The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
those who are in the know and are watching this or listening to it also realize that sometimes it's the curvature of the cornea that contributes to whether someone is nearsighted or farsighted but let's say for the purposes of this discussion that it's the length of the eyeball that is the main reason why someone is nearsighted or not or farsighted
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the length of the eye is really what determines whether you are nearsighted or farsighted when you say length you mean distance from front to back okay so anterior posterior length of the eyeball primarily that is the main driver as to whether you are nearsighted or farsighted
so a very nearsighted person has a very long eyeball let me make sure i understand that okay very long ap access you're gonna have a real hard time seeing things far away correct
the cornea in that person is a little bit too steep to focus the light perfectly on their retina another way of looking at it is that then again the cornea is about two millimeters thick now the coin's got a half a millimeter thick it's about 500 microns maybe a little more um so either the cornea is a little too steep or the eyeball is a little too long probably a little of both