Restorium2

What's So Great About Cbd?

151 posts in this topic

What’s so great about CBD in medical marijuana?

CBD is likely the most abundant cannabinoid, nearly 40% of a cannabis plant’s resin. CBD appears to have anti-anxiety effects and lessens the psychoactive effects of THC. Medicating with plants low in CBD has been shown to have more psychological impact and make people feel anxious.

Now, some places are developing special strains of cannabis without THC, Charlotte’s Web is such a strain developed specifically with low THC, high CBD, which is great for kids and other medical uses where the euphoric effects of cannabis aren’t necessarily desireable.

So here’s a case where removing THC from the plant makes it less effective for treating seizures. In other words, everyone needs different medicines for different symptoms, so it’s probably best if we let doctors and patients figure this out instead of state and federal government.

Whilst standardized cannabis extract (SCE) inhibited spasticity in the mouse model of MS to a comparable level, it caused a more rapid onset of muscle relaxation, and a reduction in the time to maximum effect compared with THC alone. The THC-free extract or cannabidiol (CBD) caused no inhibition of spasticity. SCE was a more potent and again more rapidly-acting anticonvulsant than isolated THC, but in this model, the THC-free extract also exhibited anticonvulsant activity. Cannabidiol did not inhibit seizures

Centre for Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically the idea that they are creating strains WITHOUT THC is bunk.  There is no such thing. They have created strains without CBD but I think THC is the precursor to CBD?  If not I have heard from a lot of people that they can get it down to .2 or .3% THC but can't make anything without it. So no matter what strain you use there is some THC and therefore an entourage effect.  unless you're getting purified extracts.

 

Weird, your link led me to this.  I don't see the above quote in the link you supplied.

 

Medicinal cannabis: is delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol necessary for all its effects?

Abstract

Cannabis is under clinical investigation to assess its potential for medicinal use, but the question arises as to whether there is any advantage in using cannabis extracts compared with isolated Delta9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta9THC), the major psychoactive component. We have compared the effect of a standardized cannabis extract (SCE) with pure Delta9THC, at matched concentrations of Delta9THC, and also with a Delta9THC-free extract (Delta9THC-free SCE), using two cannabinoid-sensitive models, a mouse model of multiple sclerosis (MS), and an in-vitro rat brain slice model of epilepsy. Whilst SCE inhibited spasticity in the mouse model of MS to a comparable level, it caused a more rapid onset of muscle relaxation, and a reduction in the time to maximum effect compared with Delta9THC alone. The Delta9THC-free extract or cannabidiol (CBD) caused no inhibition of spasticity. However, in the in-vitro epilepsy model, in which sustained epileptiform seizures were induced by the muscarinic receptor agonist oxotremorine-M in immature rat piriform cortical brain slices, SCE was a more potent and again more rapidly-acting anticonvulsant than isolated Delta9THC, but in this model, the Delta9THC-free extract also exhibited anticonvulsant activity. Cannabidiol did not inhibit seizures, nor did it modulate the activity of Delta9THC in this model. Therefore, as far as some actions of cannabis were concerned (e.g. antispasticity), Delta9THC was the active constituent, which might be modified by the presence of other components. However, for other effects (e.g. anticonvulsant properties) Delta9THC, although active, might not be necessary for the observed effect. Above all, these results demonstrated that not all of the therapeutic actions of cannabis herb might be due to the Delta9THC content.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14738597

 

Basically showing the entourage effect.  Different amounts of different cannabinoids work differently.  Some modulate, mute or multiply the effects of THC and some work better with or without each other.

  I don't understand why it has to be a contest.  It's all medicine and eventually we'll be able to figure out how it all interreacts with each other. One is only better than the other depending on YOUR specific disease.  It's all subjective but some cancers, epilepsy etc responds better to different ratios of cannabinoids.

Edited by ANHEMP
cristinew likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBD is likely the most abundant cannabinoid, nearly 40% of a cannabis plant’s resin.

 

where do they get this number? i havent seen any plant with 40% cbd so far.

Edited by bax
cristinew and ANHEMP like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from some random hemp farm website about hemp strain:

 

cbd (cannabidiol) is the main legal active substance in industrial hemp and is found mainly in the inflorescence of the hemp plant with concentrations varying widely between 0% and 3%.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Medicinal cannabis: is delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol necessary for all its effects?

Abstract

Cannabis is under clinical investigation to assess its potential for medicinal use, but the question arises as to whether there is any advantage in using cannabis extracts compared with isolated Delta9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta9THC), the major psychoactive component. We have compared the effect of a standardized cannabis extract (SCE) with pure Delta9THC, at matched concentrations of Delta9THC, and also with a Delta9THC-free extract (Delta9THC-free SCE), using two cannabinoid-sensitive models, a mouse model of multiple sclerosis (MS), and an in-vitro rat brain slice model of epilepsy. Whilst SCE inhibited spasticity in the mouse model of MS to a comparable level, it caused a more rapid onset of muscle relaxation, and a reduction in the time to maximum effect compared with Delta9THC alone. The Delta9THC-free extract or cannabidiol (CBD) caused no inhibition of spasticity. However, in the in-vitro epilepsy model, in which sustained epileptiform seizures were induced by the muscarinic receptor agonist oxotremorine-M in immature rat piriform cortical brain slices, SCE was a more potent and again more rapidly-acting anticonvulsant than isolated Delta9THC, but in this model, the Delta9THC-free extract also exhibited anticonvulsant activity. Cannabidiol did not inhibit seizures, nor did it modulate the activity of Delta9THC in this model. Therefore, as far as some actions of cannabis were concerned (e.g. antispasticity), Delta9THC was the active constituent, which might be modified by the presence of other components. However, for other effects (e.g. anticonvulsant properties) Delta9THC, although active, might not be necessary for the observed effect. Above all, these results demonstrated that not all of the therapeutic actions of cannabis herb might be due to the Delta9THC content.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14738597

I understand you may be posting this to make the point that THC is not the full picture of cannabis efficacy (the entourage effect), but it also makes the point that CBD without THC, even with other cannabinoids, is not as effective as whole plant extract with THC, at least when treating MS spasticity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which brings us around to the glaring fact that lab testing for cannabinoids, and guessing their effects on any given patient, is a long way off in the future. Anyone who is advocating for lab testing over individual patient testing is getting the cart before the horse. 

The important testing is still individual testing on a patient and then maybe using some lab results on what worked to extrapolate what might have went on. But in no way does lab testing of cannabinoids tell you the full story of how the cannabinoids will work for an individual. 

william7 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

epilepsy etc responds better to different ratios of cannabinoids.

 

I disagree totally. I have seen a lot of anecdotal evidence that epilepsy can be treated with a very wide range of different cannabinoids and cannabinoid ratios. Some claim high THC works best and others say high CBD works better.

 

What we don't want to do is fall into the thinking, like you have here, that we somehow have gotten a handle on what works when we haven't. It leads to mistakes, false info, false claims, and failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree totally. I have seen a lot of anecdotal evidence that epilepsy can be treated with a very wide range of different cannabinoids and cannabinoid ratios. Some claim high THC works best and others say high CBD works better.

 

What we don't want to do is fall into the thinking, like you have here, that we somehow have gotten a handle on what works when we haven't. It leads to mistakes, false info, false claims, and failure. 

Ummm, the study showed results.  Why would you throw all that info away and start treating someone from scratch. Fact is that certain types of cancers and epilepsy respond better to certain ratios.  NOt ALL epilepsy or ALL cancers like you took my phrase out of context to imply I said.  And with EVERY drug on the mkt, nothing is guaranteed to work the same with everyone.  but these studies show what the most statistically significant method would be.  Some even go further to identify situations in hte body as to how it works.  Thru genetics testing or other lab tests you can even further predict efficacy. 

Your beef isn't with me it's with science and labs and research.  I don't know anything I just read the papers and I'm not the one writing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand you may be posting this to make the point that THC is not the full picture of cannabis efficacy (the entourage effect), but it also makes the point that CBD without THC, even with other cannabinoids, is not as effective as whole plant extract with THC, at least when treating MS spasticity.

I posted it because it's where the link in the OP took me to.  If that original post was somewhere in teh paper he linked the post to I couldn't find it, that is exactly what the link was when I clicked on it.

 

Bravo, your getting it.  Like I've said dozens of times, different combinations of different cannabinoids are good for different things.  Why someone would argue that THC is better than CBD or CBG or THCV is stoooopid.  They all work differently and together or separate.  In healing bones CBD is all that's needed to strengthen the calcium matrix when healing, doesn't matter if THC is present, although I imagine it would for the pain.  Anyone may need different ratios for different ailments or even different ratios throughout the year.  I use a lot more THC in spring, summer and fall than I do in the winter time.  One of my patients uses THC all day and THC/CBD at night.  And in each one there are preferences on different strains for different terpenes.  So saying everything revolves around THC is a very narrow view of the medicine as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which brings us around to the glaring fact that lab testing for cannabinoids, and guessing their effects on any given patient, is a long way off in the future. Anyone who is advocating for lab testing over individual patient testing is getting the cart before the horse. 

The important testing is still individual testing on a patient and then maybe using some lab results on what worked to extrapolate what might have went on. But in no way does lab testing of cannabinoids tell you the full story of how the cannabinoids will work for an individual. 

I didn't see anyone saying that, did you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's because you are thinking about it all wrong.  40% of the total cannabinoid content.

 

Here's another example to help explain it;

 

If the plant material is derived from cannabis plants having a high CBD content (defined as >90% CBD as a percentage of total cannabinoid content)  http://cannabischris.com/2012/10/decarboxylation-of-cannabis/

 

The paper said 40% of a plants resin.  That's more than just cannabinoids and either way, Iron Labs and PSI labs don't reflect that.  Maybe in Hemp they're talkin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, the study showed results.  Why would you throw all that info away and start treating someone from scratch. 

I've been working with cannabis as medicine since the late 70's. The most important thing I've learned in all that experience is you have to start from scratch with each patient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And with all that experience I see a lot of 'people' using lab testing results to extrapolate certain ideas that just don't fit with my experiences. So I continue to listen to patients more than labs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been working with cannabis as medicine since the late 70's. The most important thing I've learned in all that experience is you have to start from scratch with each patient. 

BS, you don't even offer hi CBD, CBD rich, etc. meds.  Your patients have to conform to what you grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And with all that experience I see a lot of 'people' using lab testing results to extrapolate certain ideas that just don't fit with my experiences. So I continue to listen to patients more than labs. 

Who said anything about not listening to patients?

 

And if you are going to treat someone for an internal cancer, you are going to have to listen to the labs as to if the tumor stopped growing, stopped spreading and went away.  Not everything is about a feeling. I don't know what your beef is with testing, labs and science, but get over it.

 

  What are some of these "people" saying about test results that doesn't fit with your "experiences"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about not listening to patients?

I think one of the main reasons for pushback here is the group of states with "medical marijuana" laws that allow "CBD-only" medications (not listening to patients). A law that allows CBD-only medicine is essentially nothing for most medical marijuana patients. I don't think anybody is trying to slight CBD-only medications for those that find them effective, but without THC, medical marijuana is ineffective (not medicine) for the vast majority of patients.

blackhorse and beourbud like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The paper said 40% of a plants resin.  That's more than just cannabinoids and either way, Iron Labs and PSI labs don't reflect that.  Maybe in Hemp they're talkin?

GW pharma thesis paper said they got their cbd plant from commercial mj seeds. not hemp.

 

hemp has been bred for fiber and seed-oil production. its not bred for flower resin like mj is.

cristinew and ANHEMP like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the main reasons for pushback here is the group of states with "medical marijuana" laws that allow "CBD-only" medications (not listening to patients). A law that allows CBD-only medicine is essentially nothing for most medical marijuana patients. I don't think anybody is trying to slight CBD-only medications for those that find them effective, but without THC, medical marijuana is ineffective (not medicine) for the vast majority of patients.

Really, no one trying to slight CBD only meds?  What did you call them?  A fad? What did Resto say?  It gave people headaches and the patients thinking they needed CBD were brainwashed?  Really, you don't think anyone is slighting CBD, Wow.

Well I'm not advocating, voting, etc. for only having access to CBD so...... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GW pharma thesis paper said they got their cbd plant from commercial mj seeds. not hemp.

 

hemp has been bred for fiber and seed-oil production. its not bred for flower resin like mj is.

I have no clue what they're talking about then.  And i don't know where the quote resto put up came from.  Couldn't find it in the link he provided so I don't know where it came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, no one trying to slight CBD only meds?  What did you call them?  A fad? What did Resto say?  It gave people headaches and the patients thinking they needed CBD were brainwashed?  Really, you don't think anyone is slighting CBD, Wow.

Well I'm not advocating, voting, etc. for only having access to CBD so...... ?

I've never heard of a medical marijuana state allowing THC while disallowing CBD. CBD-only medication possession and manufacture is not a problem in any medical marijuana state, to my knowledge.

 

So that's the point, really. What is it you are advocating for? Nobody is denying CBD-only medication to patients in Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of a medical marijuana state allowing THC while disallowing CBD. CBD-only medication possession and manufacture is not a problem in any medical marijuana state, to my knowledge.

 

So that's the point, really. What is it you are advocating for? Nobody is denying CBD-only medication to patients in Michigan.

What the heck are you talking about?  I'm Advocating for people on an MMJ site to not misinform people about the medical effects of CBD.

  No, not really the point.  Copying and pasting one paragraph from an article and not giving the rest of the article which sites evidence to teh contrary is pretty misleading. If they were even from teh same article.  One looks like it was from an article and the link was the paper they took it from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck are you talking about?  I'm Advocating for people on an MMJ site to not misinform people about the medical effects of CBD.

  No, not really the point.  Copying and pasting one paragraph from an article and not giving the rest of the article which sites evidence to teh contrary is pretty misleading. If they were even from teh same article.  One looks like it was from an article and the link was the paper they took it from?

How about this: most patients will not benefit from low-THC, high-CBD medication. That is not misinformation, that is the truth according to both the anecdotes of those I've spoken with on the subject, but also the conclusion of the papers being posted here. There appears to be some level of possible efficacy for patients with certain conditions, but a direct comparison between preparations with and without THC is not really made, nor the conclusion that any beneficial effect seen was due to the CBD present, rather than some other cannabinoid other than THC.

 

My main contention here is that removing the THC from a preparation will hamper or eliminate its effect for 99% of patients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now