Lab Testing.

[GanjaWarrior]

no matter what they say they test....it doesn't get past the huge failure in testing.... i grew out a monster plant got 280 grams.... you tested one gram...no mold no nothing... but that doesn't do squat for the other 279 grams that i grew. sadly a test can give you all clear on your meds, but it only applies to the part you dont have any more. you pay 20 bucks and get no real assurance in my op...

[Restorium2]

What, specifically, do you need testing to do before you will take it seriously?

Testing has very limited uses for real patients. The only use you will have, where you can make the money you need to make to run your business, is to work for the state run grow facilities that need their prodcut to be FDA approved. And that will still have very little use for low and mid income patients. You have a very bleak future in Michigan Medical Cannabis. You could move to Co and do ok I'll bet. But here you are just having to make up ways to say you are useful to use. You sell a novelty item. It's fun, it's not really medically valuable.

[Northern Lab]

Do you test for pesticides? or can you see molds and bugs? do they give results and is that included with a lab report? Or is it related to what the customer is asking for.. Just curious since i am being told that these things are not able to be tested for..

 

We can't test for everything. No one can, realistically. What we can do is pick some very common pesticides used on cannabis, along with some of the nastiest general household pesticides. Our library of pesticide standards holds about two dozen compounds, among them are standards for Floramite, Forbid, Hot Shot Pest Strips, bug bombs/foggers, roach and ant killer, Ortho Home Defense, flea and tick formula, etc.

 

Pesticide tests cost money, and most of the samples brought in are from growers, so they know what they've put on it, and unless they're trying to convince someone they don't use pesticides, they won't likely want it. However, our lab does offer FREE pesticide testing for patients concerned about getting them in their meds.

 

Mold and other contaminants can be seen under microscopic inspection and the customer is informed of it when it is spotted.

[Northern Lab]

Testing has very limited uses for real patients. The only use you will have, where you can make the money you need to make to run your business, is to work for the state run grow facilities that need their prodcut to be FDA approved. And that will still have very little use for low and mid income patients. You have a very bleak future in Michigan Medical Cannabis. You could move to Co and do ok I'll bet. But here you are just having to make up ways to say you are useful to use. You sell a novelty item. It's fun, it's not really medically valuable.

 

Gee, thanks for the advice.

 

 

Unbelievable. Anti science and pro-cannabis. An interesting juxtaposition to be sure.

[Restorium2]

The science is lagging way behind what a real test can do. The real test is how it works for a patient. Some would have you believe a lab is a better tester than a patient. The same folks preach about safe access. I believe safe access starts with US, not a dispensary or a lab. They have it exactly backwards. Steckler is taking the ball from them and running with it. We need to cut them off with the real deal. We don't need testing for safe access. Safe access starts with knowing your grower, not knowing your commercial dispensary and the lab they/you pay. The safest access is always making sure that you never ever buy annonymous meds. We don't really need labs, but they are a fun novelty at times. Just remember that we don't need them, never say we do. The Steckler types use that against us.

[Restorium2]

Gee, thanks for the advice.

 

 

Unbelievable. Anti science and pro-cannabis. An interesting juxtaposition to be sure.

I'm the most science oriented person you will ever run into. Think about that for a second. But I'm not trying to make money off of junk science.

[Northern Lab]

I'm the most science oriented person you will ever run into. Think about that for a second. But I'm not trying to make money off of junk science.

 

I find that hard to believe. You readily dismiss any medical value of CBD, and now you're calling chromatogrpahy, the gold standard of quantitative analysis, 'junk science'.

[Restorium2]

I find that hard to believe. You readily dismiss any medical value of CBD, and now you're calling chromatogrpahy, the gold standard of quantitative analysis, 'junk science'.

I didn't dismiss the value of CBD. I dismiss the value you have to tell us about it. You actually said I had 'GALL" because I said a patient is a better tester. Either your head is swelled beyond belief, or your mind is blinded from science. Make no mistake, we are the testers. You are way down the list of ways to help a patient. You can tell us if a bag can blow your mind. A patient can tell you if it works for them medically. We are the medical testers. We are unique and your test is standardized.

[Northern Lab]

I don't think that is what he is doing. Try to read past any inflection you might think he has, and he has extremely good points. He is not dismissing the medical value of CBD, but the value of a test saying that a strain is high in CBD. He is not calling chromatography junk, but the way it is used in this "industry" and the behavior the results generate.

 

There is no doubt that patient testing, especially across a large group, is better and more meaningful than chromatography. There is no doubt that we do not yet have the science to determine, especially from the chromatography tests that are currently being executed, whether or not a strain will be beneficial to a patient with a given condition. There is also no doubt that chromatography is absolutely useless for "safety testing" for dispensaries.

 

I agree that patient feedback is the best indicator of efficacy. Labs(with maybe one exception) are not trying to supplant that. All they offer is a chance to explain how, why, and what makes a strain more effective for patients with a given condition. If we can identify traits that makes one strain more effective than another, we can look for other strains with similar traits and see if we're onto something.

 

We are learning more everyday about the relationship between terpenes and cannabinoids. If a strain is myrcene dominant, for example, it seems to have sedative or 'couchlock' effects, while a strain that is limonene dominant seems to produce an elevated mood and little to no sedative effects. This takes us well beyond the antiquated 'sativas are for this and indicas are for that', something we'd never know without chromatography labs.

 

I guess we can debate the value of a test showing a strain to be CBD rich. How much value one places in such a test probably depends on how much credence one gives the notion that CBD is medically valuable. If all one cares about is THC content, then it's easy to just do a smoke test and figure it out for oneself. The fact is, it's virtually impossible to reliably detect CBD without lab testing.

 

 

I didn't dismiss the value of CBD. I dismiss the value you have to tell us about it. You actually said I had 'GALL" because I said a patient is a better tester. Either your head is swelled beyond belief, or your mind is blinded from science. Make no mistake, we are the testers. You are way down the list of ways to help a patient. You can tell us if a bag can blow your mind. A patient can tell you if it works for them medically. We are the medical testers. We are unique and your test is standardized.

 

If you have a specific oil that works for a number of patients better than another, wouldn't you want to know what exactly it is that makes it more so? Wouldn't it be helpful to you to determine why it is more effective and which compounds are influencing that outcome? What if it's a minor cannabinoid or a terpene that's making the difference? You'd never know if you didn't have chromatography performed on it.

 

I have acknowledged that there is nothing that can replace patient testing. Patient test panels combined with cannabinoid and terpene analysis, however, could be a powerful tool in helping other patients choose a strain that is likely to provide relief. This type of research can do a lot to save time and money for both caregivers and patients.

 

I resent the fact that you're dismissing the value of labs because they charge money for services rendered and are therefore greedy capitalists and underminers of medical cannabis. It's ridiculous and reminiscent of what I thought was a by-gone era around here.

[Restorium2]

Don't take yourself so seriously. Resent? Please. After what you people, dispensary/lab people, have done to the likes of patients like me? You have things exactly backwards. I should resent the heck out of you, but I don't. I actually give you, level headed, non emotional, great business advice. You should thank me, instead, I get resent.

 

What I do is be very careful to keep track how I grow, how I finish, and how I extract. I take notes. Then I note the results with multiple patients with different problems. I use this information to taylor their oil contents and dosages. I would use your novelty testing if I could think of a way it might help me and other patients. So far, I haven't seen a use for it. Honestly, I have no use for it.

[Northern Lab]

How do you qualify and quantify CBD? You acknowledge it is medically valuable. How do you detect it so that patients who might benefit from it have a chance to do so?

[Restorium2]

How do you qualify and quantify CBD? You acknowledge it is medically valuable. How do you detect it so that patients who might benefit from it have a chance to do so?

I qualify and quantify results. Then I'm going past one dimensional ideas, like quantifying CBD. I qualify and quantify strains and techniques. It's repeatable if you carefully do it.

[Northern Lab]

Huh. Interesting.

[michaelscott]

Rest I dont think northern is a mandatory testing advocate, and you seem to be throwing him into that group. Of course I could be wrong.

 

I do think its a strange to think testing would somehow make us learn less about marijuana. Obviously your notes about your strains has a sample size that is to small to offer anything empirical. I'm sure it helps you help your patients but does nothing for the community as a whole.

 

 

[cristinew]

terpenes rock

[Northern Lab]

Rest I dont think northern is a mandatory testing advocate, and you seem to be throwing him into that group. Of course I could be wrong.

 

I do think its a strange to think testing would somehow make us learn less about marijuana. Obviously your notes about your strains has a sample size that is to small to offer anything empirical. I'm sure it helps you help your patients but does nothing for the community as a whole.

 

I am not a mandated testing advocate.

[shishka]

Good discussion so far. So do labs accept samples from caregivers only or patients as well. Are these transfers considered Pt/Pt of Cg/Pt. I'm assuming all lab employees would have to be card holders, is this correct?

[Northern Lab]

Yes, all lab employees that are handling cannabis must be carded. Anyone with a card can submit a sample, but some labs are member only, so you have to become a member first.

 

The transfer is cardholder to cardholder and there is no compensation issued by the lab for the sample, so there really is no legal jeopardy for either party.

[Northern Lab]

I don't see how one would know it was CBD, or something else entirely, without chromatography.

[Northern Lab]

Yes, of course. But that only matters after it has already been shown to work for the patient. I don't think tracking down a "high CBD" strain with chromatography means anything respecting its medical efficacy.

 

I guess I'm not following here, sorry.

[t-pain]

gw pharmaciuticals cant just switch strengths of ingredients in a medication. they would have to do another couple double blind studies for the fda and wait around to get approved for this new medication. so expect to see a cbd high medication from them in the future, maybe in 10 years?

 

the reason there is no cbd medicine (cbd marinol) is because no one figured how to make it synthetically (and thus patenting it).

 

each cannibinoid has side effects and the combination of them all, including the terpines, helps negate each other.

we dont know all of the side effects because no one has isolated each one and given massive amounts of only one to a person yet.

 

its strange how one plant can have so many positive effects on the human body, and also its seed is the most nutritious of all plants. how did that happen? it never evolved into having thorns or poisons to keep animals from eating it. it grows nearly everywhere!

[Northern Lab]

I don't think the simple presence of CBD necessarily means the strain will have the medical effect sought. I think it is likely CBD in combination with other cannabinoids, including THC, or other terpenes, that will result in an effective therapy. There is no pure CBD pharmaceutical medication, even though GW Pharmacuticals has an obvious grasp of the medical benefits of CBD. They ultimately used whole plant extracts to create Sativex.

 

How are we going to determine any of that without chromatography?

[Celliach]

The one thing I noticed in this thread is that the only person defending MMJ testing, is the only person in the thread that's making money off of it.

[peanutbutter]

The one thing I noticed in this thread is that the only person defending MMJ testing, is the only person in the thread that's making money off of it.

 

That's a very low blow. And very inaccurate.

[Restorium2]

Below is an example of the tangled web being woven by the lab community. First you have lab testing to find a way to recommend their products. Then you have a 'back against the wall' type defense of unscientific methods to prove their lab results are valid. And then we finally get the conclusion, the final thought; Honest anecdotal evidence is far preferable to superficial rigor.

 

 

Halent Labs has developed a spiffy, color-coded chart to help medical Cannabis users select strains best suited to treat their symptoms.

Halent plans to track patients' responses to CBD-rich Cannabis and strains containing other compounds of interest. They're undoubtedly aware that telling people what to expect from a given type of Cannabis will influence the effects reported, and that peer-reviewed journals would not publish data skewed in this way.

 

Halent, (the lab guy) QUOTE:

I say "Skew it." So what if the placebo effect accounts for 15 percent —or even 30 percent— of the reported benefit? If positive expectations alter brain chemistry in a way that makes drugs more effective, why go to great lengths to block positive expectations?

It's darn arrogant of the medical establishment to define the double-blind placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial as "the gold standard of research," given all the deadly drugs the FDA has approved based on such trials. Corporate biomedicine is corrupt. Their most prestigious journals are full of ghost-written papers, they exclude studies showing adverse effects… Honest anecdotal evidence is far preferable to superficial rigor.