Federal Court Denies Declinol Nanotechnology Motion Brought by Kirven, Puricorp and Declinol- Avantcare Continues to Educate Consumers about Dangers of Nanotechnology

• 

the Court questioned Declinol’s “scientific expert” on Declinol’s use of the term nanotechnology, stating, “in fact, your use of the term nanotechnology, it’s a bit of a stretch, isn’t it?”

Orlando, FL (PRWEB) May 08, 2014

At a hearing held January of 2014, the Court questioned Declinol’s “scientific expert” on Declinol’s use of the term nanotechnology, stating, “in fact, your use of the term nanotechnology, it’s a bit of a stretch, isn’t it?” The court went further, asking “wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it liposomal delivery?” Declinol’s own scientific witness agreed with the Court. (source 6)

With the denial of the motion brought by Kirven, Declinol and Puricorp, Avantcare’s case against Kirven, Declinol, and Puricorp for intellectual property infringement, false advertising, and deceptive trade practices is clear to proceed in Federal Court. (source 5)

Nanotechnology is a questionable technology that works with atoms in the process of manipulating matter at the molecular level. Puricorp had maintained that the use of nanotechnology in their products was not dangerous to human health but recently removed references to nanotechnology in their advertising for one of their products.

Dr. Frank W. Gibson, creator of the Last Call Program and Sobrexa and Avantcare, Inc. CEO, reported that the Company’s Science and Medical Board carefully studied the dangers of nanotechnology prior to declaring nanotech products unsafe and pledging never to use nanotechnology in any of the Company’s products. “As the leader in the field of addiction and natural products, we looked at nanotechnology very closely with some scary results. The fact that nanotech disables the body’s natural ability to protect itself from harmful particles and that nano particles have the potential to bypass the blood brain barrier and remain in the brain and organs for much longer than normally sized particles (source 1) was enough for us to join the world-wide stand against nanotechnology. The fact that a new, untested and un-regulated technology has been introduced into the marketplace is of real concern. We take our responsibility to protect and inform our consumers very seriously.”

According to a study in the Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, nanomaterials may, “enter the body through the lungs or other organs via food, drink, and medicine and affect different organs and tissues such as the brain, liver, kidney, heart, colon, spleen, bone, blood, etc. and may cause cytotoxic effects, e.g. deformation and inhibition of cell growth leading to various diseases in humans and animals.” (source 2,3)

The FDA currently has little regulatory authority over nanoengineered products, but the agency states that it is a “top priority”. In the April 2012 FDA Nanotechnology Fact Sheet, the FDA states: “Understanding nanotechnology remains a top FDA priority. FDA is monitoring the evolving science and has a robust research agenda to help assess the safety and effectiveness of products using nanotechnology.” (source 4)

Avantcare’s nanotech pledge can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.lastcallprogram.com along with current studies regarding the dangers of nanotechnology

SOURCES:
1. Nanotechnology and Health Safety – Toxicity Risk Assessments of Nanostructured Materials on Human Health, Singh,S. and Nalwa, H. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Vol.7, p. 3048, 2007.

2. Study in the Journal of Nanoscience sourced from - National Center for Biotechnology Information, division of the NIH http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18019130

3. Principles for Characterizing the potential for Human Health effects from the Exposure to Nanomaterials: Elements of a Screening Strategy, Oberdorster, G., et al, Part Fibre Toxicol, p. 6, Oct. 6, 2005

4. FDA, Fact Sheet: Nanotechnology, April2012 http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/ingredientsadditivesgraspackaging/ucm300914.htm

5. Avantcare, Inc. v. Kirven, Jr. et al., No 6:13-cv-01581-DAB (M.D.Fla.) Avantcare, Inc. v. Kirven, Jr. et al., http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/florida-middle-district-court/619699/avantcare-inc-v-rogers-w-kirven-jr-et-al/summary/

6. Page 79, line 1 and Page 119, line 1-2 - United States District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division - Docket No. 6:13-CV-1581, Excerpt Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing Volume II Defense Witnesses before the honorable David A. Baker U.S. Magistrate Judge

PDF Print