Talk:Presbyopia

The article has just a single sentence regarding the actual cause of Presbyopia (decreasing levels of α-crystallin). I'd really like to know more about this. Why does it decrease with age? Are there treatments which could stabilize or increase α-crystallin? If not, why is it not possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42engineer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Heading

if you have presbyopia does far object focus in front of the retina and close object focus behind the retina

Description is not generally correct

When shortsighted people develop presbyopia they have no difficulty reading small print. So the basic description here is misleading. Davblo2 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to edit it. This page doesn't seem to get much activity, so the chances that someone else will fix it are not high. I won't attempt to, because anything I do regarding eyesight is somehow seen as POV-pushing. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Visual training

[1] This New York Times article cites several sources which support this approach, and this was published later. It appears that this has actually been studied and found to be effective! I brought this up in September but got no response, and that post was just archived. I think the GlassesOff app should probably be mentioned here, but I refrained from doing that since I don't want to be seen as promoting it. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You should really let other editors handle this topic entirely. ApLundell (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I brought this up three months ago, and no one did anything. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

We got sanctions applied to you. Seems like you want to get an outright ban or block at this point. --Hipal (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I should have pursued this instead of doing what I did at Bates method. Part of the reason I didn't do much at this article was that I was worried that content already here would end up getting removed, as occurred at the Bates method article. But in this case, there is clear support from valid sources (even if the New York Times piece itself doesn't qualify, sources it cites do). Belteshazzar (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to be blocked or banned, this is probably not anything you should be pursuing in any form at all. --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I hesitate to point this out, but the Treatment section of the current article does clearly state that such methods have been "tested successfully in multiple studies", though without explaining what any such methods are, which is an odd omission. The statement is supported by a source, and more sources could be added. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I do think there is a place in this article for a fuller reference to the use of perceptual learning to achieve "improved visual performance in presbyopes" (to quote from Polat et al (ref. 13 in article)) (and it has absolutely nothing to do with the ineffective Bates method ;) ). -- Jmc (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ApLundell told me above to "let other editors handle this topic entirely". I assume then that others will take care of this? Belteshazzar (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)