Olive oil extract update

[CajunCelt]

Hey bud. Didn't just drop the mic & walked off stage.
I'm not in data coverage area the majority of the time currently.
Got some good info for ya & am very interested in us continuing this.
Work has me down in Pueblo, CO out in the boonies right now. I'll be back home in 2 weeks.
If I get somewhere with WiFi, I'll wrap this up.
Thanks for the patience & Happy Valentine's Day.
Oh, real quick while I'm here...
I'm using the term "1st Pass" similarly to calling cannabis a cancer med.
It fights cancer obviously, not cause it.
It avoids first pass absorption in what I was discussing, not goes through 1st pass absorption.
I'll use more specific comments in the future.
And, since I'm here lol, yes... THC ∆9 is psychoactive. But, 11-OH-THC is up to 30x more psychoactive. THC ∆9 can be absorbed, with a competent amount to be effective, with little psychoactivity.
Lastly (for now), it makes absolutely no difference what the subject is. Cannabis, opiates, tumeric, lemons, cocaine....
The pharmacology and the bioavailability is universal to all. Ingesting is the very most inefficient method of dosing.

Do a Google search on the comparative methods & bioavailability of cannabinoids.

I have 4 specific studies to post showing what you are looking for.
It's results on the bioavailability of cannabinoids after dosing by ingesting, submucosal, sublingual, smoking, etc.

 

[SweetSue]

Looking forward to reading those studies Cajun. Work hard, come me back safe and ready to discuss. This was beginning to get interesting.

 

[CajunCelt]

Haven't forgot ya bud.
Been crazy busy & unsub'd myself somehow. I'm on 420 right now & thankfully the thread popped back up.
I'll get some time very soon (knock on wood).

 

[PsyCro]

No worries, email notification is on, and i'm on standby.. stay safe

 

[94xjjohn]

In the meantime PsyCro...

I was sent home with 2 months to live with prostate cancer and a PSA of 556. They said they might be able to give me one more month with chemo and radiation.....but that I should already be dead.

I made the choice to follow Tim's (420Motoco) mentoring (tacking), and use CCO exclusively for my treatment. He HEAVILY stressed the importance of tacking AFTER eating and drinking lots of water, and continuing small snacks and plenty of water throughout the day and night (thus increasing bio-avail.).

I had studied its use for PTSD, which I've had since Viet Nam 1966. During those studies, I learned the science behind cannabinoid's 4 ways of killing cancer, so I 'knew to a certainty' it would give me my best chance to live.

It took 6 weeks to build up to one gram (or ml...1ml weights 1gram approx.) per day, and then for the next 4.5 months, I tacked 10 times a day (approx.) on the hour.
I used all kinds of strains, but just high THC...no emphasis on CBDs (I think I did use ac/dc once)....indica oil for night, sativa for day.

Six months after starting to build my tolerance and dosing regimen, my PSA was tested at 3.3

I didn't put a period after that sentence so as to not confuse.

PSA = 3.3

TACKING ONLY.

That should answer whether or not tacking is effective.

Is it the MOST effective?

Moot point....it's now 10 months later and I'm tacking two times a day.....and will for the rest of my life until you guys can show with the same level of proof to me, that some other way is better.

Not closed minded, mind you....but I have a protocol that is 100% proven TO ME !!!

Don't know how and don't care to be able to prove it TO YOU.


JohnnyOilseed

PS. Mix anything you want with the cannabinoids...just eat first and you won't HAVE TO.
PPS. Smoking for 50 years...I was disappointed that tacking didn't get me high (even smoking during tacking didn't get me high any more)! But I did have the most pleasant sensation of wellness (slight and continuous high, I guess).
PPPS. All PTSD symptoms obliterated by tacking CCO.

 

[PsyCro]

No one is saying tacking doesn't work at all. Think about it, cannabis has been helping people since before tacking, since before RSO, since before Jack Herer.. actually, since waaaaay before, and NOT just in smoking form. There is plenty of 'first hand' experience on the net that prove cannabis works, using all sorts of methods, unfortunately there's also many many people who using those same methods didn't get the same results.. that's life.

One thing i strongly believe in is the holistic effect of cannabis. Yes, it has a physical effect on the body, but that's just part of the story. The feeeeling one gets using cannabis (right method, right strain for every person), is very important, because holistically speaking, the way we feel is VERY VERY powerful when it comes to healing.. heck we even have the placebo effect that actually proves, scientifically more or less, that that is true.

Tacking... well i'm gonna continue my saga, because i still don't get it. I'm still waiting on info that shows why psychoactive cannabinoids in the blood, that get in the blood via tacking, don't cause a high; they ARE still circulating in the blood! Until then, i'm FORCED to believe they're actually not being absorbed properly. Enough to heal in those small quantities? Sure, why not!? Yes for some, no for others.....

But yeah, my original hypothesis leads me to believe there is an absorption problem with this type of medication and submucosal use. Lets get some more info on that huh?

 

[CajunCelt]

Lol I knew the tacking info would get ya going.

 

[PsyCro]

Lol I knew the tacking info would get ya going.

Like is said, i'm standby..

I have 4 specific studies to post showing what you are looking for.
It's results on the bioavailability of cannabinoids after dosing by ingesting, submucosal, sublingual, smoking, etc.

Standing by, still.. just remember, if you put forth studies with sublingual methods that used tinctures or oils, and which most probably also caused a high, instead of sublinguals using CCO, you won't be done with me

edit. Blood Cannabinoids. I. Absorption of THC and Formation of 11-OH-THC and THCCOOH During and After Smoking Marijuana * | Journal of Analytical Toxicology | Oxford Academic
Interesting, would like to see one with numbers after ingestion... considering the 'high' i've gotten smoking vs ingestion, i don't believe its too much different. But here we do see how much THC converts to 11-OH-THC after smoking...

 

[SweetSue]

Like is said, i'm standby..




Standing by, still.. just remember, if you put forth studies with sublingual methods that used tinctures or oils, and which most probably also caused a high, instead of sublinguals using CCO, you won't be done with me

I've been looking high and low for any studies that give this information from recent studies. Not an easy chase. For one thing, who's studying tacking? I'll tell you, no one, apparently. I've given the chase all the time I can allot for now. Life calls. I'll keep looking. Have you found anything relevant PsyCro? I did come across an article that suggested under the tongue as the best oral cavity location, but no data to back that up. Lack of data is a big problem. I suppose more precisely, not being familiar enough with the terminology to know the correct search phrasing is my greatest challenge.

I'm relentless PsyCro. I'll keep searching until I find it.

 

[CajunCelt]

They're are several studies of Bio & tacking. It's called submucosal or oro-mucosal.
Again, it's slightly better than sublingual, not as good as IV, but way better than oral/ingesting.

 

[panacea]

Like is said, i'm standby..




Standing by, still.. just remember, if you put forth studies with sublingual methods that used tinctures or oils, and which most probably also caused a high, instead of sublinguals using CCO, you won't be done with me

edit. Blood Cannabinoids. I. Absorption of THC and Formation of 11-OH-THC and THCCOOH During and After Smoking Marijuana * | Journal of Analytical Toxicology | Oxford Academic
Interesting, would like to see one with numbers after ingestion... considering the 'high' i've gotten smoking vs ingestion, i don't believe its too much different. But here we do see how much THC converts to 11-OH-THC after smoking...

Ingest the "BioBomb" and i am sure you will edit that statement .

 

[SweetSue]

They're are several studies of Bio & tacking. It's called submucosal or oro-mucosal.
Again, it's slightly better than sublingual, not as good as IV, but way better than oral/ingesting.

This is what I've been searching for, but I've had no luck in locating anything more recent or as concise as what GHLabs put out. I'll keep looking.

 

[PsyCro]

Come on people, lets get some REAL info in here, enough hearsay already.

How Efficient are Cannabis Suppositories? | O'Shaughnessy's
More on Cannabis Suppositories | O'Shaughnessy's

If we take averages from above study:
- oral, 12.5g (10-15) = 9.5ng/ml (2.1-16.9)
- rectal, 3.75g (2.5-5) = 2.6ng/ml (1.1-4.1)
.. if i'm not mistaken, not a huge difference, but, information on how the study subjects 'felt' would also be great, along with exact methods of rectal administration.

Lets see some more ACTUAL absorption figures, and we just might figure out why exactly you might not be 'feeling' it.. that's what i'm trying to get to the bottom of.

 

[94xjjohn]

Since it took me 6 weeks to build up to a dose of 1gram a day, I think it's misleading to say tacking leaves you feeling nothing. It certainly minimizes the high compared to eating it....that's surely true since swallowing too much saliva when tacking will blow you away. It's called sloppy tacking and a good way to get really high if that's what you want. I contend that were it true that there is a problem with absorbing with tacking, I would certainly not have put my cancer into remission.

You say that pot has worked for a long time but question that tacking does.

Then you say all methods probably work but where's the proof that there is no absorption problem with tacking.

I tell you there's no problem because it worked on my cancer.

And you say 'Where's the proof".

Without a few million dollars studies (conveniently illegal), that's the only proof you get!!!

You build a tolerance plus tacking minimizes the high. It works or I wouldn't be cancer free at last test.

Your best proof will be your own experience with it. Till then I'm trying to describe 'green' to a blind person.

Not meant to be sarcastic...just making a point.

Peace.

PS. I tacked the same amount Rick Simpson said to eat for cancer and it worked. Logic suggests I absorbed an amount equal to eating if the same dose gave the same result.

 

[panacea]

Come on people, lets get some REAL info in here, enough hearsay already.

How Efficient are Cannabis Suppositories? | O'Shaughnessy's
More on Cannabis Suppositories | O'Shaughnessy's

If we take averages from above study:
- oral, 12.5g (10-15) = 9.5ng/ml (2.1-16.9)
- rectal, 3.75g (2.5-5) = 2.6ng/ml (1.1-4.1)
.. if i'm not mistaken, not a huge difference, but, information on how the study subjects 'felt' would also be great, along with exact methods of rectal administration.

Lets see some more ACTUAL absorption figures, and we just might figure out why exactly you might not be 'feeling' it.. that's what i'm trying to get to the bottom of.

"Don't spend time Beating a wall hoping to Transform it into a Door" because this is where this is going.

 

[SweetSue]

Come on people, lets get some REAL info in here, enough hearsay already.

How Efficient are Cannabis Suppositories? | O'Shaughnessy's
More on Cannabis Suppositories | O'Shaughnessy's

If we take averages from above study:
- oral, 12.5g (10-15) = 9.5ng/ml (2.1-16.9)
- rectal, 3.75g (2.5-5) = 2.6ng/ml (1.1-4.1)
.. if i'm not mistaken, not a huge difference, but, information on how the study subjects 'felt' would also be great, along with exact methods of rectal administration.

Lets see some more ACTUAL absorption figures, and we just might figure out why exactly you might not be 'feeling' it.. that's what i'm trying to get to the bottom of.

Human Cannabinoid Pharmacokenetics: (2007) We need more current data
Section 2.1.4 ".......The bioavailability of the rectal route was approximately twice that of the oral route due to higher absorption and lower first-pass metabolism."

And the link

Human Cannabinoid Pharmacokenetics

Many of the patient support pages I've been reading show a strong preference for rectal administration with high doses.

Isn't it as much about matching the plant to the patient as it is the delivery system?

John makes good points, one of the best is that there isn't any "correct" choice other than the one best suited to the patient. Obviously, tacking is working. Also, just as obvious, some disease requires a more aggressive approach. We may discover that the best results come from using multiple delivery systems and more refined mixing of strains to gain better synergy from the joining of terpenes and flavonoids.

We're out here on the edge, learning as we go while grant proposals are sitting on desks in research labs all across the country, just waiting. We're a team guys. Just looking for more understanding of what we're doing with people's lives and hopes.

Still looking for the research data I'm happy with on oral-mucosal bioavailability. Something more recent than 2007 would be nice.

 

[PsyCro]

Human Cannabinoid Pharmacokenetics: (2007) We need more current data
Section 2.1.4 ".......The bioavailability of the rectal route was approximately twice that of the oral route due to higher absorption and lower first-pass metabolism."

And the link

Human Cannabinoid Pharmacokenetics


Still looking for the research data I'm happy with on oral-mucosal bioavailability. Something more recent than 2007 would be nice.

I did the math above, i don't see 'twice' the bioavailability, not by the numbers, unless i'm misunderstanding something??
9.5/12.5 = 0.76 -- 2.6/3.75 = 0.69
or
12.5/3.75 = 3.33 -- 9.5/2.5 = 3.65
Looking at ratios and percentages, i don't see 'twice' .. if i'm looking wrong, can somebody explain?

Next to that, yeah, section 2.1.3 unfortunately shows how little we know at the moment.

Since it took me 6 weeks to build up to a dose of 1gram a day, I think it's misleading to say tacking leaves you feeling nothing. It certainly minimizes the high compared to eating it....that's surely true since swallowing too much saliva when tacking will blow you away. It's called sloppy tacking and a good way to get really high if that's what you want. I contend that were it true that there is a problem with absorbing with tacking, I would certainly not have put my cancer into remission.

Well how do we know that CCO via tacking isn't just sloooowly being dissolved, slow enough that its being too diluted with saliva when it hits the stomach to have an effect? Remember, the point i'm trying to make is, if its in the blood your gonna feel it according to quantity.

You say that pot has worked for a long time but question that tacking does.

No, i just question how much is actually being absorbed.

I tell you there's no problem because it worked on my cancer.

And i'm friggin' glad to hear it!!

And you say 'Where's the proof".

We have proof, from all sides, but my main question about 'not being high' hasn't been answered.. although that does not mean that a small amount of cannabinoids in the blood will be not enough for some people if my 'hypothesis' is true.

Not meant to be sarcastic...just making a point.

No worries, glad your here with us!

PS. I tacked the same amount Rick Simpson said to eat for cancer and it worked. Logic suggests I absorbed an amount equal to eating if the same dose gave the same result.

I mentioned somewhere before that one person who was on 1gramRSO a day (approx extract 8.3g cannabis) couldn't handle 6ml a day of my oil (approx extract 0.7g cannabis), which is a HUGE difference. Now, we can argue that it's better to go the RSO route and get more in there, but what if pure concentrated cannabis oil just isn't being absorbed completely, after all, its common knowledge that cannabinoids like to bind to fat/alcohol for optimal absorption...

 

[PsyCro]

The effect of orally and rectally administered delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol on spasticity: a pilot study with 2 patients. - PubMed - NCBI
original text for reference.

So, i took an average from the 'from' and 'to' figures .. ok, probably not the best way to look at it not knowing how many test figures are in between (would be nice to know though), but the question at hand isn't rectal absorption anyhow, i was just using this to show that rectal absorption isn't many times better than oral as was mentioned earlier..

Physiological and psychological parameters were used to monitor psychotropic and somatic side-effects of THC. No differences in the concentration ability, mood, and function of the cardiovascular system could be observed after administration of THC

.. is this stating that oral or rectal had similar effects?

 

[CajunCelt]

I see where your going with this (I think).

One issue for me is that the liver converts ∆9 into the dreaded OH-11 by most means.
But, since it's so much more psychoactive than ∆9, you can theoretically can only so many ng in the bloodstream anyway you dose. Tacking is an awesome delivery method as far as bioavailability..
Can you get a therapeutic dose of cannabinoids through tacking? Some here have. It would help the "no to little" psychoactivity statement especially knowing the THC-oh-11 is not involved.
So, of you've a 93.6% THC with oil and +/- 65% is absorbed. A therapeutic dose is easy to calculate.
So, enough small doses by oromucosal (tacking) enough times a day, add on that you're by-passing the liver so no THC-OH-11 for psychoactivy....
What do ya think?

 

[SweetSue]

Part of what I heard there was that it's not just about dosing, it's about establishing and maintaing a therapeutic dose. An efficient therapeutic dose.