Jump to content

Free Lab Testing For Patients?


Recommended Posts

As a patient, if lab testing,(terpene profiles, thc, cbd, etc, pesticides, mold etc) was legal, accessible, and free, would you give up a gram at the local center to receive a 3 minute repeatable result?

 

 

5$?

10$?

20$?

What do you mean by a repeatable result?

 

Lab results are severely limited by sample collection methods. For example, if the EPA is using federal Superfund dollars to investigate a site, there are some specific sample collection requirements, so you might collect a sample of soil but then need to quickly homogenize the sample in a decontaminated stainless steel bowl using stainless steel utensils. But you can't homogenize the sample too long, otherwise, you have a sample compromised by too much mixing/aeration.

 

I have never used a cannabis lab service, but I have seen a few reports from patients who have. Generally, the lab report is one-page long and looks more like a certificate of appreciation than a lab report. When I collect a drinking water sample for lead and submit it to a certified drinking water lab, I get a one-page report with results and also about 12 pages of supporting QA/QC data.

 

Once we have cannabis testing labs in Michigan that adhere to at least some standards and testing controls, we might have something. Until such time, any cannabis lab report is no better than a sniff test.

 

If any testing lab wants to publish a SOP and QAPP, I'd love to see it. Most patients probably don't know what this means. But this is my overall point. Any credible lab should be able to adhere to a SOP and QAPP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually zap, I doubt anyone is really giving away free tests as I hypothetically suggested.

for that matter, this may as well be the Free Provisioning Center, where poor patients pay nothing for their herb, or their tests. :P

 

Just the knowledge that the results can be repeatable was the point, but I think you know that. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

repeatable, like if Iron Labs was sitting there and also tested another sample from your purchase again, with the same or even similar results.

Similar results mean nothing unless the lab can distinguish between precision and accuracy, which they can't unless they also provide QA/QC data. Two similar lab tests are meaningless unless the lab can provide the necessary supporting documentation.

 

For example, I once had to replace the instrument panel in my car due to a short. I got a junkyard panel, which wasn't calibrated to my car. The fuel gauge was off as was the speedometer. I could drive 80 mph or so but see the speedo at 70. I could have repeated that result day after day, but repeatable means nothing if your instrumentation isn't calibrated.

Edited by Highlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reviewing the Iron Labs site I see they list hundreds upon hundreds of testing members and over 25,ooo tests performed on edibles, concentrates and buds. I don't know when they began, but that's impressive. Many of the members are big name provisioning centers with years of cannabis experience. If its all erroneous that's a lot of doped folks playing the game I'd say.

Maybe if results were viewed on a curve by the lab haters some usable info could be discerned?

 

Like this month A2 OG Ghost is @ 22% thc, grown by Gman, but LotsaBud has it all the time @ 26%...or something like that.

"even if its not actually 26%, it is higher than Gmans"..

 

I don't know, but I would not be so quick to totally discount the info as "essentially meaningless, even if accurate". That's a broad stroke, I'm surprised that's your stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similar results mean nothing unless the lab can distinguish between precision and accuracy, which they can't unless they also provide QA/QC data. Two similar lab tests are meaningless unless the lab can provide the necessary supporting documentation.

 

For example, I once had to replace the instrument panel in my car due to a short. I got a junkyard panel, which wasn't calibrated to my car. The fuel gauge was off as was the speedometer. I could drive 80 mph or so but see the speedo at 70. I could have repeated that result day after day, but repeatable means nothing if your instrumentation isn't calibrated.

I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know my statement was qualified with an individual test, but I would extend it to say that the proper things are not happening for these labs' great quantity of tests to lend any additional credibility to the results beyond a single test. Even if they did it twice in front of you how many could discern if they made a mistake relative to the test the same tech published the previous day?

 

How is this different than any technical profession in the world? Most people wouldn't know if their fries were cooked properly at McDonald's let alone if their outer tie rod ends or Section 4 defense was handled properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "essentially meaningless, even if accurate"

 

because they don't apply to every patient the same for one reason.  Another is that you don't know if the THC has yet to covert to something else or not which will make it so you don't know what was there and what it has converted too. The more you know the science the more you know the lab tests are really useless for patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reviewing the Iron Labs site I see they list hundreds upon hundreds of testing members and over 25,ooo tests performed on edibles, concentrates and buds. I don't know when they began, but that's impressive. Many of the members are big name provisioning centers with years of cannabis experience. If its all erroneous that's a lot of doped folks playing the game I'd say.

Maybe if results were viewed on a curve by the lab haters some usable info could be discerned?

 

Like this month A2 OG Ghost is @ 22% thc, grown by Gman, but LotsaBud has it all the time @ 26%...or something like that.

"even if its not actually 26%, it is higher than Gmans"..

 

I don't know, but I would not be so quick to totally discount the info as "essentially meaningless, even if accurate". That's a broad stroke, I'm surprised that's your stance.

Did the lab reports document sample collection, storage and preservation procedures for Gman's and LotsaBud's samples? Did Gman pick random buds and mix them up, then place them in a cooler for transport to the lab? Did LotsaBud put his samples in a jar and set them on his dashboard to be blasted by his heater on the way to the lab?

 

What containers were the samples in when they arrived at the lab? Zip lock bags? Or glass jars with Teflon-lined lids? What were the temperatures of the samples when they arrived at the lab?

 

How did the lab store the samples before analysis? Sitting on a counter or in fridge at 40 or less degreesF?

 

These basic questions should be answered on a chain-of-custody and in the lab report. If the lab can't address these questions, then the lab report means nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anyone questioning these labs while they're here posting. Like Cannalytics, Northern Labs, etc. These are good resources and to run their practice out of town will be a disservice to me as a patient and grower for patients.

 

does Iron Labs, Cannalytics, or Northern Labs lobby to take our grow rights away ? Do they regularly publish erroneous cannabis testing results? techniques? calibration info? are they out to get us with lies and cannabis follies? really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must admit cooking French fries isn't as "sciencey" and shouldn't be held to the same standard.

 

Exactly the point. "Even if they did it twice in front of you how many could discern if they made a mistake relative to the test the same tech published the previous day?" Most people can't figure out how french fries get made but now you want them to understand how lab assistants do their job? I notice you focused on fry cooking but ignored Mechanic and Defense Attorney examples. It is just that type of selective style that makes discourse with you impossible and fruitless.

 

At some point an operator has to be trusted. The testing industry is not infallible nor incapable of succeeding. Like all industries sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Caveat emptor is why packages are labeled and there are lemon laws. Even best efforts and practices fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 "essentially meaningless, even if accurate"

 

because they don't apply to every patient the same for one reason.  Another is that you don't know if the THC has yet to covert to something else or not which will make it so you don't know what was there and what it has converted too. The more you know the science the more you know the lab tests are really useless for patients.

with that said, and agreed even, neither does an Advil, yet, we demand to know what is in this little pill, including bad stuff.

 

nobody suggests that a result will cure their sickness.

 

If I know that anything I ever had tested at over 10% thc makes me sweat and paranoid, this thc result could save me the trial and error game you suggest while I shop for other choices. just an example.

To know that brand A has tested positive for the presence of petroleum distillates could potentially keep me from purchasing it. another example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the lab reports document sample collection, storage and preservation procedures for Gman's and LotsaBud's samples? Did Gman pick random buds and mix them up, then place them in a cooler for transport to the lab? Did LotsaBud put his samples in a jar and set them on his dashboard to be blasted by his heater on the way to the lab?

 

What containers were the samples in when they arrived at the lab? Zip lock bags? Or glass jars with Teflon-lined lids? What were the temperatures of the samples when they arrived at the lab?

 

How did the lab store the samples before analysis? Sitting on a counter or in fridge at 40 or less degreesF?

 

These basic questions should be answered on a chain-of-custody and in the lab report. If the lab can't address these questions, then the lab report means nothing.

sure thing, if you work for big pharma.

 

I don't care how it was collected, or handled, or at what temp while the result says it test positive for Eagle20. I would avoid it, as lots would . ON the spot testing is in demand no doubt. Nobody is publishing books, only checking to see if someone was using a Hot Shot is all maybe. this is important to some, perhaps not you is all. Evidently the market is speaking, with (1.6 million $ a month in testing).....I'd say that's a vote of the people wishing for these results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this different than any technical profession in the world? Most people wouldn't know if their fries were cooked properly at McDonald's let alone if their outer tie rod ends or Section 4 defense was handled properly.

The difference is that when you cook fries you dump them in hot grease for a few minutes. You know when fries are cooked based on the time spent in the hot grease. You can't compare cooking food to lab analysis. When a lab analyzes samples, they need to abide by very strict protocols, otherwise, the results are meaningless. We are talking about the nano gram level here. This is also why the tie rod example doesn't apply. Tie rod ends are not evaluated for safety reasons down to a parts per billion level.

 

Think about this. The safe drinking water level for lead is four parts per billion. Nobody measures tie rod tolerances to a similar degree. Put that in context with the world population of about 7 billion. Say its OK if 4 people per billion have elevated lead in their body, but it is bad if five people per billion have such levels. So it's OK to have 28 people in the world with high lead levels but it's not ok to have 35 people on the planet with high lead. Not the best example, but I'm trying to help folks put "parts per billion" in perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anyone questioning these labs while they're here posting. Like Cannalytics, Northern Labs, etc. These are good resources and to run their practice out of town will be a disservice to me as a patient and grower for patients.does Iron Labs, Cannalytics, or Northern Labs lobby to take our grow rights away ? Do they regularly publish erroneous cannabis testing results? techniques? calibration info? are they out to get us with lies and cannabis follies? really?

Some lab reps have posted here. I've asked for SOP and QA/QC data with no response. This tells me that such labs will ignore informed consumers and market to people who really don't know how to interpret lab methods and results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is that when you cook fries you dump them in hot grease for a few minutes. You know when fries are cooked based on the time spent in the hot grease. You can't compare cooking food to lab analysis. When a lab analyzes samples, they need to abide by very strict protocols, otherwise, the results are meaningless. We are talking about the nano gram level here. This is also why the tie rod example doesn't apply. Tie rod ends are not evaluated for safety reasons down to a parts per billion level.

 

Think about this. The safe drinking water level for lead is four parts per billion. Nobody measures tie rod tolerances to a similar degree. Put that in context with the world population of about 7 billion. Say its OK if 4 people per billion have elevated lead in their body, but it is bad if five people per billion have such levels. So it's OK to have 28 people in the world with high lead levels but it's not ok to have 35 people on the planet with high lead. Not the best example, but I'm trying to help folks put "parts per billion" in perspective.

 

Your safe drinking water level analogy doesn't apply because the test here is for marijuana so your level of detail is far out of scope compared to tolerances for a tie-rod end that is (supposed to be) attached to a specific torque pressure and for which I can give you the degrees of variance that indicate potential failure.

 

Let's use another technical example: Air/fuel mixture. How many people would understand if they watched a technician set it on their car? The car can run just fine for years with this adjustment being off. I've seen ASE qualified mechanics call one another horrible names (kind of like what happens here) because they know better than the machine. Each mechanic will tell you no other mechanic knows what they are talking about. I was able to bring a mechanic back his own work and told him it was done by someone else, he proceeded to tell me all the mistakes until I showed him the receipt after I "remembered" it was him.

 

Apples to Apples. If I can get a profile like what Iron Labs provides I would rather have it than not. Just one jackass' opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure thing, if you work for big pharma.I don't care how it was collected, or handled, or at what temp while the result says it test positive for Eagle20. I would avoid it, as lots would . ON the spot testing is in demand no doubt. Nobody is publishing books, only checking to see if someone was using a Hot Shot is all maybe. this is important to some, perhaps not you is all. Evidently the market is speaking, with (1.6 million $ a month in testing).....I'd say that's a vote of the people wishing for these results.

Ok but what about when it tests negative for eagle 20. Yip....positive hit...run like hell.

 

But a negative result? What exactly does that mean? Absent sample collection and preservation standards, method detection limits, etc, a negative result is meaningless. This is my point.

 

Send me samples of meds. I'll analyze them for eagle 20. My method detection limit is 1 billion parts per billion. Anything less than 1 billion parts per billion will be reported as a "not detectable" result. What are the human exposure limits for eagle 20? Can my lab even quantify results at low enough concentrations to justify paying me to analyze your samples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zap

 

Logic fail.  You can't say people don't demand pesticide testing when people have a hard enough time with ACCESS to any meds.

 

People will take ANYTHING they can get their hands on.  We've all witnessed these patients in need who will take whatever they can get.  It goes along the saying like Beggars cannot be choosers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I bet none of them even test for Eagle 20 at all.

More "know it all" statements from the anti science folks on here:

 

http://liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/BOTEC%20reports/1a-Testing-for-Contaminants-Final-Revised.pdf

 

BAM.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

 

Just cause a few labs in michigan might be tricking people and giving them bad results doesn't mean this work is voodoo.  These instruments have been around for a long time and the science hasn't changed.  It's all just CHROMATOGRAPHY.  

Edited by garyfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your safe drinking water level analogy doesn't apply because the test here is for marijuana so your level of detail is far out of scope compared to tolerances for a tie-rod end that is (supposed to be) attached to a specific torque pressure and for which I can give you the degrees of variance that indicate potential failure.

 

Let's use another technical example: Air/fuel mixture. How many people would understand if they watched a technician set it on their car? The car can run just fine for years with this adjustment being off. I've seen ASE qualified mechanics call one another horrible names (kind of like what happens here) because they know better than the machine. Each mechanic will tell you no other mechanic knows what they are talking about. I was able to bring a mechanic back his own work and told him it was done by someone else, he proceeded to tell me all the mistakes until I showed him the receipt after I "remembered" it was him.

 

Apples to Apples. If I can get a profile like what Iron Labs provides I would rather have it than not. Just one jackass' opinion.

My safe drinking water example does apply. Because we are not just talking about THC levels, we are talking about contaminant levels. So levels of residual pesticides and fungicides are important, and safe levels come down to a matter of parts per billion. If a lab has a detection limit of 20 ppb for a pesticide considered safe at only 5 ppb, then if the lab reports a "not detectable" result, the report doesn't help much, because there could still be unsafe levels at concentrations lower than what the lab's method can detect.

 

Let's go with your air/fuel mixture example. You go to a mechanic who uses a gauge to measure air/fuel mixture. He tells you that the ratio was measured at 13:1. So you're happy, right? But you forgot to ask the range of error of his instrument. Then he tells you the error range is +\- 10%. So your air/fuel ratio is somewhere between about 11.7 and 14.6 to one. Suddenly, this doesn't sound so good.

Edited by Highlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...