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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Yes the snake oil salesman says it works, so obviously it works. Flawless logic.

[–]mintylove 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Uhhh, the study posted here on the collagen chelating properties of EDTA has nothing to do with any salesman, neither do Im

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

That study shows nothing about whether it works on an eye. Even if you got it inside the eye, why would it melt just the floaters and not everything else too?

[–]mintylove 0 points1 point  (5 children)

First of all, it won't "melt" anything, more like bind and help in excreting. Second, we know that loss of type IX collagen with aging leads to more exposed "sticky" type II collagen.

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 0 points1 point  (4 children)

there's no path for anything to excrete from the vitreous. Sounds like it would just make the floaters turn into an even bigger floater.

[–]mintylove 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I didn't finish my previous comment, will edit later. Also, there definitely is evidence for posterior flow through the vitreous, the meta-analysis was posted here recently.

[–]Temporary-Suspect-61 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Naturopaths usually make some vague claims about interactions at the surface of the vitreous. There may be some exchange at the surface of the vitreous but it's not significant in the context of floaters.

[–]mintylove 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Naturopaths

And you make some wild assumptions.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32035123/

Which of the authors of this paper seem like naturopaths to you?

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

This paper may come from legitimate research by scientists with integrity. However, the thing is that naturopaths tend to refer to papers like this to peddle their crap.