"
The applied doses of THC were 0.1-0.2 mg/kg/day oral, and 0.025-0.075 mg/kg/day rectal, respectively. The aim of the study was to determine the equivalent doses and to compare the dose-effect relationships for the two methods of application. The patients served as their own controls and received THC either orally or rectally on four consecutive days. Patient A (77 kg) received 10 mg per os and 5 mg rectal (2:1), patient B (80 kg) 15 mg per os and 2.5 mg rectal (6:1). With rectal application, the "first pass effect" of the liver was diminished and the bio-availability was approximately doubled. Therefore similar or better effects were obtained with lower rectal doses, compared to oral application."
Source: http://www.hempfood.com/Iha/iha03212.html - repost of study data done overseas.
"The bioavailability resulting from the oral formulation was 45-53% relative to the rectal route of administration, due to a lower absorption and higher first-pass metabolism. The effect of THC on spasticity, rigidity, and pain was estimated by objective neurological tests (Ashworth scale, walking ability) and patient self-rating protocols. Oral and rectal THC reduced at a progressive stage of illness the spasticity, rigidity, and pain, resulting in improved active and passive mobility. The relative effectiveness of the oral vs. the rectal formulation was 25-50%."
Source data: Actual study -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897084
Rectal is more effective and more efficient than eating it. There are OLD UNCHALLENGED studies to prove it right there. I'm sure those doctors from my second link could be contacted.
As for
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5389375.html <--- that link you posted.... the very first abstract line states:
"Suppository formulations having long-term stability and containing readily bioavailable Δ9 -THC
derivatives."
DERIVATIVE. NOT ACTUAL DELTA-9 THC.
