Cataract patients should not be doing self-experimentation. All these safer treatments, nutritional or other, should be offered by clinicians. The insurmountable obstacle we are all facing is that, despite proven alternatives to eye surgery practised by several different doctors over the last 100 years or so,, each one over many decades, the eye profession has refused to introduce them into mainstream clinical practice.

I am sure that a clinician would tell me to steer clear of self-experimentation. Yet the same clinicians are advising me to have a cataract operation telling me that it is "the safest operation in the world" and "invariably effective", whereas in fact I know both these statements to be untrue. I know many who are now visually troubled following cataract surgery. On top of which there are countless horror stories on the Internet of course, including from the UK. I remember one from a distraught husband telling us that his wife's eye eventually had to be enucleated (removed) following cataract surgery.

Judy Finnigan ran a feature on N-acetylcarnosine eye drops to reverse cataract on the "Richard and Judy Show" on Channel 4 in the UK in 2003. These eyedrops were developed by a British biochemist, Professor Steven Charles Gallant, working at Barts Hospital in London. The initial results after 6 weeks were very encouraging, and the eyedrops even went on sale at chemists in the UK. But the feature, scheduled to run for 6 months, was terminated after 6 weeks, apparently following complaints by a large London eye hospital, and their sale was banned. It is even alleged that a respected consultant at another London hospital asked that the eyedrops not be sold in the UK, as it would "seriously impact his £1.5 million cataract business".

Dr. William Luftig who cured around 3000 patients with eye disease using chromotherapy over a period spanning 30 years in his clinic in Brighton, and documented the results by careful examination with the slit-lamp, was ridiculed for his "unorthodox methods", and had his license revoked before his death in 1958.

In the US, Dr. Gary Price Todd, using nutritional methods, avoided surgery for almost 100% of his cataract patients, despite an unsuccessful attempt by the Medical Examiners to revoke his license before his death in 1998. An American ear, nose and throat specialist, Dr. Stuart Kemeny, used similar methods to save 7000 people from cataract surgery.

Again in the UK, Dr. Stanley Evans, using nutritional methods, was able to restore precious sight to thousands of cataract sufferers at his clinic in Suffolk. During a practice spanning about 50 years, 17 of which were spent in Africa, he wrote about 10 books, such as "Help for cataract sufferers: The Result of 46 years Ophthalmic Nutritional Research into Cataract Control", and "Prevention of Blindness in Britain - Proof that ophthalmic nutritional therapy works as well in Britain as in Africa, and the dangers of orthodox eye treatments".(This book contains clinical details of 130 cases successfully treated in Britain during three years, including 34 cataract cases, 80 glaucoma cases, 6 dry eye cases, 4 macular degeneration cases, 2 retinitis cases, 2 keratoconus cases and 4 strabismus cases. Diagrams illustrating decrease in blind zones in macular degeneration, and increase in visual fields in retinitis pigmentosa resulting from ophthalmic nutritional therapy).
Dr. Stanley Evans died very recently.

My point is that the only clinicians who offered real treatments that could cure cataract and other eye diseases without running the very real risks of surgery are now dead, and none of them have left any disciples. It stretches the limits of credulity that the eye profession has not introduced the fruits of their long research and successful cures into mainstream clinical practice. It is the responsibility of the eye profession to work out safe and effective treatment options, and it is ludicrous that patients are having to assume that responsibility. But in such a situation, and faced with the prospect of blindness, it is hardly surprising that patients are forced to self-experiment, despite the obvious risks of doing so without proper guidance.

I have cataracts and also glaucoma. I think the cataracts are the worst of the two as far as sight is concerned. I have known about NACA for over a year but have been unable to procur the NACA. I have even contacted the lead researcher in the study you cited. I also contacted a chemist and he was going to have the NACA formulated for me in China but the Chinese chemist said it would oxidize. The chemist in the US did not agree but he does not have the right kind of lab to do it and he is mostly a cancer specialist. Do you know where one can purchase NACA. My chemist friend here said Sigma Aldrich is extremely expensive. Thanks

Please give a good formula that we can follow. Your percentages are percentages by weight? Volume? What? AND percentages of what? The whole formula? Or percentages of purity in each of their own bases?

Please just write a simple, easy to follow formula. Thanks.