 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / September 2005Vision Improvement and Diet
I went to have my drivers license renewed today and found that for the first time in 20 years I did not need my glasses to pass the visison test. Earlier in the year I began eating a diet consisting of fruits, vegetables, non-gluten grains, fish, chicken and no dairy. After a few weeks on this diet I began noticing a sharpening in my vision. I have noticed this in the past; an improvement in diet correlating with improvement in vision...and then I've also noticed a deterioration in eyesight as my diet has slid back toward the more standard American "sludge" diet... When I went in for the license renewal today I decided I would give the vision test a try without my glasses...I completed the test without getting a single letter wrong... The lady behind the counter asked if I was wearing contacts or if I had had "that eye surgery." I said, "no," that I had simply improved my diet and then my vision had improved. >I went to have my drivers license renewed today and found that for the >first time in 20 years I did not need my glasses to pass the visison >test. How old are you? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > >I went to have my drivers license renewed today and found that for the > >first time in 20 years I did not need my glasses to pass the visison > >test. > > How old are you? Late forties. >> >I went to have my drivers license renewed today and found that for the >> >first time in 20 years I did not need my glasses to pass the visison [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Late forties. Aha. Both my parents had something similar happen to them, a shift in vision at approximately that age. Nothing to do with diet, but probably something to do with presbyopia. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > Aha. Both my parents had something similar happen to them, a shift in > vision at approximately that age. Nothing to do with diet, but > probably something to do with presbyopia. I began noticing this correlation between diet and vision when I was in my mid 30's. This is just the first time I have been on a clean diet for a sustained period when my driver's license came up for renewal... > I began noticing this correlation between diet and vision when I was in > my mid 30's. This is just the first time I have been on a clean diet > for a sustained period when my driver's license came up for renewal... Yes, but didn't you use ear candles for the first time recently? And since this is the first time you passed the vision test (an objective test unrelated to any feelings or hunches on your part), doesn't that make the correlation much stronger for the ear candles than any dietary changes? > Yes, but didn't you use ear candles for the first time > recently? And since this is the first time you > passed the vision test (an objective test unrelated > to any feelings or hunches on your part), doesn't that > make the correlation much stronger for the ear candles > than any dietary changes? No, I've been doing ear candles occasionally (and not very regularly) for a long time. And, as I keep stating, I have been aware of the diet/vision link for 10-12 years or so... > > Yes, but didn't you use ear candles for the first time > > recently? And since this is the first time you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, I've been doing ear candles occasionally (and not very > regularly) for a long time. Then, what about your home-made qi machine? You've only been using that recently, right? > And, as I keep stating, I have been aware of the diet/vision link > for 10-12 years or so... Aware how? You feel like your vision is changed or improved? Subjective feelings are the lowest grade of evidence, because they are so deeply subject to your own beliefs. On the other hand, your driver's license visual exam is a much higher grade of evidence, because it was performed on you by somebody else, a person who was trained and certified to perform this examination for purposes entirely unrelated to supporting any of your beliefs about your health. Have you ever seen a badly-maintained aquarium? Noticed how cloudy the water is? How do you know that your home-made qi machine did not clear up the fluid in your eyes the same way that a properly functioning aquarium filter cleans up the water in an aquarium? Before grasping for some far-fetched possibility like that your diet improved your vision, why are you dismissing the simple and obvious connection between the use of your home-made qi machine and the recent first-time passing of the eye exam? > Then, what about your home-made qi machine? > You've only been using that recently, right? I haven't used the device you refer to on a regular basis in over a year. >>Then, what about your home-made qi machine? >>You've only been using that recently, right? > > I haven't used the device you refer to on a regular basis in over a > year. How do you know that the effects were not subtle and you recent eye exam was the first time you realized that? > How do you know that the effects were not subtle and you recent eye exam > was the first time you realized that? Because, as I am now stating for the fourth time, I first noted the correlation betwen quality of diet and visual acuity back in my mid-thirties. > > How do you know that the effects were not subtle and you recent eye exam > > was the first time you realized that? > > Because, as I am now stating for the fourth time, I first noted the > correlation betwen quality of diet and visual acuity back in my > mid-thirties. But you only passed the eye exam without glasses for the first time recently. That proves that your feelings about your vision ten years ago were wrong -- if you had increased visual acuity back then, you would have been passing your eye exams back then, but you did not. Your feelings about your vision are the least reliable indicator, because they are influenced by your beliefs. An objective test given by someone disinterested in your theories about diet and health is much more reliable, because they don't have a stake in the outcome. Their belief systems won't come crashing down, whether or not you pass the eye exam. > But you only passed the eye exam without glasses for > the first time recently. That proves that your feelings > about your vision ten years ago were wrong -- if you > had increased visual acuity back then, you would have > been passing your eye exams back then, but you did not. This is the first time I have eaten a good diet for an extended period before taking an eye exam... (In Texas one can renew one's DL by mail or online if one has had no citations for the previous four years.) > > > > But you only passed the eye exam without glasses for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This is the first time I have eaten a good diet for an > extended period before taking an eye exam... You ate this diet before other eye exams, just not for your idea of an "extended period", right? Don't you see how you are making up an excuse for disregarding your earlier failure to pass? Even though you have evidence contradicting your belief that your diet affected your eye exam results, you are choosing to ignore that data because it is not consistent with what you wish to be true. How do you suppose a scientist would resolve this dilemma? Would he stick to his guns and persist with his original theory no matter what the data showed, or would he be open to an alternate theory that explained his data more completely and without contradiction? >> But you only passed the eye exam without glasses for >> the first time recently. That proves that your feelings [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >This is the first time I have eaten a good diet for an extended period >before taking an eye exam... So before you've actually taken care of yourself so badly that it has hurt your vision? Is that what you're saying? >(In Texas one can renew one's DL by mail or online if one has had no >citations for the previous four years.) > So before you've actually taken care of yourself so badly > that it has hurt your vision? Is that what you're saying? Note that he also said he hasn't used his home-made qi machine in 6 months and not regularly in over a year, even though he has seen it remove toxins. (Not to mention the ear candles, which he also saw remove toxins but does not use anymore.) He seems awfully unmotivated to remove these toxins he knows are present in his body and which he knows he can remove, but chooses not to remove. He talks up his theory about diet, but he completely dismisses the hard evidence for a toxic build-up. This is a classic example of someone with a totally closed mind -- unable to even consider any possiblity other than his "pet" theory. This is how people get trapped into unproductive avenues toward health. They become fixated on a single theory, then pursue that theory no matter what, disregarding evidence for any other possibility. We've seen lots of examples of those people here -- people who blame everything on wheat gluten, amalgam fillings, etc. > This is a classic example of someone with a totally > closed mind -- unable to even consider any possiblity [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of those people here -- people who blame everything > on wheat gluten, amalgam fillings, etc. Au contraire Mark...Perhaps you have your "groups" mixed up. I am among those who are open to the healing efficacies of any modality or approach that proves itself to be effective. We wish not to wait for the approval of white-coated professionals to inform us of whether a given modality or approach is safe and efective or not...remember us? Each of us is blessed with the most sensitive and thorough, self-contained laboratory of all the biochemical laboratories on earth...some of us conquer our fears and utilize this to the extent it is wise to do so...for instance, I don't think I would be inclined to test the healthfulness of New Orleans water at this time...:^) > Mark wrote: > Note that he also said he hasn't used his home-made > qi machine in 6 months and not regularly in over a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > his theory about diet, but he completely dismisses > the hard evidence for a toxic build-up. There are only so many hours in the day Mark. I do wish I had the spare time to devote to *all* the modalities I know to be effective, don't you? > So before you've actually taken care of yourself so badly that it has > hurt your vision? Is that what you're saying? Yes, I have noticed a subtle yet distinct worsening of my visual acuity when I eat poor quality foods for an extended period. >> So before you've actually taken care of yourself so badly that it has >> hurt your vision? Is that what you're saying? > >Yes, I have noticed a subtle yet distinct worsening of my visual acuity >when I eat poor quality foods for an extended period. With all your 'knowledge' about diet and health, you actually confess to ignoring your own 'facts'? Do you perhaps have a mental condition that causes you to knowingly and willingly inflict damage upon your own body? Either you're lying, extremely dumb or your suffer from a mental disorder with auto-mutilation as a symptom. Whatever it is, it certainly casts serious doubts on your claims, or rather, your mental fitness to judge anything at all. > >Yes, I have noticed a subtle yet distinct worsening of my visual acuity > >when I eat poor quality foods for an extended period. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > certainly casts serious doubts on your claims, or rather, your mental > fitness to judge anything at all. It's true. I don't always eat as well as I know I should. >>>Yes, I have noticed a subtle yet distinct worsening of my visual acuity >>>when I eat poor quality foods for an extended period. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's true. I don't always eat as well as I know I should. And all time all of us were thinking that you were balancing that with detox-machines, earcandles, supplements etc. while all the time they were 1) not doing anything, since your eyesight deteriorated anyway, 2) totally unnecesary, since you just could have changed your diet and be done with it. Now, the question is, what other thing(s) could you not be telling us that you have or have not done that might account for your vision problems/ improvement? Your credibility just took a few major blows as far as I am concerned. > And all time all of us were thinking that you were balancing that with > detox-machines, earcandles, supplements etc. while all the time they > were 1) not doing anything, since your eyesight deteriorated anyway, 2) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > problems/ improvement? Your credibility just took a few major blows as > far as I am concerned. Thanks for your kind remarks JohnDoe. You're right; I'm not as regular with some of the detox protocols as I shd be and its only been in recent times that I have been more consistently applying what I know about diet in my life. > > And all time all of us were thinking that you were balancing that > with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thanks for your kind remarks JohnDoe. You're welcome. > You're right; I'm not as regular > with some of the detox protocols as I shd be and its only been in > recent times that I have been more consistently applying what I know > about diet in my life. Funny then that you recommend all kinds of stuff to people here. You can't recommend them based on scientific evidence that it works because there isn't any. That would leave personal experience, but you just admitted that you barely have any with all of that stuff you've been talking about. Actually, it looks like you just admitted that you simply make things up. I'll keep that in mind. > Funny then that you recommend all kinds of stuff to people here. You > can't recommend them based on scientific evidence that it works because > there isn't any. That would leave personal experience, but you just > admitted that you barely have any with all of that stuff you've been > talking about. Actually, it looks like you just admitted that you simply > make things up. I'll keep that in mind. There are simply not enough hours in the day for one to utilize all that one finds to be safe and effective....not quite sure where you got the idea that I admitted I simply make things up. If you will go back and read my previous posts about alternative modalities/approaches I'm certain you will find clear, grounded statements about the efficacy of each one I discussed. You *are* good at putting a negative spin on what I've said; Karl Rove would likely be impressed... >>Funny then that you recommend all kinds of stuff to people here. You >>can't recommend them based on scientific evidence that it works because [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that one finds to be safe and effective....not quite sure where you got > the idea that I admitted I simply make things up. Either you have taken the time to find out what works and base your opinion on that or you haven't. You say you simply don't have enough time, so your opinion can not be based on personal experience (you don't have the time remember). Since you do not have the time (by you own admisson) to build up enough experience to be able to tell wether something works or not that leaves scientific evidence for safety and efficacy or you made it up. Since there isn't any scientific evidence (which of course would also eliminate the need for personal research) that leaves you making it up. It's a logical conclusion from you admittance that you do not actually use all the things you promote, since you don't have the time for it. > If you will go back and read my previous posts about alternative modalities/approaches I'm > certain you will find clear, grounded statements about the efficacy of > each one I discussed. Grounded in what? There is no scientific evidence and by your own admission, you can not have enough personal experience since you don't have the time for that. Or are you just parroting other peoples opinion? > You *are* good at putting a negative spin on what > I've said; Karl Rove would likely be impressed... Unfortunately for me, it looks loke Karl's job won't be available any time soon ;-) > Your feelings about your vision are the least reliable > indicator, because they are influenced by your beliefs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > belief systems won't come crashing down, whether or not > you pass the eye exam. This is certainly true... The lady who administered my test had a quizzical look on her face, "are you wearing contacts?"..."have you had that eye surgery?" > > Your feelings about your vision are the least reliable > > indicator, because they are influenced by your beliefs. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The lady who administered my test had a quizzical look on her face, > "are you wearing contacts?"..."have you had that eye surgery?" ..."Are you mad?" >>How do you know that the effects were not subtle and you recent eye exam >>was the first time you realized that? > > Because, as I am now stating for the fourth time, I first noted the > correlation betwen quality of diet and visual acuity back in my > mid-thirties. What were you doing back then? Also, could you come up with some physiologically plausible model for this to be based on? > What were you doing back then? Eating a fairly good diet but with frequent relapses. > Also, could you come up with some physiologically plausible model for > this to be based on? Wesley's thought on the possibility of the lowered visual acuity being an undiagnosed pre-diabetic symptom is certainly plausible. >>What were you doing back then? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Wesley's thought on the possibility of the lowered visual acuity being > an undiagnosed pre-diabetic symptom is certainly plausible. Diabetes causes a specific form of irreversible retinopathy. Try again. >>>What were you doing back then? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Diabetes causes a specific form of irreversible retinopathy. There's more to it than that: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/diabetic_lens_osmosis/intro.htm moo > There's more to it than that: > > http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/diabetic_lens_osmosis/intro.htm interesting Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in news:gp6Ve.2648 $u71.1603@fe11.lga: >>>What were you doing back then? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Try again. Sorry, that's not the only way diabetes can affect vision. It can also result in transient, reversible changes in visual acuity caused by changes in the osmolarity of eye fluids. These transient changes can manifest themselves as either declines or improvements in visual acuity. Standard advice to a newly-diagnosed diabetic is not to get new glasses until your blood sugar has stabilized. Of course, any speculation as to whether Tim's visual changes were due to changes in blood-glucose levels is completely pointless without reference to actual blood-glucose measurements. You can get a decent glucose meter with enough test strips to resolve the question for about $30. > Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in news:gp6Ve.2648 > $u71.1603@fe11.lga: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > to actual blood-glucose measurements. You can get a decent glucose meter > with enough test strips to resolve the question for about $30. Thanks for the information. I do not expect Tim to post anything other than his idle speculation. > Before grasping for some far-fetched possibility > like that your diet improved your vision... ...the far-fetched-possibility that the eyes are, to some degree, nutirent-dependent for their most efficient function? > > Before grasping for some far-fetched possibility > > like that your diet improved your vision... > > ...the far-fetched-possibility that the eyes are, to some degree, > nutirent-dependent for their most efficient function? We were talking about your performance on a driver's license eye exam, right? That's a test of visual acuity under normal illumination. Nutrition (actually, the lack of it) can affect night vision, because vitamin A is needed for certain photopigments. But that's not what is tested by a driver's license eye exam. Visual acuity would be greatly affected by the clarity of the cornea, lens, and aqueous humour (watery part) of your eyes. Do you disagree with that? Did you have any eye exam between the time you stopped using your home-made qi machine and your recent driver's license eye exam? > Did you have any eye exam between the time > you stopped using your home-made qi machine and > your recent driver's license eye exam? No...I haven't even used the device in 6 months or so... > > Did you have any eye exam between the time > > you stopped using your home-made qi machine and > > your recent driver's license eye exam? > > No...I haven't even used the device in 6 months or so... Then you don't know whether you would have passed the eye exam back when you were using the machine regularly. Your visual acuity today may still have the improvement from your previous experience witht the machine. And yet, you are completely fixed on the idea that you passed the eye exam because of your changes in diet. But didn't you adopt these dietary changes before previous eye exams that you did not pass? > Then you don't know whether you would have > passed the eye exam back when you were using > the machine regularly. Your visual acuity > today may still have the improvement from > your previous experience witht the machine. Except I noticed an improvement in visual acuity, related to improvement in diet, before I ever used a foot bath detox device. Thanks for your attempted assistance though. "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message ... >> Then you don't know whether you would have >> passed the eye exam back when you were using [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > improvement in diet, before I ever used a foot bath detox device. > Thanks for your attempted assistance though. Had that blood test yet Tim? moo "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> Before grasping for some far-fetched possibility >> like that your diet improved your vision... > > ...the far-fetched-possibility that the eyes are, to some degree, > nutirent-dependent for their most efficient function? Hey dumbo, had your blood-glucose tested? moo "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message >>> >I went to have my drivers license renewed today and found that for the >>> >first time in 20 years I did not need my glasses to pass the visison [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > vision at approximately that age. Nothing to do with diet, but > probably something to do with presbyopia. Depends on the type of vision affected. Blurred vision is a symptom of pre-diabetic blood sugar level problems. moo >I went to have my drivers license renewed today and found that for the > first time in 20 years I did not need my glasses to pass the visison [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in eyesight as my diet has slid back toward the more standard American > "sludge" diet... Interesting. Have you had your blood sugar tested in the last few years? moo > Interesting. Have you had your blood sugar tested in the last few years? No. "Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> >> Interesting. Have you had your blood sugar tested in the last few years? > > No. http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/diabetic_lens_osmosis/intro.htm You posted something about retinopathy. That's a serious disease. The above is something less serious that could be diet related. Anyone your age should have their blood sugar levels tested as part of their regular physical. Type II diabetes is massively undiagnosed. moo > The lady behind the counter asked if I was wearing contacts or > if I had had "that eye surgery." I said, "no," that I had simply > improved my diet and then my vision had improved. What makes you think it was diet? How do you know it wasn't removing toxins with the ear candles that did it? > What makes you think it was diet? > How do you know it wasn't removing toxins > with the ear candles that did it? I know it was my diet because I have noticed this connection between diet and vision several times over the last 10 years or so. Avoiding the funk oils of the standard American diet cd certainly be a factor...Tim Lipid peroxidation in diabetic retinopathy. Polak M, Zagorski Z. Tadeusz Krwawicz Chair of Ophthalmology & 1st Eye Hospital, Skubiszewski Medical University of Lublin. Oxidative stress has been implicated in pathogenesis of diabetic retinopathy. It has been hypothesized that hyperglycaemia may damage vascular endothelium and retina by inducing the synthesis of oxidant reactive species. The aim of the present study was to estimate lipid peroxidation by detecting the concentration of malondialdehyde and 4-hydroxynonenal in diabetic patients with retinopathy, subjects without retinopathy and the reference group. Sixty-one patients were studied, including 30 patients with severe non-proliferative retinopathy in NIDDM and 31 diabetic patients without retinopathy. The reference group were 11 systemic healthy patients. Concentration of malondialdehyde and 4-hydroxynonenal was measured in plasma sample using a Lipid peroxidation Assay Kit (Calbiochem-Novabiochem Corp.). The concentration of lipid peroxidation products in patients with retinopathy was statistically significantly elevated in comparison to diabetic patients without retinopathy (p < 0.001) and the reference group (p < 0.001). We do not notice any significant differences in levels of MDA and 4-HNE between patients without diabetic retinopathy and the reference group. In view of our results we can conclude that oxidative stress is an important risk factor in the development of diabetic retinopathy. PMID: 16146026 [PubMed - in process] Thanks Tom...(ironjustice) One of the guys on my poker newsgroup has done a lot of fasting. He said that after a 42 day fast, his vision cleared up a lot and they adjusted his eyeglass prescription to where it had been 20 years earlier. Following is a post that was made over on AMALGAM @LISTSERV.dfn.de after I posted my comments that are at the top of this thread: "When I was struck with double vision 7 days after having an amalgam drilled out and a new one placed I needed 275 magnifying glasses...after amalgam removal and detox I don't need glasses at all anyone." > Following is a post that was made over on AMALGAM @LISTSERV.dfn.de > after I posted my comments that are at the top of this thread: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > glasses...after amalgam removal and detox I don't need glasses at all > anyone." What does it mean to say you "needed 275 magnifying glasses"? Every time you needed to take a good look at something, you'd have to stack them all up? That seems unwieldy. Heck, you'd need a box or shopping bag just to carry them around. 274 magnifying glasses wouldn't do? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.