I'm with Matthew. There is something elusive about Truth. Just when researchers feel they are on the point of a major discovery, they find that they have been following a false trail.
My sister used to work as a Research Scientist at International Medical Research Institute in Franceville, Gabon. Her special field of expertise was Malaria.
The whole life cycle of the protozoan that causes Malaria is well documented and understood. The effects of the protozoan are well understood.
Yet Malaria still kills millions.
Andrew
Does contact lens use accelrate KC?
Moderators: Anne Klepacz, John Smith, Sweet
-
Andrew MacLean
- Moderator
- Posts: 7703
- Joined: Thu 15 Jan 2004 8:01 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Other
- Location: Scotland
-
Hari Navarro
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Fri 26 Mar 2004 9:52 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Other
- Location: New Zealand
I disagree, or at least have a different way of viewing the concept of what truth is... the 'truth' that is out there does not nessesarily have to be a magic wand type cure all. It has to be an understanding of this disorder that allows us to make an informed choice.
The example you give could be mirrored in any major treatment for any condition known to man. What works for one may be contridicted in another (certain cancer treatments being the obvious example)...
But I feel that in the case of Keratoconus we are close to having a mentality that wants to have all the options on the table... one where we can decide from an informed point of view. It is not a case of waiting untill someone stumbles upon a definitive 'cure' (Although I very much hope that someday this happens)... but to contridict myself I do also have some sence of what you are saying. We have had contact lenses for many years and over a hundred years of the graft... we are informed that lenses do not aggravate the cornea in any decernable way and that graft has a 96% success rate... there are indeed varying degrees of 'truth'.
Hari
The example you give could be mirrored in any major treatment for any condition known to man. What works for one may be contridicted in another (certain cancer treatments being the obvious example)...
But I feel that in the case of Keratoconus we are close to having a mentality that wants to have all the options on the table... one where we can decide from an informed point of view. It is not a case of waiting untill someone stumbles upon a definitive 'cure' (Although I very much hope that someday this happens)... but to contridict myself I do also have some sence of what you are saying. We have had contact lenses for many years and over a hundred years of the graft... we are informed that lenses do not aggravate the cornea in any decernable way and that graft has a 96% success rate... there are indeed varying degrees of 'truth'.
Hari
-
Andrew MacLean
- Moderator
- Posts: 7703
- Joined: Thu 15 Jan 2004 8:01 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Other
- Location: Scotland
hari
Read the post before you say you disagree ... we all acknowledge that there are a range of options for managing the condition. It is just that none of them is a cure. The "truth" is that there is still no clear understanding of the range of proximate causes that may trigger KC.
Maybe, for example, KC is the "natural" state of the human cornea. Rather than looking for what causes it to occur in some people it would be wiser to look for what inhibits it in the rest of the population!
Until that happy day when all things are understood, as I posted above, we all struggle on with the range of options for the management of the condition. Most of us are limited to the options that will be provided by the state, or by our private insurance contracts.
Some are able to afford options that can be provided only by our their private resources. If there are risks to be taken, maybe it is better that rich people take them first so that the rest of us can benefit in the future.
Andrew
Read the post before you say you disagree ... we all acknowledge that there are a range of options for managing the condition. It is just that none of them is a cure. The "truth" is that there is still no clear understanding of the range of proximate causes that may trigger KC.
Maybe, for example, KC is the "natural" state of the human cornea. Rather than looking for what causes it to occur in some people it would be wiser to look for what inhibits it in the rest of the population!
Until that happy day when all things are understood, as I posted above, we all struggle on with the range of options for the management of the condition. Most of us are limited to the options that will be provided by the state, or by our private insurance contracts.
Some are able to afford options that can be provided only by our their private resources. If there are risks to be taken, maybe it is better that rich people take them first so that the rest of us can benefit in the future.
Andrew
Andrew MacLean
-
Hari Navarro
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Fri 26 Mar 2004 9:52 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Other
- Location: New Zealand
Hi Andrew,
I read the post again and I think that we do have differing views on this topic. I did not make it clear but by saying we were 'hot on the heels of the truth' I ment that we were closing in on treatment options that do not only 'mask' KC but actually treat it directly. This includes mini ARK, cross-linking... and although I personally am not a fan, intacs and other intraocular inserts.
The 'range' of options that we all acknowledge is dictated by whom? The three step method (glasses/RGP's/graft) is still widely publicised as the ONLY path open to KCer's... The 'truth' is that there is a far broader treatment base out there but for one reason or another we are not informed of its existence (not in all cases but in many).
The options we are given are widely thought of as 'buying us time' untill a truelly corrective option snails its way through the process of acceptence.
The variables that cause KC to present itself are complex enough... imagine the task of using the entire non KC population as a test group, to me this is way out of the range of practical research.
Do you really believe this? It is not only the rich that are forced into finding answers outside of the range of general medical acceptence. These people make very difficult personal decisions in weighing up the risks of undergoing procedures that have not recieved the medical establishments 20 year retrospective peer reviewed study goldern seal of acceptence.
Instead of treating these people as lab rats perhaps the medical world should take an renewed interest in exactly why these patients feel that they need alternate treatment in the first place.
Why should we have to struggle on with treatments solely because an insurance company sees fit to cover it or a healthcare establishment deems it fast and effective. Isnt it more in our interests to convince those who have the power to do so... to look at every option that comes our way with the intention of intergrating them into our health service?
Just because I differ with you on certain points Andrew does not mean that I dont respect your opinion (I know these posts at times sound aggresive but believe me they are not
).
You are happy within the system and by all accounts feel very grateful toward its stringent protocols. I on the other hand feel that although we obviously need 'controls' that in some cases certain treatments are falling by the wayside... and with our very limited options this is simply not acceptable.
Hari
I read the post again and I think that we do have differing views on this topic. I did not make it clear but by saying we were 'hot on the heels of the truth' I ment that we were closing in on treatment options that do not only 'mask' KC but actually treat it directly. This includes mini ARK, cross-linking... and although I personally am not a fan, intacs and other intraocular inserts.
The 'range' of options that we all acknowledge is dictated by whom? The three step method (glasses/RGP's/graft) is still widely publicised as the ONLY path open to KCer's... The 'truth' is that there is a far broader treatment base out there but for one reason or another we are not informed of its existence (not in all cases but in many).
The options we are given are widely thought of as 'buying us time' untill a truelly corrective option snails its way through the process of acceptence.
Maybe, for example, KC is the "natural" state of the human cornea. Rather than looking for what causes it to occur in some people it would be wiser to look for what inhibits it in the rest of the population!
The variables that cause KC to present itself are complex enough... imagine the task of using the entire non KC population as a test group, to me this is way out of the range of practical research.
Some are able to afford options that can be provided only by our their private resources. If there are risks to be taken, maybe it is better that rich people take them first so that the rest of us can benefit in the future.
Do you really believe this? It is not only the rich that are forced into finding answers outside of the range of general medical acceptence. These people make very difficult personal decisions in weighing up the risks of undergoing procedures that have not recieved the medical establishments 20 year retrospective peer reviewed study goldern seal of acceptence.
Instead of treating these people as lab rats perhaps the medical world should take an renewed interest in exactly why these patients feel that they need alternate treatment in the first place.
Why should we have to struggle on with treatments solely because an insurance company sees fit to cover it or a healthcare establishment deems it fast and effective. Isnt it more in our interests to convince those who have the power to do so... to look at every option that comes our way with the intention of intergrating them into our health service?
Just because I differ with you on certain points Andrew does not mean that I dont respect your opinion (I know these posts at times sound aggresive but believe me they are not
).
You are happy within the system and by all accounts feel very grateful toward its stringent protocols. I on the other hand feel that although we obviously need 'controls' that in some cases certain treatments are falling by the wayside... and with our very limited options this is simply not acceptable.
Hari
-
Matthew_
- Champion
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Thu 13 Jul 2006 3:13 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and contact lenses
- Location: Gallafrey
I don't think anyone feels those who can afford different treatments can be used as 'lab rats'. I think those who have financial options are very much aware they breaking new ground. The fact is the government has to be conservative with its resources, using tried and tested methods is generally how it does this. Naturally such conservatism means missing out some of these groundbreakers. The government ends up constantly lagging behind but it simply cannot throw money at everything! I know this can be desperately frustrating when we can research ourselves some interesting new developments on the internet. I guess the question is: who directs which techniques will be available and how well informed are they about KC?
Get a life...get a dog!
-
Hari Navarro
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Fri 26 Mar 2004 9:52 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Other
- Location: New Zealand
Just a quick note to Carole:
I have been speaking with prof. Lombardi (He is the surgeon who invented and regularily uses mini ARK to treat keratoconus) and told him about your sons case.
He said that the only problem that he could forsee is one that all post ark patients must adhere to, that is to not touch or rub the eyes at all following the treatment.
Also mini ARK can be performed under total anaesthesia so again its only post treatment care that is of concern.
Hope thats of some help.
Regards,
Hari
I have been speaking with prof. Lombardi (He is the surgeon who invented and regularily uses mini ARK to treat keratoconus) and told him about your sons case.
He said that the only problem that he could forsee is one that all post ark patients must adhere to, that is to not touch or rub the eyes at all following the treatment.
Also mini ARK can be performed under total anaesthesia so again its only post treatment care that is of concern.
Hope thats of some help.
Regards,
Hari
Return to “General Discussion Forum”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests