• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Wedinos - Concerns
This post is my own opinion and is not an official statement. Nor does it necessarily reflect the views of any other moderators or admins here at UKCR.

Back in November, I was asked by a member here to approach Wedinos to enquire about why a sample that had been submitted came back with a result of inappropriate submission. The reason for wanting to use us as a go-between rather than contacting Wedinos directly was to protect the anonymity of the submitter.

After enquiring, I was told that the reason the sample results were not released was that no reason was provided for the sample to be submitted. This confused me at first since there is no requirement on the Wedinos site, nor on their submission form for this information. However, I remembered a post from back in April discussing this.

It turns out that Wedinos announced this change in policy, but did not update the information on their website nor did they change their forms to explicity ask this question - the announcement is no longer visible on their site, so the linked post appears to be the only record of this policy remaining.

Wedinos also told me that they would release the result for the sample that I was enquiring about if the submitter provided a reason for the submission, so at the same time as I provided this to them, I also politely let them know about the issue where their change in policy is not visible anywhere on their site.

This is what I said:

Quote:I recall the post on your site from early April that outlined the new requirement for a submission reason where the substance had not been consumed - Blodwyn posted an announcement on UKCR at the time (https://www.ukchemicalresearch.org/Threa...-IMPORTANT) - as far as I can tell, this is now the only place that this policy is mentioned. I don't think your news items are archived anywhere visible on your website and your sample testing page doesn't seem to make any mention of it. The question is also absent from the sample effects form - the 'any other comments' question which seems the logical place to write this information is within the grey section that users are instructed to skip if they haven't consumed the substance.

I'll make a post on the forum to reiterate the need to supply this information when submitting samples. As a piece of well-intentioned feedback, I think you'd have fewer samples submitted without this information if the requirement were highlighted on the sample test page at least and ideally asked explicitly on your sample effects form. Maybe this was intended but overlooked? I know that April and May were very busy months for us and probably for you too.

To which I received no response. Nor did I receive a response to the polite follow-up I sent a week later. The sample in question is still listed as "inappropriate submission" on their site and the policy that led to its rejection is still not actually mentioned anywhere on their site.

I don't know if the sudden silence from them was intentional, nor do I know why they are rejecting submissions on the basis of a policy that was announced months ago and is directly contradicted by the information that is actually visible on their site now. Personally, I find it difficult to put much faith in an organisation that behaves this way, though I don't understand what is being achieved by this strange and contradictory behaviour.

I didn't post about this at the time since I was waiting for a reply (that never came) and I didn't think about it again until reminded recently. If you do submit to Wedinos, make sure you follow the instructions they don't tell you about.
I think it is pretty clear that the people who most need this service are the ones who will suffer most. 

Can WEDINOS somehow not see this? Do they not understand the overall demographic of those who submit samples, and the difficult circumstances of some of those included within it? 

I cannot believe that this is the case, or that they don't understand the implications of tucking this dubious criterion away, on a page hardly anyone will see.

Given this, and the lack a courteous and reasonable response to Niamh's correspondence, I do wonder about their attitude and agenda, and just how high up harm reduction actually is on their list of priorities (assuming it features at all). This isn't helped by the sometimes long delays in publishing results (again affecting the most vulnerable) and occasional questions regarding accuracy.

A credible easy to access testing facility saves lives. How hard is that to understand? For the inhumane bean counters in the corridors of power, it also saves money.

Other countries have a handle on this (eg: GDD and Jellinek in the Netherlands), but here in the UK..... it's depressing.
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ Terence McKenna
That would possibly explain some of my samples to subjected to the less than accurate analysis then. Like niamh has said before this these two points, lack of and faulty analysis(as well as funds) are possibly to do with government data gathering and any HR is simply a side effects.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"
Do you think this might boil down to who's requesting the data?

And why they want it.
Well at one level the request comes from an anonymous source but data can be 'useful' to the government in a way that isn't much to do with the direct safety of the person about to swallow it. I do wonder if some of the testing exclusions are arbitrary in some sense based on cost or influx of samples or whatever. Illegals clearly are tested (despite the legal disclaimer) and you can post from a box different to where you live (which even assumes that's where the sample originated) so that exclusions not entirely logical. Steroids are now excluded despite never really fitting novel psychoactive due to the sheer amount since body image is now sold to males (it being sexist for women); in fact since when was cocaine a novel psychoactive? Now you need a 'reason' to test which is an odd one - if I thought I had the purest ever cocaine, testings a waste of good shit so testing implies either caution (HR) before the event or doubts following it and clearly the former is the most important one if public healths the priority
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

Reddit   Facebook   Twitter  

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Any views or opinions posted by members are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UKCR staff team.