 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2007Why are so many people against eyeglasses in general?
Why are so many people against eyeglasses in general, and minus lenses in specific? Eyeglasses look so cool if you get the right frames for your face. They frame your face; they're combination medical equipment and a fashion accesorrary. Hi DarkProtoman, Well for me, I just think they are uncool, unnatural, and and also even unnecessary They can never compare with the crystal clarity of true vision. Please see on this website for a long answer - http://iblindness.org/intro/problemglasses.html Hope this answers your question, - Edwardo > Why are so many people against eyeglasses in general, and minus lenses > in specific? Eyeglasses look so cool if you get the right frames for > your face. They frame your face; they're combination medical equipment > and a fashion accesorrary. Hi DarkProtoman, Well for me, I just think they are uncool, unnatural, and and also even unnecessary They can never compare with the crystal clarity of true vision. Please see on this website for a long answer - http://iblindness.org/intro/problemglasses.html Hope this answers your question, - Edwardo On Jul 17, 5:35 am, Edwardo Alphonse Elric <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Why are so many people against eyeglasses in general, and minus lenses > > in specific? Eyeglasses look so cool if you get the right frames for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Edwardo Cosmetics aside (and I do believe that some people look more attractive wearing the right frame), glasses do protect our eyes from injury. It's also been demonstrated in social psychology experiments that people wearing glasses are perceived to be more intelligent than people who do not. That's why it's sometimes suggested that you wear your glasses (rather than contacts) to a job interview. On Jul 17, 3:35 am, Edwardo Alphonse Elric <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Why are so many people against eyeglasses in general, and minus lenses > > in specific? Eyeglasses look so cool if you get the right frames for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Edwardo It says minus lenses can burn a hole in your retina if you look at a bright light. WTF?!!!? MINUS lenses?!!!? They DIVERGE light! PLUS lenses should burn a hole in your retina!!! Dear DarkProtoMan, The minus lens is very easy to apply, and impressive in its results -- in five minutes. Yet the second-opinion of Dr. Bates, was that it did not solve any problem, and if a person at 20/70 wore a full-strength minus 16/7, then his natural eyes would "adapt" to that strong minus, and his vision would then be 20/200. Thus he strongly recommended that the minus be avoided, and his preventive methods be implemented to clear the Snellen back to normal. There have not been any resolution to this Bates advocacy at this time. Otis > Why are so many people against eyeglasses in general, and minus lenses > in specific? Eyeglasses look so cool if you get the right frames for > your face. They frame your face; they're combination medical equipment > and a fashion accesorrary. >Dear DarkProtoMan, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >then his natural eyes would "adapt" to that strong >minus, and his vision would then be 20/200. What about if that person simply took breaks from the lenses, like ... by wearing them only for distance viewing? See, for example, my questions: www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt Wouldn't that be more than enough? >Thus he strongly recommended that the minus be >avoided, and his preventive methods be implemented >to clear the Snellen back to normal. Is there any evidence that any of those methods ... or your proposed method ... is effective (in a randomized study that uses a control group for comparison)? No? Okay. Just checking. How ABOUT answering those questions, Uncle Otie? It would help a great deal..... > Why are so many people against eyeglasses in general, and minus lenses > in specific? Eyeglasses look so cool if you get the right frames for > your face. They frame your face; they're combination medical equipment > and a fashion accesorrary. I don't think so many people are against them, just a few noisy posters. Dr Judy >Why are so many people against eyeglasses in general, and minus lenses >in specific? Eyeglasses look so cool if you get the right frames for >your face. They frame your face; they're combination medical equipment >and a fashion accesorrary. There is a freedom of choice argument here. Those with good eyesight who wish to wear glasses for cosmetic reasons are free to wear sunglasses, or even get opticians to make up plain glass lenses (presumably if this became a fashion it wouldn't be odd or embarrassing). Those with poor eyesight have only the choice of glasses or contacts (which I wouldn't wear even if I could; I am squeamish and not very good at keeping stuff clean and hygienic). I can sort of see what you are getting at - I would quite like to have a pair of 'aviator' glasses. As it happens, my prescription makes life difficult enough for my optician that I allow them to chose whatever frame makes life easiest for them. Also, apparently I should have thick plastic frames for cosmetic reasons anyway, to disguise the thickness of the lenses (yes they are high refractive index; they are still thick). For this I get to pay 453 pounds (so nearly twice that in dollars), and I don't even think they did a particularly good job; I needed to send them back when they were first handed to me because the lenses were not fitted into the frame properly, and the frame was distorted. Even now, if I adjust them to fit in place properly, my eyelashes brush the lenses on the right eye, because they haven't rounded off the edges of the lenses near the nose very much. This situation motivated my interest in myopia.  SignatureA.G.McDowell >Also, apparently I should have thick >plastic frames for cosmetic reasons anyway, to disguise the thickness of >the lenses (yes they are high refractive index; they are still thick). > > From an earlier post I think you are about -18? You might be interested in the new Staar Visian implantable lenses (these reside in front of, rather than instead of, your own crystalline lenses. Reasonably safe procedure in the right hands, and they could allow you to ditch the thick glasses. Of course there are contacts but I imagine you've tried that route... w.stacy, o.d. > >Also, apparently I should have thick > >plastic frames for cosmetic reasons anyway, to disguise the thickness of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. No, here's my script: --please explain what "balance" means and why the OD's Cyl component has "Sph" instead of a number--: OD: Sph: -3.00; Cyl: Sph; Axis: Balance; Prism: Balance OS: Sph: -3.75; Cyl: -1.00; Axis: 168; Prism: 0 I actually need a -11 lens in the OD, but Dr. Hertzog wouldn't give me it, b/c it'd look wicky-wacky and be useless, b/c I have amblyopia in that eye. Besides, I like my glasses. > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I was responding to McDowell, are you the same guy? Anyway, the "balance" means it's a balance lens, just to look normal, and the lab need not be precise with the Rx; any old thing will do since you and your doc choose to ignore the -11 (not everyone would agree with doing that). And my advice farther up pretty much applies to your R eye as well. w.stacy, o.d. > >>>Also, apparently I should have thick > >>>plastic frames for cosmetic reasons anyway, to disguise the thickness of [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'm not McDowell, BTW. And he said a -11 wouldn't really help, b/c the amblyopia caused my optic nerve to degenerate, making correction impossible. I can't even have LASIK, b/c it'd be too risky b/c it might damage my OS. I wanted a -11 lens. >And he said a -11 wouldn't really help, b/c the amblyopia caused my >optic nerve to degenerate, making correction impossible. I can't even >have LASIK, b/c it'd be too risky b/c it might damage my OS. I wanted >a -11 lens. > > Hate to 2nd guess other docs, but I'd say he said that just to save time (I'd REALLY hate to think he doesn't know what he's talking about). The real explanation of amblyopia is a little bit more complex, but at least it's less pessimistic than "optic nerve degeneration" which is NOT caused by amblyopia, and unlike amblyopia is pretty hopeless. Amblyopia is more an inability to aim the eye properly than anything else, due to disuse of the macular vision. Now you may indeed have OND, but if you do, it is not really related to amblyopia ex anopsia. w.stacy, o.d. > >And he said a -11 wouldn't really help, b/c the amblyopia caused my > >optic nerve to degenerate, making correction impossible. I can't even [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. No, he said optic nerve degeneration caused my amblyopia. I was born 24 weeks premature. My internist friend --Dr. Mark C. Asbill, who goes to my church and has been a great fiend of mine for years-- said Dr. Leif M. Hertzog is the best ophthalmologist he knows of. And what's anopsia? My optometrist, who works right down the hall from Dr. Hertzog, Dr. Darcy C. Ryan, made the initial diagnosis, and Dr. Hertzog confirmed. But I knew I had anisometropic amblyopia caused by optic neuropathy for a long time, I just didn't know it was so bad it was effectively uncorrectable. > No, he said optic nerve degeneration caused my amblyopia. I was born > 24 weeks premature. 24 weeks? I don't think it's possible. > > No, he said optic nerve degeneration caused my amblyopia. I was born > > 24 weeks premature. > > 24 weeks? I don't think it's possible. You just don't understand. When this poster says plus, he means minus. When he has unexplained vision problems, it turns out that he has amblyopia, which he knew about all along, but we were too stupid to understand, since he didn't tell us. I'm sure that 24 weeks are a new kind of week that we don't know about yet, like maybe weeks with 3 days in them. > In article <1184975190.200850.310...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > kind of week that we don't know about yet, like maybe weeks with 3 days > in them. No, wait, I meant 16 weeks. Dear DarkProtoman, Proto> Am I a more reliable source of information than Otis Brown? Otis> You should consider yourself a very reliable source of your own information. Proto> I was born 24 weeks premature. Proto> No, wait, I meant 16 weeks. Otis> 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Whatever. > > In article <1184975190.200850.310...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Dear DarkProtoman, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Get off... *plonk* And they said I did'nt have a sense of humor. Ho, Ho, Ho! > Dear DarkProtoman, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - DP, with your script there is no problem making aviatior lenses, but why? they are as ugly as all sh.t and 20 years out of date. Get a decent pair of sunnys. > DP, with your script there is no problem making aviatior lenses, but > why? they are as ugly as all sh.t and 20 years out of date. Get a > decent pair of sunnys. I got these really wicked cool looking geek chic black plastic Essence frames. I abhorr aviator frames. My mom made me wear them when I was in elementary school, and I hated them. Eyeglasses are not natural and not organically grown. Bill SignatureIf intelligent design trumps evolution, please explain hemorrhoids. > Eyeglasses are not natural and not organically grown. Neither is clothing, unless you skin an animal of your approximate size. SignatureCheers, Bev xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." -- Hunter S. Thompson On 7/22/07 2:20 PM, in article CSPoi.58$4O5.31@newsfe06.lga, "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote: >> Eyeglasses are not natural and not organically grown. > > Neither is clothing, unless you skin an animal of your approximate size. That is a good idea Bev! You have given me the idea for a good business. Maybe we can do a joint venture. The only real problem I can forsee is PETA. Bill -- Fermez le Bush--less than 18 months to go. > DP, with your script there is no problem making aviatior lenses, but > why? they are as ugly as all sh.t and 20 years out of date. Yeah, they're so "out of date", they're right back "in", fashion and trend-wise. Look around and you'll see them becoming more and more available and popular. Especially in non-prescription fashion eyewear. (I still have mine from '87 kicking around somewhere, but am not sure I'll be wearing them again :] Dear A.G., Subject: Keeping distant vision clear -- avoid the minus. WOW, 453 pounds for glasses? What is the exchange rate? That would be about $900 for minus glasses. I think Bates was right about the minus, and keeping your Snellen clear (at the threshold -- under YOUR control remains an excellent concept.) But that decision (for prevention, by second-opinion concept and methods -- is not easy. Just one man's opinion. Otis On Jul 17, 9:18 pm, "A.G.McDowell" <mcdowe...@mcdowella.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <1184644490.225132.204...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > DarkProtoman <Protoman2...@gmail.com> writes>Why are so many people against eyeglasses in general, and minus lenses [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > -- > A.G.McDowell >Dear A.G., > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What is the exchange rate? That would >be about $900 for minus glasses. This is just ONE of the MANY things that I can't resist about you, Otis. You can't/don't/won't read. Here's what McDowell wrote: "For this I get to pay 453 pounds (so nearly twice that in dollars)" Was that ambiguous? Just curious. >I think Bates was right about the minus, and keeping >your Snellen clear (at the threshold -- under YOUR control >remains an excellent concept.) It's a beatiful concept. I think many people wish that it worked. |
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
|
©2008 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.