Former: I'm pleased to see that you have returned and also have chimed in here on this.
These compounds (Eudragit) are a health risk (mutagen) when used in the formulation as intended. I can't see them being any less of a risk after a reaction.My greatest concerns have been that in order for these chems to have been approved by the FDA for inclusion may hinge on the fact that taken orally as intended, they may not activate and be delivered to the bloodstream but safely passed through the digestive tract and deposited as waste.
That is a best case scenario and an optimistic one I might add.
But as you suspect, I find it hard to believe that trace amounts wouldn't be left behind in unsuspecting consumers over time if used as intended.
Geezmeister had the foresight and concern to break the ice and post
Post 506882
(geezmeister: "Making myself sick", Stimulants) after noticing some changes in the finished product and along with myself have noticed some ill after effects following bio-assay.
This might suggest that these ingredients, if not removed may undergo some chemical transformation in rxn that may pose as longterm health risks.
The "hangover" period seems to last well into 8 days after a 2day bioassay whereas before, 3days was needed to fully recover from a 7 day binge and it would be off to the races again.
This newest end result leaves one not interested whatever in repeating a run-in with this crap!
It's a real eye-opener of the unwanted kind.
So much so that it's taking all my willpower to keep from warning bees to stop getting product from this source.
However, until more scientific proof can be assessed and analysed I feel it would just cause widespread panic without having fact to back it up. As if they would listen to Ware....eh???
Anyway...Both Geez and myself are concerned...Ibee's doing some tests on the last gram of something he refuses to ingest because of the "2x4 to the head" effects it left after bioassaying 2grams of it in two days. A rediculously large amount compared to 1/2gram lasting through that period of time previously.
1•They can appearently be dissolved stepwise by a rising pH.
2•It would appearently be beneficial to dissolve the coating then extract.The problems I see here with both suggestions is:
1•In order to bring the pH up to the level needed to dissolve the coating, the pfed will travel with. The solubility characteristics of both are so alike under basic conditions that it's hard to separate the two.
2•Now this is the real tough one here.
Judging from all I've read to date, it appears they are taking individual components of the pills and coating them separately in order to insure contamination regardless of the extraction method.
At first I misinterpretted the patent to read that the coating comprising this gaak was an outer coating and maybe easily remved with the solvent used in it's manufacture.
Part of the work-around can be employed under that impression but it soon became evident that more was involved in order to completely remove it. In order to complete the work-around, it was necessary to study more about how they were including this substance.
This presented several problems that aren't easily remedied.
Squidippy sent an article a while back as a reference to what the pillfuckers are doing.
I feel it's posting will shed more light on this predicament bees currently find themselves in.
I will have to scour my refs to find the link that Squiddy sent, or maybe he can find it quicker and treat us to it....
But here is a similar ref to how they are using in Controlled-Release Diphenhydramine HCl Pellets Coated with Eudragit NE30D for an example.
Here is the PDF file of this document
...or you can view the HTML file here:
PharmSci
(
http://www.aapspharmsci.org/view.asp?art=ps030214)