This is about a substance called pirenzepine that could inhibit myopia as a child or in worsening conditions of myopia.
Links to these pages.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/HIFI4/p.gif
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/HIFI4/f.gif
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/HIFI4/e.gif
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/HIFI4/j.gif
beta chem
[This message has been edited by beta chem (edited 09-19-2000).]
Howdy Dude,
I've read these studies some time ago and unortunately I have to bare bad news. In the majority of the studies on this particular subject that I've read (and by the researchers own admissions) the studies are inconclusive.
As I'm sure you know, a baby chicks eyes are nothing like the human eye, but when subjected to many of these experiments results were to be had. If I can find my sheets on this subject I'll try to give you more direct information so that you know where I'm coming from. In the mean time if you want to read more like what you've found you can visit the OEP web site. It's "Behavioral Optometry" all over again.
Good luck.
Darris C.
Hello Darris,
Hows it going. I was wondering when someone was going to respond to this thread.
I guess I am doomed and my kids are doomed we are all doomed. Destined to coke bottles,saran wrap lenses and eyefries, yippie.
I only think that this research is promising.
I think I am going to work on a chemical peel for the cornea, like the ones for people with bad acne. Maybe a roller shaver to shave the cornea or hypersonic vibrator that vibrates the eyeball into shape.Maybe even mini robots that you inject into the eye that add mini come-alongs inside the eye too pull it so the eyeball becomes more round. I can see it now bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt,wranght,wranght,wranght; ah finally 20/20.I can dream can't I?
Here are some suggestions.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/HIFI4/eye.gif
beta :)"the cloud of doom has come and I knew it would" chem ;)
[This message has been edited by beta chem (edited 09-25-2000).]
Beta Chem
A request from the other side of the pond.
Please can you not put such big pic's in your post's it don't half mess the loading time up your page has taken nearly 5 mins to load NOT GOOD. As its a scan why not convert to .txt and post a link to it at another site much kinder on the bandwidth.
Thanks
John "We ain't got broardband yet" r
------------------
Every day a grind
Every week a bind
www.iooi.co.uk
Good points John!
Beta Chem, please don't put large images in your messages. As John suggests, put the links to the images instead. I'd appreciate it also if you could edit your messages to fix this. Thanks.
------------------
OptiBoard Administrator
Not to mention that you've technically committed a copyright infringement by not indicating the source.
Another very good point Rick. I'm going to edit beta chem's message myself.
Beta Chem, please take note of these comments if you wish to continue to have posting privileges. Thanks for your cooperation.
------------------
OptiBoard Administrator
Hello beta chem,
I like to see your sense of humor coming out :-) I liked your pics. Now on to the plausibility of your suggestions.
The first suggestion although good common sense more than scientific would remove some of the retina creating a blind spot.
The second suggestion although good in theory would create the same problems that will be evident in the future with LASIK and therefore not feasible for long term correction. Norelco does make a fine bladed instrument there is no doubt, but it may be difficult to get an exact depth on an item with floating heads. There is also the screen to consider. You would end up with two corneal flaps, but it would be soft and supple to the touch (the saying "Smooth as a babies behind comes to mind" :-) Gillette would have a bigger problem with the Mach III ;-) but you could get all the way down to the sclera in one swipe :-)
The third suggestion could work as long as the "come along" didn't slip out of place or the ratcheting device didn't break under pressure (which happens quite often when hoisting an engine or other heavy object) You did leave out a very important piece of necessary equipment for using the "come along" and that is the A-frame. Where would you put it? :-)
For the safety factor I believe that you would need to shrink a well seasoned mechanic to put in the eye to make sure that the come along didn't slip out of place. If it did, the well seasoned mechanic could shore it up with some duct tape, some rusty piece of chain that he found lying around or a pair of vice-grips and a bolt :-) Robots don't think that well under pressure and would never think of using junk lying around to solve an immediate problem :-)
I will agree that the research could be headed in the right direction and have even had conversations with a couple of optometrists that are big on this sort of thing. Without further study I don't believe a true conclusion can be made and it was just that sort of attitude on my part that made the OD's that I spoke to mad at me which then prompted them to stop talking to me. Oh well.
I guess I'll go for now. You take care of you and your'n.
Darris C.
Sorry here you go, I 'll leave links from now on. Didn't know all the glitches in these here computers.
beta chem
Thanks for doing that saves a lot of time and trouble..
I'm lucky got free 24/7 for a £5.00 a month but most in the uk still pay by the min so its going to save a lot.
John "Thanks a lot" R
------------------
Every day a grind
Every week a bind
www.iooi.co.uk
I left www.newscientist.com at the bottom of one of the gifs, I believe e.gif. I thought that would be good enough.
Actually, removing tissue from the "sides" of the eye (at least in the area indicated by the picture)wouldn't create a blind spot... However, it would be rather tricky since the muscles which give the eye motion in the socket mostly attach in the intended area of surgery ;) . Plus, the eye does have internal pressure- which may make suturing the eye back together rather difficult.<FONT COLOR=#FF0000>"The first suggestion although good common sense more than scientific would remove some of the retina creating a blind spot."</FONT>
Hmmm. Did I mention it has been close to a year since my LASIK (Oct 7) and I'm 20/15+. Also, I've noticed the halos have continued to dimish through the second half of the year... The "funny sensation" I once had in twilight is gone as well. I suppose my vision is just getting better in preparation for a huge decrease in vision sometime in the fore-un-seeable future ;) .<FONT COLOR=#FF0000>"The second suggestion although good in theory would create the same problems that will be evident in the future with LASIK and therefore not feasible for long term correction."</FONT>
Actually, the September issue of "Primary Care Optometry News" (vol. 5, number 9) has an interesting article on page 50 regarding a "laser adjustable [intraocular] lens." True, it will only be available to those having cataract surgery, but it is interesting nonetheless. Seems the implant is made of silicone that is not completely polymerized. After surgery, the patient's correction can be fine tuned by shooting a laser into specific portions of the implant- polymerizing, and therefore causing swelling, in portions of the lens. Initial studies show the correction can be adjusted +/- 5.00 diopters.
Pete "that gnat across the room needs a shave" Hanlin
PS- beta chem, if you want to look into a method of arresting myopic progression that has shown real promise, look into RGP lenses for your kids...
[This message has been edited by Pete Hanlin (edited 09-20-2000).]
Now Pete,
"PS- beta chem, if you want to look into a method of arresting myopic progression that has shown real promise, look into RGP lenses for your kids..." Aren't you the guy that always touts how bad contacts are for the eyes and can even give referrence material for the studies?
Your eyesight is improving and I think that's great. I would suggest you enjoy it while you can because your eyes are going to fall out :) I get up every morning, put my glasses on and see 20/20 (I can move it to 20/15 but it is a little too much minus for me) I don't have to put safety glasses on when I do any work that might throw something up toward my eye. If I'm out on a field and the wind picks up I'm less likely to have to worry about getting dirt in my eye. AND for the grand finally I can do all kinds of neat things with glasses to change my look or style not to mention it's fun ;)
Well I'd better get off this soapbox because the air is a bit thin up here :) See you later (no pun intended)
Darris "At least my eyes won't fall out" Chambless
Actually, my beef is with soft contact lenses. Rigid Gas Permeable lenses seem to be much friendlier to the eyes (better tear exchange under the lens, better transferrance of oxygen through the lens, etc.).
On the other hand, I believe the fact that more people who wear their soft extended wear contact lenses do not have serious complications is a testament to the resiliance of the cornea. Basically, wearing soft lenses is like trying to grow a healthy lawn in scorching sun without watering it...
Pete "Laser all you want, but don't put those soft lenses on my eyes" Hanlin
Hello Pete,
You have had laser surgery I understand. You say you have halos.
1.) Is it because your pupil is not adjusting to dark?
2.) Is it all the time?
3.) Why do you see halo's?
Thanks for your response.
beta chem
beta chem,<FONT COLOR=#FF0000>"Hello Pete,
You have had laser surgery I understand. You say you have halos.
1.) Is it because your pupil is not adjusting to dark?
2.) Is it all the time?
3.) Why do you see halo's?
Thanks for your response.
beta chem</FONT>
I had LASIK performed on 7 October 1999. At the time, I was 31 and my Rx was OD -4.50 -0.25 x120; OS -4.75 -0.25 x064.
1.) After LASIK, the pupil adapts to darkness as it did before LASIK. The problem lies in the increased pupil size. During LASIK (or RK, for that matter), the zone of the cornea that is being affected is actually quite small. In LASIK, the ablation zone is about 8mm in diameter. During the day, the smaller size of the pupil stops oblique light (light coming from an angle outside the ablation zone) from entering the eye. At night, the pupil (which is the equivalent of a camera's lens stop) increases in size- thus allowing light from greater angles to enter into the posterior chambers of the eye. The result is that some light is not clearly focused.
In addition, immediately after surgery, the central layers of the cornea are somewhat swelled and settle down over time.
2.) As I mentioned, the effect is only evident during twilight or darkness. Pleasantly enough, mine has diminished over the course of the year such that it is barely perceptible at this point in time.
3.) Also as mentioned, the halos are rings of unfocused light surrounding point light sources. The worst lights are dim ones (like the little clock on your VCR when the room is dark). Brighter lights cause the pupil to constrict- thus eliminating the halos.
All in all, my vision is better now than it was before the surgery. Not in the traditional sense of visual acuity (which was 20/15+ corrected before surgery and remains the same now), but I have better spatial perception, I don't have the effects of off-axis astigmatism or distortion (which are inherent to even the best designed spectacle lenses), and there are no reflections (or smudges :) ) to look through anymore.
Prior to LASIK, I could not (would not) wear soft contacts, and I was unable to adapt to RGPs- so LASIK has been a wonderful experience for me. However, as the surgeon admits, my outcome was about as good as they come. I was an excellent candidate, my Rx was stable, and I wasn't a former cl wearer (and I prayed like the dickens before the surgery ;) ), so the results of the procedure were excellent. There are real and serious complications that can and do result from LASIK. By and large, however, the most common "complaint" usually is associated with slight to moderate perception of halos at night.
Pete "the autorefractor here in the office reads me as 'OD plano -0.25; OS plano' Hanlin
PS- If I'm not mistaken, I think I might have read that pirenzepine is a drug sometimes used for individuals with severe halos after LASIK (I wasn't sure, which is why I hadn't mentioned it earlier). Is this a drug that causes the pupils to constrict?
Hello Pete,
Actually pirenzipine supposedly has the same affects as Atropine but less pupil dilation, I guess. I don't think that it causes pupil constriction. If you want something that causes constriction you can use a opiate type substance like morphine, oxycodone, or dilaudid. I doubt that you would probably want to do that though. Unless you like to sleep alot. Pirezepine possibly relaxes the muscles attatched to the lens or on the side of the eye.
What is in the drops that they give people for the halos after surgery?
beta chem
[This message has been edited by beta chem (edited 09-25-2000).]
Look ma no more gifs.
beta "in a hurry chem" chem
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks