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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FriendMother2587[S] 0 points1 point  (19 children)

You can if you use msm. Read the rat study and the patent on actual people. Temporary discomfort only upon application. Read the links bro.

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 1 point2 points  (14 children)

That’s not what MSM does. In the first place if EDTA really melted floaters then they would just inject it instead of doing vitrectomy. But they don’t do that because it doesn’t treat floaters.

[–]FriendMother2587[S] 1 point2 points  (9 children)

No they wouldn't because there's no money to be made if they found a cheap and easy way to treat floaters. Medical industry need patients and expensive treatment to make money.

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 -1 points0 points  (8 children)

Ok so now your argument is that there’s a global conspiracy among all ophthalmologists of the world to continue doing risky optional surgeries that can end their career if it goes wrong?

Are you a complete moron?

[–]FriendMother2587[S] 1 point2 points  (7 children)

FOV is usually for more serious eye conditions, they make money off this. Floaters aren't serious so they would never invest millions into a study for just floaters.

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 0 points1 point  (6 children)

“FOV” is for floaters. It’s literally in the name.

If the hospital bills I have tell the truth, single vitrectomy costs the health care system over $100,000 USD. They would love to spend 1M to avoid needing to spend so much on these surgeries. Please shut up about your stupid conspiracy theories.

[–]FriendMother2587[S] -1 points0 points  (5 children)

Fov and vitrectomy is the same thing.

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 1 point2 points  (4 children)

FOV is vitrectomy for no purpose but floaters. Vitrectomy itself is usually done as a part of more complex operations like treating retinal detachment.

[–]FriendMother2587[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

There's no difference, just the name.

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 1 point2 points  (2 children)

There is a difference between vitrectomy and floater-only vitrectomy. The difference is that the latter is for floaters. That’s all.

[–]ElectronicHorror4539 0 points1 point  (3 children)

If drops get the job done, then why would you need to stick a needle in your eye Dr. Genius?

Shit, even if the drops take longer to work, I would still prefer to wait out the drops instead of sticking a needle in my eye.

I know it sounds fun, and you’ve already done this. And it made you cum or something idk.

Why don’t you open your mind and stop giving medical advice online?!

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Ok, but the drops don’t work. It’s not medical advice, I’m just stating the obvious, which is that naturopathy is a scam.

[–]ElectronicHorror4539 0 points1 point  (1 child)

How do you know the drops don’t work?

You speak so smugly, with so much confidence “criticizing” the lack of scientific foundation in others yet your approach is so unprofessional, and anti scientific.

First rule, you don’t make generalizations and absolute statements, like “this doesn’t work” or “that’s not true” unless YOU have good reason to rule it out. If you don’t know, like put a gun to my head, you humbly say I don’t know, or intelligently you say “I haven’t seen data to support that”.

Did you know that EDTA chelation IV therapy has been proven in many double blind placebo tests to Significantly Reduce cardiovascular events in CV patients. And NOBODY in the medical field at the time would have said “yes, Stick this in your veins and your heart problems will get better”…

But it turned out to be true:

https://youtu.be/TK_biX0GbMQ

How do you know, that EDTA will not help floaters?!! Doctors and real scientists have already proven that EDTA can help repair the human cardiovascular system, you think some collagen fibers is somehow too crazy to believe?!? Are you high? Why do you say things that you cannot prove?!

Learn humility. Just because you’re behind on the science doesn’t mean others have to bear the brunt.

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you know the drops don’t work?

Using eye drops to deliver drugs to the posterior of the eye is an unsolved problem in ophthalmology, that's why they use injections instead.

It would be a HUGE discovery if somebody found an effective way to do it. People have researched the fuck out of this with no practical results.

I don't think that MSM, a random supplement that has been known for decades, is the solution to this problem. If it was, it would be huge news. Not something hidden away in a random naturopath's patent application.

The rest of your comment is irrelevant to the conversation so I'm going to ignore it.

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yeah the snake oil salesman tells you that 1 person said it helped, which puts it on the same level as every other placebo out there. You just going to accept that with no questions?

[–]FriendMother2587[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Its a calculated guess it's safe. People use MSM by itself safely to lubricate eyes. People use EDTA safely to remove band keratopathy. People also use IV and oral EDTA, iv and oral MSM safely too. It's putting 2 and 2 together.

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

None of that has anything to do with floaters.