I'd like to get to the thread about an article I wrote in preventdisease.com called "the importance of drinking rather than smoking cannabis". If you'd like to see more of my work read at www.rawhemp.tk. Thanks!
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Dietary Cannabis is why I'm here
- Thread starter RawHemp
- Start date
Excellent article, i started eating raw buds after i saw some of your youtube videos about juicing raw cannabis a couple of months ago, i've always been one to get paranoid after smoking and i always wanted away to use cannabis without getting high or at least a way to ingest without the paranoia. I got into vaporizing for a little bit which didn't give me scary body sensations like smoking did, but then paranoia came back. I'm glad to have found your videos and other information, raw cannabis has a much better effect for me without getting paranoia from being high, and so much more beneficial than smoking. Awesome work!
Hi,
Would you like to write us more about your positions, like a few paragraphs on the topic?
Or you'd prefer your post and links therein to be included in this thread?
Also, interesting article in your link, but it lacks scientific rigour and the writing is quite weak. Most of the statements presented are anecdotes or lack citation of credible sources. Overall, the article reads as if it was half-thought, example given, quotes like this
or this
You definitely need to work on you writing skills and to present factual information, also definitely avoid scientific terms that you, yourself, do not seem to understand, otherwise your article will never go past the average pro-cannabis propaganda.
Would you like to write us more about your positions, like a few paragraphs on the topic?
Or you'd prefer your post and links therein to be included in this thread?
Also, interesting article in your link, but it lacks scientific rigour and the writing is quite weak. Most of the statements presented are anecdotes or lack citation of credible sources. Overall, the article reads as if it was half-thought, example given, quotes like this
or this
You definitely need to work on you writing skills and to present factual information, also definitely avoid scientific terms that you, yourself, do not seem to understand, otherwise your article will never go past the average pro-cannabis propaganda.
Excuse me?
I worked like it was a full time job to make that article short and explicit.
If there is anything YOU don't understand, please feel free to ask a question.
The point is to inform basics that should be soilent.
Thanks for catching a comma that should have been a period though. Seriously. Who woulda thunk it - me: make a grammatical error.
Good eyes.
I worked like it was a full time job to make that article short and explicit.
If there is anything YOU don't understand, please feel free to ask a question.
The point is to inform basics that should be soilent.
Thanks for catching a comma that should have been a period though. Seriously. Who woulda thunk it - me: make a grammatical error.
Good eyes.
Excuse my criticism, my intentions are good.RawHemp said:
There are no parts that I do not understand, it's just that it is poorly written and put together. Almost every sentence is awkward to read. As an example, take this paragraph I cited above:
Specific issues are that
1. "The Endo-Cannabinoid System maintains our biological systems by regulating each cell tissue". Isn't this sentence vague enough to apply to almost every molecule in the body? The there are thousands of molecules that regulate cell tissues, obviously.
2. It is arachidonic and not arachadonic acid.
3. not all endocannabinoids are produced by arachidonic acid.
4. Clinical endocannabinoid deficiency (incorrectly written as Clinical cannabinoid deficiency in your paper) is a very experimental, not a generally accepted term, only used once in the scientific literature. In other words, there is not such a thing as Clinical endocannabinoid deficiency. And even if the term holds true, then the use or efficiency of plant-derived cannabinoids to treat said deficiency is elusive. You cannot yet, amidst the lack of clinical data (or their citation) make statements like that.
Generally your paper reeks of such amateur silliness. As a start, you could cite all the information so we can check their validity, i.e. give rigour to your article. I believe that you could transform it to a great paper with some good work and advice.
I didn't mention cannabinoids being manufactured in the gut because it's irrelevant to ACDC, other than the fact that it provides fiber for microbiotics to digest.
Sources are audio and text. Source links: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL645784997FF3AC02
www.montanabiotech.com/2011/03/26/scientists-find-new-sources-of-plant-cannabinoids-other-than-medical-marijuana/
Harm reduction-the cannabis paradox - Harm Reduction Journal
Data is data.
Troll someone else.
Sources are audio and text. Source links: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL645784997FF3AC02
www.montanabiotech.com/2011/03/26/scientists-find-new-sources-of-plant-cannabinoids-other-than-medical-marijuana/
Harm reduction-the cannabis paradox - Harm Reduction Journal
Data is data.
Troll someone else.
does the medical application varry much strain to strain if we are talking about non-psychoactive cannabinoids?
I got some pure indica seeds to grow out mainly for juicing the raw leaf but I was unsure of what strains would be the best for this. I just chose indica because I like the profile of indica more for medicinal purposes, but I honestly dont have a whole lot of interest in smoking cannabis these days and want to focus on juicing it for health.
I got some pure indica seeds to grow out mainly for juicing the raw leaf but I was unsure of what strains would be the best for this. I just chose indica because I like the profile of indica more for medicinal purposes, but I honestly dont have a whole lot of interest in smoking cannabis these days and want to focus on juicing it for health.
Whether Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis, male, female, hermaphrodite, wild, bred for fiber, seeds or medicinal resin - Cannabis is the best source for the anti-tumor activities of D9THC, D8THC, CBD, CBG, CBC, D9THC-a, CBD-a, CBN and terpenes. The medicinal potential of Cannabis is focused in the mature fan Leaf, where the Cannabinoid content has peaked after the Leaf has fully developed it's structure and the whole colas before trichomes become cloudy. Between 70 and 90 days, and sooner for Ruderalis strains is generally the time when Cannabinoids have begun to peak. Because of the sequential appearance of Cannabinoids, some people's conditions respond better to younger Cannabis, such as halfway through maturity.
"The Hemp plant is actually an excellent plant because the THC content can be low, that's if you're treating a condition for which appears CBD food supplement is in order.
...
The plants we're using in Luxembourg have only 1% CBD, a 1% CBD plant is providing you with 19 times more CBD per pound than Oranges provide you of vitamin C. A 1% is an excellent source, you can make tremendous concentrates you can eat the plant raw - and the absence of the THC - you can heat Hemp, which you can't do with other strains because the THC acid comes out and you end up with a psycho-toxic substance."
"The use of the raw plant includes the acid cannabinoids; CBDA, THCA, CBGA, CBCA. The acid cannabinoids, CBDA and CBGA are now known to act at GPR55 as potent antagonists of that pro-inflammatory receptor. The acid cannabinoids are 2-4 fold more effective than the neutral cannabinoids, which have been the exclusive focus of study for the last 30 years. The neutral cannabinoids, CBD, THC, CBG, CBC … are functionally synthetic molecules made by application of heat to alter the naturally occurring Acidic Phytocannabinoids. The specific ratio of cannabinoids is an area of tremendous significance and an area in need of additional research. Consumption of the whole mature raw flower / bud and leaf is the best current thought. The amount per day is dependent upon the weight-to-weight cannabinoid content analysis of that specific plant as there is dramatic variation between particular plants of the same name and across time for a specific plant.
...
If analysis is not available, assume high THC concentration in the 8% to 21% weight to weight or w/w. In general CBD is usually less than 1% w/w. Another way of describing the relative amounts of THC to CBD is cannabinoid content. For the vast majority of strains in California the ratio OF CBD TO THC per 100 grams of cannabinoid, is 0.4 to 1.0 grams of CBD/100gm to 90-95 grams of THC/100gm. Sadly the other 78 cannabinoids share the remaining 4 grams. Note that W/W is the amount of CBD per unit weight of cannabis where cannabinoid content is an estimate of the relative amount of THC, CBD, CBC, CBG, CBN etc per 100 gm of cannabinoid extracted from a particular strain."
Replace high THC plants with plants of increased CBD content and ideally with plants providing specific ratios of CBDA to THCA indicated for the specific medical condition.
...
The THC dose, for those that are comfortable with THC, is 10-15 mg. If you are blending a mature bud into a glass of juice it could and should have 5-600 mg of THCA and 5-600 mg of CBDA if the plant is a 1:1 plant such as the original Cannatonic 6.9%w/w CBD to 6.2% w/w THC or a tested strain of Harlequin, which range from 4%/4% to 8%/8% CBD/THC. If that juice is accidentally heated by placing the ‘vegetable’ juice into a vegetable soup, it will create a very psychotoxic dose of THC.
...
Reiterating to a fault, if you are consuming 600 mg of a 1:1 plant, you are consuming not only 600 mg of CBDA but also 600mg of THCA, upon heating the THCA turns in to approximately 580mg of THC when the tolerable dose is 10 mg! That would be like consuming 58 brownies when you can only tolerate 1!
If you find a source of cannatonic seeds beware that the cannatonic feminized seeds can vary widely from the original plant. Recent HPLC testing showed an expression of CBDA from 22% w/w to <1%CBDA and concurrently THCA contents ranged from 1% w/w to 30 % w/w."
William l. Courtney, M.D.
"The Hemp plant is actually an excellent plant because the THC content can be low, that's if you're treating a condition for which appears CBD food supplement is in order.
...
The plants we're using in Luxembourg have only 1% CBD, a 1% CBD plant is providing you with 19 times more CBD per pound than Oranges provide you of vitamin C. A 1% is an excellent source, you can make tremendous concentrates you can eat the plant raw - and the absence of the THC - you can heat Hemp, which you can't do with other strains because the THC acid comes out and you end up with a psycho-toxic substance."
"The use of the raw plant includes the acid cannabinoids; CBDA, THCA, CBGA, CBCA. The acid cannabinoids, CBDA and CBGA are now known to act at GPR55 as potent antagonists of that pro-inflammatory receptor. The acid cannabinoids are 2-4 fold more effective than the neutral cannabinoids, which have been the exclusive focus of study for the last 30 years. The neutral cannabinoids, CBD, THC, CBG, CBC … are functionally synthetic molecules made by application of heat to alter the naturally occurring Acidic Phytocannabinoids. The specific ratio of cannabinoids is an area of tremendous significance and an area in need of additional research. Consumption of the whole mature raw flower / bud and leaf is the best current thought. The amount per day is dependent upon the weight-to-weight cannabinoid content analysis of that specific plant as there is dramatic variation between particular plants of the same name and across time for a specific plant.
...
If analysis is not available, assume high THC concentration in the 8% to 21% weight to weight or w/w. In general CBD is usually less than 1% w/w. Another way of describing the relative amounts of THC to CBD is cannabinoid content. For the vast majority of strains in California the ratio OF CBD TO THC per 100 grams of cannabinoid, is 0.4 to 1.0 grams of CBD/100gm to 90-95 grams of THC/100gm. Sadly the other 78 cannabinoids share the remaining 4 grams. Note that W/W is the amount of CBD per unit weight of cannabis where cannabinoid content is an estimate of the relative amount of THC, CBD, CBC, CBG, CBN etc per 100 gm of cannabinoid extracted from a particular strain."
Replace high THC plants with plants of increased CBD content and ideally with plants providing specific ratios of CBDA to THCA indicated for the specific medical condition.
...
The THC dose, for those that are comfortable with THC, is 10-15 mg. If you are blending a mature bud into a glass of juice it could and should have 5-600 mg of THCA and 5-600 mg of CBDA if the plant is a 1:1 plant such as the original Cannatonic 6.9%w/w CBD to 6.2% w/w THC or a tested strain of Harlequin, which range from 4%/4% to 8%/8% CBD/THC. If that juice is accidentally heated by placing the ‘vegetable’ juice into a vegetable soup, it will create a very psychotoxic dose of THC.
...
Reiterating to a fault, if you are consuming 600 mg of a 1:1 plant, you are consuming not only 600 mg of CBDA but also 600mg of THCA, upon heating the THCA turns in to approximately 580mg of THC when the tolerable dose is 10 mg! That would be like consuming 58 brownies when you can only tolerate 1!
If you find a source of cannatonic seeds beware that the cannatonic feminized seeds can vary widely from the original plant. Recent HPLC testing showed an expression of CBDA from 22% w/w to <1%CBDA and concurrently THCA contents ranged from 1% w/w to 30 % w/w."
William l. Courtney, M.D.
We surely do not argue about data here, but rather the lack of citation (among otehr problems) Wouldn't be better if you could link these sources to the claims you make in your article? Sort of "Cannabis helps in this... as demonstrated here (source). Giving a bibliographical list of selected papers (many of them not being peer reviwed studies) is not really citation.RawHemp said:
:?RawHemp said:
Criticism is never bad and feedback is essential if you really want to convey some good information; truth is, you do need to improve your writing skills.
The audio sources are un-citeable and consist of a large percentage of info available on Dietary Cannabis.
People should know "why", but they don't - so if reading www.rawhemp.tk makes them curious, they should listen and learn.
People should know "why", but they don't - so if reading www.rawhemp.tk makes them curious, they should listen and learn.
Sounds like good and credible info to me, but what do I know, all I know is raw cannabis is truly a miracle.
Forgot to say, Welcome to the Entheogenic University William!
Forgot to say, Welcome to the Entheogenic University William!
RawHemp said:
Thank you!
Welcome to the DMT nexus
RawHemp, I believe Infundibulum is simply stressing the importance of clear communication. The delivery of a message is just as important as the content, and your writing style seems vague and with too much copypasta. Try simplifying some terms, use smaller paragraphs, and ensure that correct grammar is being used.
I honestly had no idea marijuana could be juiced, i'm going to have to read into that though.
I honestly had no idea marijuana could be juiced, i'm going to have to read into that though.
You two.
I'm not concerned about sexy presentation.
Corporate Media is about flashy and exaggerated context clues in every sentence.
I covered the entire topic of Dietary Cannabis using vocabulary that someone very recently thought up - Dr. William Courtney.
People should know each bit of data of www.rawhemp.tk and should be familiar with the work of Cannabis Researchers.
It is a new topic that does not come in an easy to understand format because we haven't been raised on Cannabis information from schoolchild age as should be in each of our lives.
My grammar isn't incomprehensible, the sentences aren't akward.
The fact that we don't already know this stuff is akward.
Society needs work.
"NOW YOU KNOW!" Bill Nye
I'm not concerned about sexy presentation.
Corporate Media is about flashy and exaggerated context clues in every sentence.
I covered the entire topic of Dietary Cannabis using vocabulary that someone very recently thought up - Dr. William Courtney.
People should know each bit of data of www.rawhemp.tk and should be familiar with the work of Cannabis Researchers.
It is a new topic that does not come in an easy to understand format because we haven't been raised on Cannabis information from schoolchild age as should be in each of our lives.
My grammar isn't incomprehensible, the sentences aren't akward.
The fact that we don't already know this stuff is akward.
Society needs work.
"NOW YOU KNOW!" Bill Nye
So are you William? I'm confused.
a1pha said:
Then maybe he should have phrased it as a helpful critique instead of flat out attack which is what I saw it as.
in fact, it is a prime reason why I don't frequent these parts much anymore. This holier than though attitude blows. It doesn't benefit anyone. If he wanted to be helpful he could have said something like;
He didn't say that though. He came out attacking, whether he meant to or not, with
Infundibulum said:
I just don't see how you get around that being attack. Even if his statements are true he put it in a very dickish way...and I like Infundibulum. So it's easy for me to see why the person lashed back.
I alway's find it funny how everyone is ready to standup and give criticism of someone else's work, but are very rarely willing to create a work of their own. Not saying this is the case, just noting an observation from my ~40 years inhabiting this rock.
some of the comments seemed sort of out of place to me as well and come off sounding somewhat hostile.
I agree with both you guys, I just didn't want to say anything since I'm relatively new.