EPTTo say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
The Myopia Myth? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On November 09 2010 20:44 Mawi wrote: I have 2,75% eye vision yes it really is that horrible but when I got glasses the first time I was 16years old and now i have worse eye sight im litteraly blind when im outside, I switched to contact lenses and I find them better for some odd reason... But I agree that glasses ruined my eyesight, before I could atleast see objects and persons faces from pretty close distant and little far away, but today I cant even see that close even if you are beside me, I know that it is due the fact I used glasses and contact lenses that screwed my vision. I still need contact lenses to be able to see otherwise my vision is all blurry and no point having it like that. The only + side is girls looks more beautiful when im having bad vision when I put my lenses on Im like oh hell no there is no way im getting with you no matter how drunk I get it still will be NO. How do you know that glasses caused your sight to get worse, how do you know that it woould not happen anyway, because often that is the way things develop. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc. To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. Frankly, I've had this (similar) idea - relating to the OP for quite some time, but I've never found any good ideas supporting it. Only now I've found some half decent, some terrible ideas of it. According to what munchmunch found which agrees with another bifocal study I've found, and rereading of stuff, things seem bad or inconclusive for it. Apparently there's no incentive to fund this kind of research. | ||
|
myopia
United States2928 Posts
| ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 10 2010 01:03 JieXian wrote: Frankly, I've had this idea for quite some time, but I've never found any good ideas supporting it. Only now I've found some half decent, some terrible ideas of it. According to what munchmunch found which agrees with another bifocal study I've found, and rereading of stuff, things seem bad or inconclusive for it. Apparently there's no incentive to fund this kind of research. All the money in the medical industry revolves around drugs at the moment, especially when it comes to research. | ||
|
lac29
United States1485 Posts
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! You know about Hygiene Hypothesis right? | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
Basic evolution. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc. To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. | ||
|
g50000
24 Posts
On November 09 2010 14:18 skindzer wrote: Seems interesting but the quality of the website makes it really shady, like those vaccine-autism sites. There is a Penn and Teller bullshit show about that subject. The series is quite giggle worthy. You should check it out if you have the time. Their analogies are paralelled to that of baller's. | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc. To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer. This would be a Lamarkist, not an evolutionary way of looking at things. Quit trying to mislead people with pseudoscience. Medicine knows it is not always right, hence it relies on the scientific method and the process of peer review to determine what is right and what is not right. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc. What completely illogical comparisons. Overuse of antibiotics could theoretically weaken your immune system by reducing the amount of bacteria your immune system naturally fights and thus strengthens itself by doing so, driving a car could weaken your physique if you never did any physical exercise at all and depended on driving to get everywhere, and staying inside all the time could result in a higher sensitivity to sunlight due to lack of exposure, but those are all parallel causes, not direct causes. It's not like antibiotics directly reduce your immune system's ability to fight disease or driving a car somehow physically atrophies you, it's possible to drive a car everywhere and exercise regularly, thus resulting in better health than someone who walks everywhere and never drives. Plus the point you're trying to make with this post is false also. If you have poor vision and don't use glasses, your vision will just continue getting worse because squinting all the time strains your eyes. You completely pulled this out of your ass. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 10 2010 02:35 ZeaL. wrote: This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best. Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 10 2010 02:47 InvalidID wrote: This would be a Lamarkist, not an evolutionary way of looking at things. Quit trying to mislead people with pseudoscience. Medicine knows it is not always right, hence it relies on the scientific method and the process of peer review to determine what is right and what is not right. I'm trying to have a discussion not mislead people. The scientific method and peer review are also not going to be 100% accurate in finding what is right, not even close in the grand scheme. | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On November 10 2010 02:52 Treemonkeys wrote: Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly. Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought. You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 10 2010 02:47 Krigwin wrote: What completely illogical comparisons. Overuse of antibiotics could theoretically weaken your immune system by reducing the amount of bacteria your immune system naturally fights and thus strengthens itself by doing so, driving a car could weaken your physique if you never did any physical exercise at all and depended on driving to get everywhere, and staying inside all the time could result in a higher sensitivity to sunlight due to lack of exposure, but those are all parallel causes, not direct causes. It's not like antibiotics directly reduce your immune system's ability to fight disease or driving a car somehow physically atrophies you, it's possible to drive a car everywhere and exercise regularly, thus resulting in better health than someone who walks everywhere and never drives. Plus the point you're trying to make with this post is false also. If you have poor vision and don't use glasses, your vision will just continue getting worse because squinting all the time strains your eyes. You completely pulled this out of your ass. Over time the "could" becomes guaranteed. No amount of regular exercise is going make up for generations past that had to walk everywhere for everything, even more so at a macro level. What you end up with is a minority who puts in the extra effort to keep in shape while the majority continues going down the path of technology dependence. Which is exactly what you see in society today. People who can run a mile in 6 minutes are the exception, not the standard, and this becomes more and more so as they get older. Seriously guys, evolution happens because of a changes in environment and the conflict and survival that arises from those changes. When you look at modern society with all the luxury technologies, medicines, foods, etc. you have to realize that it is a massive change in environment and this is obviously not the type of changes that will benefit mankind when it comes to being able to survive in a natural setting. Most people couldn't do this already. You think this it not the case?? | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
When a child has myopia (or any other refraction defect), he/she has what is called refractive or anisometric amblyopia, which, in few words, means that because one eye is giving the brain a blurred image of something, the brain "chooses" to ignore it, and make the normal eye "dominant". In the long term, this makes the visual defect in the damaged eye worse, which makes it imperative that amblyopia is treated before the age of 9, ideally before 5 years of age. This is only one type of amblyopia and milder when compared to, for example, strabism, which if untreated can have serious consequences for the strabic eye. According to what they taught me, the way to correct anisometric amblyopia is by correcting the refractive defect with appropriate glasses, however, it IS possible that if an inappropriate corrective lens is used, and goes unnoticed for the period in which sight develops, the lens themselves become harmful to the child, but again, this would be the product of a wrong diagnosis, selection of lens. Myopia itself however, can NEVER be permanently corrected by glasses, this is because myopia is a genetically determined condition, in which the eyeball has the "wrong shape" not allowing light beams to be projected on the retina. This won't get better or worse with glasses, it is just a thing about how the eye is, and is a different condition from amblyopia. In conclusion, according to my university teachers, if a child has myopia, it would be correct to prevent amblyopia by wearing glasses, but this won't make the underlying defect (in this case myopia) any better or worse, and in case of older children, with their sight development complete (they do not risk amblyopia), it is only a symptomatic treatment, and doesn't have an effect on the evolution of the myopia. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 10 2010 02:56 InvalidID wrote: You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century. Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want. Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
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. I did need glasses but didn't get them. Lately I had a few headaches and I'm assuming it's from my vision. I see how you're vision can get worse if left untreated but then again I'm not sure what to believe anymore! | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On November 10 2010 03:17 GreEny K wrote: I did need glasses but didn't get them. Lately I had a few headaches and I'm assuming it's from my vision. I see how you're vision can get worse if left untreated but then again I'm not sure what to believe anymore! Go with whatever makes you happy, no one lives forever. | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On November 10 2010 03:16 Treemonkeys wrote: Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want. Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet. Dead wrong. While your body does adapt to changes in environment and usage in some cases, ala the example of bodybuilders, those changes are never passed down to offspring. There is little to no controversy in serious academic circles about Lamarkism, outside of some single celled organisms that reproduce in a way quite unlike us. | ||
| ||
