Blind Man Can See Again Thanks To His Canine Tooth

Grammar Nazi FAIL"

FIRST off the guy was blind because the clear lens of his eye was hit by molten aluminum and became opaque.

A tooth was not inserted into his eye socket at all, it was molded into his existing eye which was mildly damaged.

Also nothing was inserted into his cheek for THREE months to grow. A section of skin was removed from his cheek and grafted onto his eye and allowed to heal for TWO months so that the tooth would have protection and a sturdy place to latch onto.

Also his ENTIRE tooth was not removed just a part of it. It was used to hold a man made lens. SO: cheek tissue > holds tooth > holds lens.

Further proof that this article is the worst piece of news written from an AP fact sheet ever.

"Mr Jones had his tooth was"

This is actually a sentence from the article.

Check out a well written report on the same thing:

and other posters, apparently.

They used his tooth as a seed to grow the necessary tissue and then, yes, they had the optical lens on said tissue. However, he can still see because of his tooth. I don't see how the headline is a fail. The headline is a perfect example of a headline. It's not meant to provide a clear picture, but to provide some base for interest in the article topic. If you were mislead by the headline, then you probably had an entirely different idea going through your head. I knew what the basis of the article was, but I wanted to know how they used his tooth in the process.