CFS/MS original patent. CFS patients only can get 50% better, why?

[Guest guest]

Dr Bihari's original patent for LDN was for CFS and MS in relation

to herpes viruses (chronic) , just as another top CFS researcher

linked these 2 diseases (Dr De Meirlier), he also patented a method

to treat both based on the RnaseL antiviral dysfunction present in

both diseases.

Unfortunately, according to Dr Bihari himself, and based on my

results and other CFS only patients results - there appears to be an

upper limit or pleateau in curing CFS - only around a 50% reduction

in CFS symptoms, unlike Fibromyalgia which is related in which most

all the pain goes away or other autoimmune diseases or cancers where

unless irriversible damage has been done (like MS lesions) the cure

rates are more towards 100%!!

Why is CFS 50% ? Is there a perm damage, like in MS, or perhaps the

immune system is not the key in CFS.

JL

> Hi all, I first posted on the topic of naltrexone patents in:

>

>

low dose naltrexone/message/28844

>

> The history of LDN does not appear complete without knowing why for

> example the Patent Assignee: Baker Cummins Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

> (Miami, FL) did not pursue naltrexone for its several patents

including:

>

> Autoimmune-naltrexone Patent from 1989! :

>

> http://snipurl.com/hfux

>

> MS-naltrexone patent from 1991! :

>

> http://snipurl.com/hfv0

>

> All 6 Patents with Assignee: Baker Cummins Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

> (Miami, FL) :

>

> http://snipurl.com/hr4u

>

> So why not Baker?

>

> http://informagen.com/Resource_Informagen/report.php?mrn=902 :

>

> Subsidiary " Baker Norton is also engaged in the research,

development

> and manufacture of pharmaceuticals. In brand name products, it

focuses

> on new compounds that address unmet clinical needs. In generics,

its

> strategy is to select difficult-to-formulate drugs with significant

> market potential. "

>

> If LDN/naltrexone protocols no longer fit its corporate strategy at

> some time, I'm still a bit surprised it did not find some other

> corporate entity with interest capable of utilizing it -

particularly

> as their 1989 Naltrexone method of treatment for autoimmune

diseases

> patent states:

>

> 1) " All of the currently practiced drug treatments' `have

significant

> drawbacks' "

> 2) " Continuing therapy with any or all of the aforementioned

> categories of drugs can produce a variety of well-known adverse

> effects, and none of these drugs are significantly effective in

> achieving true remission of the disease in most patients. "

> 3) " The method of the present invention not only provides dramatic

> symptomatic relief for patients suffering from autoimmune

diseases'but

> has been found to reduce the patient's systemic autoantibody level,

> potentially leading to a true remission in the course of the

disease. "

> 4) " There have been few reports of any significant adverse effects

> with nalmefene or naltrexone therapy at the dosage levels proposed

by

> the present invention, unlike many of the pharmaceutical agents

which

> have been conventionally used to treat autoimmune diseases. "

>

> Anyone here know about this historical context? I suspect it

possible

> Dr. Bihari may have communicated with them as his MS-naltrexone

patent

> references their 1991 MS-naltrexone patent. Ideally any inquiry

into

> this should be done diplomatically (perhaps someone already in

touch

> with http://www.ldninfo.org or Dr. Bihari could be emailed first

as we

> may have an adequate answer there).

>

> http://www.ivaxpharmaceuticals.com/aboutus.html

> http://www.ivaxpharmaceuticals.com/product_offering.html

>

> Compare aforementioned patent links to Dr. Bihari's naltrexone

patents:

>

> http://snipurl.com/hr51

>

> Note: Dosing range discrepancies

>

> Dr. Bihari appears to have shared more of his clinical experiences

> with this approach and may/likely represent/s a refinement of

approach.

>

> Medical discoveries/leads are increasingly appearing more often

first

> in patent databases (e.g. http://www.uspto.gov &

> http://ep.espacenet.com ) than in peer reviewed medical journal

> databases (e.g. http://pubmed.gov) perhaps because once it is

widely

> published it can threaten patentability; and unfortunately the

patent

> process can take years. Once the patent is finally published

however

> it becomes accessible to the public although the patent holder has

> legal rights over its commercialization. {Note: I'm not a patent

> lawyer & this is just my current understanding.}

>

> Best Wishes to all & please share any interesting leads/thoughts,

Josh

>

> Some References:

>

> US Patent #: 4,857,533

> US Patent #: 4,994,466

> US Patent #: 6,586,443

[Guest guest]

> > Dr Bihari's original patent for LDN was for CFS and MS in relation

> > to herpes viruses (chronic) , just as another top CFS researcher

> > linked these 2 diseases (Dr De Meirlier), he also patented a method

> > to treat both based on the RnaseL antiviral dysfunction present in

> > both diseases.

> >

> > Unfortunately, according to Dr Bihari himself, and based on my

> > results and other CFS only patients results - there appears to be an

> > upper limit or pleateau in curing CFS - only around a 50% reduction

> > in CFS symptoms, unlike Fibromyalgia which is related in which most

> > all the pain goes away or other autoimmune diseases or cancers where

> > unless irriversible damage has been done (like MS lesions) the cure

> > rates are more towards 100%!!

> >

> > Why is CFS 50% ? Is there a perm damage, like in MS, or perhaps the

> > immune system is not the key in CFS.

> >

> > JL

> ===========

>

Oops I meant , not Josh.

and everybody,

Remember, LDN does NOT CURE autoimmune diseases.

All autoimmune diseases can leave one with permanent damage in some fashion.

LDN does not directly heal MS lesions but by LDN halting disease progression

one's own body can begin to repair itself. This is why we see some people's MS

lesions become inactive and later down the road possibly repair themselves.

[Guest guest]

Successful interventions tend to address the pathophysiology

(intervention response may be instructive as compared to natural

history of disease).

If an intervention is not successful one would have to question:

1) Does the intervention address the pathophysiology (e.g. there may

be other components/subtypes-unfortunately pathophysiologies are still

often incompletely understood).

2) At what point in the pathophysiology was intervention initiated

(the intervention may be effective to a point along the pathophysiology).

Hence the general importance for medical science to understand

pathophysiologies & appropriately timed intervention; also ideally

understanding the physiology of health & homeostasis & how

pathophysiologies deviate from this.

Dr. Bihari's first issued naltrexone patent was: # 4,888,346 Method

for the treatment of persons infected with HTLV-III (AIDS) virus,

you're referring to # 5,013,739 Method of treating chronic fatigue

syndrome using an opiate receptor antagonist. These were listed in

descending chronological order at a link previously provided:

http://snipurl.com/hr51

Reference Thread:

low dose naltrexone/message/29103

Best Wishes all, Josh

> Dr Bihari's original patent for LDN was for CFS and MS in relation

> to herpes viruses (chronic) , just as another top CFS researcher

> linked these 2 diseases (Dr De Meirlier), he also patented a method

> to treat both based on the RnaseL antiviral dysfunction present in

> both diseases.

>

> Unfortunately, according to Dr Bihari himself, and based on my

> results and other CFS only patients results - there appears to be an

> upper limit or pleateau in curing CFS - only around a 50% reduction

> in CFS symptoms, unlike Fibromyalgia which is related in which most

> all the pain goes away or other autoimmune diseases or cancers where

> unless irriversible damage has been done (like MS lesions) the cure

> rates are more towards 100%!!

>

> Why is CFS 50% ? Is there a perm damage, like in MS, or perhaps the

> immune system is not the key in CFS.

>

> JL