1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.
    Dismiss Notice

Pregnant vaping?

Discussion in 'Medical Discussion' started by m0sh, Nov 15, 2017.

  1. Madri-Gal

    Madri-Gal Child Of The Revolution

    Messages:
    723
    Location:
    Livin' in the 707
    There is no harm in not giving a pregnant woman and her unborn baby cannabis. There is no reason to think that a healthy mother, eating a proper diet, isn't supplying what her baby needs. It certainly isn't "child neglect" to not give a fetus or newborn cannabis, as has been stated. A newborn is not a 90+ year old man. I'm procannabis all over the place. I understand that the prohibition of cannabis has been, and still is, a terrible thing. I still think it's reasonable to want, and I want "100% state-of-the-art double blind placebo long term testing to be 100% sure (in their minds) that there would not be any possible damage". There is no harm in waiting for such studies to be done.
    Miscarriage, stillbirth, and high infant maternal mortality are part of the wonderful past. It's dismaying to see the past romanticized as if mothers were happily wandering about consuming cannabis and delivering healthy babies without a problem in the world. Apparently, some people think there were no problems with pregnancy and childbirth until cannabis became illegal. We don't know there has been "6,000 years" of cannabis being used with no negative effects. You don't have to die for something to be negative. I misjudged edibles recently, and it was a day I wouldn't wish on an infant, born or unborn.
    We ignore we're vapers for a reason, here just a bit. All of the health reasons why we don't smoke , such as smoke, gets overlooked. We know smoke itself isn't good for the fetus.
    In limited instances, I can see where cannabis consumption might be better than available alternatives. If a mother is hyperemetic and it can't be controlled, out of the alternatives cannabis might be the preferred option. That doesn't make it ideal. It might just be the best that can be done, when the option is dehydration, malnutrition and possible death.
    I'm hoping cannabis is safe for everyone and the dog. I don't know that it is. I know that many if our mother's smoked, drank and probably danced the hootchicoo, and they thought it was fine. I know I was advised to drink beer when nursing to "help with the milk". Ideas and ideals shift. I still want the science where infants are concerned.
    This doesn't mean much. I prefer people not give infants Pepsi and Kool-Aid in baby bottles, but I see it. I will say this, if you are a man and want to consume cannabis during your pregnancy, you go right ahead.
     
    Roth, muunch, Ramahs and 6 others like this.
  2. MinnBobber

    MinnBobber Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,246
    I think it is important to consider that all (99%?) of the studies with these negative results were with smoked cannabis.

    Since this is "fuck combustion", we should all know the unhealthy aspects of smoking cannabis. The relevant info is:

    ...After maternal ingestion, concentrations of THC in fetal blood are approximately one-third to one-tenth of maternal concentrations.‍ 24,25 These concentrations can vary depending on the permeability and biological capacity of the placenta.26 In addition, when marijuana is smoked, serum carbon monoxide concentrations in the pregnant woman are 5 times higher than those when tobacco is smoked, resulting potentially in impaired maternal respiratory gas exchange and subsequent adverse effect on the fetus.‍...

    Any results from smoked cannabis studies are highly suspect as to what is the real cause of problems, THC or carbon monoxide poisoning or the other dozens of known toxic chemicals from combustion?

    I am, of course, only speaking to momma vaporizing small amounts of cannabis. Baby gets 1/3 to 1/10 of mom's concentration level and both of their ECS receptor systems get their fuel, to seek homeostasis (balance) in all their body systems (mom and baby).

    I would never ever suggest that a PG mom smoke cannabis----bad juju

    Endocannabinoid System--- the key to understanding why PG mom and all of us need cannabis as an ECS supplement!
     
    C No Ego likes this.
  3. His_Highness

    His_Highness In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

    Messages:
    2,531
    Wish there was a "like a gazillion times" button for Madri-gal's post.
     
    Ramahs, Madri-Gal and just_the_flu like this.
  4. Madri-Gal

    Madri-Gal Child Of The Revolution

    Messages:
    723
    Location:
    Livin' in the 707
    There is no reason to suggest Mom and Baby need help with homeostasis. Are you suggesting a healthy mother can't grow a healthy baby? If there is no deficiency, than supplementation isn't needed. We have opiate receptors and naturally make endorphins. This doesn't mean we, and our fetus need additional opiates. It also doesn't mean that adding more than Mother and Baby produce together might not be harmful.
    My body makes Vitamin D. It's a good vitamin. Ugly things happen without vitamin D. Say I get pregnant, and I'm sitting in the sun getting a nice tan and I decide to start taking vitamin D supplements. It's not a good idea, and would be dangerous for me and baby. You can get too much of what is harmless or helpful at a lower dosage. The oft used water example comes to mind.
    Cannabis is a medication. That's why we take it. It can change our mood and physiology. I'm not saying this is bad or good, but you don't intentionally take ANY medication while pregnant without knowing it's safe, and at what dosage it's safe, and if the side effects are worth the benefits. It's not just the mother being considered, though of course she should be. It's this way from coffee to cake, so I don't know why cannabis should not be critically looked at.

    Interesting that smoke and carbon monoxide are now being blamed. This after stating 6,000 years of cannabis consuming moms delivered naturally healthy babies. I guess none of those moms smoked. They sure weren't all vaping. Pick a consistent position, and I'll check back in.
     
    Roth, C No Ego, just_the_flu and 4 others like this.
  5. olivianewtonjohn

    olivianewtonjohn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Is that how science and medicine works? Do we deem things safe until proven otherwise? This is the heart of the issue. I already gave you examples to illustrate why your conclusion of "MJ is good in this specific case therefore its good for a fetus" is an insanely flawed approach. Again there are vitamins (like retinoic acid) that are both vital for fetal development and can also be teratogens (ie cause birth defects). I gave this example to hopefully make you think about how complex embryology is and to underline the flaw in that reasoning.

    Well you see no one is born being pro-MJ or anti-MJ. Before using MJ I would say the vast majority of people are either mostly neutral or negative towards MJ. I cant read your mind and can only go by what you post here but I would say you are making my case for me. You became pro-MJ after seeing its effects on a completely different issue. Now my opinion is that you find whatever bits of information to support your belief that MJ is good (even if it means recommending MJ to a mother).

    See this is why I have a very hard time taking what you say seriously. That statement is not something anyone with a basic understanding of biology would make. Mom DOES NOT I repeat DOES NOT have her own supply of cannabinoids. Endocannabinoids are not the same thing as cannabinoids. Even a small change like delta 9 thc vs 11 hydroxy thc (vaped/smoked vs edible form) can have huge differences on effects. Yet you want us to believe that just because a chemical has a similar structure and is able to bind to the binding pocket it is the same compound? I already corrected someone earlier about CBD not being the same as 2-AG. You're now the third person to think cannabinoids are the same as endocannabinoids. Hell I even explained how the chirality (same atoms and structure with different 3D arrangement) can have an effect, yet you want to say they're the same?

    Lets assume you were right. Lets assume the mom did in fact have THC, CBD, etc in her body naturally. Whats your point? Illogically that just because she has it in her body its ok to add more? Common dude, think about it. She has testosterone in her body, should we add more? By your standards she has neurotransmitters in her body so she might as well take psychedelic mushrooms (since by your own standards psilocybin=neurotransmitter that the mom already has).

    You are illustrating why its not a good idea to say its safe for a mom much less that it's needed for her to provide "homeostasis" :rolleyes:. Wait for the studies, otherwise you are not advocating based on science but really your belief that its a good plant. While I agree its a great plant for certain things, that obviously doesnt mean its great for EVERYTHING.

    You are again showing why your position isnt in anyway scientific. 6000 years of anecdotal evidence at best you could argue shows that MJ does not cause birth defects at high rates like alcohol, which would be easily detected. Anything else including long term effects would not be tracked or understood.

    Another appeal to nature fallacy. This has to be a record of "ITS A PLANT THEREFORE ITS SAFE" posts :doh:

    You already demonstrated that your position is not based on science. Now you want to throw out studies if they dont line up with what you believe, and keep whatever small conclusions from studies (that I dont believe you have the knowledge to truly judge) in order to expand and draw much bigger conclusions (since we all know no serious scientist would say MJ is safe for fetuses without rigorous study). Funny you bring up morning sickness, I presented a paper on THC's effects on the immune system for an unborn child and I at first was wondering why it was even a relevant topic. I mean if your pregnant I would have guessed it would be common sense to not take a mind altering drug that COULD have an impact on your unborn child. Well it turns out MJ use is increasing among pregnant woman to relieve morning sickness.

    I found the paper just for you. Let me know what critiques you have.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199982/

    "In this article, we demonstrated that exposure to THC in utero can have long-term consequences on the immune system of the offspring. Indeed, we found that acute perinatal exposure to THC triggered fetal thymic atrophy, via CB1 and CB2 signaling and induction of apoptosis. There were significant changes in the fetal thymic subpopulations, leaving the offspring with lower absolute numbers of DP T cells. We found that this effect was dose-dependent and could still be detected on PD1. In addition, we demonstrated that acute perinatal exposure to THC leads to decreased immune response to HIV-1 p17/p24/gp120. Finally, subchronic exposure to THC also led to impairment of the development and functions of thymus and the spleen."

    "In addition, the approval of oral THC by the Food and Drug Administration to treat nausea in patients with AIDS and undergoing cancer therapy (Schwartz et al., 1997) has encouraged some to suggest the use of marijuana to relieve morning sickness during pregnancy (Westfall et al., 2006). However, surveys in humans and studies in rodents suggest detrimental effects stemming from prenatal exposure to cannabinoids. Some studies report that children exposed to marijuana during pregnancy have a slower gestational growth rate (Hurd et al., 2005) and lower birth weight (Zuckerman et al., 1989; Hurd et al., 2005), as well as reduced gestational length (Fried et al., 1984; Hurd et al., 2005). In addition, perinatal exposure to THC has been shown to affect brain development, resulting in an alteration in behavioral responses, in both rodents and humans (Bonnin et al., 1995; Vela et al., 1995; de Moraes Barros et al., 2006). Still, very little is known about the effects of perinatal exposure to cannabinoids on the developing immune systems. Perinatal exposure to (6aR,10aR)- 9-(hydroxymethyl)- 6,6-dimethyl- 3-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)- 6a,7,10,10a-tetrahydrobenzo[c]chromen-1-ol (HU-210), a cannabinoid agonist, caused altered distribution of lymphocyte subpopulations in the spleen and peripheral blood of Wistar rats. In addition, there was a reduction in the T helper subpopulation in the spleen and a decrease in the rate of T helper/T cytotoxic cells in peripheral blood (del Arco et al., 2000)."



    Sorry science isnt as simple as plant=good, pills=bad. Could there be more information or explanation for these results down the line? Sure, immunology is one of the most complex fields in biology after all. But IMO its not right to advocate MJ use for mothers much less act like you are drawing on science to support your beliefs.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2019
  6. Ramahs

    Ramahs Fucking Combustion (mostly) Since February 2017

    Messages:
    2,557
    Location:
    The Internet
    Thank you, @olivianewtonjohn !!

    I have enough of an education/experience to often recognize the red-flags of pseudoscience, but unfortunately I'm not always as good at articulating a rebuttal as you have been here. :tup:
     
  7. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,699
    @mccringleberry not the Gray matter thingy!! that is so debunked now... of course phytocannabinoids change gray matter, they are active in receptors located in cells in your brain! they provide retrograde signals to cells in your brain ( homeostasis) .. the psychosis thing too, so debunked and reefer madness.. no increase of psychosis anywhere in the world related to people using more cannabis . Canada is now an entire legal country, lets see the psychosis take off .... it is not and will not. an increases of intracellular ions ( the high) is an increase in awareness ( psychosis??) ... when people realize they are high and not psychotic a switch in the mind happens and they calm down
    look into Raphael Mechoulam https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=raphael+mechoulam/+THC+is+non+toxic
    he is the leading cannabis researcher and honestly I would not even waste my time here if not for his work showing how THC is non toxic... the effects THC has are explained as well as CBD

    so no direct examples that goes against the patent # 6630507 showing protective properties in the plant except cannabinoids are not all the same ... well no Shit.
    cannabinoids / phytocannabinoids are lipophilic... we have only studied 11 phytocanabinoids from cannabis and there are 138 more that we know nothing of... we do know that cannabinoids metabolize into our cells... they do not metabolize in areas of our bodies that could be fatal unlike opioids will be.

    Edit, How can phytocannabinoids help heal babies a few months old from seizures and brain cancers ???? still , I'm sure you people read my post about a mother with cancer treating it with high dose THC cannabis oil .. no response to that ? how can it heal Freaking cancer and be still be bad ???
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
    MinnBobber likes this.
  8. His_Highness

    His_Highness In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

    Messages:
    2,531
    My real concern here is that this site has some of the most knowledgeable cannabis folks who are not medically trained. Can you imagine the number of pregnant women who don't even have the knowledge of those on this site who might buy into..... it's natural so it can't be bad? These women will probably stop smoking gretts but will probably self-medicate with cannabis. I can't be the only one on this site who has whited out early on or still gets an occasional case of the noids. How can that be good for a fetus?

    There's a reason you shouldn't treat anyone if you got your medical degree via Google med-school.

    I was having a conversation with someone and suggested they try cannabis for an issue and the response to me was "You make it sound like cannabis is good for you and you can cure anything with it".

    When you're in love with your hammer.......everything looks like a nail.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  9. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,699
    when claims are made back up said claims with proof.... everybody is coming from a reefer madness era even young people still swayed by it... reefer madness has destroyed more minds than every cannabis plant in the entire world could be capable of
    cannabis presents as a more active form of omega three.. a bit more bio-activity than the fatty acid omega three but the exact same biochemical pathways are taken in man ETC....

    posted from PM about this thread
    because I have only just learned this cannabis info the last few years on my spare time I actually look to others that may know if cannabis is harmful and I honestly ask them from my limited perspective and have yet to receive a definitive answer from hundreds of people by now, maybe a few thousand. when mental issues comes up that is fleeting issues not detrimental , connecting fatty acid metabolism to the cannabis plant seems to far along for some people to accept.. I mean it is a plant .....
    Plus , all the delivery methods allowed from the plant that offer minor differences in metabolic pathways... which way is harmful , which pathways ETC.... ?? not asking you just saying.... a few of my many questions that always lead back to it being anti oxidant neuroprotection to describe the action of the plant.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  10. His_Highness

    His_Highness In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

    Messages:
    2,531
    I've told this story before.....

    I wrote a paper in biology for extra credit that was based on my use of cholinesterase to test for an increase in short term memory abilities. My premise was that cholinesterase was found to be deficient in Alzheimer patients and others with memory issues. Cholinesterase is important in transferring sensory information to the brain. I also read that short term memory can be minimally increased via a stimulant like coffee.

    Armed with my newly found data points I decided to test out my theory by cramming for mid-terms and using Cholinesterase and coffee to check the effect. Didn't see a change but when I handed the extra credit paper to my biology professor he asked to talk to me after class. He explained to me why my theory was flawed (which was way over my head) and then said "only a fool would attempt to test something like that on themselves by ingesting something I didn't really understand". When I defended myself by saying cholinesterase is natural and needed by the body he said "so is water.....and ingesting too little or too much of it will cause serious issues. Look into it".

    You can connect the dots but until the theory is tested you have no clue which dots were overloaded or missed all together.

    Fine when you're the only one effected. Not so much when we're talking about a fetus.
     
  11. olivianewtonjohn

    olivianewtonjohn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Im not going to pretend to know WTF I am talking about when it comes to neuroscience like you. But I would encourage everyone to research this on their own if interested.

    Even if what you said were true it doesnt get you any closer to MJ is safe for fetuses, and certainly not your claim that MJ is needed for homeostasis :rolleyes:. And I would not be so sure about your conclusions given some of the literature on it (but what I can I say I have a science background).

    Its like talking to an ant-vaxxer at this point. You know your case is flimsy at best (im feeling charitable) so you add axillary points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Ok cool ill play.

    Can you do me a favor and search what non-toxic means?

    Does it mean:

    A) Safe for a fetus
    B) Needed for homeostasis
    C) Not deadly at a specific dosage

    I mean this is very basic stuff to not understand especially if you understand something as complicated as neuroscience ;)

    https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/366-measuring-toxicity

    Even then you are not technically correct that its non-toxic.

    Are you ok? You are starting to talk in circles, earlier you said we know alot about the ECS system (false) yet now there are canabinoids that we dont understand and havent researched. Do you want to address my point that we already know a small change in structure can have a large change in effect? I even gave you a practical example that every stoner knows, edibles vs smoked/vaped cannabis. What about the classical example taught to every organic chemistry student that I explained. This is possibly the simplest change in structure we can observe, a mirrored image of a drug, one is a possible medication for morning sickness the other? Missing limbs in fetuses (phocomelia).

    Even if what you said were true (big IF), Protective properties=safe for fetus now? Fucking vitamins can cause birth defects dude.

    Do you really want people to take your point of view seriously when your logic goes, "it helped in this claimed anecdotal case how could it not also be healthy for a fetus". There are so many layers to this faulty logic I could probably write a paper on it. Even if MJ cured cancer (unfortunately it likely doesnt) that would still not help your case. Saying it helps in case X therefore great for case Y? You really need me to give examples of why this is terrible reasoning?


    You have demonstrated repeatedly that you dont understand how research is conducted or more importantly why your method is not used in science or medicine. Its flawed epistemology and shows that you dont understand the burden of proof. You dont get to push the burden of proof onto others. You're the one claiming MJ=safe for fetus. You're the one claiming cannabinioids=endocanabinoids. You're the one claiming that MJ=needed for homeostasis. You're the one claiming MJ=needed for fetus homeostasis. You dont get to say its true by simply declaring these quacky theories and then say prove me wrong.

    This is very akin to talking to a flat earther or anti vaxxer at this point. You ignore whatever opposing views are brought forth and just start talking about something else. This type of methodology is faith based not science. Someone shows flaw in your information and reasoning? No problem just start talking about something else not even related.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  12. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,699
    until you can show an example of essential fatty acid metabolism being harmful ... Go ahead,,, anything please... I do not need all those complicated study parameters you are describing when I know the plant presents as a lipid that conforms into all of mans metabolism . even though we have not identified all the exacting phytocannabinoids know tat they all are active in ECS just by their design... they do not take over ECS, they are secondary metabolites effecting peripheral adjustments only... not [primary metabolism in any way... the body cannot possibly take a " harmful " pathway with a cannabinoid.... at least no identification of harm has been presented as far as I know and always ask anyone claiming cannabis is bad to show how the metabolite harms you =HOW?
    I never said the baby needs phytocannabinoids and even stated that the ECS in the baby needs different precursor EFA endocannabinoid type compounds than an older person with an established system needing homeostasis... my info relies on the mothers metabolism that cannabis is directed into...
    Because phytocannabinoids are late stage performers they serve to modulate the ECS already established ... I honestly do not know how the babies ECS will handle phytocanabinoids as they have not even eaten plants yet... the mothers endocananbinoid she provides baby is 2-arachidonylglycerol ( 2-AG)... CBD mimics that compound more so than THC .
    plus I am asking in this way because all tests have been drug abuse type testing and that is so biased and cananbis has been stuck in reefer mdne4ss tests all these years while people are healing their endocannabinoid system with the plant creating all types of metablism to eliminate cancers ETC... the homeostasis provided from, ECS and plants impacting it is profound...
    I'm 100% certain that if we knew more about essential fatty acids and how important they are to expecting mothers this discussion would be entirely different at this point in time... we would have more resource to say how much EFA she needs, the baby ETC... and how cannabis supplementation could help too... still a lot to know but we know that fatty acid metabolism is healthy more than any another type of metabolism we need for our cells. cannabis presents as a fatty acid... the way it is like omega three you could say essential fatty acids

    Edit - I'd like to show how many signalling canna metabolites occur in each cell per second... we predict that 15,000 cannabinoid signals are messaged in each cell per second to maintain homeostasis... 40 trillion cells,messaging 15,000 signals per cell per second, do the math.
    phytocannabinoids mimic that action ... you would need a truck load of phytocanabinoids to take over all the signals already occurring...
    micro dose vaporized cannabis
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
  13. Ramahs

    Ramahs Fucking Combustion (mostly) Since February 2017

    Messages:
    2,557
    Location:
    The Internet
    Ummm...wut? That's a nonsensical statement.

    You sure are claiming to know a lot about something for which you started out by saying we haven't yet even fully identified, much less studied.

    Wait...what? Creating a "type of metabolism" that eliminates cancer? Ummmmm...wut?!?!
    We operate in the same reality, right? I suspect that I should verify this after hearing a statement like that.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  14. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,699
    so if not for reefer madness the last 80 years who here would feel as they do about cannabis plants? I know, rhetorical question but really... while looking into the plant and its biological attributes we find it it's smoked it can be harmful from that and we also find it is anti oxidant and metabolizing like an omega three fatty acid ...
    @Ramahs your endocannabinoid system metabolizes away cancers. it is its purpose, to maintain and modulate the signalling cannabinoid type molecules ( C 14 - C 22).... phytocanabinoids express in ECS ... how do you think people recover from cancers with cannabis therapy? the shape specificity of cannabinoids determine their expression... and too, Spice and man made cannabinoids do not qualify in this example as you do not find that type in nature anywhere.... only the plant created phytocanabinoids are safe fro supplementation with all the enzymatic sequencing precisely laid out to form the structure for protection in the plant...
     
  15. His_Highness

    His_Highness In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

    Messages:
    2,531
    I'm begging off this thread. I've made my points, read all the others and I've reached that point where I think I've hit the "agree to disagree" wall with the armchair physicians/scientists.

    But what is really stopping me from continuing the debate is that the thought occurred to me this morning that there is a very real possibility I could be hurting women by my negative views if they did use when pregnant or are using now while pregnant. It's not my place.
     
    olivianewtonjohn and Madri-Gal like this.
  16. Ramahs

    Ramahs Fucking Combustion (mostly) Since February 2017

    Messages:
    2,557
    Location:
    The Internet
    You've got the cure for cancer? Great. Now go get your research published and get your Nobel prize.

    You'll be forever famous, and have access to funding to study whatever you want in the future.
     
  17. olivianewtonjohn

    olivianewtonjohn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    Eh I see where you are coming from but at the end of the day its a philosophical debate. Is it more harmful to tell someone they might be harming themselves and others, or is it more harmful to let them be? IMO its best to present the best data we have and be honest, its still their choice but you know they have the information and can now make an informed decision. I will always error on the side of information.
     
    Ramahs and His_Highness like this.
  18. EverythingsHazy

    EverythingsHazy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    Very well thought out/organized posts, @olivianewtonjohn. It seems like we think similarly, in regard to this topic. Objectiveness and empirical data are not just important. They are necessary.

    Not to drag you back in, but when you say "hurting women", do you mean hurting their feelings by making them feel guilty, or do you mean that Cannabis might be beneficial which would mean suggesting otherwise could be counterproductive?

    If it's the former, I'd think finding out that you may have caused your child long-term damage with your drug use, might be more emotionally distressing, than being told you should probably be more careful to prevent such occurrences. It sucks having to hear that you've been consuming too much of something, and that you now have to try to reverse the damage you may have caused, but it sucks even more finding out that you've been consuming too much of something for so long that you have done irreparable damage. Also, I'd put the health of a baby over its parents' emotions any day.

    If it's the latter, that's fair enough. Nobody sensible wants to risk advising someone to do something potentially harmful.
     
    olivianewtonjohn likes this.
  19. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,699
    here is chemical formula and weight for anandamide -
    Chemical formula
    C22H37NO2
    Molar mass 347.53 g/mol

    C-18 - C-22 represents the cannabinoids ... all naturally occurring cannabinoids will have that similar formula

    here is thc-
    Formula C21H30O2
    Molar mass 314.469 g·mol−1

    THCa weighs in @ 347 ( exact size as anandamide) that is the extra carboxyl grouping on the molecule

    These are like fatty acids with greater bio availability
     
  20. Ramahs

    Ramahs Fucking Combustion (mostly) Since February 2017

    Messages:
    2,557
    Location:
    The Internet
    Great. Now go get your research published and get your Nobel prize.

    You'll be forever famous, and have access to funding to study whatever you want in the future.
     
  21. pakalolo

    pakalolo RoboMod v4.0a (unstable) Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,091
    Location:
    Other side of your screen
    This kind of sarcasm is uncalled for. Please keep it to yourself.

    The following comments apply to everyone, not just @Ramahs. I won't go back and select examples, but there are several posts here that are borderline like this one. If you can't control your emotions and need to resort to sarcasm or personal comments, then perhaps you should review the soundness of your arguments. It's pretty clear that regardless of the science presented, there are some on both sides who have an emotional stake in this debate. It's fine to express your opinion but our rules require that you do it in a respectful manner. Also, if you don't have something new to add then please don't post the same position over and over. Don't force us to close the thread.
     
  22. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,699
    and here is cannabidiol
    Formula C21H30O2
    Molar mass 314.464 g/mol g·mol−1

    the exact same formula as THC.

    here is 2 arachidonoylglycerol ( 2-ag) the cannabinoid in breast milk

    Chemical formula
    C23H38O4
    Molar mass 378.3 g/mol

    I'm pulling this info from main stream sources, it is known I do not to be famous just seeking truth as it is presented
    as to how each phytocannabinoid could express, scientists have determined there are around 300 cannbinoid receptors not just cb1 and cb2....
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019
  23. Ramahs

    Ramahs Fucking Combustion (mostly) Since February 2017

    Messages:
    2,557
    Location:
    The Internet
    And this is why I’m saying that, taking what @pakalolo said to heart as I thpe this, and trying to not be insulting at all, but the next step is to publish the research for peer-review and replication. I’m not being sarcastic at all. That’s just the next step.

    And when I said that you would have fame and have access to funding for whatever you want to study in the future, I wasn’t being condescending. That’s what would heppen if you published info that leads to a cure for cancer. That would be the biggest medical news in a very long time.

    Again, I’m not trying to insult anyone. But, if you have that sort of knowledge you almost have a duty to publish it to get the information verified so that we can use it to save lives.

    @pakalolo - if you feel this post is also in violation, please delete and accept my apology. I tried to explain myself in the most polite way I could and I apologize if my earlier tone was too agressive. I honestly do not want to break any more rules with this post, and I am most definitely NOT trying to argue with your judgement.

    The main point is, if there is a cancer cure out there, I want to see it get published so we can verify it and save lives. I apologize for repeating myself the way I did. I should have reworded it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019
    C No Ego likes this.
  24. MinnBobber

    MinnBobber Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,246
    I don't think @C No Ego was claiming he had a cure for cancer, but rather that cannabis has been shown to cure* cancer in many studies that are completed and in many ongoing studies that are currently underway.
    *Cure* is a little strong but shown to help with many types of cancer in many different ways for many people---like inducing apoptosis (programmed cell death), keeping it from spreading/ metastasizing, and by blocking growth of blood supply to cancer cells (anti- angiogenic properties of cannabis).
    It's a triple threat to cancer :)

    Here are some of the studies regarding anti-cancer properties :

    FOLLOWING ARE STUDIES PROVING CANNABIS TO BE AN ALL-NATURAL CANCER KILLER:
    CANNABIS KILLS TUMOR CELLS

    UTERINE, TESTICULAR, AND PANCREATIC CANCERS
    BRAIN CANCER
    MOUTH AND THROAT CANCER
    BREAST CANCER
    LUNG CANCER
    PROSTATE CANCER
    BLOOD CANCER
    SKIN CANCER
    LIVER CANCER
    CANNABIS CANCER CURES (GENERAL)
    CANCERS OF THE HEAD AND NECK
    CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA CANCER
    LEUKEMIA
    CANNABIS PARTIALLY/FULLY INDUCED CANCER CELL DEATH
    TRANSLOCATION-POSITIVE RHABDOMYOSARCOMA
    LYMPHOMA
    CANNABIS KILLS CANCER CELLS
    MELANOMA
    THYROID CARCINOMA
    COLON CANCER
    INTESTINAL INFLAMMATION AND CANCER
    CANNABINOIDS IN HEALTH AND DISEASE
    CANNABIS INHIBITS CANCER CELL INVASION
    There are many more studies out there too and many exciting studies underway. This list is just cancer related studies.

    They reinforce the importance of your endocannabinoid system (ECS), and the value of supplementing it
    with phytocannabinoids (cannabis) to enable it to do what it does----seek homeostasis/balance.
    ECS is key to all things cannabis and why it works for so many completely different diseases.

    C No Ego didn't discover a cure for cancer, he is just aware of the cancer fighting properties of cannabis as well as being very aware of the detailed, intricate, chemical reactions of phytocannabinoids and endocannabinoids.

    Peace
     
    C No Ego likes this.
  25. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,070
    I'm not sure the science of cannabinoid receptors is really instructive to the call of the question, but, I don't play a science-guy on TV so can't be sure. As well, while I don't take Wikipedia for much of an authority, at least it is an easy-to-read resource. I just throw it out there for some contrast to the claim of 300 receptors. Some scientists are only up to 7.

    Other cannabinoid receptors[edit]
    The existence of additional cannabinoid receptors has long been suspected, due to the actions of compounds such as abnormal cannabidiol that produce cannabinoid-like effects on blood pressure and inflammation, yet do not activate either CB1 or CB2.[18][19] Recent research strongly supports the hypothesis that the N-arachidonoyl glycine (NAGly) receptor GPR18 is the molecular identity of the abnormal cannabidiol receptor and additionally suggests that NAGly, the endogenous lipid metabolite of anandamide (also known as arachidonoylethanolamide or AEA), initiates directed microglial migration in the CNS through activation of GPR18.[20] Other molecular biology studies have suggested that the orphan receptor GPR55 should in fact be characterised as a cannabinoid receptor, on the basis of sequence homology at the binding site. Subsequent studies showed that GPR55 does indeed respond to cannabinoid ligands.[10][21] This profile as a distinct non-CB1/CB2 receptor that responds to a variety of both endogenous and exogenous cannabinoid ligands, has led some groups to suggest GPR55 should be categorized as the CB3 receptor, and this re-classification may follow in time.[22] However this is complicated by the fact that another possible cannabinoid receptor has been discovered in the hippocampus, although its gene has not yet been cloned,[23] suggesting that there may be at least two more cannabinoid receptors to be discovered, in addition to the two that are already known. GPR119 has been suggested as a fifth possible cannabinoid receptor.,[24] while the PPAR family of nuclear hormone receptors can also respond to certain types of cannabinoid.[25]

    In 2008, there were two:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18426493
    The endocannabinoid system consists of the endogenous cannabinoids (endocannabinoids), cannabinoid receptors and the enzymes that synthesise and degrade endocannabinoids. Many of the effects of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids are mediated by two G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), CB(1) and CB(2), although additional receptors may be involved. CB(1) receptors are present in very high levels in several brain regions and in lower amounts in a more widespread fashion. These receptors mediate many of the psychoactive effects of cannabinoids. CB(2) receptors have a more restricted distribution, being found in a number of immune cells and in a few neurones. Both CB(1) and CB(2) couple primarily to inhibitory G proteins and are subject to the same pharmacological influences as other GPCRs. Thus, partial agonism, functional selectivity and inverse agonism all play important roles in determining the cellular response to specific cannabinoid receptor ligands.​

    In 2013, a possibility of more:
    The CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors are members of the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) family that are pharmacologically well defined. However, the discovery of additional sites of action for endocannabinoids as well as synthetic cannabinoid compounds suggests the existence of additional cannabinoid receptors. Here we review this evidence, as well as the current nomenclature for classifying a target as a cannabinoid receptor. Basic pharmacological definitions, principles and experimental conditions are discussed in order to place in context the mechanisms underlying cannabinoid receptor activation. Constitutive (agonist-independent) activity is observed with the overexpression of many GPCRs, including cannabinoid receptors. Allosteric modulators can alter the pharmacological responses of cannabinoid receptors. The complex molecular architecture of each of the cannabinoid receptors allows for a single receptor to recognize multiple classes of compounds and produce an array of distinct downstream effects. Natural polymorphisms and alternative splice variants may also contribute to their pharmacological diversity. As our knowledge of the distinct differences grows, we may be able to target select receptor conformations and their corresponding pharmacological responses. Importantly, the basic biology of the endocannabinoid system will continue to be revealed by ongoing investigations.​
    Why just a "possibility"? Because, the whole discussion in the study has to do with all the variables that change affected systems--all while focused on the CB(1 & 2) receptors. Instead, if we look NOT at receptors, but places that have any action based on the presence of cannabinoids, the places grow. (A GPCR) is a fancy acronym for a receptor that reacts to G protein-coupled things like cannabinoids.
    The actions of endocannabinoids are not restricted to the CB1 and CB2 receptors. Additional GPCRs as well as ion channels, ion channel receptors (i.e., transient receptor potential cation channel; TRP) and nuclear receptors (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor; PPAR) have also been identified as sites of endocannabinoid interaction. Activation of transient receptor potential cation channel vanilloid (TRPV) receptors was demonstrated with both AEA (Zygmunt et al., 1999) and NADA (Huang et al., 2002). Activation via AEA was reported to induce vasodilation of isolated vascular preparations as a consequence of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) (Zygmunt et al., 1999), whereas NADA activation of rat dorsal root ganglion and hippocampal TRPV receptors resulted in the release of substance P and CGRP (Hejazi et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2002). Evidence for phytocannabinoid interaction with TRP channels has also been demonstrated (De Petrocellis et al., 2011). NADA and AEA have also been shown to modulate calcium channels (Romano and Lograno, 2006; Ross et al., 2009; White et al., 2001). The channels targeted by synthetic cannabinoids have recently been extensively reviewed (Pertwee et al., 2010).​

    Finally, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21079038/ (2010) titled "International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXIX. Cannabinoid receptors and atheir ligands: beyond CB1 and CB2" we see there are not a theory of 300 different types of receptors, but, many different interactions that lead to differing results. The ones that were found less than a decade ago:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    C No Ego likes this.

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors