Heres a pretty comprehensive assessment of CBG from the farm in S Oregon I work with
The link won’t open in my drive.
1 Like
Me too
1 Like
These guys killed it with this. Im just reading healing cbd and they highlighted a lot of stuff from that book. Everyone should read this and get up to speed.
3 Likes
Fantastic read, Hemptown should be proud of this … but check this … being the perfectionist I am, one thing that jumped off the page to me is the bioavailability chart.
Ive done alot of R&D both with patients, friends and myself on sublingual dosing and in my experience it does do not peak for or at 70 mins of 2hrs and 45 mins with a regular consumer dose. The onset does look correct but I dont know anyone having a comedown of 5 hours unless they greened out on a lollipop
Am I alone on this ? or did i read the chart wrong after too many dabs ?
Other than that … great whitepaper & thanks for the post
2¢,
Peace
“it does do not peak for or at 70 mins of 2 hrs and 45 mins”.
Could you explain that more?
nice and informative
Sure, I was pretty dabbed out lastnight but It still jumps out to me today. (totally sober lol)
Onset, When I take a sublingual, I start to feel the effects in about 10-20 mins & this checks out according to the graph.
Peak, The chart on the left of the graph suggests I will reach my maximum high at about 70min’s but this does not make sense because the height of the high is about 2hrs and 45mins into the 4hr and 50min total duration according to the chart on the bottom.
Duration, I know the traceability of the active compound stays in vivo much longer than 5 hours via metabolism, so the duration must be referring to the intoxicating or psychoactive effect. In all my experiences a 50mg sublingual does not last 5 hours… unless the person is hyper sensitive or allergic to the active compound.
I know I am splitting hairs here but good info is so hard to find these days.
So, I guess I am more questioning the chart vs my own research and less the research done by HempTown
1 Like
@QGA what do you think about this paper? Saw some stuff in there I’d wager you’d want to comment on.
Yes, thanks for the shoutout.
I repeat, this is not a scientific paper, nor is future claiming it to be so if anyone is reading this and believing everything, please be cautious. This is designed as a business model or salesmen ship, much of the information is probably okay but I guarantee there is some bogus stuff in there so always, if you have time of course go through the pamphlet and read the studies where they have links provided. If it is some blog post most likely it is bullshit.
It is a decent conscience digestable document but in no way is scientifically rigorous, do with it whatever you like. Again, no digs at future because he is simply sharing information and not claiming this doc to be scientifically rigorous, it is a marketing gimicky document.
2 Likes
How is aggregating known scientific literature into a digestible summary a gimmick?
If you care to probe more i can keep going but to begin the first citation link goes to a blog post… second you bring up a citation from a podcast hosted by some california “cannabis researcher as a citation”. Also this thing is not peer reviewed or published in any decent journal so to me it is gimmicky. However digestable and okay for a public information it is gimmicky and not science.
Lastly, you cite Russso’s work. Russo is not a scientist he is a business man and works for GW pharma which is the beginnings of big pharma in cannabis and for some reason the hippies like him now. His research collects no real data and all he does is review other reviews and make logical fallacies to proliferate his cannabis cures all platform to grow his stock.
Future, the article is good baby i am just saying its a bit gimmicky and not up to scientific standards. If its not pure unadulterated science for my head, someone is probably trying to sell me something, therefore gimmicky.
1 Like
Part 8, page 39, cites a good number of CBG studies from across the board, no?
To be clear, I had no input on the creation of this paper.
Also, first I’ve ever heard of Russo not being a scientist…