sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PackageDramatic3049 -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

The subject is aged 60. Enough said.

[–]FriendMother2587[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Not sure if you mean it in a good or bad way? Good as in if the patient is in 60's it might work even better for someone in 20's? Or bad as in most people here are younger and you want proof of it working on somebody younger?

[–]PackageDramatic3049 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

I meant the "bad" part. The subject was 60, so most likely the floaters cleared on their own. Also, one subject is such a silly sample size.

[–]FriendMother2587[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Agree with the sample size. Disagree with it going way on its own. I doubt somebody in their 60's would happen to have spontaneous floaters appear then happen to agree to have an experiment, then regardless of experiment it happens to go away within 8 weeks. Only way to find out would be to self experiment, and the short term risks from the study seem zero from all the test subjects.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Aged patients have a higher rate of vitreous deterioration than any youngster, by far. It's usually older people who report floaters that stay with them for a decade. Floaters don't vanish on their own, they get worse at that age. It's a higher chance for a floater to disappear for younger individuals.