Posted on 09/20/2023 8:06:43 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
They patched their weak eye two hours a day, if children, but it could have helped adults, but they didn’t push it with them.
The improvements were sustained beyond what the study recorded.
How well does this work for 74 year olds?
I had this as a kid
Trying to get a 4 yo to wear that patch was a challenge for my parents . And many broken pair of glasses over the next few years
One of the few times I can I remember getting dads belt was fighting him over the drops
We fortunately had a good eyedoctor who helped us through it.
By the time I was 13, I no longer needed glasses.
67 now but just need over the counter readers
Interesting that the weak eye is the one that gets patched. Seems like you would want to exercise the weaker eye by patching the dominant one.
When approaching a person with Lazy eye, I just bob my head from right to left... They’ll eventually see me.
The question is... Do people with Lazy eye actually see better than the rest of us? Your peripheral vision is obviously more acute, isn’t that a good thing?
“Interesting that the weak eye is the one that gets patched. Seems like you would want to exercise the weaker eye by patching the dominant one.”
Agree, sounds quite strange. My mom was paranoid that our kids would get it, since my sister and one of my brothers had it.
Bottom line, probably best to be PARANOID that your kid (or, on this site, more likely grandkid) might have it and get him checked out. The worst that happens is an all-clear and you lost a few hours from work (the case with my kids), but still, this is very common and if dealt with at a very young age, then never a problem.
Bookmark
It doesn’t makesense that they would patch the weak eye. The standard is to patch the dominant eye as mentioned at the beginning. Seems like an editing fail.
No, if the weak eye has gone “lazy” by turning inward or outward then that eye is functionally blind and the muscles have atrophied which is why the eye has turned.
From the actual study abstract:
“Participants < 18 years of age further patched the dominant eye.”
From the Children's Hospital Boston write up, above:
“Before receiving donepezil, children under 18 patched their weak eye for four weeks, at least two hours daily.”
I thought it was both strange and novel, but this was one of those times I didn't check up further to sanity check the study writeup.
You were all correct to question it.
That sucks. I’ve been lucky. I was nearsighted for most of my life and then when I hit the age of 40 I also needed reading glasses... Then when I hit 50 I got cataracts... Best thing that ever happened to me. I had cataract surgery and now I can see pretty much 20/20. I still need readers in poorly lit conditions, but other than that I am free of corrective lenses.
Cataract surgery has advanced significantly... They now have lenses that give you almost perfect vision in any light and you don’t even need readers. If you can afford it, or your insurance will cover it... Go for the cataract surgery. It’s well worth it.
But was there a double-blind control group? In other words, was one set of participants secretly given aa placebo, and treated with the exact same patching therapy? Otherwise, the perceived cure could easily be attributed to psychology or to the patching therapy alone.
The question is: Did input A cause outcome B?
There are three possibilities:
1. A caused B
2. B caused A
3. Unidentified C caused both A and B
The experiment must isolate the results to #1 above.
amblyopia or “lazy eye,”
I remember first hearing of this back sixty years or so ago in the PEANUTS comic strip when Lucy had to wear the patch. She was crying because she hurt her hand when she punched some kid in the nose when he called her “Long John Silver.”
That said, if this is cheap and easy to perform on oneself, with effectively few or no side effects, you can become a study of one and likely, but not certainly, wind up with the result profile these preliminary studies achieved. You can have all of the benefits and not wait 20-30+ years for a passing Cochran review.
I am not aware of a Cochran metastudy, with multiple placebo-controlled studies on accidental complete sawing off of both legs and both arms of people, without medical assistance. Thus, we must assume accidentally completely sawing off both arms and both legs is completely safe, if the best multi-study proof is needed.
I post these cutting edge studies straight from journals and conferences so people can experiment and benefit today. If it makes general sense, it's worth reviewing and seeing if you and your doctor want to try this latest research out, from my perspective.
I should have spelled it, “Cochrane.”
My bad. Still waking up this morning!
I wonder if you eat a diet rich in choline, which converts to acetylcholine would be preferable to taking a drug(?)...
Quick copied food sources:
Beef liver.
Eggs.
Beef top round.
Roasted soybeans, canned kidney beans.
Roasted chicken breast.
Cod.
Cooked quinoa.
Cooked shiitake mushrooms, boiled broccoli and Brussels sprouts.
I had radial keratotomy in my thirties that moved me from 20/900 to 20/200 and was pretty happy being able to wear contacts and not quarter pound glasses. It all went to nought in my fifties and now I have bifocals for driving and readers for reading. Starting to get cateracts and totally planning on refractive lense replacement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.