Macular Degeneration Vitamins

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Macular Degeneration Vitamins, Dec 17, 2003.

  1. An excellent summary of the various vitamins that have been shown to
    be beneficial in the treatment of macular degeneration can be found at
    the following site:

    www.macular-degeneration-vitamins.com
     
    Macular Degeneration Vitamins, Dec 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sounds scammy to me. Have there been any clinical trials?

    Bill
     
    Repeating Rifle, Dec 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Macular Degeneration Vitamins

    Dan Roberts Guest

    Bill,

    The Age-Related Eye Disease Study was a major research project of the
    National Eye Institute. After 6 years and thousands of subjects, the results
    were highly significant.

    To learn about it, please see this article on the MD Support web site:

    http://www.mdsupport.org/library/study.html

    Best regards,

    Dan Roberts, Director
    Macular Degeneration Support
    Web site: http://www.mdsupport.org
    Email:
     
    Dan Roberts, Dec 17, 2003
    #3
  4. Macular Degeneration Vitamins

    Dan Roberts Guest

    You are absolutely correct, Mike. That article was not written by me, but I
    will change it to read "Only a trained eye care professional..."

    Thank you for pointing out that gross error.

    Dan Roberts, Director
    Macular Degeneration Support
    Web site: http://www.mdsupport.org
    Email:
     
    Dan Roberts, Dec 17, 2003
    #4
  5. Macular Degeneration Vitamins

    Dan Abel Guest


    No, just a Doctorate in Pharmacology.

    :)

    And does the above mean that if I thought I had MD I should *not* see an
    "untrained ophthalmologist"?


    I'm a diabetic, and at the last diabetes management class I took at my
    HMO, the class was co-taught by a (former) cardiology nurse and a
    pharmacist, both of whom were diabetics.
     
    Dan Abel, Dec 17, 2003
    #5
  6. I looked at the recommended site. A quick statistical analysis by me
    indicates that the result is not significant. There was a statistical
    conlusion in the article but no analysis.

    There were 3600 subjects. If you took a sample of that size to, say,
    determine the prevalence of a gene in the general population, there would be
    a =/- error of 1.7% or a likely spread of 3.3%. just from counting. In
    addition, because a small fraction of that sample is not ever going to get
    the disease--no matter what, the sample size must be multiplied by 5 or so
    to get a sample size that can determine changes of that order. There will be
    errors in addition to counting errors.

    As a consequence, without further statistical analysis, I cannot take the
    rsults of that study seriously. Perhaps you can contact the investigators to
    point out my misgivings.

    Bill
     
    Repeating Rifle, Dec 17, 2003
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.