


I am sending you a personal messagae.

For my next round of testing I got the new sample already. I am sending to a new lab next week. Ill post the lab Im going to use later.

To answer your question, I'm the one who decides if it is of concern to me, and whether to reveal other's proprietary formulas.

As I noted in my original post, if you pay for the tests, you are free to reveal what you believe that you should. Does that resolve the issue?

I'm good with the standard definition for terpenes and terpenoids, as well as the standard definition for the alkanes that you listed.

I don't think that we need new definitions, but we do need sample results from a disinterested 3rd party with a certified chain of custody, for this to be more than an ongoing debate.

 

[ExtractNinja]

To answer your question, I'm the one who decides if it is of concern to me, and whether to reveal other's proprietary formulas.

As I noted in my original post, if you pay for the tests, you are free to reveal what you believe that you should. Does that resolve the issue?

No, not really. Because as much as I and others trust you, we can't take anyone at their word no matter who it is, thats the whole reason for this testing I started and spent a lot of money on. I will repeat that people have the right to know if TT is lying to them about what they are buying.

What I can say is if any tests come out different than mine, like showing a lot of terps, that test is suspicious because all three of mine have shown zero terps. The great thing is we dont have to rely any one persons testing alone, not mine, Old Golds, Futures. We need to see them in aggregate, so we can know if someone is pulling a fast one.

I'm good with the standard definition for terpenes and terpenoids, as well as the standard definition for the alkanes that you listed.

I don't think that we need new definitions, but we do need sample results from a disinterested 3rd party with a certified chain of custody, for this to be more than an ongoing debate.

I wasnt saying we need a new defintion. Im saying we should define them as they are already defined, for everyone to see so were on the same page, because its pretty clear TT is trying to play word games now. And I want to make sure that TT cant say something is a terp when it isn't, like those alkanes I listed which aren't terps but are in Viscosity.

Please dont take my posts to you as an offense or something. I just want this to be fully legit and to be trustable. And the only way for that to happen is transparnecy. Like I wrote before, in my opinion at the very least everyone who gets testing done should post the lab's conclusion. It's not enough to give a summary of what the lab said if the lab wrote a report.

OK im going back on vacation until eveyones test results come in.

 

[Badfishy1]

No, not really. Because as much as I and others trust you, we can't take anyone at their word no matter who it is, thats the whole reason for this testing I started and spent a lot of money on. I will repeat that people have the right to know if TT is lying to them about what they are buying.

What I can say is if any tests come out different than mine, like showing a lot of terps, that test is suspicious because all three of mine have shown zero terps. The great thing is we dont have to rely any one persons testing alone, not mine, Old Golds, Futures. We need to see them in aggregate, so we can know if someone is pulling a fast one.


I wasnt saying we need a new defintion. Im saying we should define them as they are already defined, for everyone to see so were on the same page, because its pretty clear TT is trying to play word games now. And I want to make sure that TT cant say something is a terp when it isn't, like those alkanes I listed which aren't terps but are in Viscosity.

Please dont take my posts to you as an offense or something. I just want this to be fully legit and to be trustable. And the only way for that to happen is transparnecy. Like I wrote before, in my opinion at the very least everyone who gets testing done should post the lab's conclusion. It's not enough to give a summary of what the lab said if the lab wrote a report.

OK im going back on vacation until eveyones test results come in.

Well then pull out your wallet and pay for the testing yourself