Bluelight

Thread: Thoughts on JWH-18 carcinogenicity

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 37 of 37
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #26
    ^There are actually some AAIs that possess exactly what you are asking for, e.g. JWH-081. The list of published AAIs is very long and possibilities are numerous (for example the highest JHW-number that I found is ca. 380, but in this list are several THC-derivatives, too. Not everything with a JWH-prefix is an AAI!).

    There are also bioisosteric replacements known for the naphthalene, which retain activity, but these shall not be part of this discussion. Do some own research


    - Murphy
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #27
    Sorry if this thread is only about 018, couldn't find a general "JWH and health" thread.
    ok i'm no chemic pro

    I am smoking blends (or JWH/CP's) since 3 - 4 years now. I bet lot of people did more, kinda good i can't afford it every time. However, it was not a little.


    2 months ago i was doing some health check because of interest. Too bad i wasn't directly talking from it to the doc.

    - Lung check showed up nothing, all fine. Standard slight smokers signs. I am a strong cigarette and bong smoker.

    - Blood check also showed up nothing, no carcinogenic markers and nothing related bad stuff.

    - Liver data meant i have a bit increased liver value. bet it was the JWH-xxx depleting - of course taking longer than THC.

    - When on JWH, blood pressure goes down

    Still i would like to know if JWH is reacting aggressive to the liver or just passive - kinda "wholesome". and does really 100% of the compound come out?
    I am sometimes trying to eat raw garlic and drinking much water, but i don't know if this makes much sense.

    By the way, did anybody measure what is given free when burning JWH? Toxic stuff or something?
    Last edited by Sysemic; 20-07-2010 at 04:01.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #28
    Which of the JWHs are currently believed to produce the least amount of risk to the user?
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #29
    Jwh-250 (among many others) lacks the napthalene whch some suspect is dangerous. But all this is pretty speculative, they could all be safe. Or dangerous.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #30
    It looks like napthalene hits the CYP1A1 substrate on cytochrome P450, which also processes a few related xenobiotics. At least it seems unlikely to produce potentiation or other interactions.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #31
    Quote Originally Posted by fryingsquirrel View Post
    Jwh-250 (among many others) lacks the napthalene whch some suspect is dangerous. But all this is pretty speculative, they could all be safe. Or dangerous.
    Among which others por favor
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Volcano View Post
    Among which others por favor
    jwh-030,051,133,147,171,203,307,359. I realize many of these are not commercially available (yet) and not all will prove recreational. Then there is the win and cp stuff. There are tons of these things, people will be sorting through them for years.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #33
    I've read some research about jwh-081 showing it doesn't seem very harmfull or harmfull at all. At least not cancerogenic. Anyway, could anyone post the research since I've seem to have lost it?
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #34
    It is now confirmed that the metabolim of JWH-18 produces epoxides: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838779


    Diagram: http://img155.imageshack.us/f/analbi...m2010398p.jpg/


    How much epoxides are made and how they interact is still unknown.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #35
    Bluelighter Hyperthesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    In the epicenter of the force.
    Posts
    191
    No need to double-post. See this thread: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=537252
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #36
    Would JWH-018 likely produce the same anti-cancer effects as WIN 55,212-2?

    I have three studies in PDF format which demonstrate that WIN 55,212-2 effectively inhibits tumor growth and metastasis in lung, glioma, thyroid, lymphoma, skin, pancreas, uterus, breast and prostate carcinoma at up to 71% from the controls.

    Seeing as they both share the naphthalene ring does this mean it may not be so worrisome after all?

    I can upload the PDF's if anyone is interested.

    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #37
    what do you guys think about jwh-211?... no ones really said anything about it.
    any input how what you guys would GUESS about the toxicity of this compound?

    i blasted about 30mg of it this week and i put it down after reading this post...lol
    the other post about "jwh freak-outs" did not really worry me so much..


    and am-2201

    whats up with that ? lol
    same questions i guess...

    thanks guys
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •