It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Glucosamine-Like Supplement Suppresses Multiple Sclerosis Attacks: "Glucosamine-like"?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I have been seeing this a bit more frequently.... perhaps you have as well?


ScienceDaily (Sep. 30, 2011) — A glucosamine-like dietary supplement suppresses the damaging autoimmune response seen in multiple sclerosis, according to a UC Irvine study.

UCI's Dr. Michael Demetriou, Ani Grigorian and others found that oral N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc), which is similar to but more effective than the widely available glucosamine...


Now, glucosamine is a natural substance. It is, in fact, the second most abundant biological component of stuctural cells, after cellulose. It seems perfectly understandable that it's presence in our diet would metabolize into chemicals that help our bodyies, after all, we end up consuming it in many ways.

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.

That is.... until the pharmaceutical giants managed to create a Glucosamine-Like derivative called N-acetylglucosamine ... the process to make this substance is of course, industrial. And a long treatise of the process can be found here.

The 'study' the article quotes asserts how much better the synthetically derived product is.

One must wonder if the object is to further marginalize what nature has to offer, as opposed to what patent-holders have mimicked.

Just thought i would share....

Thanks for reading.

edit on 3-10-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
One must wonder if the object is to further marginalize what nature has to offer, as opposed to what patent-holders have mimicked.


I would very much agree with this statement. I wonder when they will come out with a "prescription only" formula that costs more, but pretty much does the same as what is available currently.

Thank you for link. When I went to the science daily link I saw a related link from 2007. The title for that one was Glucosamine-Like Supplement Inhibits Multiple Sclerosis, Type 1 Diabetes

Some of the wording on that page is almost identical to the current article. Except the current article does not mention type 1 diabetes. I have a family member that suffers from MS. I'm gonna forward this information along.

Very interesting & thanks again for the links!
OiO



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Hi Maxmars, nice thread.



Originally posted by Maxmars
One must wonder if the object is to further marginalize what nature has to offer, as opposed to what patent-holders have mimicked.



There’s no wondering about it for me. It’s a fact that patent laws exist to protect entities known as corporations. In no way shape or form do they exist to assist mankind. Some people like to argue that they are important to protect “corporate investments” and this “saves/creates jobs” but that’s asinine to me. Besides, the most helpful and liberating of all patents never make it to market anyways because they are bought and shelved, never to see the light of day, by mega-corps to protect the profit flow of the inferior technologies they are marketing to us. In my opinion, the existence and usage of things like patents in our society is a good measure of our overall patheticness. And boy are we pathetic!



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Jeez.

..Is natural glucosamine rare, or just too common to make $ from?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneisOne
I have a family member that suffers from MS. I'm gonna forward this information along.


Hi OneisOne,

I read this comment and wanted to make you aware of a recent thread specifically addressing MS. In it, a video testimonial from a woman suffering with MS for 10 years, bound to a wheelchair and cannot walk, tells of her current therapy (7 months in now). Although still a ways to go, she can now walk, which you will see in the video, and she speaks of what she is doing, the Dr she is working with and how she is achieving amazing results. Hint no drugs or surgery! You can see that in the following thread - An Amazing Lesson in the Health of the Human Body

Maxmars, please forgive me - I do not want to direct traffic away from your thread. I'm just trying to reach those that may best benefit so that they may help themselves and their loved ones.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by StrangeBrew
 


No offense taken at all.....



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 



Why on earth would you "quote" - in your response to me - all that crap I did NOT post, as if I said it?

...I was just looking for a dietary source.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 



Why on earth would you "quote" - in your response to me - all that crap I did NOT post, as if I said it?

...I was just looking for a dietary source.


I never said everything I quoted was from you. It's fairly obvious to anyone who has read the thread that my other quotes were from the OP. Your question was not 'where can I get a dietary source of GluNAc?' at all. All I did was answer the question you asked to the best of my ability. I apologise if the in-depth answer offended you.

To answer your question related to dietary sources: I don't imagine you enjoy eating crab shells? Otherwise there aren't any. It does come in the form of supplement pills, however.

edit on 6-10-2011 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Format counts.




new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join