JWH-018, carcinogenic

MaxFreedom · 13-08-2009, 12:25

I haven't seen this mentioned in any JWH-018 threads, so I felt obliged to make an account and post it. Laboratory tests of JWH-018 on mice produced malignant lung tumors.

http://www.viceland.com/int/v16n2/ht...copeia-610.php

Includes interview with the chemist who invented it. Stay safe, bluelight.

Mitchy=) · 13-08-2009, 14:20

wow, thanks for this very interesting read =]

Lupus · 13-08-2009, 14:57

Its been talked about in depth and im guessing the hamilton in that vice article is the hamilton from these forums (check ADD for his posts).

morphene · 13-08-2009, 15:04

This article is confusing enough to essentially be fear mongering. Note that this article was written in february and contains comments refuting its conclusions. I'm not blaming you as the author of that blog seems to have intended you to draw that conclusion, but it's not actually what he said:

Quote:

JWH-018 has never been tested on humans, but drugs in the same family have been studied on mice. Luckily, it was found to be completely nontoxic. Just kidding! It gave the mice malignant lung tumors.

Emphasis mine. Possibly he's talking about JWH-015 which has been discussed as potentially producing carcinogenic metabolites, although wiki says "there is no evidence to show that JWH-015 or other aminoalkylindole cannabinoids are actually carcinogenic in vivo." I understand wikipedia isn't unimpeachable, however I can't find any references to a study the blog author appears to refer to where a synthetic cannabinoid was shown to cause malignant tumors of any type with any subject.

The author said in clarification:

Quote:

It has been tested on mice, but not on humans. i extrapolated the data from the location of tumors created by other epoxide metabolites of multicyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, the tumors seem to preferentially effect lung tissue. Perhaps I should have been more clear about this, but its boring and complicated and I would not expect most people to care.

-Hamilton

However, I believe this line of thinking being transferred the JWH series has been relatively debunked here at bluelight. Searching for an explanation to quote lead me to coolio saying:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolio

The speculation on JWH-018 being carcinogenic stemmed from the fact that the napthalene ring could form an epoxide intermediate while being metabolized. Just as taking 2C-I can't lead to elemental iodine poisoning, napthalene's carcinogenicity has nothing to do with napthalene-group containing molecules. With the epoxide potentially being discussed, the napthalene moiety in one molecule would form a bond with a napthalene moiety of another JWH-018. No matter how JWH-018 is metabolized, at no point does the napthalene ring become free from the molecule. Or, just as EVERY tryptamine and phenethylamine has a 'benzene' ring. Benzene being a horrible cause of cancer on its own, but when its just a functional group within larger molecules it is NOT a cancer causing agent.

I can't verify that what he says is correct, but I haven't seen it debunked by others on this site that could. There has certainly been a decent amount of discussion about potential carcinogenic risks of some of the JWH series but no actual studies that found it to be true, and I don't believe anyone is saying that they firmly believe JWH-018 or its metabolites will be found to be carcinogenic at recreational or even heroic dosages in humans or rodents.

There has been one toxicology study performed on JWH-018 and was posted here on bluelight in december, however it was almost certainly sponsored by a vendor and thus can be considered suspect. Never the less it makes for interesting reading: http://www.synchronium.net/2009/02/2...18-toxicology/

I'm not suggesting JWH-018 is safe or that you should use it as no conclusive studies have been performed. But I don't think the blog is being honest with you either. I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary however.

MaxFreedom · 13-08-2009, 15:41

That was a really good post, guess I didn't need to warn anyone about anything. I'm personally holding out until they figure out the combustion products, though.

morphene · 13-08-2009, 16:25

Nah, I think it's a good idea to remind people that what they're ingesting isn't well understood, especially considering how popular blends containing JWH-018 and other synthetics have become. I just thought it was important to point out that your title wasn't correct

Personally I'm not a fan of JWH-018 not only because of its unstudied nature but also because of its often reported anxiogenic properties. I have sampled both it and a number of other synthetic cannabinoids and at least for me I found it to be the worst in the potential to produce anxiety and far worse than cannabis itself. It was also rather unpredictable, as 5mg one day could be fine and 5mg the next could result in a wholly unpleasant experience for at least an hour.

Some anecdotal reports here even suggest that panic attacks induced by the drug may have triggered anxiety symptoms that persisted for days or even months after the incident. While cannabis can produce anxiety as well, a combination of the inherent actions of 018 and the high potency seems to make these reactions to JWH both more common and more severe.

In the end I agree with Huffman when he said:

Quote:

Well, I might say, “Why don’t you stick to marijuana, because it’s safer.”

Cheers

Synchronium · 13-09-2009, 12:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphene

There has been one toxicology study performed on JWH-018 and was posted here on bluelight in december, however it was almost certainly sponsored by a vendor and thus can be considered suspect. Never the less it makes for interesting reading: http://www.synchronium.net/2009/02/2...18-toxicology/

Hello,

That's not quite right. I wrote that blog post. While my day job is a vendor of such things, that blog is my own personal blog. Yes, I'll throw a few links around here 'n' there to some of my products and sites, but it's not one big marketing tool; it's just my hobby. No one paid me to write that post.

I originally came across those pdfs of the results on drugs-forum and wrote up an interpretation of them that the general public could understand (I have a pharmacology degree). If my write-up is in any way wrong or suspect, please let me know and I'll modify it. My intention was to display the facts in a friendly way, not post false health advice so I could make a bit more money.

The only thing that's at all suspect was mentioned in the blog post - no one knows where those results actually came from. It seems the person that got those studies done wanted to remain anonymous.

So, my interpretation of the results should be ok, provided that the results themselves are legitimate. I don't think you can ask for more than that?

Cheers,
Synch

EDIT: One more thing... There's quite an interesting discussion on the end of this post of mine. Turns out someone consumed 40-50mg of the stuff. Read from Comment #12.

Greenisthecolour · 05-12-2009, 11:57

This article claims there was a study done that indicates that jwh018 could have an anti-carcinogenic effect. How does this info compare?

Synchronium · 05-12-2009, 14:46

Actually, that's JWH-015.

Quote:

According to Christopher P Evans M.D, who is a Contributing Editor with UroToday.Com, "..investigators have found that JWH-015 inhibited human prostate cancer cell xenograft growth in mice. The study’s conclusion is that CB2 receptor agonists have potential therapeutic application in the treatment of human prostate cancer.

No one knows whether that's applicable to humans, so saying JWH-018 could stop cancer is a bit of a leap of faith.

Greenisthecolour · 05-12-2009, 20:18

Yeah but the topic at hand is whether it causes cancer or not, so would this be evidence to the contrary?

Synchronium · 05-12-2009, 20:34

Probably not evidence for or against, really. It could be the difference between them that means one causes cancer while the other protects against it. It's certainly an interesting story in its own right though.

I should probably mention that any non-carcinogenic findings from those papers I reviewed in that blog post don't account for combustion products. That could be another matter entirely.

Greenisthecolour · 06-12-2009, 14:17

The thing is that a similiar thing is said about 015 being potentially carcinogenic that's said about 018: "JWH-015 has been shown in vitro to be metabolised primarily by hydroxylation and N-dealkylation, and also by epoxidation of the naphthalene ring,[7] similar to the metabolic pathways seen for other aminoalkylindole cannabinoids such as WIN 55,212-2.[8] Epoxidation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can produce carcinogenic metabolites, although there is no evidence to show that JWH-015 or other aminoalkylindole cannabinoids are actually carcinogenic in vivo." Yet a study found that it actually has an anti-cancerous effect. This has no barring on the discussion of 018? I don't know that's why I'm asking.

Falcon0r · 08-12-2009, 01:12

Now when people say it is carcinogenic, does that mean it is more likely to give you cancer than, say, cigarettes?

Because a lot of people smoke cigarettes. I do. I'm sure a lot of people who smoke any JWH do too.

rjoh8930 · 08-12-2009, 07:23

well all of this is kind of pointless and kinda stupid when you think about it like this: you are doing a DRUG!!!!! there have and always be risks associated with doing drugs, and its common sense that the user would know this. even alcohol and cigs can do organ damage or cause cancer. besides im sure smoking all that other crap thats in this "spice"besides the jwh-018 isnt good for your lungs. smoking weed isnt good for your lungs, hell smokin anything cant be good for a person or their lungs.

all in all there are always inheirant health risks ivolved with doing any mind altering drug. a heroin junkie knows how many countless people have overdosed and died from the needle, he may even have a few friends who died from an OD but thats most likley not gonna keep the needle out of his arm.

Greenisthecolour · 08-12-2009, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon0r

Now when people say it is carcinogenic, does that mean it is more likely to give you cancer than, say, cigarettes?

Because a lot of people smoke cigarettes. I do. I'm sure a lot of people who smoke any JWH do too.

I've read it said on this board or another that it's supposedly like thousands of times more cancerous than a cigarette. I don't know if that's true. My point was that 015 has been found to be anti-cancerous in a study as I posted, and the reasons for why people thought it could be cancerous are the same as for 018 I think. But the study shows the opposite for 015.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoh8930

well all of this is kind of pointless and kinda stupid when you think about it like this: you are doing a DRUG!!!!! there have and always be risks associated with doing drugs, and its common sense that the user would know this. even alcohol and cigs can do organ damage or cause cancer. besides im sure smoking all that other crap thats in this "spice"besides the jwh-018 isnt good for your lungs. smoking weed isnt good for your lungs, hell smokin anything cant be good for a person or their lungs.

all in all there are always inheirant health risks ivolved with doing any mind altering drug. a heroin junkie knows how many countless people have overdosed and died from the needle, he may even have a few friends who died from an OD but thats most likley not gonna keep the needle out of his arm.

To say that all drugs are bad and equally bad is not so. Natural cannabis in hash oil form can kill cancer cells and even cure cancer when eaten in large enough amounts. It's not pointless at all to discuss the potential risks and health effects of each individual substance and if it were these kinds of forums wouldn't exist.

tony serro · 08-12-2009, 17:12

I saw this guy's site he's a total piece of shit, doesn't even mention the compounds that are in the shit he sells, selling rcs as "legal speed" and "legal exctasy" this fucker's the reason rc's are getting scheduled, selling them as "safer than e and speed" and u don't even know what you're buying... wow i think I'm gonna take dexedrine now and figure out a way to have this asshole shut down i'm really pissed off

Synchronium · 08-12-2009, 17:53

Tony,

The product you commented on on my site was Am Hi Co's Speed Freak, which are completely herbal as far as I'm aware, especially considering they're less than £1 a pill.

Here is the description:

Quote:

Speed Freak will keep give you plenty of energy all night long, with none of the unpleasant side effects that come with illegal alternatives.

Always read and follow the directions and do not mix with alcohol or other drugs.

Brand: Am Hi Co

Contents: 6 capsules

How does that offend you exactly?

There are over 400,000 results on google for "buy am-hi-co speed freak". I assume you'll be contacting all of those sites in the same ignorant, belligerent and downright moronic fashion?

I think you've taken too much dexedrine already.

Perhaps now we can get back on topic?

tony serro · 08-12-2009, 18:07

It offends me #1: because the type of people who buy unnamed compounds in brand name pill form are mostly uninformed and when something happens to somebody from taking too much of these pills, its going to draw MORE attention to the RC scene #2: one of my vendors has already been shut down probably because of 5-meo-amt and all the propaganda going around about it and #3: anyone who markets RCs as a legal high is A TOTAL FUCKING IDIOT especially if you live in the US. I sell research chemicals as well but use a lot more discretion than you who is selling them not only for human consumption but as legal highs.