You need to check again on lens replacement. It’s been available here for several years just for vision correction. I’m waiting for them to perfect the multi-focal lenses, as I’m already starting with presbyopia, but IIRC you’re way to young to worry about that.
What’s wrong with eyeglasses, seriously?
Not really - I’ve had bifocals about 5 years now.
Medically - absolutely nothing.
I think opting for eye surgery is a personal thing. I had it after wearing contacts since about aged 12 - 30 odd years - and had to go back to specs as my eyes eventually had had enough of contacts. There was no permanent damage, just your eyes can eventually become sort of ‘allergic’ or some such. I wore contacts because of a violent incident when I was very young where a close family member ended up in hospital (my specs were knocked off in the incident). No long-term damage there either. I was just suggesting contacts as you’d had a few consultations about surgery and were knocked back.
Frankly, I’ve always viewed contacts as a bother and a risk of infection. Between my allergy meds tending to dry out my eyes, itchy eyes from allergies, and working in a high-dust environment I’m not sure contacts are a good choice for me.
Don’t get me wrong - I think the more alternatives the better. It’s just that so far glasses still seem to be the best fit for me.
There’s Orthokeratology, the use of contact lenses to reshape the eye. Bausch & Lomb call it Vision Shaping Treatment. The contacts are worn overnight, not during the day (possibly except for an initial period of a few days).
Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, guess what? It is eyesight quackery.
[sub]yes, yes, Trinopus already linked to the debunking site, but it bears repeating…[/sub]
It’s like playing Whack-a-Mole. They keep popping up…
Because it doesn’t work for those who do try it.
Responsible ophthalmologists don’t encourage this kind of thing because it doesn’t work. If it did, they could make a profit from selling it, just as physical therapists make a profit from doing physical therapy. Saying that ophthalmologists don’t push non-drug therapies because they don’t make a profit is like saying cardiologists don’t push diet and exercise because they make a profit from drugs and surgery.
Is this the same Jacob Liberman who claims you don’t have to eat if you stare at the sun?
Regards,
Shodan
I started to respond to elfenome this morning, but on preview I noticed his(her?) post had been disappeared (along with, apparently, the user). As a former but longtime optician who worked for optometrists and later in the same building as (but not for) ophthalmologists I would add that most OMDs don’t sell glasses or drugs, they only prescribe.
One ophthalmologist I knew told me he wished it did work, because he could make a killing if it did.
The single biggest improvement you can make is …
If your eyes be closed, open them up!
j/k 
My dad was entusiastic about Aldous Huxley (yes , the famous writer) book on eye improvement.
[Moderator Note]
Yes, elfenome was banned as a spammer. I guess Shodan had already quoted him before he and his post were vaporized.
Colibri
I dissagree with this, lasik surgery oftens cost thousands of dollars and the risk to consume more and totally ruin your eyesight. Look for ms kathy griffin’s video testimonial on how lasik surgery ruin her eyesight.
I suggest you get a program on <a href=“https://www.youtube.com/my_videos?o=U”>How To Improve
Eyesight Naturally</a>. The legit one!
Btw i found this testimonial a minute ago, and i think this should be shared so that will have a better understanding on
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/my_videos?o=U>How To Improve Eyesight Naturally</a>.
Spam reported.
My father also believes exercises helped him. But he wears glasses to drive, as legally required.
The scientific studies say the exercises doesn’t work, and I already pointed out what one state driver’s test shows.
Here’s another piece of anecdotal evidence, pulled from Wikipedia’s Huxley biography:
I truthfully tell my Dad that I like glasses, because I feel they protect my eyes from flying irritants.
There actually are optometrists who say otherwise, mainly behavioral optometrists. I talked to one who said that it is indeed possible to reverse nearsightedness, but only to a limited extent. Once it becomes “embedded”, he said, it’s too late. He said that the most that one could hope to reverse would be about 2 diopters. However, another optometrist reported having reversed her own nearsightedness by 3.5 diopters. She says it took her seven years, which gives us an idea of the practical problems of applying such methods.
Regarding Huxley, that Bennett Cerf quote makes it sound as though Huxley was committing fraud, acting as if he was reading something which he actually had memorized. Absent another witness to clarify this, it seems more likely that Huxley had made notes for himself, and then couldn’t read them when he tried to refer to them. Huxley had scarred corneas, and did not claim to have gotten his eyesight back to normal or even close, only to have improved from where he was.
How did this turn out? Did she get shut down? Or is she still doing this, as far as you know?
It’s a bit unfair to always associate vision improvement with Bates. He was one man, who died 83 years ago. He could have been right on some things and wrong on others.