Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest Tyler.Durden

Sativex Patent

Found this on another site and thought it might be of interest to some of you?

__________________________________________________ ____________

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7344736/fulltext.html

__________________________________________________ __________

US Patent 7344736 - Extraction of pharmaceutically active components from plant materials

US Patent Issued on March 18, 2008

Abstract Claims Description Full Text

7344736

Abstract

The invention relates to the extraction of pharmaceutically active components from plant materials, and more particularly to the preparation of a botanical drug substance (BDS) for incorporation in to a medicament. It also relates to a BDS of given purity, for use in pharmaceutical formulations. In particular it relates to BDS comprising cannabinoids obtained by extraction from cannabis.

Claims

The invention claimed is:

1. A method of extracting cannabinoids from plant material comprising a decarboxylation step, an extraction with liquid carbon dioxide (CO2), and a step to reduce

the proportion of non-target materials in the extract, characterised in that the extraction with liquid CO2 is conducted under sub-critical conditions at a temperature in the range of from 5 to 15° C. and a pressure in the range of from 50

to 70 bar.

2. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the decarboxylation step is carried out after extraction with liquid CO2.

3. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the decarboxylation step is carried out prior to extraction with liquid CO2.

4. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the temperature is in the range of from 8 to 12° C.

5. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the pressure is in the range of from 55 to 65 bar.

6. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the CO2 has a mass flow in the range of 1000 1500 Kg/h.

7. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the extraction is run for up to 10 hours.

8. A method as claimed in any of claims 1 4, 5, 6 and 7 wherein the CO2 is removed by depressurisation and the recovered extract held at a temperature in the range from -15° C. to -20° C.

9. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the step to reduce the proportion of non-target materials in the extract is a precipitation with a C1 C5 alcohol, wherein the material to be treated is warmed to above room temperature before the C1 C5

alcohol is added.

10. A method as claimed in claim 9 wherein the C1 C5 alcohol is ethanol.

11. A method as claimed in claim 9 wherein the extract is warmed to a temperature in the range from 36° C. to 44° C.

12. A method as claimed in claim 10 wherein the C1 C5 alcohol is added in an amount of from 3:1 to 1:1 C1 C5 alcohol volume to weight of the material to be treated.

13. A method as claimed in claim 9 wherein the solution resulting from addition of C1 C5 alcohol to the material to be treated is chilled and insoluble materials allowed to precipitate out.

14. A method as claimed in claim 13 wherein the solution resulting from addition of C1 C5 alcohol to the material to be treated is chilled to a temperature in the range from -15° C. to -25° C.

15. A method as claimed in cla

m 13 wherein the precipitate of insoluble materials is removed by filtration.

16. A method as claimed in claim 9 further comprising a multi-step evaporation under reduced pressure.

17. A method as claimed in claim 16 wherein the first C1 C5 alcohol is removed and then water is removed.

18. A method as claimed in claim 3 wherein the decarboxylation step is carried out prior to extraction with liquid CO2 and is conducted by heating the plant material to temperatures and for times which ensure at least 95% conversion of the

acid cannabinoids to their neutral form whilst ensuring thermal degradation of THC to CBN is less than 10%.

19. A method as claimed in claim 18 in which a multi step heating process is conducted in which the plant material is: i) heated to a first temperature for a first time period to evaporate off retained water and allow for uniform heating of the

plant material; and ii) the temperature is increased to a second temperature for a second time period until at least 95% conversion of the acid cannabinoids to their neutral form has occurred.

20. A method as claimed in claim 1 further comprising the step of treating an extract derived from the plant material with activated charcoal.

21. A method of making a pharmaceutical composition comprising, as an active agent, a botanical drug substance which is an extract from at least one cannabis plant, which method comprises preparing a botanical drug substance containing

cannabinoids from at least one cannabis plant using an extraction method according to claim 1, and formulating the botanical drug substance with one or more pharmaceutically acceptable diluents, carriers or excipients to produce a pharmaceutical

composition.

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the extraction of pharmaceutically active components from plant materials, and more particularly to the preparation of a botanical drug substance (BDS) for incorporation in to a medicament. It also relates to a

BDS of given purity, for use in pharmaceutical formulations. In particular it relates to BDS comprising cannabinoids obtained by extraction from cannabis.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In PCT/GB02/00620 the applicant discloses a method of preparing a herbal drug extract (botanical drug substance) from medicinal cannabis. The process comprises: 1. a heating step to decarboxylate the acid form of the cannabinoids to their

neutral form; 2. a first extraction with a specified volume of liquid carbon dioxide for 6 8 hours; and 3. a step to reduce the proportion of non-target materials, referred to as winterisation, which step precipitates out waxes.

More specifically, PCT/GB02/00620 describes a process wherein: step 1 comprises heating chopped cannabis (2 3 mm) at 100 150° C. for sufficient time to allow decarboxylation; step 2 comprises CO2 extraction using: a) a coarse powder

(the particles are passed through a 3 mm mesh); B) a packing density of 0.3; and c) supercritical conditions of 600 bar at 35° C. for 4 hours, although other combinations of temp and pressure ranging from 10 35° C. and 60 600 bar (both

super critical and sub critical conditions) could, it is acknowledged, be used; and step 3 comprises conducting an ethanolic precipitation at -20° C. for 24 hours and removing the waxy material by filtration.

The supercritical method disclosed in PCT/GB02/00620 produced: a) a high THC extract containing: 60% THC (Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol) 1 2% CBD (cannabidiol) 4 5% other minor cannabinoids including CBN (cannabinol) (Quantative yields were

9% wt/wt based on dry weight of medicinal cannabis); and B) a high CBD extract containing: 60% CBD 4% THC 2% other cannabinoids (Quantative yields were 9% wt/wt based on dry weight of medicinal cannabis).

Clearly as the resulting BDS is to be used in a pharmaceutical product it is essential that the process is safe, scalable to GMP and gives high degrees of product consistency and, preferably also good yields.

The principles of supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) have been known since the work of Baron Cagniard de le Tour in 1822 when it was noted that the gas-liquid boundary disappeared when the temperature of certain materials was increased by

heating them in a closed glass container. From this early work the critical point of a substance was first discovered. The critical point is the temperature above which a substance can co-exist in gas, liquid and solid phases. It was later found that

by taking substances to or above their critical temperature and pressure they could be used as sophisticated solvents for extraction and fractionation of complex mixtures.

The technique is widely used in the fuel oil processing business and has been applied to, for example, the purification and separation of vegetable and fish oils.

An attractive feature of SFE over the use of conventional solvents is that the solvent power (E°) can be varied by manipulation of temperature and pressure above the critical point.

In a typical pressure-temperature diagram for a substance there are three lines which define the equilibrium between two of the phases. These lines meet at the triple point. The lines define the interface between gas, liquid and solid states,

and points along the line define the equilibrium between pairs of phases. For example, the vapour pressure (boiling point) curve starts at the triple point and ends at the critical point. The critical region starts at this point and a supercritical

fluid is any substance that is above its critical temperature (Tc) and critical pressure (Pc). The critical temperature is thus the highest temperature at which a gas can be converted to a liquid by an increase in pressure and the critical pressure is

the highest pressure at which a liquid can be converted into a traditional gas by increasing the temperature. In the so-called critical region, there is only one phase and it possesses some of the properties of both a gas and a liquid.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

There are a number of solvents, which can be used for extraction of active substances from plant materials, and Table 1 shows the critical temperature and pressures for some of these solvents.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Critical Conditions for Solvents Critical Solvents Critical Temperature (° C.) Pressure (bar) Carbon dioxide 31.1 73.8 Ethane 32.2 48.8 Ethylene 9.3 50.4 Propane 96.7 42.5 Propylene 91.9 46.2 Cyclohexane 280.3 40.7

Isopropanol 235.2 47.6 Benzene 289.0 48.9 Toluene 318.6 41.1 p-Xylene 343.1 35.2 Chlorotrifluoromethane 28.9 39.2 Trichlorofluoromethane 198.1 44.1 Ammonia 132.5 112.8 Water 374.2 220.5

The applicant has selected as a preferred solvent carbon dioxide, which has a critical temperature of 31.1° C. and a critical pressure of 73.8 bar.

Carbon dioxide is particularly advantageous because it is available in plentiful supply, at low cost, and can if necessary be recycled. Any losses of CO2 are also ecologically neutral. Furthermore, CO2 extraction is a conservative

method of preparation and quite fragile molecules can be extracted with precision.

A key consideration in the initial selection of liquid CO2 as the solvent for the production of a high potency standardised extract of cannabis herb was the high degree of selectivity which can be achieved. In the CO2 system it has

been determined that solvating power can primarily be regarded as being a function of density and temperature, with the solvent density being the more important factor.

Contrary to expectation the applicant has determined that cannabinoids are best obtained under sub-critical rather than super-critical conditions

By carefully controlling temperature and pressure below the super-critical temperature and pressure the applicant has been able to separate out specific lipophilic or hydrophilic fractions rich in cannabinoids with other components which can be

separated relatively easily to obtain a botanical drug substance (BDS) which contains the desirable components in a form which is pharmaceutically acceptable. Thus compounds which are known to be active substances can be separated from complex mixtures

which occur in botanical raw material.

Furthermore, very good batch-to-batch reproducibility can be obtained between batches and unwanted constituents, such as heavy metals, which may be present to varying extents in the botanical raw material, can be left behind in the exhausted

material.

Extraction conditions can also be modified to reject pesticide residues which may be present in the original material.

The benefits of using sub-critical conditions include the selective nature of the extraction. In contrast, the applicant found that with SFE the solvent, as well as solubilising the desirable cannabinoids, disadvantageously solubilised other non

target materials which proved difficult to separate out in a subsequent clean-up step.

To explain, the density of sub-critical CO2 is low, and remains low even as pressure is increased until the critical point of the system is reached. Thus, whilst the solvating power of sub-critical CO2 is reduced a high degree of

selectivity can be achieved, as only the most soluble components are efficiently dissolved by the CO2; in this case the cannabinoid fraction. The result is the production of a relatively simple extract containing, as well as the cannabinoids, only

a limited number of non-target compounds, many of which can be removed relatively easily in a simple step. Furthermore, the cost savings made by operating at relatively low pressures and temperatures are a further benefit.

In contrast, above the critical temperature of 31° C., there is a significant increase in the density of the CO2 as it now exists in a supercritical fluid state. This has the effect of greatly increasing the solvating power of the

solvent, which whilst generally advantageous in that more cannabinoids are solubilised thereby giving high yields, in fact proves disadvantageous because the decreased selectivity of the more powerful solvent results in increased solubility of a range of

non-target compounds which makes the resulting extract harder to purify. In other words, it results in the production of more complex extracts in which the concentration of the target compound may be significantly diluted (i.e. the potency of the

extract is decreased).

In a first aspect the invention provides a method of extracting cannabinoids from plant material comprising a decarboxylation step, an extraction with liquid carbon dioxide (CO2), and a step to reduce the proportion of non-target materials

in the extract, characterised in that the extraction with liquid CO2 is conducted under sub-critical conditions at a temperature of between 5 15° C. and a pressure of between 50 70 bar.

The method of the invention may be used to prepare a cannabinoid-rich extract from cannabis plant material. In a preferred embodiment, the method may be used to produce a cannabis extract which is a botanical drug substance.

In the context of this application a "botanical drug substance" is an extract derived from cannabis plant material, which extract fulfils the definition of "botanical drug substance" provided in the Guidance for Industry Botanical Drug Products

Draft Guidance, August 2000, US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research of: "A drug substance derived from one or more plants, algae, or macroscopic fungi. It is prepared from

botanical raw materials by one or more of the following processes: pulverisation, decoction, expression, aqueous extraction, ethanolic extraction, or other similar processes."

"Plant material" is defined as a plant or plant part (e.g. bark, wood, leaves, stems, roots, flowers, fruits, seeds, berries or parts thereof) as well as exudates, and includes material falling within the definition of "botanical raw material" in

the Guidance for Industry Botanical Drug Products Draft Guidance, August 2000, US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

The method of the invention may be used to extract cannabinoids from any plant material known to contain such cannabinoids. Most typically, but not necessarily, the "plant material" will be "plant material" or "botanical raw material" derived

from one or more cannabis plants.

The term "Cannabis plant(s)" encompasses wild type Cannabis sativa and also variants thereof, including cannabis chemovars which naturally contain different amounts of the individual cannabinoids, Cannabis sativa subspecies indica including the

variants var. indica and var.kafiristanica, Cannabis indica and also plants which are the result of genetic crosses, self-crosses or hybrids thereof. The term "Cannabis plant material" is to be interpreted accordingly as encompassing plant material

derived from one or more cannabis plants. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby stated that "cannabis plant material" includes dried cannabis biomass.

The extraction with liquid CO2 is preferably carried out at a temperature between 8 12° C., most preferably at a temperature of about 10° C.

The extraction with liquid CO2 is preferably carried out at a pressure between 55 65 bar, most preferably at a pressure of substantially 60 bar.

Most preferably the CO2 has a mass flow of from 1000 1500 Kg/h, more preferably a mass flow of substantially 1250 Kg/h.

Preferably the liquid CO2 extraction is run for up to 10 hours, most preferably about 8 hours.

In a preferred embodiment liquid CO2 is removed by depressurisation and the recovered extract held at a temperature in the range from -15° C. to -20° C.

The step to reduce the proportion of non-target materials in the botanical drug substance may be essentially any treatment that results in selective removal of undesirable components (as opposed to cannabinoids), such that the amount of the

undesirable components present in the final botanical drug substance product is reduced. "Non-target" materials are any materials derived from the starting plant material that are not desired to be present in the final botanical drug substance. In a

preferred embodiment this step may comprise a precipitation with a C1 C5 alcohol, wherein the material to be treated in the alcohol precipitation step is warmed to above room temperature before the C1 C5 alcohol is added. Typically, the step to reduce

the proportion of non-target materials in the botanical drug substance is carried out after extraction with liquid CO2, in which case the "material to be treated" in the alcoholic precipitation is the product of the liquid CO2 extraction. This

extract is itself a "botanical drug substance" within the definition given above.

The C1 C5 alcohol is preferably ethanol. The extract is preferably warmed to a temperature in the range from 36° C. to 44° C., most preferably about 40° C. Warming of the material to be treated prior to addition of the C1

C5 alcohol has the effect of improving mixing of this material with the C1 C5 alcohol, and hence improves the performance of the alcohol precipitation step.

The C1 C5 alcohol is preferably added in an amount of from 3:1 to 1:1 C1 C5 alcohol volume to weight of the material to be treated, more preferably an amount of about 2:1 C1 C5 alcohol volume to weight of the material to be treated.

The solution resulting from addition of C1 C5 alcohol to the material to be treated is chilled and insoluble materials are allowed to precipitate out. Preferably the solution is chilled to a temperature in the range from -15° C. to

-25° C., and preferably the solution is chilled for up to 52 hours.

The precipitate of insoluble materials is then removed, typically by filtration. Preferably filtration is carried out through a 20 μm membrane.

In a further preferred embodiment the method may further comprise a multi-step evaporation under reduced pressure. This may be by rotary evaporation or other known techniques.

Typically the multi-step evaporation is carried out on the product of the C1 C5 alcohol precipitation step in order to remove substantially all of the C1 C5 alcohol and water. Preferably, the C1 C5 alcohol is removed first and then the water.

The C1 C5 alcohol is preferably removed by heating to a temperature in the range of 58 62° C. to give a vapour temperature in the range of 38 42° C. under a vacuum in the range of 168 172 mbar until there is little or no visible

condensate.

Water is then additionally removed, preferably by a stepwise reduction of the vacuum in stages to about 50 mbar.

The decarboxylation step may be carried out prior to or after extraction with liquid CO2.

In a preferred embodiment the decarboxylation step is carried out prior to extraction with liquid CO2 and is conducted by heating the plant material to temperatures and for times which ensure at least 95% conversion of the acid cannabinoids

from the acid form to their neutral form whilst ensuring thermal degradation of THC to CBN is less than 10%.

Decarboxylation of cannabinoid acids is a function of time and temperature, thus at higher temperatures a shorter period of time will be taken for complete decarboxylation of a given amount of cannabinoid acid. In selecting appropriate

conditions for decarboxylation consideration must, however, be given to minimising thermal degradation of the desirable, pharmacological cannabinoids into undesirable degradation products, particularly thermal degradation of THC to cannabinol (CBN).

Preferably, decarboxylation is carried out in a multi-step heating process in which the plant material is: i) heated to a first temperature for a first (relatively short) time period to evaporate off retained water and allow for uniform heating

of the plant material; and ii) the temperature is increased to a second temperature for a second time period (typically longer than the first time period) until at least 95% conversion of the acid cannabinoids to their neutral form has occurred.

Preferably the first step is conducted at a temperature in the range of 100° C. to 110° C. for 10 20 minutes. More preferably the first temperature is about 105° C. and the first time period is about 15 minutes.

If the plant material is derived from cannabis plants having a high CBD content (defined as >90% CBD as a percentage of total cannabinoid content), the second temperature is preferably in the range from 115° C. to 125° C.,

preferably about 120° C. and the second time period is in the range from 45 to 75 minutes, preferably about 60 minutes. More preferably the second temperature is in the range from 135° C. to 145° C., preferably 140° C.

and the second time period is in the range from 15 to 45 minutes, preferably about 30 minutes. In another embodiment, most preferred for a mass of plant material greater than 4 kg, the second temperature is in the range from 140° C. to

150° C., preferably 145° C. and the second time period is in the range from 55 90 minutes. The latter conditions are preferred for processing amounts of, for example, 4 6 kg of starting plant material and the exact figures, particularly

time, may vary slightly with increased mass.

If the plant material is derived from cannabis plants having a high THC content (defined as >90% THC as a percentage of total cannabinoid content), the second temperature is preferably in the range of 115° C. to 125° C.,

typically 120° C., and the second time period is preferably in the range of 45 minutes to 75 minutes, typically about 60 minutes. More preferably the second temperature is in the range of 100° C. to 110° C., typically 105° C., and the second time period is in the range of 60 to 120 minutes. In another embodiment, most preferred for a mass of plant material greater than 4 kg, the second temperature is in the range of 140° C. to 150° C., preferably

145° C., and the second time period is in the range of 45 to 55 minutes.

Most preferably the decarboxylation step is conducted at temperatures and for times which ensure at least 97% conversion of the acid cannabinoids to their neutral form, whilst ensuring thermal degradation of THC to CBN is less than 5%.

Standard conditions for cannabinoid assays, and methods of calculating cannabinoid content (as %) are given in the accompanying Examples.

The plant material used as the starting material for the extraction process is preferably ground, milled or otherwise processed to give a particle size of less than 2 mm, but preferably greater than 1 mm. Such treatment generally results in

improved extraction of cannabinoids from the plant material, as packaging density is improved.

In a preferred embodiment the method of the invention may further comprise a step of treating an extract (or botanical drug substance material) derived from the plant material with activated charcoal.

Typically, this step will be carried out on the product of a precipitation with C1 C5 alcohol, usually immediately following filtration to remove the precipitate. The liquid product of the alcoholic precipitation is classified as a "botanical

drug substance" according to the definition given above. Conveniently, treatment with activated charcoal may be carried out by passing liquid material to be treated down an activated charcoal column.

As illustrated in the accompanying examples, treatment with activated charcoal significantly improves the stability of botanical drug substances derived from cannabis plant material, significantly improving resistance to thermal degradation of

the active cannabinoids.

In a preferred embodiment the method of the invention will comprise the following steps, preferably carried out in the stated order starting from cannabis plant material: i) decarboxylation, ii) extraction with liquid CO2, to produce a crude

botanical drug substance, iii) precipitation with C1 C5 alcohol to reduce the proportion of non-target materials, iv) filtration to remove the precipitate, v) evaporation to remove C1 C5 alcohol and water, to produce a final botanical drug substance

(BDS).

A step of treatment with activated charcoal may be included between step iv) and step v), resulting in improved stability of the final BDS.

The applicant has further determined that the addition of a proportion of modifier or polar solvent, for example a C1 to C5 alcohol, as exemplified by ethanol, to liquid carbon dioxide solvent may further increase selectivity of the extraction

process.

Accordingly, the invention further provides a method of extracting cannabinoids from plant material comprising an extraction with liquid CO2, characterised in that an organic modifier or polar solvent is added to the carbon dioxide.

Preferably the modifier or polar solvent is added in an amount of up to 10% by weight.

Preferably the modifier is a C1 C5 alcohol, most preferably ethanol.

In a further aspect the invention further relates to botanical drug substances derived from cannabis plant material. Therefore, the invention provides a botanical drug substance obtainable from botanical raw material from a high THC containing

cannabis plant having a THC content of at least 90% w/w of total cannabinoid content, wherein said botanical drug substance is an extract derived from the high THC cannabis plant comprising at least 50% THC w/w of extract, no more than 5% CBD w/w of the

THC content, and no more than 5% cannabinoids other than THC and CBD w/w of the THC content.

The % THC wt/wt of extract is more preferably at least 55%, and more preferably still at least 60%. The other cannabinoids and the assay methodology for determining the amounts are given later.

The invention also provides a botanical drug substance obtainable from botanical raw material from a high CBD containing cannabis plant having a CBD content of at least 90% w/w of total cannabinoid content, wherein said botanical drug substance

is an extract derived from a high CBD cannabis plant, which extract comprises at least 50% CBD w/w of extract, no more than 7.5% THC w/w of the CBD content, and no more than 5% cannabinoids other than CBD and THC expressed as % w/w of the CBD content.

The skilled man will appreciate that high THC plants such as, for example, "Skunk" have been bred, albeit for recreational use, using traditional breeding techniques which can likewise be used to develop plants rich in other cannabinoids e.g CBD

by natural selection or by genetic techniques as the genes for cannabidiolate synthase and THC synthase have been identified, see JP 2001029082 and JP2000078979. CPRO 921018 Land race Turkey is an example of high CBD plant.

The botanical drug substances may be obtained starting from cannabis plant material (botanical raw material) using the extraction method according to the invention.

In a preferred embodiment the botanical drug substance comprises no more than 4 ppb aflatoxin.

In a further preferred embodiment the botanical drug substance comprises no more than 20 ppm total heavy metals.

In a further preferred embodiment the botanical drug substance comprises no more than 15% w/w residual solvents, more specifically no more that 15% w/w ethanol.

In a further preferred embodiment the botanical drug substance comprises no more than 105 cfu/g TVC (Total Viable Count), no more than 104 cfu/g fungi, no more than 103 cfu/g enterobacteria and other non gram negative organisms,

and no detectable E. coli, Salmonella or S. aureus.

The above-listed parameters relate to purity of the botanical drug substance and define a level of purity which is preferred if the botanical drug substance is to be incorporated into a pharmaceutical product. Botanical drug substances having

the required level of purity may be obtained using the extraction process according to the invention, particularly using the operating conditions and quality control procedures described in the accompanying examples. Standard assay techniques for use in

determining the levels of aflatoxin, heavy metals, residual solvents and bacterial contaminants in a botanical drug substance are known in the art (e.g. European Pharmacopoeia (Ph.Eur) standard procedures) and further details are provided in the

accompanying Examples.

Botanical drug substances prepared from cannabis plant material according to the methods of the invention may be formulated with one or more pharmaceutically acceptable carriers, diluents or excipients or deposited on a pharmaceutically

acceptable surface for vaporisation in order to produce pharmaceutical formulations containing cannabinoids as the pharmaceutically active agents.

Therefore, in a further aspect the invention provides a method of making a pharmaceutical composition comprising, as an active agent, a botanical drug substance which is an extract from at least one cannabis plant variety, which method comprises

preparing a botanical drug substance containing cannabinoids from the at least one cannabis plant variety using the extraction method according to the invention, and formulating the botanical drug substance with one or more pharmaceutically acceptable

diluents, carriers or excipients or depositing the botanical drug substance on a pharmaceutically acceptable surface for vaporisation to produce a pharmaceutical composition.

Separate botanical drug substances may be prepared from single cannabis plant varieties having differing cannabinoid content (e.g. high THC and high CBD plants) and then mixed or blended together prior to formulation to produce the final

pharmaceutical composition. This approach is preferred if, for example, it is desired to achieve a defined ratio by weight of individual cannabinoids in the final formulation. Alternatively, botanical raw material from one or more cannabis plant

varieties of defined cannabinoid content may be mixed together prior to extraction of a single botanical drug substance having the desired cannabinoid content, which may then be formulated into a final pharmaceutical composition.

The botanical drug substance may be formulated with any convenient pharmaceutically acceptable diluents, carriers or excipients to produce a pharmaceutical composition. The choice of diluents, carriers or excipients will depend on the desired

dosage form, which may in turn be dependent on the intended route of administration to a patient. Preferred dosage forms include, inter alia, liquid dosage forms for administration via pump-action or aerosol sprays, tablets, pastilles, gels, capsules,

suppositories, powders, etc and vapourisers. Such dosage forms may be prepared in accordance with standard principles of pharmaceutical formulation, known to those skilled in the art. Preferred dosage forms, and methods of preparing such dosage forms,

are described in the applicant's co-pending International application PCT/GB02/00620.

Liquid formulations are particularly preferred. A particularly preferred formulation for administration of cannabinoids, though not intended to be limiting to the invention, is a liquid formulation comprising the botanical drug substance,

ethanol and propylene glycol, and optionally a flavouring, such as peppermint oil. This formulation may be conveniently administered to the buccal or sublingual mucosae via a pump-action spray, and provides for efficient absorption of the active

cannabinoids.

The various aspects of the inventions are further illustrated, by way of example only, by the following examples, together with the accompanying Figures.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 illustrates loss of THC over time at 40° C. for standard THC botanical drug substance (BDS) and activated charcoal-treated THC BDS (purified BDS). Y-axis: amount of THC (expressed as percentage of to value), x-axis: time in

months.

FIG. 2 illustrates loss of CBD over time at 40° C. for standard CBD botanical drug substance (BDS) and activated charcoal-treated CBD BDS (purified BDS). Y-axis: amount of CBD (expressed as percentage of to value), x-axis: time in

months.

FIG. 3 illustrates formation of cannabinol (CBN) over time at 40° C. for standard THC botanical drug substance (BDS) and activated charcoal-treated THC BDS (purified BDS). Y-axis: amount of CBN (expressed as percentage of t0 value),

x-axis: time in months.

EXAMPLES

Example 1

Development of a Process for Extraction of Cannabinoids from Cannabis Plants

Selection of Cannabis Chemovars

GW Pharma Ltd has developed distinct varieties of Cannabis plant hybrids to maximise the output of the specific chemical constituents, cannabinoids. Two types of plant are used; one chemovar produces primarily THC and a further chemovar produces

predominately CBD. However alternative varieties can be obtained--see for example, Common cannabinoids phenotypes in 350 stocks of cannabis, Small and Beckstead, LLoydia vol 36b, 1973 p144 156--and bred using techniques well known to the skilled man to

maximise cannabinoid content.

Chemical and structural similarities exist between THC and CBD. Due to these similarities together with the botanic origin of the starting materials, each can be considered to be interchangeable with respect to the development of processes for

extraction of cannabinoids.

Preferably, each Cannabis chemovar is processed and controlled separately to yield two distinct BDS's. However, it is possible to mix plant material from two or more chemovars or use a variety which will produce the desired ratio of given

cannabinoids prior to extraction, and thus prepare a single BDS.

Production of Botanical Raw Material

BDS is prepared from extracts of Cannabis sativa L. (family Cannabidaceae). Cannabis sativa was described in the 1934 British Pharmacopoeia. Cannabis is grown under United Kingdom Home Office licence under the control of GW Pharma Ltd in the

United Kingdom. Growing facilities are equipped with shades and full climatic control (temperature, humidity and high intensity lighting) so that several crops per year can be produced in almost identical growing conditions thus ensuring continuity of

supply.

Cultivation:

Cannabis plants are propagated from cuttings taken from the mother plants, originating from a single seed source. Therefore a crop is produced through asexual propagation where the plants are all female. Propagation using cuttings controls

genotype consistency.

The cuttings are rooted in compost supplied as pesticide free. The plants are watered and sustained release fertilizer is applied during the growing cycle. Through controlled growing conditions the plants take approximately 12 weeks to reach

maturity.

The plants are irrigated throughout their growing cycle with potable quality water.

No synthetic herbicides or pesticides are used in the cultivation of Cannabis plants.

Compost:

Efficient cultivation of Cannabis necessitates the supply of a reliably uniform growing media.

The compost provides a soft texture, high air porosity, ready wetting, low conductivity and balanced nutrient supply. The compost consists of peat and added natural minerals including lime (magnesium and calcium carbonates) to provide pH control

of the compost during the growing cycle of the Cannabis plants.

The compost contains an adequate supply of essential minerals and a minimum of minerals with known adverse effects on the plants. Some minerals including manganese can be present in an insoluble form in compost and be released in a freely

soluble form over time. Controlling compost pH and monitoring irrigation to avoid waterlogging will control soluble manganese levels. Compost pH is maintained above 5.5.

The compost is declared as pesticide free, as no pesticides or herbicides are added.

Fertiliser:

The compost contains fertiliser identifiable in two discrete forms, a base fertiliser and a slow release fertiliser. Additional slow release fertiliser is applied to the plants during growing.

Disease and Pest Control:

No artificial herbicides or pesticides are used during cultivation. Stringent hygiene conditions reduce ingress of pests and diseases.

By controlling the growing conditions, environmental stresses such as drought, insufficient light and unfavourable temperatures reduces the risk of disease.

Regular inspection of the plants during the growing cycle allows for the detection of any rogue plants and pests. Rogue male plants may arise, though weeds should be absent due to the controlled growing conditions and media. Frequent

inspections and biological control methods are used to manage any pests and diseases that may occur.

Plant Collection:

Through strict control of growing conditions the Cannabis plants reach maturity in approximately 12 weeks. In the last weeks of growth, dense resinous flowers develop. By the end of approximately week 11 the cannabinoid biosynthesis has slowed

markedly, and the plants are ready for harvest.

The entire plant is cut and dried in a temperature and humidity controlled environment. Approximately 21° C. Approximately 38 45% RH. Dried plant is physically assessed for end-point.

THC and CBD are the principle bioactive constituents in the BDS. However, these constituents are present as biologically inactive carboxylic acids in the BRM. THCA CBDA The acid forms slowly decarboxylate over time during drying. The leaves

and flowers are stripped from the larger stems to provide the Botanical Raw Material (BRM). Storage of BRM:

Under conditions of storage the loss on drying reaches equilibrium of approximately 10%. The storage conditions for the dried BRM will be dependent on the physical status of the BRM.

General Storage Conditions for BRM:

Protected from light. Approximately 15 25° C. or -20° C. Approximately 38 42% RH. Summary-production of a BRM:

##STR00001## Typical BRM Specification Derived from a High CBD Variety is Illustrated in Table 2:

TABLE-US-00002 Test Method Specification Identification: A Visual Complies B TLC Corresponds to standard (for CBD & CBDA) C HPLC/UV Positive for CBDA Assay: In-house Not less than (NLT) 90% of CBDA + CBD (HPLC/UV) assayed cannabinoids by peak

area Loss on Drying: Ph.Eur. Not more than (NMT) 15% Aflatoxin: UKAS* method NMT 4 ppb Microbial: Ph.Eur. TVC NMT 107 cfu/g Fungi NMT 105 cfu/g E. coli NMT 102 cfu/g Foreign Matter: Ph.Eur. NMT 2% Residual Ph.Eur. Complies Herbicides

and Pesticides: *United Kingdom Accreditation Service

Analytical Methods: Identification by Visual:

Macroscopic characteristics allow the features of the Cannabis plant to be distinguished from potential adulterants and substitutes. It is a visual identification against a photographic standard.

Identification by TLC:

TLC uses both retention time and characteristic spot colour to effectively identify the variety of Cannabis. Laboratory samples are prepared for TLC analysis by extracting the dried herb. An aliquot is spotted onto a TLC plate, alongside

reference samples for THC and CBD. Following exposure to Fast Blue B reagent, THC and THCA present as pink spots, while CBD and CBDA are orange in colour. Neutrals can be distinguished from the acids by comparison of the Rf value to that obtained for

the standards. Identity is confirmed by comparison of Rf and colour of the sample spot, to that obtained for the appropriate standard.

Identification by HPLC:

HPLC uses retention time comparison of cannabinoids to effectively identify the variety of Cannabis. The reversed phase HPLC method is specific for CBD and CBDA, and therefore may be used as an identity test. Samples of biomass are extracted

and centrifuged. Detection of all analytes is accomplished at 220 nm with additional confirmation of acidic analytes at 310 nm.

Assay (CBD+CBDA):

This assay is used to monitor the CBD and CBDA content in the plant. CBD and CBDA assay are determined using an HPLC method.

The efficiency of the decarboxylation process is determined by dividing the % content in terms of w/w of CBD by the total CBD+CBDA content.

Loss on Drying:

Loss on Drying is evaluated using Ph.Eur. test method.

Aflatoxin:

Aflatoxin is analysed using a United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) accredited method.

Microbial:

Microbiological quality is determined using Ph.Eur. methodology.

Foreign Matter:

Foreign Matter is evaluated using the Ph.Eur. test method. Flowers, leaves and side stems are spread out in a thin layer on a clean laboratory surface. Foreign Matter is separated by hand as completely as possible, and is weighed. Results are

expressed as % w/w of Foreign Matter in the herbal biomass sample. Foreign Matter may comprise no more than 2% of the biomass.

Residual Herbicides and Pesticides:

The Cannabis plants are grown in a well controlled environment. No artificial herbicides or pesticides are used or needed during cultivation.

An equivalent BRM specification (compare table 2) is derived for a high THC variety and identical analytical methods followed, except that THC/THCA replaces CBD/CBDA.

Decarboxylation

THC and CBD are the principle bioactive constituents in Cannabis. However, these constituents are present as the biologically inactive carboxylic acids in Cannabis plants. In order to extract THC or CBD from cannabis plant material, it is

necessary to convert the storage precursor compounds of THCA and CBDA into their more readily extractable and pharmacologically active forms. THC and CBD acids slowly decarboxylate naturally over time. The traditional way to increase rate of

decarboxylation is by the application of heat. However, THCA is converted not only to THC, but also to another cannabinoid, cannabinol (CBN).

##STR00002##

The decarboxylation procedure is generally carried out within the preparation of the starting material or botanical raw material (BRM), prior to the initiation of the extraction process.

Laboratory Studies-decarboxylation

Portions of milled dried plant material were subjected to heat (approximately 0.25 g with particle size 1 2 mm). A pilot scale experimental system was set up, with the objective of determining parameters for the optimal conversion of THCA or

CBDA into THC and CBD respectively, with concomitant minimal loss of these ensuing compounds into their thermal degradation products, in the case of THC the formation of CBN.

Brief Description of Materials and Methods:

Portions (0.25 g) of milled (approximately 1 2 mm particle size) of both THCA and CBDA herbal materials were placed in 20-ml glass headspace vials and the vials sealed tightly with crimp capped Teflon-faced butyl rubber seals. Sealed vials were

heated at one of three temperatures, for periods of up to 4 hrs as follows: 105° C., 120° C., 140° C. for 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 hours.

The heating was performed in an oven with forced air circulation. Oven conditions were shown to be accurate to within 0.5 1.0 degree at the three temperatures used.

After the heating process was complete representative samples of the decarboxylated herb were assayed using HPLC, GC and TLC techniques. Standards of THC, CBD and CBN were include in the HPLC and GC sequences.

Results and Discussions:

HPLC analysis of the solvent extracts was able to demonstrate the disappearance of either CBDA or THCA as a function of time at the two lower temperatures. At 140° C., the earliest time point samples at 0.5 hour contained only very

modest levels of a peak eluting at the retention times of CBDA or THCA.

Tables 3 and 4 present HPLC data quantifying the conversion of CBDA or THCA into the free compounds; also presented is data showing the content of CBD or THC and the ratio of CBD/CBDA+CBD or THC/THCA+THC. The conversion of the carboxylic acid

forms to the corresponding decarboxylated form can be monitored by comparing the decarboxylated/decarboxylated plus un-decarboxylated ratio with the absolute content of the decarboxylated compounds. Thus, when the ratio reaches a maximum value

(>0.95), the earliest time/temperature point at which the content of THC or CBD is also maximal, should be optimal for the conversion process.

Thus, for CBD containing herb, 1 hour at 120° C. or 0.5 hour at 140° C., was appropriate.

This is confirmed by examination of the TLC chromatogram for the solvent extracts, CBDA is absent after 1 hour at 120° C. or at any time point at 140° C.

For THC there is a third criterion, formation of CBN, where it is desirable to minimise the formation of this compound during the thermal decarboxylation process. Table 5 provides Gas Chromatography (GC) data where a CBN/THC ratio can be

derived. Taken into consideration, alongside the THC/THCA+THC ratio and the maximum THC content, minimal CBN formation occurs after 0.5 or 1.0 hour at 120° C. At 140° C., even 0.5 hour gives a higher content of CBN than either of the two

lower time/temperature points.

Therefore laboratory studies demonstrate the optimum conditions for the decarboxylation of: Chemovar producing primarily CBD is 1 hour at 120° C. or 0.5 hour at 140° C. Chemovar producing primarily THC to minimise CBN formation,

is 1 to 2 hours at 105° C. or 1 hour at 120° C. Thin layer chromatography reveals that virtually all of the THCA has disappeared after 4 hours at 105° C. and after 1 hour at 120° C. No THCA is visible at any time point

when the herb is heated at 140° C. A small amount of residual staining at this retention value on TLC and the presence at low levels of a peak coincident with THCA on HPLC analysis may indicate the presence of a minor cannabinoid rather than

residual THCA.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 HPLC Data from Decarboxylation of CBDA Herbal Material CBD/CBD + CBD peak area/0.1 g Temperature Time (hours) CBDA of herb 105° C. Zero 0.15 4769 0.5 0.22 5262 1.0 0.86 5598 2.0 0.93 5251 4.0 0.98 5242 120°

C. 0.5 0.91 5129 1.0 0.97 5217 2.0 0.99 5037 4.0 1.00 5200 140° C. 0.5 0.96 5440 1.0 1.00 5105 2.0 1.00 5157 4.0 1.00 5005

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 HPLC Data from Decarboxylation of THCA Herbal Material THC peak THC/THC + area/0.1 g Temperature Time (hours) THCA of herb 105° C. Zero 0.17 992.9 0.5 0.87 5749 1.0 0.93 5273 2.0 0.98 7734 4.0 0.99 7068 120° C. 0.5 0.97 7189 1.0 0.99 6391 2.0 0.99 6500 4.0 1.00 5870 140° C. 0.5 1.00 6724 1.0 1.00 5981 2.0 1.00 5361 4.0 1.00 4787

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 GC Data from Decarboxylation of THC Herbal Material Temperature Time (hours) CBN/THC (%) 105° C. Zero 2.4 0.5 3.5 1.0 4.2 2.0 3.7 4.0 5.6 120° 0.5 3.2 1.0 4.1 2.0 6.7 4.0 11.3 140° C. 0.5 5.7 1.0

13.0 2.0 17.5 4.0 23.8

The decarboxylation conditions for a batch scale of about 4 kg of botanical raw material (BRM) are as follows:

Approximately 4 kg of milled BRM (either THCA or CBDA) to be decarboxylated was initially heated to 105° C. and held at this temperature for about 15 minutes to evaporate off any retained water and to allow uniform heating of the BRM.

The batch was then further heated to 145° C. and held at this temperature for 45 minutes to allow decarboxylation to be completed to greater than 95% efficiency.

The heating time for CBDA BRM was extended to 55 minutes at 145° C. as it became apparent from results that CBDA was slightly more resistant to decarboxylation than THCA. This difference between CBD and THC would be even more pronounced

at commercial scale batches. The THC BRM heating time was retained at 145° C. for 45 minutes.

The conditions used in pilot scale closely reflect those conditions determined as optimal from the laboratory studies. The differences can be explained by slower and less efficient heat transfer via the containers and through the BRM at the

increased batch size for the pilot scale.

Tables 6 and 7 provide data to demonstrate the efficiency of decarboxylation measured in terms of content of the biologically active cannabinoid, THC or CBD.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Decarboxylation Efficiency for CBD BRM Batch % Efficiency of Number Decarboxylation CBD Specification >95% A 98.8 B 99.5 C 98.3 D 100.0 E 100.0 F 100 G 96.9 H 100.0

Increase in batch size of CBD BRM from approximately 4 kg to 6 kg resulted in a need to increase decarboxylation time. The decarboxylation time at 145° C. was increased from 55 minutes to 90 minutes.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 % Efficiency of Batch Decarboxylation Number THC Specification >95% I 99.4 J 97.3 K 98.5 L 100.0 M 97.8 N 99.9 O 100.0

Overview of Extraction Process:

The BDS is extracted from decarboxylated BRM using liquid carbon dioxide methodology. This involves continuously passing liquefied carbon dioxide through the chopped biomass, which is contained in a high-pressure vessel. The crude extract is

dissolved in ethanol, cooled to a low temperature then filtered to remove precipitated constituents such as waxes. Removing ethanol and water in vacuo produces BDS containing either high concentrations of CBD or THC, depending on the biomass used.

Flow Diagram of Typical Extraction Process:

##STR00003## Extraction No. 1

The first stage in the manufacturing process is Extraction using liquid CO2 under sub-critical conditions.

Experiments indicated that both THC and CBD could be extracted from Cannabis plant material in high efficiency using sub-critical CO2 at low temperature, of approximately 10° C.±5° C. using a pressure of approximately 60

bar±10 bar.

the Table 8 below shows comparative data generated for a BDS rch in THC

TABLE-US-00008 Pressure Temp % w/w wax % thc w/w post Charge No bar ° C. removed winterisation Ac1202 400 60 8.2 67.2 Ac1205 400 60 6.1 67.0 Ac1206 400 60 6.1 68.0 Three runs 60 10 2.2 4.8 59.9 73.7 Ave about 3 Ave 65%

From the results it can be seen that there is loss of selectivity, as indicated by the high wax burden under super critical conditions. Whilst winterisation can remove larger amounts of wax, processing is difficult as, for example, filters

block.

Similar results were obtained with CBD.

Preferred conditions for liquid CO2 extraction are as follows: Decarboxylated botanical raw material is packed into a single column and exposed to liquid CO2 under pressure. Batch size: Approximately 60 kg Pressure: 60 bar±10 bar

Temperature: 10° C.±5° C. Time: Approximately 8 hours CO2 mass flow 1250 kg/hr ±20%.

Preferred process parameters for production of BDS are: extraction time >10 hours, CO2 pressure 50 70 bar, extraction temp 5 15° C., CO2 mass 167 kg/kg BRM.

Following depressurisation and venting off of the CO2 the crude BDS extract is collected into sealed vessels. The original BRM reduces to approximately 10% w/w of crude BDS extract. The crude BDS extract is held at -20°

C.±5° C.

The crude BDS extract contains waxes and long chain molecules. Removal is by "winterisation" procedure (extraction 2), whereby the crude BDS extract is warmed to e.g. 40° C.±4° C. to liquefy the material. Ethanol is added in

the ratio of 2:1 ethanol volume to weight of crude BDS extract. The ethanolic solution is then cooled to -20° C.±5° C. and held at this temperature for approximately 48 hours.

On completion of the winterisation the precipitate is removed by cold filtration through a 20 μm filter.

Extraction No. 2

The second stage in the manufacturing process is Extraction No. 2, referred to as "winterisation" using ethanol.

Crude BDS extract is produced from Extraction No. 1 that contains constituents, such as waxes. Ethanol effectively extracts long chained molecules from the crude extract.

Studies:

It was found by warming the crude BDS extract to approximately 40° C. the mixing ability of the crude extract with solvent was improved.

It was preferred to chill the "winterisation" solution to -20° C. for about 48 hours.

Preferred process parameters for production of BDS are: extraction temp 36 44° C., ratio ethanolroduct approx. 2:1, freezer temp -25° C. to -15° C., time 48 54 hours.

Filtration

The ethanolic solution produced in the second extraction stage requires filtration to remove the resulting precipitation.

Filter size is preferably 20 μm.

Preferred process parameters for production of BDS are: total filtration time >6 hours.

Evaporation

The final stage of the manufacturing process is the removal of ethanol and any water that may be present.

Preferably this is carried out by heating at 60° C.±2° C. to give a vapour temperature of 40° C.±2° C. under a vacuum of 172 mbar±4 mbar. The distillation under these conditions continues until there is

little or no visible condensate. Reducing the vacuum further, in stages, down to approximately 50 mbar, completes water removal. On completion the BDS is transferred into sealed stainless steel containers and stored in a freezer at -20°

C.±5° C. Preferred process parameters for production of BDS are: evaporation vapour temperature 38 42° C., vacuum pressure removal of ethanol 167 177 mbar, vacuum pressure removal of water 70 75 mbar 62 58 mbar 52 48 mbar, time <8

hours. Characterisation of BDS

The THC BDS is a brown, viscous, semi-solid extract consisting of at least 60% cannabinoids constituents. The cannabinoid constituents include at least 90% THC, about 1.5% CBD with the remainder being made up of other minor cannabinoids.

The chemical composition of Cannabis has been thoroughly studied with over 400 compounds identified (Hendricks et al., 1975; Turner et al., 1980). More than 60 cannabinoids have been identified, with CBDA and THCA (the CBD and THC pre-cursors)

being the most abundant. Generally, the non-cannabinoid constituents comprise up to 50% of extracts, depending on the extraction process. Chemical classes identified include alkanes (25 30 carbon chain), nitrogenous compounds, amino acids, sugars,

aldehydes, alcohols and ketones, flavanoids, glycosides, vitamins, pigments and terpenes. About 95 mono- and sesqui-terpenes have been identified in Cannabis and are responsible for the characteristic odour.

Considerable work has been carried out to completely elucidate the structure of both CBD and THC (summarised in the above papers) and both have been prepared synthetically. Pure THC has been successfully isolated in sufficient quantity from the

BDS to be used as reference material for identification and quantification.

Impurities:

The BDS substance is a selective extract from dried decarboxylated leaves and flowering heads of specific chemovars of Cannabis sativa. A range of over 400 compounds, including over 60 cannabinoids, have been found in Cannabis plants (Turner

1980). As these are naturally occurring it is not considered necessary to deem any of these components as impurities. The major impurities therefore occur in four areas, pesticides introduced during the growing process, aflatoxins, any new products

formed by decarboxylation and the materials other than the cannabinoids, which make up the BDS.

The growing process is closely controlled using GAP guidelines and takes place in a climate controlled indoor growing environment. No pesticides are applied to the crops during growth, all pest control being managed by biological means. No

pesticides are incorporated in the growing medium.

To ensure that no pesticide residues are introduced into the product the growing medium is periodically tested for pesticides known to be used by the growing medium supplier.

Once the plant material has been harvested and dried further samples are periodically tested using a general pesticide screen to ensure no contamination of the crop has occurred Potential impurities are adequately controlled at the BRM stage.

Although the growing conditions are carefully controlled to prevent this, the raw material has the potential for microbiological contamination resulting in aflatoxins in the product. The BRM and the BDS are therefore tested periodically for

aflatoxins content.

The naturally occurring form of THC in the freshly grown plant is the acid THCA, although small quantities of the neutral THC do occur. Before extraction the THCA is decarboxylated by heating to yield the neutral THC. The process is efficient

but a small amount of THCA remains and this is monitored during the final testing of the BDS. Thermal degradation of the THCA and THC during the decarboxylation process is possible to yield CBNA and CBN. These are monitored in the BDS.

The non-cannabinoid components that make up the ballast portion of the BDS include hydrocarbon and triglyceride waxes, plant pigments and terpenes. These are common components of many other extracts of medicinal plants and are considered to be

of little toxicological and pharmacological significance. The range of other components present is wide but they are generally present in only small quantities

The quantity of ballast is reduced by the winterisation process which precipitates the waxes. The ballast materials are considered to be a diluent of the active constituents and are not assayed or controlled.

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Specification for the control of BDS high in CBD: Test Test Method Limits Appearance In-House Brown viscous semi-solid Identification: A TLC Spots have characteristic Rf and colours, compared with CBD standard B

HPLC/UV Positive for CBD CBD content In-house NLT 55% w/w of extract (HPLC-UV) Related In-house cannabinoids: (HPLC/UV) THC content NMT 7.5% of the CBD content Others (total) NMT 5% of the CBD content Aflatoxin: TBA NMT 4 ppb Total Heavy Metals: Ph.Eur.

NMT 20 ppm Residual solvents: In-house Ethanol NMT 5% w/w Microbial: Ph.Eur. TVC NMT 105 cfu/g Fungi NMT 104 cfu/g Other NMT 103 cfu/g enterobacteria & certain other gram negative organisms E. coli Absent in 1 g Salmonella Absent in 10 g

S. aureus Absent in 1 g

Analytical Procedures Identification, Assay and Related Cannabinoids:

The content of THC, CBD and Cannabinol (CBN) in the BRM and BDS, are quantitatively determined by extraction with methanol or methanol/chloroform (9:1). Reverse-phase High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with UV detection at 220 nm is

the method of quantification. All analysis must be performed under amber light because the compounds of interest are known to be light sensitive.

TABLE-US-00010 Chromotography Equipment and conditions: Equipment Agilent (HP) 1100 HPLC system with variable wave- length UV detector or diode array detector. HPLC Column Discovery C8 5 μm 15 cm × 0.46 cm Pre-Column Kingsorb C18 5

μm 3 cm × 0.46 cm Mobile Phase Acetonitrile:Methanol:0.25% w/v acetic acid (16:7:6 by volume) Column Temp 25° C. Flow Rate 1.0 ml min-1 Detection 220 nm 600 mA f.s.d. Second wavelength 310 nm Injection 10 μl Volume Run Time 20

25 minutes (may be extended for samples containing small amount of late-eluting peaks) Elution Order CBD, CBDA, Δ9 THCV, CBN, Δ9 THC, CBC, Δ9 THCA

Standard Preparation:

Stock standard solutions of CBD, CBN and Δ9 THC in methanol at approximately 1 mg ml-1 are stored at -20° C.

Diluted working standards (0.1 mg/ml for Δ9 THC and CBD and 0.01 mg/ml for CBN) are prepared in methanol from the stock standards and stored at -20° C. (maximum period of twelve months after initial preparation). After

preparation, standard solutions must be aliquoted into vials to reduce the amount of standard exposed to room temperature. Prior to use in an HPLC sample assay, the required number of standard vials are removed and allowed to equilibrate to room

temperature.

Sample Preparation:

In all preparations, alternative weights and volumes may be used to give the same final dilutions.

Botanical Raw Material

Accurately weigh approximately 100 mg of chopped dried homogeneous material into a 10 ml volumetric flask. Disperse material in methanol:chloroform (9:1 v/v) and make to volume in the same solvent. Extract sample in an ultrasonic bath for 15

minutes. Centrifuge an aliquot at 300 rpm for about 2 minutes. Dilute 100 μl of the supernatant to 1 ml with methanol in a suitable HPLC sample vial. (Further dilution may be required if the principal cannabinoid concentration is outside the linear

working range). Decarboxylated Botanical Raw Material: As for Botanical Raw Material. Botanical Drug Substance: Accurately weigh approximately 80 mg of BDS into a 50 ml volumetric flask. Dissolve BDS and make up to volume with methanol. Dilute 100

μl of the prepared supernatant to 1 ml with methanol in a suitable HPLC auto sampler vial. Chromatography Procedure:

Samples are placed in the autosampler rack in the order entered into the sequence list on the Agilent chemstation.

Standard solutions are used to provide quantitative and retention time data. These may be typically injected in duplicate or triplicate prior to the injection of any sample solutions and then singularly at suitable intervals during the run, with

a maximum of 10 test samples in between standards. Chromatography Acceptance Criteria:

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 10 Retention time windows and Relative Retention Time (RRT) to Δ9THC for each analyte: Retention Time Cannabinoid (Minutes) RRT(THC) CBD 5.1 5.8 0.58 CBN 7.4 8.3 0.83 Δ9 THC 9.0 10.0 1.00 CBDA 5.5 6.2

0.615 Δ9 THCV 5.9 6.6 0.645 CBC 11.6 12.8 1.30 Δ9 THCA 14.6 16.0 1.605

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 11 Peak Shape (Symmetry Factor according to British Pharmacopoeia method): Cannabinoid Symmetry Factor CBD <1.30 CBN <1.25 Δ9 THC <1.35

Calculation: Botanical Raw Material:

The following equation is used to obtain a result for the purity of the principal cannabinoid as a % of the currently assayable cannabinoids (CBD, CBDA, CBN, Δ9 THC & Δ9 THCA) in the batch:

For high Δ9 THC material:

××××××××××&.ti- mes.××××××××××- ×× ##EQU00001## For high CBD material, CBD & CBDA replace THC & THCA in the top

line of the equation. Decarboxylated Botanical Raw Material:

The following equation is used to calculate the efficiency of the decarboxylation process:

For high Δ9 THC material:

××××××××××.tim- es.×××××××&××× ##EQU00002## For high CBD material, CBD & CBDA replace THC & THCA in the equation. Botanical

Drug Substance:

The following equations are used to calculate the concentration of drug substance sample, the individual sample cannabinoid concentration, the % content of the assayable cannabinoids in the drug substance, the quantity of principal cannabinoid as

a % of currently assayable cannabinoids and the amount of principal cannabinoid in the whole weight of extracted drug substance.

For high Δ9 THC material:

××××××××××.tim- es.××× ##EQU00003## Where dilution factor=50×10=500

××××××××××.tim- es.×××××××××× ##EQU00004## ××××××××××.ti-

mes.××××××××××- ×××× ##EQU00004.2##

CBD and CBN can be substituted into all of these equations instead of Δ9 THC to obtain quantitative results for both. Δ9 THCA and CBDA are also calculated using the standard concentrations for Δ9 THC or CBD in

the absence of specific reference standards of their own.

Related Substances are defined as the sum of the mean % w/w values for CBN, Δ9 THCA and CBDA.

××××××××××.tim- es.××××××××××.- times.×××××××××.time-

s.××××× ##EQU00005##

The total amount of Δ9 THC present in the whole drug substance extract is obtained.

Example 2

Investigation of the Stabilisation of Botanical Drug Substance (BDS) by Partial Purification Using Activated Charcoal

Results from stability studies on THC formulations indicate that THC in the form of BDS is unstable even at storage temperatures as low as 5° C. This contrasts with the behaviour of the purified THC (Dronabinol USP) in Marinol soft gel

capsules, for which a shelf life of 2 years at cool ambient temperature is accepted. It should also be noted that the shelf life of THC standard solutions in methanol supplied by Sigma-Aldrich is claimed to be 4 years when stored refrigerated and

protected from light.

This apparent discrepancy between the stability of BDS (THC) and purified THC prompted speculation that some component of BDS was destabilising the principal cannabinoid.

A solution to this problem would be to purify the BDS (THC) to yield high purity, preferably crystalline cannabinoid. However, the additional processing costs incurred on transforming BDS to pure cannabinoid would substantially increase the cost

of finished pharmaceutical products incorporating the cannabinoid.

Hence, the applicant sought to develop a simple purification step which would produce BDS with enhanced stability but which did not increase processing costs to a prohibitive extent.

The applicant has determined that a charcoal clean-up step may be conveniently carried out in close conjunction with the "winterisation" process by passing the ethanolic winterisation solution through a filter bed to remove precipitated waxes and

then directly through a charcoal column in a single step and that the use of activated charcoal significantly improves shelf life.

Experimental Detail.

Solutions of either BDS (THC) or BDS (CBD) at a concentration of 100 mg/ml in absolute ethanol BP were passed through a column packed with activated charcoal and the eluate collected. These were then diluted with further absolute ethanol to

achieve a concentration of ca. 25 mg/ml cannabinoid. The solution was then transferred into a 10 ml type AX1 (i.e. amber glass) vial and crimp sealed. These samples were designated charcoal purified BDS.

Samples of the BDS (THC) and BDS (CBD) solutions which had not been passed through the charcoal column were similarly diluted to give a cannabinoid concentration of 25 mg/ml and were then sealed in an amber glass vial of the same type. These

samples were designated "standard BDS" and served as a control for the stability study.

The vials containing standard BDS ("std" BDS) and charcoal purified BDS of each type were stored in a stability incubator at 40° C. and samples then periodically withdrawn over the period 1 12 months for HPLC analysis of cannabinoid

content and TLC profiling.

Normal phase TLC analysis employed the following conditions:

TABLE-US-00013 Stationary Phase: Silica Gel G Mobile Phase: 80:20 hexane/acetone Development: 2 × 8 cm i.e. double development Visualisation: Dip in 0.1% w/v Fast Blue B (aq)

Reverse phase TLC analysis employed the following conditions:

TABLE-US-00014 Stationary Phase: C18 coated Silica Gel Mobile Phase: 6:7:16 0.25% v/v acetic acid (aq)/methanol/acetonitrile Development: 2 × 8 cm i.e. double development Visualisation: Dip in 0.1% w/v Fast Blue B (aq)

For each sample a volume of solution containing approximately 5 μg total cannabinoid was applied to the TLC plate. Results and Discussion

The ethanolic solutions of std BDS (THC) and std BDS (CBD) are a fairly intense yellow. Passage of the BDS solutions through the activated charcoal effectively decolourised the solutions, presumably by the adsorption of plant pigments

co-extracted with the cannabinoids during the preparation of BDS from cannabis herb by liquid CO2 extraction.

The HPLC analysis results for the different BDS solutions are tabulated below as Table 12 and are also presented in graphical form (FIGS. 1 3). All data is reported as % of the t0 assay. CBN values are included for the BDS (THC) solutions as

this compound has been identified as a marker of thermal degradation of THC in previous stability studies.

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 12 Cannabinoid Assay Values for Std and Purified BDS Solutions over the Period 1 12 Months at 40° C. Months Solution Cannabinoid 1 4 6 12 Std BDS THC 97.3% 92.4% 85.3% 74.0% (THC) CBN 104% 119% 133% 154% Purified THC

102.9% 107.4% 96.0% 88.6% BDS (THC) CBN 94% 111% 111% 120% Std BDS CBD 100.3% 103.6% 93.3% 91.0% (CBD) Purified CBD 101.0% 100.7% 97.2% 96.9% BDS (CBD)

From the above data it is quite clear that for both BDS (THC) and BDS (CBD) there is some component of the ballast, which can be removed by charcoal, which is destabilising the cannabinoids.

Comparison of the levels of degradation reached after 12 months at 40° C. for the std BDS and the corresponding charcoal purified BDS indicate that for both the THC and the CBD extracts the charcoal purification increases the resistance

to thermal degradation by over 50%.

For BDS (THC), the level of CBN is seen to increase as a function of the principal cannabinoid lost (FIG. 3). As observed for other formulations containing THC, the level of CBN is again confirmed to be a marker of thermal degradation.

Comparison between cannabinoid regions of HPLC chromatograms of standard BDS (CBD) and purified BDS (CBD) samples after 12 months at 40° C. (data not shown) revealed no significant information. However, similar comparison of HPLC

chromatograms of the standard and purified BDS (THC) after degradation was informative.

The CBN was at a higher level in the more highly degraded unpurified standard BDS, but a second significant degradation product was also observed, which is again present in both samples but which is more abundant in the more degraded sample. The

spectrum of this degradation product was again essentially identical to that of CBN and on the basis of this and the retention time appeared to be one of the CBN analogues.

Conclusion

Significant improvement in resistance to thermal degradation is achieved by a simple charcoal treatment.

Example 3

Effect of Addition of Organic Modifier on CO2 Extraction of Cannabis Plant Material

The following example describes an investigation into the effect of the addition of a polar co-solvent on the characteristics of an extract produced from cannabis plant material (G5 chemovar) using liquid CO2 extraction, and illustrates the

difference in selectivity obtained using sub-critical vs super-critical CO2 extraction.

Experimental Detail.

Extraction experiments were carried out using a 1 liter capacity CO2 extraction apparatus. Food grade CO2 and BP grade absolute ethanol were employed as solvents.

A batch of G5 cannabis (a high CBD chemovar) was used. The CBD content was 7.3% w/w after decarboxylation. Analysis of the cannabinoid content of the extracts was carried out by HPLC.

Results and Discussion.

The data relating to the composition of the final extract obtained after a 4 hour extraction time under the specified conditions is presented below in Table 13:

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 13 Composition and Yield Data for Extracts Produced under Different Extraction Conditions. Extraction % w/w % CBD % Recovery Sample Conditions Extract (w/w) of CBD AC470 10° C./60 BAR 8.4% 63.6% 72.9% AC471

40° C./100 BAR 10.7% 54.4% 79.5% AC472 40° C./100 BAR + 10.3% 64.6% 91.0% 2% ETHANOL

The recovery efficiency is based on the CBD available in decarboxylated plant material charged to the vessel for each extraction.

The results illustrate that changing the extraction conditions from sub-critical to super-critical increases the solvating power of the CO2 and results in a higher recovery of the available CBD. However, the supercritical CO2 can now

solubilise a wider range of compounds and the extraction of these additional compound has the effect of diluting the concentration of CBD in the extract to such an extent that it is now lower than that obtained for the sub-critical extraction.

Consequently, the marginal additional recovery of available CBD from the raw material would not outweigh this disadvantage and demonstrates the use of supercritical conditions is not desirable.

The addition of 2% w/w absolute ethanol to supercritical CO2 as a modifier increases the recovery of the available CBD to >90%. Presumably the relatively polar cannabinoid is more soluble in the extract of increased polarity.

Interestingly, the concentration of CBD in the extract is increased slightly by the addition of polar modifier. This would seem to indicate that the co-extractable non-cannabinoid material present in the plant material is less polar than the

target cannabinoid and hence the extraction of this material (the "ballast") is deselected when polarity is increased.

Thus, extraction of cannabis plant material with supercritical CO2+2% w/w ethanol provides an increase in recovery of the target active with no attendant penalty of loss of selectivity.

In Summary:

1. A switch from sub-critical to super-critical conditions produces little advantage in terms of overall recovery of cannabinoid from the raw material but does result in the disadvantage of reducing the active content of the extract.

2. The addition of 2% absolute ethanol modifier to supercritical CO2 results in a significant improvement in the recovery of cannabinoid from the raw material with no penalty of dilution of active content by co-extracted material.

Those skilled in the art will recognize, or be able to ascertain using no more than routine experimentation, many equivalents to the specific embodiments of the invention described herein. Such equivalents are intended to be encompassed by the

following claims.

All references disclosed herein are incorporated by reference in their entirety.

* * * * *

Other References

* The United Kingdom Parliament, Select Committee on Science and Technology Ninth Report (Mar. 14, 2001) at http://www.publications.parliament.u...ch/50/5001.htm.

* The United Kingdom Parliament, Select Committee on Science and Technology Ninth Report (1998) at http://www.parliament.the-stationery.....;/151/15101.htm.

* Turner, C.E., “Chemistry and Metabolism,” Supplied by The British Library, pp. 81-97.

* Turner, C.E., “Constituents of Cannabis sativa L. XVII. A review of the Natural Constituents,” Journal of Natural Products, vol. 43, No. 2 (Mar.-Apr. 1980) 169-234.

* Turner, C.E., “Constituents of Cannabis sativa L.,” Biomedical Mass Spectrometry, vol. 7, No. 6 (1990) 247-256.

* Hendriks, H. et al., “Mono- and Sesqui-terpene Hydrocarbons of the Essential Oil of Cannabis sativa,” Psychochemistry (1975) 514-815.

* A. Awasthi et al., “A Review on Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Extraction of Natural Products,” Chemical Engineering World, vol. XXXII, No. 10, Oct. 1997, pp. 65-71.

* D. P. West, “Hemp and Marijuana: Myths & Realities,” http://www.naihc.org/hemp—informatio...t/hemp.mj.html, 1998.

* R. A. Nelson, “Hemp Husbandry,” Chapter 6—Cannabinoid Chemistry, http://www.rexresearch.com/hhusb/hh6thc.htm, 2000.

* [No author listed] Vascular Plants of Russia and Adjacent Countries—Cannabis L. (Oct. 26, 1996).

* [No author listed] Vascular Plants of Russia and Adjacent Countries—Humulus (Oct. 26, 1996).

* T. Veress, “Sample preparation by supercritical fluid extraction for quantification. A model based on the diffusion-layer theory for determination of extraction time,” Journal of Chromatography A, 668 (1994) 285-291.

Inventor(s)

* Whittle, Brian

* Hill, Colin A.

* Flockhart, Ian R.

* Downs, David Victor

* Gibson, Peter

* Wheatley, Gary William

Assignee

* GW Pharma Limited

Application

No. 10218972 filed on 08/14/2002

Current US Class

424/725, PLANT MATERIAL OR PLANT EXTRACT OF UNDETERMINED CONSTITUTION AS ACTIVE INGREDIENT (E.G., HERBAL REMEDY, HERBAL EXTRACT, POWDER, OIL, ETC.)424/774, Containing or obtained from a leaf (aka folium or foliage)424/400PREPARATIONS CHARACTERIZED BY SPECIAL PHYSICAL FORM

Field of Search

424/774, Containing or obtained from a leaf (aka folium or foliage)549/392Chalcogen bonded directly to the hetero ring

Examiners

Primary: McKelvey, Terry

Assistant: Winston, Randall

Attorney, Agent or Firm

* Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

US Patent References

4279824, Method and apparatus for processing herbaceous plant materials including the plant cannabis

Issued on: 07/21/1981

Inventor: McKinney5227537, Method for the production of 6,12-dihydro-6-hydroxy-cannabidiol and the use thereof for the production of trans-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

Issued on: 07/13/1993

Inventor: Stoss, et al.5478736Process for the isolation and purification of taxol and taxanes from Taxus using methanol or acetone

Issued on: 12/26/1995

Inventor: Nair

Foreign Patent References

* 1212273 CN 03/01/1999

* 198 00 330 DE 09/01/2002

* 2103238 ES 09/01/1997

* WO 00/25127 WO 05/01/2000

* WO 01/28649 WO 04/01/2001

* WO02/32420 WO 04/01/2002

* WO 02/064109 WO 08/01/2002

Edited by Tyler.Durden

Share this post


Link to post

EXPENSIVE cost of sativex is £176 for 4 viles, that's according to GW Pharmaceutical... and the reason there is no advertising leaflets or any promoting of sativex is because gw are denied from doing so by the government! rubbish

Share this post


Link to post

I've said this before and no doubt I'll say it again:

Sativex, or any form of cannabis, will never be permitted for widespread public use even on prescription. No UK Gov will ever allow it. Ever. Its just not going to happen. So I would say to folks: Forget Sativex, get growing or find someone to grow for you.

In my opinion (and that is all this is, my opinion) Sativex is a great big con. Even were any Gov to release it, the cost would mean a very low uptake by Doctors etc.

Forget it, it is not going to happen.

And in the words of my Pain Managment Consultant: "anyone can grow better cannabis, and get better results". In his opinion, Sativex is so mild and befuddled that in comparison with the natural product it is of very little use or value.

I know Sibbs has had first class results, and no doubts others have too. And I'm well pleased for them.

But consider, if they had those results by using some new pharmaceutical (petroleum based, like almost all other pharmaceuticals), the news would be everywhere; You would not hear the end of it n the paers on the telly etc etc. "Wonder drug cures man instantly".

Why has this not happened? Beacuse the UK Gov have embargo'd Cannabis and all talk about it. They are blocking GW Pharma at every turn. They are denying advertising. They will not, on any grounds, permit any use of sativex if they possible can.

And why did Sibbs et al have such a tussle to get it? And why cannot the vast majority of folks get it?

I have not read the Original Post. Can't make head nor tale of the science-speak, its just a load of "blah" to me. But why on earth the poor plant must go through all that, when it is ready for use as is ....

Oh! Of course! Profit, shareholders etc etc.

:wassnnme: They in for a big surprise, methinks.

Edited by Arnold Layne

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree with what you said Arnie. I doubt Sativex will ever be made feely available.

If it aint broke in the first place, why try to 'fix' it? Its a fucking plant!....

:wassnnme:

Share this post


Link to post

I hear what you are saying Arnie....not sure of my own thoughts in respect of that tbh.

If the government were/are so against Sativex, why did they grant them the license to grow? Why didn't they just decline the application?

I also heard/read (not sure which) that the government hold a lot of shares in GWPharm......or is that just bollox too?

Share this post


Link to post

This link is interesting - from the pharmaceutical website

http://www.gwpharm.com/pdfs/Sativex_PIR_QA.pdf

essentially -

it is between you and the gp to decide if it gets prescribed

range of symptoms allowed - not just MS

the nhs can fund it

1400 patients and growing

Lord Walton appears to be an appropriate person to whom claims of CBD efficacy might be made in other areas than MS.

He did the research and so he might welcome further anecdotal evidence that can be researched at a later date...?

vangraffe

Share this post


Link to post
I've said this before and no doubt I'll say it again:

Sativex, or any form of cannabis, will never be permitted for widespread public use even on prescription. No UK Gov will ever allow it. Ever. Its just not going to happen. So I would say to folks: Forget Sativex, get growing or find someone to grow for you.

In my opinion (and that is all this is, my opinion) Sativex is a great big con. Even were any Gov to release it, the cost would mean a very low uptake by Doctors etc.

Forget it, it is not going to happen.

And in the words of my Pain Managment Consultant: "anyone can grow better cannabis, and get better results". In his opinion, Sativex is so mild and befuddled that in comparison with the natural product it is of very little use or value.

I know Sibbs has had first class results, and no doubts others have too. And I'm well pleased for them.

But consider, if they had those results by using some new pharmaceutical (petroleum based, like almost all other pharmaceuticals), the news would be everywhere; You would not hear the end of it n the paers on the telly etc etc. "Wonder drug cures man instantly".

Why has this not happened? Beacuse the UK Gov have embargo'd Cannabis and all talk about it. They are blocking GW Pharma at every turn. They are denying advertising. They will not, on any grounds, permit any use of sativex if they possible can.

And why did Sibbs et al have such a tussle to get it? And why cannot the vast majority of folks get it?

I have not read the Original Post. Can't make head nor tale of the science-speak, its just a load of "blah" to me. But why on earth the poor plant must go through all that, when it is ready for use as is ....

Oh! Of course! Profit, shareholders etc etc.

:ouch: They in for a big surprise, methinks.

hi arnie :D

i find that sativex works better for me than raw natural cannabis.

i believe that this is due to the synthesis of a 1:1 ratio of thc:cbd as found in sativex, but i am no expert.

as of yet i have been unable to find in my own home grown varieties such a ratio.

in a way, you too experience this when you take morphine based drugs but i doubt very much that you regularly

process your own poppies for your daily medication.

so you rely on big pharma to process it for you and to your specific requirements.

with this in mind i find it difficult to ascertain as to why you hold such a

low opinion of gw pharma, yet you rave about morphine based drugs which are also derived from a plant

and by the same type of (if not worse) big pharma companies.

just my 2p as i am a fan of sativex and hear you berate it and its makers regularly.

opinions are opinions, and all that :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post

Bartman

If I were able to grow sufficient Poppy, I would rather use the raw product than the pills I have. Simple as that. Opium is full of other alkaloids which purified Morphine does not have. I hope I do not "rave" about Morphine (far from, I regard it as a second rate drug compared to the Poppy), but as most people here speak of it as vile poison etc etc, I reserve the right to adjust the balance where I see fit. The number of folks here who seem to think Sativex and Cannabis as a whole are better analgesics than Morphine etc is amazing. Ill informed, and often highly misleading. Opinions, indeed!

I am incredibly glad Sativex works for you. That's great! Really, it is.

But as you know, it did nothing for me, nothing whatsoever. No analgesia, no anything. Might as well have swallowed a glass of water. I dont believe I'm alone in this. Even the last trials I saw results from admitted that at best, Sativex was roughly equivalent to Codeine in Post Operative analgesia, as regards analgesic potential. Well now, I would hope that most folk are given much more than a Codeine for post operative analgesia. Fact is: Most post operative analgesia consists of 5mg Morphine Sulphate IV PRN, via a patient controlled button on a drip system.

Now this is not to berate Sativex in any way, just to try and get a balance.

I hope you continue to get relief. But I fear the future of Sativex is far from secure. Very far from it.

Fai: I suspect the Gov enjoy being able to say "Sativex!" whenever pushed on the issue of medicinal cannabis. All the time ignoring the fact that they know full well - hardly anyone is prescribing it. The Patient-doctor-PCT-Consultant farce is a nice way of saying "Yes" and "No" at the same time. As many are finding out at their own cost to health.

(I said "Hardly anyone", not "no-one". Just to prevent misunderstanding.)

And whatever anyone might say, on whatever website, the fact is plain for all to see: The vast majority of those seeking Sativex get given the run-around. And that despite them being very much in need of it, and standing to benefit from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Opinions, indeed!

indeed :rofl:

i do hope you're wrong on this one tho'

But I fear the future of Sativex is far from secure. Very far from it.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post

So do I, M8!

But let's face it, the politics of Cannabis is not known for its foundation in either truth or altruism. And that is why I think/fear as I do.

Share this post


Link to post

skimmed through the origional post, it seems like they are trying to patent various extraction methods?, if you cant patent the plant i suppose owning all the extraction rights would be a good thing, or was it abou something completely different?

Share this post


Link to post

This should be in the hash section too as there's some interesting bits for oil/tincture makers. After the extraction they clean it with activated charcoal just like Grobag attempted to do, don't know if he went any further than his first attempt? They have a decarboxylation step too which is probably of very useful for anyone who eats or drinks their extracts heating makes it stronger, converts THC-A into THC.

Actually it seems they decarboxylate the plant material before extraction, at the same time removing moisture to improve extraction. Sneakily they don't say what temps and for how long the heating happens though, bastards. It's hard to find info about it on the net too, saw a video about it on here once but it's disappeared. Anyone know temps and times for decarboxylation?

Edited by Dr Benways Assistant

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0