Dimitri Goes Off on Rant About Dishonest Liquid Vendors

[kates]

i think 5P's results are high for some people also.
as far as 5P with holding results their initial testing
that showed little to no AP or DP?(did they test for that?)
is not that disconcerting considering how low the initial
results were. it seems to me if they were trying to hide
anything they wouldn't have released the next two reports
showing a completely different story.

Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood – 5P never had any test results showing low levels – they just said they had. When they were forced to publish their 2014 test results in June 2015 (after C9 indicated very high test results) that showed their claim of no da/ap was a lie. That’s the whole point. They haven’t done any tests (at least not ones they are prepared to publish) since the 2014 ones. I think the 2014 ones they have just published are the only ones they have ever published.

 

[skoony]

Where are the tests by 5P showing low levels? They have no published results showing low levels. They withheld the reults showing the high levels (2014 tests). If I am wrong I apologise - please point me to these published results.


What dishonesty have you seen from C9?

zioDman linked three separate studies from from 5P
in a post earlier in this thread.
both Cloud9 and vapershark are being dishonest for
allowing their customers to believe their testing of
others juice was for the benefit of the safety of the "vaping
community".all they had to do was test their own juice,
post the results and say,'due to to the concern of some of
juices containing AP and or DP we have tested our juices
and here are the results. for information concerning othe
juices contact the manufacturer for more information.'

regards
mike

 

[skoony]

repost

 

[skoony]

Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood – 5P never had any test results showing low levels – they just said they had. When they were forced to publish their 2014 test results in June 2015 (after C9 indicated very high test results) that showed their claim of no da/ap was a lie. That’s the whole point. They haven’t done any tests (at least not ones they are prepared to publish) since the 2014 ones. I think the 2014 ones they have just published are the only ones they have ever published.

http://fivepawns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Five-Pawns-2014-Diacetyl-Test-Results.pdf
so what.their initial test was quite good.
thee discrepancy between their tests results
is probably the reason they were being so tight
lipped.
regards
mike

 

[kates]

zioDman linked three separate studies from from 5P
in a post earlier in this thread.
both Cloud9 and vapershark are being dishonest for
allowing their customers to believe their testing of
others juice was for the benefit of the safety of the "vaping
community".all they had to do was test their own juice,
post the results and say,'due to to the concern of some of
juices containing AP and or DP we have tested our juices
and here are the results. for information concerning othe
juices contact the manufacturer for more information.'

The three separate studies were all from 2014. The first showed da levels which were high in anumber of juicces (ap wasn't tested). It appears 5P then substituted ap for da to reduce these da levels. The second two test results were from around the same time (2 seperate labs) which both showed very high levels of ap in a lot of the juices.

C9 have a very clear policy about not selling juices with da/ap. They outline all their testing protocols and tolerences they see as reasonable on their website. They also make it clear if they are not supplied with tests from independent, accredited labs they will do their own tests. I am sure they expected 5P to test clean - otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to stock (there is another well known juice maker who declined to provide any test results who they didn't do business with). I'm sure 5P believed they could keep promising test results but not supplying them. Once they had those results -are you seriously suggesting they did nothing but pull the juices (at this point nobody had seen 5P's own results). I am sure that would have been the easy option - I personally am pleased they decided they couldn't do that otherwise we would all still believe 5P was da/ap free. If you have no concerns about vaping diketones I'm sure you don't care - what about those that do mind and thought they were safe with 5P??

 

[zoiDman]

i for one believe the labs results are accurate.
that's not the problem.
the problem is were the samples traced and
documented with a chain of custody that can be
used in a court of law from manufacture, packaging,sale,
shipping, receiving and preparation to be sent to the lab.
the samples the lab received were most certainly
analysed correctly.
everyone is assuming 5P's tests are inacurate.
that would mean they rigged their samples.
on the other hand everyone thinks Cloud9 and
Vapersharks test results are accurate and thus
5P and other vendors are the villainy of the e-cig world.
something is not right here.

regards
mike

Different blends for different markets? Soft drink makers, wine makers, lots of industries have been doing it for a century, at least. Not with any malice intended, just because different people around the world have different preferences. All it would take would be an extra flavor shot for the differences to make perfect sense. This is e-juice, not medicine, so there is no rule against it.

Here is Excerpt of something I posted in Another thread.

"...

So what do we Really Know?

Nothing. Because what a Lab like S & N will tell you is that doing an Analysis on 11 Bottles of Customer supplied e-Liquids and finding ND<5 Levels of Diacetyl doesn't mean that the Five Pawns line of e-Liquids are Diacetyl free. Only that the 11 Bottles that were Tested were Diacetyl Free.

This type of Testing can make No Inference about what Five Pawns has Sold in the Past. What it will sell in the Future. Or what it is Currently Selling. The Same can be Said about the Results that Cloud9's Laboratory Found.

If a Person really wanted to have a Better Understanding of what is Going On, they would need to Test e-Liquids at Random which were Obtained via Retail sources. An Option that is Available to Any ECF Member.

..."

It is in Post [HASHTAG]#135[/HASHTAG] - Cloud9vaping pulls Five Pawns and other liquids from the shelf after testing. | Page 7 | E-Cigarette Forum

 

[Jman8]

4 - You can keep saying ‘we are playing into xyz’s hands. The real issue is we have to look at evidence that may have some merit and respond otherwise we will not be listened to when we argue against the nonsense that has no merit at all. My concern is that 5P will be used as an example that we can’t be trusted to be honest not people getting upset about a lack of honesty.

I am all for looking at the actual evidence rather than going purely on speculation and supposition. Example of supposition is along lines of: for all we know, many of the previously diagnosed cases of COPD were in fact B.O. That is akin to spinning the evidence to favor a position, not based on observation.

5 - I am sure there are many who say they are da/ap free and aren’t. The reason that 5P are ‘singled out’ at the moments is because many are upset, they lied and then only posted results when forced to by someone else posting their independent results. They then threatened legal action against the company that forced them to come clean!

People have right to be upset (of course), but when working with what is stated in response to #4, also have a duty to use reason over emotion. To the degree that is not aimed for, I would tell those people, prepare to be more upset.

 

[Jman8]

I personally am pleased they decided they couldn't do that otherwise we would all still believe 5P was da/ap free.

Well, not all of us.

 

[kates]

Well, not all of us.

OK, a lot of us and particularly those who received confirmation from 5P's customer services that this was the case.

 

[kates]

I am all for looking at the actual evidence rather than going purely on speculation and supposition. Example of supposition is along lines of: for all we know, many of the previously diagnosed cases of COPD were in fact B.O. That is akin to spinning the evidence to favor a position, not based on observation.

How much merit is given to the current information about vaping da/ap has to be a matter for each individual. I am spectacularly risk averse and I decided - after looking at available information (I'll accept evidence was maybe the wrong word) - that it was a possible risk I wasn't prepared to take. It makes sense to me that previously diagnosed cases of COPD could have been BO given the other info available about inhalation etc. I appreciate many others will take a polar position and I have no problem with that. If I thought it was a cast iron case I would argue for da/ap to be banned. In order to accommodate both perspectives - we need information on levels of da/ap. Discussing a need for this information doesn't in my opinion give anyone any 'ammunition'

 

[Jman8]

What dishonesty have you seen from C9?

C9 sells zero mg nic liquid. On the pages (for tobacco flavors) that are advertising / selling 0 nic, it doesn't say it could contain trace amounts of nicotine. While on their "Liquid Testing Protocol" page it says:

It has been our experience that some tobacco type flavour zero nicotine liquids can contain miniscule traces of nicotine, due to to the method of production involved in manufacturing some tobacco flavours, however, we have never seen any results above 0.04% nicotine (0.4mg/ml) in a zero nicotine e-liquid, and any product that tests above 0.02% (0.2mg/ml) is not released for sale.

So, those that could test for .01% could be sold, and therefore it is not 0 nic, technically speaking. I just wish they were more transparent on their sales pages about this issue. That they are not, and instead are lying to us is enough reason to pick up my ball and go home and cry. And vent about their lies on a forum. I don't mind if others want this in their 0 nic juice, but I for one will never do business with a company that lies.

Just kidding, I do business with companies every day, that are lying in some fashion, every day.

 

[Jman8]

Discussing a need for this information doesn't in my opinion give anyone any 'ammunition'

Then I would call this a naive take on the current politics around vaping.

 

[zoiDman]

Then I would call this a naive take on the current politics around vaping.

So what's the Answer Jman8?

We all just Stick our Heads in the Sand? And Look the Other Way when OEM's Deceive their Customers?

And for What? Fear of the FDA Regulating Us? LOL

I got some Bad News for you Sunshine. The FDA is Not going to Allow Da or AP in e-Liquids. And once e-Liquids are Deemed as a Tobacco Product, Banning Da and AP might one of their First Official Acts.

And No Amount of Hiding in Shadows or Not Talking about Deceptive Practices is going to stop it.

 

[Jman8]

So what's the Answer Jman8?

We all just Stick our Heads in the Sand? And Look the Other Way when OEM's Deceive their Customers?

And for What? Fear of the FDA Regulating Us? LOL

I got some Bad News for you Sunshine. The FDA is Not going to Allow Da or AP in e-Liquids. And once e-Liquids are Deemed as a Tobacco Product, Banning Da and AP might one of their First Official Acts.

And No Amount of Hiding in Shadows or Not Talking about Deceptive Practices is going to stop it.

With the current uproar (or what I call inflated concern) and the various strategies (force them to test, force them to publish full lab results, force them to move to far smaller amounts), then the answer to this sort of thinking is: support the FDA deeming!

Or say you are against the FDA deeming, but then prattle on about how companies should be forced to comply to consumer demands, industry-wide, and pretend like it isn't the same thing going on.

Or accept the risk as not enough of a concern to go in this direction.

Or don't accept the risk, avoid it by not vaping.

Or don't accept the risk, ask vendors respectfully what changes, if any, they might be making regarding your awareness of the issue (as plausibly shared with them by you) and then if disliking their response, find another vendor. Rinse and repeat.

 

[AndriaD]

How much merit is given to the current information about vaping da/ap has to be a matter for each individual. I am spectacularly risk averse and I decided - after looking at available information (I'll accept evidence was maybe the wrong word) - that it was a possible risk I wasn't prepared to take. It makes sense to me that previously diagnosed cases of COPD could have been BO given the other info available about inhalation etc. I appreciate many others will take a polar position and I have no problem with that. If I thought it was a cast iron case I would argue for da/ap to be banned. In order to accommodate both perspectives - we need information on levels of da/ap. Discussing a need for this information doesn't in my opinion give anyone any 'ammunition'

Totally agree; I'm another with a very strong tendency to risk-aversion, so I DIY and work very hard to use flavors that contain NO diketones of any sort. But I'm not a nanny, and I only have one child, who's now 27, so I'm not going to tell anyone they can't or shouldn't vape it, if they don't have any particular fear of it. Their choice, their health, their life, not mine.

But the reason I decided to go all-DIY is because I could foresee this happening over and over (as with SB!); some hoity-toity way-too-expensive brand making loud claims to be diketone-free... and then turn out not to be. In fact I KNEW it would happen, again and again, just because there are no (bad word alert!) regulations. Do I want regulations? No, I absolutely do not, but I know it's a fact that some vendors absolutely REQUIRE them, just to make them honest. And the fact that it keeps happening, making a lot of otherwise-regulation-averse vapers holler about the lack of regulations, is one factor that is sure to be in play in actually bringing about regulation. Note that I did not say this problem will CAUSE regulation -- but it's one factor that the gov't will use against us, in order to do what it wants: regulate.

It's that 10% again, who spoil things for everybody. You just can't escape them.

Andria

 

[DC2]

How anyone can argue AGAINST voluntary disclosure is beyond my ability to grasp.
But it seems there are two people here giving it a valiant effort.

One of them does not appear to understand the timeline and test results yet.
I'm not sure what's going on with the other one.

 

[kates]

With the current uproar (or what I call inflated concern) and the various strategies (force them to test, force them to publish full lab results, force them to move to far smaller amounts), then the answer to this sort of thinking is: support the FDA deeming!

Or say you are against the FDA deeming, but then prattle on about how companies should be forced to comply to consumer demands, industry-wide, and pretend like it isn't the same thing going on.

Or accept the risk as not enough of a concern to go in this direction.

Or don't accept the risk, avoid it by not vaping.

Or don't accept the risk, ask vendors respectfully what changes, if any, they might be making regarding your awareness of the issue (as plausibly shared with them by you) and then if disliking their response, find another vendor. Rinse and repeat.

Test - yes, publish results yes, force to move to smaller amounts -no
accept the risk -not personally, stop vaping -never, ask vendors to share, dislike their reponse, find another vendor - yes (but relies on them telling the truth)

 

[zoiDman]

With the current uproar (or what I call inflated concern) and the various strategies (force them to test, force them to publish full lab results, force them to move to far smaller amounts), then the answer to this sort of thinking is: support the FDA deeming!

Or say you are against the FDA deeming, but then prattle on about how companies should be forced to comply to consumer demands, industry-wide, and pretend like it isn't the same thing going on.

Or accept the risk as not enough of a concern to go in this direction.

Or don't accept the risk, avoid it by not vaping.

Or don't accept the risk, ask vendors respectfully what changes, if any, they might be making regarding your awareness of the issue (as plausibly shared with them by you) and then if disliking their response, find another vendor. Rinse and repeat.

So your Argument Boils down to if a Vaper wants Honest Disclosure from OEM's, and when an OEM Doesn't do this and Vapers Speak Out, that these Vapers are Supporters of FDA Deeming.

I call BS on this. And see it about as Deceptive as what Five Pawns and BT have done.

Your "Keep Quite" and "Look the Other Way" attitude when an OEM is caught Deceiving its Customers is Alarming at Best. And Completely Destroys any thought in Vapers or in Policy Makers Minds that the e-Liquids Market can be Self-Regulated.

 

[zoiDman]

Test - yes, publish results yes, force to move to smaller amounts -no
accept the risk -not personally, stop vaping -never, ask vendors to share, dislike their reponse, find another vendor - yes (but relies on them telling the truth)

Who has Called for Smaller Amounts of De or AP?

All I have seen is People wanting Honest and Verifiable results Posted as to Whether or Not De and AP are present in an OEM's e-Liquids.

 

[skoony]

How anyone can argue AGAINST voluntary disclosure is beyond my ability to grasp.
But it seems there are two people here giving it a valiant effort.

One of them does not appear to understand the timeline and test results yet.
I'm not sure what's going on with the other one.

i am all for voluntary disclosure for all those that voluntarily choose do so.
i just want to be clear on this issue.
regards
mike