-
CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
[MEGA] JWH-018 Thread
- Thread starter Estimated Prophet
- Start date
- Status
MurphyClox
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,416
Agreed!
Overdose and/or long-term use seem to be the major trouble-makers. Overdoses on full CB1-agonists are said to be generally unpleasant!! Therefore, the trip report is credible but still no real surprise to me. - Murphy
Overdose and/or long-term use seem to be the major trouble-makers. Overdoses on full CB1-agonists are said to be generally unpleasant!! Therefore, the trip report is credible but still no real surprise to me. - Murphy
everhopeful
Bluelighter
Reading skills
- My Mummy checks all my words, cause it's tha letterz I have trubbal wif.
- Obviously just being able to read doesn't seem to help your other mental processes.
- The report and press comments from the company that was commissioned to do the testing has more credibility than a secondhand forum post surely?
- Unless they have mislead the German Health Dept, the media and the people who paid them to undertake the testing, THCPharma have publicly stated what was tested and what they found.
- If you know of and have sighted another test and report than the one by THCPharma commissioned by the Frankfurt Council then I am wrong and apologise, but if not, and I have not heard of the Frankfurt Council releasing the report they paid for, then how can you argue against the company that actually did the testing?
- If you have an actual official report then please lets see it, but until anything factual to the contrary is produced, THCPharma etc have facts and data and you have............... oh yeah reading.
- My Mummy checks all my words, cause it's tha letterz I have trubbal wif.
- Obviously just being able to read doesn't seem to help your other mental processes.
- The report and press comments from the company that was commissioned to do the testing has more credibility than a secondhand forum post surely?
- Unless they have mislead the German Health Dept, the media and the people who paid them to undertake the testing, THCPharma have publicly stated what was tested and what they found.
- If you know of and have sighted another test and report than the one by THCPharma commissioned by the Frankfurt Council then I am wrong and apologise, but if not, and I have not heard of the Frankfurt Council releasing the report they paid for, then how can you argue against the company that actually did the testing?
- If you have an actual official report then please lets see it, but until anything factual to the contrary is produced, THCPharma etc have facts and data and you have............... oh yeah reading.
MurphyClox
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,416
Come on guys, please behave, both of you! ![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
ADD is not the place for flaming. Such things can be dealt out in the "Social Club". Over there, people are insulting each other like its sports...
ADD is not the place for flaming. Such things can be dealt out in the "Social Club". Over there, people are insulting each other like its sports.................................... -.-
How many marlboro cigaretts do i have to smoke to get lung cancer ? And how many to get skin cancer ? and what if i stick my finger in my ass while smoking ?
sorry 8) but no one can tell you the answer. Someone in this thread gave a simple explanation, how cancerogenesis works. What kind of answer did you actually expect ? Yes, high risk, 78% ?
I'd say if you smoke 1 cigarette a day for the rest of your life you'll run a high risk of getting cancer.
So what I'm actually asking for is how cancerogenic (or however it's spelled) can jwh-018 be compared to cigarettes?
If it's just as cancerogenic as cigarettes I don't think anyone is worried. If it can be a hundred times more cancerogenic then I prolly wont sleep tight for the rest of my life...
MurphyClox
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,416
illerrre said:
[1] What means "high risk"?
[2] As noted before: Such a comparison IS NOT POSSIBLE. Additionally, the only info that states that the compounds could act cancerogenic comes from one single study. That makes further comparison even more difficult.
I have to emphasize that there is generally NO cut-off value for cancerogenics. You can for example NOT say something like: Inhaling 5 mg benzene won't cause cancer, while 10 mg will do so. That's just not how it works. Repeated and/or prolonged exposure to a cancerogenic substance will increase the risk of getting a tumor. Period. But numbers can't be given. You also have to pay attention to metabolic differences between different individuals...
- Murphy
Surely they can, where studies have been done? I'd imagine a study that looked at frequency of cancers in a population of smokers vs non-smokers, with relevant life-style and inheritance factors included as measured variables, could produce a numerical relationship between number of cigarettes smoked and average increase in risk of cancer. Of course, there would be no cut-off (no cancer below this number of cigarettes, always above it), but there would be a describable relationship. I imagine such studies have been done for tobacco, though I haven't checked, but presumably not yet for the JWHs.
I wonder, and have no idea: is there no way of predicting the sort of relationship between dose received and risk of cancer that would be revealed empirically (by a study like the type I describe above) from the quantity and type of metabolites of a given candidate carcinogen? Didn't someone mention '1000 times as carcinogenic as tobacco'? Is that sort of quantitative estimate invalid?
MurphyClox
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,416
invert said:
What I somehow wanted to say with my last post, and what's actually the answer to your question: Nope, that's not easily possible. I even doubt the calculations done for cigarette-smokers... The problem is that cancer involves a lot of additional factors which can not be considered all at once, like:
- genetic predisposition
- individual differences in enzyme activities
- synergism with other consumed cancerogenics
- over-all lifestyle (stress, sleep pattern, etc.)
- frequency of application
- duration of application
- dosage upon a single application
- consumption of helpful substances (e.g. antioxidants)
...etc...
It's just not possible to give definite values. At most, you could provide tendencies or maybe vague numbers, but I strongly doubt senseless statements like "1 cigarette takes 5 min of your life" (example taken from rainbow press) or "JWH-018 causes cancer when taken more than XYZ times".
The statement 'JWH-018 is ~1000 times as carcinogenic as tobacco' is not backed up by any data known to me and I think it's downright pointless. Dunno who stated this nonsense (= stupid scaremongering deluxe). Therefore the above statement *) is not valid by any means!
Peace! Murphy
I am still wondering about the reliability of Mouse's JHW-018-ADME-study, not because of the data, but where is the intention behind this publication?
Who covered the costs of the study? I cannot imagine that there is someone who has the unselfish idea to make such an analysis just for fun.
What was Mouse's drive?
Who covered the costs of the study? I cannot imagine that there is someone who has the unselfish idea to make such an analysis just for fun.
What was Mouse's drive?
MurphyClox
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,416
Everybody here got his/her intentions to stay anonymous; I'm afraid. I'm curious in this respect, too, but the nature of things just does not allow for open discussion of this.
@deep7: Post more, get a Bluelighter-status and then ask mouse99 via PM. Maybe you get your answer that way... Just an idea.
YO! Murphy
@deep7: Post more, get a Bluelighter-status and then ask mouse99 via PM. Maybe you get your answer that way... Just an idea.
YO! Murphy
sarbanes
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 481
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
no source discussion here
CheshireSmile42
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2
can we just talk the number game? regardless of who or what it may be from.
no - nuke
no - nuke
Last edited by a moderator:
Kenaz
Bluelighter
It depends on, in no particular order:
- exactly how carcinogenic JWH-018 turned out to be
- how genetically predisposed you were to various cancers
- your level of exposure to other carcinogens
- how those carcinogens interacted with JWH-018
To the best of my knowledge, we have no idea of the first or the fourth since there has not been enough research done on JWH-018's carcinogenicity or toxicity. I don't have access to your family's health records going back several generations: neither do I have any idea of whether or not you are a cigarette smoker, have lived in buildings with crumbling asbestos insulation or over a toxic waste dump, etc.
Short answer: I dunno.
Whatsamatau
Bluelighter
Solvernt candidates for JWH-018
A question for you chemists out there. I have lots of unburned product in a light bulb pipe. What would be a good solvent to consolidate all of the product and evaporate off. Would any of these commonly available solvents work?
IPA?
Ethanol?
Methanol?
Acetone?
A question for you chemists out there. I have lots of unburned product in a light bulb pipe. What would be a good solvent to consolidate all of the product and evaporate off. Would any of these commonly available solvents work?
IPA?
Ethanol?
Methanol?
Acetone?
- Status