Thanks for sharing, I wasn't aware of that, that is a big news to me. However I'm afraid this is very limited: 1) many peptides are produced by extracting them

Thanks for sharing, I wasn't aware of that, that is a big news to me. However I'm afraid this is very limited: 1) many peptides are produced by extracting them from cattle organs, here their thymus but see also cerebrolysin for example. The Peptides researchers have often made synthetic analogues, which are similar to the endogenously produced version but can be produced in labs. However not every peptide has a synthetic variant and IIRC thymalin is derived from cattles thymuses. Also what does produced by means of a technical process even means. Extraction from organs IS a technical process made of many reagents and steps. A synthetic production of a chemical in a lab via enzymes is a mostly biological process in my book, please clarify EU. 2) > assuming that the compund was previously not known to be usable for a particular use case Now that destroy most applications and its ridiculous. What happen about a substance is that at first their is base public access research. This base research find most uses, here that thymalin increase lymphocite T production. The goal of the base research is to enable future clinical trials years later. However since this base research has found the use, it's no longer patentable and therefore ironically prevent clinical trials. Now if applying an immunostimulant for X new immunosuppressive diseases is a separate patent despite deriving from the same basic public research property is valid.. is an open and ad-hoc question? However to be perfectly honest, while my general statement about Peptides is true, there exists (unrelated to HIV) patents about thymalin I don't know how that is possible.