 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2007Anyone successfully reverse/eliminate cataracts?
I would like to get advise from people that have had success in reversing their "doctor diagnosed" cataracts. I would like to know the following: 1) Was your cataract in the beginning, intermediate, or advanced stage? How bad did your vision get? 2) Was your cataract diagnosed by an eye doctor? What type of cataract did they say it was (nuclear, cortical, subcapsular, ...)? 3) How much time elapsed after your cataract was discovered by your doctor before you started taking supplements and/or herbs and/or drugs? 4) What did you take that worked (e.g., Eyebright, Billberry, Vitamin E, ...)? How much of it did you take? How many times per day? For how many days or months? 5) Was the cataract reversed or eliminated completely? If reversed, by how much? 6) Did your cataract reoccur or get worse again after you stopped taking the supplements/herbs/drugs? 7) What country do you live in? 8) Could you give me advise as I try to reverse and hopefully eliminate my cataracts? If so, how can I contact you? > I would like to get advise from people that have had success in > reversing their "doctor diagnosed" cataracts. Be extremely skeptical if anybody tells you they have... > I would like to get advise from people that have had success in > reversing their "doctor diagnosed" cataracts. I would like to know [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 8) Could you give me advise as I try to reverse and hopefully > eliminate my cataracts? If so, how can I contact you? sorry mark. it isn't possible to reverse or eliminate cataracts without surgery. > sorry mark. it isn't possible to reverse or eliminate cataracts > without surgery. Ok, what is it about this formation process in the lens that makes it so non-reversable. That is, what makes this a one way physiological process. Don W. >>sorry mark. it isn't possible to reverse or eliminate cataracts >>without surgery. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don W. It's called protein denaturing. Same process as taking a pefectly clear egg whyite and dropping it into a hot frying pan. The clear gel becomes an opaque white that you can't change back to the clear gel state no matter what. All you can do is toss it out (or eat it, I suppose) and get another clear gel... If you want the precise chemistry of this process, consult a good text on organic chemistry. Knock yourself out. w.stacy, o.d. > >>sorry mark. it isn't possible to reverse or eliminate cataracts > >>without surgery. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. OK, you can make a tasty egg salad, but Zetsu can clear it back with Bates' sunning. You see, chemistry is not a factor in the Zetsu-Bates world. All you need is to use the rest method and your cataract will magically disappear. You must admit that Bates is superior. Zetsu knows best and he has demonstrated it to himself at age 15. > OK, you can make a tasty egg salad, but Zetsu can clear it back with > Bates' sunning. You see, chemistry is not a factor in the Zetsu-Bates > world. All you need is to use the rest method and your cataract will > magically disappear. You must admit that Bates is superior. Zetsu > knows best and he has demonstrated it to himself at age 15. You know, this thread was going along very nicely. What's the point of bringing Bates and Zetsu into the conversation? Brainy's first post was reasonable, helpful. Stacy's cooked egg white analogy is really helpful when thinking about cataracts. It just makes no sense to me that people complain about the so-called "trolls" yet it's those very people who bring them up and into the conversation every chance they get. It's clear that this posting by Brainy was only to cause trouble (goad Zetsu) or to show how "brainy" and witty she is. It's sad when people can only feel good by putting other people down.  Signature~RT Years ago, the government ran this one study on human behavior that cost millions and millions of dollars . And at the end of the study they came up with one irrefutable conclusion. When things are going along well, there is this overpowering urge to kick over the apple cart. Don W. PS. And don't ask me what an apple cart is. > It's sad when people can only feel good by putting other people down. > > -- > ~RT and what are you attempting to do? if you think you are above it all, then you shouldn't post. see ya. > > It's sad when people can only feel good by putting other people down. > > > > -- > > ~RT > > and what are you attempting to do? I suppose you could look at it that way, but I'm not attempting to put people down, but rather call attention to inconsistencies. What do you think about Brainy's post? She decries the presence of Zetsu and others she labels as trolls, yet she brings Zetsu and his fantasies into a completely unrelated thread that was getting thoughtful replies and staying on topic. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have added that last line to my post and when I reread it, I regretted doing so because I see how it can come off the way you seem to have read it. However, I do often feel that sentiment when I read this NG. > if you think you are above it all, then you shouldn't post. see ya. No, I don't think I'm above it all, and certainly no more so than someone who complains when "trolls" post, insults them, engages them so they keep posting, insists that this NG should stay "scientific," and yet feels it necessary to bring the "troll's" unsubstantiated unscientific theories into otherwise cogent discussion in order to make fun of him. So I guess I'll continue to post whenever I feel like it. See ya! Signature~RT Ms.Brainy, >You see, chemistry is not a factor in the Zetsu-Bates world. I study chemistry at school, actually. > I study chemistry at school, actually. Apparently it's not working. Chemistry is a microscopically small collection of study by humans and human made computers to gather shrewd and imprecise knowledge in the way that the chemicals can reacts with each other, if you look at what is really all left out of the picture. Just because you study chemistry does not mean you know everything about chemistry; in fact in means this: you know hardly any. I can understand the boiled egg analogy but that is only the accumalation of a small bit of study in the human era and it is but a small thing in comparison to the rest of time that the human will spend in the world and find out more things that they thought before was impossible. > Chemistry is a microscopically small collection of study by humans and > human made computers to gather shrewd and imprecise knowledge in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > spend in the world and find out more things that they thought before > was impossible. I presume that you're expecting us to believe that the "Well, Science doesn't know everything" argument IS PROOF THAT your "rest methods" will reverse a cataract? Why are you still here? No, I am expecting you to demonstrate the fact for yourself if you desire proof. And yes I know that something cannot be proved by negative preposition, I don't need a lecture from the likes of you Brooks. Why should not I be here? It is free country. > No, I am expecting you to demonstrate the fact for yourself if you > desire proof. And yes I know that something cannot be proved by > negative preposition, I don't need a lecture from the likes of you > Brooks. It seems abundantly clear, to any and all rational participants of this forum, that you DO need such a lecture from somebody. As to "free country:" as journalists will tell you ... WITH rights like free speech come profound responsibilities. You (and Otis and Lena) seem to ignore that part. I don't give a crap about what journalists think, Brooks. Least of all, Ms.Brainy. I do not fathom to give a crap about what journalist tell me, Brooks.Especially not Ms Brainy. I think that The news writers are full of lies and deceit and filth and a source of corruption you see. Now why not you go and dribble over the new Spiderman 3 movie; then you can learn some more things that seem wise and clever. > > Chemistry is a microscopically small collection of study by humans and > I presume that you're expecting us to believe that the "Well, Science > doesn't know everything" argument IS PROOF THAT your "rest methods" > will reverse a cataract? > > Why are you still here? Typing practice. > It's called protein denaturing. Same process as taking a pefectly clear > egg whyite and dropping it into a hot frying pan. The clear gel becomes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you want the precise chemistry of this process, consult a good text on > organic chemistry. Knock yourself out. Wonder how many labs are knocking themselves out on this no matter what problem. Don W. Bill Stacy wrote: >> It's called protein denaturing. Same process as taking a pefectly clear >> egg whyite and dropping it into a hot frying pan. The clear gel becomes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> If you want the precise chemistry of this process, consult a good text on >> organic chemistry. Knock yourself out. "Don W" replied: >Wonder how many labs are knocking themselves out on this no matter what >problem. I'd say .... some: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22reversing+cataract%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&r ls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a OR: http://tinyurl.com/yt38go If, whether, and when ... are big open questions. I'm sure there's BIG $$$ there, though, so ... I'm sure they'll try. > Bill Stacy wrote: > > >> It's called protein denaturing. > >> If you want the precise chemistry of this process, consult a good text on > >> organic chemistry. Knock yourself out. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'd say .... some: > I'm sure there's BIG $$$ there, though, so ... I'm sure they'll try. To the extent that presbyopia is due to deterioration of the proteins, and that the proposed fix regenerates them, we're talking about a possible cure to presbyopia, which opens up the market even more. > >>sorry mark. it isn't possible to reverse or eliminate cataracts > >>without surgery. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. Oh yeah, we were learning about this kind of thing in Chemistry at school just last week! We were studying enzymes and not cataracts, but I think the same kind of mechanism can be theorized; as in the active site theory and the lock and key model. When the temperature is low, enzymes can't work efficiently because the enzymes and the molecules do not have energy to move fast and collide into each other, and when the temperature is too high the shape of the active site inside of the enzyme is modified so you can't go back to the previous state, and then it is said to have been 'denatured'. The enzymes work best at the middle point which is the middle between the denaturing temperature and a too low temperature, and that is called the optimum temperature. pH also effects the way enzymes can function. >You see, chemistry is not a factor in the Zetsu-Bates I have study chemistry in school; it does not contradict anything I know. >All you need is to use the rest method and your cataract will >magically disappear. Not magically, scientifically. Hello, Regarding cataract formations; We were actually learning about this kind of thing in chemistry lessons at school only just last week. We were studying enzymes and not cataracts, but I think the same kind of mechanism can be theorized; as in the active site theory and the lock and key model. When the temperature is low, enzymes can't work efficiently because the enzymes and the molecules do not have energy to move fast and collide into each other, and when the temperature is too high the shape of the active site inside of the enzyme is modified so you can't go back to the previous state, and then it is said to have been denatured, which means that the molecules cannot fit inside the active site of the enzyme so that means it can't react anymore. The enzymes work best at the middle point which is the middle between the denaturing temperature and a too low temperature, and that is called the optimum temperature. pH value also effects the protein. Zetsu >Oh please, I can look stupid by posting to any NG. You can, that is apparent, but can you not? > enzyme is modified so you can't go back to the previous state, and > then it is said to have been 'denatured'. >>All you need is to use the rest method and your cataract will >>magically disappear. > > Not magically, scientifically. You say that denatured proteins can't go back to their previous state. How do your "rest methods" accomplish something that you said is impossible, reaching through the blood-brain barrier to rebuild those proteins? -MT It may be the proteins are not rebuilt but destroyed altogether, and then a new one get make? Even if the protein is denatured and cannot return to the original state; why not a new one just made? I don't understand what you mean by 'blood brain barrier' please could you explain that. >So be realistic. You're planning to un-boil an egg, turning degraded >proteins from white back to clear. But cannot new matter be formed in the eye? > It may be the proteins are not rebuilt but destroyed altogether, and > then a new one get make? Even if the protein is denatured and cannot > return to the original state; why not a new one just made? Well, the first problem is what to do with the old, opaque proteins. White blood cells can't get in there to clean things up. Even if they could, you'd have to replace them with new lens fibers, grown from scratch, another thing that doesn't happen at the age we get cataracts.. > I don't > understand what you mean by 'blood brain barrier' please could you > explain that. It's a barrier, formed by tight cell junctions in the capillaries. It keeps big molecules like proteins and lipids and some pharmaceuticals from entering the brain, spinal cord and the aqueous humor. When the lens is first formed, in the womb, it has a blood supply, delivering proteins and phospholipids and nucleotides, to allow rapid growth. Soon after birth, the blood vessels disappear and the metabolism slows down enormously, because the only route for nutrients and metabolites is through the aqueous humor. -MT > I would like to get advise from people that have had success in > reversing their "doctor diagnosed" cataracts. I would like to know > the following: > > 1) Was your cataract in the beginning, intermediate, or advanced > stage? How bad did your vision get? Intermediate, about 20/25 > 2) Was your cataract diagnosed by an eye doctor? What type of > cataract did they say it was (nuclear, cortical, subcapsular, ...)? Yes, combination type, about 50% nuclear, 25% cortical and 25% subcaps. > 3) How much time elapsed after your cataract was discovered by your > doctor before you started taking supplements and/or herbs and/or > drugs? No time. Was taking them at the time. > 4) What did you take that worked (e.g., Eyebright, Billberry, Vitamin > E, ...)? How much of it did you take? How many times per day? For > how many days or months? No supplements/drugs had any positive effect at all. > 5) Was the cataract reversed or eliminated completely? If reversed, > by how much? Eliminated completely. > 6) Did your cataract reoccur or get worse again after you stopped > taking the supplements/herbs/drugs? Never stopped. > 7) What country do you live in? USA > 8) Could you give me advise as I try to reverse and hopefully > eliminate my cataracts? If so, how can I contact you? Do what I did. Have them removed in a 15 minute procedure under local anesthetics (drops only, no needles) where the cataractous lenses are replaced with prolate optics silicone lenses of crystal clear quality, through a self-sealing (stitchless) incision 3 mm long, to achieve perfect 20/15 vision the next day and total comfort from then on. Almost 3 years now and still 20/15. Call me in the US at 916.985.6399 or just e-mail me at the above... w.stacy, o.d. > I would like to get advise from people that have had success in > reversing their "doctor diagnosed" cataracts. I would like to know [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 8) Could you give me advise as I try to reverse and hopefully > eliminate my cataracts? If so, how can I contact you? A patient who has obtained cataracts should begin the cure of the imperfect sight by rest methods of relaxation treatment without glasses/contacts/surgery. I don't have cataracts myself but my grandma does. I am planning to treat her and cure the cataracts, so after my scientific study has been completed I can answer each of your questions thoroughly. > > I would like to get advise from people that have had success in > > reversing their "doctor diagnosed" cataracts. I would like to know [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Granny's gonna be pissed at you when she realizes you've wasted her time. > > > I would like to get advise from people that have had success in > > > reversing their "doctor diagnosed" cataracts. I would like to know [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Granny's gonna be pissed at you when she realizes you've wasted her > time. Nonsense. Rather she will be very pleased that she no longer has to suffer from cataracts and other defects including high intraocular pressure and presbyopia, and relieved that she won't have to suffer the invasive surgery of removing the lens. Please stop your rubbish, spammer. I'm talking about an actual scientific study where I will research to find out exactly what I will need to do to make a real effective study, use the scientific method, record everything all the time, and even purchase any special equipment I might need during the treatment process. The more you insult me the more stupid you will look in the end after I prove to you and to everyone that cataracts are curable. > Please stop your rubbish, spammer. I'm talking about an actual > scientific study where I will research to find out exactly what I will > need to do to make a real effective study, use the scientific method, > record everything all the time, and even purchase any special > equipment I might need during the treatment process. Normally you'd need more than one subject. But cataracts are so predictable that you'd make medical news by "curing" just one. Since you're promising a miracle, it'd be a good idea to enlist an objective observer to make measurements and photos before and after your treatment. Otherwise nobody will believe you. > The more you insult me the more stupid you will look in the end after > I prove to you and to everyone that cataracts are curable. In seven years, who knows, you just might teach that horse to sing. -MT Hi Mike Tyner, > Normally you'd need more than one subject. Hmmm, well my grandma's sister also has cataracts. You mean I'd need another subject to be a control? Please elaborate on this, because even though I'm only 16, I might as well do all I can to make it as good a study as possible. > But cataracts are so predictable that you'd make medical news by "curing" > just one. > > Since you're promising a miracle, it'd be a good idea to enlist an objective > observer to make measurements and photos before and after your treatment. > Otherwise nobody will believe you. You're right, that's a great idea! I have to make sure people believe me if the outcome is successful, or else what's the point of going to all this trouble with a scientific study? Can I get her opthalmologist (who is also my opthalmologist) to be the objective observer? Also, would it cost anything? Thanks. > Hmmm, well my grandma's sister also has cataracts. You mean I'd need > another subject to be a control? Please elaborate on this, because > even though I'm only 16, I might as well do all I can to make it as > good a study as possible. Usually you want some larger number of subjects, a group of experimental subjects and another, matched group of controls. So a "good" study is probably beyond your reach as an individual. Best you could do is a "case study." No matter. As I said, you'll make history if you manage to clear up cataracts in just one individual. > Can I get her opthalmologist (who is also my opthalmologist) to be the > objective observer? Also, would it cost anything? It won't cost anything (extra) if you simply rely on his routine examinations. But photos aren't part of a routine examination and if you're going to convince me you "cured" cataracts, you'd need photos. I don't see what "data" you'd want to take to the ophthalmologist. It would be best if the ophthalmologist were unaware of your efforts until after his post-treatment exam. If the cataract actually disappears, he'll come looking for you. So be realistic. You're planning to un-boil an egg, turning degraded proteins from white back to clear. At the very least, you'd need slit-lamp photos. -MT > Nonsense. Rather she will be very pleased that she no longer has to > suffer from cataracts and other defects including high intraocular [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The more you insult me the more stupid you will look in the end after > I prove to you and to everyone that cataracts are curable.- Did Granny have any grandkids that weren't retarded ? > > Nonsense. Rather she will be very pleased that she no longer has to > > suffer from cataracts and other defects including high intraocular [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Did Granny have any grandkids that weren't retarded ? Yes, none of us were retarded. You, on the other hand, are the retard. But I guess you want to look stupid by posting on this NG... > Yes, none of us were retarded. Thank you for answering the study question. >You, on the other hand, are the retard. Which hand? Right, left, or other ? > But I guess you want to look stupid by posting on this NG...- Oh please, I can look stupid by posting to any NG. On Oct 12, 8:26 pm, spammer <sereb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Did Granny have any grandkids that weren't retarded ? Easy, Spammer, easy on the kid.. Mamma RT is here to protect them, together with the integrity of the threads on s.m.v. To Jason: I truly wish you and granny success. When do you expect the results? Will you allow an independent certified ophthalmologist or optometrist to check granny's vision, before and after? Nothing invasive, just Snellen for distance and The National Inquirer random story for close up. Also Jason: It seems that you are very confident in your success and have no doubts. What gave you this confident? Just make sure that you start right away, you know, if you wait too long the singing horse may die, or granny may die, or you may die, or the Internet may collapse, or all the participants in s.m.v. may die of either myopia, prespyopia or their own cataracts. Hurry up, Jason, we are waiting. I will cheer for you when you get the Nobel Prize . Hi Ms. Brainy, > To Jason: I truly wish you and granny success. When do you expect > the results? Will you allow an independent certified ophthalmologist > or optometrist to check granny's vision, before and after? Nothing > invasive, just Snellen for distance and The National Inquirer random > story for close up. I would expect quick temporary results, and a permanent cure after about 4-6 months. I'm not really sure, though. Just an estimate. But I'll definitely make sure to get thorough objective before/after measurements by an independent certified opthalmologist. > Also Jason: It seems that you are very confident in your success and > have no doubts. What gave you this confident? Just make sure that > you start right away, you know, if you wait too long the singing horse > may die, or granny may die, or you may die, or the Internet may > collapse, or all the participants in s.m.v. may die of either myopia, > prespyopia or their own cataracts. LOL! Don't worry, I'll be studying and getting ready this fall, and I'll probably begin the treatment in the winter after I have built up more confidence. She has an appointment in 6 months, so I want to have the data ready by then. > Hurry up, Jason, we are waiting. I will cheer for you when you get > the Nobel Prize . If I could find an effective fool-proof method to objectively CURE myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, strabismus, amblyopia, presbyopia, muscae volitantes, scotoma, nyctalopia, cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration, iritis, uveitis, retinitis pigmentosa, retinal detachement, macular edema, color blindness, opthalmoparesis, opthalmoplegia, keratomycosis, all kinds of retinopathy, sympathetic opthalmia, and blindness, and provided careful before and after measurements and such (by an objective observer if necessary), would there be no doubt that I would win the Nobel Prize? Thanks. Oh and I forgot to add atrophy of the optic nerve to the list. > If I could find an effective fool-proof method to objectively CURE > myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, strabismus, amblyopia, presbyopia, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. Jason, I think the task to cure ALL of the above is somewhat too heavy for a 16 year old. Start with cataract and presbyopia, when you succeed the prize is guaranteed. Also, you have an ideal subject for that -- your grandma, which makes things attainable. Did you know that untreated cataracts are #1 cause of blindness worldwide? Imagine the impact of your action on millions! As to presbyopia, although not a cause of blindness, the impact will be extremely significant because it effects about 100% of the aging population, and that's many many millions. 6 months to achieve the desired outcome is reasonable. I hope nobody dies till then :-) But I am not sure that you know exactly how to do these miraculous cures, yet you are confident. Self confidence is good! Can you just tell what's the source of your confidence? > If I could find an effective fool-proof method to objectively CURE > myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, strabismus, amblyopia, presbyopia, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > measurements and such (by an objective observer if necessary), would > there be no doubt that I would win the Nobel Prize? So a 16 year old untrained young man is going to cure somebody and win the Nobel prize, using Bates methods? Bates was a trained opthalmologist, Why didn't *he* win it? >I don't have cataracts myself but my grandma does. I am planning to >treat her and cure the cataracts, so after my scientific study has >been completed I can answer each of your questions thoroughly. Please elaborate on this "scientific study." I'd like to know more about its methodology, and what sort of controls you'll have in place for objective verification of every part of the process. Thanks. ps: you DO know, don't you, that a "scientific study" involves a great deal more than making stuff up and putting it on the Internet? Hello, > Please elaborate on this "scientific study." > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks. I'm still brainstorming the process, but these are some of the things I'm planning to measure before, during, and after the treatment: - severity of cataract measured objectively with necessary equipment like an opthalmoscope, and photographs of both her pupils - visual acuity measured with the small Snellen test card, placed at x inches in front of nose, and with the large Snellen test card, placed on a wall x feet away from where Granny is standing, and also measured with the retinoscope or refractometer or whatever I need to make an objective test on her refractive state - date the treatment began and ended - exactly what I did to treat her, what I told her to do (heck, it might even be best to tape record everything I say to her, lol!), how much time was spent on it, when, etc. I know I still have a lot of research to do, but I have 6 months until she sees her opthalmologist again. > ps: you DO know, don't you, that a "scientific study" involves a great > deal more than making stuff up and putting it on the Internet? Of course. I'm not going to make anything up. I will make as perfect study as I possibly can and present my data to sci.med.vision, maybe even if it doesn't work out as planned. Perhaps my study would be such a perfect one, with such perfect outcomes, that it would appear in medical journals, science magazines, the news, newspapers, etc. Then there'd be no reason to doubt the authenticity of my research. Granny's opthalmologist was the one that discovered that she has cataracts, and if I treat her within these 6 months and am able to make them disappear, then I could go with her to her next appointment with all my data to present to the doc and the fact that she no longer has cataracts. That should convince the opthalmologist, unless he forgot all about her diagnosis. A non human story. I had a cocker spaniel that at 5 1/2 years old developed cataract in one eye. I took her to an eye vet specialist who was going to do the surgery to remove the cataract until he fully dilated her pupil and her internal eye pressure became too high to operate. She later lost that eye to glaucoma. At nine years old she started walking into walls. She developed dry eye and a cataract in the remaining eye. The vet eye specialist prescribed cyclosporine drops and tacrolimus drops from a compounding pharmacy. Within 6 months the cataract was totally gone and she retained her sight in the remaining eye for the rest of her life. Again folks, this is a cocker spaniel, not human. > I would like to get advise from people that have had success in > reversing their "doctor diagnosed" cataracts. I would like to know [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 8) Could you give me advise as I try to reverse and hopefully > eliminate my cataracts? If so, how can I contact you? This thread is typical of the garbage one has to wade through now on sci.med.vision. Please take a good look at the original posters questions. He wanted info from those who have actually, themselves, reversed their cataract without surgery. So far the only post that comes close to answering his question is that from someone whose dog may have recovered (though there was also concurrent corneal disease in the dog and the drugs used were to address the corneal problem). All the other posts have been declarations that cataract reversal is impossible, declarations that it is totally possible by someone who has not done it or even knows someone who has done it, and declarations that someone is planning to try it but hasn't done it yet and doesn't yet know what therapy he will try. Unless you can actually answer the original poster's questions from personal experience, I suggest you sit on your hands. Judy This thread was already dead when I picked it up; I wasn't harming anything. If I hadn't posted this thread would have disappeared from the sci.med.vision thread viewing list anyway; it seemed that no one else had anything more to say about cataract reversing. Instead of blaming other people and complaining about having to 'wade through' posts, why don't you just kill file me and Jason and be silent and happy with it? No one is forcing you to read anything on the internet; that is the beauty of it. >Unless you can actually answer the original poster's questions from >personal experience, I suggest you sit on your hands. Then why are your hands still typing and posting in this thread? >Please take a good look at the original posters questions. He wanted >info from those who have actually, themselves, reversed their cataract What about his eighth question: "8) Could you give me advise as I try to reverse and hopefully eliminate my cataracts?" - the original poster wants advice too. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.