How long will the obsessed Benzo Buddies leader’s nearly decade-long feud with Jana Hill go on?

Titration, Patents, and Fantastical Claims
« on: October 29, 2019, 11:34:44 pm »

Colin

Re: http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=231829.msg2975666#msg2975666

For many years there were attempts to promote a particular unproven/untested set of titration protocols. Further, those promoting these methods were engaged in rubbishing completely standard (and effective for most) pill-splitting tapers and characterizing them as ‘cut & suffer‘. They even peppered posts at BenzoBuddies with such language – this is when I first intervened in this matter (January, 2013). Even though Jana Hill (the person behind the protocols) closed down her forum some years ago, there continue to be a small number of very vocal individuals who seek to promote her untested claims as somehow proven or guaranteed to work. Indeed, there has been a recent uptick in activity promoting her protocols both within and without BB. When there is any attempt at push-back, the rather extreme reaction (including threats of lawsuits) are rather illustrative of the problem. If this fails, then perhaps one of Hill’s supporters will instead offer to purchase BB. No.

Jana Hill applied for a patent in 2012. As I suggested a short time later here at BB, the claims made in her patent were extremely flawed, some were even dangerous. Indeed, all twenty claims were rejected. Only with the help of the patent examiner (who apparently redrafted three claims for her) was a patent (with three claims) eventually allowed.

Hill seems to misunderstand (or wishes others to misunderstand) that because a patent is awarded, this somehow means that her protocols are: 1) tested and verified; and 2) are defensible. The award of a patent does NOT connote these things. A recent quote from Hill at the Benzodiazepine Information Coalition website:

Quote from: J.Hill
Crazy Canuk , in his opening statement, says that he learned this taper protocol from its developer through BenzoDetoxRecovery. He states that he hopes that it’s okay to make his videos ostensibly describing it. It isn’t; it wasn’t.

Using the protocol incorrectly tarnishes its good name and places users at risk. He presents it incorrectly.

The authentic BenzoMicroTaper protocol USPTO 9301963 has a 13 year record of success. It is verified by the US patent office as novel( it was not previously available), needed, and understandable by “those practiced in the art”.

If The Coalition’s rules allow it, I will post the way that you can find the authentic BenzoMicroTaper . False versions now seem ubiquitous. A summary is available for the patientsÂ’ doctors. You can ask for it using the “reply” button.

J.Hill

Benzodiazepine Tapering Strategies and Solutions – Benzodiazepine Information Coalition
https://www.benzoinfo.com/2017/10/09/benzodiazepine-tapering-strategies-and-solutions/

Hill’s statements that her method, “is verified by the US patent office as novel (it was not previously available), needed, and understandable by ‘those practiced in the art'”, is extremely misleading and disingenuous.

It is probably best for me to simply link to the patent and some information about patents:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9301963B2/en

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_(patent)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

http://www.geocities.com/benzobusters/winslow.htm

And for anyone who is particularly interested, and would like to compare, here is the original patent application (with the rejected 20 claims):

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20120322794.PGNR.&OS=DN/20120322794&RS=DN/20120322794

Further reading, including threats from Hill to doxx a BB member:

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=159823.0

There is a lot I could get into, but my time is limited – I’ll leave it for readers to interpret (and discuss if they wish). But if any of you would prefer to read something a little more bite-sized, please check out the attached document*, which was supplied by Hill to the US Patent office in support of her appeal after the patent was initially rejected.** It is replete with nonsense, false claims, and utilization of quite extraordinary language.

* Available via the link at the foot of this post (with a small green paperclip image next to it).

** Please note: Jana Hill’s personal details appear in the attached document. However, Hill long ago chose to make her name and location public knowledge (and again very recently through the media). And the attached document is a public record.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2019, 11:17:09 pm by [Buddie] »

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *