It’s too bad that this will be downvoted into invisibility just because you didn’t have the discipline to leave off the last sentence.
The ‘suppressed science’ link is worth reading IMO, even though I think it’s highly probable that the experimental results therein are bunk; it’s quite conceivable that the scientific establishment draws its “crank research” line too early in some modern cases, given its history.
Here’s one case where I’d say the crank research filter is too sensitive—natural vision improvement. I’ve had some experience of it working, but the usual response to the idea that anything other than surgery or lenses can improve eyesight in well-nourished people has been “it’s all about the shape of the lenses of your eyes”, and anything else is nonsense.
Since I knew you’d ask, my night vision has improved considerably. I’ve been too stubborn to wear glasses (details later if people are interested). When I moved to Philadelphia in 1995, I couldn’t read the street signs at night. And when I say couldn’t , I mean that I couldn’t read them if I stood as close to the sign as possible and squinted. Now I can read them at a moderate distance (will check on just what, but a definite improvement).
I haven’t been testing my vision—it’s mostly been more acuity checked by at what distance I can read street signs.
And it isn’t just a shift of the clear visual range with time. (I’m 56.) I can still see the little Lincoln in Lincoln memorial on the back of a penny.
It’s too bad that this will be downvoted into invisibility just because you didn’t have the discipline to leave off the last sentence.
Actually, the article has about as much substance as a typical 9/11 conspiracy diatribe. That whole site is almost enough to make me abandon my own contrarian opinions, for fear of being just another fool.
It’s too bad that this will be downvoted into invisibility just because you didn’t have the discipline to leave off the last sentence.
The ‘suppressed science’ link is worth reading IMO, even though I think it’s highly probable that the experimental results therein are bunk; it’s quite conceivable that the scientific establishment draws its “crank research” line too early in some modern cases, given its history.
Here’s one case where I’d say the crank research filter is too sensitive—natural vision improvement. I’ve had some experience of it working, but the usual response to the idea that anything other than surgery or lenses can improve eyesight in well-nourished people has been “it’s all about the shape of the lenses of your eyes”, and anything else is nonsense.
Since I knew you’d ask, my night vision has improved considerably. I’ve been too stubborn to wear glasses (details later if people are interested). When I moved to Philadelphia in 1995, I couldn’t read the street signs at night. And when I say couldn’t , I mean that I couldn’t read them if I stood as close to the sign as possible and squinted. Now I can read them at a moderate distance (will check on just what, but a definite improvement).
I haven’t been testing my vision—it’s mostly been more acuity checked by at what distance I can read street signs.
And it isn’t just a shift of the clear visual range with time. (I’m 56.) I can still see the little Lincoln in Lincoln memorial on the back of a penny.
Now, it turns out that neuroplasticity applies to the visual system.
What did you do to improve your vision?
Actually, the article has about as much substance as a typical 9/11 conspiracy diatribe. That whole site is almost enough to make me abandon my own contrarian opinions, for fear of being just another fool.
This article might be of interest to you.
Feel free to post the link again leaving off the last sentence.