|
On November 09 2010 15:04 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 15:01 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Man my right eye used to be considerably better than my left eye... until two days ago. I accidentally (I was mostly asleep) stabbed myself in the right eye with my thumb. I have done this many times before (I'm very clumsy) but this time was much worse than ever before. It hurt for an hour but it was the middle of the night and I just kinda screamed and then rolled in bed in pain and eventually got to sleep. Yesterday I got a really bad migraine (I haven't had a headache that bad in years) and it was focused behind my right eye. Been getting lesser pains there today now too. Now today I realized my right eye is worse than my left eye (maybe this imbalance doesn't match my prescription and thus is giving me headaches). Also now my right eye is like half a centimeter more sunken in than my left eye so I look awful  . wtf? None of this was a hint to go to the emergency room? You should go to the emergency room.
Dude I've been in the emergency room like 3 times in less than a year (all for different things unrelated) and I am so far in debt from it I dunno what I am gonna do. I keep getting collection agencies calling me and I just don't even answer anymore and I hope they won't find me since I am in a different state now.
I think I'm okay I can like barely feel it now.
But yeah I think that some of these things might be true because if you hit your eye and it becomes a different shape and that makes it worse there should be a way to shape it in a positive way through some of these things.
|
What is the range of mild myopia, less than 100/100? Some of my college blockmates had eyesight that was higher than 20/20 but less than 100/100, so they only used their glasses when they were seated in the back row or something and that worked for them. My eyesight is pretty shot, so my head starts hurting if I go for 30 minutes without glasses.
|
On November 09 2010 15:06 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 15:04 Romantic wrote:On November 09 2010 15:01 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Man my right eye used to be considerably better than my left eye... until two days ago. I accidentally (I was mostly asleep) stabbed myself in the right eye with my thumb. I have done this many times before (I'm very clumsy) but this time was much worse than ever before. It hurt for an hour but it was the middle of the night and I just kinda screamed and then rolled in bed in pain and eventually got to sleep. Yesterday I got a really bad migraine (I haven't had a headache that bad in years) and it was focused behind my right eye. Been getting lesser pains there today now too. Now today I realized my right eye is worse than my left eye (maybe this imbalance doesn't match my prescription and thus is giving me headaches). Also now my right eye is like half a centimeter more sunken in than my left eye so I look awful . wtf? None of this was a hint to go to the emergency room? You should go to the emergency room. Dude I've been in the emergency room like 3 times in less than a year (all for different things unrelated) and I am so far in debt from it I dunno what I am gonna do. I keep getting collection agencies calling me and I just don't even answer anymore and I hope they won't find me since I am in a different state now. I think I'm okay I can like barely feel it now.
You have an eye pushed back into your head and you're worrying about the pain and cost?
Geez and Lord mercy guy, we need some priorities in this bitch.
I know the US healthcare system is balls, but this is important.
|
On November 09 2010 14:19 LSB wrote:
I wear glasses and I can definatly confirm that if I get stronger glasses, my vision worsens.
I started wearing glasses in first grade (the first of all my friends), and the eye doctors noticed my vision just grew worse and worse so they prescribed me stronger and stronger glasses.
In highschool, I skipped the eye doctor visits and found that my vision didn't get any worse. With glasses I don't have 20/20 but it didn't start deteriating more. I started to then ask my doctors for weaker prescriptions, and they gave it to me.
My vision has stayed the same ever sense. However, I'm blind as a bat without them
This is the same as my experience. Got my first glasses somewhere in first or second grade of primary school, and eye sight stopped getting worser after high school. But I'm suspecting, that's just because the body stops growing and changing and you're "fully grown" in your twenties.
|
On November 09 2010 14:52 travis wrote:
I didn't get glasses for the longest time despite having terrible vision. My vision continued to get worse despite not getting glasses.
According to them, what plays a role in eyesight is how we read and that in your case, we should not tense up our muscles by squinting to look at something far away. He advocates relaxing.
Hence if you really have good habits, then I'm ready to confirm that he is bullshitting. I know my father got his problems at about 16 when he started reading while lying down.
On November 09 2010 15:11 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 14:19 LSB wrote:
But I'm suspecting, that's just because the body stops growing and changing and you're "fully grown" in your twenties.
They claim that the puberty cause is a myth too. However that seems true in my case, though I've stopped getting worse before I started growing a beard and moustache.
On November 09 2010 15:07 ellerina wrote:
What is the range of mild myopia, less than 100/100? Some of my college blockmates had eyesight that was higher than 20/20 but less than 100/100, so they only used their glasses when they were seated in the back row or something and that worked for them. My eyesight is pretty shot, so my head starts hurting if I go for 30 minutes without glasses.
20/20 actually is almost perfect eyesight. Being able to see something at 20 feet what normal people can see at 20 feet.
Thing is, I've just found out about the egg-cholesterol myth some time ago and confirmed it to be sort of busted. No conspiracies related to that though.
|
I've been wearing glasses since I was 2 (I'm 21 now) and my eye doctor every year says my eyes are getting better at working with the glasses prescription but worse without them.
:o
|
That bit about dilation is total bullshit. Does this guy even know what dilation of the eye pupils is for? You don't get your prescription based on what you see when your eye is dilated: that is a totally different process. I don't know what quack optometrist this guy went to, because you NEVER get your eyes checked in terms of myopia with dilated pupils, and you NEVER should.
Dilation is to see the inside eye to check for defects, especially in your retinal area that you can't see typically without dilation of the pupil. It has nothing to do with myopia or glasses or whatnot. And that bit about having headaches or whatnot. That's...obvious? You're almost certainly going to get it after dilation, myopia or not, due to the increased sensitivity to light due to your dilated pupils.
As for the rest of this plus-minus stuff, I'm not really too sure. I haven't ever heard of plus-lenses, to say the least. And then so I click the first link to see what the plus lenses ARE in the first place, and I read this:
"I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye and therefore must write in very abstract terms."
...are you serious? So this guy who has no medical background, let alone specialties in the ophthalmology or optometry, is using a SINGLE SENTENCE to describe myopia, of which no one in the last hundred years has known the exact cause. That sentence isn't remotely verified and has been disputed many times. So he bases his entire theory on that sentence, of which he doesn't know the nuances of in the slightest.
I stopped reading after that. There's no way my mind can grasp anything he says as remotely credible after that sort of introduction. And that conspiracy theory is just icing on the cake.
There's also an incredible amount of bad statistics use in here. You realize that the onset of myopia occurs at any time from your days in kindergarten to even your early twenties right? Just because your father started getting vision problems when reading while lying down doesn't mean that reading while lying down caused it. Correlation =/= causation.
And this:
"According to them, what plays a role in eyesight is how we read and that in your case, we should not tense up our muscles by squinting to look at something far away. He advocates relaxing."
Do you realize why we squint at something far away? It decreases the amount of light entering our eyes and therefore striking our retina, which in turn tunes out some of the blur you would otherwise see if you weren't squinting. How on earth is relaxing your eyes going to change this? It doesn't.
Oh, perhaps with his magical glasses we could, but you know what, I would put my money on it that it doesn't.
" If you're like me I guess we should just relax our eyes more by only wearng our glasses if we really need it like for driving."
This is funny. I'll use your own argument against you. I would say that it is a bad idea to not wear your glasses full-time. You have to remember why you wear glasses in the first place: to see clearly. So if you don't wear glasses you don't see things as clearly, so you start to squint at things, unconsciously or not, and then you're just going to make your eyes worse cause you're constantly squinting at things and stressing out your eyes and whatnot. So wear your glasses people, because otherwise you're just going to be stressing out your eyes more.
|
"So this guy who has no medical background, let alone specialties in the ophthalmology or optometry, is using a SINGLE SENTENCE to describe myopia, of which no one in the last hundred years has known the exact cause."
WTF, pray tell, would a specialty in opthalmology or optometry, do to help him fix myopia, if no one in the last hundred years, special degree or not, has figured out the exact cause of it?
|
On November 09 2010 15:33 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
"So this guy who has no medical background, let alone specialties in the ophthalmology or optometry, is using a SINGLE SENTENCE to describe myopia, of which no one in the last hundred years has known the exact cause."
WTF, pray tell, would a specialty in opthalmology or optometry, do to help him fix myopia, if no one in the last hundred years, special degree or not, has figured out the exact cause of it?
Nowhere on the website does he say he has a specialty in ophthalmology or optometry
|
On November 09 2010 15:25 DarkOptik wrote:
That bit about dilation is total bullshit. Does this guy even know what dilation of the eye pupils is for? You don't get your prescription based on what you see when your eye is dilated: that is a totally different process. I don't know what quack optometrist this guy went to, because you NEVER get your eyes checked in terms of myopia with dilated pupils, and you NEVER should.
I completely agree, the dilation thing is total bs.
Also to the guy who poked his eye, anything involving the eye and pain apart from a bit of sand in the eye is reason to go to the hospital. Eyes are way too important to risk at all.
|
Wait a second...
So a guy says, "oh, I have a cure for cancer!" and then proceeds to dish out this long-winded theory about his way of curing cancer. We say, "oh wow, you think that would work? What is your experience in in this field?"
He shrugs and says, "I don't know anything about cells. I just read somewhere that cells divide."
*facepalm*
The point of it is to lend some weight to his argument. Here is a guy with no credentials AT ALL, and who even confesses he knows NOTHING about the workings of what he talks about, and you would prefer to listen to him against the weight of the entire current medical community?
Bravo.
|
I personally like how the [statistically backed] counterpoints to this myth claim are also dismissed as... (drumroll) also myths.
|
On November 09 2010 15:25 DarkOptik wrote:
"I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye and therefore must write in very abstract terms."
WAIT wait wait, who was the one who confessed that he knows nothing? The August Schwerdfeger guy was just someone who followed some advice if you're talking about him.
I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye and therefore must write in very abstract terms. The premise under which I am laboring is as follows:
But then again, I read myopia.org and found out that he is an engineer or something. Here's a paper of someone who is (supposed) to be an optometrist.
http://www.myopia.org/brumerpaper.htm
However, you do have many good points which I agree with. I'm just wondering about the verity of this idea, arguing for it just so that I can get more points from all of you so that I judge for myself, whether it's true or not.
On November 09 2010 15:25 DarkOptik wrote:
" If you're like me I guess we should just relax our eyes more by only wearng our glasses if we really need it like for driving."
This is funny. I'll use your own argument against you. I would say that it is a bad idea to not wear your glasses full-time. You have to remember why you wear glasses in the first place: to see clearly. So if you don't wear glasses you don't see things as clearly, so you start to squint at things, unconsciously or not, and then you're just going to make your eyes worse cause you're constantly squinting at things and stressing out your eyes and whatnot. So wear your glasses people, because otherwise you're just going to be stressing out your eyes more.
The general idea about this is to use your glasses as little as possible. I won't tend to squint despite having bad vision, if I really need to see something I'll just put it on. Don't know if it's just me but I feel more relaxed taking if off - when the situation arises.
|
I doubt this is true but I went from -1 to -2.25 in the course of 23 months which is a lot (so I'm told by doctors) so if it turns out to be true I won't be surprised.
|
On November 09 2010 14:53 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 14:51 semantics wrote:
So you should do the opposite instead of giving glasses that easies eye sight we should make it harder! Please read up or listen more first. It isn't about making it harder. It's that bringing objects closer requires our ciliary muscles around our lenses to contract and tense. He proposes a way of making it relax instead. However it works more for people with a milder case of myopia.
tbh i did notice that but i just wanted to fit the video in there fairly sure i could get away with it due to anecdotal responses in the thread already.
|
On November 09 2010 15:50 JieXian wrote:WAIT wait wait, who was the one who confessed that he knows nothing? The August Schwerdfeger guy was just someone who followed some advice if you're talking about him. Show nested quote +I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye and therefore must write in very abstract terms. The premise under which I am laboring is as follows:
But then again, I read myopia.org and found out that he is an engineer or something. Here's a paper of someone who is (supposed) to be an optometrist. http://www.myopia.org/brumerpaper.htm
I just checked him out. He hasn't published a single paper in the last thirty five years, and the one paper that he TRIED to publish has been rejected for publication under the wholly satisfying label of "inappropriate".
I skimmed his "paper" briefly and it's a total sack of bullshit. He basically goes on and on about the whole conspiracy bullcrap, saying that people are refusing to acknowledge him because they don't want to feel responsible for destroying everyone's eyes. There's not a single shred of factual evidence in that ridiculous piece people call proof.
Yeah, he's definitely a reliable source.
|
On November 09 2010 15:50 Shalaiyn wrote:
I doubt this is true but I went from -1 to -2.25 in the course of 23 months which is a lot (so I'm told by doctors) so if it turns out to be true I won't be surprised.
If you were in your early teens that's usual. The eyesight stops deteriorating when you stop growing, usually after high school.
This is so dumb it hurts reading it.
I started wearing glasses when i had -2 on both eyes. Somehow, even without glasses my eyesight deteriorated. Now, I have been wearing the same glasses for 5 years and did not need to change them.
The only true thing in that article is that it is often recommended to have glasses which are slightly weaker then what would make your eyesight perfect.
|
On November 09 2010 16:01 DarkOptik wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2010 15:50 JieXian wrote:WAIT wait wait, who was the one who confessed that he knows nothing? The August Schwerdfeger guy was just someone who followed some advice if you're talking about him. I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye and therefore must write in very abstract terms. The premise under which I am laboring is as follows:
But then again, I read myopia.org and found out that he is an engineer or something. Here's a paper of someone who is (supposed) to be an optometrist. http://www.myopia.org/brumerpaper.htm I just checked him out. He hasn't published a single paper in the last thirty five years, and the one paper that he TRIED to publish has been rejected for publication under the wholly satisfying label of "inappropriate". I skimmed his "paper" briefly and it's a total sack of bullshit. He basically goes on and on about the whole conspiracy bullcrap, saying that people are refusing to acknowledge him because they don't want to feel responsible for destroying everyone's eyes. There's not a single shred of factual evidence in that ridiculous piece people call proof. Yeah, he's definitely a reliable source.
I've read it again and you're right. I feel so stupid linking him before reading in nicely. And I have no idea what was the dilation thing about myself.
There's another paper from a different person and this one looks much more academic with an actual test being run http://www.myopia.org/bifocals.htm
His objectives and ideas were similar but different. This is the conclusion
Under reasonably well controlled conditions the bifocal appears to be effective in controlling the progression of myopia.
ABSTRACT
Forty-three Native American bifocal wearers grouped by yearly age levels from 9 to 15 with a mixed group of 6 to 8 year olds are matched on beginning age, sex, beginning refractive error and ending age with 104 Native American control subjects. Similarly, 226 Caucasian bifocal wearers are matched on the same criteria against 382 control subjects. Although the comparisons are made on each age group, the average annual rate of progression for the bifocal Native American subjects is -0.12 and -0.10 diopters in the right and left eyes respectively against a comparable rate of progression of -0.38 and -0.36 diopters for the control subjects These differences are significant but not as significant as those found on the Caucasian subjects of -0.02 and -0.03 diopters right and left eyes against -0.53 and -0.52 diopters for the controls. The meaning of these differences is discussed.
|
This is really silly. Sure, it's theoretically plausible that for at least one type of myopia:
...while initially alleviating the symptoms, the minus lenses prescribed as corrective lenses for myopia intensify one the risk factors for myopia.
So it also sounds plausible that, if the stiffness caused is short-term and reversible, not using your corrective lenses or even wearing reading glasses will help alleviate this. And if your vision isn't that bad in the first place, it will be tolerable to do this and see if it works for you.
However, this is nothing new. It's well established that your eyes change significantly as you grow, and this change slows or stops when you reach maturity. It's widely held that certain activities/habits strain your eyesight and worsen your vision in the long term. But corrective lenses... *drumroll*... are how you correct your eyesight. There are therapies and methods that may or may not work reliably for trying to improve your vision, but corrective lenses always work. It's not a conspiracy to sell more lenses, it's the necessity of clear vision at all times for people to go about their day-to-day lives.
I'm quite aware that sitting in a dark room staring at a bright screen 18" from my face while wearing -4 diopter contact lenses for weeks at a time without taking them out at night is probably making my vision worse over time, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to walk around blind all day refusing to use computers and hoping that my vision will slowly fix itself. I'm so nearsighted I can't read a book comfortably without my contacts, let alone while wearing reading glasses.
|
I'm not educated on the subject, but I do know there is a long history of claims of simple cures for nearsightedness. The earliest method I can find with a quick google search is The Bates Method. Read the anecdotes closely: they usually concern someone with relatively minor nearsightedness, and don't claim total recovery. What's going on is that the method doesn't work---some people try it, their eyesight randomly improves over that period, and they attribute it to the method. Other people try it, their eyesight randomly worsens, and they forget about it. Thus, I was not surprised to find this
My case was fairly uncomplicated: only one diopter of nearsightedness, the same in both eyes, and no eye diseases.
in the OP's main link. By the way, I don't think giving yourself an eye exam (as the OP's link describes) is a good idea. I've been to the optometrist a lot, and once I've seen an eyechart a few times, my brain just starts to fill it in.
Finally, dude, none of those websites are close to professional. If I feel like procrastinating a bit more, I'll connect to my libraries proxy and troll PubMed for you for a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
