Jump to content

Free Lab Testing For Patients?


Recommended Posts

I did focus on the fry operator in my comment for brevity, but the defense attorney applies as well. While far more standardized, the mechanic has to deal with more real-world constraints than essentially an applied science, which is what is being conveyed by these labs. There are no scientific standards for any of the trades you cited, and no, they are not held to the same standards.

 

Patients, as a whole, have rejected the need for these labs. Most of the tests are purchased by caregivers seeking credentials for their product in a competitive marketplace of dispensary buyers. I believe Iron Labs did offer free testing to patients for some time after they opened, but it never caught on.

 

I imagine some patients rely on these tests to help them differentiate between varieties on the shelf in front of them. I suppose my overall position is that trust and reliance on these tests is misplaced all the way down the chain to the lab.

 

All of the items cited by Highlander perhaps make what I am trying to say any more clear. There is a big disconnect between what is being conveyed and what is actually happening. And there is and always has been a lobby presence from the labs. I'll leave it to others to access their damage to patients and their caregivers, but there is video available of the second owner of Cannalytics testifying before the House Judiciary Committee somewhere on this site, I think. I'll try to find it.

 

Thank you for a more complete answer.

 

Testing is a scientific method of determining competence and understanding. The State Bar exam is an certification of competence and knowledge. ASE certification performs the same function. These are technical trades albeit in different forms from lab research. If you've ever set the ignition on a 4.3L engine you wouldn't tell me there is no "scientific standard" for doing it correctly. If you've prepared a technical defense in a case involving appeals and matters of procedure you wouldn't tell me forensic science doesn't exist and that there is no standard.

 

I have not rejected my desire for testing by labs. I'm a patient. Speaking for others isn't something I do as well as you or a few others here. I guess that's life outside of the collective. It is far too inconvenient and I perceive dangerous today to think Iron Labs could help me as a patient. Best hope is that the c.g. gets best possible data for me to use as a reference point. I'm not putting my life on the results but seeing .02% CBD with 18.9% THC compared to a .32% CBD with 16% THC gives me a chance to compare and see if the results of future options falling in the same ranges produce a similar effect.

 

The last part is I think your primary complaint. It isn't the testing but the people behind the labs. I don't disagree with you for a moment. Their lobby knows it needs the politicians. The labs will pretend to befriend the MM community but their bread gets buttered out to the edges by selling out the end-consumer to ensure everything gets tested always. You are burying the lead I think but we agree for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

You illustrate my point. So you are advocating don't use testing labs for the same reason nobody should ever use a mechanic because nothing can ever be fully validated unless you (the super smartest ever) is doing it and have complete knowledge of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is lots of competition amongst dispensaries and other types of sellers in several areas, no problem with access whatsoever some might say, and yet those patients still don't demand testing of their medication?

 

I don't go to the places with no lab reports. I only speak for me though, I represent no "we". I use lab reports before I go to get an idea of what I'd like to inspect further. 56 jars is like searching for a needle in a stack of needles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is lots of competition amongst dispensaries and other types of sellers in several areas, no problem with access whatsoever some might say, and yet those patients still don't demand testing of their medication?

I've no idea.  I'm not them.  I live in an area with ZERO dispensaries within 100 miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might like to call a few of the labs and ask them how many pesticide screens they run. It seems that would reflect the demand for pesticide screening. Again, I think Iron Labs offered free testing of patient medication for some time but discontinued the practice due to lack of adoption.

Actually, that was me, but, alas, my equipment is no longer used to that purpose.

 

I guess I can stick around and serve as the temporary lab devils advocate if you all wish...

 

Ask me anything, I will answer to the best of my knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that was me, but, alas, my equipment is no longer used to that purpose.

 

I guess I can stick around and serve as the temporary lab devils advocate if you all wish...

 

Ask me anything, I will answer to the best of my knowledge.

 

What knowledge does a lab get about a strain before testing and is there contact regarding if it is "high-end" or not prior to analysis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not necessarily of course, but its a start, maybe a better one than going home and huffing some growers follies is all.The ingredients on the back of food labels does not tell the whole story, we know that. it is a starting point though, then we rely on personal experience, maybe knowledge of the producer, then online gossip.Team troll could be intimidating to some posters, perhaps we could give them a chance to opine before the final foot stomp.If I was afraid of having my buds tested I would first discount the techniques used by labs, just saying. I embrace any technology that could bring us clean pure flowers to use. Not all of us control the garden we harvest for use. Some patients are left out in the cold with nothing but trial and error, net bullies with agendas, and side arm carrying bud tenders on Woodward.

It is only a start when the patient understands the limitations of the analysis. Otherwise it is just a ruse.

 

So let's say a patient sends a sample to a lab to be tested for the fungicides in eagle 20. The lab will either report a numerical value for a concentration of some fungicides, or it will report a "not detectable" result. Let's say eagle 20 has a health-based limit of 10 parts per billion. The lab reports 5 ppb. Sounds great, right? But then if the lab provides QA/QC data and we see a margin or error of +/-100%, then what? So was the sample over the limit or not? No one knows. Or maybe the lab says it can't quantify below 100 ppb and then reports a "not detectable" result? The average patient might be pleased with this result and still not understand that he might be ingesting unacceptable levels of crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name           Test Date        Δ9-THC       Δ8-THC      CBC        CBD            CBG       CBN         Total

OG Kush      2015-01-07    22.37 %        0.05 %     0.37 %     0.28 %       1.53 %     0.10 %     24.70 %

Bubba OG    2015-02-26    16.29 %        0.00 %     0.19 %    0.07 %        0.21 %     0.00 %     16.76 %

 

The above is a fairly typical example available from a few provisioning centers as an example of their test results. This result came from Iron Labs and a Center that shall remain unnamed.

 

Posted here in case people haven't seen before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What knowledge does a lab get about a strain before testing and is there contact regarding if it is "high-end" or not prior to analysis?

Hard to say. All I ever got was a strain name. Most of the time the grower had no idea whether it was sativa or indica dominant. I had to look it up most of the time.

 

Some folks would brag up their sample, but words make no difference to the GC analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only a start when the patient understands the limitations of the analysis. Otherwise it is just a ruse.

 

So let's say a patient sends a sample to a lab to be tested for the fungicides in eagle 20. The lab will either report a numerical value for a concentration of some fungicides, or it will report a "not detectable" result. Let's say eagle 20 has a health-based limit of 10 parts per billion. The lab reports 5 ppb. Sounds great, right? But then if the lab provides QA/QC data and we see a margin or error of +/-100%, then what? So was the sample over the limit or not? No one knows. Or maybe the lab says it can't quantify below 100 ppb and then reports a "not detectable" result? The average patient might be pleased with this result and still not understand that he might be ingesting unacceptable levels of crap.

you're gong in a circle friend.

 

so , if a reader cannot pronounce the word phenylketurnurics, or doesn't know what they are, or how they may or may not effet them personally, we should do away with labeling.. cwazy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You illustrate my point. So you are advocating don't use testing labs for the same reason nobody should ever use a mechanic because nothing can ever be fully validated unless you (the super smartest ever) is doing it and have complete knowledge of it.

I guess you missed my point. Validation is only as good as the equipment, calibration, etc. and the end user's understanding of such.

 

So let's skip the analogies.

 

Find any cannabis lab that reports matrix spike and surrogate recovery data, and we can go from there. Such data is standard in any established lab environment and is needed to support validity of results. I've never seen such data on a cannabis lab report. Maybe you have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to say. All I ever got was a strain name. Most of the time the grower had no idea whether it was sativa or indica dominant. I had to look it up most of the time.

 

Some folks would brag up their sample, but words make no difference to the GC analysis.

Do you think someones nose can quantify terpene profile as well as a HPLC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that was me, but, alas, my equipment is no longer used to that purpose.

 

I guess I can stick around and serve as the temporary lab devils advocate if you all wish...

 

Ask me anything, I will answer to the best of my knowledge.

ever been offered reward for fudging a result?

ever see pesticides in testing samples in MI?

anyone else ever hate on labs like here ?

 

thanks for stopping in, brave, and admirable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think someones nose can quantify terpene profile as well as a HPLC?

Well, someone's nose could qualify the presence of a terpene with some practice, but quantifying it would be a bit too subjective.

 

Cannabinoids are odorless, so determining presence of THC, CBD, or any others is not possible.

 

A particularly fragrant sample (lots of terps present) COULD sometimes indicate corresponding high levels of cannabinoids, but it certainly isn't reliable enough to bank on.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...