Eye Doctors Are Begging You To Stop Using This Common Product In Your Eyes
'It's not until you have [a] problem with your eyes that you really become grateful for your vision,' said Dr. Michelle Holmes, an optometrist at Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, California.
There's a lot you can do to protect your eye health. You can keep up with your annual eye exams, wear sunglasses to shield your eyes from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays, and avoid wearing contacts to bed or in the pool, to name a few.
But there is one habit you should never do, even though it may seem like eye care: Don't use eye-whitening, or red-eye relieving, drops.
'My concern with those types of eye drops is that eye-whitening drops can be used by someone to mask redness, and, oftentimes, that redness is a symptom of some more serious underlying condition,' Holmes told HuffPost.
Here's why you may want to steer clear of redness relief eye drops.
Related: If You're Feeling Stressed, Here Are 12 Totally Wholesome Posts To Help Uplift Your Mood
Related: I Believed I Was Destined To Be A Nun. But When I Moved Into A Convent, Things Changed.
When your eye is irritated, as it may be with pink eye or certain allergies, the blood vessels located in the front of the eye will dilate and engorge. 'That's what causes the white part of the eye to look red and angry,' Holmes explained.
Those blood vessels serve an important purpose — when inflamed, they indicate something is wrong, Holmes said. This could be due to a mild problem, such as a cold or dust in the eye, or it may be a symptom of a more serious health condition like an infection, glaucoma, or a corneal abrasion.
'It's not normal to have a red, angry-looking eye,' Holmes said.
Red-eye relieving drops target these blood vessels to constrict and minimize their appearance. Temporarily, this makes the eyes white again, however, these drops could mask the problem at hand.
'It may make you think everything is OK with your eyes when really there can be something quite serious going on,' Holmes said. "It's a band-aid, not a fix," she added.
That redness can help your eye doctor detect eye diseases. With certain eye conditions, time is of the essence. Left untreated, they can worsen and lead to complications, including infections, and, in serious cases, vision loss.
Not to mention, these drops may cause a rebound effect. 'As the eye drops wear off and nutrients and oxygen start to flow back through those blood vessels, they actually will dilate and engorge more than initially,' Holmes said.
People can then get trapped in a cycle: their eyes appear red and irritated, they use redness-relieving drops that provide temporary relief, but then the redness comes back — this time, even worse — and they use the drops again. In some cases, people become dependent on red-eye relieving drops, and the underlying health issue is never addressed, Holmes said.
There are other remedies you can use instead.
Whenever a patient tells Holmes they use eye-whitening drops, she recommends they opt for lubricating artificial tears instead. Her advice: use preservative-free drops — 'they're gentler on the eyes,' she explained. These products are generally thought to be the safest type of preservative-free eye drops.
The Food and Drug Administration recently issued a warning against 26 over-the-counter eye drop products due to the risk of eye infections that may cause partial vision loss or blindness.
Finally, if your eye is red and irritated, talk to an eye care provider. Even if you give your local eye clinic a call, the front desk should be able to triage the redness — and determine if you need follow-up care or testing — and recommend safe, effective eye drops.
'Oftentimes, the cause of the redness can be determined and more effectively addressed when the reason why is known,' Holmes said.This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Also in Goodful: I Prayed For Years That No One Would Discover The Issue With My Private Parts. Now I'm Done Hiding.
Also in Goodful: "It's Soul-Crushing": People Are Revealing The TellTale Signs Someone Has Been Through A Lot Of Shit In Their Life, And Some Of These Might Surprise You
Also in Goodful: 22 Cute, Happy, And Wholesome Posts I Saw On The Internet This Week That You Absolutely Need To See
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
19 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gen Z and Millennials Have Differing Views on Ozempic
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Gen Z and millennials have radically different views on GLP-1s like Ozempic and how much they want the weight loss and diabetes drugs regulated, according to a new report from GLP-1 prescription weight loss company Levity. While 40 percent of current and recent GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) users said the current regulations are fair, 28 percent want fewer rules and 22 percent said there should be more. But in the millennial age group, users tend to want less regulation, while Gen Z leaned toward more. Why It Matters GLP-1s, which are injectable drugs that mimic hormones to reduce blood sugar and promote weight loss, have skyrocketed in popularity in recent years. Popular products, including Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy and Zephound, have been a game changer for many Americans who are obese or have type 2 diabetes. However, stricter FDA rules are now in effect, banning certain compounded GLP-1s and making it more difficult for many Americans to secure the drugs, especially if using it for weight loss reasons. Ozempic is medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. Ozempic is medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes. Steve Christo - Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images What To Know The Gen Z and millennial response to the stricter FDA rules have been notably different, according to Levity. At 31 percent, millennials were the most likely to favor fewer GLP-1 regulations compared to 19 percent of the group who wanted more. Gen Z, meanwhile, favored stricter rules at 37 percent, while 32 percent wanted fewer. "Millennials are more likely to be prescribed a GLP-1 as compared to Gen Z; therefore, it is not surprising that millennials desire less regulation on these drugs," Richard Frank, MD, MHSA, and chief medical officer at Vida Health, told Newsweek. "Having said that, the regulatory environment surrounding compounded agents, in general, and compounded GLP-1s, specifically, is not as rigorous as it is for branded and generic drugs. Therefore, compounded drugs carry unknown risks that more regulated medications do not." Because semaglutide is no longer on the FDA shortage list, compounding it can carry legal risks. Already, the effects are being felt, as 17 percent of GLP-1 users said it has become harder to get their medication since the FDA tightened rules on compounded semaglutide, Levity reported. There was also a difference in how the generations viewed their use of the drugs. While 75 percent of GLP-1 users believed they'll still be on their treatment plan a year from now, Gen Z was the least likely to think so, at 58 percent. What People Are Saying Board-certified endocrinologist Dr. Caroline Messer told Newsweek: "Millennials, many of whom are now managing midlife weight and metabolic health concerns, may see GLP-1s as a practical tool and want fewer barriers. Gen Z, meanwhile, is generally more wary of long-term unknowns, hence leaning toward more safeguards. Broadly, Americans are divided but lean toward keeping current regulations." Richard Frank, MD, MHSA, and chief medical officer at Vida Health, told Newsweek: "From a business perspective, limiting access to compounded drugs when branded drugs are available protects the drug companies' patents. This protection provides the financial incentive for drug companies to develop innovative new therapies." What Happens Next The long-term effects of GLP-1 medication use are so far unclear. A recent study discovered a new link between taking GLP-1 drugs and elevated risk of pancreatitis and kidney conditions, including kidney stones. And GLP-1 medications have also been associated with a higher risk of digestive problems, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and even stomach paralysis in rare cases.
Forbes
21 minutes ago
- Forbes
Rebalancing Pharmaceutical Pricing Without Sacrificing Innovation
Medications are stored on shelves at a pharmacy on May 12, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by) Getty Images Two weeks ago, President Trump sent letters to 17 leading pharmaceutical manufacturers, giving them 60 days to propose plans to lower U.S. drug prices to align with the lowest prices offered in other developed nations. This is an opportunity to recalibrate pharmaceutical pricing in a way that brings relief to U.S. consumers, corrects global imbalances and safeguards innovation, a transition the entire healthcare ecosystem must eventually adopt. Most discussions about drug prices focus narrowly on the retail cost patients see at the pharmacy counter, but these are only a fraction of the real economic picture. Trump's directive aims to address a decades-long imbalance: Americans pay significantly more for the same products than consumers abroad, in effect subsidizing both foreign healthcare systems and pharmaceutical profits. The 'most favored nation' concept could give consumers better pricing, but it also raises critical questions about sustaining innovation and ensuring access. By putting pharmaceutical manufacturers on the clock, the administration signals a willingness to use negotiation and policy leverage, similar to its tariff strategy, to change entrenched practices. As I've long argued in previous columns, focusing solely on high drug prices misses the larger problem: healthcare as a whole delivers too little value for what we spend. The need for transparency in both cost and quality, as well as a greater appreciation of outcomes that matter to patients, applies to every sector, from pharmaceuticals to hospital care. Pharma is a practical starting point because public attention is already here, but the real target is an ecosystem-wide business model change. Without a broad value-based framework and a clear vision of how to proceed, reforms will default to piecemeal fixes that merely shift costs from one part of the system to another. Some policymakers have advocated for blunt price caps as a quick solution to escalating drug prices. Experience shows this approach distorts markets, erodes innovation and ultimately harms patients, the topic of one of my past columns. In Europe, where prices are heavily controlled, access to new therapies can be delayed or denied, a cautionary example for the U.S. Innovation is inherently risky: only a fraction of drug candidates ever reach the market, and the returns on successful products fund the failures. Suppressing returns discourages the investment needed for breakthrough discoveries. The goal should be rebalancing—with Europe paying more, the U.S. paying less—not penalizing one of America's most important and competitive industries. The administration has made it clear it is prepared to disrupt the status quo. Disruption is most productive when it's channeled toward structural reform. Pharmaceutical pricing reform can set a precedent for other segments of healthcare—delivery systems, payers and PBMs—where misaligned incentives drive up costs without improving outcomes. Stakeholders should view the 60-day deadline not just as a compliance exercise but as an invitation to propose creative, sustainable models that link payment to measurable results. This is a rare alignment of political will, public attention and market readiness, an environment conducive to bold experimentation. If the industry responds defensively or minimally, the likely result will be more prescriptive regulation and less flexibility to innovate. Conversely, failure to address pricing inequities will keep U.S. consumers shouldering disproportionate costs, fueling political pressure for heavy-handed solutions. Past decades of incremental tweaks have left us with a fragmented, opaque system. The risk now is that we repeat that pattern rather than rethinking the fundamentals. Rebalancing pharmaceutical pricing is not about punishing one sector or enacting price controls. It's about creating a market where cost reflects value, competition rewards innovation and consumers benefit from both affordability and access. Pharmaceutical companies are simply the first to face this scrutiny, but the value conversation must extend to every corner of healthcare delivery. This moment, if met with creativity and commitment, can be a catalyst for systemic change that has eluded us for decades.
Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Fox News
Record low number of Americans report drinking alcohol, and new teetotalers are explaining why
More Americans than ever are choosing not to drink alcohol, according to a new Gallup Poll. Only 54% of respondents to Gallup's annual Consumption Habits survey conducted last month say they consume alcohol, which is the lowest on record in nearly 90 years. "This coincides with a growing belief among Americans that moderate alcohol consumption is bad for one's health, now the majority view for the first time," Gallup said in a press release. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism cites nine body systems impacted by alcohol use. "Current research points to health risks even at low amounts of alcohol consumption, regardless of beverage type," its website says. Those who do drink are drinking less, Gallup reported, averaging about 2.8 drinks a week. Over the past two years, Republicans have reported a sharp drop in drinking habits, but Democrats' percentage has held fairly steady. The highest number of Americans who reported drinking alcohol, at 68 to 71%, were all recorded between 1974 and 1981, Gallup said. Beer is still the "most preferred alcohol," the global analytics and advisory firm said, adding that it "[h]as documented three consecutive years of decline in the U.S. drinking rate as research supporting the 'no amount of alcohol is safe' message mounts." Gallup does not believe the decline in alcohol consumption is caused by people shifting to other mood-altering substances, in particular recreational marijuana, which is not legal in approximately half of the U.S. states.
