cannabisnews.com: Researchers Scramble for THC Patent





Researchers Scramble for THC Patent
Posted by CN Staff on February 03, 2005 at 23:44:30 PT
By John Lupton
Source: Tiger
A small team of Clemson University researchers is in the process of patenting several chemical compounds derived from THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.Drugs from these compounds could potentially be a huge breakthrough in the world of medicine that is a far cry from smoking dope to treat back pain or cataracts. When tested on animals, the drugs were also effective at fighting what is currently an untreatable cancer called Glioma.
Unfortunately, the best of these cancer-fighting compounds cannot be patented and developed by a pharmaceutical company, because it was published before the discovery of its incredible potential.In 1997, John Huffman, a Clemson faculty member for 45 years who has led this research at the school for 20 years, created a compound and named it with his initials, JWH-133. He then published it in a 1998 edition of Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry, not realizing the possibility of a revolutionary drug coming from the compound."That's the name of the game if you want to get your grant back," said Huffman, whose funding comes from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "And students want publications, because it helps them get a job."In 2001, Manuel Guzman, a professor of Biochemistry at Complutense University in Madrid asked Huffman for a sample of his compound to use for testing in mice. What he found has led to a race to patent compounds similar to 133. Guzman discovered that when he injected 133 into mice intentionally infected with Glioma, they experienced remarkable recoveries.Huffman explained the difference between these compounds and medical marijuana."We do not do medical marijuana research," he said. "We have never had marijuana in our lab."What Huffman and his team do instead is look at how THC interacts with two different receptors in our bodies. One of these receptors, the CB1, was discovered in 1988. It is located in the brain, and its interaction with THC produces the high experienced after smoking marijuana. THC's bonding with the CB1 receptor also helps soothe nausea and pain.A synthetic version of the drug, called Marinol, is already on the market to help increase appetite in AIDS and cancer patients.Huffman's research, however, centers on THC's bonding with the CB2 receptor, which was discovered in 1993 and is part of the immune system. Huffman and five colleagues work together in Hunter Laboratory creating compounds that also bond with the CB2. Huffman's compounds differ from THC and its synthetic cousin Marinol because they do not bond with the CB1; they do not produce a high or an increase in appetite.At the time of 133's creation, the CB2 receptor had been discovered, but the potential for a molecular compound like this one was unknown.To date, Huffman and his associates have made 375 of these "THC-like" compounds starting from simple chemicals. Several of the compounds are currently being looked at by the U.S. Patent Office. The compounds could prove very useful for their ability to bond with CB2s, because skin cancer and Glioma, a very deadly type of brain tumor, also make these receptors. Huffman explained that once 133 was published, it became impossible to patent, and without a patent no drug company will touch it."Since it's not patented, probably no one will ever use it," Huffman said, explaining that drug companies will not likely back a drug unless they have exclusive rights to it. A company would have to fund millions of dollars worth of testing before the drug ever got approved by the Food and Drug Administration and made it to the market. Without a patent, cheaper brands could start coming out as soon as the drug was approved. So the company that actually backed the drug from the beginning comes out a loser.Now that Huffman's prototype has been tainted, his problem lies in convincing the U.S. Patent Office that some of his similar compounds have enough novelty not to be deemed a "logical extension" of JWH-133. The tragedy is that 133 was the best. But Huffman and many others around the country are now trying to create a better compound.Some of Huffman's collaborators are currently negotiating with an overseas pharmaceutical company concerning Huffman's compounds that are already being looked at by the Patent Office.If any of the compounds are patented, this company will likely get the rights to them.Source: Tiger, The (SC Edu)Author: John LuptonPublished Friday, February 4, 2005Copyright: 2005 The TigerContact: editor thetigernews.comWebsite: http://www.thetigernews.com/Related Articles:Research Could Help Sidestep Politics of MJhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20062.shtmlMarijuana May Stall Brain Tumor Growthhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19339.shtmlCannabis Hope for Brain Cancer http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19338.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #18 posted by Hope on February 09, 2005 at 08:52:21 PT
Speaking of Schedule 1 lies
Wasn't HHS supposed to make some decision or at least say something back on February 4th about re-scheduling pleas?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Hope on February 09, 2005 at 08:49:12 PT
Thank you, Schmeff
He was something, wasn't he?So beautiful. So true.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by schmeff on February 09, 2005 at 08:37:53 PT
Gandhi Quote
Nature can provide for the needs of people; [she] can't provide for the
greed of people. -Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by schmeff on February 08, 2005 at 10:15:26 PT
Patently Wrong
More like Un-patently wrong.These greedy exploiters of resources at least give lie to the Schedule One status of cannabis. It is a crime against nature (which belongs to us all) to patent (steal) the best or active parts of nature in order to sell it back to us. It becomes a crime against humanity to do so while subsequently criminalizing the natural resource being stolen.The only good news I see here, besides the refutation of the "Schedule One Lie", is the fact that this most promising of compunds, JWH-133, appears to belong in the public domain, being as it is....un-patentable.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by mayan on February 04, 2005 at 17:17:12 PT
Patent?
God doesn't need a patent. Nor do we.From the New King James version of the Holy Bible...And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.Genesis 1:29I believe the cannabis plant was put here not only to treat and cure sickness, but to prevent it altogether! The pharmaceutical industry fears this plant more than anything else in the world.If the cannabis seed is the most nutritious food source on earth and God gave it to all of us then who would take it away? Most prohibitionists claim to be Christians. If any are reading this I hope they come to realize just what they are doing. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by dongenero on February 04, 2005 at 15:21:39 PT
sad commentary on society
It is a sad commentary when a conpound cannot be promoted for approval on the basis of whether it works, but whether someone can control the rights to make money from it.JWH-133 appears to stop cancer but it is unpatentable so, people will have to die until we find something that will make others rich on the backs of cancer patients.This situation is patently wrong.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by runderwo on February 04, 2005 at 14:32:51 PT
hmm
 Unfortunately, the best of these cancer-fighting compounds cannot be patented and developed by a pharmaceutical company, because it was published before the discovery of its incredible potential. Unfortunately? No, what's unfortunate is that the FDA has the authority to prevent useful drugs from reaching the market. The FDA was created with the interests of the consumer in mind, but today the only interests it has in mind are those of the corporations and politicians that fund it. It should be replaced almost entirely by the discretion of consumers that are informed by independent watchdog agencies, which would operate similarly to the UL agency for electric appliances: the manufacturer submits samples and fees for certification, and pays fees for continued testing if it wants to continue to display the trademark seal of the watchdog agency. The FDA was created to prevent manufacturers from selling compounds with unknown or lethal side effects to a populace which would not otherwise know better. Today, information is far more accessible, and thus, given mandatory labeling, the responsibility for making wise decisions about drugs should fall upon the consumer.The only exception would be for antibiotic compounds, where many individuals administering it inappropriately could cause an epidemic of resistant strains. Regulation of these substances could even be absorbed into the CDC's scope so the FDA becomes redundant.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by kaptinemo on February 04, 2005 at 11:07:44 PT:
Framing the debate: connotations
Always the connotations; the way you say something is almost as - if not more important than - what you say. The Democrats lost the election partly because they still haven't learned this lesson.As AB has pointed out: "Dope". Nasty word, no? Because it conjures up mental images of sleepy-eyed, criminally inclined idiots as well as narcotics. Knuckledragging mouthbreathers. Scum. Somebody you wouldn't trust with your little sister. The emotional baggage attached to that word in American English is like a loaded weapon just waiting to be used against us. As the great jazz master Louis Armstrong said: *"It really puzzles me to see marijuana connected with narcotics . . . dope and all that crap. It's a thousand times better than whiskey - it's an assistant - a friend."* And in this case, a 'friend' with literally life-saving properties.(Hey, antis! None of us here smoke 'dope'; you'll have to go someplace where they still smoke opium to see that. And it ain't 'mair-ee-wahn-nah', either - it's CANNABIS. Go ask any botanist.)This partly why I refuse to say 'marijuana' in my posts here, save to illustrate points - that's the anti's term, and I refuse to play along with their game.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by sixtyfps on February 04, 2005 at 11:03:45 PT
Tying up any loose ends
[insert obligatory mention of the vaporizer method]
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by afterburner on February 04, 2005 at 09:35:30 PT
Stigma, Stigma, Who's Got the Stigma?
"We do not do medical marijuana research," [John Huffman] said. "We have never had marijuana in our lab."O, how noble!{"Since it's not patented, probably no one will ever use it," Huffman said, explaining that drug companies will not likely back a drug unless they have exclusive rights to it. A company would have to fund millions of dollars worth of testing before the drug ever got approved by the Food and Drug Administration and made it to the market. Without a patent, cheaper brands could start coming out as soon as the drug was approved. So the company that actually backed the drug from the beginning comes out a loser.}Thank God, we still have health food stores and producers. They could form a consortium for their mutual benefit to test and produce this miracle drug. On the other hand, they might prefer to sell the organic whole herb, cannabis, just the way God and nature provided it to be the "healing of the nations." {Huffman's compounds differ from THC and its synthetic cousin Marinol because they do not bond with the CB1; they do not produce a high or an increase in appetite. {THC's bonding with the CB1 receptor also helps soothe nausea and pain.{A synthetic version of the drug, called Marinol, is already on the market to help increase appetite in AIDS and cancer patients.}By eliminating the appetite increasing and pain reducing actions, this new potential drug would not help AIDS patients' wasting syndrome nor the nausea of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy nor the pain of MS nor physiological nerve damage pain nor arthritis pain. And Marinol is not a solution to the nausea factor in AIDS and cancer chemotherapy because patients tend to regurgitate the medicine.{Drugs from these compounds could potentially be a huge breakthrough in the world of medicine that is a far cry from smoking dope to treat back pain or cataracts.}"smoking dope"? Way to demonize, pill-apologist! Way to perpetuate ignorant misinformation. Cannabis is NOT dope. Dope is narcotics, you know, opiates! Ever hear of them, scientists? Speak up, tell the truth! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on February 04, 2005 at 08:41:13 PT
goneposthole
If man is still alive
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on February 04, 2005 at 08:39:37 PT
Max and Sam
Me too! I couldn't believe it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Max Flowers on February 04, 2005 at 08:33:44 PT
Spread this, war criminal
 - The President gets on stage as says "We're going to help the world by spreading peace and liberty to new countries by attacking them" and no one even cares. - I hear ya Sam, I was horrified by what he was saying in the state of the union speech... he keeps talking about "spreading liberty" like it's peanut butter or a communicable disease. Meanwhile no one seems to care or realize that such things are not even in the job description. He's allowing (and causing!) all kinds of really bad things to happen right here, while hemmoraging all the country's money and resources in these murderous foreign adventures. He's selling us all out, and for that he gets standing ovations and kudos all around by our spineless "representatives"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on February 04, 2005 at 08:03:47 PT
Questions
Question for the "expert scientists"....Is smoking, eating, or vaporizing natural cannabis LESS effective at shrinking tumors than Huffman's compound?What is the goal or objective of the work being done by these scientists? To cure the sick? If yes, what is the best way to help and cure as many sick people as possible? Would that be to legalize cannabis growing, and to educate as many patients as possible to grow it? Would that be to allow 3rd party cooperatives to grow the plant and distribute it to sick people with a minimum of interference? I'd love to sit down with any of these guys & ask these questions. I agree with Patrick, and this is what scares me. We're trying to reform cannabis laws at the same time that greed and corporate elite control is rapidly gaining power in our society. I fear that we're trying to swim upstream at the wrong time. It's funny to watch our over-regulated American society grapple with this issue. It's almost IMPOSSIBLE within our system to simply help someone who's dying of cancer with a simple herb. What have we come to? Orwell's 1984 was only the beginning.The President gets on stage as says "We're going to help the world by spreading peace and liberty to new countries by attacking them" and no one even cares. I bet reality in 20 years will be worse than Orwell ever imagined.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by goneposthole on February 04, 2005 at 07:55:10 PT
in the year 5555
everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.Cannabis has the potential to do too much. We must revise life so it can be controlled from cradle to grave. Revisionism is good. Truth is bad.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Patrick on February 04, 2005 at 07:40:06 PT
Amazing
Isn’t it just amazing that,,,"Since it's not patented, probably no one will ever use it,"Yet, in this very same article about a drug that no one will use cause there is no money to be made…Guzman discovered that when he injected 133 into mice intentionally infected with Glioma, they experienced remarkable recoveries.Ahh the sweet smell of greed!!! Instead of letting citizens partake of the wonderful herb that packs the foundations for these wonderful new “drugs” we are arrested and told it has no medical value. It’s way past time to end this phony drug war.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on February 04, 2005 at 07:14:15 PT
Alcohol as unhealthy as smoking - tobacco, that is
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/04/udrink.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/02/04/ixportaltop.htmlFrom the article: 'Prof Room said: "In many places, the interests of the alcohol industry have effectively exercised a veto over policies, making sure that the main emphasis is on ineffective strategies such as education."'Hmm, and prohibiting other safer intoxicants maybe?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on February 04, 2005 at 03:47:13 PT:
The media: Eyes wide shut
*In 2001, Manuel Guzman, a professor of Biochemistry at Complutense University in Madrid...discovered that when he injected 133 into mice intentionally infected with Glioma, they experienced remarkable recoveries.*Not a word about how Guzman also discovered that someone had beaten him to the punch *in 1974*, right here in the US of A, at the University of Virginia: Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids http://www.ukcia.org/research/AntineoplasticActivityOfCannabinoids/default.htmlThe implications of this are obvious: a coverup. So much for state-of-the-art journalism... 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment