In my extensive review of the new research on eye disorders, I have been struck by the gaping hole between what we have learned and its application in clinical practice.

There is at least a 10-year delay in applying new medical information to patient care — and even longer when it involves nutrition or nutritional supplements.

Part of the problem is the excessive caution that is taken in applying what we learn in order to prevent harm.

In addition, it is a symptom of our modern obsession with the methodology of science, wherein everything must pass the often excruciating methodology of the theoretical scientist.

Of course, caution is always desirable when dealing with potentially harmful products — especially when you are talking about pharmaceuticals.

Yet while unseen complications can come from natural products, most of these substances have a history of clinical use that goes back thousands of years.

In addition, many of these natural products have gone through extensive testing in laboratories and under clinical conditions.

But in the case of pharmaceutical products, massive profits often encourage the concealment of complications.

Indeed, having a strong working relationship with drug safety regulators is not in the best interests of the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, as it aids in covering up complications and side effects.