Olive oil extract update

Dennise said:
I tack for MS and type 1 diabetes and the things that go along with it... It works... Just sayin"....:circle-of-love:
Click to expand...

No one's suggesting that it doesn't work Dennise. We've established that any delivery system is going to give you medicinal value. Nor would we suggest that you discontinue a protocol that works for you. We're looking at finding ways to increase the bioavailability of the cannabinoids and gain medicinal value. To some extent we are questioning the overall effectiveness of tacking, or more precisely whether it's as effective as we've allowed ourselves to believe, but obviously it works. You're living proof of that.

Not everyone will be able to tack successfully. Not everyone will want to tack. We need viable options for them as well. I personally need to know with certainty that what I'm saying about tacking is true. This is a challenge, given the absence of emperical data. What do we offer the people who need more than "It works for me"? These are important issues that deserve our attention, IMHO
 
SweetSue said:
No one's suggesting that it doesn't work Dennise. We've established that any delivery system is going to give you medicinal value. Nor would we suggest that you discontinue a protocol that works for you. We're looking at finding ways to increase the bioavailability of the cannabinoids and gain medicinal value. To some extent we are questioning the overall effectiveness of tacking, or more precisely whether it's as effective as we've allowed ourselves to believe, but obviously it works. You're living proof of that.

Not everyone will be able to tack successfully. Not everyone will want to tack. We need viable options for them as well. I personally need to know with certainty that what I'm saying about tacking is true. This is a challenge, given the absence of emperical data. What do we offer the people who need more than "It works for me"? These are important issues that deserve our attention, IMHO
Click to expand...
I have no idea who "we" is but I do agree that with the absence of emperical data... you do need to have first hand experience with making and using the oil before offering people information about such an important topic... It is not only important it is the only ethical way for it to be done.....:circle-of-love:
 
Thank you Dennise. Feel better now?
 
cajuncelt said:
Do me a favor so we can hit warp speed with this conversation?
Read my thread. It's not that long. Instead of relying on my résumé, you'll get a good idea where I'm coming from.
It'll keep us from birddogging each other's replies too.

I'll get to a laptop pretty soon & post some info on why healing doesn't equal being high. That's a big gap between us @ the moment.
I have what I believe to be the very latest info from the most current & knowledgeable network of professionals. Anything you can add or change or inform will be welcome!
I have an open mind & won't be taking my opinions (or yours) personally.
Click to expand...

That's all well and fine, but tacking still isn't being addressed, and tacking was the subject at hand. Nobody has provided evidence that would support its useage. Can it work, sure, but if its not being absorbed properly why not use a more efficient route and use less grass? I actually have several MS patients using this oil right now, with great result. One of them is on one 0.1L bottle per month.. that's 10g of grass.. how does that sound? Other using even less, some more.

International Association for Cannabis as Medicine
Researchers of Monash University in Victoria, Australia, investigated the reason why the oral bioavailability of a synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist (CRA13) was significantly improved if taken together with a meal rich in fat. Oral bioavailability was assessed in human volunteers and in dogs with and without a meal. Food had a substantial positive effect on the oral bioavailability of CRA13 in human volunteers and in dogs. This cannabinoid is highly lipophilic (soluble in fat) as other cannabinoids including THC.

The absolute bioavailability of the cannabinoid was low in fasted dogs (8-20 per cent), in spite of good absorption (72-75 per cent of radio-labelled CRA13 recovered in the systemic circulation). In fed dogs, bioavailability increased to 47.5 per cent and the majority (43.7 per cent) of the dose was absorbed via the lymphatic system of the intestine. Researchers concluded that the positive food effect for CRA13 does not appear to result from increased absorption. Rather the increase in bioavailability was stimulated via almost complete transport into the lymph, in turn resulting in a reduction in first-pass metabolism. In fasted dogs most of the cannabinoid was metabolised, i.e. changed to inactive compounds, at once in the liver before reaching the whole body, while the liver was bypassed in fed animals.

Ingestion inefficient? How so? The link above shows absorption rates close to the rectal route, although i'm sure the rectal route is better in some cases.

I'd love to see the info you have mentioned showing that being high doesn't equate to healing (which i agree with, its just a matter of doseage and tolerance imo.. the important thing is to get it in there), although i'd also like to see info that shows that CO without a carrier has good absorption.. although from what i have gathered you also know that a good carrier is important.. and that brings me back to the question on tacking, and using pure concentrate in general.
 
cajuncelt said:
Actually, no it is not. In fact, the majority of the process with it is to ISOLATE a specific cannabinoid. Not run around with all THC's buddies, like terpenes for example. That's why Sativex tapers off at larger doses where a while a whole extract will not.
Click to expand...

Human Cannabinoid Pharmacokinetics

Sativex® contains equal proportions of Tetranabinex® and Nabidiolex®, and, hence, almost equal amounts of THC and CBD. THC and CBD represent approximately 70% of the product, with 5% of other cannabinoids, the remainder being terpenoids, flavonoids, sterols, alkanes, and other chemicals

But alas, Sativex is big pharma, so screw em either which way :D
 
And a little more food for thought...

Suppose it were true that with tacking, cannabinoids directly access the CB receptors via blood vessels in the mouth. Now, we know that if the cannabinoids come into the blood through the stomach, they will create a high. What is it exactly then, that prevents the cannabinoids from creating a high when travelling via blood the shorter route via tacking?
 
You're answers are staring back at you.

The study you posted shows how adding fat increases bioavailability of cannabinoids by processing them in the lymphatic system, NOT being absorbed by the intestines or liver.

That's fairly old news friend. That's a "1st pass" process of bioavailability & I myself have posted about it, but a few years ago.

So, let's tie it up?...

You are in favor of using a 1st pass method (of which tacking is also) & use your olive oil/CCO to achieve this and better bioavailability. And, your method of dosing is to ingest (eat/swallow) this olive oil mix. But you're leery of tacking for reasons you've stated.

Yes?

Ok. Your study has helped you & I make this easy.

First, tacking is ALSO a "1st pass" method.
Tacking is no more than submucosal/submucous method of dosing.
As it's absorbed through the capillaries in the lining of the cheek & gum, it by passes being absorbed by the liver.
When someone's high from tacking, they either swallowed some or their saliva absorbed the thc.

The submucosal method of absorption is 2nd only to intraveneous method for bioavailability. It most definitely is more efficient than ingesting & absorption thru the colon/liver.

That's why being high does NOT equal being medicated. And why tacking works with no euphoria.
Being high is a by-product of THC, not a symptom of it.
In fact, feeling high or euphoric alone shows you that the liver has broken down the THC delta 9, into its euphoric evil twin...11-hydroxy-THC (11-OH-THC).

Also, dosing the meds you dosed by ingesting/swallowing are ALWAYS metabolized by the liver before they reach the systemic system (blood stream) thus further decreasing bioavailability.

That's why the better methods are called First Pass...because they bypasses the liver BEFORE they hit the blood stream.

That's what your study is stating as well.
That by adding the fat to the cannabinoids they converted the meds to a 1st pass ingestion through the lymphatic system (lymph nodes).

So...why are you still ingesting when your own study suggests to use a different absorption process?

Again, what's the most efficient process of absorption?
Intraveneous.

Next? Well again, submucosal (tacking) is right up there my friend rivaling even nasal.

So you swallow your olive oil/CCO mix, it hits the stomach where the acids start to break it down. At that point cannabinoids are already starting to be metabolized by your liver already decreasing bioavailability.

Next, your small colon starts to absorb no more than...
Let's use your study's number, 47.5%.

Since as your study points out that the fat doesn't increase absorption though, the rest of your meds, 52.5%, you are sending to the local water treatment plant.
Since over half your meds are being deposited in your toilet, consider this....

Your study points out that cannabinoids are a "highly lipophilic" med.

What my "method" and thread is about is liposomal encapsulation.
"Highly lipophilic" (from your study)-liposomal encapsulation (from me).. See how we're tying this up?

Liposomal encapping rivals even intraveneous delivery and it can be used with any method of dosing. Tacking, suppositories, capsules, tinctures, even transdermallly.

This process bonds the meds at a molecular level.

I'll use the Vit C sample everyone does.
You take a 100mg Vit C tab and you'll get 20% absorption at best.
You take a liposomal Vit C powder and the absorption rate is 93%.

P.S. "whole extract" simply means all of the compounds, not just a few isolated cannabinoids.
But, your second post shows that as well.

I'm sorry, but I gotta run. Don't mind any spelling or whatever.

Good luck and Great Health to ya.
 
Methinks that's blog worthy. Excellent post Cajun. I personally learned a LOT from that.

:thumb:
 
I'm gonna have to go back on your post a few times Cajuncelt, and read up on liposomal encapsulation as well.

But, can you at least explain to me why THC in the blood doesn't cause a high when tacking, and why ingested or smoked it does?

edit..

"first-pass metabolism n. a process in which a drug administered by mouth is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and transported via the portal vein to the liver, where it is metabolized. As a result, in some cases only a small proportion of the active drug reaches the systemic circulation and its intended target tissue.

By every definition i have read, one of two things happens if we don't bypass first pass.. either the cannabinoids are aggressively destroyed, and/or THC is converted into 11-hydroxy-THC which is more psychoactive.

THC is still psychoactive, no? So if it gets into the blood quickly through tacking, and goes straight for the CB receptors, WHAT is preventing it from causing a high?

edit 2..

"That's why being high does NOT equal being medicated. And why tacking works with no euphoria.
Being high is a by-product of THC, not a symptom of it.
In fact, feeling high or euphoric alone shows you that the liver has broken down the THC delta 9, into its euphoric evil twin...11-hydroxy-THC (11-OH-THC)."

FYI.. your comment above does NOT answer the question at hand.. classic 'bird-doggin', as you say.
 
I am totally uneducated compared with Cajun and PsyCro. I have been tacking for 1 year 3 months. In my case I can not agree, that tacking is not causing euphoria at all. People are different, I seem to be very sensitive to THC.

Mornings first tack I feel in my head 30 min after tack. Second or third tack I feel few moments after applying. It is not euphoria, but a feeling that it is suddenly very easy to breath. And something I feel in my head, like the door steps of euphoria but it does not develop into it. I do not swallow any saliva for about 20 minutes. Saliva does not flow to my throat without me knowing. Oil is absorbing through my gums. It absorbs and in next moment I feel it in my head. It does not get there through my digestive duct, it uses some other route. Oil will disappear slowly from the gums. Some is absorbed and the rest is swallowed, but slowly, with saliva. If I eat right after tack I get heavily stoned at once. If I eat 2-3 hours after tack, I get just a little stoned if any. I take it as a slow dosing method with benefits from gum absorption.

Out from subject, few weeks ago I got my hands on first CBD oil to add to my regime. I am just discovering the effects of CBD oil. I get less stoned :blushsmile: .
 
Come on Cajuncelt, don't tap out on me just yet! You still haven't answered my question above..


cajuncelt said:
The study you posted shows how adding fat increases bioavailability of cannabinoids by processing them in the lymphatic system, NOT being absorbed by the intestines or liver.

That's fairly old news friend. That's a "1st pass" process of bioavailability & I myself have posted about it, but a few years ago.

first-pass metabolism - Dictionary definition of first-pass metabolism | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary

First pass is EXACTLY what we are avoiding .. we need to get that straight first Cajuncelt.


You are in favor of using a 1st pass method (of which tacking is also) & use your olive oil/CCO to achieve this and better bioavailability. And, your method of dosing is to ingest (eat/swallow) this olive oil mix. But you're leery of tacking for reasons you've stated.

Yes?

See definition of first pass!!

Ok. Your study has helped you & I make this easy.

First, tacking is ALSO a "1st pass" method.
Tacking is no more than submucosal/submucous method of dosing.
As it's absorbed through the capillaries in the lining of the cheek & gum, it by passes being absorbed by the liver.
When someone's high from tacking, they either swallowed some or their saliva absorbed the thc.

The submucosal method of absorption is 2nd only to intraveneous method for bioavailability. It most definitely is more efficient than ingesting & absorption thru the colon/liver.

Please show me studies of submucosal absorption with cannabis, please. But show me at least one where the study is done using concentrated cannabis oil and not using carrier oil/alcohol.


That's why the better methods are called First Pass...because they bypasses the liver BEFORE they hit the blood stream.

Once again, please see definition of first pass.


Next? Well again, submucosal (tacking) is right up there my friend rivaling even nasal.

Lets see those studies using CCO, not CO or cannabinoids via carrier.

So you swallow your olive oil/CCO mix, it hits the stomach where the acids start to break it down. At that point cannabinoids are already starting to be metabolized by your liver already decreasing bioavailability.

As pointed out in the study, it IS possible to have very good absorption ingesting.. it's all there.

Next, your small colon starts to absorb no more than...
Let's use your study's number, 47.5%.

How is 47.5% bad?? That's actually really good as far as drug absorption is concerned.

Your study points out that cannabinoids are a "highly lipophilic" med.

What my "method" and thread is about is liposomal encapsulation.
"Highly lipophilic" (from your study)-liposomal encapsulation (from me).. See how we're tying this up?

Great, but we're talking about tacking here.

Liposomal encapping rivals even intraveneous delivery and it can be used with any method of dosing. Tacking, suppositories, capsules, tinctures, even transdermallly.

This process bonds the meds at a molecular level.

I can't find this thread of yours concerning encapping, link please so i can have a look? Pretty please? :)
Aaaand, are you saying that your encapsulation method causes no high??
Click to expand...

See what i'm getting at? .. i really don't see at this point to blog and rate your post so well, at least not before giving people process/description of 'first pass'.

Alas, now you have 2 questions to answer.. what prevents THC giving a high when it gets into the blood via tacking, and where do we have some submucousal method studies using pure CCO and not using a carrier?

Sorry Canjucelt .. we gotta get through this :Namaste:
 
PsyCro said:
Come on Cajuncelt, don't tap out on me just yet! You still haven't answered my question above..




See what i'm getting at? .. i really don't see at this point to blog and rate your post so well, at least not before giving people process/description of 'first pass'.

Alas, now you have 2 questions to answer.. what prevents THC giving a high when it gets into the blood via tacking, and where do we have some submucousal method studies using pure CCO and not using a carrier?

Sorry Canjucelt .. we gotta get through this :Namaste:
Click to expand...


I am sure he will be back. He goes through stretches of time when he is working and has no access to a computer. The "long winded" answers are easier for him at a keyboard then the phone. :) :peace:
 
Patience PsyCro.
 
heehee, no worries, standby mode is on ;)

heck i sure wouldn't be able to go through all this on a phone either! Over even without time to really get into the nitty gritty. But no hurry anyhow..
 
Back
Top Bottom