But without formal studies, you can't get solid data on if treatments actually work. That's why the Japanese case stated is so different. Even if you allow this therapy for people over 90, who may feel they have nothing to lose, the data from it might not really be worth anything because you don't have the standard controls, placebos, etc.

There needs to be several rounds of animals testing first, formal procedure and clear indications to the patients of the risks. Elderly people over 80 are in some ways ideal (less to lose; depending on how you measure life/quality of life) and could have treatment in only one eye, but are also less than ideal since their could be a higher rate of failure simply due to their age and the inability of their bodies to accept treatment.

For something to be a treatment, it has to work consistently, with the same success rates and documented side-effects across a population. There is a reason those studies are slow and take time, because we try to be careful today when dealing with human life and not be Nazi/MKUltra scientists.