Home Eye Pressure Monitoring Recommended

Submitted by FitEyesAdmin on Sat, 09/12/2009 - 3:38pm

Millions of people around the world should be monitoring their eye pressure (intraocular pressure) at home, according to health organizations (such as  International Society for Self-Tonometry (ISST)) that are issuing recommendations on what to do and how to do it. Many experts, such as Dr.

Glaucoma Research Articles

FitEyes provides a collection of carefully selected, edited and well-organized glaucoma research articles. You can find them in this section. See the menu on the side for a list of all articles.

Eye pressure question - how do I go about testing this further with my tonometer?

Submitted by Thomas Hirsz on Sat, 09/04/2010 - 7:59am

My elevated intraocular pressure in the evening seems to decrease when I lie down and read. However this could be due to other factors such as the eye drops kicking in. How would I go about testing this further?

Intraocular Pressure: It's the data, stupid

Submitted by dave on Tue, 12/15/2009 - 10:09pm

The following post is adapted from "A Deluge of Data Shapes a New Era in Computing" By JOHN MARKOFF, published: December 14, 2009 in The New York Times.

"The scientists were stuck in 1920"

Submitted by dave on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 6:32pm

There is a New York Times article entitled "Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel" By GINA KOLATA published on May 16, 2006. I just read it today. The article is about recent discoveries in exercise physiology. It turns out that the accepted scientific understanding of a fundamental aspect of exercise was wrong for more than 80 years. It ends with a quote by Dr. Brooks: "The scientists were stuck in 1920." He's talking about the entire field of exercise physiology!

Even when the mistake was shown by good research, the entire field continued to fight against Dr. Brooks's discoveries for decades. In some ways it reminds me of the fight against new tonometers such as the Ocular Response Analyzer and the Pascal Dynamic Contour tonometer that we see in ophthalmology now.

In my experience, science (as typically practiced) is wrong so much that I think people who maintain a predominantly scientific (i.e., materialistic) world view are disadvantaged. For example, the article says, "Coaches have understood things the scientists didn't." That is almost always the case in almost every field at all times.

The people who are "in the trenches" understand things scientists don't. Now this isn't to say that the scientific method is bad or that data-driven methodology should be discarded. Good coaches rely on a ton of data and they have excellent observation skills. They do have a scientific approach. The difference is they are not limited by a dogmatic scientific materialism.

Furthermore, the practice of science in today's world is so wrapped up with ego, power, career advancement and money that the altruistic aims of science get pushed aside. And new discoveries get trampled by established scientists who want to hold on to their positions of power and prestige.

Filed Under (tags):

Homeopathy and Astrology

Submitted by Sojourner on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 10:16am

I was very disappointed to see a reference to [homeopathic ophthalmology] in  The worst view of homeopathy is that it is quackery; the less scathing one is that it is not "evidence based medicine". 

What next? Will we see links to astrologers and aromatherapists who lay claim to curing eye diseases?

NOTE: Please read this comment for the FitEyes perspective: (requires free registration)

The God Choice (Article From USA Today)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 06/22/2009 - 10:47pm

The God choice

Armed with new technology, scientists are peering into the brain to better understand human spirituality. What if, they say, God isn’t some figment of our imagination? Instead, perhaps brain chemistry simply reflects an encounter with the divine.

By Barbara Bradley Hagerty

Subscribe to RSS Feed Subscribe to science