Why 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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.....

 

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

Dr Judy

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!!!

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

No, wait, I meant 16 weeks.