Talk:11-Hydroxy-THC

Article overhaul

There were a few redundancies I deleted, and the entire pharmacology section was either dubious or a primary source. I'll continue trying to make improvements. Ideas for where to take the article: When was it discovered/isolated? What's the activity compared to THC (very careful with sourcing here)? How important is 11-OH-THC in drug testing? What's the half life?Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to remove what you removed and appears to be based upon your personal opinion disagreeing with the science involved. Gettinglit (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There were 3 things you reverted, and I'm totally willing to explain them more and get consensus here. I might've trimmed a little too much, but nothing unreasonable. First, I removed "... which is formed in the body after THC is consumed." I thought it was just a bit repetitive since it's adding the definition of metabolite. I'm fine with leaving it in, just a style choice.

The second deletion is "11-hydroxy-THC can be formed after consumption of THC from inhalation (vaping, smoking) and oral (by mouth, edible, sublingual) use,". This is once again repeating the definition of what a metabolite is. I'm OK with having the definition again, I just thought it was a little repetitive. Then I replaced "... although levels of 11-hydroxy-THC are typically higher when eaten compared to inhalation." with "THC administered orally results in higher 11-OH-THC plasma concentration compared to smoking." This is basically saying the same thing, but neither of the refs make any comparison between oral and smoked/inhaled THC. I added the Pharmacology Handbook of Cannabinoids citation because it very plainly says "Much lower plasma 11-OH-THC concentrations (approximately 10% of THC concentrations) are found after cannabis smoking than after oral administration (Wall et al.1983)." However, looking at it more closely, it relies on a 1983 citation looking at sex differences. So the reference I provided isn't great either. I'll look for something better.

The third deletion is the pharmacology section. This is a single study about an obscure possible property of the compound. It's a primary source that hasn't received substantial coverage. It probably doesn't belong in this article at all, and it definitely doesn't make up a pharmacology section. There's also the problem that this is related to covid, so people are likely to misinterpret this as medical advice, or something that's a proven fact. We should be more careful with sources when talking about covid. for those reasons, I really think that whole paragraph should be deleted. If you think it should stay, please provide reasons. go rams tho

Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

To touch up on why, prior language of this Wikipedia made it seem like 11-OH-THC is only made via oral or intravenous use, this is why I word things in such a way so it's clear it's formed after THC is consumed (by serval methods of use including inhalation) not just eating it injecting as it was worded here a few years ago. Today in general many seem to think it's only made via oral ingestion so I felt it's important to clarify.

For the COVID study, the cited study is a primary source published in well respected journals that have been peer reviewed and received plenty of coverage. The pharmacology section was added because it does not make sense to jam a bunch of into in the first paragraphs of the article. I would hope others in the future add onto the pharmacology section as the point surely is not that single study. I don't see any problem that it's related to COVID despite a personal misunderstanding. We have wikipedia articles dedicated to many different health issues, substances and studies surrounding them. At that point maybe we should go to talk and convince them to delete COVID-19 and more specific to what's mentioned here delete the article 3C-like protease specifically but that would be a ridiculous censorship of legitimate peer reviewed and properly cited scientific information. Someone may be on the list of List of investigational antidepressants thinking they are going to find a cure for their depression and will seek out googling each thing on that article but it doesn't mean we should destroy a valuable piece of information because some people spend too much time on tiktok. And 3C-like protease is basically a "list of COVID-19 investigational drugs" so if you do feel so strongly I'd advise going over to their talk page and letting them know. Gettinglit (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

For the COVID study, the cited study is a primary source published in well respected journals. Right. But we should be more selective with how we use primary sources, as per WP:PST. Secondary sources are always better. Primary sources are easy to misinterpret. I see no point removing it until there's more to the article in general. 🙢 Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I would support removing the pharmacology section about Covid. There are many compounds which show anti-covid activity in vitro but have no relevance as anti-covid medications and I would say this is one of them. Misleading and undue weight to have it in there, especially supported by only a single primary reference.Meodipt (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that I forgot to read the talk page before editing. I added some CB₁ pharmacology data and moved the COVID stuff into a new section ("research"), since I don't think it quite belongs under pharmacology (sure, it's pharmacology, but not it's primary pharmacology). I would agree that removing the COVID stuff altogether seems fair enough (not only per WP:PST, but also WP:MEDRS). Adrianpip2000 (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Undid changes

Mfernflower, I reverted your edits:

• the "in cannabis culture" part is not accurate; it is perhaps called that in cannabis culture, but not exclusively, and so this insertion is needlessly restrictive.
• the metabolism was dumbed down; internal links allow people to preview/navigate and get some more info from the lead if they need it. You removed internal links so people can't learn more.
• the metabolite can be detected in other drug tests besides only blood tests (again, restrictive)
• "oral" and "eaten" are not synonyms; buccal and sublingual are oral routes that are not eaten

I restored the copy edit in the "Research" section. Kimen8 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)