Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Grow Hack: What Is Cannabigerol [CBG]?

By Sirius J · Fri Mar 13, 2015

 

Here's a bite-sized primer on cannabigerol, commonly known as CBG, and its place on the forefront of cannabinoid research.

What is CBG?


IMG_20140810_003225

Scientists first discovered cannabigerol, or CBG, in 1964 as a constituent of hashish. In 1975, researchers found out CBGA (the acid form of CBG) is the first cannabinoid formed in the plant; the first expression of cannabis’ unique class of constituents. From there, CBGA gets transformed into THCA, CBDA or CBCA by the action of enzymes. CBGA is the essential precursor for all the cannabinoids we know and love.

Does CBG get you high?
While mostly regarded as a non-psychoactive cannabinoid, technically the jury is still out on this one. Until someone dabs purified CBG, we won’t know what ingesting significant amounts of it actually does. CBG needs higher temperatures to vaporize.

What does the medical research say about CBG?
Just recently in January 2015, researchers discovered that CBG had neuroprotective effects in mice with Huntington’s Disease, a disease characterized by the degeneration of nerve cells in the brain. CBG slowed down progression of colon cancer in mice, a promising result that may soon lead to a new treatment method. Evidence suggests CBG is a highly potent alpha-2-adrenoceptor agonist and moderately potent 5-HT1A-receptor antagonist, giving it a wide range of potential therapeutic potential as an antidepressant, for the treatment of psoriasis, and as an analgesic.

In spite of all the good research, in one study CBG reversed CBD’s antiemetic properties by interacting with it at the 5-HT1A-receptor site.

Where do I find CBG?
CBG is minor cannabinoid in pretty much all varieties of Cannabis, generally less than 1%. Nevertheless, narrow-leafleted drug strains from the Indian-subcontinent, were found to have slightly higher levels of CBG than others. Without becoming a landrace strain hunter, relatively high amounts of CBG can be extracted from budding plants about three-quarters of the way through flowering. Information on CBG content throughout flowering can be gathered from an analysis done on Bediol®, a medicinal strain produced by Bedrocan BV Medicinal Cannabis, a Dutch supplier of research grade pot. They flowered the Bediol® for eight weeks and analyzed the content of different cannabinoids every week; CBG was the highest at week 6.

What is the future for CBG?
Another puzzle piece in the story of medical cannabis, research on CBG is certain to continue. As consumer interest in CBG rises as well, breeders will soon be on the case of making a high-CBG strain.

CONTINUE READING…

Friday, March 20, 2015

Pa. Justices Deny McNeil's Appeal in $10M Motrin Case

 

 

 

 

The state Supreme Court has denied an appeal by the maker of Children’s Motrin in a case that resulted in a $10 million verdict for a family of a 3-year-old severely injured after taking several doses of the medicine.

The ruling Wednesday denying allocatur in Maya v. Johnson & Johnson followed a July 2014 decision by the Superior Court upholding the damages for injuries the child suffered that included being left blind in one eye, damage to her reproductive system and permanent disfigurement of much of her skin.

The $10 million in compensatory damages was awarded by a Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas jury against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary McNeil on the claim that the drugmaker failed to adequately warn of the risks of taking over-the-counter Children’s Motrin. The jury did not award punitive damages nor did it find that Children’s Motrin was negligently designed.

On appeal to the Superior Court, McNeil argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because its warning label was drafted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The pharmaceutical company argued it couldn’t have been found negligent for not including in its list of symptoms “skin reddening,” “rash” and “blisters” when it wasn’t required to do so by the FDA.

But Superior Court Judge Kate Ford Elliott said in her 37-page opinion that the company was mistaken, citing to the court’s 2011 ruling in Daniel v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, in which the court rejected a federal pre-emption argument and found it was the manufacturer that bears responsibility for providing an adequate label.

McNeil further argued on appeal that Brianna Maya failed to show her use of Children’s Motrin was the cause of her symptoms, Ford Elliott said. The company argued Maya’s mother testified she would have relied on the doctor’s advice to administer the drug regardless of what the warning said.

But Ford Elliott said the mother testified she would not have given the drug had the warning label contained the word “blisters” or warned of skin rashes.

“Therefore, there was testimony that an adequate warning would have prevented Brianna from receiving the last four or five doses of Children’s Motrin,” Ford Elliott said. “Moreover, two of [Maya's] expert witnesses testified that stopping the Children’s Motrin sooner would have substantially improved Brianna’s prognosis.”

Ford Elliott went on in her opinion to reject some claims by McNeil related to the jury instructions given at trial. She did find in favor of the drug company on one such argument, however, but ultimately determined the trial court’s error didn’t warrant a new trial.

McNeil argued the trial court mistakenly told the jury that it could consider the conduct of other pharmaceutical manufacturers whose drugs were taken off the market when the court should have said the jury could “not” consider such evidence.

“Ultimately, however, the issue does not compel a new trial because McNeil was not prejudiced by the trial court’s alleged mistake,” Ford Elliott said. “As [the Mayas] point out, the instruction really only pertains to their claims for negligent design defect and punitive damages, both of which the jury resolved in favor of McNeil.”

Alfred W. Putnam Jr. of Drinker Biddle & Reath represented McNeil during the appeals process. He declined to comment on the Supreme Court’s decision.

Howard Bashman of Willow Grove argued the case on appeal for the Mayas and Keith Jensen of Jensen & Associates in Fort Worth, Texas, represented them at trial. Bashman said he was pleased the court denied review given it wasn’t a case for which he felt review was warranted.

Jensen had said at the time of the Superior Court ruling that Maya was the first verdict holding McNeil liable for failure to warn consumers of the symptoms of deadly skin diseases allegedly caused by Motrin.

Maya, now a teenager, was given doses of Children’s Motrin when she was 3 years old in alternation with over-the-counter Children’s Tylenol because she had a fever over the course of two-and-a-half days, according to the trial court’s opinion.

On the morning of the third day, Maya was taken to a local hospital in Martin, Tennessee, because of a rapidly spreading rash over her entire body, including blisters on her mouth, chest and vaginal area, according to the opinion. She underwent several forceful debridements of her skin, followed by skin grafts of pig skin or skin from cadavers, because of the risk of infection from so many open wounds and blisters.

Two days after being taken to the hospital, Maya was transferred to Shriners Burns Hospital in Texas, according to the opinion. At that point, 84.5 percent of Maya’s body was estimated to be covered with open wounds.

Maya’s injuries were not from burns, however, but from Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, which is part of the same disease process in which the human body attacks its own skin and mucous membranes, according to the opinion.

The medical staff at Shriners determined that Maya’s use of pediatric ibuprofen, or Children’s Motrin, was the cause of her disease, according to the opinion.

Maya has undergone 16 eye surgeries, and she required surgery to stop her menses from backing up in her abdomen, according to the opinion.

Gina Passarella can be contacted at 215-557-2494 or at gpassarella@alm.com. Follow her on Twitter @GPassarellaTLI.

Read more: http://www.law.com/sites/articles/2015/03/19/pa-justices-deny-mcneils-appeal-in-10m-motrin-case/#ixzz3UvvbtDew

Monday, March 9, 2015

Wall Street has literally "BOUGHT" your and your family's health.

BOUGHT

 

ABOUT THE BOUGHT FILM:

You're about to see how Wall Street has literally "BOUGHT" your and your family's health.

The food, vaccine, drug, insurance and health industry are a multi-BILLION dollar enterprise... focused more on profits than human lives. The BOUGHT documentary takes viewers deep "inside the guts" of this despicable conspiracy...

Featuring exclusive interviews with the world's most acclaimed experts in research, medicine, holistic care and natural health... Bought exposes the hidden (and deadly) story behind it all.

 

 

PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK AND WATCH THE TRUTH EXPOSED!