THE CATARACT REVERSAL AGENT CLAIMED, BASED ON ANIMAL AND HUMAN TRIALS ALREADY CARRIED OUT, TO BE A SAFE AND EFFECTIVE ONE-WEEK CURE
TETRACYCLIC UREA ADDUCT OF 2-BENZYLIDENE-1,3-INDANEDIONE
2) TOXICOLOGY STUDIES ON HUMAN CORNEA, LENS AND RETINA CELL LINES TO CONFIRM SAFETY
3) ANIMAL STUDIES ON SENILE CATARACT TO CONFIRM LACK OF TOXICITY, AND EFFECTIVENESS TO RESTORE CLARITY TO
4) HUMAN CLINICAL TRIALS ON SENILE CATARACT (RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND)
It is probably no accident that both this urea adduct, and NACA (N-acetylcysteine amide) which others have mentioned on CureZone, are AMIDES. With advancing age, both the soluble, chaperone CRYSTALLINS (which keep the lens clear), and the AMIDES which allow those crystallins to reach all parts of the lens, are leached out of the lens into the aqueous - leaving the lens highly vulnerable to oxidative challenge resulting in cataract, and making it impossible for the crystallins to reach the cataract once it forms. These two agents probably re-supply amide to the substance of the lens, allowing the small amounts of crystallins and reducing enzymes still being produced by secondary lens fibers on the equator of the lens, to reach the nucleus of the lens once again, and restore clarity to it. If we do nothing, then this compound, like others before and after it - although it has the potential to prevent and/or cure blindness due to cataract in a reasonable time frame without exposing 20 to 50 million people to the risk of surgery - will end up in the trash can. What we need is for someone out there to synthesize this urea adduct of 2-benzylidene-1,3-indanedione, and prove it is indeed safe and effective by following the steps 1) through 4) above. The synthesis is described at:
[2-benzylidene-1,3-indanedione is refluxed together with urea in glacial acetic acid for 25 minutes, whereupon red crystals should separate out. The reaction mixture is allowed to stand at room temperature for a further 2 hours, and the red crystals are then separated and recrystallized from acetic acid].
Urea itself is actually an amide with 2 amino groups, and so by this process, the indanedione has been converted into a cyclic amide. This cyclic amide is our cataract reversal agent, and can then be made up into eyedrops which we must confirm to be safe and effective as was claimed in 1992.
I hope that, for the sake of humanity, someone out there reading this message who can get this compound synthesized and tested again, will act, and act fast.
EYE DOCTOR SAYS:
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.