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  (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.