| Tom Lucas 2006-07-26, 8:26 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153905717.612202.284860@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I can show you a couple stories on the net of presbyopes with low
> myopia who regretted it. I also know in person several low myopic
> presbyopes who consider their myopia a blessing and they smile when
> they brag how they can read and see from near without those danged
> readers! 
On the flip side I can show you people who prefer their distance vision.
Perhaps this is one of those things where opinion is split either side
of the Atlantic. Americans tend to be more obssessed with appearance and
readers make you look old, whereas distance glasses are ageless. Perhaps
that is a factor?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Its the opposite from what ive seen. A presbyope that is -2 sees as
> well as someone who is plano wearing +2 readers.
No they don't. The plano person can see distant objects clearly. They
both see close objects much the same but I would say the guy with
readers sees more detail due to the magnification of the glasses.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I disagree, myopia compenstates for presbyopia in the same way readers
> do.
In an ideal world maybe but it is unlikely that the degree of myopia
will match the presbyopia and so there will, in most cases, be a gap
that must be filled by glasses.
> You are forgetting the fact mild myopia does NOT blur distance vision
> much. You,
> for example can do most things without minus glasses, yet you dont
> need readers
> and wont for a long time if you keep your myopia(which you wont if you
> get
> enhanced)
It blurs it enough to make things difficult though. I'm a very low myope
now but I still have a dependency on glasses, although greatly reduced.
> ill take the thick full figured ones with wonderful ample curves which
> for some reason, not everyone finds attractive. You can keep the
> skinny
> ones, dont want em.
<re-read> In the UK "thick" means dumb but I get what you mean. No-one
wants a boney girl. Fortunately I'm padded up enough for two :-)
>
> Nah, my accomodation is improving or rather, I am accepting less
> minus.
> I have tonic accomodation, pseudomyopia, accomodative spasms, etc.
> This
> means I may be a -3 in axial myopia under cycloplegia but a -5 if you
> include pseudomyopia under manifest. some of my accomodation is "tied
> up" or "stuck"
Well that makes more sense. In a situation like this do you think
atropine and NVI will make it better or worse? I wouldn't start messing
with the cilliary muscles until you get the better of the spasms and get
full and free movement.
> Ive looked at near so much
> my muscles have become overworked and too tense so they dont relax
> fully and I am stuck in accomodation.
I would say this is a symptom of your problem and not your problem. If
you don't change your habits then the muscles will always be tense.
Perhaps you need to use bigger text on the screen or spend less time on
near objects.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Then they are lying. Even if they are happy in spite of their
> complications, they still wished their lasik went perfect then they
> would be ten times happier.
No not lying, just happy with their lot. If they see good enough to be
happy then they really are happy. If they secretly wished for a better
results then, I agree, they are kidding themselves.
> lasik is almost manditory for the military because glasses are a
> liability and losing or breaking them can get you in real trouble in
> combat.
In the UK they won't recruit people with glasses unless you are going
for a real echelon job. They give discounted Lasek to older servicemen
whose eyes have deteriorated during service.
> They give soldiers free lasik in fact. Complications do happen
> and those poor soldiers become regulated to a less vision critical
> sector, such as repairing weapons and machines or being a helper or
> cook food for other soldiers.
It can't happen very often because the military wouldn't stand for
that - it costs too much to train a soldier and to give them Lasik to
have him peeling potatoes for three years.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thats the least serious complication because glasses can fix it
> completely. Many complications cant be fixed at all with glasses.
There are very few complications that can't be fixed and most can be
fixed with glasses/contacts. It has to be something very very rare not
to have some kind of fix for it (albiet an inconvenient one) and there
is always a cornea transplant as a last resort.
> Its those with NO knowlege of lasik and a mindset
> that nothing could possibily go wrong, nothing bad could happen to
> them
> that get really supprised, upset and vocal if something DOES go wrong!
That's where this group has a role. Unfortunately a lot of people
inflate the risks so rather than people just being aware of them they
can come to expect complications which is just plain wrong.
> Usually, if someone is 20/20 and not happy, his/her night vision is
> poor with halos and starbursts or very dry eyes.
What I mean is that there is something in their head and not their eyes.
Perhaps they didn't get enough hugs as a child?
> One lady warned over 50 of her
> friends/acquaintances but two of them changed their mind, got lasik
> and
> both have big complications,
Well that seems a bit hard to believe. Or perhaps the lady in question
is so obssessed with bad lasik that she questionned and probed the
acquaitances until she finally found something that wasn't quite perfect
and gleefully announced another disaster. The only way I can see this
happening was if they both went to the same clinic and had the same
surgeon who happened to be incompetent.
> its freaky, its like a bad omen! Tom, if
> your friend got damaged by lasik and warned you over and over, wouldnt
> you feel uneasy about lasik and take it as an omen of sorts?
No, I'd tell my friend to get over it and then get them drunk and maybe
laid. My friends bothered me continually about smoking until I quit and
now they have moved to my weight. Well I'm not quitting eating so they
are wasting their time :-) I've got friends who have had bad car crashes
(one clutz in particular who has managed 4 car crashes plus two on a
motorbike and 1 in a fire engine) but it doesn't stop me driving. If my
friend had a complication then I would want to know why but it might not
put me off entirely.
> The first bad story I read really scared me. The next few were scary
> as
> well. Some bad lasik stories still scare me. One story was about a guy
> damaged so bad by lasik he sees seven(7) moons!!!!!!!!! That is
> freaky!
> I read a few stories of really bad lasik resulting in the need for a
> cornea transplant! One lady became 20/200 BCVA after lasik and 20/40
> BCVA with a new cornea(her other eye wasnt damaged as bad so she kept
> her old cornea) As for lasik being the right decision, apperently
> those
> with a good outcome agree, those with a bad outcome say it was a huge
> mistake.
One needs to be very sceptical about internet reports but there are bad
complications out there. I think people suffer more in the US because
they can't afford to get fixed after a complication whereas in the UK
the health care is free for all (and don't the damn immigrants know it).
> Most of those with bad lasik said
> they would have never done lasik had they known the true risks, others
> dont care and just hope for the best.
It's difficult to say. To be honest most people just don't think it
could happen to them and go ahead anyway - knowing the risks doesn't
much affect their decision. In my own case I wavered slightly upon
reading the risks but there was nothing that stood out enough to make me
completely reconsider. The fact is that the risks are slight and most
complications are liveable, if unpleasant, and if you want better vision
then you just do it and hope the statistics happen to someone else.
> I was half serious about lasik
> but my own relative contridictions(very big pupils, not yet stable
> prescription, possible mild presbyopia, mild dry eyes) as well as
> having read hundreds of stories on the internet of bad lasik has led
> to
> the conclusion that lasik isnt worth the risk, especially of reducing
> my ability to see well at night. I feel there will soon be better and
> safer alternatives to lasik and even if not, glasses are the safe way
> to go.
You do seem to be unusually adverse to risk but your unstable
prescription should have been the major decision in backing out with the
others being considered later. The risks shouldn't play much of a role
unless there is something you particulalry dread.
> Todays lasers are an improvement and there has been a reduction in
> some
> problems but its far from problem free or at least as safe as orthoK.
> If you are having problems at night with 6.5mm pupils, imagine how bad
> mine will be at 9mm!
My night problems aren't problems as such it is just with my pupils
dilated gives me my true prescription without any pinhole effects to
improve things. You'll struggle to avoid halos with your pupils on
OrthoK.
> When something comes out that gives BETTER(or at least equal)
> vision than glasses with very low risks, itll be a big hit and ill
> read
> all about it, both good and bad and decide if THAT would be worth
> persuing.(see epithelium thinning)
Contacts already do that. Glasses are basically the minimum risk option
and always will be because they are instantly removeable and don't
affect the body in any way. You'll never get a lower risk option and I
think risk is the biggest factor for you.
>
> Do you have an estimate of myopic diopters(-1, -2, -3, etc) and the
> 20/something correlation? I have done alot of research on this, but
> tell me what you think!(you probably have a good idea for -1 and -5)
> How bad is the following?
I won't answer that at all on the grounds that it is misleading to tie
snellen to refractive indexes. I'm aware that you're just looking for a
ball park figure but others may read the scale and mistake it for fact.
|