SweetSue's Cannabis Oil Study Hall

[fookinel]

I wish when researchers start suggesting dose strengths that they would be more specific about what conditions they are referring to. Will this dose work as well for cancer as it does for PSTD or some other condition? Who knows? In fact, it seems that fighting actual cancer, as apposed to treating the conventional treatment side effects, seems to be rarely discussed, outside of clinician discussions. At least from what I can find. Another result of prohibition, I suppose. At any rate, I'll remain skeptical until a number of folks take one for the team and treat an aggressive stage IV cancer with less than 1g CCO per day to see what happens.

I know, I realise I'm not the one diagnosed with cancer but it's still extremely frustrating for me as well since the person I'm trying to help couldn't do any of this research themselves.

It's a bloody joke that we can waste money on studies like whether drunk birds slur their words but something useful like how cannabinoids can treat cancer? Nope.

Anyway, I told SweetSue I wouldn't rant somewhere else, so, getting back on topic, until they do proper testing I'd advise anyone to stick with methods that seem to work. Now isn't the time to start taking lower doses, if it were me I'd be trying to work up to a reasonable dose in whatever method I felt had the greatest bioavailabilty and greatest chance of treating whatever cancer I happened to have...

 

[SweetSue]

I know, I realise I'm not the one diagnosed with cancer but it's still extremely frustrating for me as well since the person I'm trying to help couldn't do any of this research themselves.

It's a bloody joke that we can waste money on studies like whether drunk birds slur their words but something useful like how cannabinoids can treat cancer? Nope.

Anyway, I told SweetSue I wouldn't rant somewhere else, so, getting back on topic, until they do proper testing I'd advise anyone to stick with methods that seem to work. Now isn't the time to start taking lower doses, if it were me I'd be trying to work up to a reasonable dose in whatever method I felt had the greatest bioavailabilty and greatest chance of treating whatever cancer I happened to have...

I have no problem with the occasional rant. The restrictions to understanding brought about as a direct result of prohibition are, quite frankly, costing us lives. My beloved was one of them. I could have healed his problem with diabetes in mere months twenty years ago instead of watching him waste away. So now I'm pissed, and I want to spare someone else that frustration.

Your curious nature inspires me. Thank you for joining this ongoing conversation. I'm going to read over your post again after Callanetics and chase down those links. We might be able to actually figure out which oils work best for either the condition we're treating or the point of delivery or both. I don't know about you, but I'll feel better about all of this when we're no longer grasping at straws and taking the "shock and awe" approach to dosing. Until we have labs to back up our theories though, that aggressive nature is our best approach. If you read Cajun's history, he's a case of too little almost costing him his life and the lives of three of his patients. That's how he personally discovered, the hard way, that tacking alone will not cure deep cancers of the internal organs, and it's what drove him to begin his cancer protocol thread.

The report with the incredible bioavailibility numbers is basically a marketing site, and the process they're talking about is most likely true liposomes. I suspect that liposomal encapsulation will eventually become the preferred delivery method for extreme therapies. Hopefully they can get costs under control so everyone can enjoy the benefits.

Once again, you've left me with a troupe of provocative thoughts dancing around my neural net. Ahhhh..... This thread was my best idea to date.



SlowToke, I'm only halfway through the talk too. I keep stopping and rewinding to hear some other incredible fact again and make more notes. I'm determined to get through it today, no matter what. It's a matter of principal now. LOL!

 

[SweetSue]

Can we get a handle on the truth and science behind decarboxylation?

I just stumbled onto this site. They very recently tested for conversion of THC to CBN. The results were not what everyone expected.

Decarboxylating Cannabis Extracts - Demystifying Conversion of THC to CBN - Cat Scientific Laboratory Equipment

Decarboxylating Cannabis Extracts — Demystifying Conversion of THC to CBN
Posted on February 9, 2016 by Bob Wilcox

There are several studies proclaiming when decarboxylating cannabis with heat, not to go past about 70% decarboxylation because you start converting THC to CBN at a faster rate than converting THCA to THC. According to the following graph, after about 70% decarboxylation the levels of THC actually start falling sharply, which means CBN also begins to rise and the medication becomes more sedative.

We wanted to perform an experiment to discover what happens when decarboxylating a solution, going past 70% decarboxylation, how many mg/ml of THC could be converted to CBN.

For the experiment, we had a THCA solution we processed two months prior, where we dissolved 25 grams of kief in 500ml of liquid coconut oil at 38°F. The lab analysis for the THCA solution showed no CBN detected, so we knew where we started prior to decarboxylation.

We put the THCA solution in a one liter beaker, placed it on the CAT MCS78 Hotplate stirrer, set the probe temperature to 122°C, which is the temperature of the solution. Once the probe temperature hit 122°C, the timer on the MCS78 Hotplate Stirrer was engaged for 24 hours. We drew samples at six hours, twelve hours, eighteen hours and twenty-four hours to see what THC to CBN conversion rates are for those time segments.

We sent the four samples to the lab for analysis and were quite surprised with the results. In fact, they were nothing what we expected. Heating the solution for six hours @122°C, the conversion of THC to CBN, 0.1 mg/ml, twelve hours, THC to CBN, 0.2mg/ml, eighteen hours, THC to CBN, 0.3 mg/ml and twenty-four hours, THC to CBN 0.4 mg/ml.

The results of the analysis tell us when decarboxylating cannabis using heat, going past 70% decarboxylation, the conversion of THC to CBN is minuscule, and is not the cause of cannabis extract having sedative properties.

**********​

He has links to the test results on his site, so follow the link.

 

[PsyCro]

Very interesting! If nothing else this shows not too much is lost if we decarb for longer than we planned. Optimum times should be the same nontheless. But i wonder if being in a carrier oil for decarb has an effect? I'm sure the info on THC-to-CBN is based on numbers after heating raw dry cannabis.... hmmm
And another question is how much CBN is actually required to make a sleepy effect??

 

[SweetSue]

Very interesting! If nothing else this shows not too much is lost if we decarb for longer than we planned. Optimum times should be the same nontheless. But i wonder if being in a carrier oil for decarb has an effect? I'm sure the info on THC-to-CBN is based on numbers after heating raw dry cannabis.... hmmm
And another question is how much CBN is actually required to make a sleepy effect??

I remember reading somewhere that the tests are typically done with just the dried plant material. You bring up an interesting point about how much CBN would be needed to cause sleepiness. I wonder if anyone has even questioned that? In the same way we all accepted that you needed a gram of oil a day to beat cancer.

I was thinking about this earlier. The gram a day was kind of picked out of the air, wasn't it? Considering that the method of administration by Simpson and his followers is through the gut, without the benefit of any attempts to improve bioavailability, that means that about 80% of the oil ingested washed right through the system. If this is the case, then the argument that it only takes about a third of that dose to be effective makes more sense.

It's still not a change I'd advocate without solid data behind us, and we're years from that, in all likelihood. But it does make one think.

 

[SweetSue]

Can we get a handle on the truth and science behind decarboxylation?

I came across this post by circuit (I wish he'd stuck around ) with this table that appears to suggest that for maximum THC you want to decarb for two hours at 105 C (221 F), at which point you also get a fair amount of CBD.

If the observation method is not accurate, I would love to understand why, it seems very simple. During decarb, the releasing of CO2 when heat is applied causes bubbles, so when the bubbles cease to be formed it is time to stop applying heat, because it is done. I have seen the times vary between strains, as short as 40 minutes and as long as 80 minutes, which is why I use this method. The explanation from GW at SkunkPharm on this topic really makes it understandable. Using the 248f temp boils off any water and Everclear, also helps to kill off any pathogens, something that doesn't get mentioned nearly enough. There are a several charts around that show time/temp testing results, but they don't usually show up with the supporting documents that explain how test was done. Cheap testing will make this a lot easier to dial in. Anyone developed a decent at-home solution for testing cannabis? Sounds like the increase in potency was a fun experience, I know that strain testing is one of my most enjoyable activities.

My concern with this table is that I have no idea where it came from. How ironic, since that was one of the complaints in his post.

Found it! . It's a patent document. Lots of supporting data.

Extraction of pharmaceutically active components from plant materials US 7344736 B2

 

[SweetSue]

Combining this information with how PsyCro's method uses olive oil I've decided to combine the CCO with olive oil and lecithin to get the person I'm trying to help started on CCO sooner rather than later! The olive oil is easy to get, it should be able to be slightly heated to help mix with the lecithin, and will hopefully significantly improve oral bioavailability (ideally I want it to be as bioavailable as a suppository which I can't seem to get them to try). I may also see if I can stagger the doses of CCO away from other medications to allow for other supplements like apegenin and/or piperine for competitive inhibition.

Would you be willing to document this process as closely as you can? Possibly with some photos?

 

[SweetSue]

I'm listening to Russo's presentation to the Society Of Cannabis Clinicians and at 20:47 he says

"It's unclear if 11-OH-THC is any different with respect to its psychoactivity as compared to THC itself."

I was unaware of this fact. Up until this moment I'd accepted the widely promoted fact that 11-OH-THC was massively more psychoactive than THC.

This is why we question and research. This small fact here, just uncovered, has the potential to impact what we do with the oil.

 

[circuit]

Hello, nice to see how hard this study group is working, hoping to see exciting results. I recently updated the procedure document that shows how I make edible cannabis oil, it has about 30 slides that can be viewed as photos, a PowerPoint presentation or as a pdf file. I posted it to my facebook page, but I don't think that posting a link is acceptable here. let me know if you would like to see it, I think it is the most practical way to make and take the oil.

Sorry to drop in, stir up trouble and then exit. The online stuff has worn me down, my skin is getting thin. I appreciate the kindness that is typical on this forum, but am not able to participate very much. I'd like to pass along the process that seems to be working for me, I think that you will find it helpful.

 

[SlowToke]

SlowToke, I'm only halfway through the talk too. I keep stopping and rewinding to hear some other incredible fact again and make more notes. I'm determined to get through it today, no matter what. It's a matter of principal now. LOL!

Sue, the Russo article referenced in the video with the terpenoid descriptions is also available as a PDF file:

Taming THC: Potential Cannabis Synergy

Just in case you haven't found it already.

 

[SlowToke]

Hey, Circuit! Glad to see you drop by!

Please do post a link to the PDF file, if you don't mind. I don't think the moderators will mind. I believe they are more concerned about links to commercial items than personal instructions.

Sorry to hear you can't stay longer, but understand where you are coming from. But I'm sure I can speak for Sue and everyone else and say that you are always welcome here! Drop by anytime!

 

[circuit]

I can pass on the pdf using FB message, send me a friend request, Fourtwenty Circuit.

 

[fookinel]

I have no problem with the occasional rant. The restrictions to understanding brought about as a direct result of prohibition are, quite frankly, costing us lives. My beloved was one of them. I could have healed his problem with diabetes in mere months twenty years ago instead of watching him waste away. So now I'm pissed, and I want to spare someone else that frustration.

I'm already pissed off for a lot of reasons and I haven't lost anyone yet. I can't imagine what it would like to be in your shoes but I know I'd be even more pissed off!

Until we have labs to back up our theories though, that aggressive nature is our best approach.

Yep, we really need to push the researchers in parts of the world that it's legal to study the biovailability on healthy subjects. If we can nut out the bioavailability thing once and for all then we can start to focus on strains/cannabinoids/terpenes/etc..

The report with the incredible bioavailibility numbers is basically a marketing site, and the process they're talking about is most likely true liposomes. I suspect that liposomal encapsulation will eventually become the preferred delivery method for extreme therapies. Hopefully they can get costs under control so everyone can enjoy the benefits.

You're right. I really just want to know what their patent pending technology is

 

[fookinel]

Can we get a handle on the truth and science behind decarboxylation?

Very interesting! If nothing else this shows not too much is lost if we decarb for longer than we planned. Optimum times should be the same nontheless. But i wonder if being in a carrier oil for decarb has an effect? I'm sure the info on THC-to-CBN is based on numbers after heating raw dry cannabis.... hmmm
And another question is how much CBN is actually required to make a sleepy effect??

I just want to point out to someone reading the information on decarboxylation that there are two concepts being discussed here.

First of all there is the graph in SweetSue's post and in the link she has provided. This shows the conversion from THCA to THC. Second, the link in SweetSue's post is about the conversion from THC to CBN.

If you look at the test results provided in the link in SweetSue's post you can see that they prove there is little THC to CBN conversion. However, they also prove that THC is lost over time.

In the first test results there is 20.6 mg/ml THCA and 1.9 mg/ml THC.
After 6 hours there is no detectable THCA, 16.8 mg/ml THC, and 17.4 mg/ml total cannabinoids.
After 12 hours there is no detectable THCA, 15.5 mg/ml THC, and 16.2 mg/ml total cannabinoids.
After 18 hours there is no detectable THCA, 14.2 mg/ml THC, and 15.0 mg/ml total cannabinoids.
After 24 hours there is no detectable THCA, 12.8 mg/ml THC, and 13.8 mg/ml total cannabinoids.

So while they are accurate in saying that little of the THC is converted to CBN, just keep in mind that decarboxylating for too long will still lose THC and total cannabinoids (I don't know if other cannabinoids besides THC are lost)!

 

[fookinel]

Would you be willing to document this process as closely as you can? Possibly with some photos?

I'm happy to document it, however, I'm not so happy about photos. I would have liked to take some photos of the girls (I now have 2 growing, 1 Aurora Indica and 1 Blue Blood ) but I'm always concerned there may be embedded metadata that could provide identifying information. I don't think they would help much anyway, I'll basically be following cajuncelt's biobomb recipe here with a little bit from panacea's improvements here. But yes, I'm happy to document what I do and provide it here!

 

[fookinel]

I'm listening to Russo's presentation to the Society Of Cannabis Clinicians and at 20:47 he says

"It's unclear if 11-OH-THC is any different with respect to its psychoactivity as compared to THC itself."

I was unaware of this fact. Up until this moment I'd accepted the widely promoted fact that 11-OH-THC was massively more psychoactive than THC.

This why we question and research. This small fact here, just uncovered, has the potential to impact what we do with the oil.

I'll see if I can get the 'ol grey matter working even more

How can anyone be confident that delta-9-thc is psychoactive?

The reason I ask this is that we know that delta-9-thc is metabolised in to a number of metabolites including 11-hydroxy-delta-9-thc. We also know that this is further metabolised in to 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-thc. We know that 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-thc is not psychoactive as it has a long half life and stays in the system even when the psychological effects have worn off. My understanding is that administering someone with 11-hydroxy-delta-9-thc gives them the psychoactive effects, so we know that is psychoactive.

So if what I've said is accurate, how do you test that delta-9-thc is psychoactive at all? Surely any way you administer delta-9-thc it will enter the bloodstream, be metabolised in to 11-hydroxy-delta-9-thc, which we already know is psychoactive and will make it impossible to determine if delta-9-thc caused any psychological effects, no?

 

[fookinel]

Hello, nice to see how hard this study group is working, hoping to see exciting results. I recently updated the procedure document that shows how I make edible cannabis oil, it has about 30 slides that can be viewed as photos, a PowerPoint presentation or as a pdf file. I posted it to my facebook page, but I don't think that posting a link is acceptable here. let me know if you would like to see it, I think it is the most practical way to make and take the oil.

Sorry to drop in, stir up trouble and then exit. The online stuff has worn me down, my skin is getting thin. I appreciate the kindness that is typical on this forum, but am not able to participate very much. I'd like to pass along the process that seems to be working for me, I think that you will find it helpful.

Thanks for the updated information on your CCO method

Sue, the Russo article referenced in the video with the terpenoid descriptions is also available as a PDF file:

Taming THC: Potential Cannabis Synergy

Just in case you haven't found it already.

And thanks for the pdf! I'll probably take longer to read that than watch the video

 

[SweetSue]

Thank you for sharing that circuit. That was beautiful, and I learned quite a bit reading it. I left you a couple comments, and I will be back to your page.

 

[circuit]

If there is an easier way to make a whole plant cannabis extract, safely, at home without lab apparatus, I would love to see it. A rotovap is what I am saving up for. There was one in the TV camera shot on 'Weeds', when doctor Gupta was visiting the "secret growing location", that was being used to decarb the CBD oil. If you have ever stirred the decarbing oil, you may have noticed lots of bubbles during the stir...

 

[SweetSue]

If there is an easier way to make a whole plant cannabis extract, safely, at home without lab apparatus, I would love to see it. A rotovap is what I am saving up for. There was one in the TV camera shot on 'Weeds', when doctor Gupta was visiting the "secret growing location", that was being used to decarb the CBD oil. If you have ever stirred the decarbing oil, you may have noticed lots of bubbles during the stir...

If we end up developing one, I'll let you know, if you weren't already here. It's one of my goals to do something akin to what you did, but we have a couple tweaks we'll probably add. I've never seen any vacuum equipment in operation, even on line.

Hmmmm...... Did you hear yourself say that Susan? Added to the list of things to chase down. Lol!