Why are so many people against eyeglasses in general?

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by DarkProtoman, Jul 17, 2007.

  1. DarkProtoman

    DarkProtoman Guest

    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.
     
    DarkProtoman, Jul 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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
     
    Edwardo Alphonse Elric, Jul 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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
     
    Edwardo Alphonse Elric, Jul 17, 2007
    #3
  4. DarkProtoman

    Jane Guest

    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.
     
    Jane, Jul 17, 2007
    #4
  5. DarkProtoman

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, Jul 18, 2007
    #5
  6. DarkProtoman

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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?
    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.....
     
    Neil Brooks, Jul 18, 2007
    #6
  7. DarkProtoman

    Dr Judy Guest

    I don't think so many people are against them, just a few noisy
    posters.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Jul 18, 2007
    #7
  8. DarkProtoman

    A.G.McDowell Guest

    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.
     
    A.G.McDowell, Jul 18, 2007
    #8
  9. 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.
     
    William Stacy, Jul 18, 2007
    #9
  10. DarkProtoman

    DarkProtoman Guest

    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!!!
     
    DarkProtoman, Jul 18, 2007
    #10
  11. DarkProtoman

    DarkProtoman Guest

    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.
     
    DarkProtoman, Jul 19, 2007
    #11
  12. DarkProtoman

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, Jul 19, 2007
    #12
  13. DarkProtoman

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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.
    It's a beatiful concept. I think many people wish that it worked.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jul 19, 2007
    #13
  14. 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.
     
    William Stacy, Jul 19, 2007
    #14
  15. DarkProtoman

    DarkProtoman Guest

    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.
     
    DarkProtoman, Jul 20, 2007
    #15
  16. 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.
     
    William Stacy, Jul 20, 2007
    #16
  17. DarkProtoman

    DarkProtoman Guest

    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.
     
    DarkProtoman, Jul 20, 2007
    #17
  18. DarkProtoman

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    24 weeks? I don't think it's possible.
     
    Ms.Brainy, Jul 21, 2007
    #18
  19. DarkProtoman

    Dan Abel Guest

    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.
     
    Dan Abel, Jul 21, 2007
    #19
  20. DarkProtoman

    DarkProtoman Guest

    No, wait, I meant 16 weeks.
     
    DarkProtoman, Jul 21, 2007
    #20
    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.