3/20/16: I formed DynaMotionMedical to explore the use of nanotechnology to musculoskeletal diagnosis and measurement of post treatment outcomes. What I saw in golf with BlastMotion’s and Zepp’s use of this technology lead me to look into the applications for orthopedic conditions. With a unit comprised of miniature accelerometer, gyroscope and a magnetometer it is possible to see musculoskeletal movements not otherwise discerned by the human eye or video. For instance, motions that otherwise look normal will show interruption of acceleration, change in rotation and or x, y, z position in space. Pilot study proof of principle study shows this with tendon injury about the rotator cuff. Development is underway for diagnosing shoulder conditions as well as determining impending elbow ulnar collateral ligament tears. There is potential for a wearable device to prevent anterior cruciate ligament injury. Assessment of neck and back conditions that heretofore may be very puzzling should now be more exacting. Also interesting is the exposure with documentation of maligners. It will be possible to make a diagnosis based upon function, rather than static evidence like an x-ray and or MRI. The extent or magnitude of such conditions will be easily identified as well as the benefit of treatment. This technology will allow remote monitoring of patient’s progress by telemedicine for which there is a reimbursable billing code. A patent is pending.
12/3/15: I was granted expanded patent claims on a previous patent of 2012; concerning the treatment of arthritic joints with certain phytochemicals; anthocyanins and anthocyanidins. 8,263,069 Composition including anthocyanins and anthocyanidins for prevention and or treatment of articular cartilage associated conditions. September 11, 2012. However the requests for a claim for direct intra articular injection was not granted. So after three years and lots of legal expense to contest their ruling we were granted the following claims which means I own the intellectual property for the intra articular injection of a specific and common anthocyanidin, cyanidin-3-glucoside to cause increased growth hormone IGF-1, inhibiting negative cytokine IL-1 which will induce the release of glycoaminoglycoside which in turn provides nutrition and protection to the articular cartilage of the arthritic synovial joint. Furthermore there is the potential to regenerate the damaged cartilage of an arthritic synovial joint. THE NEW CLAIMS 1. A method of inhibiting interleukin-1 (IL-1) induced glycosaminoglycoside (GAG) release in an arthritic joint of a subject, comprising administering into the arthritic joint of the subject an intra-articular injection of a composition consisting of an anthocyanin glucose and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, wherein said glucose is a 5% solution, and wherein the anthocyanin is cyanidin-3-glucoside and said cyanidin-3-glucoside is administered at a dose of 0.002 mg to 100 mg per joint or at a dose of 100 µM-200 µM. 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the composition increases gene expression of IGF-l in the arthritic joint. 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein inhibiting interleukin-1 (IL-1) induced glycosaminoglycoside (GAG) release in the arthritic joint of a subject is associated with a chondroprotective effect in the joint of a subject. 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein inhibiting interleukin-1 (IL-1) induced glycosaminoglycoside release in the arthritic joint of a subject is associated with a chondronutritive effect in the joint of a subject. 5. A method for treating damaged cartilage, comprising the intra-articular injection of a composition consisting of an anthocyanin glucose and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier into the arthritic joint of a subject, wherein said glucose is a 5% solution, and wherein the anthocyanin is cyanidin-3-glucoside said cyanidin-3-glucoside is administered at a dose of 0.002 mg to 100 mg per joint or at a dose of 100 µM-200 µM 6. The method according to claim 11, wherein the composition stimulates the production of insulin-like growth factor -1 (IGF-1) in the joint to regenerate the damaged cartilage. 7. A method of inhibiting interleukin-1 (IL-1) induced glycosaminoglycoside (GAG) release in the cartilage, comprising an intra-articular injection of a composition consisting of glucose, and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier and a anthocyanin, wherein said anthocyanin is cyanidin-3-glucoside, and wherein said glucose is a 5% solution and wherein the cyanidin-3-glucoside is administered at a dose of 0.002 mg to 100 mg per joint or at a dose of 100 µM-200 µM.
8/12/2015: I now have some proof from PGA player that putter shaft angle changes putt to putt and hole to hole. My hypothesis is that even the best golfers change their shaft angle putt to putt and hole to hole. This is the first of PGA tour player putting the Blast Motion device to record shaft angle changes in first 9 holes of ProAm at Twin Cities. Notice that he made 15 putts in the 9 holes. The distance of the putt is recorded followed by the shaft lean. The change of shaft angle then changes the loft of the putter. So if the loft was 3 degrees and the shaft changed 7.7 degrees as seen below, the ball was struck with a putter face loft of 10.7 degrees. At the other end of the spectrum was a negative change of 2.2 degrees. The ball was then struck with a face loft of 0.8 degrees. The roll out distance will vary with the changes in face loft and his average change was 2.1 degrees in 15 putts. The first number is the record of the putts in order. The second number is the distance to the hole. The third number is the shaft angle at impact. 1 4 Feet 1.6 2 3 Feet 1.6 3 15 Feet 4.4 4 1 Foot 3.0 5 22 Feet 4.4 6 1 Foot 1.1 7 15 Feet 7.7 8 4 Feet 1.5 9 20 Feet -0.1 10 2 Feet 1.2 11 15 Feet -0.3 12 1 Foot 1.8 13 6 Feet 3.0 14 1 Foot -2.2 15 4 Feet 2.4 Average 2.1 STD Dev 2.2 When we separated out the 2nd putt which were 1 to 4 feet, the shaft angle changed from 3.0 to -2.2. The latter were on 1 foot putts so they may have been one hand tap in’s. FUTURE: Collect more supporting data on tour. Player Soultion: The FORGIVING FACE PUTTER. www.drlanny.com/golf/putter-shaft-angle-changes-are-unavoidable/
7/23/2015: There is no acceptance like that which is preceded by rejection! I heard this first in a medical school lecture by John Dorsey, M.D. He was a psychiatrist. Now for my lecture on rejection. Yesterday I received notice that a scientific study I had been working on for over 35 years was accepted for publication in an open medical journal Journal of Clinical Medical Research. This manuscript had been previously rejected by many more prestigious journals; Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Journal of Sports Medicine, Orthopedic Clinics of North America, Pain, Journal of Pain, and many more. I was given the idea by Devine revelation knowledge. I made the device on the same day I had the revelation. We used it on more than 1000 patients with careful documentation. We wrote and rewrote the manuscript too many times to count. Finally it was accepted. I now believe I am qualified to speak on the subject of rejection. Rejection is a part of every human experience. Even Jesus faced rejection. It says that he came unto his own people and they received him not. I guess there is nothing like your own family’s rejection. I have reflected many times on the humorous response a very spiritual person might get when praying to have the mind of Christ. The answer to the prayer could be for this person to experience rejection. The state of rejection provides a wonderful opportunity to learn the mind of Christ and how He would process rejection. There are several factors in the mind of Christ in the face of rejection. 1. Rejection did not deter Him. 2. He continued to love and respect those that rejected Him. 3. He persisted in His mission. 4. He knew the rejection did not lessen the value of what he was doing or the purpose. 5. He knew He would over come the rejection. 6. In the end He would be victorious. Fortunately, I know Him and learned His mind in this matter. I now have the victorious outcome.
6/15/2015: I have gone through several name changes on my golf grips. I started with “sensible” which seemed to make sense but did not tell a story. I then went to “synapse” which only doctors understood. Then is was to say what the grip was, “grooved golf grip”. The was a dud in my opinion, but only to be superseded by my last idea of “HF or human factor”. That was true but too obtuse. So the latest and hopefully the final is “Difference Makar”. I use the “Working to make a difference on my business cards”. I revived the word Makar from my former company, Instrument Makar, Inc. The word Makar is Greek word for blessing. So I am getting new logos made that will be the covering for what I am doing in every endeavor.
4/21/2015: Just learning about the dart market. All of the parties involved in the production of this web site feel that the sport of darts needs less hype and more truth. There are shooters that have been playing for many years that are leaving the sport due to frustration, and there are newcomers that aren’t getting a “good start” with inadequate darts. Take a look at www.CrowsDarts.com’s home page. In the second paragraph, you will see a mention about the “current” poll and also a mention for “previous poll’s results.” Click on the previous poll’s results and you will see thirteen questions. One of the questions is: “How many sets of darts do you own?” Keep in mind that there are over 100 million shooters in the world that play organized darts (leagues) and this does not include the casual shooters. A total of fifteen (15) percent or 15 million shooters worldwide, have an average of seventeen sets of darts! At an average of $80 per set, one of the cheapest sports has gotten very expensive! That’s a total of $1,360.00 worth of darts per shooter! Wow! In looking at these figures we have estimated that the annual market for darts alone, has to be somewhere above one half billion! and, we didn’t even figure in the casual shooters!
3/4/2015: Zambro, Inc makes telephone cold calls to inventors listed at US Patent Office records. In this case, I was the recipient. The person on the phone says they have a customer to purchase or license my patent on darts. I am surprised, but agree to see the written agreement. The written agreement indicates the inventor sends $6,000 for virtual prototype, $3000 for market study and $10000 for feasibility study. Note that there is no promise of success. However if they sell the idea or product the inventor gets 4% and a Zambro, Inc gets 96% of the proceeds. This is not a misprint as it is in the contract sent to me. The inventor is responsible for all other costs related to the patent filing and maintenance. Unbelievable that anyone would have the conscience to make such an offer and even worse that anyone would sign such an agreement. I learned from my patent attorney this is a common practice.