The prefix seems unnecessary and doesn’t even make sense with your last example. Why is it needed when the a- prefix works perfectly fine to contrast with the existing word as-is?
The prefix seems unnecessary and doesn’t even make sense with your last example. Why is it needed when the a- prefix works perfectly fine to contrast with the existing word as-is?
Thanks this is a lot of great detail on the dosing mechanism that I think is really interesting. I love reading up on the experimental details and the actually components used to make these experiments work.
300mg of orally ingested THC spread out over 24 hours is about equivalent to consuming 1 typical candy/gummy every hour for 24 hours of the day. A reasonable or average or normal person would be uncomfortably high at these dosages. I also imagine the bioavailability of oral ingestion is less than the dosing mechanism you described although I’m not sure (is that getting taken up through the lymphatic system? How does it differ from oral ingestion or injection into the bloodstream?).
Fascinating stuff, thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Maybe I’m misreading the only plot that mentions dosing numbers anywhere. It looks like the largest dosing group is getting 3mg/kg/day. That’s a lot scaled up to a 100kg person (like 10x a normal gummy for example).
But if the average is better, then we’re will clearly win by using it. I’m not following the logic of tracking the worst case scenarios as opposed to the average.
Just like all humans can do right now, right?
I never see any humans on the rode staring at their phone and driving like shit.
I don’t think there needs to be a word that describes the negative of a condition. You just don’t need a descriptor at all. There’s no value add.
Inject vs eject? Am I being trolled here?