100x stronger than cbd?
I sure hope so because it didn’t do anything for me personally. (cbd)
Any consumer reports? Or links to this Charles Rivers study / preclinical trial?
I feel like noids are coming out faster than consumer reports lol
100x the strength, but how much cbd to get to h4cbd? Mmmm science
Someone help me perceive how this synthetic is 100x cbd in value??
I love the concept of just hydrogenating anything and calling it a product. At this point its easier to just consult on how to hydrogenate cannabinoids than to bother hydrogenating product yourself.
100x product
Definitely made more selling the SOP then preforming the SOP 
same, but only if my clients actually pay their invoices. which it turns out requires an SOP or a sequence of miracles.
i’d like to take a gram dab of this for science
lol @ fentycbd
I wanna watch for science.
so… if CBD gets you 0.0001% high this will get you 0.001% high?
@moveweight Thanks for your interest in our new cannabinoid. We are very excited about it’s potential to shake up the non-intoxicating market.
H4CBD demonstrates a 100x greater binding affinity for your CB1 receptor (Ki = 145nm) than CBD (Ki = >10um).
This puts H4CBD in the same realm as CBN in terms of its psychotropic potential, maybe a little more potent. However, since H4CBD is an oil at 99% purity, it’s vape ready unlike CBN. With the ability to inhale this product in pure form, it offers a “CBD you can feel” to the average CBD user. If you are a THC user you’ll likely find this product underwhelming, which is OK it’s not made to compete with THC. If you’re a frequent CBD user and you don’t use THC, you’ll be blown away by H4CBD.
H4CBD also demonstrates greater anti-inflammatory properties than CBD as well. This study investigated macrophage production of ROI, NO and TNF-Alpha. The study indicates that H4CBD demonstrates greater anti-inflammatory bio markers than traditional CBD.
H4CBD is psychoactive, but not intoxicating, similar to caffeine or nicotine in that regard. It is 100x more potent than CBD at your CB1 receptor and also has greater anti-inflammatory properties than CBD. It’s all around a better, more potent CBD. This cannabinoid will slowly replace traditional CBD because it’s CBD that works.
If you’d like to check out the safety studies, please scan the QR code in the bottom right hand corner of the attached picture. It will take you to a link with our COAs as well as a summary of the work preformed by Charles River Laboratories.
@eyeworm The reason this is a “new product” is because there is actually a lot of work that goes on behind the scene beyond just “hydrogenating cbd and sell it” like everyone else does in this industry.
We first made the H4CBD, then figured out a method that was patentable, filed our patent, make the purified diastereomers, get them certified into CRMs by an ISO17034 accredit standard manufacturer, get those standards to an ISO17025 accredited testing laboratory, they need to develop the testing methods and get them verified, finally get a 3rd party COA, run 3rd party consumer safety studies through Charles River Laboratories to try and protect public safety, compile all of this information and develop marketing materials.
So yes this is a new product that has undergone rigerous testing and will change the CBD game forever. Sorry if it’s not “innovative” enough by your standards, if you have something better to launch, I’d love to see it. I doubt you have anything more interesting though and you’ll probably just jump on the train and copy our product and sell it yourself, just like you did with HHC.
I would call this more of a vetted product than a “new product”. Regardless great work going through all the hoops to make a safe and effective product.
lol, go off king. “Copy” might be a little generous considering I’d been making HHC for half a decade while your best and brightest was either still in school/consulting people to pick up and throw exotherming reactions into cold ice baths haha. What’s the plan when you run out of low hanging fruit and old chemistry?
The CofA shows a 2:1 mix of diastereomers, but there’s no differentiation in either the J. Med. Chem. paper or the Charles River study about which diastereomer is responsible for activity or cytotoxicity profile. What’s the CB1 activity for the R and S diastereomer?
and have either been evaluated on their own for negative effects?
As far as I can tell we might be the first to analyze the two isomers separately in one sample.
I think you are right on that. I have looked at a ton of COAs and have not yet seen a separation of R and S reported.
These are the closest we’ve found to what you’re looking for:
Ben-Shabat, S., Hanuš, L. O., Katzavian, G., and Gallily, R. (2006). New cannabidiol
derivatives: synthesis, binding to cannabinoid receptor, and evaluation of
their antiinflammatory activity. J. Med. Chem. 49, 1113–1117. doi: 10.1021/
jm050709m
and
An Overview on Medicinal Chemistry of Synthetic and Natural Derivatives of Cannabidiol.pdf (2.0 MB)
How did you establish identity?
ISO 17034 accredited certification of the standards through use of NMR
Lol…
Binding affinity is not “Strength” or “Potency”.
Weak and partial agonists at receptors often have higher potency or more interesting actions.
Definitely misleading marketing copy and asking for an FDA warning letter.
