As a follow-on to my recent posts regarding the odd results being reported by lab 0015 (PEAK ANALYTICS) and the degree of lab-induced Stenchyness gracing the shelves of some of the stores around the State, I have received a number of requests to fully unblind the labs that my original series called out.
I’ve attached here a grid that will let you know which lab was which (in the Lab A through Lab N coding I used to blind the reader (and myself) to their identity.
In addition, here is a link directly to the summary report-card that summarized all of the metrics I used to calculate lab “Friendlyness”. Remember that it covers only a 3-month period around the latter part of the summer of 2015 —- a period when the labs did not know that their reporting was under scrutiny. On the surface, the behavior of some of those labs has changed significantly since that time. As with many things, though, what they are is perhaps best evidenced by how they behave when not being watched.
Have fun …. and remember to always ask to see the lab test sheet when buying product at retail. If they can’t produce it, the store is in violation and you should let them know that —- and maybe even the LCB.
Be safe. Be well.
Dr. Jim
(remember that I’m not a medical doctor …. but I WAS a substance-abuse researcher for awhile).
Hi, Jim. I’m the General Manager for Artizen Cannabis, the 3rd largest producer/processor in WA. Alison Draisin gave me the link to this site. On Monday, I testified before the House Committee pushing House Bill 2227, which would require all testing labs to be ISO certified. This is an effort by the legislature to get to the point of your blog about there being some undesirable practices among some labs. I don’t know what algorithms were involved in your analysis, but I do know that the data is too old to be useful in the current environment. This is information that would be directly applicable to HB2227 and I’m sure the Committee would be interested in it, if it was current. Do you have any plans to update the study?
Dan … I just realized that the e-mail I got from you related to a this comment (bad webmaster Jim).
Nice meeting you at the Terpestival … and my congratulations to Artizen on the awards you won.
I also like your engagement re: the proposals on ISO certification for the labs. Thank-you for that.
I’m currently updating my lab datasets quarterly and have a number of questions that I’ve been examining at each update.
I do not believe the data relating to the Friendly labs is too old to be useful. It makes a very clear and compelling (IMO) case that there is unacceptable (and systematic) variability and apparent bias being reported by some labs. Friendly is as Friendly does …. in that you are probably safe as viewing “Friendliness” as quality inherent in the cultures and, likely, people, that comprise such labs. If they will pass bad product and produce inflated potency numbers when they know of no one looking at their work, then they will do other things when they do (like infest the Boards of otherwise good organizations and paint a vacuous air of respectability around their efforts).
The data, while old, shine a light on how messed up the regulatory and enforcement priorities of the LCB are. They are busy, but there is no excuse for this consumer-killing bullshit.
If the committee would like something done on spec (and/or on their timeline), I am available for hire.
Otherwise, tell them to keep an eye on http://www.highintelligence.org and to be patient.
In the meanwhile, I believe it is more urgent to get info out to the Patients and consumers of this State as to which Retailers (and, quite possibly, wholesalers) are availing themselves of the services of questionable labs.