People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

Potential ways to reduce risk / slow retinal degeneration

• Several comments say there may be limited options for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), but list possible risk-reduction ideas:
  • Proper UV-blocking sunglasses; warning that dark lenses without UV filtering can worsen exposure by dilating pupils. Some note that many plastics pass UVA, and glass still passes 350–400 nm, so coatings matter.
  • Supplements mentioned: lutein, vitamin A palmitate, DHA, omega‑3/fish oil, and pigments like astaxanthin, lycopene, lutein. Effectiveness is unclear; some are prescribed as a “we can’t do anything else” measure.
  • General advice: don’t smoke, reduce sugar / advanced glycation end-products.
• Anecdotes about wet AMD treated with intraocular injections: very effective but timing and side effects are tricky.
• Retinitis pigmentosa / Usher’s syndrome is discussed as genetic; hope placed in future CRISPR or mRNA treatments, but expectations are tempered.

Excitement, sci‑fi, and cultural references

• Many express excitement, likening the tech to Geordi La Forge’s visor, Cyberpunk “Kiroshi” eyes, and Black Mirror–style implants.
• Others simply call it “pretty cool” and see it as a real step toward “cyborg” futures.

Long‑term support, capitalism, and regulation

• Strong concern about repeating the Second Sight / Argus II fiasco, where patients later lost support and functional benefit.
• Debate over capitalism:
  • One side: profit motive enabled development but also makes unprofitable long‑term support fragile.
  • Others argue this is exactly why regulation is needed, especially for non-removable implants, including mandated sustainment plans and possibly public risk‑sharing.
• Comparisons to consumer tech that bricks when cloud services end; fear that the same pattern with implants is catastrophic.
• Proposals:
  • Require that software, protocols, and documentation for implants be escrowed with a government body and released if the company stops support.
  • Counterpoint: even with docs, lack of parts, trained clinicians, and insurance coverage can still render devices unusable.
• Some call for free/open‑source software in medical devices and free healthcare; others note regulatory and financial barriers to truly open implanted systems.
• One commenter reports the current company says implants themselves have no firmware/battery and rely on an external system with a public protocol, which may mitigate some long‑term risks.

Accessibility, FLOSS, and language debates

• A blind commenter urges contributing to free accessibility tools (e.g., NVDA on Windows; AT‑SPI/ATK/Orca on Linux) and notes proprietary tools can be exploitative.
• Long subthread on wording like “people with blindness”:
  • Some disabled commenters prefer plain “blind” or “visually impaired” and strongly dislike euphemisms like “visually challenged.”
  • Others see “people‑first language” (“person with X”) as low‑stakes and well‑intentioned, but many are frustrated that non‑disabled “language police” drive these changes without consulting them.
  • Concern that constant renaming (the “euphemism treadmill”) increases cognitive load and can polarize discourse.

Clinical impact and remaining questions

• An ophthalmologist notes:
  • The surgery (subretinal) is specialized and not widely practiced; unclear who will be able to offer it.
  • The study did not clearly show that implant + glasses outperform high‑power magnifying glasses alone; future trials are needed.
• Some skepticism about phrases like “clinically meaningful improvement,” but others emphasize that regaining the ability to read everyday text (mail, menus, signs) is a huge quality‑of‑life gain.
• One person with a relative blinded by trauma and alcohol-related retinal detachment expresses hope for similar treatments; no concrete solutions are offered in the thread.