HpLVd, information, Vendors, Testing and Reviews

Smallbud said:
You publish material and peers cite it in their material. That's how recognition works.

Now you've been caught out and have no evidence we accept to offer just another Dark Heart scam.

Great!!
Click to expand...
once again if there are no other people performing the research then there is no other peer review. What part about this do you not understand? This is pretty accepted in the agricultural world. Just not up in your little head it seems.
 
Smallbud said:
Experience what exactly, no peer or hemp industry has so take that up with them since I'm pointing out one very big flaw to your logic.
Click to expand...
Wow you lost the train of this thread pretty quickly. We were discussing what was referred to colloquially as dudding off. You seem to have some odd ideas about how science actually works. I'm curious what peer reviewed studies you've been involved with?
 
Smallbud said:
Papers got published, peers saw them and refused to recognize so your very wrong there and still not understanding how things work in the world of checks and balances.
Click to expand...
Once again cupcake, it is a different industry. There is not enough science to base it off of outside the original research. I have yet to see anyone in the industry actually refute it other than like four people on Rollitup. So that right there says a whole lot.
 
xtsho said:
I just want to see an actual study. 16 pages in and I'm still waiting for a link. At least something more than a non-existent whitepaper and the same talking points on websites for a bunch of labs offering testing.
Click to expand...
Most likely it will be awhile before you see many peer reviewed studies about Cannabis (not hemp) in the US thanks to the feds. All University research is driven mostly by grants from the government and Cannabis grants are frowned upon unless they are set up to demonize Cannabis. It's pretty political.

So a back door is to partner with industry via small grants. I'm guessing UC Davis was the pass through for the grants. Some of the actual research I did, although not frowned upon by the government wasn't sponsored by them either. So we partnered with industry at times. That's one of the caveats about vetting your primary sources. It's also why separate replication of studies is so important.

I've seen the phenomenon and searched for a solution. None of which worked and each clone to flower cycle it worsened and I wasn't exactly a novice grower at the time. I also did not have access to a lab facility but I have a high index of suspicion based on meta-analysis of extant literature. Does it rise to the hysteria DH is allegedly saying? I don't know. All I can say is anecdotally I experienced this and it bears watching, caution and eventual actual research.
 
xtsho said:
Stop with the damn bickering. Can anyone claiming that this is as serious of an issue as it's being made out to be point to any study other than that one paragraph abstract?

Maybe sometime this century?
Click to expand...
the hundreds if not thousands of anecdotal evidence that people have presented on the boards.
 
curious2garden said:
Most likely it will be awhile before you see many peer reviewed studies about Cannabis (not hemp) in the US thanks to the feds. All University research is driven mostly by grants from the government and Cannabis grants are frowned upon unless they are set up to demonize Cannabis. It's pretty political.

So a back door is to partner with industry via small grants. I'm guessing UC Davis was the pass through for the grants. Some of the actual research I did, although not frowned upon by the government wasn't sponsored by them either. So we partnered with industry at times. That's one of the caveats about vetting your primary sources. It's also why separate replication of studies is so important.

I've seen the phenomenon and searched for a solution. None of which worked and each clone to flower cycle it worsened and I wasn't exactly a novice grower at the time. I also did not have access to a lab facility but I have a high index of suspicion based on meta-analysis of extant literature. Does it rise to the hysteria DH is allegedly saying? I don't know. All I can say is anecdotally I experienced this and it bears watching, caution and eventual actual research.
Click to expand...
Just for fun I reached out to UC Davis to see just how much they contributed. But you are 100% correct in why cannabis research is not peer reviewed. Now if only that concrete hat on the other person would let that in...
 
Auntie Janes Nursery said:
100% clean hahahaha. I was going to throw that up but when they sent me the results it was kind of basic excel not their regular Dark Heart Template. Reached out to see if they can redo them for me so people don't think I am trying to make them myself.
Then I replied to your thread and forgot to delete that top bit bongsmiliebongsmilie:bigjoint:
Click to expand...
Here I just thought you were being a tease :) you DH shill you :lol:
 
xtsho said:
So now science is based off postings on boards?

Not my science.

I've seen nothing scientific to prove that this is as serious of an issue that it's being made out to be. I see figures and percentages but no data to support them or the methodology used. If this really was costing the industry $4 billion and was effecting 30% of plants then there would be much more alarm all across the country specifically among hemp farmers.

Someone previously stated that it wouldn't effect hemp farmers because they are not worried about flower. That is incorrect as much of the hemp grown is for CBD which is processed from the flowers.

All that's really out there is the same talking points being pushed by entities that stand to profit from testing services.

It likely does exist but not at anywhere near the levels being claimed. And another thing is that they're saying it can be passed on in seed and that could show up months after a negative test. If that's the case then I hope this nursery that identified it destroyed all of their plants and seed stock since none of that could be guaranteed to be free of the pathogen. And any other nurseries that say they tested positive need to destroy everything and start over with clean stock. Did you do that?

Anyway, it's obvious that no actual study with data exists so I'll just continue on and not worry about this at all. Ten years from now I'll still be growing HPLVD free weed.
Click to expand...
Here goes a video of how they performed their study with some data included....
Good luck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top