Eyeglasses and retail optometry are scams

[Trebuchet]

I keep wondering what Tippit thinks of the plastic (PLASTIC! Made from Chemicals!) inserted into my eyes by an Allopathic "Doctor"! Presumably the right exercises would have prevented the originals from getting clouded up by cataracts.

 

[Pixel42]

I keep wondering what Tippit thinks of the plastic (PLASTIC! Made from Chemicals!) inserted into my eyes by an Allopathic "Doctor"! Presumably the right exercises would have prevented the originals from getting clouded up by cataracts.

My distance vision has improved dramatically in the last few years, I no longer need much correction for it. The bad news is that this is probably because both my eyes are pre cataract, though my optician says I'm unlikely to need surgery for some time.

 

[Modified]

My distance vision has improved dramatically in the last few years, I no longer need much correction for it. The bad news is that this is probably because both my eyes are pre cataract, though my optician says I'm unlikely to need surgery for some time.

I mentioned above, my vision improved by about .5 diopters and significant astigmatism went away at the same age I was losing focus ability. A few years later, early onset cataracts started. One eye will probably need cataract surgery in a year or two.

 

[Trebuchet]

My distance vision has improved dramatically in the last few years, I no longer need much correction for it. The bad news is that this is probably because both my eyes are pre cataract, though my optician says I'm unlikely to need surgery for some time.

Been there, done that. Presbyopia made my vision much better, prior to the cataracts.

 

[8enotto]

I am still hunting for cheap 1.25 reading glasses as the 1.50 I was able to find are too strong.

I get them at the dollar store for 3 bucks.
Home Depot wants about 50 bucks for three of them in a package. HD must be in on it with the evil "they" with Big Optics.
They want to scam me for those big bucks.


Even if it means I can read small print again for wearing the darn things.

 

[dann]

Amazon?!

 

[Tippit]

I keep wondering what Tippit thinks of the plastic (PLASTIC! Made from Chemicals!) inserted into my eyes by an Allopathic "Doctor"! Presumably the right exercises would have prevented the originals from getting clouded up by cataracts.

I think plastic is a wonderful invention, a good use of petroleum. Whether or not it belongs in your eyes is debatable, but I don’t suffer from cataracts nor do I understand much about what causes them or how best to treat them.

If you had read the thread, you would know that I’m not advocating “eye exercises” but reduced lens therapy specifically for progressive myopia, since there is scientific evidence that hyperopic and myopic defocus creates a stimulus in the eye resulting in axial elongation or shortening, respectively.

I suspect that cataracts can be prevented or mitigated over a lifetime by reducing sun exposure or wearing sunglasses, but I am sure there are numerous other factors. I have also read that MSM eyedrops have helped some with the dissolution of floaters, and possibly cataracts, but I don’t know. I personally use MSM/eyebright drops periodically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tippit]

I am still hunting for cheap 1.25 reading glasses as the 1.50 I was able to find are too strong.

I get them at the dollar store for 3 bucks.
Home Depot wants about 50 bucks for three of them in a package. HD must be in on it with the evil "they" with Big Optics.
They want to scam me for those big bucks.


Even if it means I can read small print again for wearing the darn things.

Reading glasses are probably a good preventative for avoiding progressive myopia when doing extensive near work, for instance being in front of a computer all day. Since a diopter is the reciprocal of the focal length, you could measure the distance from your eyes to your monitor in centimeters and adjust to create a slight bit of defocus. I use Gunnar gaming glasses which are +0.2 diopter,and a custom pair of +0.5 lenses from Zenni.com for computer use, both with blue light blocking. I am not sure what is ideal, but you would want something functional but that also provides you with a slight blur challenge (myopic defocus).

It’s also worth noting that hyperopia, which is far less common than myopia, is theoretically treatable with increased lens therapy (for instance, wearing distance glasses for near work). I don’t have any experience with this and so I don’t necessarily recommend it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hecd2]

...there is scientific evidence that hyperopic and myopic defocus creates a stimulus in the eye resulting in axial elongation or shortening, respectively.

We have established in this thread that there is no such scientific evidence in adults and that every time you say that there is you are lying. (I would have said that you are "mistaken", except that you have had the fact there is no such scientific evidence pointed out to you several times, so that your unqualified repitition of the claim now amounts to to blatant lying).

 

[Tippit]

We have established in this thread that there is no such scientific evidence in adults and that every time you say that there is you are lying. (I would have said that you are "mistaken", except that you have had the fact there is no such scientific evidence pointed out to you several times, so that your unqualified repitition of the claim now amounts to to blatant lying).

In fact, you're the disingenuous liar, for falsely accusing me of lying. First of all, if you had actually investigated the evidence, instead of defaulting to your anti-science, pseudo-skeptical, ignorantly-cynical default position, you would have realized that the study that Steiner links to in his video is direct evidence that this phenomenon was observed in adults. I would go back and directly link the study involving 271 people, including adults, but since we both know you're not really interested in evidence and are a waste of my time, I won't. Feel free to find the study, and or watch the video I linked above. Not holding my breath, since we both know that you aren't here in the interest of scientific truth. Second, the fact that I am an adult, and the fact that the method has worked for me and thousands of others, (so well that my vision is almost fully restored to 20/20) only further confirms what science already knows, if retail optometrist do not (and do not care, since it is in direct opposition to their financial interests, and the interests of lens manufacturers).

Left with the actual studies that I linked that are freely available on google scholar, plus my own personal anecdote, plus the stories of thousands of others who have successfully used reduced lens therapy, your only recourse is to attempt to smear me with fake accusations, as is commonplace with most disingenuous trolls. The good news, is that open minded people who actually investigate the topic, and who might spend $50 on some reduced prescription lenses and who begin to practice good visual hygiene, will reverse their myopia, in spite of people like you!

 

[Modified]

I am still hunting for cheap 1.25 reading glasses as the 1.50 I was able to find are too strong.

For cheap ones, I like these: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01DAN4HIO

They are much more durable and more comfortable than similarly priced ones I've had. There is more distortion than you will get with more expensive glasses (ones with higher index glass), but for reading with 1.25 that's not really a problem. I use 1.0 for computer distance and 3.0 for phone and reading.

 

[Gamolon]

The good news, is that open minded people who actually investigate the topic, and who might spend $50

You mean people who might spend $50 to $4,299 depending on if they decide to take Jake’s courses and get some Zoom time right?

He does need money to invest in the companies who are propagating these lens scams right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In fact, you're the disingenuous liar, for falsely accusing me of lying. First of all, if you had actually investigated the evidence, instead of defaulting to your anti-science, pseudo-skeptical, ignorantly-cynical default position, you would have realized that the study that Steiner links to in his video is direct evidence that this phenomenon was observed in adults. I would go back and directly link the study involving 271 people, including adults, ...

Here's the problem, Tippit. You have claimed multiple times we should watch a lengthy propaganda video to see the "evidence" and you claim here that you'd link to the actual study but you won't because you know it won't convince anyone.

How can you possibly know that without citing the actual scientific study?

And no, I'm not going to watch the video. Life is too short and these video propaganda sales pitches are too numerous.

 

[Caroline13]

I can't say eyeglasses are scams, frames are a MAJOR profit world...scam. Most probably come from China...

I'm still using the same 2 distance and reading eye glasses now for over 15 yrs as my eyes are good thanks for the eye support SUPPLEMENTS I take...yep, Supplements....how about that? And included in these supplements are Homeopathics, those god awful homeopathics...

 

[hecd2]

First of all, if you had actually investigated the evidence, instead of defaulting to your anti-science, pseudo-skeptical, ignorantly-cynical default position, you would have realized that the study that Steiner links to in his video is direct evidence that this phenomenon was observed in adults. I would go back and directly link the study involving 271 people, including adults, but "reasons"

I don't give a damn what some third party references somewhere in his vast video channel. You are the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence, not on me. So far, you have cited no published evidence that the effect that you claim occurs in adults.

If such a paper does exist, I will read it and consider what it has to say. I should have thought for someone so invested in this subject, such a study, if it exists as you claim, would be at the top of your list, instead of a study of juvenile tree-shrews.

 

[Chanakya]

Tree shrews? Had to look that up.

Shrews might wear glasses, sure, but would tree shrews?

But the effect would probably be kind of cute, at least in a Pixar production. IRL they'd probably look grotesque rather than cute, so perhaps it's best they exercise their eyeballs instead.

 

[8enotto]

I can't say eyeglasses are scams, frames are a MAJOR profit world...scam. Most probably come from China...

I'm still using the same 2 distance and reading eye glasses now for over 15 yrs as my eyes are good thanks for the eye support SUPPLEMENTS I take...yep, Supplements....how about that? And included in these supplements are Homeopathics, those god awful homeopathics...

Laying out the bait again? Maybe you should follow up on what Tippit suggested, then with your supplements and magic water you should be back to 20/20 vision in a week.

 

[Caroline13]

Laying out the bait again? Maybe you should follow up on what Tippit suggested, then with your supplements and magic water you should be back to 20/20 vision in a week.

No I'm good with my corrective lens and especially for right eye which I was told decades ago was a "lazy eye"...my corrective lens do good for my eyes being almost 83 yrs young. Thanks anyway. No need to be sarcastic but it's part of the territory here, a big part.

 

[hecd2]

Tree shrews? Had to look that up.

Yep, the paper is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1979094/

I assume the idea is that the juvenile tree shrew is an animal model for human children. And yes, they were made to wear lenses.

That’s one of two papers Tippit posted as his scientific evidence to support his procedure and justify the exaggerated rhetoric of his thread title.

 

[Trebuchet]

Yep, the paper is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1979094/

I assume the idea is that the juvenile tree shrew is an animal model for human children. And yes, they were made to wear lenses.

That’s one of two papers Tippit posted as his scientific evidence to support his procedure and justify the exaggerated rhetoric of his thread title.

They should try it on the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus next. Cephalopods have quite sophisticated eyes!