Can you sneeze with your eyes open? Scientists finally reveal the eye-popping truth
So, if you sneeze with your eyes open, will they really pop out of your head?
Dr David Huston, a professor of medicine at Texas A&M University, has settled the debate once and for all.
Contrary to popular belief, it's 'absolutely possible' to sneeze with your eyes open, the expert reassures.
Closing your eyes while you blast out a sneeze is simply an autonomic reflex.
This means your body does it without you needing to consciously think about it.
And if you do manage to ignore this reflex, you'll be relieved to hear that your eyes will not pop out of your head.
'The fact that it is possible to sneeze with the eyes open suggests that it is not hard–wired or mandatory,' Dr Huston said.
Sneezing is when your body forcibly expels air from your lungs through your nose and mouth.
Usually, this happens when something infectious enters your nostrils – whether it's a virus, an allergen or a chemical.
'Your body uses sneezing as a defense mechanism to clear your nose of mucus – also known as snot – and prevent foreign objects and particles from entering your airway,' explained Meg Sorg, Clinical Assistant Professor of Nursing at Purdue University in an article for The Conversation.
Sneezing can also occur in reaction to more unusual stimuli.
'Chemicals like piperine or capsaicin found in foods like black pepper and chili peppers can irritate the nerve endings inside your nose's mucous membranes and lead to a sneeze,' Ms Sorg added.
What's more, some people experience something called 'photosneezia', where light can trigger a sneeze.
Regardless of the type of sneeze, one thing is certain – most people close their eys when this happens.
While the reason for this reflex remains unclear, Dr Huston suggest it may be a way to protect your eyes from germs.
'The body works to rid its airways by sneezing when it detects irritating particles in the nose,' he explained.
'By automatically shutting the eyelids when a sneeze occurs, more irritants can potentially be prevented from entering and aggravating the eyes.'
Though your eyes do automatically close in response to a sneeze, technically you could fight the reflex, and keep them open.
Thankfully, Dr Huston confirmed that playground claims that this would cause your eyes to pop out are 'far–fetched tales'.
'There is little to no evidence to substantiate such claims,' he said.
'Pressure released from a sneeze is extremely unlikely to cause an eyeball to pop out even if your eyes are open.'
When pressure builds up in your eyes, usually it's in the blood vessels, and not the eyes or surrounding muscles, Dr Huston added.
In certain scenarios, this can cause your smallest blood vessels – called capillaries – to burst.
'During childbirth, excessive straining can cause some veins to hemorrhage, leaving a mother's eyes or face to appear red or markedly bruised,' Dr Huston said,
'But it is irresponsible to claim that such pressure could dislodge the eye from its socket.'
What are the symptoms of hayfever?
Hay fever is an allergic reaction to pollen, typically when it comes into contact with your mouth, nose, eyes and throat. Pollen is a fine powder from plants.
Symptoms include:
a runny or blocked nose
itchy, red or watery eyes
itchy throat, mouth, nose and ears
loss of smell
pain around your temples and forehead
headache
earache
feeling tired
The NHS recommends staying indoors whenever possible, keeping windows and doors shut, and showering and changing clothes after being outside to minimise contact with pollen.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Using Generative AI for therapy might feel like a lifeline – but there's danger in seeking certainty in a chatbot
Tran* sat across from me, phone in hand, scrolling. 'I just wanted to make sure I didn't say the wrong thing,' he explained, referring to a recent disagreement with his partner. 'So I asked ChatGPT what I should say.' He read the chatbot-generated message aloud. It was articulate, logical and composed – almost too composed. It didn't sound like Tran. And it definitely didn't sound like someone in the middle of a complex, emotional conversation about the future of a long-term relationship. It also did not mention anywhere some of Tran's contributing behaviours to the relationship strain that Tran and I had been discussing. Like many others I've seen in therapy recently, Tran had turned to AI in a moment of crisis. Under immense pressure at work and facing uncertainty in his relationship, he'd downloaded ChatGPT on his phone 'just to try it out'. What began as a curiosity soon became a daily habit, asking questions, drafting texts, and even seeking reassurance about his own feelings. The more Tran used it, the more he began to second-guess himself in social situations, turning to the model for guidance before responding to colleagues or loved ones. He felt strangely comforted, like 'no one knew me better'. His partner, on the other hand, began to feel like she was talking to someone else entirely. ChatGPT and other generative AI models present a tempting accessory, or even alternative, to traditional therapy. They're often free, available 24/7 and can offer customised, detailed responses in real time. When you're overwhelmed, sleepless and desperate to make sense of a messy situation, typing a few sentences into a chatbot and getting back what feels like sage advice can be very appealing. But as a psychologist, I'm growing increasingly concerned about what I'm seeing in the clinic; a silent shift in how people are processing distress and a growing reliance on artificial intelligence in place of human connection and therapeutic support. AI might feel like a lifeline when services are overstretched – and make no mistake, services are overstretched. Globally, in 2019 one in eight people were living with a mental illness and we face a dire shortage of trained mental health professionals. In Australia, there has been a growing mental health workforce shortage that is impacting access to trained professionals. Clinician time is one of the scarcest resources in healthcare. It's understandable (even expected) that people are looking for alternatives. Turning to a chatbot for emotional support isn't without risk however, especially when the lines between advice, reassurance and emotional dependence become blurred. Many psychologists, myself included, now encourage clients to build boundaries around their use of ChatGPT and similar tools. Its seductive 'always-on' availability and friendly tone can unintentionally reinforce unhelpful behaviours, especially for people with anxiety, OCD or trauma-related issues. Reassurance-seeking, for example, is a key feature in OCD and ChatGPT, by design, provides reassurance in abundance. It never asks why you're asking again. It never challenges avoidance. It never says, 'let's sit with this feeling for a moment, and practice the skills we have been working on'. Tran often reworded prompts until the model gave him an answer that 'felt right'. But this constant tailoring meant he wasn't just seeking clarity; he was outsourcing emotional processing. Instead of learning to tolerate distress or explore nuance, he sought AI-generated certainty. Over time, that made it harder for him to trust his own instincts. Beyond psychological concerns, there are real ethical issues. Information shared with ChatGPT isn't protected by the same confidentiality standards as registered Ahpra professionals. Although OpenAI states that data from users is not used to train its models unless permission is given, the sheer volume of fine print in user agreements often goes unread. Users may not realise how their inputs can be stored, analysed and potentially reused. There's also the risk of harmful or false information. These large language models are autoregressive; they predict the next word based on previous patterns. This probabilistic process can lead to 'hallucinations', confident, polished answers that are completely untrue. AI also reflects the biases embedded in its training data. Research shows that generative models can perpetuate and even amplify gender, racial and disability-based stereotypes – not intentionally, but unavoidably. Human therapists also possess clinical skills; we notice when a client's voice trembles, or when their silence might say more than words. This isn't to say AI can't have a place. Like many technological advancements before it, generative AI is here to stay. It may offer useful summaries, psycho-educational content or even support in regions where access to mental health professionals is severely limited. But it must be used carefully, and never as a replacement for relational, regulated care. Tran wasn't wrong to seek help. His instincts to make sense of distress and to communicate more thoughtfully were logical. However, leaning so heavily on to AI meant that his skill development suffered. His partner began noticing a strange detachment in his messages. 'It just didn't sound like you', she later told him. It turned out: it wasn't. She also became frustrated about the lack of accountability in his correspondence to her and this caused more relational friction and communication issues between them. As Tran and I worked together in therapy, we explored what led him to seek certainty in a chatbot. We unpacked his fears of disappointing others, his discomfort with emotional conflict and his belief that perfect words might prevent pain. Over time, he began writing his own responses, sometimes messy, sometimes unsure, but authentically his. Good therapy is relational. It thrives on imperfection, nuance and slow discovery. It involves pattern recognition, accountability and the kind of discomfort that leads to lasting change. A therapist doesn't just answer; they ask and they challenge. They hold space, offer reflection and walk with you, while also offering up an uncomfortable mirror. For Tran, the shift wasn't just about limiting his use of ChatGPT; it was about reclaiming his own voice. In the end, he didn't need a perfect response. He needed to believe that he could navigate life's messiness with curiosity, courage and care – not perfect scripts. Name and identifying details changed to protect client confidentiality Carly Dober is a psychologist living and working in Naarm/Melbourne In Australia, support is available at Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636, Lifeline on 13 11 14, and at MensLine on 1300 789 978. In the UK, the charity Mind is available on 0300 123 3393 and Childline on 0800 1111. In the US, call or text Mental Health America at 988 or chat
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Harvard study casts new light on why some couples conceive all girls or boys
Harvard study casts new light on why some couples conceive all girls or boys A Harvard study has revealed a link between a woman's age and the likelihood of giving birth to multiple children of the same sex. Siwen Wang, a PhD student in nutritional epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, began researching the topic after noticing a trend in her own family. Her mother was one of three sisters and a younger brother, while her father had two brothers and no sisters. 'I was wondering whether it's just pure chance or if there was some special biology underlying this phenomenon,' she told the Boston Globe. Her questions led to a study published July 18 in Science Advances by her and seven others. The researchers analyzed 146,064 pregnancies from 58,000 US nurses across nearly six decades and discovered that in some families the odds are not so random. The NIH-funded Nurses' Health Study studied the subjects between 1956 and 2015 and found that some families were more likely to have children of the same sex. Researchers found that maternal age played a key role in the sex of the baby. A Harvard study has revealed a link between a woman's age and the likelihood of giving birth to children of the same sex Siwen Wang (pictured), a PhD student at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, began researching the topic after noticing a trend in her own family. Her mother was one of three sisters and a younger brother, while her father had two brothers and no sisters The research found that women who had their first child at age 29 or older were significantly more likely to have multiple children of the same sex. 'It's like moving the needle from 50 to 60 percent,' Dr. Bernard Rosner, a co-author of the study told the outlet. 'I don't think you could use any of this information to definitively predict whether a specific person will have a male or female offspring, but ... it's not necessarily random probability.' The findings also showed that women who already had three children of the same sex were more likely to have a fourth of the same gender. The study showed a 61 percent likelihood for boys and 58 percent for girls. 'If you've had two girls or three girls and you're trying for a boy, you should know your odds are not 50-50,' Jorge Chavarro, professor of nutrition and epidemiology and author of the study, told the Washington Post. The research found that women who had their first child at age 29 or older were significantly more likely to have multiple children of the same sex 'You're more likely than not to have another girl.' 'We don't know why these genes would be associated with sex at birth, but they are, and that opens up new questions,' Chavarro added. Paternal influences on the child's sex were not entirely explored in the study. Researchers did not include detailed data on fathers so they couldn't analyze how paternal factors might influence the sex of children. Despite, the lack of research on the paternal side, Wang did mention that older maternal age is most highly correlated with older paternal age.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump dubbed himself the ‘father of IVF' on the campaign trail. But his pledge to mandate insurance cover has disappeared
Donald Trump's vow to expand in vitro fertilization (IVF) access to millions of Americans is on hold, with White House officials backing away from plans to require Obamacare health plans to include the service as an essential health benefit, the Washington Post reported on Sunday. The Post reported that White House officials have privately moved away from the prospect of pushing for legislation to address the issue despite it being one of Trump's signature campaign promises, citing two persons with knowledge of internal discussions in Trumpworld. A senior administration official also acknowledged to the newspaper that changing Obamacare to force insurers to cover new services would require congressional action, not an executive order. The president has governed largely by executive fiat in his second term as he grapples with a closely-divded Congress and an unruly GOP majority in the House of Representatives. He's used those executive orders to dismantle whole parts of the federal government, including USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The president even tried to take an axe to the Department of Education, though that battle is still being waged in the courts. The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for Trump to cut roughly a quarter of the agency's staff. But many of Trump's campaign promises lie outside of his ability to influence via the hiring or firing of people and redirection of agency resources or agendas. In 2024, he laid out no direct path for his goal to expand IVF access, only telling voters that insurance companies would be forced to cover it. Still, he proclaimed himself the 'father of IVF' at at Fox News town hall, and promised during an NBC News interview: 'We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment. We're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.' At the time, there was little to no acknowledgment of the fact that many if not most conservatives still oppose the Affordable Care Act and the same healthcare exchanges which Trump was now promising to utilize as he sought to use the power of the federal government to expand healthcare coverage. Now, with the passage of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' without any provisions expanding IVF access, and with the prospect of further policy gains before the midterms growing dimmer, it's unclear when the White House would have another chance to press the issue in Congress. In February, the president signed an executive order directing his advisers to 'submit to the President a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' It's been crickets on the issue since then. In 2024, many of Trump's critics and the media pointed out that the policy would essentially amount to a reversal or at the very least coming in sharp contrast to the first Trump administration's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which ended in failure, and a contradiction of the conservative view that government should not exercise that level of control over Americans' health care decisions. The president's promise thrilled his party's natalists, embodied by Vice President JD Vance and an army of right-wing immigration hawks who fear the changing American demographics brought on as a result of falling birth rates and high levels of migration. It also wowed some of his Democratic and left-leaning critics, who see the policy as a means of furthering their goal of expanding access to healthcare for poorer Americans. For Vance, the issue of declining U.S. birth rates predates his MAGA heel-turn. In 2019, he told a gathering of conservatives in Washington: 'Our people aren't having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.' 'We want babies not just because they are economically useful. We want more babies because children are good. And we believe children are good, because we are not sociopaths,' the future vice president added at the time. Two years later, he'd tell a right-leaning podcast: 'I think we have to go to war against the anti-child ideology that exists in our country.' During the 2024 campaign, those views emerged again as Vance attacked Democrats as 'childless cat ladies' and leaned heavily into attacking the left for supposedly being anti-family. Progressives fought back, pointing to efforts to expand the child tax credit and other benefits that aid young families under Joe Biden and other Democratic administrations, including the passage of Barack Obama's signature law: the Affordable Care Act.
