Solventless Water Soluble Extract - wanting opinions and to gauge interest

Hash and Stuff Extraction
, ,
1

Good day all -

I have been a member of this forum for a minute now, mostly reading and occasionally chiming in. For the most part I’ve kept to the growing side of things as this is where my business and life is more focused.

Anyway, I’ve also spent a good deal of time in my life studying extraction and chemistry (in the field - not in university, that is) from a perspective of food science and nutritional products. I’ve had the opportunity to learn from and work with some amazing and gifted folk.

Recently, a mentor of mine came around and we began doing some experimental processing of some cbd-rich hemp using technique and material discovered and developed by this fellow. He has a western background in science and is a pHD, however he also has extensive training in a very ancient medicine path, natural/herbal/entheogenic plant medicine. To me he is the embodiment of a modern day alchemist. His insight into life below the level of the cell, elemental building blocks of life and their interactions, is quite deep.

So, through some trials and experimenting, we developed a method to extract the active element from the hemp and leave behind the carbon and chlorophyll. He refers to the method as plasma extraction. No chemicals or solvents are involved. Nor is it a method of mechanical separation. Using certain platinum group elements, those elements [importantly] being in an enzymatically active form, we were able to create an extract directly from fresh material which is high in CBD and also completely water soluble. Nothing added to the extract to create solubility. It just came out from the extraction as water soluble.

At first I wasn’t exactly sure what we’d done and guessed perhaps we’d actually left behind most of the oils in our extraction. However, initial lab tests have come back at 51.9% total CBD, with 38.8% CBDA and 17.8% CBD. Also 2.0% total THC.

The color of it is dark, almost black, like old school afghani hash or something. The texture can be between completely dried out, brittle and ready to be brought down into a powder, to slightly gooey and stretchy depending on how much we dry it down. Under the microscope it looks really cool.

It dissolves very readily into water. The taste isn’t great but it’s waaaaay better than the taste of crude or something similar. In fact if you put it in water and add a bit of acid to it, it almost tastes neutral. Very easy to drink. The effects of it seem to onset very quickly.

I could see a whole range of applications for this material. Has anyone else played around to make a hemp/cannabis extract that retains it’s enzyme value from the fresh plant, in terms of bioavailability? I’m just wondering what this community thinks in general of this. Cheers.

IMG_0021
IMG_00213024×4032 1.4 MB

IMG_0910
IMG_09103024×4032 1.97 MB

IMG_0426
IMG_04263024×4032 1.58 MB

IMG_2619
IMG_26193024×4032 1.1 MB

IMG_5054
IMG_5054750×1334 131 KB

8 Likes
2

Do you have any metals testing yet?
You should give this a try on high THC material.
Is this method reproducible?

1 Like
3

interesting, keep us updated.

1 Like
4

I would have some deep concern about this product without further transparency. Enzymatically active platinum group element could mean anything. Cisplatin would be an example and despite medical use it wrecks you. Others are positively noxious. There is much left to be asked if you want to claim this is a health product.

2 Likes
5

Curious what CRC would do

2 Likes
6

Can you explain what is the issue a hit more @MagisterChemist

7

I can understand feeling that way. I try to be as transparent as possible honestly some of the deeper chemistry stuff my mentor is into is a bit over my head right now. I know Rhodium is a very important aspect of the extraction, and Ruthenium and Osmium also play a part.

I suppose it could mean anything. What I intend for it to mean, as far as my understanding goes, is that all the elements on the periodic chart have an active and an inactive form, you could say. You have elements in your blood and tissue for example which are platinum, gold, silver, etc, yet not in the diatomic, heavy metal form we primarily focus on in scientific undertakings. They are in a living state, in a sense. Maybe it sounds woo-woo, and my understanding of it is definitely novice, however I can tell you there’s definite legitimacy to the science. It’s only a matter of time before a science emerges as more mainstream in order to study elements more in a living state versus a passive, or “dead” state. There’s gold chunks of rock, and there’s also suspended gold in fluids like water which has totally different behaviors than the metal. Does that make any sense?

I know the elements were derived from a particular specie of lichen found in a particular environment. They are not derived from metals themselves. Lichens are organisms with the ability to make inorganic element bioavailable, as I understand.

I’ll get metals testing soon as I can just to be safe. The method is reproducible although the results from different batches were variable. I’d do my best to answer any question and I am making no claims about this as a nutritional or health product I just find it really cool & interesting and wanted to share with who I consider the most intelligent community on the subject of extraction. If something more comes of it that’s great, right now it’s a novel study.

4 Likes
8

You’re not wrong, but the issue is that metals being active is not necessarily a good thing. Organic metallic compounds, indeed, are commonly some of the most fatally toxic compounds known. If the metal is dangerous then it’s organic forms have a strong likelihood to be far worse, for instance mercury is bad enough but the organic methylmercury will kill with a single drop.

For instance let’s look as Osmium. Well, osmium is not too terrible in what you’d call “dead” (or really, pure) form, but if you derive what you might call a more active form, Osmium Tetraoxide, that’s a terrible noxious chemical. Or a “water soluble” version could be Potassium Osmate – I look at the SDS and see a laundry list of safety concerns including single exposure organ damage. Silver is inert and safe but colloidal silver is more bioactive – and kills many lifeforms, hence it’s use as a disinfectant and pesticide.

Taking elements that might be toxic by themselves and then aiming to make them more bioavailable, in the theory that you’re improving them somehow, is a dangerous road. I’m not saying it’s woo i’m saying it’s deeply concerning.

1 Like
9

Well you are obviously very intelligent and well educated on the subject.

I’d love to listen in on a conversation between you and this mentor of mine.

One thing is, the material he is using which contains these elements, was not derived from the elements themselves (as in, not derived from an ingot of Rhodium or something), but rather from the biological tissue of a living organism, specifically a lichen. I know the lichen itself is benign. Nothing has been chemically altered about the material derived from the lichen.

Also, the intention was not to make those element more bioavailable but rather to use these elements as catalysts.

In any case, I’d be happy to send you, or anyone else here involved in lab work, a sample to look at and play with and analyze or whatever, if you’re interested.

Just DM me where to send it to.

3 Likes
10

Well it is somewhat woo as you say. Metals active versus inactive is pretty broad biologically. At its simplest you may be talking about the difference between metallic form and ionic form of some metals but then having derivation from some lichen in a certain environment well that opens it up. Lichens can bioaccumulate from soil and even plants so what is essential to your process is perhaps unknowable. But certainly if it is discoverable it would require lab experimentation to tease it out. Too bad everything to do with this plant today has a dollar sign on it because it stifles discovery and eliminates peer review. That’s where academia has a huge advantage historically. But some academicians are moving this way as well after being funded with public money.

1 Like
11

LOL you think academia pushes knowledge forward?? :rofl:

Academia is perhaps the most corrupt and non-biased forum for learning information. Discoveries are made in the field, not behind classroom doors. Academia is a result of the take-over of an open source learning forum by forces wishing to push forward their own agendas.

Ye I know it sounds woo to anyone who has never been introduced to the idea. However, it remains a fact that it worked.

Rhodium, Ruthenium, Osmium, and Iridium all play very important biologic roles in your body and blood, and in the body and blood of many living things. I forgive science for thinking the pure form of these elements is as a metal, because it is not.

12

Anyway though, like I said I’d send a sample to play with analyze do whatever you want with, to anyone who asks.

2 Likes
13

well youre correct here on the second part of the statement, although you probably meant to say biased not nonbiased.

i honestly dont know where to begin with you. lets just get some facts out there.

  1. academia is the only reason that the world is where it is. it is the embodiment of the knowledge of all of humanity. that you are somehow jilted by this… you obviously have other personal factors involved. probably that you havent been to school yourself…
  2. you seem to have this idea (that is not rooted in any sort of reality) that theres a large difference between field work and classroom work, as if theyre really two separate things… theyre one in the same. i mean you didnt even have to tell us you havent been to school, we can tell. i can fill you in on this particular part though. so we do these things called labs, right, where, after you learn a topic in the classroom, you go to a laboratory, and you do experiments. you get to do the thing you just learned about.
    now lets examine your superior approach. you are working - clocked in paying bills, and you see something happen. wow, cool, i wonder if whats happening is- oh fuck i just spilled all my shit and now the boss is gonna fire me and i forgot about the – cause i was thinking up in my head. what were you just learning? what if your conclusion is wrong?

actually, not only are you salty that you dont have an education, youre a conspiracy theorist as well. now i know im talking to a sane person.

who do you think would be analyzing this? lmfao.

14

now im putting on MY tin foil hat. we got a cop here boys! dont let him send you that hot shit!

15

Wow first time in my life I’ve been accused of being a cop lol. Nice.

I did go to university, just not for science. I went for music. We all know how cutting edge the university music scene is right. :laughing:

I don’t have a job. I haven’t had a job in a long time. I use my creative ability to find ways to survive on my own.

There are many things you can do in the field which you cannot do in the classroom. There is nothing you can do in a classroom which you cannot do in the field. Hence, innovation occurs in the field.

When I say “the field”, that is not mutually exclusive with a lab setting. Only it means a laboratory not operating within the confines of academia.

You think academia is the sum of all knowledge of humanity? Perhaps the knowledge of all white Europeans, minus some few important things that are not to be taught. Like who owns the growth of the hundred dollar bill.

Anyway, I really don’t understand this part:

“now lets examine your superior approach. you are working - clocked in paying bills, and you see something happen. wow, cool, i wonder if whats happening is- oh fuck i just spilled all my shit and now the boss is gonna fire me and i forgot about the – cause i was thinking up in my head. what were you just learning? what if your conclusion is wrong?”

??? Clocked in paying bills? I don’t clock in nor do I have any kind of work where my job is to pay bills. Nor do I have a boss. So I’m confused what point you’re trying to make here?

I gotta laugh at being called a conspiracy theorist. Is that supposed to be some kind of insult? Because that phrase is meant to automatically induce a preprogrammed response in who hears it, right? So you call me a “conspiracy theorist”, then after that it’s ok to toss everything I say out the window, because apparently I’m this thing you called me and therefore I’m a moron, right? Cool.

You’re right, the world is exactly as it seems, there’s no puppeteering going on (conspiring) behind the scenes, academia is the pinnacle of all knowledge, and I’m a cop.

1 Like
16

You can assuredly use the abundant resources and tools provided by the academic setting in universities to advance your knowledge.

So it’s not to say university training automatically means anything negative. Only that it is very limited. There is also very little to no cross-disciplinary application of knowledge, which severely limits capacity for understanding broad concepts.

As you said yourself in your sarcastic and condescending explanation of university, first, in the classroom, you are set up with the expectation of what you are going to test and observe in the lab. Then you go to the lab and follow instructions. This is not a discovery process of learning. This is a continuation of the memorization/repetition process of learning taught in grade school. It’s a limitation on discovery actually as often knowledge is presented as being complete when it is not.

17

RedDog, let me apologize for upsetting you I did not wish to insinuate that academia is superior to any approach at all. I actually think it is complementary to a more empiric approach. I simply meant to suggest in areas of academia where researchers are fully supported and where commercial connections are viewed as tainted and intrinsically biased the end goal of research is to make discoveries and publish them first and best. So discoveries can be freely shared and explored without thinking that someone will monetize your work. I freely admit that is an old fashioned idea but it’s where my chemistry background started. People were pretty tight lipped until papers were published then they shouted from the highest mountain available what they have found. Science moved far and fast with that approach. Industry doesnt allow that to happen behind IP protection so deep discoveries are slower and less communal. That’s all I am saying nothing more.

18

again, we get it, you didnt go to school.
this is gonna blow your mind, another part of school is something often called a capstone project. this involves a research project, an internship, among other things. not to mention, you can use the lab anytime you want. my research project involved a novel mechanism for an organic molecule that displays antibacterial properties. i spent ~6 months with the ochem dept head, a published chemist, doing completely new work of my own design. i had the world at my fingertips - state of the art lab, completely funded chemicals, direction from a brilliant chemist, a setting among hundreds of other aspiring chemists and a team of professors with combined hundreds oh years of FIELD WORK, literally anything and everything you could possibly need and want. and i learned.

and that was just under-grad :slight_smile:

donkey of the day.

oh and

this explains a lot lol. id be mad too if i wasted all that money.

19

Regardless of the relevance and quality of academia I’m wondering wtf lichen and precious metals catalysis plus maybe enzymatic digestion could possibly do to just create an water soluble extract just like that…

20

I mean I’m one of the few chemists who put a lot of time studying fungi, and lichen biochemistry and I’m going to go ahead and say without a video showing this product being made and then dissolving in water it’s gotta be bs

2 Likes