Markets and Blindness
by Bill Sardi: Researchers
Discover the Lean Body Hormone
ago digital images of the human retina were sent to my office computer.
I opened the file and saw something that had not been seen previously
in modern medicine.
two images. The first image showed fluid accumulation at the back
of the eye that had distorted vision as well as invasion by new
abnormal blood vessels that threatened to permanently and irreversibly
rob a patient of their vision. Lack of oxygen delivery to the back
of the eye is what triggers the development of these invasive new
digital image was of the same eye taken only a few days later. The
fluid leakage and swelling was gone. The retinal architecture was
restored. The abnormal blood vessels had receded. More importantly,
the patientís vision, which was near legal blindness in the first
image, had improved to the point where the patient could almost
pass a driverís license vision test.
This kind of
remarkable turn-around in an elderly patientís vision is now made
possible via injection of medicine that inhibits the development
of abnormal blood vessels at the back of the eyes. But what made
history is that these images on my computer were the result of an
oral nutriceutical, Longevinex®, which I formulated. I now manage
the company that makes that pill.
I had occasion
to visit the eye center that sent me the images. The eye doctors
there spoke of expanding a study to include more patients. Then
suddenly, mum was the word. Eye doctors said they would not proceed
nor inform the world that there was an option to needles having
to be jabbed into the eyes.
time the medical literature reveals the current drug used to treat
this eye condition, called wet macular degeneration, doesnít work
all the time. An estimated 1 in 6 treated-patients progress to registered
blindness. In the past 5 years an estimated 150,000 patients have
progressed to permanent and irreversible legal blindness that may
have been spared this fate if they had known about Longevinex®.
at the Veterans Health Center in North Chicago, Illinois picked
up the ball and decided to see if Longevinex® could rescue the
sight of patients who failed medical therapy and had no other options
available. Most of these are patients in their eighth decade of
life. In all instances, a non-FDA approved drug would be prohibited
from being used. But Dr. Stuart Richer OD, PhD, and colleagues,
were able to suggest patients acquire this nutriceutical on their
own and use Longevinex® under existing "compassionate care
year Dr. Richer reported on the first 17 Longevinex®-treated
cases at a major eye research meeting. Sixteen of the first 17 Longevinex®-treated
patients experienced measurable visual improvement, some experiencing
rapid and dramatic restoration of functional vision (vision good
enough to drive a car, thread a needle, etc.). Strikingly, not one
ophthalmologist expressed interest in Longevinex®. One optometrist
did call the manufacturer. There was no excitement over this scientific
achievement because it would take money out of eye physiciansí hands.
Ophthalmologists are rewarded handsomely by Medicare to inject medicine
into the eyes of these patients, making hundreds of dollars to inject
medicine every 4 to 6 weeks.
drug currently used to treat wet macular degeneration costs $2000
and Medicare pays about $1624 of that. For comparison, Longevinex®
costs ~$27/month. The FDA-approved drug is not much different than
a prior version that costs just $50 per dose and that, according
to a recent study, works equally well. The same manufacturer makes
both drugs and only applied to the FDA for approval of the most
expensive version for use among patients with wet macular degeneration.
This represents a gouging of Medicare funds of unprecedented proportions.
Prior to approval
of the $2000 version of this drug, the $50-version of this drug
was being used on an off-label claim that it effectively treated
this eye condition. Suddenly after many thousands of successful
injections of the $50 drug, with the approval of the $2000 version,
eye infections began to be reported among patients receiving the
more economical drug. That is because 1-milligram doses of the $50
drug have to be withdrawn by syringe from a 300-milligram vial.
There is a chance for contamination. So eye physicians have almost
been forced to use the more expensive drug for fear of infection.
Some eye physicians still inject the more economical drug for patients
who have no insurance coverage.
a news reporter here in Las Vegas, where Longevinex® has its
shipping headquarters, got wind of the story. Emmy-Award winning
KLAS (CBS affiliate) reporter George Knapp began to investigate.
His gripping two-part TV report can be viewed
here. The report alleges modern medicine hid this scientific
development out of its own greed.
my company, Longevinex,® has submitted a petition to the Food
& Drug Administration to allow it to proceed with a human clinical
trial without having to file an Investigational New Drug application.
The petition claims it would take 2-years to determine if Longevinex®
is safe and effective and cost $4.5 million to conduct that study.
During that time an estimated 60,000 more senior Americans will
progress to registered blindness.
also pleads for the FDA to drop its customary requirement that Longevinex®
be compared against an inactive placebo pill. That would be like
having to prove parachutes work by having half of the jumpers wear
no chute at all. Surely the placebo users would progress to blindness.
Such a study would be unethical. Longevinex® should be compared
against existing therapy, the failed injectable drug, which is a
higher bar to jump over.
now is how will the FDA respond? If it reacts the way it has
in the past, it will issue a bulletin warning patients away from
unproven dietary supplements. But Longevinex® is the only hope
for thousands of patients. If it does not pose a risk for side effect,
what harm could come from using it? Longevinex® has been used
in relatively safety by thousands of consumers over a period of
8 years, making it safer than many FDA-approved drugs on their first
day of use. Longevinex® has even conducted animal and human
toxicity testing, something rare for a dietary supplement.
the $50-injectable drug was used and still is used as an unapproved
drug. So, in the face of so many patients losing their sight, why
wouldnít the FDA grant provisional approval for a non-FDA approved
nutriceutical given so many senior Americans will drift into permanent
and irreversible blindness otherwise?
is not applying for general use for patients with wet macular degeneration.
It is petitioning for use among the estimated 30,000 patients who
have failed the current standard of care Ė injectable drugs.
For far too
long modern medicine has dictated what patients will receive. In
this case, itís possible a less problematic and more economical
alternative exists, at least for those who have failed injectable
drug treatment or who donít want a needle jabbed into their eyes.
Thanks to the news media, patients are learning of an alternative.
As a manufacturer, we cannot make any claim that a dietary supplement
prevents, treats or cures any disease. But under the 1st
amendment to the Constitution, truth becomes known. Stay tuned for
further developments. Already, in the first day after the news report,
pretender products are sprouting up online to misleadingly portray
their product as the one shown on a TV news report without any conscience
over whether their product is effective. That will surely provoke
a response from the FDA.
him mail] is a frequent writer on health and political
topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com.
latest book is Downsizing
© 2012 Bill Sardi Word of Knowledge Agency, San Dimas, California.
This article has been written exclusively for www.LewRockwell.com
and other parties who wish to refer to it should link rather than
post at other URLs.†
Best of Bill Sardi