Originally posted by soficrow
..Is natural glucosamine rare, or just too common to make $ from?
It most certainly isn't. D-Glucosamine is on of the monomeric units of chitin, the structural component on crustaceans. N-Acetyl-D-glucosamine
(GluNAc) is another component. Seems likely that D-glucosamine could easily be produced industrially by hydrolysing shells. There are heaps of
supplements that you can buy for glucosamine as well. It's certainly not new.
Structurally though, it is different to the N-acetyl derivative; only by an acetyl group, but it's enough to alter bioactivity.
Additionally, I seriously doubt that pharma could patent GluNAc. It's by no means a new compound, has been made many, many times in the past (I
myself made some just last year) and is a fundamental, natural constituent of a lot of things. Possibly they could patenting the therapy or the exact
drug formulation rather than the compound, though this would rely on it being in some way innovative or novel, which I doubt would be the case since
novel forumaltions would first be tested on standard drugs that are already on the market. So, no patents here methinks.
As part of the herbalists *(and natural medicine's) varied assortment of useful and beneficial substances, many have used it's extract and
essence to help remedy various maladies. Claims that it actually helped alleviate the suffering of certain conditions, Multiple-Sclerosis for one,
were commonly rebuked as 'non-evidence-based' science and thereby ridiculed and oft-times openly rejected.
I think you're probably exaggerating the denial of its use as a theraputic agent. Most likely, the reason it was rebuked was because the herbalists,
etc. were making claims with no evidence to support it. It's not exactly ethical or scientifically valid to accept claims of this nature (or any)
without proper testing or evidence to back them up. The world would be a very different place if we did.
One must wonder if the object is to further marginalize what nature has to offer, as opposed to what patent-holders have mimicked.
Not really and especially not in this case, since GluNAc is an abundant, naturally occurring compound. More broadly though, it is worth noting that
natural products and natural product derivatives in fact constitute a huge area of pharmaceutical research. Sometimes, but not always, synthetic
derivatives to natural products are made and preferred to their respective natural counterparts. This is usually because the synthetic derivative is
less toxic, more biologically potent, has a better bioavailability or is more specific towards the intended target (or any combination thereof). It's
not really a case of trying to marginalize what nature has to offer, it's more that researchers will try to optimise them them towards being
'better' at whatever it is they do in terms of their action a therapeutic agent.
