Have you changed from the cut and hold method to microtapering?

[[...]]

Hi Goto wrote

 

 

I think the advice to go very slow could have prolonged my exposure to this drug which caused among other things severe depression.

 

This is another things that I have always thought that the longer one takes it may cause issues whether it be depression or something else, I have yet to find information on how long should a taper take at certain dose sizes.

 

All I have seen is Ashtons method and expected time to taper, so how long is to long. I started at 4.5mg in September 2012 I anticipate another 4 months to drop just under 2 mg, I am at 1.90 mg so is 8/ 9 months is to long to have tapered 4.5 mg.

 

And before I go is it safe after cutting mainly .02 mg daily to go higher in the amount I cut, in other words is it a risky thing to do when daily cutting, we are advised to not up dose what about down dosing more than what your body has been used to for months.

 

DD

 

 

[[Te...]]

Colin:  Jana Hill lays claim to her method. The patent is in the name of Julian Hill (why Julian, I do not know). I also know from other sources that Jana has laid claim to the method she employs, and has accused others have steeling her method from her.

 

"Jana" is her nickname......her legal name is Julian.  Yes,  ***** ******* a former member at BDR, started her own board "Benzo Freedom" and attempted to use "Hill's Method" with only a partial understanding of the complete method.  She made many people ill, in the process.  This topic was discussed at length here at BB, last summer. 

 

Taz

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Personal info removed

[Guest [...]]

"Jana" is her nickname......her legal name is Julian.

 

As 'Julian' is a male name, do we know if this person is male or female. Not that it makes any difference. Just wondering.

[[bu...]]

I can assure you she sounds like a female on the phone.  (Personal phone calls are her standard means of corresponding with new members)

[Guest [...]]

Oh thanks!

[[Di...]]

I was/am concerned over some of the terminology you used, because there were numerous blanket statements that you made that don't become irrelvant just because you used "equivocal statements" in other parts of your posts.

 

Actually, I used equivocal phrasing within the quotes you used for argument, and often within the very sentences you highlighted.

 

Obviously you and I have very different opinions about the wisdom of mixing equivocal and unequivocal statements in the one paragraph. If you make an unequivocal statement, it is an unequivocal statement, period. The fact that you may post an equivocal statement in the same paragraph does not negate it. It's like making a statement and then following it with "but", which often then contradicts what you've just said. Maybe that's something you might need to watch out for in future.

 

[Guest [Da...]]

I think the advice to go very slow could have prolonged my exposure to this drug which caused among other things severe depression.

 

Goto:

 

You said what I've often tried to say but couldn't think of the right words.  "Exposure" to the drug describes it best.  If the taper is prolonged there's unnecessary exposure to the drug.

 

Colin:

 

You've done an excellent job explaining what I've only been able to allude to obliquely in some awful combination of mismatched metaphors.  You could write high tech manuals or textbooks.  I wish I had such a clear picture in my head and such complete control of my material.  Instead, I'm rummaging around in the dark and calling whatever I happen to bump into, thought.

 

Thanks for all your work and patient explaining.

 

Vribble

 

 

Thank you for your comments. I feel, though, I should have tackled this issue before now. However, the patent is only a few weeks old, so I did not know the details of the method.

 

The problem with prolonged (and unnecessary) 'exposure' is that it will, on average, increase dependency. Not for all patients, but some. This is why people should not unnecessarily draw out their taper. I am not, of course, suggesting that they taper off at a faster rate than what is reasonably tolerable and manageable in their particular circumstances.

 

Edit: typos.

 

Hi Colin:

 

I just read through this thread last night and I do understand your stance on a extremely long taper (up to 7 years). Do you think 1.5 years (or slightly longer) is too long?

 

I thought that as long as we are tapering lower in dosage, there should not be any dependency issues if it takes us longer than as per Ashton (or TRAP) suggested guidelines. I was on Clonazepam for 13 years. I c/o to 20mgV, stabilized, and then started tapering lower on Jan. 19/12. I switched to daily mircrotapering at 6mgV because my w/d s/xs were increasing with cutting .5mgV and it was affecting my ability to function. I considered cutting by .25mgV but then I wanted to try cutting daily as there was talk on various BB threads on microtapering.

 

I am now down to 2.64mg and I am using all Liquid Diazepam (1ml=1mg) and my present reduction rate is .02mg per day. I have low overall s/xs, but do have predominantly body pain that I deal with which is not pre-existing prior to my taper. I am wondering if you think I am talking too long for my taper and what exactly do you mean about dependency issues? Or do you mean tolerance?

 

My other question is below 1.0mgV...what are your thoughts that some people (many according to what I have read on BB, and, yes, I do know we are a self-selecting group) have a hard time just jumping at .5mgV whether doing the cut and hold, titration, or daily microtapering.

 

Also, when I got my Diazepam tablet prescription, it clearly states that grapefuit juice should be avoided on the patient information sheet from the pharmacist. It did not state this on my Clonazepam prescription.

 

Finally, I tired to search for "Jana micro tapering" and found only a few recent posts. Can you provide me a link to the archived posts?

 

Danni

[[ma...]]

"Jana" is her nickname......her legal name is Julian.  Yes,  ****** ******* a former member at BDR, started her own board "Benzo Freedom" and attempted to use "Hill's Method" with only a partial understanding of the complete method.  She made many people ill, in the process.  This topic was discussed at length here at BB, last summer. 

 

Taz

 

Taz, do you have any evidence to back up your claims, you need to have proof before making a serious accusation like that and I also don't think you should be naming members from other benzodiazepine forums on here.

 

Magrita

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Personal info removed

[[Te...]]

"Jana" is her nickname......her legal name is Julian.  Yes,  ****** a former member at BDR, started her own board "Benzo Freedom" and attempted to use "Hill's Method" with only a partial understanding of the complete method.  She made many people ill, in the process.  This topic was discussed at length here at BB, last summer. 

 

Taz

 

Taz, do you have any evidence to back up your claims, you need to have proof before making a serious accusation like that and I also don’t think you should be naming members from other benzodiazepine forums on here.

 

Magrita

 

Magrita,

********* published a booklet and sold for $28.00 via the now defunct, Benzo Freedom board.  This topic was discussed, at length here at BB.  I did not mention any name that had not already been allowed at BB.  ***** made her identity well known when she published and sold her booklet for profit.  Yes, people became ill attempting to follow Karen's instruction and sought help from Jana Hill at BDR.  I'm sure they would not like to be named but this is the fact that resulted in the demise of the Benzo Freedom board. 

 

Taz

 

 

Edit: personal info deleted

[[Ho...]]

"Jana" is her nickname......her legal name is Julian.  Yes,  ****** a former member at BDR, started her own board "Benzo Freedom" and attempted to use "Hill's Method" with only a partial understanding of the complete method.  She made many people ill, in the process.  This topic was discussed at length here at BB, last summer. 

 

Taz

 

Taz, do you have any evidence to back up your claims, you need to have proof before making a serious accusation like that and I also don’t think you should be naming members from other benzodiazepine forums on here.

 

Magrita

 

Magrita,

********* published a booklet and sold for $28.00 via the now defunct, Benzo Freedom board.  This topic was discussed, at length here at BB.  I did not mention any name that had not already been allowed at BB.  ***** made her identity well known when she published and sold her booklet for profit.  Yes, people became ill attempting to follow *****'s instruction and sought help from Jana Hill at BDR.  I'm sure they would not like to be named but this is the fact that resulted in the demise of the Benzo Freedom board. 

 

Taz

 

 

Edit: personal info deleted

 

I've been unable to find a reference to the person named. However, if this was discussed at length at one time on this forum, I'm sure Colin will remember. Until I know more, please keep this name off the forum. I'll let Colin make a determination on this.

 

In the mean time Taz, could you provide me with a link to the lengthy discussion you've referenced, or any mention of this on the forum?  This must have been before my time. You have me at a disadvantage.

[[Te...]]

Hope,

 

Here's one thread I found, I believe the discussion begins on pg 3 - 10.

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=56009.msg761730#msg761730

 

Taz

[[Ho...]]

Thanks Taz. I'll review it and get up to speed. I'm sure Colin will have his own thoughts.

[[Ho...]]

Hi Taz,

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I am unable to find the full name of the person we've been discussing on that thread. Can you give me the url to the post that contains her full name please?

[[Wi...]]

I'm not picking sides and as I already mentioned, I was in contact with Jana early on but since I was trying to taper from Ativan and that was not part of the protocol there, it didn't go far and I ended up here and another site, which has since closed.  After reading the post pointed out by TemazTaz, I'm wondering if perhaps her motivation, at least in part,  for patenting her plan had  to do with other's attempts to profit from and badly try to imitate what she does on her site?

[[Co...]]

I was/am concerned over some of the terminology you used, because there were numerous blanket statements that you made that don't become irrelvant just because you used "equivocal statements" in other parts of your posts.

 

Actually, I used equivocal phrasing within the quotes you used for argument, and often within the very sentences you highlighted.

 

Obviously you and I have very different opinions about the wisdom of mixing equivocal and unequivocal statements in the one paragraph. If you make an unequivocal statement, it is an unequivocal statement, period. The fact that you may post an equivocal statement in the same paragraph does not negate it. It's like making a statement and then following it with "but", which often then contradicts what you've just said. Maybe that's something you might need to watch out for in future.

 

You're joking, right? Point me to a rule of grammar that suggests that equivocal and unequivocal statements cannot be included within the same paragraph or sentence.

 

Perhaps, as I offered to you before, you could point me to unequivocal statements of mine that are erroneous, and I will correct them.

[[Wi...]]

For those in remedial English...or just me...

 

un·e·quiv·o·cal  [uhn-i-kwiv-uh-kuhl]

 

adjective

1. not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent; unequivocal proof.

 

2. absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions: The cosigner of a note gives unequivocal assurance that it will be paid when due.

 

This isn't here to make any kind of statement, simply put here so I know what ya'll are talking about lol

[[In...]]

WWWI,

 

In answer to your question about why the patenting- I believe that what you said to be correct.

 

That others were trying to profit from it, and also were not "doing it correctly or did not have full understanding of it" and thus folks were becoming ill from this.

 

Intend

[Guest [Ce...]]

WWWI,

 

In answer to your question about why the patenting- I believe that what you said to be correct.

 

That others were trying to profit from it, and also were not "doing it correctly or did not have full understanding of it" and thus folks were becoming ill from this.

 

Intend

 

I guess time will tell

[[Co...]]

I'm not picking sides and as I already mentioned, I was in contact with Jana early on but since I was trying to taper from Ativan and that was not part of the protocol there, it didn't go far and I ended up here and another site, which has since closed.  After reading the post pointed out by TemazTaz, I'm wondering if perhaps her motivation, at least in part,  for patenting her plan had  to do with other's attempts to profit from and badly try to imitate what she does on her site?

 

If that was Hill's motivation, it is flawed. 'Prior Art' would not protect the method from use by anyone. It is the wild, and anyone can use it, and no one can patent it. (It also fails as being obvious to 'someone ordinarily skilled in the art'). If Jana Hill had required a non-disclosure agreement from everyone that she informed of the method, she might still be able to patent the method. However, I'm not sure if this would be relevant (and protect Hill's patent application) if the method was disclosed in contravention of the NDA. Of course, I'm being very speculative here - I have no reason to suppose that Hill required any such NDAs from those of whom she informed of the method. If Hill did not inform anyone of the full method (only some of the details), then she might still be able to obtains a valid patent, but having read the particulars, I think Prior Art and the obviousness of the application would still invalidate it.

 

For a patent to be patentable, the particulars must not have been previously described in public. I believe that just telling a friend about it (without a non-disclosure comment), might be enough to demonstrate 'prior art'. The patent also must be non-obvious to someone 'ordinarily skilled in the art'. Just because a patent has been granted, it does mean that it is defendable. There are certain requirements made when applying for a patent, but prior art investigations and questions of validity are largely up to the patent holder (and patent lawyer) as these things are much more complicated these days with the explosion of patent applications and media (patent offices can only make cursory investigations/searches, usually restricted to previous patent applications). If what is described in the patent has appeared anywhere before (any publication, or in any type of media), the patent is not defendable.

 

Of course, my knowledge of patents and patent law is extremely limited, but I believe the above is about right.

[[In...]]

Colin,

 

I was reading back to yesterday on this thread and saw that you were wondering why folks did not try to discuss the aspect of a 7 to 8 year taper off of 20 mgs of Valium. And this question seemed to be directed to me, and also wondered why the aspect of grapefruit juice was not addressed either rather than "making spurious claims that BB is against titration."

 

Well, spurious is defined as "false, fake, phony," and I have not made those claims about BB and titration. I believe I have clearly referred to "other methods," and if this is still unclear in regards to the theme of this thread, then I am now stating that I am meaning "micro titration" as a method that BB does not support and does appear to disparage or "represent of little worth" to use the definition of disparage.

 

In regards to the lengthy taper time that you have come up with for getting off 20 mgs of Valium, (7 years), this is a hypothetical on your part based on adding up various time frames in the patent which certainly one would do if trying to analyze the information in the patent. I would do that myself. However, we actually have living proof that such lengthy times are not the case in the people who are using the method and getting off the various drugs in shorter times. By shorter times, I mean anywhere from several months to @2 years depending on the individual, the dose they are on to start with and the drug itself. This is the empirical evidence from folks who have done it or are doing it meaning what is being measured and observed in the actual persons.

 

In regards to the grapefruit or grapefruit issue, well, although I certainly am not an expert in the reading of patents (is someone here an expert upon whom we may ask?), I do know that it was not a blanket recommendation to just use grapefruit or grapefruit juice. It was within certain parameters and guidelines and that I believe to be the truth. Rather than continue to refer to that without some analyzation of the conditions, I think one should employ the services of a person schooled in the reading of patents and perhaps also the chemistry aspects of benzo usage in regards to grapefruit Jude to truthfully be able to objectively judge the merits of the conditional aspects.

 

US patent law has certain requirements that applicants must meet. One of these is known as the "Utility Requirement." ( 35 U.S.C. 101). This requires that the applicant demonstrate that the "invention" is useful for some purpose. A violation of this requirement means that invention is totally incapable of achieving a useful result. And applicants are challenged on this part in particular. And yes, I have been reading the US codes for the US patent office and the CFRs (code of federal regulations) to have learned this although I will say I've had some degree of familiarity with the CFRs in totally unrelated matters in the past.

 

But the US government does certainly give those folks wanting to challenge a patent almost unlimited ability to do so in the legal arena. Now having said all this, I absolutely do agree with you that BB does not support this as another method of getting off benzos, and that I think it is worth consideration along with other versions of "micro titration " as one method here is not analgous to another by far, and that you certainly have every right to continue to "not support" it as you so choose or do not choose.

 

Intend

 

 

 

 

[[In...]]

Ah yes, the Prior Art requirement is perhaps the most rigorous of all the requirements.

 

I certainly agree that a patent obtained by anyone could never most likely not stop others from using whatever was patented, but that's debatable when it comes to devices, medications. Methods are something else as persons understanding them may probably easily use them IF they do fully understand them. But they may not fully understand them and I do not think there is full understanding here at all on this method just from what I have read. But moving on...

 

So with this Prior Art requirement, if an identical patent was obtained anywhere in the world, a patent cannot be obtained. So I'm thinking that part was surely "investigated."

 

Secondly, if a printed publication with this identical method was published anywhere in the world a patent cannot be obtained. Most likely another are of investigation before application.

 

Thirdly, if every aspect of the "invention" were publicly known in the US, but not patented or published, a patent cannot be obtained.

 

And there are actually 4 more rules pertaining to Prior Art which all refer to application being made in the US too late because the identical essence of the patent has been issued somewhere else in the world before the US applicant.

 

Well, I just wonder why there is all this "guessing" on US patent law. We should just get onto the actual website as I did and start reading. There are actually many law forms also who are very specific in US patent law and how it works. Can make for some interesting reading. But not for all, I concede. Also US patent law is not identical to that of the UK, although there are some similarities.

 

This patent would not have been issued without adherence to US patent law, so why speculate? If it's important enough to throw this particular method away or demonstrate it is of "little importance" let's get to reading here. But it's still BB right to not endorse it. In fact, I tend to think that the applicant isn't focusing on getting that endorsement at all. Perhaps better investigation into patent law and what is really being said in the patent, however, would allow folks to feel at peace with their chosen method of taper. I personally do not think BB should ever endorse some method they don't fully understand or believe in.

 

And I have to be honest and say that all this analyzing is probably making eyes glaze over. I'd justvsay don't endorse it and let folks do as they need to do as most are already it would seem, and we already know BB doesn't support any of these methods. And they're not analgous, so that's I'm talking about.

 

Intend

[[Di...]]

I was/am concerned over some of the terminology you used, because there were numerous blanket statements that you made that don't become irrelvant just because you used "equivocal statements" in other parts of your posts.

 

Actually, I used equivocal phrasing within the quotes you used for argument, and often within the very sentences you highlighted.

 

Obviously you and I have very different opinions about the wisdom of mixing equivocal and unequivocal statements in the one paragraph. If you make an unequivocal statement, it is an unequivocal statement, period. The fact that you may post an equivocal statement in the same paragraph does not negate it. It's like making a statement and then following it with "but", which often then contradicts what you've just said. Maybe that's something you might need to watch out for in future.

 

You're joking, right? Point me to a rule of grammar that suggests that equivocal and unequivocal statements cannot be included within the same paragraph or sentence.

 

Perhaps, as I offered to you before, you could point me to unequivocal statements of mine that are erroneous, and I will correct them.

 

Oh boy. I can't believe that you just don't get it. I never said there was any "rule" (here we go with more out of context quotes). I merely questioned the wisdom of mixing them. Like I said, an unequivocal statement is just that - an absolute. So once you've said it, it doesn't matter what else you say. It doesn't change the absolute nature of it. Frankly I can't be bothered going through all your posts again to pick them out word by word. I've already done that, and I didn't even highlight all of them.

 

I'm done. Finished. I don't care what kind of tapering method you claim the majority or minority are doing here, although I'm not sure how you can be so certain that you know how every single member of BB is tapering. I have my opinion and you have yours and to continue with this is pointless. I hope people will follow the best method for them without any influence from anyone, regardless of who that person is.

 

My only purpose has been to speak on behalf of all the people who are finding it necessary to do a daily reduction method, some of whom have supported my comments both here and via PM, and to allow them to continue to follow this kind of taper without being made to feel "unusual" (your word not mine).

 

Finally though, I'm just wondering why you didn't respond to the information that Bart posted. Its seems he actually has a fair bit of knowledge on this subject.

[[Co...]]

Colin,

 

I was reading back to yesterday on this thread and saw that you were wondering why folks did not try to discuss the aspect of a 7 to 8 year taper off of 20 mgs of Valium. And this question seemed to be directed to me, and also wondered why the aspect of grapefruit juice was not addressed either rather than "making spurious claims that BB is against titration."

 

I think a quote would help:

 

I'm just concluding that BB is kind of out to disparage other methods than "official Ashton methods" and that's just about it. Why else go on about this?

 

Nope. Ashton's method is just one of three supported methods at BB. As I've written here in this thread and elsewhere, in the first instance, I would suggest a direct taper, by pill-splitting, from the original benzodiazepine (unless the personal experience of the member would indicate otherwise). A 'direct' pill-splitting taper is not within the Ashton protocols. Ashton's method calls for a switch to Valium.

 

I am disparaging specific protocols that suggest daily cuts of Valium in the range of 0.005 to 0.01mg, that would add up to a seven year taper for 20mg Valium; or the dangerous suggestion that grapefruit juice might be used as dosage error correction device.

 

I find it interesting that those that have taken issue with my points have not attempted to defend a seven year taper (from a fairly moderate dose of Valium) or the use of grapefruit juice. I'm sorry, it is not good enough to say, 'well, people are free to choose which method they follow'. It may not be obvious to some how long it would take to follow such a taper regimen; and many will not know how potentially dangerous it is to drink grapefruit just with some medicines (including benzodiazepines). You do know, don't you, that drinking grapefruit juice with some meds has resulted in deaths!?

 

Please, address the issues I raised instead making spurious claims that BB is against titration. Self-evidently, given our Titration support board and the information on our webpages, this is patently not true.

 

It is true that I was replying to you, but I think I made clear that I was addressing all those (including you) that did not respond directly to the issues I raised in my posts regarding suggestions of ridiculously long taper schedules and the use of grapefruit juice.

 

Well, spurious is defined as "false, fake, phony," and I have not made those claims about BB and titration. I believe I have clearly referred to "other methods," and if this is still unclear in regards to the theme of this thread, then I am now stating that I am meaning "micro titration" as a method that BB does not support and does appear to disparage or "represent of little worth" to use the definition of disparage.

 

Ahum:

 

I'm just concluding that BB is kind of out to disparage other methods than "official Ashton methods" and that's just about it. Why else go on about this?

 

My reply (which was certainly aimed at you):

 

Please, address the issues I raised instead making spurious claims that BB is against titration. Self-evidently, given our Titration support board and the information on our webpages, this is patently not true.

 

You have confused (and falsely characterised) my objections to very specific points regarding Hill's patent with me being somehow against titration. Again, this is self-evidently untrue, since I published content to help with titration, created this Titration board specifically for this subject (it has existed for many years), and have helped dozens of members draw up titration schedules. Your comment, "I'm just concluding that BB is kind of out to disparage other methods than 'official Ashton methods' and that's just about it" is indeed spurious and false - you have not demonstrated otherwise. How could you - it is a baseless claim!

 

In regards to the lengthy taper time that you have come up with for getting off 20 mgs of Valium, (7 years), this is a hypothetical on your part based on adding up various time frames in the patent which certainly one would do if trying to analyze the information in the patent. I would do that myself. However, we actually have living proof that such lengthy times are not the case in the people who are using the method and getting off the various drugs in shorter times. By shorter times, I mean anywhere from several months to @2 years depending on the individual, the dose they are on to start with and the drug itself. This is the empirical evidence from folks who have done it or are doing it meaning what is being measured and observed in the actual persons.

 

You conflate what you and some other people do with what Hill suggests as reasonable in her patent (the subject I was addressing and continue to address).

 

From the patent application:

 

[0024] Based on reports from actual patient cases, there is a very narrow dosage interval that is acceptable and which causes no symptom escalation. The treating physician can use a minimum number as a starting reduction, and it should prevent symptom escalation. That number may be below the standard reduction of 0.05 mg and a reduction of 0.01 mg Diazepam or equivalent may be more appropriate. Degree of symptoms indicates time to use the smaller numbers. By making the dosage cut at regular intervals (e.g., every day), and by doing this for a predetermined time (e.g., two weeks), the dosage cut can be monitored at maintained at acceptable levels. Then, that dosage cut can be increased by another known amount, wait for the predetermined time (e.g., three days to two weeks the patient's determined Benzo symptom lag period), and if all is well with the patient, another increase can be employed. When an increased cut causes a rise in symptoms, a previous acceptable dosage cut can be used again.

 

Hill states that "a reduction of 0.01 mg Diazepam or equivalent may be more appropriate" as a daily reduction rate. Yes, Hill allows for an increase from there, but it is also clear that she expects that some would not be able to increase from this 0.01mg reduction rate. I should add, there is some incredibly imprecise language being used in this patent application. I suspect that it was not written by a patent lawyer. This does not help. Irrespective, a poorly written patent makes it even less defendable, as the language and structure of patents are held to an incredibly high standard (such standards have been criticised as completely unnecessary, but they continue to negatively impact otherwise legitimate patent applications).

 

Back to the subject at hand:

 

[0025] This pattern of increasing the daily dosage cuts by very small increments allows finding the optimal daily cut for any individual. In an example, an optimum dosage can be found in the range of +/-0.00125 mg of Clonazepam and +/-0.0125 mg of Diazepam. The determined daily dosage reduction allows the benzo-dependent patient to continue at this rate until the daily dose falls close to 5.0 mg diazepam or 0.25 mg of clonazepam. At this or near dosage, the daily reductions usually must be made smaller.

 

Do you understand the above? Again, imprecise language. The patent application states, "In an example, an optimum dosage can be found in the range of +/-0.00125 mg of Clonazepam and +/-0.0125 mg of Diazepam". This contains no reference figure. '+/-0.0125mg [of what dosage] of diazepam'? Perhaps this instead refers to increment size? I don't know - it is not stated. However, Hill goes on to state:

 

The determined daily dosage reduction allows the benzo-dependent patient to continue at this rate until the daily dose falls close to 5.0 mg diazepam or 0.25 mg of clonazepam. At this or near dosage, the daily reductions usually must be made smaller.

 

Emphasis is mine.

 

So, Hill makes clear that daily reductions are usually made smaller at this stage. Since no precise figure is supplied, I made and assumption (and I made clear that it was what I considered a reasonable extrapolation of the details contained within the patent) that this might mean a daily reduction rate of 0.005mg Valium. This would result in seven year taper plan for 20mg Valium. If you wish to quibble with my '0.005mg' assumption/extrapolation, let's instead assume a starting dose of 30mg Valium per day (a middling daily dose), a daily reduction rate of 0.01mg Valium, and no decrease in the size of cuts below 5mg per day. Such a taper plan would take more than eight years to complete! My argument, that following some of the suggestions with Hill's patent/method will result in ridiculously long taper schedules stands and is irrefutable.

 

In regards to the grapefruit or grapefruit issue, well, although I certainly am not an expert in the reading of patents (is someone here an expert upon whom we may ask?), I do know that it was not a blanket recommendation to just use grapefruit or grapefruit juice. It was within certain parameters and guidelines and that I believe to be the truth. Rather than continue to refer to that without some analyzation of the conditions, I think one should employ the services of a person schooled in the reading of patents and perhaps also the chemistry aspects of benzo usage in regards to grapefruit Jude to truthfully be able to objectively judge the merits of the conditional aspects.

 

Sometimes, information sheets, for slightly different drugs, are updated haphazardly. Although I am concerned about the effects upon blood levels of benzodiazepines, there are other drugs a patient might be taking where the ingestion of grapefruit is potentially much more dangerous. As I stated in a recent post, this has resulted in deaths (I provided a link to a news item). Hill's suggestion of using grapefruit is dangerous - perhaps you could provide some information to the contrary? Hill should not be suggesting to people on the Internet that they should drink grapefruit juice as a dosing error correction device. This is indefensible. You seek to defend the indefensible.

 

US patent law has certain requirements that applicants must meet. One of these is known as the "Utility Requirement." ( 35 U.S.C. 101). This requires that the applicant demonstrate that the "invention" is useful for some purpose. A violation of this requirement means that invention is totally incapable of achieving a useful result. And applicants are challenged on this part in particular. And yes, I have been reading the US codes for the US patent office and the CFRs (code of federal regulations) to have learned this although I will say I've had some degree of familiarity with the CFRs in totally unrelated matters in the past.

 

As I have written many times already, Prior Art objections would seem insurmountable anyway. Why argue about 'utility' (more subjective and difficult to define) when there are other more obvious objections?

 

But the US government does certainly give those folks wanting to challenge a patent almost unlimited ability to do so in the legal arena. Now having said all this, I absolutely do agree with you that BB does not support this as another method of getting off benzos, and that I think it is worth consideration along with other versions of "micro titration " as one method here is not analgous to another by far, and that you certainly have every right to continue to "not support" it as you so choose or do not choose.

 

As I said, there is nothing novel in Hill's approach. Titration has been around for along time, and, there is nothing new in the notion that a patient might increase or decrease the rate of withdrawal according to how they react. After all, this is plain common sense.

 

I do not mean to promote the following as a reasonable method, as I again believe it to be overkill - it has dropped by the wayside, probably partly for this very reason (amongst others that immediately spring to mind). It is, however, a more 'polished and clever' method than Hill's. There again, I would expect Prior Art and the obviousness of the method would have made this unpatentable too. It does what Hill (and all titration methods) seek to achieve, but way before Hill's patent application. Although the Winslow method suggests a set daily reduction, if you understand Winslow properly, it know that it is straightforward to vary the daily reduction rate, with no need to resort to a new preparation. The Winslow method was compiled by a doctor.

 

THE WINSLOW LIQUID VALIUM PROTOCOL FOR TREATMENT OF BENZODIAZEPINE WITHDRAWAL

 

Like the spreadsheet I developed, the Winslow method works exponentially. However, I do believe its use, especially at low doses, and more especially for low doses of Valium (for which it is designed), to be unnecessary in the vast majority of cases. It would be impractical to use the Winslow method for higher doses (as it requires the preparation of a single batch to last the entire taper period). Though Winslow is quite elegant in design, I repeat, the Winslow method long ago fell by the wayside, and probably for very good reasons.

[[Co...]]

Oh boy. I can't believe that you just don't get it. I never said there was any "rule" (here we go with more out of context quotes). I merely questioned the wisdom of mixing them. Like I said, an unequivocal statement is just that - an absolute. So once you've said it, it doesn't matter what else you say. It doesn't change the absolute nature of it. Frankly I can't be bothered going through all your posts again to pick them out word by word. I've already done that, and I didn't even highlight all of them.

 

For the third time, I make the offer: point me to an erroneous unequivocal statement I have made, where it is not expressed my view as an opinion, and I will correct it.

[[In...]]

Colin,

 

I made clear in my response that I was aware that BB supports titration but not "micro titration."

 

And then I addressed the aspects of the patent. These are 2 separate issues w/o doubt, and IMO, you have been the one to "conflate" the two issues.

 

From there you go on to attempt to tear apart the patent and the process. Well, what difference does this make anyway?

 

The patent was applied for and granted according to US patent codes and requirements. This may upset you, but it happened. That's just a simple fact.

 

 

 

And oh yes, I do understand very well the language that you quoted as being imprecise. IMO, there is no reason for you to attempt to "insult" anyone's intelligence or ability to understand something that is written in clear language. I do not find this imprecise as you apparently do. And that could be because I am more familiar with the "method" than you are as I have looked into it independent of the patent application completely.

 

I do not think you are the ultimate authority of tapering methods nor of language interpretations nor of US patent applicability. And I think that folks who would think that such is true are "patently" incorrect. I think you have for some reason overreacted to the granting of this patent.

 

As I say, it's happened as per US laws, so I'd just say endorse what methods you do and let others try what they want or will. No need as I see it to get worked up and insinuate that others aren't smart enough or whatever to read and understand what they are reading. I don't believe this "train" will be stopped as I've  said before. "Things" upset us and get under our skin to be colloquial about it, but I don't like being essentially informed that I'm not able to get what I'm reading. I do get it as I said.

 

And perhaps this is a way of deflecting from the issues at hand. I'm not sure that you understand this method either, so it's possible to say the same thing back although I guess you believe you do understand it. Well, I'm also done with this as this is your forum, you can certainly think what you want, I do not have to prove my level of intelligence to you, and once again I say you certainly can

endorse or not endorse methods that you believe in.

 

Is there more that should be said about this or me in your opinion?

 

Intend