Talk:Δ-11-Tetrahydrocannabinol

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Propose name change to Exo-THC?

Would like to suggest changing the article name to Exo-THC as the primary name instead of Delta-11-THC. It's easy for people to confuse it with 11-Hydroxy-THC. If the double bond was inside the ring it would make sense to say delta but the double bond is out of the ring so exo is more appropriate. Gettinglit (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it should stay as Delta-11-THC, this is the more commonly used name and is consistent with the names of the other isomers Delta-3,4,7,8,9 & 10-THC, since every single isomer has now appeared on the market and we have a page for each of them, we should use the same naming scheme. People also get confused between O-acetyl THC and THC octyl homologue since they both get sold as "THC-O" but the names vendors dream up for marketing purposes should not be what we base our naming from on here. Meodipt (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported claims of potency

There are people editing this Wikipedia using the cited study "Synthesis and pharmacological evaluation of ether and related analogs of .DELTA.8-, .DELTA.9-, and .DELTA.9,11-tetrahydrocannabinol David R. Compton, W. Roy Prescott Jr., Billy R. Martin, Craig Siegel, Patrick M. Gordon, and Raj K. Razdan" as a reference for the claim that it's 3x stronger, however this study mentions nothing about it being 3x stronger and nothing about it being stronger at all and actually says "one partial success in the quest for an antagonist is the fact that D9,11-THC was found to significantlky reduce the effect of D9-THC in the monkey" which would suggest its weaker which is supported with analogs.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettinglit (talk • contribs) 18:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delta 11 THC has been proven to have a significantly higher binding affinity compared to THC at CB1. The information you are looking up is from 1991. Look on Google it states everywhere it maintains 3x potency with a higher binding affinity. It even feels stronger than thc by itself. 174.212.34.134 (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it has not. Even analogs with a similar modification of a double bond next to the 9-methyl group have decreased affinity.

Random stores making up things for marketing on google so custys are tricked into buying something they falsely believe is unique is not scientific data. In addition nobody even makes a high potency Exo-THC product at this point in time, it's only found in very low amounts, often less than 5%, as a byproduct of THC synthesis.

Sorry you fell for marketing made up by people taking advatage of customers who fall for it, but their marketing and SEO manipulation of blog posts and google search engine optimization to come up first in search results isnt scientific data, its quite literally made up marketing nonsense. Gettinglit (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's getting apparent this is apart of deliberate vandalism not acting in good faith by ignoring what the citations say and making other unsupported claims constantly reverting edited with unsupported and contradictory information. Gettinglit (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm00115a023

[1] ttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm00115a023

[1]