doctor_my_eye@msn.com <doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in part:
> When you buy a 6 pack of disposable razors, do you wait
> until you bleed one-too-many times before you change them?
No. Razors nick me more when they're new. I replace
razors when they pull too hard and don't cut [skip] hairs.
Amazing quality differences.
> When you buy a 6 pack of underwear, do you wear each pair
> until they are disgusting, and then go for the next one?
No. I wear one pair for one day, then follow appropriate
cleaning and disinfection protocols and solutions. Then
wear again. Only discarded when no longer serviceable.
> If you answer "No" to those questions, you can understand
> what the answer is to your question.
No, "no" can mean more than one thing. "Yes" is more specific
> Disposable contacts are a commodity, like a razor, and
> you should let your calendar tell you to throw them away,
> and not your eyes.
Why? And more importantly, why believe the FDA is correct?
What confidence limits are they using in their testing? What is
the dispersion/std.dev of results? Yes, 95% of wearers may exhibit
no detectable incremental pathology between one week wear and two
week wear. But what if you are part of that 5%? Or part of the
70?% who would see no increase at four weeks? People should know
their bodies, and ideally their opth would test them out.
> Today's lenses are so comfortable that they can be two sizes
> too tight from build-up and still not "hurt". Throw em out.
What "two sizes"? BC is the usual fitting parameter, and "two
sizes" is something like 8.1 vs 8.9. If that much protein
builds-up, visual acuity will be shot. And the lenses will
hurt like _h3ll_. The newer silicone hydrogels are only
more comfortable with respect to oxygenation and retarding
(not eliminating) neovascularization. No better for fit.
> Save money on skipping bottled water, not your eyes.
Why do you believe saving money is the primary motivation?
Are you projecting your values?
-- Robert