|
| Tom Lucas said:
> 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?
You got a point. I am supprised how many old people I see reading
without glasses. Ive asked a few and they smiled at me and said they
are nearsighed and blessed their luck! Over here in America, theres a
surgury called conductive keratoplasty which is very popular for
hyperopia up to +2 to +2.5 and also to make you mildly myopic in one or
both eyes. Some people loath readers so much they would rather be
myopic. Lots of people getting cateract surgury chose IOLs to make them
myopic as they prefer clear near vision. You may not understand because
its different in England but over here, we dread 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.
Its true a presbyope with readers will see things a little bigger and
clearer with readers but a myope can greatly reduce if not eliminate
their dependancy on readers. Ive met old people with just -1 to -1.5
diopters of myopia who go around without their stupid readers and they
are reading everything they want bare eyed and are extremely happy. Ive
asked what they think of their blurry distance vision and they just
laughed and said it was not a big deal and the blur was minimal. One
lady pointed at a store sign about 50 feet away and she said, see this?
I can read it no problem, why would I bother with distance glasses? The
only time I wear glasses is for driving! And thanks to my myopia, I
dont need those stupid readers! They would much prefer slightly blurry
distance vision over readers. Is -1 or even -1.5 diopters myopia really
a big deal? They dont think so, my brother himself doesnt think so,
even I dont think so. I wear computer glasses for the computer and
around the house that undercorrects me so I see especially well from
near. I would honestly not mind a little myopia if it makes a big
difference in how well I see up close.
> 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.
Those old myopes of -1 to -1.5 I told you about only wear readers for
tiny, fine print. Likewise, they only wear distance for driving or very
rarely. Basically they go 95% of the time without glasses while I see
presbyopes who are plano carry their readers at all times either in
their pocket or necklace. This leds me to think being mildly myopic
makes you *less* dependant on glasses *overall* than being plano!
> 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.
Depends what you use your eyes for in the distance. If you have to see
things a kilometer away then yes youll have some trouble. But if you
are at home or in a friends house where everything is only a couple
meters away, glasses arent gonna help. I wear my computer glasses
around the house because full power distance glasses just strains my
eyes when everything is relatively close.
> <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 :-)
I find any guy who likes bony women to be strange and abnormal even.
Most people in the world want a real woman who looks like a real woman
with real curves in the right place and a figure you can cuddle with.
Bony women look like 12 year old boys. They look nothing like the type
of women us men find desirable. Alot of models you see in magazines are
just ugly and look starved.
> 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.
Atropine and NVI will improve my vision. Whatever my true axial myopia
is, atropine will reveal it. I will make a post about it once I get
atropine. Look up "pseudomyopia"
> 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.
Well you see good enough and yet you arent happy and wished for better
results and hope an enhancement will get you there. Everyone wants the
best vision with lasik.
> 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.
They get lasik early on in their training so little money is invested.
> 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.
Glasses can only fix residual refractive errors, such people sometimes
get enhancement for that. Serious complications can sometimes be
alleivated with RGP contacts but alot of people cant tolerate those
contacts and some dont even want to bother with contacts and is why
they got lasik in the first place. Cornea transplants are a serious
matter and are a last resort as you said. Most of the time, a lasik
complication isnt serious enough to warrent a new cornea. Cornea
transplants will undo the lasik and put you back at square one so youll
need glasses again and for your astigmatism too due to the sitches on
the new cornea.
> 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.
There is a calculated risk which no one can seem to agree on. I can
explain best is some people are adverse to risks and would rather deal
with glasses than deal with the possibility of a complication. Alot of
people with low prescriptions, especially with presbyopia leave well
enough alone. Those who are tolerant of contacts rarely get lasik, its
those intolerant of contacts and loath glasses who decide to try their
luck, take a chance on lasik and hope for the best and are
prepared(hopefully) to deal *if* there is a complication.
> 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?
Who knows? Surgeons will often reject those with unrelistic
expectations but there are always some who slip thru or dont make their
expectations clear till after lasik. They may be having "problems" that
are so mild almost everyone would be happy except them. I have little
or no symphathy for those type, I save my condolences for those with
real complications and poor vision after lasik. An analogy would be
someone with a paper cut vs. someone who broke his arm!
> 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.
I believe those two people are visabily unhappy with lasik, no probing
was needed. Maybe its just a coincidence both of them "lost" the lasik
lottery, the odds turned against them. Its like rolling a dice, once in
a while you will get a one several times in a row and curse your luck.
But dont you still think it was a bad omen(do you believe in omens?)
that a soothsayer who had a bad lasik result herself warned you so
clearly and said youll regret it? Its almost as if she was psychic! She
warned over 50 and the fact only two of them didnt heed her warning
shows the power in her warning and the power of omens and even some
sort of psychic ability to predict. That sure scared off all but two
who changed their mind! Ive had about 30 people warn me against lasik,
all over the internet. Theres a difference when someone in *person* you
meet face to face warns you very *strongly* and warns you repeatedly
which no one has yet.
> 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.
He could be persisant, urgent and direct to the point like that lady
was who warned over 50 people. Dont underestimate the power some people
have in warning and persuing others. You can thank your friends who
urged you to stop smoking those cancer sticks  as for eating, go
ahead, just take up working out and youll look much better How many
others do you know that got lasik anyhow?
> 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).
I would not accuse anyone of lying if they moaned how lasik damaged
them. At best, a slight exaggeration. If they show images(photoshop can
make anything) to simulate and show us what they are seeing, it becomes
believable. Let me show you a few:
http://www.visionsimulations.com/StarburstKinds.htm
http://www.visionsimulations.com/images/clblur1.jpg
My comments: Ive heard of people who saw blurry in only part of their
vision after lasik. People have a hard time believing them if they can
read 20/20, 20/25, 20/30 and think their vision must be fine. They
describe their vision as blurry which is true for a part of their
vision. Interesting phenomenon
http://www.visionsimulations.com/images/iSmear.jpg
My comments: Some people report they see a clear object with a smeared
shadow backdropped behind it.
http://www.visionsimulations.com/images/iGlare.jpg
My comments: While it doesnt affect vision, its an annoying side effect
of a lasik complication.
> 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.
They have the invincability mentality or just dont want to hear the
truth and only hear good things. Because most lasik goes well, they say
"I told you nothing to worry"
There are alot of complications that stand out from what ive seen. The
only complication I would not care about was ending undercorrected. I
guess it also depends how much you hate/loathe glasses and how much
glasses affect some freedoms in your life. Because I dont play sports
or take an active outdoor role, glasses are just an inconvinence but
not a hinder. Glasses give me great correctable distance vision and
taking my glasses off gives me great reading vision. I am "waiting" for
something better in the future but if nothing comes up, I am prepared
to deal with glasses forever, its much easier than dealing with a lasik
complication. Of course if lasik goes well, then good. Its the risk and
worry that something may go amiss that causes many to stick to glasses.
> 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.
My prescription was stable for 3 years before I discovered NVI and have
been improving my vision. Atropine will tell me where ill end up at.
Probably around -3 which is tons better than being over -5!
> 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.
If me and my optometrist decide orthoK is for me, if not maybe an
alternative will happen in the future. In the meantime ill enjoy
whatever improvments NVI gets me.
> 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.
I could get RGP contacts but tolerance is an issue and so is getting
dust in your eyes. RGP contacts can fall out easily and its expensive
to replace. Ive tried soft contacts and they irritate my eyes. Well
find out if any new options happen in the future that are very low
risk, reversable and effective. If not, oh well, me and most people
will stick to glasses while the risk takers try lasik and hope for the
best.
> 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.
Its a way to quantify how much blur a given prescription causes. There
is indeed a close relationship and I do know that most -1 myopes see
20/40 to 20/50 so this gives me an idea of how little blur -1 is(I have
alot of -1 friends that go without glasses) You were worse than 20/400
being nearly -5, ditto for me so I know how bad this is. I get people
that ask all the time "I have x diopters, how bad do I see" they like
to know and also compare their vision to others. I do know that myopia
blurs expotentionally more with increasing diopters. -2 is more than
twice as bad as -1, -3 several times worse than -1 and once you get to
-4 or -5 your vision is already really bad(off the charts). This is why
Ill see a big difference in my vision if I can get down from a -5 to a
-3 Ill be alot less "blind" without glasses
|
|