Preservisout

[anonymous]

I am pretty sure you chose to use the word "story" on your website after reading my correspondence to an ungrateful imbecile. I can't prove that to be true because today was the first time I read your website. I agree that AREDS tells a story, but so does Preservision. Not all stories have a happy ending. More to the point, it isn't always in the best interest of the patient when a study is designed around a company's patent. This company takes pride in their patent, which is understandable, a considerable amount of money was spent on it. This company was also determined to file lawsuits against other companies for patent infringement when those companies should have been filing lawsuits against them. The truth is that your patent is weak and the formulations you patented aren't optimal. Even with your patent, you weren't the first to create a product that contains the six nutrients you are so proud of. AREDS was a starting point. AREDS2 is "exploratory" without using the standard of care as the placebo. Preservision is, well, I will let you formulate your own conclusions. The "woman owned business" can legally incorporate the name that I first used into her branding, which is fine. Huge profits can continue to be generated from undignified marketing, which isn't surprising. All of these "events" contribute to the moral of the story that I told from my observations of this industry. The tragedy of the story that I told is that the patient always came second by everyone involved in the plot, even by me. Looks like we all have something in common. Nice job on your new website!

 

[anonymous]

I'm not sure how you received a reexamination certificate for this patent. The so called "inventors" basically took the work from "Prevention's Healing Publication" or Prevention's Healing with Vitamins: the Ultimate Guide to Using Natures' Powerhouse Nutrients for Preventing and Curing Disease, pp. 368-374 (1996) and either narrowed or broadened the range for the key nutrients (see page 372, Table) and added nutrients from other peoples' work (UK Patent Application GB 2,301,775). The patent examiner gave you a big break, I wouldn't have been so generous! The patent examiner should have rejected all of claim 25, rendering your beloved AREDS 2 patented formula open for any and all to use freely. I can appreciate the design of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study, but I have no respect for B+L’s patent rights. In fact, I would openly challenge them on it by launching a product that contains the exact nutrients recommended by the NEI.

My sympathies do go out to the investigators for both AREDS and AREDS 2, you got involved with a loser company, desperate as all hell to stay afloat. At the same time, all the warning signs were right in front of your eyes.

 

[anonymous]

I'm not sure how you received a reexamination certificate for this patent. The so called "inventors" basically took the work from "Prevention's Healing Publication" or Prevention's Healing with Vitamins: the Ultimate Guide to Using Natures' Powerhouse Nutrients for Preventing and Curing Disease, pp. 368-374 (1996) and either narrowed or broadened the range for the key nutrients (see page 372, Table) and added nutrients from other peoples' work (UK Patent Application GB 2,301,775). The patent examiner gave you a big break, I wouldn't have been so generous! The patent examiner should have rejected all of claim 25, rendering your beloved AREDS 2 patented formula open for any and all to use freely. I can appreciate the design of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study, but I have no respect for B+L’s patent rights. In fact, I would openly challenge them on it by launching a product that contains the exact nutrients recommended by the NEI.

My sympathies do go out to the investigators for both AREDS and AREDS 2, you got involved with a loser company, desperate as all hell to stay afloat. At the same time, all the warning signs were right in front of your eyes.

The only question I have for you is, how much did you pay Aaron? It was a very honorable move involving the US justice system into your scheme.

 

[anonymous]

The only question I have for you is, how much did you pay Aaron? It was a very honorable move involving the US justice system into your scheme.

Or, was Aaron and his attorney simply that stupid not to find the obvious?

 

[anonymous]

Something else interesting to think about is the fact that Recommended Daily Allowances have changed from the time the patent was examined to now. Even still, one would need to know the definition of "approximately" and that definition can change depending on who is defining the limits. The patent examiner spent a lot of time focusing on the relationship between Zinc and Copper. I would have also spent a considerable amount of time on vitamins C and E as well. Back in 2008, 7 to 10 times the RDA of Vitamin C was 620-600mg. Today, 7 to 10 times the RDA of Vitamin C for non-smoking males is 630mg-900mg, non-smoking females is 525mg-750mg, Pregnant 595mg-850mg, Lactating women 840mg-1200mg, Smoking men 875-1250mg, Smoking women 770mg-1100mg, and let’s hope no one is smoking while pregnant or lactating. Can 500mg of Vitamin C be considered as "approximately" 525mg?

Also, today, the RDA of zinc is 11mg for Men 19+/pregnant women and 8mg for Females over 19. That would make 4 to 7 times the RDA of zinc 44mg-77mg for men 19+/pregnant women and 32mg-56mg for women 19+. Can 80mg of Zinc be considered as “approximately” 77mg?

My goal is to make Vitamin C invalid, because if I can knock out Vitamin C, then I can knock out this entire patent. I want the entire patent to be invalid because it was clearly created from the teaching of PHP.

 

[anonymous]

Something else interesting to think about is the fact that Recommended Daily Allowances have changed from the time the patent was examined to now. Even still, one would need to know the definition of "approximately" and that definition can change depending on who is defining the limits. The patent examiner spent a lot of time focusing on the relationship between Zinc and Copper. I would have also spent a considerable amount of time on vitamins C and E as well. Back in 2008, 7 to 10 times the RDA of Vitamin C was 620-600mg. Today, 7 to 10 times the RDA of Vitamin C for non-smoking males is 630mg-900mg, non-smoking females is 525mg-750mg, Pregnant 595mg-850mg, Lactating women 840mg-1200mg, Smoking men 875-1250mg, Smoking women 770mg-1100mg, and let’s hope no one is smoking while pregnant or lactating. Can 500mg of Vitamin C be considered as "approximately" 525mg?

Also, today, the RDA of zinc is 11mg for Men 19+/pregnant women and 8mg for Females over 19. That would make 4 to 7 times the RDA of zinc 44mg-77mg for men 19+/pregnant women and 32mg-56mg for women 19+. Can 80mg of Zinc be considered as “approximately” 77mg?

My goal is to make Vitamin C invalid, because if I can knock out Vitamin C, then I can knock out this entire patent. I want the entire patent to be invalid because it was clearly created from the teaching of PHP.

Actually, it wouldn't knock out claim 3 of the patent, one would need to focus on making Vitamins C and E invalid in order to make the entire patent invalid i.e. teaching from PHP. Okay, I'm done for real.

 

[anonymous]

Actually, it wouldn't knock out claim 3 of the patent, one would need to focus on making Vitamins C and E invalid in order to make the entire patent invalid i.e. teaching from PHP. Okay, I'm done for real.

Stability testing, if you want to claim a 2 year expiration date, is something you have to think about also. The fact remains, the teaching from Prevention's Healing Publication, Centrum PDR, and GB '775 clearly played a huge role in the creation of this patent. Especially the Prevention's Healing Publication.

 

[anonymous]

Stability testing, if you want to claim a 2 year expiration date, is something you have to think about also. The fact remains, the teaching from Prevention's Healing Publication, Centrum PDR, and GB '775 clearly played a huge role in the creation of this patent. Especially the Prevention's Healing Publication.

It shouldn't be just about using chicken soup to get around the obvious, it's about giving credit to the people that came up with the original ideas. I believe that a 25:1 ratio of zinc to copper, as described in the PHP, is more ideal than the current standard of care. More to my point, it's about the ranges of the nutrients described in the teachings from PHP, PDR, and GB '775 that is most important to consider. Using the ranges of nutrients described in PHP, PDR, and GB ‘775, one can optimize what was learned from AREDS and AREDS2. Is it worth the time and money to optimize AREDS or AREDS2? I don't know. Point is, AREDS and AREDS2 shed light on the ideas taught from PHP, PDR, and GB '775, not from the so-called inventors or B+L. I’d like to go for the knockout punch. Someone that tip toes around the patent is just as weak as B+L. The company that takes on the patent and wins is the leader. Brand perception is key. That said, I share my ideas and I am sitting here broke as all hell. Most of my ideas and thoughts are not just great, but also right! Lastly, someone needs to do a voluntary recall. I think it should be the focal boys and girls. Once again, perception is key.

 

[anonymous]

It shouldn't be just about using chicken soup to get around the obvious, it's about giving credit to the people that came up with the original ideas. I believe that a 25:1 ratio of zinc to copper, as described in the PHP, is more ideal than the current standard of care. More to my point, it's about the ranges of the nutrients described in the teachings from PHP, PDR, and GB '775 that is most important to consider. Using the ranges of nutrients described in PHP, PDR, and GB ‘775, one can optimize what was learned from AREDS and AREDS2. Is it worth the time and money to optimize AREDS or AREDS2? I don't know. Point is, AREDS and AREDS2 shed light on the ideas taught from PHP, PDR, and GB '775, not from the so-called inventors or B+L. I’d like to go for the knockout punch. Someone that tip toes around the patent is just as weak as B+L. The company that takes on the patent and wins is the leader. Brand perception is key. That said, I share my ideas and I am sitting here broke as all hell. Most of my ideas and thoughts are not just great, but also right! Lastly, someone needs to do a voluntary recall. I think it should be the focal boys and girls. Once again, perception is key.

Joe C is the only attorney deserving enough to deliver the knockout punch.