We invite all eye doctors to make a New Year Resolution for 2017! Don't be shy. Break with tradition, and for the first time in the last 100 years, actually TRY to cure cataract without surgery, and spare the human eye lens from the knife or laser. Go on, be daring, do what a doctor's supposed to do, and TRY. Make a resolution: "This year, I'm gonna TRY to cure human cataract without resorting to surgery, save the lens, and save the human eye in all its integrity! To hell with the $14 billion that we're making from surgery - I don't care any more, I'm gonna do the right thing, and put patients first!" The technology is there. Biologists, chemists and biochemists have, since 1954, come up with a full range of various eye drops that have been found, in animal studies and/or from anecdotal reports, to restore clarity to cataractous lenses. If you TRY to save people's natural lens with these tools, and you fail despite your best efforts, no-one in this world can ever blame you. We certainly won't. But if you don't TRY, that's a whole different story. The world will never know what might have been possible. After all, Hippocrates said: "First, do no harm". He didn't say: "Do nothing, so patients are forced to submit to surgery". Did he.
Site is a portal for eves dropping doctors ( mainstream Obama Care professionals) trying to find out what to do about the real world and not look too foolish or loose money. I have posted and began to believe in some of what this so call moderator said - this is for people to share stories anonymously. Fake and harmful propaganda and I'll give you the reason! All it does is create "categories of products and people" for marketing .com, no real information is being distributed for the sake of remedying sometimes severe sickness. The state of the news revelation will not permit it. Knowledge is the power , and it has been handed down over generations to a variety in all cultures in no particular fashion or purpose. But some got well from terrible illness' and I have this kind of a true story. I will not be cheated and cajoled into this sham sons of mulotto's. Shows me the check -india ink! Then I'll blow you and the whole assembly apart with vital information about 1st time dfu costs 8k $ 2nd time cost 27k and 3rd time 79k $. Pummel the institution into powdered weed. Go alternative health!
THE EYE PROFESSION THINKS AN EYEDROP THAT COULD CURE CATARACT
WOULD BE “TOO MUNDANE”, “TOO BORING”, AND “NOT WORTHY OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT”.
Question and Answer Session with Eye Doctor
Yesterday, I again visited my eye doctor to re-evaluate my cataracts.
Previously, I had shown her the patent specification on the cyclic amide which was claimed to reverse human senile cataract in just one week. She said she had read it, and was quite impressed. I had also previously mentioned N-acetylcysteine amide (NACA), which had reversed severe cataracts in an animal model in one month.
The following is a brief record of the discussion we had.
Q: Doctor, in view of the fact that there are at least 2 potential cataract reversal eyedrop agents discovered in the last 30 years, which were found to be safe and effective based on animal trials, one of which was also tested on human cataracts already, why on earth has the eye profession done nothing to start clinical trials of these agents? Why is the world population still being denied a simpler, safer solution?
A: I also want to have an eyedrop which I could give my patients, but since there isn’t one, my hands are tied. I am forced to send them to surgery, although I really don’t want to. When you ask patients here and there who have had the surgery - they have a wide range of complaints such as glare from lights, shedding tears, or foreign object sensation. But that’s only to be expected - after all, a plastic IOL is not something natural, it’s a foreign object as far as the eye is concerned.
Why is there no eyedrop? My profession thinks that a simple eyedrop which could cure cataract would be far too mundane, too boring, to be worthy of their involvement. They just wouldn’t be satisfied unless they did the surgery.
Q: Who wouldn’t be satisfied? The doctors, or the patients?
A: The doctors.
Q: I see. Thankyou Doctor, for being so frank.
I immediately telephoned the helpline of my local health authority, and the following exchange ensued:
Q: I just saw my eye doctor, and she said that despite the existence of eyedrops that could potentially cure cataract, the eye profession thinks a simple eyedrop would be too mundane and too boring, and that they wouldn’t be satisfied unless they did surgery. What do you think about that?
A: Oh, that’s just because they’re making lots of money from the surgery, isn’t it? There’s nothing we can do about that, we have no control over it. We have no authority to tell them what to do. We recommend you approach a pharmaceutical company to see if they would be interested in making and testing eyedrops.
Q: But pharmaceutical companies won’t listen to suggestions from patients, only from ophthalmologists.
A: That’s true. Well, then, there’s nothing more we can do. Goodbye.
Perhaps playing on the title of Diet For A New America by John Robbins, http://www.earthsave.org,
vegan member of the Robbins family of Baskin Robbins, William E Connor MD and Sonja L Connor published in November 2009 a book called The New American Diet. Connor had died a few days before. The book includes many foods causing animal agony, human disease, environmental desecration, energy waste and unnecessary expense... such as the flesh of cows, chickens, turkeys, fishes and the stolen products of cows and chickens. Dr Connor died recently.
The book says it is based on a very small study by NIH, a study of 235 families. William NIH is not willing to promote the healthiest diets (vegan and fruitarian)... because of the trillions of dollars involved in mongering animal and fish flesh and products. Why has NIH wasted the public money with yet another study. There are hundreds if not thousands of studies documenting the superior health of human beings. Dr Colin Campbell who recommends vegan diet in his book The China Study cites copious studies. There was a 7 year government funded study which concluded that the average nonsmoking nondrinking vegetarian Adventist lives 7 years longer than the average nondrinking nonsmoking nonvegetarian Mormon. Dr Stanley Prusiner left Harvard because his prion research (Mad Cow Mad Pig etc) was put on the back burner by that meat invested university.
Vegans after 3 months on an isocaloric study diet (each subject eating the same number of calories daily) weigh 23 pounds less than nonvegetarians and 11 plunds less than dairy vegetarians. Fruitarians
were not included in the study but weigh less than any other group. Dr Mervyn Hardinge also left Harvard after conducting this study. Truth seeking researchers are not necessarily welcome at that blood-invested place.
The book is not as toxic as those of Drs. Stillman, Atkins, and Eads. The high animal protein diet has been condemned by the AMA for causing bleeding ulcers, kidney dysfunction, constipation, heart attacks. Nevertheless the Connorbook promotes animal slaughter
and toxic food. Connor did recommend replacing eggs with the nonanimal egg replacers on the market. And he had only 1 mammal flesh recommendation. However for years he recommended fish oil, despite its correlation to stomach cancer, to uric acid caused arthritis, to many cancers from the radiation concentrated in fish flesh at 1000 times the rate the radiation exists in the water.
Connor was a Quaker, a peace worker and abolitionist. God speed to Dr Connor. He might be reborn as a vegan activist and help Quakers extend nonviolence to the animal world. This article is written because some readers are sheep believing what they read in a book or are told by a physician.
Are you still trying to sidetrack from actual debate?
My references are listed at the end of the review.
Where are your references?
1. Ibsen, H., An Enemy of the People. Act IV.
2. The desire to save money was a major factor behind Nazi sterilization and murder of the handicapped and mentally ill. See Burleigh, Michael, Death and Deliverance, "Euthanasia" in Germany c. 1900-1945. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
3. Kevles, D. J., In the Name of Eugenics, Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1985.
4. Burleigh, ibid..
5. The country where the greatest eagerness to pass sterilization laws was seen was the United States, the nation of the workaholic, where to this day the sins of those that do not work and the existence of 'welfare scroungers', particularly single mothers, is almost an obsession in some quarters.
6. The distinction between 'mainline' and 'reform' eugenics was first drawn by Daniel Kevles, ibid., p.88, p173-176.
7. For an account of the relation between full blown mental illnesses and their formes frustes, see Kramer, P.D., Listening to Prozac. London, England: Penguin Books, 1993, p 197-249.
8. For a discussion of the links between manic depression and creativity, see Jamison, K. R., Touched with Fire: Manic-depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament. Free Press/Macmillan, 1993.
9. McGee, G., The Perfect Baby: A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997, p.56.
10 Broberg, G. and Roll-Hansen, N. (eds.), Eugenics and the Welfare State, Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1996. p.151.
11. Ibid. p.152.
13. Lewontin, R.C. The Doctrine of DNA: Biology as Ideology. London, England: Penguin Books, 1992, p.23.
14. The fact is that, as Lewontin himself says: "we know nothing about the heritability of human temperamental and intellectual traits." (Ibid., p.96.) Perhaps as long as this chasm in our self- knowledge exists it will echo with ideologically-driven overstatements, coming from both the political right and left.
15. However, Lewontin is no Dewey-style pragmatist: "Science is more than an institution devoted to the manipulation of the physical world. It also has a function in the formation of consciousness about the political and social world." Ibid., p.103.
16. McGee ibid., p.107.
17. Ibid., p.90.
18. Ibid., p.76.