Eyeglasses and retail optometry are scams

[zooterkin]

(I was amused to see that the drugstore glasses now come in versions with different strengths for each eye. -- But then I am easily amused.)

Very easily amused.

Seems like a useful choice to have, but I always assumed it wasn't worth doing due to the number of possible combinations and the presumably limited number of people needing significantly different strengths for each eye. (My prescription differs by a whole dioptre between left and right.)

 

[abaddon]

Very easily amused.

Seems like a useful choice to have, but I always assumed it wasn't worth doing due to the number of possible combinations and the presumably limited number of people needing significantly different strengths for each eye. (My prescription differs by a whole dioptre between left and right.)

Well, I can't provide links because it was years ago, but a limited number of vision defects actually can be corrected by a regime of eye exercises that alter the shape of the eyeball. Limited.

It is not the panacea that Tippit claims. The cases where it has a remote hope of working are few.

I happen to be lucky. At 51, I have yet to need glasses of any sort. But not everyone is so lucky. I only investigated the matter because my siblings and ex and my eldest had such issues from an early age.

It IS true that certain regimes can improve eyesight in CERTAIN cases. But not many.

The proposed simplistic claim is nonsense. Of course people require corrective lenses. Ocular degeneration over time is simply a fact. I fully expect that at some point, I will require corrective lenses. I am merely lucky that it has not yet happened to me.

 

[zooterkin]

Well, I can't provide links because it was years ago, but a limited number of vision defects actually can be corrected by a regime of eye exercises that alter the shape of the eyeball. Limited.

It is not the panacea that Tippit claims. The cases where it has a remote hope of working are few.

I happen to be lucky. At 51, I have yet to need glasses of any sort. But not everyone is so lucky. I only investigated the matter because my siblings and ex and my eldest had such issues from an early age.

It IS true that certain regimes can improve eyesight in CERTAIN cases. But not many.

The proposed simplistic claim is nonsense. Of course people require corrective lenses. Ocular degeneration over time is simply a fact. I fully expect that at some point, I will require corrective lenses. I am merely lucky that it has not yet happened to me.

Not sure how that's a reply to what I wrote.

 

[abaddon]

Not sure how that's a reply to what I wrote.

Because Tippit is correct, but only for a limited number of cases. I was more responding to the thread rather than you in particular.

The proposition is that all optemetry is false.

This is blatantly ridiculous. There are some things that one can do for some people. Ain't gonna work for everyone. Thus corrective lenses are not a scam.

 

[Tippit]

Very easily amused.

Seems like a useful choice to have, but I always assumed it wasn't worth doing due to the number of possible combinations and the presumably limited number of people needing significantly different strengths for each eye. (My prescription differs by a whole dioptre between left and right.)

You want to normalize the differences between your eyes, not aggravate them by having your eyes adapt to artificial lenses a diopter apart. One diopter is pretty significant, plus you probably have a difference in Cylinder for astigmatism.

Typically optometrists overprescribe the non-dominant eye and this starts the ball rolling.

 

[Tippit]

Well, I can't provide links because it was years ago, but a limited number of vision defects actually can be corrected by a regime of eye exercises that alter the shape of the eyeball. Limited.

It is not the panacea that Tippit claims. The cases where it has a remote hope of working are few.

I happen to be lucky. At 51, I have yet to need glasses of any sort. But not everyone is so lucky. I only investigated the matter because my siblings and ex and my eldest had such issues from an early age.

It IS true that certain regimes can improve eyesight in CERTAIN cases. But not many.

The proposed simplistic claim is nonsense. Of course people require corrective lenses. Ocular degeneration over time is simply a fact. I fully expect that at some point, I will require corrective lenses. I am merely lucky that it has not yet happened to me.

You don't know what you're talking about. You just assume that what my OP referred to is what you're talking about, when it isn't. "Eye exercises" like the Bates method only have a limited and modest effect. I know, because I tried them first. Reduced lens therapy actually reshapes the eyeball towards emmetropia using myopic defocus, which is the opposite of what wearing distance glasses do (they cause progressive myopia by way of hyperoptic defocus).

"Ocular" (I presume you meant Macular) Degeneration is age-related, and doesn't explain the 80% myopia rate in Asia for teenagers, which is epidemic (96% in South Korea!). Hyperoptic defocus does, and that is caused by wearing distance lenses while staring at computers, smartphones, and books all day.

 

[Tippit]

Because Tippit is correct, but only for a limited number of cases. I was more responding to the thread rather than you in particular.

The proposition is that all optemetry is false.

This is blatantly ridiculous. There are some things that one can do for some people. Ain't gonna work for everyone. Thus corrective lenses are not a scam.

Corrective lenses are a scam not in the sense that they don't work (obviously they do), but that they actually cause harm, by semi-permanently altering the shape of the human eye. It's as if a doctor were to prescribe you with a lifelong cast and pair of crutches for a broken leg, and then charge you exorbitant amounts every few years for a new pair of designer crutches.

Modern retail optometry is perhaps one of the worst and most egregious examples of bad science that I've seen.

 

[zooterkin]

You want to normalize the differences between your eyes, not aggravate them by having your eyes adapt to artificial lenses a diopter apart. One diopter is pretty significant, plus you probably have a difference in Cylinder for astigmatism.

Typically optometrists overprescribe the non-dominant eye and this starts the ball rolling.

I was commenting purely on the availability of off-the-shelf spectacles with different strength lenses for the two eyes.

I have had prescriptions spectacles, with different prescriptions for each eye, for most of my life. I now wear multi-focal contact lenses; again, different for each eye. I've only ever used off-the-shelf glasses, with the same prescription in each lens, as an add-on for reading in poor light.

 

[abaddon]

Corrective lenses are a scam not in the sense that they don't work (obviously they do), but that they actually cause harm, by semi-permanently altering the shape of the human eye.

Which is an odd claim given that my eldest has used corrective lenses since shortly after birth and his vision has steadily improved. Funny that.

It's as if a doctor were to prescribe you with a lifelong cast and pair of crutches for a broken leg, and then charge you exorbitant amounts every few years for a new pair of designer crutches.

Baloney.

Modern retail optometry is perhaps one of the worst and most egregious examples of bad science that I've seen.

Couple of bucks for a pair of specs. Literally 2 bucks. And you want to build a conspiracy out of that?

Go fish.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The insane made up claim

Corrective lenses are a scam not in the sense that they don't work (obviously they do), but that they actually cause harm, by semi-permanently altering the shape of the human eye.

The reality
"Mayo Clinic : Myths & Facts / Will wearing eyeglasses that are too strong or have the wrong prescription will damage the eyes? Eyeglasses change the light rays that our eyes receive. They do not change any part of the eye itself."

https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem....-and-treatments/ophthalmology/myths-and-facts

 

[Matthew Ellard]

You don't know what you're talking about.

The crap bad science, that Tippit is promoting, is quite old and called the "Bates Method" from the 1890's. That's why Tippit can't supply an iota of evidence for his hilarious claim, as it was debunked more than 100 years ago.


"The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight."

"Bates' main physiological proposition—that the eyeball changes shape to maintain focus—has consistently been contradicted by observation. In 1952, optometry professor Elwin Marg wrote of Bates, "Most of his claims and almost all of his theories have been considered false by practically all visual scientists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

 

[Tippit]

The crap bad science, that Tippit is promoting, is quite old and called the "Bates Method" from the 1890's. That's why Tippit can't supply an iota of evidence for his hilarious claim, as it was debunked more than 100 years ago.


"The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight."

"Bates' main physiological proposition—that the eyeball changes shape to maintain focus—has consistently been contradicted by observation. In 1952, optometry professor Elwin Marg wrote of Bates, "Most of his claims and almost all of his theories have been considered false by practically all visual scientists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

I’m starting to think you’re a bad troll. You accuse me of promoting the Bates Method, just a few posts after I expressly denounce the Bates method. I’ve tried the Bates method, it doesn’t work. Reduced lens therapy actually works, as evident from the testimony of the man in the video I just linked, as well as the thousands of other examples of people for whom it’s worked, and not least of whom, myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[catsmate]

I’m starting to think you’re a bad troll. You accuse me of promoting the Bates Method, just a few posts after I expressly denounce the Bates method. I’ve tried the Bates method, it doesn’t work. Reduced lens therapy actually works, as evident from the testimony of the man in the video I just linked, as well as the thousands of other examples of people for whom it’s worked, and not least of whom, myself.

No, you didn't.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No, you didn't.

It's right there, in black and white (or blue and white if you're Matthew Ellard ).
Tippit is either seriously delusional or seriously attempting to gaslight the forum.
Unbelievable.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Oh really?

You accuse me of promoting the Bates Method, just a few posts after I expressly denounce the Bates method. I’ve tried the Bates method, it doesn’t work.

Oh really?

In 2014 I decided to try the Bates method, which is a series of eye exercises and eye relaxation methods. There was some limited improvement, but since it calls for the complete removal of correction, and the fact that it did not improve my uncorrected vision enough to be functional, I gave up, discouraged.

Forum members remember your earlier claims and can use search engines

 

[zooterkin]

Oh really?


Oh really?


Forum members remember your earlier claims and can use search engines

You do realise what you quoted supports what he said?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

You do realise what you quoted supports what he said?

No it doesn't. Tippit previously claimed he had some improvement, but not strong enough to be useful to him. He subsequently said he claimed it doesn't work.

Science says the Bates technique does not work.

 

[zooterkin]

No it doesn't. Tippit previously claimed he had some improvement, but not strong enough to be useful to him. He subsequently said he claimed it doesn't work.

Science says the Bates technique does not work.

I wouldn’t class a change that’s insufficient to be useful as working.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I wouldn’t class a change that’s insufficient to be useful as working.

If I claim I can perform a supernatural medical feat yet the supernatural cure was not enough to cure my specific problem, that is still a supernatural claim.

Tippit was directly claiming "There was some limited improvement"

"The Bates eye method is an alternative therapy that purports to "cure" defective eyesight and diseases of the eye by means of specific exercises. It is based on the work and theories of William Horatio Bates, a medical doctor and eye specialist practicing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Although rejected and later soundly debunked by his peers,......"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bates_eye_method

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You do realise what you quoted supports what he said?

No, it doesn't.
Saying the method produces some improvement is not 'expressly denouncing' it, it is in fact giving it qualified praise.