|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2006 > (!) 5th day post-op question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
(!) 5th day post-op question
|
|
| Scott Smith 2006-09-13, 9:27 pm |
| I had LASIK performed in Houston (Mann Eye) on the 8th, and while everything
was fine up until yesterday, when I started to feel some stinging in my
right eye, in the corner of my eye(nearest the nose). I've been applying the
refresh drops, Zymar and anti-inflammatory but the stinging only abates if I
lay down in my room with the lights out and my eyes closed. I've taken the
pain relief drops but the sensation comes and goes, and the applying the
refresh drops liberally only exacerbates the condition. I'm worried that if
the irritation persists, I could develop an infection.
I did visit the clinic closest to me yesterday and the Doctor I talked to
examined my eyes and told me the Cornea looked fine and that was the primary
concern for him. He said it looked as though there were some irritation in
the corner of my eye but that there was little chance of it escalating to
infection, as Zymar kills 99.(whatever)% of bacteria, but that if it were
going to get infected it would happen over the next 48 hours and to give
them a call if I had any questions, the condition worsened or I noticed any
discharge, although again, he seriously doubted it would come to that.
One thing I think could be a potential cause is that I have very long
eyelashes for a guy, and they tend to shed often. In my paranoia about
getting an eyelash caught in my eyee, I'd been taking my two fingers and
gently raking them over each area of my eyelashes so as to remove any
strays. Anyway, in thinking about this, it would seem that any bacteria on
my fingers would be transferred to my eyelashes. Now, sometimes when I apply
the refresh drops, they'll make contact with my lashes first, then enter my
eye. Is it possible that the irritation and stinging are due to bacteria
being introduced from my lashes into my eye via the refresh drops, perhaps?
Although,
I'd really appreciate some feedback on the issue.
Thanks,
Scott
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-13, 9:27 pm |
| Geez, sorry about all the typos. I'll try to remember that Spellcheck is my
friend next time.
| |
| Sheila G. 2006-09-13, 9:27 pm |
| Hi Scott,
I don't have an answer for you but I would ask it on:
http://www.USAEyes.org/Ask-Lasik-Expert
Keep us posted ok?
Scott Smith wrote:
> I had LASIK performed in Houston (Mann Eye) on the 8th, and while everything
> was fine up until yesterday, when I started to feel some stinging in my
> right eye, in the corner of my eye(nearest the nose). I've been applying the
> refresh drops, Zymar and anti-inflammatory but the stinging only abates if I
> lay down in my room with the lights out and my eyes closed. I've taken the
> pain relief drops but the sensation comes and goes, and the applying the
> refresh drops liberally only exacerbates the condition. I'm worried that if
> the irritation persists, I could develop an infection.
>
> I did visit the clinic closest to me yesterday and the Doctor I talked to
> examined my eyes and told me the Cornea looked fine and that was the primary
> concern for him. He said it looked as though there were some irritation in
> the corner of my eye but that there was little chance of it escalating to
> infection, as Zymar kills 99.(whatever)% of bacteria, but that if it were
> going to get infected it would happen over the next 48 hours and to give
> them a call if I had any questions, the condition worsened or I noticed any
> discharge, although again, he seriously doubted it would come to that.
>
> One thing I think could be a potential cause is that I have very long
> eyelashes for a guy, and they tend to shed often. In my paranoia about
> getting an eyelash caught in my eyee, I'd been taking my two fingers and
> gently raking them over each area of my eyelashes so as to remove any
> strays. Anyway, in thinking about this, it would seem that any bacteria on
> my fingers would be transferred to my eyelashes. Now, sometimes when I apply
> the refresh drops, they'll make contact with my lashes first, then enter my
> eye. Is it possible that the irritation and stinging are due to bacteria
> being introduced from my lashes into my eye via the refresh drops, perhaps?
> Although,
>
> I'd really appreciate some feedback on the issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-13, 9:27 pm |
| Thank you, and I'll keep you posted!
"Sheila G." <jsgmt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158191229.958637.229280@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Scott,
>
> I don't have an answer for you but I would ask it on:
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org/Ask-Lasik-Expert
>
> Keep us posted ok?
>
>
> Scott Smith wrote:
>
| |
|
|
Scott Smith wrote:
> Thank you, and I'll keep you posted!
Could be your eyelash as you said. Try not to touch and *never* rub
your eyes! Are you experiencing other problems due to lasik?
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-14, 8:23 am |
|
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158207515.981259.190270@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Scott Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> Could be your eyelash as you said. Try not to touch and *never* rub
> your eyes! Are you experiencing other problems due to lasik?
Thank you for your response.
To answer your question, fortunately no, not really, other than the expected
dry eyes, I suppose. I mean, I do have a small bit of ghosting in my right
eye, which also isn't as sharp or clear as my left(as well as just a small
bit of hazing and glare around light sources in both), but as far as actual
problems, my original post is really about it(knock on wood).
I do have an update though. I believe that my original problem is most
likely related to the brand of rewetting drops I have been using(Allergan
Refresh). I tried some GenTeal (mild to moderate) and found the irritation
alleviated. The only problem is that this particular brand leaves my eyes
somewhat blurry and the liquid feels more viscous, whereas the Refresh drops
would really clear things up and seemed to react closer to the way actual
tears affect my eyes, barring the uncomfortable stinging sensation
associated when using it liberally (more than one drop -- which I surely
need more than one in the course of an hour) or more than once every 30
minutes. However, it seems to me the main ingredient in the Refresh drops is
likely the culprit behind my original complaint, as I noticed the more I
would use of those drops at one time, the worse the condition would get,
therefore at this point I believe (more than not) that there's a causal
relationship.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-14, 8:23 am |
| "Scott Smith" <jss@westinghouse.net> wrote in message
news:ze%Ng.675910$Em2.114871@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>I had LASIK performed in Houston (Mann Eye) on the 8th, and while
>everything was fine up until yesterday, when I started to feel some
>stinging in my right eye, in the corner of my eye(nearest the nose).
>I've been applying the refresh drops, Zymar and anti-inflammatory but
>the stinging only abates if I lay down in my room with the lights out
>and my eyes closed. I've taken the pain relief drops but the sensation
>comes and goes, and the applying the refresh drops liberally only
>exacerbates the condition. I'm worried that if the irritation persists,
>I could develop an infection.
>
> I did visit the clinic closest to me yesterday and the Doctor I talked
> to examined my eyes and told me the Cornea looked fine and that was
> the primary concern for him. He said it looked as though there were
> some irritation in the corner of my eye but that there was little
> chance of it escalating to infection, as Zymar kills 99.(whatever)% of
> bacteria, but that if it were going to get infected it would happen
> over the next 48 hours and to give them a call if I had any questions,
> the condition worsened or I noticed any discharge, although again, he
> seriously doubted it would come to that.
>
> One thing I think could be a potential cause is that I have very long
> eyelashes for a guy, and they tend to shed often. In my paranoia about
> getting an eyelash caught in my eyee, I'd been taking my two fingers
> and gently raking them over each area of my eyelashes so as to remove
> any strays. Anyway, in thinking about this, it would seem that any
> bacteria on my fingers would be transferred to my eyelashes. Now,
> sometimes when I apply the refresh drops, they'll make contact with my
> lashes first, then enter my eye. Is it possible that the irritation
> and stinging are due to bacteria being introduced from my lashes into
> my eye via the refresh drops, perhaps? Although,
>
> I'd really appreciate some feedback on the issue.
I found that while I was using the antibacterial drops and the steroids
for the week after surgery that they would form up into a white gloop
over time that would eventually be shed out of the eye beside the tear
duct. Because I couldn't rub the eyes then I was very paranoid about
clearing it away so I did so very carefully. However, whilst it was a
bit uncomfortable it never stung so I'm not sure what might be happening
in your case. My eyelashes are long too but any bacteria on them is
going to get into the eye whether one is trapped or not - the
anti-biotics will kill off anything untoward.
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-14, 8:23 am |
|
"Tom Lucas" <news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1158224167.33829.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
> "Scott Smith" <jss@westinghouse.net> wrote in message
> news:ze%Ng.675910$Em2.114871@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>
> I found that while I was using the antibacterial drops and the steroids
> for the week after surgery that they would form up into a white gloop over
> time that would eventually be shed out of the eye beside the tear duct.
> Because I couldn't rub the eyes then I was very paranoid about clearing it
> away so I did so very carefully. However, whilst it was a bit
> uncomfortable it never stung so I'm not sure what might be happening in
> your case. My eyelashes are long too but any bacteria on them is going to
> get into the eye whether one is trapped or not - the anti-biotics will
> kill off anything untoward.
Thank you for your input, Tom.
It would seem the Allergan Refresh drops are a likely cause in my case.
After trying several other brands, I've found the stinging to be consistent
with the use of the aforementioned brand. I still haven't found a rewetting
drop that provides the same level of visual clarity that the Refresh drops
do, however, which is a shame.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-14, 8:23 am |
| "Scott Smith" <jss@westinghouse.net> wrote in message
news:MM9Og.296728$os2.123270@fe06.news.easynews.com...
>
> "Tom Lucas" <news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote
> in message news:1158224167.33829.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
>
> Thank you for your input, Tom.
>
> It would seem the Allergan Refresh drops are a likely cause in my
> case. After trying several other brands, I've found the stinging to be
> consistent with the use of the aforementioned brand. I still haven't
> found a rewetting drop that provides the same level of visual clarity
> that the Refresh drops do, however, which is a shame.
If you check out the "Monthly Check-up" thread started by gm4jnw@ g
mail.com a while back then it goes into some detail about different
brands or eye drops.
| |
|
| In article <MM9Og.296728$os2.123270@fe06.news.easynews.com>,
"Scott Smith" <jss@westinghouse.net> wrote:
>
> It would seem the Allergan Refresh drops are a likely cause in my case.
> After trying several other brands, I've found the stinging to be consistent
> with the use of the aforementioned brand. I still haven't found a rewetting
> drop that provides the same level of visual clarity that the Refresh drops
> do, however, which is a shame.
I had the same stinging problem with Refresh. Try Theratears. They
worked great for me.
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-14, 8:23 am |
|
"Jason" <Jrtww@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Jrtww-055661.07521814092006@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <MM9Og.296728$os2.123270@fe06.news.easynews.com>,
> "Scott Smith" <jss@westinghouse.net> wrote:
>
>
> I had the same stinging problem with Refresh. Try Theratears. They
> worked great for me.
I'll definitely do that. Thank for very much for your help!
| |
|
| >Scott Smith:
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
> To answer your question, fortunately no, not really, other than the expected
> dry eyes, I suppose. I mean, I do have a small bit of ghosting in my right
> eye, which also isn't as sharp or clear as my left(as well as just a small
> bit of hazing and glare around light sources in both), but as far as actual
> problems, my original post is really about it(knock on wood).
Lasik causes a drier eye in everyone, even that lady I know in person
admits it. Her eyes are still dry 3 years later and she uses eyedrops.
Other than that, she appears to be happy with her lasik 20/20. So your
right eye is 20/25 or so and the left is 20/15?
>He seemed impressed that I was able to make out some of
>the letters on the 20/10 line.
Could be a lucky guess as well as an improperly distanced eyechart. I
have visited two lasik clinics and *mysteriously* scored a 20/20 BCVA
with glasses or thru a phororapter. Every optometrist I went, I never
did better than 20/25 BCVA. I now realise lasik clinics are very
generous as well as they "tweak" their eyechart to pump out as many
20/20+ results as possible!
"My eyes are dry, but this is true for nearly every LASIK
patient from what I understand."
Correct! Do you feel dry eyes and other tradeoffs were worth it? Dry
eyes is one reason I am not touching lasik. I know how annoying it is
with contacts!
"Before I elected to have the procedure
performed, I read all of "the sky is falling" comments. I was fully
aware of
the potential complications. However, I've known at least two people
who've
had the procedure performed and swear by it to this day."
So do I. I know more people than I care to count who got lasik(most
online) and know of good, neutral and bad results. You did your part
reserching about lasik. I guess you are alot more tolerant of risks and
tradeoffs than I am. I am not willing to risk lasik and compromise my
eyes.
"I've NEVER been able to see anywhere CLOSE to 20/15, much less
20/10. That's utterly miraculous."
You never mentioned your prescription before lasik, but if you cant see
the eyechart, its probably very high. One good reason you didnt see
20/15 with glasses is the minification made it too small. Another
reason is your glasses were outdated, years old and no longer quite
correct for your eyes which have changed in those years. If you are
able to resolve such fine details, you can thank your retina's
rods/cones density.
"I assume that most of the patients who have LASIK performed are quite
dehydrated in general, which would explain the dry eye experienced by
most
of them, including me."
I dont have dry eyes. Dry eyes are because lasik damages the nerves.
You read this and you know this fact.
"Anyway, if I hadn't known the people who've had great results, I would
be
much more paranoid. I actually backed out of the procedure a few years
ago
because I was too scared of the possible complications."
Just because you know a couple people with good results doesnt mean
others or even you would have a good result. Its like knowing someone
who won $5000 in gambling, doesnt mean you or anyone else will. Lots of
luck could cause others to win, but far more would lose. Someone's
results in anything to do with luck is exclusive of another's results
and wont increase their odds.
"However, I still
can't believe how well I can see now. I don't have to reach for my
glasses
anymore. For a guy with damaged eyes, I must say I see better now than
I
ever have in my entire life."
Again, what was your prescription?
" Also, I believe
in God and feel that if it was in his plan for me to have dry eye then
that's the way it'll be and there's nothing I can do about it."
What does god have to do with it? Dry eyes is an effect of lasik and
has nothing to do with god or religion.
"Personally, I'm one who believes that with proper nutrition, hydration
and
the use of varying alternative therapies, the body can most definitely
rebuild itself from virtually anything, aside from growing a new limb
or
appendage.. I'm a strong believer in alternative medicine and therapies
myself. For instance, I've seen reflexology stop my sons earache within
minutes, and that was quite a feat given his level of pain."
You got me wondering why you didnt dry natural vision improvement or
the Bates method to seeing clearly. You could have reduced your
prescription. I have tried that and experienced around a 1 diopter
improvement/reduction in my myopia. Who knows how much you could have
improved?
| |
| Todd Rich 2006-09-15, 2:25 am |
| Ace <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
> Lasik causes a drier eye in everyone, even that lady I know in person
> admits it. Her eyes are still dry 3 years later and she uses eyedrops.
> Other than that, she appears to be happy with her lasik 20/20. So your
> right eye is 20/25 or so and the left is 20/15?
(snorp)
Hold it right there. That is provably false. I had Lasik a little over a
year and a half ago and my eyes are not dry. I have not used drops in
over a year and I spend about 10-12 hours a day in front of a computer.
My eyes feel no different than before I had the surgery. So no it doesn't
cause drier eyes in everybone.
($.50 says that I will get a response from Ace telling me that I am either
A: Lying.
B: Have drier eyes and just don't know it.
or
C: Have some genetic defect that causes some increased tear production.)
| |
| serebel 2006-09-15, 2:25 am |
|
Todd Rich wrote:
> Ace <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (snip)
> (snorp)
>
> Hold it right there. That is provably false. I had Lasik a little over a
> year and a half ago and my eyes are not dry. I have not used drops in
> over a year and I spend about 10-12 hours a day in front of a computer.
> My eyes feel no different than before I had the surgery. So no it doesn't
> cause drier eyes in everybone.
>
> ($.50 says that I will get a response from Ace telling me that I am either
> A: Lying.
> B: Have drier eyes and just don't know it.
> or
> C: Have some genetic defect that causes some increased tear production.)
The retard's "assumptions" are absolutely false. He just paints the
broad brush of the flappie line. He's a moron who refuses to know
better.
| |
|
| bullshit... plain and simple.
I had lasik 9 years ago and my eyes are fine to the point that I wear contact
lenses when the mood strikes me.
jesus... Ace you are turning into a creepy little internet stalker.
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158289367.334386.206650@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
>
> Lasik causes a drier eye in everyone, even that lady I know in person
SNIP - Ace crap
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-15, 4:24 pm |
|
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158289367.334386.206650@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Lasik causes a drier eye in everyone, even that lady I know in person
> admits it. Her eyes are still dry 3 years later and she uses eyedrops.
> Other than that, she appears to be happy with her lasik 20/20. So your
> right eye is 20/25 or so and the left is 20/15?
No, both eyes are 20/15, but I can make out some letters on the 20/10 chart
with my left eye.
>
>
> Could be a lucky guess as well as an improperly distanced eyechart. I
> have visited two lasik clinics and *mysteriously* scored a 20/20 BCVA
> with glasses or thru a phororapter. Every optometrist I went, I never
> did better than 20/25 BCVA. I now realise lasik clinics are very
> generous as well as they "tweak" their eyechart to pump out as many
> 20/20+ results as possible!
That's possible, and it's also possible I'm doing as well as it appears.
Which LASIK centers did you visit that had these fudged eye charts, by the
way?
> "My eyes are dry, but this is true for nearly every LASIK
> patient from what I understand."
>
>
> Correct! Do you feel dry eyes and other tradeoffs were worth it? Dry
> eyes is one reason I am not touching lasik. I know how annoying it is
> with contacts!
I wore contacts for years. The only reason I stopped was the associated cost
of buying the various solutions that are needed to clean them and keep them
up. The biggest turn-off for me was having to remove them on a regular
basis, and the stress of worrying about them flying out of my eye(s) in a
strong gust of wind or some such. In other words, it was more trouble than
it was worth for me. I've never really had much of a problem with dry eyes
while wearing contacts unless I kept them in for very extended periods.
In comparison, so far I think the trade-off has really been worth it, but
you know, this is still new to me. Maybe I'll see it differently later. I
would just say that I think there are
drawbacks to practically any type of vision correction, whether it be
having to taking out/off your contacts/glasses to perform certain tasks
or put in drops to keep your eyes moist or what have you. By the same token
there are obviously drawbacks to not using any vision correction at all,
such as not being able to make anything out with any clarity, drive, etc.
It's just a matter of deciding which poison you're going to pick.
I respect your opinion, although one thing I love
about what I'm experiencing right now is not having to mess with glasses
when I get up or go to bed. I don't have to wipe them off because they're
cloudy or deal with the loss of peripheral vision in them. All of that is
gone. I get the benefits of contacts without what I consider all of the
associated hassle.
If the trade-off is that I have to keep my eyes more moist than I did
before so that my vision doesn't blur up or cause stinging then obviously
that's a drawback to LASIK, but that's one not four and it's probably a
little premature of me to say I prefer LASIK to anything else when I've only
experienced it for roughly 7 days now. Overall, I'd say I've had a more
positive than negative impression of LASIK right now though. Whether it'll
stay that way, I don't know but it's a chance I took and now I have to live
with it. I plan on making the best of this, however. I placed my bets and
rolled the dice. Only time will tell now.
> "Before I elected to have the procedure
> performed, I read all of "the sky is falling" comments. I was fully
> aware of
> the potential complications. However, I've known at least two people
> who've
> had the procedure performed and swear by it to this day."
>
> So do I. I know more people than I care to count who got lasik(most
> online) and know of good, neutral and bad results. You did your part
> reserching about lasik. I guess you are alot more tolerant of risks and
> tradeoffs than I am. I am not willing to risk lasik and compromise my
> eyes.
Just as I would never try to make someone feel bad for not electing to have
LASIK performed if they had the chance, I'm sure you can respect others
decisions, such as mine, to have the procedure performed, even if you feel
the complications outweigh the benefits.
> "I've NEVER been able to see anywhere CLOSE to 20/15, much less
> 20/10. That's utterly miraculous."
>
>
> You never mentioned your prescription before lasik, but if you cant see
> the eyechart, its probably very high. One good reason you didnt see
> 20/15 with glasses is the minification made it too small. Another
> reason is your glasses were outdated, years old and no longer quite
> correct for your eyes which have changed in those years. If you are
> able to resolve such fine details, you can thank your retina's
> rods/cones density.
My vision before LASIK:
Right eye: -3.50
Left eye: -3.25
Actually, my prescription hadn't really changed a whole lot over the last 5
years, which is how long it had been since my last prescription.
> "I assume that most of the patients who have LASIK performed are quite
> dehydrated in general, which would explain the dry eye experienced by
> most
> of them, including me."
>
>
> I dont have dry eyes. Dry eyes are because lasik damages the nerves.
> You read this and you know this fact.
Repetitive Stress Injuries also damage nerves but proper hydration can
resolve much of the associated complications. Many activities (including
surgery) can damage nerves in various parts of the body, but who said nerve
damage is permanent or cannot partially or completely reversed with proper
hydration? Back problems and arthritis are nerve related issues that can
most certainly be resolved in many cases with proper hydration. I know this
firsthand.
> "Anyway, if I hadn't known the people who've had great results, I would
> be
> much more paranoid. I actually backed out of the procedure a few years
> ago
> because I was too scared of the possible complications."
>
>
> Just because you know a couple people with good results doesnt mean
> others or even you would have a good result. Its like knowing someone
> who won $5000 in gambling, doesnt mean you or anyone else will. Lots of
> luck could cause others to win, but far more would lose. Someone's
> results in anything to do with luck is exclusive of another's results
> and wont increase their odds.
Sure, but this applies to anything. Just because others haven't had an
accident in a car doesn't mean you won't, but does that stop you from
getting in a car? Cars are dangerous, after all. Look how many people get
killed in them every year. Do you still drive in spite of the accident
statistics? You never know what another person on the road is going to do
and you take your chances every day. However, if a person were really that
concerned, they could find a job close to home and take a bicycle to work.
Cars are just much more convenient though, so we take our chances, even
though we put our lives (not just our eyes) at risk every day in them.
> "However, I still
> can't believe how well I can see now. I don't have to reach for my
> glasses
> anymore. For a guy with damaged eyes, I must say I see better now than
> I
> ever have in my entire life."
>
>
> Again, what was your prescription?
(above)
> " Also, I believe
> in God and feel that if it was in his plan for me to have dry eye then
> that's the way it'll be and there's nothing I can do about it."
>
>
> What does god have to do with it? Dry eyes is an effect of lasik and
> has nothing to do with god or religion.
If you don't believe in God or ascribe to Christianity then you likely won't
understand what I meant and that's alright.
> "Personally, I'm one who believes that with proper nutrition, hydration
> and
> the use of varying alternative therapies, the body can most definitely
> rebuild itself from virtually anything, aside from growing a new limb
> or
> appendage.. I'm a strong believer in alternative medicine and therapies
>
> myself. For instance, I've seen reflexology stop my sons earache within
>
> minutes, and that was quite a feat given his level of pain."
>
>
> You got me wondering why you didnt dry natural vision improvement or
> the Bates method to seeing clearly.
What makes you think I didn't? I bought the book, "Improve you Eyesight(A
Guide to the Bates Method for Better Eyesight without Glasses" by Jonathan
Barnes back in 2000 and while I think there was some improvement, it was
slow and methodical, and the payoff wasn't exactly what I'd consider worth
jumping up and down about. I stuck with it for a couple of months and
finally decided that it was just more trouble than it was worth. Alas, my
vision settled back into what it was before naturally and so I just stuck
with glasses. It was far easier than performing the myriad exercises they
suggest. I never did gain the ability to watch TV or read well enough
without my glasses though. The bottom line is I don't have the patience for
it. If you do then that's cool. I wasn't impressed with the results, the
time it took or the number of exercises involved. It's certainly not a
relatively quick solution by any stretch.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-15, 4:24 pm |
| "Scott Smith" <jss@westinghouse.net> wrote in message
news:bXzOg.22974$Dk3.12508@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>
> "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158289367.334386.206650@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> No, both eyes are 20/15, but I can make out some letters on the 20/10
> chart
> with my left eye.
One must be careful not to stare for too long or squint otherwise you
get a false impression but it sounds like you've got a good result
there.
Or maybe the optometrist has doctored charts to put more people into
glasses? Or perhaps all the charts are the same and the variable lies
elsewhere...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That's possible, and it's also possible I'm doing as well as it
> appears.
> Which LASIK centers did you visit that had these fudged eye charts, by
> the
> way?
>
He is correct in that not all Lasik patients have dry eye - this was
proved in another thread this morning.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> My vision before LASIK:
>
> Right eye: -3.50
> Left eye: -3.25
>
> Actually, my prescription hadn't really changed a whole lot over the
> last 5 years, which is how long it had been since my last
> prescription.
Which means you have a good chance of avoiding regression in the future.
> Repetitive Stress Injuries also damage nerves but proper hydration can
> resolve much of the associated complications. Many activities
> (including surgery) can damage nerves in various parts of the body,
> but who said nerve damage is permanent or cannot partially or
> completely reversed with proper hydration? Back problems and
> arthritis are nerve related issues that can most certainly be resolved
> in many cases with proper hydration. I know this firsthand.
Are you sponsored by a hydration company ;-) I agree that most people
don't drink enough water. I think I probably drink too much but I've
nearly got it cut down to sensible levels.
>
> If you don't believe in God or ascribe to Christianity then you likely
> won't understand what I meant and that's alright.
I'm fascinated by religion but that is because I am on the outside
looking in. Belief interests me and I often wonder whether I'd like to
believe in something as strongly as religious people do. I do know that
it is not necessary to have religion in your life to be a good person or
to have good mental wellbeing but I also know that religion can be a
very destructive thing in some people.
However, some people do need it for them to be happy and so I guess that
it is a good thing for them. I think one of the aspects that interests
me is that, because it plays no role in my life, I only think about it
when I'm in a philosophical mood whereas for the followers it is
something they have to think about constantly because it is the most
important thing to them. I suppose if you believe that there is a God
peering down at you then there can be nothing bigger - it is the top of
the ladder.
However, I'm wandering off topic...
> What makes you think I didn't? I bought the book, "Improve you
> Eyesight(A Guide to the Bates Method for Better Eyesight without
> Glasses" by Jonathan Barnes back in 2000 and while I think there was
> some improvement, it was slow and methodical, and the payoff wasn't
> exactly what I'd consider worth jumping up and down about. I stuck
> with it for a couple of months and finally decided that it was just
> more trouble than it was worth. Alas, my vision settled back into what
> it was before naturally and so I just stuck with glasses. It was far
> easier than performing the myriad exercises they suggest. I never did
> gain the ability to watch TV or read well enough without my glasses
> though. The bottom line is I don't have the patience for it. If you do
> then that's cool. I wasn't impressed with the results, the time it
> took or the number of exercises involved. It's certainly not a
> relatively quick solution by any stretch.
I've considered this in case my enhancement doesn't get me all the way
to plano but I also wonder whether a cheap pair of glasses is just
easier.
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-15, 4:24 pm |
|
"Tom Lucas" <news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1158337502.8471.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
> "Scott Smith" <jss@westinghouse.net> wrote in message
> news:bXzOg.22974$Dk3.12508@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>
> One must be careful not to stare for too long or squint otherwise you get
> a false impression but it sounds like you've got a good result there.
>
>
> Or maybe the optometrist has doctored charts to put more people into
> glasses? Or perhaps all the charts are the same and the variable lies
> elsewhere...
>
>
> He is correct in that not all Lasik patients have dry eye - this was
> proved in another thread this morning.
>
>
>
> Which means you have a good chance of avoiding regression in the future.
>
>
> Are you sponsored by a hydration company ;-)
Just a hydration enthusiast. 
>
> I'm fascinated by religion but that is because I am on the outside looking
> in. Belief interests me and I often wonder whether I'd like to believe in
> something as strongly as religious people do. I do know that it is not
> necessary to have religion in your life to be a good person or to have
> good mental wellbeing but I also know that religion can be a very
> destructive thing in some people.
>
> However, some people do need it for them to be happy and so I guess that
> it is a good thing for them. I think one of the aspects that interests me
> is that, because it plays no role in my life, I only think about it when
> I'm in a philosophical mood whereas for the followers it is something they
> have to think about constantly because it is the most important thing to
> them. I suppose if you believe that there is a God peering down at you
> then there can be nothing bigger - it is the top of the ladder.
>
> However, I'm wandering off topic...
>
>
> I've considered this in case my enhancement doesn't get me all the way to
> plano but I also wonder whether a cheap pair of glasses is just easier.
This is just my opinion of course, but in your particular case, it may be
worth it to try the Bates Method first, as I would think opting early for
reading glasses may result in your eyes becoming even more strained and
hence ultimately falling into the vicious cycle of needing a stronger pair,
getting used to them and then needing an even stronger pair. If the Bates
Method doesn't cut it for you, then maybe consider a cheap pair as an
alternative. Again, solely my opinion.
| |
|
| Scott Smith:
> No, both eyes are 20/15, but I can make out some letters on the 20/10 chart
> with my left eye.
How well did glasses correct you? Contacts?
> That's possible, and it's also possible I'm doing as well as it appears.
> Which LASIK centers did you visit that had these fudged eye charts, by the
> way?
They all do that. I score a line better at a lasik center when I got my
eye exam there than at an optometrist center that doesnt also offer
lasik. When they showed me the 20/20 line, I honestly thought it was
the 20/25 line. I couldnt believe it when I was told it was 20/20! The
20/25 line was *too* easy to see and it appeared larger than I thought.
I was about 7 feet from the eyechart and mirrors are used. Im thinking
the aspect was incorrect and the letters are larger than they should
actually be.
The question that begs asking is, do you feel your vision acuity is
better after lasik than with glasses? Contacts? Forget the eyechart for
a moment, look out the window at trees and buildings. Look in the real
world outside an eyechart.
> I wore contacts for years. The only reason I stopped was the associated cost
> of buying the various solutions that are needed to clean them and keep them
> up. The biggest turn-off for me was having to remove them on a regular
> basis, and the stress of worrying about them flying out of my eye(s) in a
> strong gust of wind or some such. In other words, it was more trouble than
> it was worth for me. I've never really had much of a problem with dry eyes
> while wearing contacts unless I kept them in for very extended periods.
Then you got ripped off. Should have used this:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B...01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Cheap, easy and long lasting. Its all every contact wearer needs.
Removing contacts is not a real hassle, takes just a moment. Glasses
are far more hassle! Ive tried both contacts and glasses and I stick to
glasses only because contacts dry my eyes and cause discomfort. I am
getting orthoK to address this and reduce my dependency on glasses.
> In comparison, so far I think the trade-off has really been worth it, but
> you know, this is still new to me. Maybe I'll see it differently later. I
> would just say that I think there are
> drawbacks to practically any type of vision correction, whether it be
> having to taking out/off your contacts/glasses to perform certain tasks
> or put in drops to keep your eyes moist or what have you. By the same token
> there are obviously drawbacks to not using any vision correction at all,
> such as not being able to make anything out with any clarity, drive, etc.
> It's just a matter of deciding which poison you're going to pick.
Thats correct. If someone has more than -2 of myopia, they are going to
need correction. Theres glasses, soft and RGP contacts, orthoK, lasik
and other RS. Glasses is the safest option of course but not always the
most convinent. Contacts have a very slight risk but are much more
convinent than glasses if you can tolerate them. OrthoK is slightly
more convinent than contacts but usually not worth it if you tolerate
contacts. OrthoK is great for glasses wearers who dont mind the minimal
inconvinence of sleeping in their retainer lenses every other night and
to take *one* minute to insert/remove them.
> I respect your opinion, although one thing I love
> about what I'm experiencing right now is not having to mess with glasses
> when I get up or go to bed. I don't have to wipe them off because they're
> cloudy or deal with the loss of peripheral vision in them. All of that is
> gone. I get the benefits of contacts without what I consider all of the
> associated hassle.
Thats true. However contact wearers can pop them in as soon as they
wake up then forget they are wearing contacts till they remove them. I
wish it was the case for me but when I insert the contacts, I can feel
their presence!
> If the trade-off is that I have to keep my eyes more moist than I did
> before so that my vision doesn't blur up or cause stinging then obviously
> that's a drawback to LASIK, but that's one not four and it's probably a
> little premature of me to say I prefer LASIK to anything else when I've only
> experienced it for roughly 7 days now. Overall, I'd say I've had a more
> positive than negative impression of LASIK right now though. Whether it'll
> stay that way, I don't know but it's a chance I took and now I have to live
> with it. I plan on making the best of this, however. I placed my bets and
> rolled the dice. Only time will tell now.
Also true. If you felt you were 100% informed about the risks and
tradeoff, you can rest easy knowing you werent tricked or misled into
lasik, but made a voluntary decision. Its irreversable so you have to
make the best of lasik for both its good and bad aspects. Its those
most upset about lasik who were *not* informed about it. They said they
would have *never* gotten lasik had they known all its risks and
tradeoffs. In other words, they were tricked and misinformed. If I were
to get lasik now, I would have no one but myself to blame because I
know what to expect of lasik and its potentional problems and know what
id be getting myself into. Thats the beauty of being informed, the
power of knowing the truth and being able to make a fully informed
decision. I have chosen *not* to get lasik due to light of all the
problems it causes. I know 90% are happy with lasik but I can not
accept the risks and tradeoffs.
> Just as I would never try to make someone feel bad for not electing to have
> LASIK performed if they had the chance, I'm sure you can respect others
> decisions, such as mine, to have the procedure performed, even if you feel
> the complications outweigh the benefits.
I cant tell others what to do, I can only present the facts and let
them make their own decision. The only thing I have a problem is when
someone is in denial about the facts. If someone knows and understands
the facts and risks and what hes getting into when he wants lasik, that
is his eyes to risk and I wish them luck. I could get lasik tomorrow if
I was inclined. Others can influence my decision but no one can
ultimately decide on my behalf. Ragnar tells me not to get orthoK and I
weigh his influence but he cant stop me from doing so, only help in my
thinking and decision process. It would be my own fault if I was
unhappy about orthoK, but it was my own decision and I take
responsability for my actions. If you ended up regretting lasik, it was
your own decision you made of your own free will and you read the
facts, rolled the dice and took a chance. Millions of people get lasik
every year and many millions more decide *not* to get lasik.
> My vision before LASIK:
>
> Right eye: -3.50
> Left eye: -3.25
>
> Actually, my prescription hadn't really changed a whole lot over the last 5
> years, which is how long it had been since my last prescription.
Thats your glasses prescription? What were you refracted at prior to
your lasik and how much astigmatism did you have? It is highly likley
you had a little that your contacts didnt correct which your lasik did
which is why you see better. Have/had you even thought about orthoK?
Could correct your ~20/300 vision to like 20/15!
> Sure, but this applies to anything. Just because others haven't had an
> accident in a car doesn't mean you won't, but does that stop you from
> getting in a car? Cars are dangerous, after all. Look how many people get
> killed in them every year. Do you still drive in spite of the accident
> statistics? You never know what another person on the road is going to do
> and you take your chances every day. However, if a person were really that
> concerned, they could find a job close to home and take a bicycle to work.
> Cars are just much more convenient though, so we take our chances, even
> though we put our lives (not just our eyes) at risk every day in them.
Thats the excuse people give to justify the elective risks they take.
Driving and lasik are two different things. Lasik is elective, driving
isnt if you want to get anywhere.
> What makes you think I didn't? I bought the book, "Improve you Eyesight(A
> Guide to the Bates Method for Better Eyesight without Glasses" by Jonathan
> Barnes back in 2000 and while I think there was some improvement, it was
> slow and methodical, and the payoff wasn't exactly what I'd consider worth
> jumping up and down about. I stuck with it for a couple of months and
> finally decided that it was just more trouble than it was worth. Alas, my
> vision settled back into what it was before naturally and so I just stuck
> with glasses. It was far easier than performing the myriad exercises they
> suggest. I never did gain the ability to watch TV or read well enough
> without my glasses though. The bottom line is I don't have the patience for
> it. If you do then that's cool. I wasn't impressed with the results, the
> time it took or the number of exercises involved. It's certainly not a
> relatively quick solution by any stretch.
It works for some. Wish it worked better for you then you could avoid
the risks of lasik. I have done some of that and improved my vision a
little, permanently. OrthoK will further improve my vision and the
small bit of myopia I have left wont matter except needing glasses to
drive.
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-16, 4:26 pm |
|
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158386660.170626.141770@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Scott Smith:
>
>
> How well did glasses correct you? Contacts?
I've been able to attain 20/20 in both.
>
>
> They all do that.
How many LASIK centers have you been to?
> The question that begs asking is, do you feel your vision acuity is
> better after lasik than with glasses? Contacts? Forget the eyechart for
> a moment, look out the window at trees and buildings. Look in the real
> world outside an eyechart.
Forgetting the eyechart for a moment, I've honestly never seen this much
clarity and detail with either glasses or contacts. I can see particles
floating around in the air with near crystal clarity outside or sitting in
my car, while trees and buildings have a shine and detail that I've never
really experienced with either contacts or glasses. To offer an example,
it's like comparing regular TV and HDTV.
>
>
> Then you got ripped off. Should have used this:
>
> http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B...01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
>
> Cheap, easy and long lasting. Its all every contact wearer needs.
> Removing contacts is not a real hassle, takes just a moment. Glasses
> are far more hassle! Ive tried both contacts and glasses and I stick to
> glasses only because contacts dry my eyes and cause discomfort. I am
> getting orthoK to address this and reduce my dependency on glasses.
My hangup with contacts has nothing to do with dry eye really. As I
explained, I just don't like contacts because sometimes slide around and go
into the corners or up into your lid, forcing you to search around for it,
or you lose one, which I've done on occasion either from wind or some such,
which involves the hassle of re-ordering and then waiting for them to come
in. Then there's the issue of having to remove and disinfect them; the
upkeep. You know, each of those reasons probably isn't such a big deal when
taken individually, but when combined, it's just too much of a hassle for
me.
>
>
> Thats correct. If someone has more than -2 of myopia, they are going to
> need correction. Theres glasses, soft and RGP contacts, orthoK, lasik
> and other RS. Glasses is the safest option of course but not always the
> most convinent. Contacts have a very slight risk but are much more
> convinent than glasses if you can tolerate them. OrthoK is slightly
> more convinent than contacts but usually not worth it if you tolerate
> contacts. OrthoK is great for glasses wearers who dont mind the minimal
> inconvinence of sleeping in their retainer lenses every other night and
> to take *one* minute to insert/remove them.
To each their own, I say. We all have our own criteria as to what we
consider convenient and suitable for us, I suppose. What's right for me
obviously won't be right for someone else and vice versa. Anyway, I say if
OrthoK is something you consider right for you, then that's cool. It might
not be something I prefer but like I said, to each their own. I hope it
works for you.
>
>
> Thats true. However contact wearers can pop them in as soon as they
> wake up then forget they are wearing contacts till they remove them. I
> wish it was the case for me but when I insert the contacts, I can feel
> their presence!
In my experience, I can sort of relate. Some days in contacts were better
than others for me. Some days I wouldn't really notice them very much, while
others it seemed I just couldn't get them to sit right, or they'd be
somewhat irritating. Overall, I had a more positive experience in contacts
than not in that respect, but the associated care and cost was ultimately
too much for me.
>
>
> Also true. If you felt you were 100% informed about the risks and
> tradeoff, you can rest easy knowing you werent tricked or misled into
> lasik, but made a voluntary decision. Its irreversable so you have to
> make the best of lasik for both its good and bad aspects. Its those
> most upset about lasik who were *not* informed about it. They said they
> would have *never* gotten lasik had they known all its risks and
> tradeoffs. In other words, they were tricked and misinformed. If I were
> to get lasik now, I would have no one but myself to blame because I
> know what to expect of lasik and its potentional problems and know what
> id be getting myself into. Thats the beauty of being informed, the
> power of knowing the truth and being able to make a fully informed
> decision. I have chosen *not* to get lasik due to light of all the
> problems it causes. I know 90% are happy with lasik but I can not
> accept the risks and tradeoffs.
>
>
>
>
> I cant tell others what to do, I can only present the facts and let
> them make their own decision. The only thing I have a problem is when
> someone is in denial about the facts. If someone knows and understands
> the facts and risks and what hes getting into when he wants lasik, that
> is his eyes to risk and I wish them luck. I could get lasik tomorrow if
> I was inclined. Others can influence my decision but no one can
> ultimately decide on my behalf. Ragnar tells me not to get orthoK and I
> weigh his influence but he cant stop me from doing so, only help in my
> thinking and decision process. It would be my own fault if I was
> unhappy about orthoK, but it was my own decision and I take
> responsability for my actions. If you ended up regretting lasik, it was
> your own decision you made of your own free will and you read the
> facts, rolled the dice and took a chance. Millions of people get lasik
> every year and many millions more decide *not* to get lasik.
>
>
>
>
> Thats your glasses prescription? What were you refracted at prior to
> your lasik and how much astigmatism did you have? It is highly likley
> you had a little that your contacts didnt correct which your lasik did
> which is why you see better. Have/had you even thought about orthoK?
> Could correct your ~20/300 vision to like 20/15!
Well, here again, there's the issue of having to put in lenses at certain
intervals to maintain the results. For someone else this may be perfectly
suitable, but at this point I'm more interested in a solution that doesn't
involve contacts or glasses in any capacity. I just want to be able to get
up in the morning and go. If I have to apply a couple of drops to my eyes to
moisten them, well, that's better for me than having to go to the bathroom
and remove a couple of contacts but again, that's just me. To each their
own.
>
> Thats the excuse people give to justify the elective risks they take.
> Driving and lasik are two different things. Lasik is elective, driving
> isnt if you want to get anywhere.
Well, this isn't 'necessarily' true, although you're right that for some
people driving isn't elective. I should also add that the above wasn't meant
as a literal analogy but a figurative one. Some people, like myself, live in
areas where everything is, for the most part, within walking distance, so
driving could be considered elective for some people, like me.
Moreover though, unless you drive strictly to work and back, or to the store
to get food and back, you're likely driving to places that aren't required,
therefore you're putting yourself at risk unnecessarily. Again, people
choose to take risks every day (driving or otherwise) that they could easily
avoid. Instead of driving to work, many people could choose to take a bus or
a bike, or they could find a job closer to home to enable those options.
There are certainly other options for many people though, but for the most
part cars are simply more convenient, so people take their chances.
>
>
> It works for some. Wish it worked better for you then you could avoid
> the risks of lasik. I have done some of that and improved my vision a
> little, permanently. OrthoK will further improve my vision and the
> small bit of myopia I have left wont matter except needing glasses to
> drive.
I wish it had worked better for me as well, and although neither was right
for me in the end, I do wish you the best of luck with OrthoK.
| |
|
| Scott Smith:
> I've been able to attain 20/20 in both.
Why not better? Your eyes are capable of 20/15, why would your
optometrist only correct you to 20/20?
> How many LASIK centers have you been to?
A couple but I know others who also report bias. Ive made threads about
this matter.
> Forgetting the eyechart for a moment, I've honestly never seen this much
> clarity and detail with either glasses or contacts. I can see particles
> floating around in the air with near crystal clarity outside or sitting in
> my car, while trees and buildings have a shine and detail that I've never
> really experienced with either contacts or glasses. To offer an example,
> it's like comparing regular TV and HDTV.
Then you werent prescribed the correct power and/or your prescription
was outdated. You mentioned it had been 5 years with the same glasses.
Your eyes got a bit worse in the meantime so those glasses were a bit
weak. You likley also had a bit of astigmatism which your contacts
couldnt correct. I guess its good in a way because it makes for a very
happy person. I know of people who avoid getting stronger glasses if
they are going to get lasik within 2 years so that way they can get the
"wow" factor of lasik being better than glasses. One guy even told the
optometrist to correct him to only 20/40 with glasses so he would be
happy if lasik gave him 20/30 or better.
> My hangup with contacts has nothing to do with dry eye really. As I
> explained, I just don't like contacts because sometimes slide around and go
> into the corners or up into your lid, forcing you to search around for it,
> or you lose one, which I've done on occasion either from wind or some such,
> which involves the hassle of re-ordering and then waiting for them to come
> in. Then there's the issue of having to remove and disinfect them; the
> upkeep. You know, each of those reasons probably isn't such a big deal when
> taken individually, but when combined, it's just too much of a hassle for
> me.
I never had that problem with contacts, granted I almost never wear
them because they just arent comfortable. In your case, comfort wasnt a
significent issue. Netherless, you probably could have tried orthoK
first then the only problem youd have is inserting and removing them
every other day. You cant get any more convinent than that.
> To each their own, I say. We all have our own criteria as to what we
> consider convenient and suitable for us, I suppose. What's right for me
> obviously won't be right for someone else and vice versa. Anyway, I say if
> OrthoK is something you consider right for you, then that's cool. It might
> not be something I prefer but like I said, to each their own. I hope it
> works for you.
I hope so too, but in the unlikley event it doesnt, its fully
reversable and ill just go back to glasses. If someone isnt happy with
lasik, thats it.
> In my experience, I can sort of relate. Some days in contacts were better
> than others for me. Some days I wouldn't really notice them very much, while
> others it seemed I just couldn't get them to sit right, or they'd be
> somewhat irritating. Overall, I had a more positive experience in contacts
> than not in that respect, but the associated care and cost was ultimately
> too much for me.
Then why didnt you stick with glasses if you make out contacts to be so
much trouble? You didnt have a very high prescription so your glasses
werent thick.
> Well, here again, there's the issue of having to put in lenses at certain
> intervals to maintain the results. For someone else this may be perfectly
> suitable, but at this point I'm more interested in a solution that doesn't
> involve contacts or glasses in any capacity. I just want to be able to get
> up in the morning and go. If I have to apply a couple of drops to my eyes to
> moisten them, well, that's better for me than having to go to the bathroom
> and remove a couple of contacts but again, that's just me. To each their
> own.
With orthoK, you see as soon as you wake! All you then have to do is
pop out the lenses and enjoy crisp vision for days! Applying drops in
your eye is as much hassle as removing the orthoK lenses(in my opinion)
> I wish it had worked better for me as well, and although neither was right
> for me in the end, I do wish you the best of luck with OrthoK.
Well your vision is between 20/15 and 20/10 after lasik, an unusual
event indeed. I am not sure if my optics and retina are capable of
resolving such fine details. I dont even correct to 20/20 with glasses
so relistically, the best I expect is 20/20 corrected after orthoK.
Perhaps in the future, there will be ways to give humans super vision
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-17, 8:28 am |
|
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158473355.398604.314890@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Scott Smith:
>
>
> Why not better? Your eyes are capable of 20/15, why would your
> optometrist only correct you to 20/20?
No idea. I've never been able to see 20/20, regardless of the optometrist
though.
> A couple but I know others who also report bias. Ive made threads about
> this matter.
Would that really qualify as 'all' or even a reference sample? I'm not
questioning you to open a debate at all(namely because I'm not at all
interested in debating the issue), as you're entitled to feel or believe
whatever you like, in my opinion.
>
> Then you werent prescribed the correct power and/or your prescription
> was outdated. You mentioned it had been 5 years with the same glasses.
> Your eyes got a bit worse in the meantime so those glasses were a bit
> weak.
While I appreciate your input, that's not quite accurate. My eyes have
changed very little in the last 10 years actually.
> You likley also had a bit of astigmatism which your contacts
> couldnt correct. I guess its good in a way because it makes for a very
> happy person. I know of people who avoid getting stronger glasses if
> they are going to get lasik within 2 years so that way they can get the
> "wow" factor of lasik being better than glasses. One guy even told the
> optometrist to correct him to only 20/40 with glasses so he would be
> happy if lasik gave him 20/30 or better.
Well, I can understand where they're coming from. It's a rather vicious
cycle for a lot of people, the constant and never-ending downward spiral of
stronger and stronger prescriptions.
>
> I never had that problem with contacts, granted I almost never wear
> them because they just arent comfortable. In your case, comfort wasnt a
> significent issue. Netherless, you probably could have tried orthoK
> first then the only problem youd have is inserting and removing them
> every other day. You cant get any more convinent than that.
That's your opinion and with all due respect, I think LASIK (assuming it
works out for me) is more convenient in my case. Maybe you prefer dealing
with contacts as opposed to surgery, but that's you. Further, have you even
tried OrthoK yet? Personally, and this is just _me_, I'm tired of dealing
with contacts and glasses in any capacity and that's the bottom line, but
like I said, if you like OrthoK or dealing with contacts then I say more
power to you. I'm certainly not trying to convince you to get LASIK, and I
can assure you I wouldn't have opted for OrthoK over LASIK due to the
aforementioned reasons.
>
> I hope so too, but in the unlikley event it doesnt, its fully
> reversable and ill just go back to glasses. If someone isnt happy with
> lasik, thats it.
Of course, but that's already been established.
>
> Then why didnt you stick with glasses if you make out contacts to be so
> much trouble? You didnt have a very high prescription so your glasses
> werent thick.
Because glasses are even more trouble than contacts for me. Again, glasses
are what *I* consider a hassle _*for me*_, but I think we've also
established this a few responses back as well. I don't like having to wake
up and reach for a pair of glasses. I also don't like taking them off to
clean them when they're dirty, or have them fog up when I walk outside in
the morning or have to take them off to wipe them down when it's raining.
Then there's swimming, which can be a pain when you wear glasses. I also
simply don't want something dangling off my face everywhere I go just so I
can see. I could go on and on, but those are some of the reasons. I wore
them for years and don't want to anymore. Like I said, to each their own
though.
>
>
> With orthoK, you see as soon as you wake! All you then have to do is
> pop out the lenses and enjoy crisp vision for days! Applying drops in
> your eye is as much hassle as removing the orthoK lenses(in my opinion)
And I can respect your opinion. For me, where there's a lense involved,
there's the possibility of either losing it or ruining it, one of the two.
There's also the issue of having to put it in at night and take it out in
the morning. I really don't consider it the same at all but that's from my
personal perspective. I'm sure there are others who would agree with you
that it's just more convenient and safe for them. I say do what you consider
is right for you, after all, you're the one that has to live with it, not
the guy who has an differing opinion.
right[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Well your vision is between 20/15 and 20/10 after lasik, an unusual
> event indeed. I am not sure if my optics and retina are capable of
> resolving such fine details. I dont even correct to 20/20 with glasses
> so relistically, the best I expect is 20/20 corrected after orthoK.
> Perhaps in the future, there will be ways to give humans super vision
Maybe they'll have bionic vision or something, but then I don't think I'd
want anything powering my vision that ran on a battery or some such.
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-17, 4:29 pm |
|
"Scott Smith" <jss@westinghouse.net> wrote in message
news:NrbPg.40113$uW1.38388@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>
> "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158473355.398604.314890@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> No idea. I've never been able to see 20/20, regardless of the optometrist
> though.
Correction: 20/15 or 20/10. Oops
| |
|
|
Scott Smith :
> No idea. I've never been able to see 20/15, regardless of the optometrist
> though.
Was there any mention about astigmatism? Did they even try astigmatism
correction? I know some people who have a mild astigmatism that somehow
went uncorrected so they werent seeing as well as they should. Actually
ive had some optometrists not properly correct my slight astigmatism.
There has to be a logical explanation why you didnt correct to what you
were seeing with lasik. It probably wasnt fair as you were missing out
on very sharp vision with glasses/contacts. 20/20 is very good, but
your eyes were capable of like 20/13 which you should have been seeing.
> Would that really qualify as 'all' or even a reference sample? I'm not
> questioning you to open a debate at all(namely because I'm not at all
> interested in debating the issue), as you're entitled to feel or believe
> whatever you like, in my opinion.
Well if you got your eyes tested before lasik and after lasik in the
same clinic and reported a subjective improvement then your vision did
improve. Thats apples to apples comparsion. I will be checking my
vision very carefully before getting orthoK then checking it again
looking at the same eyechart I have printed at home. Ill also let the
optometrist refract me to my BCVA before orthoK and after orthoK. If I
end up better than 20/20 BCVA after orthoK, I will be curious to see
how this was possible. Arent you curious why you see so much better
after lasik than before with glasses or contacts?
> While I appreciate your input, that's not quite accurate. My eyes have
> changed very little in the last 10 years actually.
Thats enough to account for one line alone. So you were a wee bit
undercorrected, thats a big reason why you saw better after being fully
corrected with lasik.
> Well, I can understand where they're coming from. It's a rather vicious
> cycle for a lot of people, the constant and never-ending downward spiral of
> stronger and stronger prescriptions.
I wish I had never gotten glasses back when I was 12 and -1 
> That's your opinion and with all due respect, I think LASIK (assuming it
> works out for me) is more convenient in my case. Maybe you prefer dealing
> with contacts as opposed to surgery, but that's you. Further, have you even
> tried OrthoK yet? Personally, and this is just _me_, I'm tired of dealing
> with contacts and glasses in any capacity and that's the bottom line, but
> like I said, if you like OrthoK or dealing with contacts then I say more
> power to you. I'm certainly not trying to convince you to get LASIK, and I
> can assure you I wouldn't have opted for OrthoK over LASIK due to the
> aforementioned reasons.
And if lasik doesnt work for you or anyone else, they would be more
inconvinenced than if they had stuck with glasses. With orthoK, if it
doesnt work out, I can fallback to glasses. There is no plan B if lasik
doesnt work and you may be very inconvinenced or even disabled for
life. Have you read the stories of people whos lasik went amiss? Some
of their complications are plain scary! I guess if your lucky with
lasik, its better than glasses, otherwise glasses is better.
> Because glasses are even more trouble than contacts for me. Again, glasses
> are what *I* consider a hassle _*for me*_, but I think we've also
> established this a few responses back as well. I don't like having to wake
> up and reach for a pair of glasses. I also don't like taking them off to
> clean them when they're dirty, or have them fog up when I walk outside in
> the morning or have to take them off to wipe them down when it's raining.
> Then there's swimming, which can be a pain when you wear glasses. I also
> simply don't want something dangling off my face everywhere I go just so I
> can see. I could go on and on, but those are some of the reasons. I wore
> them for years and don't want to anymore. Like I said, to each their own
> though.
Then dont reach for glasses first thing after waking. You arent that
blind! Ive learned to ignore the dirt or I just blow the dust away. I
clean them every other day now. Fogging happens about once a week, just
take them off and wait a minute. LOL swim without glasses! You dont
need glasses to see the pool! I can understand why you prefer contacts.
I would do the same if contacts were comfortable, tolerable and couldnt
be felt. This is what orthoK promises. The only hassles of orthoK is
the minute it takes to insert and clean. Not any more hassle than
brushing ones teeth. Well worth it over the expotentionally higher
risks of lasik for very little additional convinence *if* lasik goes
perfect.
> And I can respect your opinion. For me, where there's a lense involved,
> there's the possibility of either losing it or ruining it, one of the two.
> There's also the issue of having to put it in at night and take it out in
> the morning. I really don't consider it the same at all but that's from my
> personal perspective. I'm sure there are others who would agree with you
> that it's just more convenient and safe for them. I say do what you consider
> is right for you, after all, you're the one that has to live with it, not
> the guy who has an differing opinion.
Your forgetting the possibility of a lasik complication. You are one of
the few people who somehow find the minimal hassle of orthoK a big
deal. Thats your opinion but I strongly disagree. I find almost
everyone's lasik results to be more of an inconvinence than orthoK.
Ragnar will call me crazy but hes entitled to his opinion. By now you
know that I look down on lasik and rightfully so. If you are happy with
lasik, good for you.
> Maybe they'll have bionic vision or something, but then I don't think I'd
> want anything powering my vision that ran on a battery or some such.
Could be possible in 20 years with adaptive optics wavefront glasses
which cancel out all aberrations. If you are seeing 20/13 with all
those lasik aberrations, you could be 20/6 with those glasses! Would
you want to go back to glasses if it further improves your vision? This
would make lasik wasted. I think lasik is going to fall off the face of
earth once those glasses become invented as far better vision will be
achieved with those over lasik.
| |
| Scott Smith 2006-09-18, 4:29 pm |
|
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158561049.036833.138490@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Scott Smith :
>
>
> Was there any mention about astigmatism?
Not when I went in for glasses, although the LASIK center did find
astigmatism in my right eye. However, my right is the weakest link at this
point and always has been. That aside, I've still only been able to achieve
20/20 in glasses or contacts, never 20/15 or 20/10 in my left eye though, so
while astigmatism may account for the discrepency between the two eyes, I
don't think it would account for why my left eye is doing so much better
after LASIK than at any point wearing glasses or contacts.
> Did they even try astigmatism
> correction? I know some people who have a mild astigmatism that somehow
> went uncorrected so they werent seeing as well as they should. Actually
> ive had some optometrists not properly correct my slight astigmatism.
I don't know if they ever tried correcting it in my right eye, but none of
the optometrists I'd seen previously had mentioned it to me before. Like I
said, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't find it, they just didn't
explicate it to me.
> There has to be a logical explanation why you didnt correct to what you
> were seeing with lasik. It probably wasnt fair as you were missing out
> on very sharp vision with glasses/contacts. 20/20 is very good, but
> your eyes were capable of like 20/13 which you should have been seeing.
Like I said, my left eye is the stronger one and doesn't have astigmatism,
so I don't know.
>
> Well if you got your eyes tested before lasik and after lasik in the
> same clinic and reported a subjective improvement then your vision did
> improve. Thats apples to apples comparsion. I will be checking my
> vision very carefully before getting orthoK then checking it again
> looking at the same eyechart I have printed at home. Ill also let the
> optometrist refract me to my BCVA before orthoK and after orthoK. If I
> end up better than 20/20 BCVA after orthoK, I will be curious to see
> how this was possible. Arent you curious why you see so much better
> after lasik than before with glasses or contacts?
Honestly? Not really. I mean, if someone were to lay it out for me it would
probably be enlightening but I'm not concerned with it at this point.
>
> Thats enough to account for one line alone. So you were a wee bit
> undercorrected, thats a big reason why you saw better after being fully
> corrected with lasik.
It might be enough to account for one line, but two? Maybe. I don't know.
Frankly, I'm not really that concerned about it at this point.
>
> I wish I had never gotten glasses back when I was 12 and -1
>
>
>
> And if lasik doesnt work for you or anyone else, they would be more
> inconvinenced than if they had stuck with glasses. With orthoK, if it
> doesnt work out, I can fallback to glasses. There is no plan B if lasik
> doesnt work and you may be very inconvinenced or even disabled for
> life. Have you read the stories of people whos lasik went amiss? Some
> of their complications are plain scary! I guess if your lucky with
> lasik, its better than glasses, otherwise glasses is better.
There can be complications with any surgery, not just LASIK obviously. I've
had plastic surgery performed on my ears, for instance, and that went fine,
however other people have had horrible experiences with plastic surgery.
That's why they should do their homework and make an informed decision, then
find a doctor they feel they can trust. The point here is that no surgery
is foolproof or an absolute, sure thing and anyone who says otherwise is
kidding themselves, but that's the chance a person like myself _decides_ to
take.
For many, it's just too risky and I can respect their feelings(as I felt
that way myself three years ago), but likewise I expect them to respect
mine. Like I said in a previous response, cars are also dangerous but people
choose to drive places that aren't necessary all the time and put their
lives -- not just their eyes (and those of their friends and family many
times) at risk every day.
>
> Then dont reach for glasses first thing after waking. You arent that
> blind! Ive learned to ignore the dirt or I just blow the dust
> away.[/quote]
Well, obviously that's you, not me. If you like not being able to see very
well when you first wake up, then whatever works for you. I don't but that's
me. I say do what you feel comfortable with and I'll do the same.
> I clean them every other day now. Fogging happens about once a week, just
> take them off and wait a minute.[/quote]
Again, that's an inconvenience and one I don't have to tolerate. If it works
for you, great. It doesn't for me though, which is why I got LASIK. You're
considering OrthoK, so obviously glasses aren't working out for you either.
Whatever, you know?
> LOL swim without glasses! You dont
> need glasses to see the pool!
I don't want to and I don't have to. It's that simple. If you like swimming
without being able to make out details in your surroundings, knock yourself
out. I'm not like you in that respect. I want to be able to see clearly
while swimming and I want to do so with the least possible inconvenience.
You're obviously different in that respect than I am, so again do what works
for you. It's your life, not mine. Likewise, this is my life, not yours or
anyone else's, therefore I plan on doing what I think will work for me.
> I can understand why you prefer contacts.
> I would do the same if contacts were comfortable, tolerable and couldnt
> be felt. This is what orthoK promises. The only hassles of orthoK is
> the minute it takes to insert and clean. Not any more hassle than
> brushing ones teeth. Well worth it over the expotentionally higher
> risks of lasik for very little additional convinence *if* lasik goes
> perfect.
LASIK is permanent. Glasses, contacts and OrthoK aren't and that's why I
don't care for them. The entire reason I had LASIK performed is 'because'
it's not reversible. I don't want something temporary, I'm not happy with
something temporary and I was certainly willing to take the associated risks
necessary to make that desire a reality. That may turn out to be a very bad
decision, but so far I'm happy with my results. As always, to each their own
though.
>
>
> Your forgetting the possibility of a lasik complication.
No I'm not. I just stated above, "I'm sure there are others who would agree
with you that it's just more convenient and 'safe' for them." When you go in
to get LASIK, you initial a consent form (in about 5 different places) which
lists many of the potential complications. No one has forgotten the
possibility of LASIK complication. I've accepted the possibility.
> You are one of
> the few people who somehow find the minimal hassle of orthoK a big
> deal. Thats your opinion but I strongly disagree.
Well, you're entitled to disagree. I'd be the last person to try and step on
your opinion, and while I can certainly respect your opinion regarding
OrthoK, it 'is' subjective, as is my opinion about it. That's the beauty of
it though, you can have your opinion and I can have mine. We don't have to
agree. We can simply agree to disagree. I'm not trying to prove you or
anyone else 'wrong'. I'm just stating my particular preferences, as are you.
>I find almost
> everyone's lasik results to be more of an inconvinence than orthoK.
The key words here are 'I find', or in other words, 'in your opinion', which
is fine.
> Ragnar will call me crazy but hes entitled to his opinion. By now you
> know that I look down on lasik and rightfully so. If you are happy with
> lasik, good for you.
And if you're happy with something like OrthoK, glasses or contacts, I say
go with whatever you feel comfortable with. It's your life after all.
>
>
>
> Could be possible in 20 years with adaptive optics wavefront glasses
> which cancel out all aberrations. If you are seeing 20/13 with all
> those lasik aberrations, you could be 20/6 with those glasses! Would
> you want to go back to glasses if it further improves your vision?
I'll let you know when (if) that day comes.
| |
|
| Scott Smith said:
> Not when I went in for glasses, although the LASIK center did find
> astigmatism in my right eye. However, my right is the weakest link at this
> point and always has been. That aside, I've still only been able to achieve
> 20/20 in glasses or contacts, never 20/15 or 20/10 in my left eye though, so
> while astigmatism may account for the discrepency between the two eyes, I
> don't think it would account for why my left eye is doing so much better
> after LASIK than at any point wearing glasses or contacts.
Has your surgeon found a reason why you didnt see as well with
glasses/contacts?
> Honestly? Not really. I mean, if someone were to lay it out for me it would
> probably be enlightening but I'm not concerned with it at this point.
Its not a question of concernment, it would be if vision was worse than
with glasses. We are very curious for the reasons why its so much
better than it was with glasses because everyone tells me lasik usually
gives vision worse than glasses. It would be very big news for the
malcontents if its proven that lasik really did give better vision than
with glasses. They know of not_one_case of someone ending up better
after lasik. Do you have your pre lasik topographies and post lasik?
Can you scan them(color scans) and upload? Maybe this will reveal the
answer.
> It might be enough to account for one line, but two? Maybe. I don't know.
> Frankly, I'm not really that concerned about it at this point.
See above. Could be very big news!
> There can be complications with any surgery, not just LASIK obviously. I've
> had plastic surgery performed on my ears, for instance, and that went fine,
> however other people have had horrible experiences with plastic surgery.
> That's why they should do their homework and make an informed decision, then
> find a doctor they feel they can trust. The point here is that no surgery
> is foolproof or an absolute, sure thing and anyone who says otherwise is
> kidding themselves, but that's the chance a person like myself _decides_ to
> take.
I would not want surgury on myself unless its to preserve my health or
save my life.
> For many, it's just too risky and I can respect their feelings(as I felt
> that way myself three years ago), but likewise I expect them to respect
> mine. Like I said in a previous response, cars are also dangerous but people
> choose to drive places that aren't necessary all the time and put their
> lives -- not just their eyes (and those of their friends and family many
> times) at risk every day.
What caused a change of heart? I would have a change of heart if most
people ended up with vision as good as yours without the dry eye
problem. You seem to be a rare exception to the rule of lasik giving
lesser vision than glasses. There are some possibilities, but no
explanation yet.
> Well, obviously that's you, not me. If you like not being able to see very
> well when you first wake up, then whatever works for you. I don't but that's
> me. I say do what you feel comfortable with and I'll do the same.
If that was a big deal, I could sleep with my glasses or find more
reason to get overnight orthoK.
> Again, that's an inconvenience and one I don't have to tolerate. If it works
> for you, great. It doesn't for me though, which is why I got LASIK. You're
> considering OrthoK, so obviously glasses aren't working out for you either.
> Whatever, you know?
Your right, I prefer to reduce my dependency on glasses. Glasses do
work, but I feel orthoK will offer a level of convinence unmatched by
glasses. Lasik is the only thing more convinent than orthoK but its
very risky and the odds are against me. There is little to gain from
lasik, alot to lose in my opinion. I feel orthoK is far better, not to
mention reversable as a safety net.
> I don't want to and I don't have to. It's that simple. If you like swimming
> without being able to make out details in your surroundings, knock yourself
> out. I'm not like you in that respect. I want to be able to see clearly
> while swimming and I want to do so with the least possible inconvenience.
> You're obviously different in that respect than I am, so again do what works
> for you. It's your life, not mine. Likewise, this is my life, not yours or
> anyone else's, therefore I plan on doing what I think will work for me.
Whats there to make out? Some stupid trees I see a million other times?
I guess you are really picky about your vision. I now find it ironic
you got lasik if seeing your best mattered. You did get lucky, but
still.
> LASIK is permanent. Glasses, contacts and OrthoK aren't and that's why I
> don't care for them. The entire reason I had LASIK performed is 'because'
> it's not reversible. I don't want something temporary, I'm not happy with
> something temporary and I was certainly willing to take the associated risks
> necessary to make that desire a reality. That may turn out to be a very bad
> decision, but so far I'm happy with my results. As always, to each their own
> though.
Those unhappy with lasik wished it was reversable. Something permanent,
yet reversable would be nice. Intacs is pretty tempting but even those
arent safe enough for my taste. I would get intacs if there was any
medical reason or possibily of giving me better vision than I get with
glasses. Intacs can be removed so its both permanent(if left in) and
reversable upon removal. Lasik cant be undone.
> No I'm not. I just stated above, "I'm sure there are others who would agree
> with you that it's just more convenient and 'safe' for them." When you go in
> to get LASIK, you initial a consent form (in about 5 different places) which
> lists many of the potential complications. No one has forgotten the
> possibility of LASIK complication. I've accepted the possibility.
OrthoK has no such informed consent because it has a high degree of
safety. You felt the risk of lasik was worth the very slight convinence
of not dealing with contacts or orthoK. They are your eyes and you can
do what you want with them. Most people would take orthoK over lasik
though.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-19, 8:29 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158654399.212005.228490@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Scott Smith said:
>
>
> Its not a question of concernment, it would be if vision was worse
> than
> with glasses. We are very curious for the reasons why its so much
> better than it was with glasses because everyone tells me lasik
> usually
> gives vision worse than glasses. It would be very big news for the
> malcontents if its proven that lasik really did give better vision
> than
> with glasses. They know of not_one_case of someone ending up better
> after lasik.
The malcontents know of many cases but refuse to acknowledge them. I'm
sure Ragnar would say tat his vision is better post Lasik. I know that
my near vision is much better, but I'll have to wait for my enhancement
to know about distance. When I have my glasses on then it is
considerably better thatn when I had my old strong glasses.
But take all that aside, do you really honestly believe that all the
millions of people who have the surgery and report better vision than
they've ever known are all deluded or lying? If you must use the
internet for your data then go to any lasik clinic website and read the
testimonials. It is a poor source that is clearly biased but it still
shows even, fantasising for a minute that 99% of people had damning
comments that weren't shown, that there are people who have really
improved their vision.
>
> See above. Could be very big news!
Old news, I'm afraid. If they refuse to accept the evidence that
currently overwhelms the debate then they are not going to accept
anything new.
>
> I would not want surgury on myself unless its to preserve my health or
> save my life.
What if you got tonsilitis on a regular basis? You can live with a sore
throat every few months and treat it temporarily with ice water and pain
killers or you could take the small risk of a tonsilectomy and have them
out and be free of the pain forever. Same concept as Lasik - live with
the discomfort and hassle of plastic on your face/in your eye or take a
small risk and have it cured for good. People have died having their
tonsils out but noone has died from Lasik.
>
>
> What caused a change of heart? I would have a change of heart if most
> people ended up with vision as good as yours without the dry eye
> problem. You seem to be a rare exception to the rule of lasik giving
> lesser vision than glasses.
There's no rule. There are a few isolated cases - that is not a rule.
More common (but still not a rule) is a decrease sensitivity but, unless
you are an artist, that is going to be hugely outweighed by the benefit
of good sharp vision with no minification.
>
> Whats there to make out? Some stupid trees I see a million other
> times?
> I guess you are really picky about your vision. I now find it ironic
> you got lasik if seeing your best mattered. You did get lucky, but
> still.
Appreciating detail in your surroundings is not being picky everyone has
a right to expect that. I am beginning to see why you regard -1 to -2 as
not needing correction. You must live in a dreadful blurred world but if
it doesn't bother you then that is fine and I'm glad you are happy.
However, the vast majority of people have a higher standard than that
and you shouldn't call them picky for doing so.
I went to the Imperial War Museum at the weekend and wore my -0.5/0.75
glasses while I was there (which is the first time I've worn them for
anything other than driving) because I wanted to see the nuts and bolts
of the tanks and planes and I wanted to see the scuff marks and history
on the artefacts. The experience would have been ruined without but I
don't think I was being picky - I just wanted to see what everyone else
was seeing.
> Most people would take orthoK over lasik though.
Ace, that is blatantly not true and you know it.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-19, 8:29 am |
| "Tom Lucas" <news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> cocked up
in message news:1158656583.66714.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
>
> More common (but still not a rule) is a decrease sensitivity but,
I meant decrease in contrast sensitivity.
| |
|
|
Tom Lucas said:
> The malcontents know of many cases but refuse to acknowledge them. I'm
> sure Ragnar would say tat his vision is better post Lasik. I know that
> my near vision is much better, but I'll have to wait for my enhancement
> to know about distance. When I have my glasses on then it is
> considerably better thatn when I had my old strong glasses.
Because lasik induces aberrations and distortions, it physically
impossible to see better than with glasses and contacts. Those who do
end up better, there is logical explanations, such as the fact their
glasses was a bit weak or their glasses minified. Sometimes lasik can
correct astigmatism that glasses and soft contacts miss. RGP contacts
give the best vision, period. You see better because your weak glasses
minify much less, almost none in fact. You did see 20/20 before lasik
and still see 20/20 now so its more or less equal.
> But take all that aside, do you really honestly believe that all the
> millions of people who have the surgery and report better vision than
> they've ever known are all deluded or lying? If you must use the
> internet for your data then go to any lasik clinic website and read the
> testimonials. It is a poor source that is clearly biased but it still
> shows even, fantasising for a minute that 99% of people had damning
> comments that weren't shown, that there are people who have really
> improved their vision.
They dont have a reference to what it was before. Likley they are
comparing their vision *without* glasses to their lasik vision. Of
course its going to be better. Lots of people are happy, that I wont
deny. But I also know they prefer the compromise of lasik over glasses.
> Old news, I'm afraid. If they refuse to accept the evidence that
> currently overwhelms the debate then they are not going to accept
> anything new.
They want proof, like color topography scans showing the RMS
aberrations before and after lasik. To date, not a single case where
the RMS was less after lasik in healthy virgin corneas.
> What if you got tonsilitis on a regular basis? You can live with a sore
> throat every few months and treat it temporarily with ice water and pain
> killers or you could take the small risk of a tonsilectomy and have them
> out and be free of the pain forever. Same concept as Lasik - live with
> the discomfort and hassle of plastic on your face/in your eye or take a
> small risk and have it cured for good. People have died having their
> tonsils out but noone has died from Lasik.
Would have to deal with infrequent pain like a man. If there was cancer
or serious infection, thats a different story and surgury is manditory!
> There's no rule. There are a few isolated cases - that is not a rule.
> More common (but still not a rule) is a decrease sensitivity but, unless
> you are an artist, that is going to be hugely outweighed by the benefit
> of good sharp vision with no minification.
Loss of contrast occurs in 70-90% of eyes and vitrually all with larger
pupils. You got off easy because of your average 6.5mm pupils. Contacts
and orthoK wont minify.
> Appreciating detail in your surroundings is not being picky everyone has
> a right to expect that. I am beginning to see why you regard -1 to -2 as
> not needing correction. You must live in a dreadful blurred world but if
> it doesn't bother you then that is fine and I'm glad you are happy.
> However, the vast majority of people have a higher standard than that
> and you shouldn't call them picky for doing so.
Its the opposite. I see better being -1 to -2 for closer range. I wear
-3.25 computer glasses that undercorrect me. When I watch a movie or go
out of the house, I slap on my -4.5 glasses for distance, but can take
them off to read, eat or view something closeup. Youll understand once
you get presbyopia. We have discussed already why I undercorrect
myself. I prefer it that way over reading glasses.
> I went to the Imperial War Museum at the weekend and wore my -0.5/0.75
> glasses while I was there (which is the first time I've worn them for
> anything other than driving) because I wanted to see the nuts and bolts
> of the tanks and planes and I wanted to see the scuff marks and history
> on the artefacts. The experience would have been ruined without but I
> don't think I was being picky - I just wanted to see what everyone else
> was seeing.
I would do the same if I was seeing 20/40, but I wouldnt need glasses
for most things. Lasik has reduced your dependency on glasses as
promised. OrthoK will do the same and thanks to the undercorrection,
wont need readers. Ill reduce dependency by 75-90 percent after orthoK.
>
> Ace, that is blatantly not true and you know it.
Why dont we have a survey and present all the risks of lasik vs.
orthoK? The survey must not be biased and represent a large sample. If
I am wrong, I will make a thread of apology.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-20, 8:26 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158744567.139209.238420@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Lucas said:
> Because lasik induces aberrations and distortions, it physically
> impossible to see better than with glasses and contacts.
You've made a false assumption there - that the induced aberrations are
in addition to the ones that are already there. That is not the case and
cannot be because a piece of tissue with existing high order aberrations
cannot have an affect if it has been evaporated out of the eye.
There is nothing to categorically prevent you seeing better after the
surgery - whether you do or not is dependent on the new shape of the eye
and where the new aberrations are.
>Those who do end up better, there is logical explanations, such as the
>fact their
> glasses was a bit weak or their glasses minified. Sometimes lasik can
> correct astigmatism that glasses and soft contacts miss.
Did you google Occam's razor? It applies here too.
> You see better because your weak glasses minify much less, almost none
> in fact.
That is certainly a factor but a I do some work with a microscope for
which I had to take my glasses off before and I can definitely see more
detail post op.
> You did see 20/20 before lasik and still see 20/20 now so its more or
> less equal.
We'll see what the score is after the enhancement - at the moment the
Lasik clearly wasn't done quite right so it is not sensible to make any
assessments until it is done how it was supposed to be.
>
> They dont have a reference to what it was before. Likley they are
> comparing their vision *without* glasses to their lasik vision. Of
> course its going to be better. Lots of people are happy, that I wont
> deny. But I also know they prefer the compromise of lasik over
> glasses.
That is insulting and straw-grasping. People are not idiots and know
what they see. You cannot just assume people are deluding themselves
just because their evidence doesn't fit your model - you must re-assess
your model.
Bear in mind that some people have great vision from as soon as they are
done so the comparison is fresh in their mind - they only took their
glasses off 10 minutes ago. Also, for some Lasik has become a
compromise, but for the majority it was not and they now have great
correction free vision and never think about it again - with no
compromise. There are totally happy.
I am at a loss with how to put this to you. They are happy. They see
well. They have no complications. Their vision is as good or better than
they had before. They are happy. Stop your internal dialogue. I can hear
you now explaining it away with your anchors of delusion or
sub-conscious compromise or eyes that are dry but you don't know it or
they are full of HOAs. Reread Occam's Razor. Your insistence that people
don't know their own eyes is insulting to the millions of people who
know exactly how much Lasik has benefitted them.
>
> They want proof, like color topography scans showing the RMS
> aberrations before and after lasik. To date, not a single case where
> the RMS was less after lasik in healthy virgin corneas.
Yes, but does that matter? You can have more HOAs after surgery and
still have improved vision - they are just different HOAs and might not
affect sight at all. The topography doesn't tell the whole story. This
is another of your false assumptions - if someone sees well and says so
then they must have fooled themselves somehow because increased HOA
automatically means bad vision?
>
> Would have to deal with infrequent pain like a man. If there was
> cancer
> or serious infection, thats a different story and surgury is
> manditory!
So people who choose not to live with the pain are not men? That's
pretty insulting. The purpose of modern medicine is not just to maintain
life but to alleviate suffering. To be personal for a moment, your
unusually strong aversion to risk is something you need to look at
closely. Perhaps it stems from a fear of failure but, wherever it comes
from, it will prevent you from ever trying new things and the wrench
will be more violent when you inevitably find that you cannot stay in
your comfort zone forever.
> Loss of contrast occurs in 70-90% of eyes and vitrually all with
> larger
> pupils. You got off easy because of your average 6.5mm pupils.
> Contacts
> and orthoK wont minify.
You side-stepped the point which was that there is no rule that says
Lasik must give you worse vision than glasses. You just said that not
every eye has a loss of contrast and it has been established elsewhere
that not everyone has drier eyes. Put all these factors together and the
statistics will show that, if there is less than a 100% chance of all
complications, then some people will have missed out on all the
complications completely and now have better eyesight - if only from the
elimination of minification (there you go, I threw you a lifesaver to
fit this into your model to save you having to make the effort ;-)
>
> I would do the same if I was seeing 20/40, but I wouldnt need glasses
> for most things. Lasik has reduced your dependency on glasses as
> promised. OrthoK will do the same and thanks to the undercorrection,
> wont need readers. Ill reduce dependency by 75-90 percent after
> orthoK.
I'm not seeing 20/40. Ace, please throw your rule book away. Just
because I'm -1 doesn't mean I must be 20/40 but I am deluding
myself/have HOAs/residual astigmatism to explain why I see worse than
20/50 (actually worse than that now). Snellen is a method to guage
prescription but it is not rigidly a function of it.
>
> Why dont we have a survey and present all the risks of lasik vs.
> orthoK? The survey must not be biased and represent a large sample. If
> I am wrong, I will make a thread of apology.
Well let's take the world as a sample, it being pretty large and by
definition containing all possible biasses. 10's of millions of people
have had Lasik compared to how many for OrthoK? 20? 40? 87 plus a guy
who fell asleep on an M&M?
Whoops, I nearly missed the side-step there. You said that most people
choose OrthoK over Lasik and, when challenged, suggest a survey to
assess risk. That's another issue and I'll grant you that OrthoK has
lower risk unless you count the risk of it not working. The point is,
people choose Lasik and not OrthoK because, except for | | |