Anyone have intermediate Macular Degeneration

Helllo
I was diganosed over two years ago. Same as you, left and right eye. At my first doctor I had shots in my eye (yipes) every couple of months. The last injection I received left me with a killer infection that led me to two operations within two weeks and lots of bills. Long story short,my second eye doctor is a world of difference. He hesitates with shots, and prescribes supercharged eye vitamins. I may still have to have another shot but least an option was given. This condition, I understand, is generational. Best thing is, my new doctor told me there is a medicine in the works that will be oral!! I hope this will be soon and we all will have another option.

Update on photomodulation and why I use the 99.00 eyecharger:
I asked my Bascom Palmer trained doctor and he says the eyecharger sounds like the clinical FDA approved one except they use 3 electrical pulses and one hz is similiar to the 679 hz eyechargers. The clinical treatment hz ‘s godeeper into the eye. tissue. At this point eyecharger appears safer! You dont want to be in line for the newest treatment - sometimes the kinks are not fully worked out or the study is not as good as made out initially . Like beta carotene was subsequently taken out of the original AREDS formula because of lung cancer concerns. But time is of the essence and AMD progresses into GA over a period of five to eight years on average.

In January 2025, JAMA Ophthalmology published a Viewpoint article critically examining the use of photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The authors raised concerns about the clinical efficacy and safety of PBM treatments administered in ophthalmologists' offices. They emphasized the need for more robust, long-term studies to validate the benefits and assess potential risks associated with these in-office procedures. The article also highlighted inconsistencies in treatment protocols and a lack of standardized guidelines, which could impact patient outcomes. Given these uncertainties, the authors advised clinicians to exercise caution when considering PBM therapy for AMD and to thoroughly discuss the current evidence and potential risks with patients.

In contrast, home-use devices like Dr. Glen Jeffery's 670 nm red LED device are designed for general age-related vision decline and have shown promise in improving retinal mitochondrial function with minimal risk. However, it's important to note that while these devices are intended for home use, they are not specifically approved for treating AMD. Patients should consult with their eye care professionals to determine the most appropriate treatment options for their specific condition.

Search

ChatGPT

eyecharger-
Device no longer available but Jeffrey tested it and it’s approved by him but for “longevity” kind of like rapamyacin
he quotes:
this time I am not aware of any such studies (the company claims it has been approved by the ethics committees of Moorfield's and UCL, and is not being commercialized marketed as a therapy, only as an anti-aging agent). Are there biological mechanisms that indicate that red light therapy is not safe, in adults and/or in children?

Safety of light generating devices depends on energy and wavelength. In general, longer wavelength devices are much safer at the same energy than short wavelength devices. I don't have a commercial relationship with the two companies (Eye-power and Eyecharger), but I tested their prototypes because it was important to me that there was something I knew was safe. Both products operate at energies and wavelengths for which I have received ethical approval from Moorfields Eye Hospital and also from University College London. This confirmed that they are well within safe range. However, they do not have a clinical safety seal. Obtaining this can be a lengthy process. I have told both companies that we would strongly disapprove of any attempt to claim that their devices are officially clinically approved, and I support this.

Genetic Testing appears to be so important for Intermediate Dry AMD but retina physicians don’t seem to care. Ask your retina doctor if they are familiar with genetic testing for your eye condition and if you can get an order for the test offered by
ArcticDx - Macula Risk PGx. This company has an AMD genetics test that will show the eye alleles that respond poorly to high zinc formulations in certain AREDS2 brands. The finding is that 15 percent of the intermediate dry AMD patients should not be taking take a high zinc AREDS2. brand. Ask your physician why genetic testing is not the norm. Beta carotene was a problem why is a high concentration of zinc in the formula when 15 percent of the AMD population should not be taking such a dose.

emailed to me from contacting articDX :