Questions to Cloud9

[Lisaf01]

If you think I'm confused I can say everyone is confused including all the members who like your posts as they are clueless too. Never has anyone mentioned a distributor. Did you return the unsold bottles to FP or to your distributor?

I refer you to post 22 in this thread where I stated quite clearly that the liquids were returned to their UK distributor.

I have no issue with you personally and as far as business is conducted I'd say the UK and the EU are hands down better than we are in the USA. I just feel you handled the situation wrong. Oh and thanks for the British invasion as our music was pathetic.

I am glad to hear you say you have nothing against us although many of your posts in other threads do suggest the exact opposite. I understand you feel we handled the situation wrong, and it is of course up to everyone to come to their own conclusions in this as in all matters.

 

[SeniorBoy]

Lisa,

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions. I love your "story". Your regulatory challenges are daunting to say the least and like you said, even more draconian/worse than ours here in the USA.

I don't know how you do it but you continue to stock "stuff" /lol that I can't find from a US vendor. You always deliver what I need!

EDIT: Speaking of what I need. I'm not sure if you plan to evaluate the XvoStick? I don't have one yet but it appears to be the ultimate "stealth" mod with a very unique form factor and a tiny tiny size.

 

[Lisaf01]

Hi Steve, many thanks for asking those questions - it's not often that we tell our story in that way so it was nice to be able to.

Each country and territory is facing their own challenges with regulations, and whilst some sensible and proportionate regulation is clearly necessary, many of the restrictions we're hearing about now are draconian, and quite unhelpful to those that simply want to replace an extremely harmful habit for one that's many times safer. Each locale that implements regs will then inform the next locale and so-on, and the snowball effect when one place implements utterly ridiculous restrictions is often hard to prevent, since the first place that implemented that particular restriction is always cited as a supporting reason for why it should be implemented elsewhere. It's a worrying time for us all.
I'm really glad to hear we're often sourcing and supplying products you find hard to obtain over there - we do specialise in some of the "special" items, and by their nature they tend to be harder to get hold of.
We have been following the mods being developed by Chels, and we're not yet entirely sure whether or not we will request a sample. It's essential that support and backup is available on these types of mods, and given the initial production delays and some complaints about slow support response, we'd need to investigate further and have a few doubts assuaged before we'd move forward with a purchase - that is of course if they are even interested in distributing outside of Israel, or Russia - I am not 100% certain of their operational setup. It certainly does look like a really nice bit of kit.

 

[Ca Ike]

I actually have one question that pertains to the lab you use. They say on the results that they are not certified/accredited to test for those compounds yet many UK vape businesses are using them and have used them for years. Why trust them without that accreditation and is there a reason they haven't been "certified". I know you can't answer for the lab but this is a sticking point for a lot of people. Id appreciate your take on it and any statement the lab gave you if you can disclose it.

 

[Lisaf01]

Hi Ike,
On the lab reports in question, they state that some of the tests are "not included in the UKAS Accreditation Schedule for the Laboratory". As I understand it, there is no specific ISO standard for identification and quantification of these particular compounds, therefore, it can't be listed as one of the specific tests on their (or anyone elses) Accreditation Schedule. This is not unusual and I am sure there's a lot of other analysis this lab and other accredited labs perform that isn't specifically documentated in their Schedules, and this is precisely why one should require labs performing these tests to be accredited to a particular standard. This lab is accredited by UKAS to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 which is an internationally recognised standard, within which some labs (including this one) have a flexible scope which covers the specification and provision of other testing activities that don't directly appear in the schedule. Their ongoing accreditation is continuously monitored, both within the detailed scope of their Accreditation Schedule, and without, so that official bodies, government departments, the courts, small businesses and individual consumers can trust that the methodologies they design and use, product accurate and repeatable results.

Document LAB39 from the UKAS library states in section 2.2:

2.2 Flexible scopes of accreditation can allow a laboratory to undertake certain tests/calibrations, and to report the results as accredited, even though they may not be explicitly stated on their accreditation schedule.
This may involve:
(a) the inclusion of new or amended tests in accordance with a generic method;
(b) the modification of existing methods to broaden their applicability (e.g. to deal with new materials tested or properties measured, etc);
(c) the inclusion of newly revised or technically equivalent standard methods that are already covered by accreditation.

It's a very complex area with lots of ongoing documentation and monitoring, and I am sure if you contacted the lab yourself, they'd be happy to explain some of the hoops they must go through in order to maintain their accreditation.

Incidentally, I believe Enthalpy in the US also hold ISO17025:2005 accreditation.

 

[Pinggolfer]

This lab is accredited by UKAS to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 which is an internationally recognised standard, within which some labs (including this one) have a flexible scope which covers the specification and provision of other testing activities that don't directly appear in the schedule.

I was under the impression they were not an accredited ISO/IEC 17025:2005 when you sent the FP samples to West Yorkshire. They became accredited after the testing was com

As I understand it, there is no specific ISO standard for identification and quantification of these particular compounds, therefore, it can't be listed as one of the specific tests on their (or anyone elses) Accreditation Schedule.

But you were able to determine FP juice was not safe.

After this thread started I still not able to find test results on Djinni, Johnson Creek, Mystic, and a few more. Can you direct me to those test results. Your site goes all over the place and usually ends up at the same blog. Thanks

 

[Lisaf01]

I was under the impression they were not an accredited ISO/IEC 17025:2005 when you sent the FP samples to West Yorkshire. They became accredited after the testing was com

I'd be careful about "impressions", Ping. I saw you ask this very question in Rob's thread, and someone in that thread answered your question very clearly by going into some details about the ongoing accreditation renewal process.

But you were able to determine FP juice was not safe.

The test results we received, lead us to the impression that this was not e-liquid we were willing to supply due to potentially unsafe compounds found within it and we've all found out later that Five Pawn's own testing showed that the liquids contained these compounds (albeit at differing levels to the samples we had tested). As stated before, this information was requested repeatedly during negotiations, and it was never supplied even though we all know now, that the manufacturer had their own test results on hand, many months before negotiations began. We've been extremely clear within this thread as to what happened, and what our actions were.

After this thread started I still not able to find test results on Djinni, Johnson Creek, Mystic, and a few more. Can you direct me to those test results. Your site goes all over the place and usually ends up at the same blog. Thanks

Ping, We've clearly explained in the very blog post you mentioned, our testing protocol. We released information on those liquids we had tested, that did not meet our requirements/standards. It's clear you are now trolling and attempting to prove some sort of point here, but I am not sure what it is - perhaps you'd like to elucidate?

 

[Pinggolfer]

I'd be careful about "impressions", Ping. I saw you ask this very question in Rob's thread, and the situation regarding ongoing accreditation renewals was explained very clearly already by someone else. What are you trying to achieve by pursuing this point?

Yes and there was only one certified accredited ISO/IEC 17025:2005 lab capable of testing which was Enthalpy.

Ping, We've clearly explained in the very blog post you mentioned, our testing protocol. We released information on those liquids we had tested, that did not meet our requirements/standards. It's clear you are now trolling and attempting to prove some sort of point here, but I am not sure what it is - perhaps you'd like to elucidate?

Why accuse me of trolling. You trolled the entire Five Pawns thread and even posted there which you admit was against the rules of ecf but you did so anyway. Yes, I have read about your testing methods, however the same question comes up as to where the test results are posted on your site for the other ejuice companies you sell on Cloud9? You can't have it both ways Lisa. Posting FP test results and not posting the other ejuice companies, but only say they are safe by our standards.

This lab is accredited by UKAS to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 which is an internationally recognised standard, within which some labs (including this one) have a flexible scope which covers the specification and provision of other testing activities that don't directly appear in the schedule.

I'm only commenting because the above quote is not true with the testing of FP. You could have added Yorkshire is now accredited.

 

[Lisaf01]

Yes and there was only one certified accredited ISO/IEC 17025:2005 lab capable of testing which was Enthalpy.

Not correct - West Yorkshire Analytical is also accredited to this standard. I am unable to give information about when Enthalpy became accredited and they have only been mentioned in this thread, and I presume in the other thread, to indicate that they are an example of a trusted US lab that is also accredited to this international standard.

Why accuse me of trolling. You trolled the entire Five Pawns thread and even posted there which you admit was against the rules of ecf but you did so anyway.

We had several quite serious allegations made about our company and our methods, and had no right to respond directly to those allegations in that thread. At least one person made a statement to the effect that we "looked guilty" precisely because we hadn't responded to the allegations and requests for further information in that thread, and I made it very clear when I posted what the purpose was. The thread owner and the moderators accepted that reasoning.
I think you may want to look up what the term "trolling" means.

Yes, I have read about your testing methods, however the same question comes up as to where the test results are posted on your site for the other ejuice companies you sell on Cloud9? You can't have it both ways Lisa. Posting FP test results and not posting the other ejuice companies, but only say they are safe by our standards.

The blog post very clearly details our testing protocol. I don't know how else to explain it to you, it's all detailed right there in that post. We hold all our lab results on file here, and we're working on altering the way liquids are presented so that all the test data can be provided on our site alongside the products themselves, because it's just not workable to present that information in a massive long list, in the way we've presented the test results for our own liquids, and prior to this situation occurring, we'd never had reason to publicise all the results - this testing has historically been performed as part of our own due diligence and to ensure we weren't supplying products containing these compounds.

I know you are in the position where you don't care about the DA/AP content personally and seem to have gone to great lengths to explain how you don't believe there's any issue with it, and you're personally fine vaping liquids with these compounds present. It's obvious you believe you're making some kind of point here, but I'm not clear what it is.

I'm only commenting because the above quote is not true with the testing of FP. You could have added Yorkshire is now accredited.

It has been clearly demonstrated that West Yorkshire were accredited at the time of the tests, and remain accredited now. Again, this has all been explained before, in this thread and in the other thread, and if you're not seeing it, I can't help you.