Glasses makes your eyes worse fast!

Here is what those people speak from experience:


glasses and contacts can make your eyesight worse too. Your eyes will
start to rely on the prescription to help you to see, so they will
start to get lazy!! Then the next time you will need a stronger
prescription. Make sense?


eyesight gets worse if you DO wear glasses or contacts. It allows your
eyes to grow weak because they aren't working. Like any muscle, your
eyes will "atrophy"(for lack of a better word) without being exercise.


i was diagnosed with astigmatism 3 yrs ago, and wore glasses 4 a year.
after that my visions worsen.. we need further advises from drs. i
guess!


Eyeglasses and contacts only act as band-aids. They don't improve your
eyesight. And various studies show that your eyesight can rapidly
worsen due to relying on eyeglasses and contacts to see.


"Minus lenses are the most common approach, yet the least likely to
prevent further myopic progression. Unfortunately, they increase the
nearpoint stress that is associated with progression."
-May, 1984. Optometric Extension Program Foundation.


The fact of the matter is, you don't have to wear glasses, contacts, or
resort to Lasik surgery to improve your vision. Instead there's a
safer and easier way to restore your eyesight. It's called natural
vision improvement and it's widely recognized as a proven method for
reversing your vision problems.


The standard approach to vision care is to buy stronger and stronger
glasses as our eyes get weaker and weaker. However, glasses just treat
the symptoms and don't fix the problem. In fact, the more we wear
glasses or contacts, the more our eyes grow dependent on them, and the
weaker they become.

(E-Mail Removed) schreef:
> Here is what those people speak from experience:
>
>
> glasses and contacts can make your eyesight worse too. Your eyes will
> start to rely on the prescription to help you to see, so they will
> start to get lazy!! Then the next time you will need a stronger
> prescription. Make sense?

Yes, nonsense.............


Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

(E-Mail Removed) wrote the following unlearned opinion based upon
absolutely ZERO knowledge of the subject:

>
> glasses and contacts can make your eyesight worse too. Your eyes will
> start to rely on the prescription to help you to see, so they will
> start to get lazy!! Then the next time you will need a stronger
> prescription. Make sense?

nope. it doesn't make sense. nothing but an old wives tale that has
been disproven in controlled scientific studies multiple times.

>
>
> eyesight gets worse if you DO wear glasses or contacts. It allows your
> eyes to grow weak because they aren't working. Like any muscle, your
> eyes will "atrophy"(for lack of a better word) without being exercise.
>

since the eye is not a muscle, then this reasoning is obviously false.
with the possible exception of wearing glasses for treatment of
farsightedness, this statement is totally invalid. no muscle works
within the eye to help a nearsighted or astigmatic patient see better
without glasses.


> i was diagnosed with astigmatism 3 yrs ago, and wore glasses 4 a year.
> after that my visions worsen.. we need further advises from drs. i
> guess!
>

no, you need to think a little clearer. why do you blame the fact that
you started to develop astigmatism, and got a spectacle correction for
it, and then the process continued and got worse, on the glasses you
got? wasn't the process starting already before you got the glasses?
why do you think the glasses had anything to do with the continuation
of the process? when you were a kid and your feet grew and you got new
shoes, did you blame those shoes when your feet continued to grow
further?

your inability to reason clearly about cause and effect, and the true
anatomy, physiology, and development of the human eye, clearly
demonstrates your intellectual weaknesses.

>
> Eyeglasses and contacts only act as band-aids. They don't improve your
> eyesight. And various studies show that your eyesight can rapidly
> worsen due to relying on eyeglasses and contacts to see.
>

please present to us the "various studies" you speak of. do it now.
now you claim that you have evidence so you are commited to present it.
don't dare pull an "otis" and try to change the subject or switch to a
success story, etc. I want to see your scientific proof that you
statements are valid. you say such evidence exists so put it forward
with references, pubmed links, etc. I am ready to provide my evidence
that what you say has been tested and shown to be bullshit. do it
now-- you are on the spot!

> "Minus lenses are the most common approach, yet the least likely to
> prevent further myopic progression. Unfortunately, they increase the
> nearpoint stress that is associated with progression."
> -May, 1984. Optometric Extension Program Foundation.

sorry, but a 20+ year old newsletter from a declining group of fringe
optometrists doesn't qualify as proof. these types of thoughts were
prevalent and were taught in a few optometry schools decades ago and at
those times the ideas were considered reasonable. however, studies
that have taken place over the last few decadees have methodically
PROVEN that these ideas are invalid.

besides, have you read the actual article in this old newsletter or did
you get it from otis? do you realize that these newsletters constitute
the musings and opinions of individual optometrists rather than
statistically-controlled studies?

your **** is weak. very weak.

>
> The fact of the matter is, you don't have to wear glasses, contacts, or
> resort to Lasik surgery to improve your vision. Instead there's a
> safer and easier way to restore your eyesight. It's called natural
> vision improvement and it's widely recognized as a proven method for
> reversing your vision problems.

really? well the attorney general of the state of Iowa doesn't agree.
some of these "safer and easier" ways are alleged to constitute fraud
in their opinion and they have taken action against them to protect the
public.
http://quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela...eeclearly.html

>
> The standard approach to vision care is to buy stronger and stronger
> glasses as our eyes get weaker and weaker. However, glasses just treat
> the symptoms and don't fix the problem. In fact, the more we wear
> glasses or contacts, the more our eyes grow dependent on them, and the
> weaker they become.

blah blah blah
no, the standard approach is to get regular eye exams and to use the
appropriate refractive correction as the eye changes. in actuality
most all patients do NOT require stronger and stronger glasses as you
generalize. glasses or contacts have NO influence on the further
development of the refractive state of the eye (and thats not my
opinion-- its a proven fact).

what are you trying to do-- make a play to take over Otis' position as
the self-proclaimed spokesperson for the "second opinion" fringe group?

you need to go back to your old habits of eating mushrooms and
fantasizing about sex with fat women.

Dear Retinula,

Almost all major change in medicine starts out by a small group of
people who recognize the necessity of intelligently
"changing the system".

I am sorry you are ignorant of that fact. But that is indeed
your majority-opinion -- which is not based on pure science.

See:

www.chinamyopia.org

for a clear statement of the scientific SECOND OPINION.

Best,

Otis



retinula wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote the following unlearned opinion based upon
> absolutely ZERO knowledge of the subject:
>
> >
> > glasses and contacts can make your eyesight worse too. Your eyes will
> > start to rely on the prescription to help you to see, so they will
> > start to get lazy!! Then the next time you will need a stronger
> > prescription. Make sense?
>
> nope. it doesn't make sense. nothing but an old wives tale that has
> been disproven in controlled scientific studies multiple times.
>
> >
> >
> > eyesight gets worse if you DO wear glasses or contacts. It allows your
> > eyes to grow weak because they aren't working. Like any muscle, your
> > eyes will "atrophy"(for lack of a better word) without being exercise.
> >
>
> since the eye is not a muscle, then this reasoning is obviously false.
> with the possible exception of wearing glasses for treatment of
> farsightedness, this statement is totally invalid. no muscle works
> within the eye to help a nearsighted or astigmatic patient see better
> without glasses.
>
>
> > i was diagnosed with astigmatism 3 yrs ago, and wore glasses 4 a year.
> > after that my visions worsen.. we need further advises from drs. i
> > guess!
> >
>
> no, you need to think a little clearer. why do you blame the fact that
> you started to develop astigmatism, and got a spectacle correction for
> it, and then the process continued and got worse, on the glasses you
> got? wasn't the process starting already before you got the glasses?
> why do you think the glasses had anything to do with the continuation
> of the process? when you were a kid and your feet grew and you got new
> shoes, did you blame those shoes when your feet continued to grow
> further?
>
> your inability to reason clearly about cause and effect, and the true
> anatomy, physiology, and development of the human eye, clearly
> demonstrates your intellectual weaknesses.
>
> >
> > Eyeglasses and contacts only act as band-aids. They don't improve your
> > eyesight. And various studies show that your eyesight can rapidly
> > worsen due to relying on eyeglasses and contacts to see.
> >
>
> please present to us the "various studies" you speak of. do it now.
> now you claim that you have evidence so you are commited to present it.
> don't dare pull an "otis" and try to change the subject or switch to a
> success story, etc. I want to see your scientific proof that you
> statements are valid. you say such evidence exists so put it forward
> with references, pubmed links, etc. I am ready to provide my evidence
> that what you say has been tested and shown to be bullshit. do it
> now-- you are on the spot!
>
> > "Minus lenses are the most common approach, yet the least likely to
> > prevent further myopic progression. Unfortunately, they increase the
> > nearpoint stress that is associated with progression."
> > -May, 1984. Optometric Extension Program Foundation.
>
> sorry, but a 20+ year old newsletter from a declining group of fringe
> optometrists doesn't qualify as proof. these types of thoughts were
> prevalent and were taught in a few optometry schools decades ago and at
> those times the ideas were considered reasonable. however, studies
> that have taken place over the last few decadees have methodically
> PROVEN that these ideas are invalid.
>
> besides, have you read the actual article in this old newsletter or did
> you get it from otis? do you realize that these newsletters constitute
> the musings and opinions of individual optometrists rather than
> statistically-controlled studies?
>
> your **** is weak. very weak.
>
> >
> > The fact of the matter is, you don't have to wear glasses, contacts, or
> > resort to Lasik surgery to improve your vision. Instead there's a
> > safer and easier way to restore your eyesight. It's called natural
> > vision improvement and it's widely recognized as a proven method for
> > reversing your vision problems.
>
> really? well the attorney general of the state of Iowa doesn't agree.
> some of these "safer and easier" ways are alleged to constitute fraud
> in their opinion and they have taken action against them to protect the
> public.
> http://quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela...eeclearly.html
>
> >
> > The standard approach to vision care is to buy stronger and stronger
> > glasses as our eyes get weaker and weaker. However, glasses just treat
> > the symptoms and don't fix the problem. In fact, the more we wear
> > glasses or contacts, the more our eyes grow dependent on them, and the
> > weaker they become.
>
> blah blah blah
> no, the standard approach is to get regular eye exams and to use the
> appropriate refractive correction as the eye changes. in actuality
> most all patients do NOT require stronger and stronger glasses as you
> generalize. glasses or contacts have NO influence on the further
> development of the refractive state of the eye (and thats not my
> opinion-- its a proven fact).
>
> what are you trying to do-- make a play to take over Otis' position as
> the self-proclaimed spokesperson for the "second opinion" fringe group?
>
> you need to go back to your old habits of eating mushrooms and
> fantasizing about sex with fat women.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dear Retinula,
>
> Almost all major change in medicine starts out by a small group of
> people who recognize the necessity of intelligently
> "changing the system".

Your fringe group has actually dwindled in numbers since the 1970's.

>
> I am sorry you are ignorant of that fact. But that is indeed
> your majority-opinion -- which is not based on pure science.

You are basing your recommendation of using OTC reading glasses to
prevent myopia on what --- "pure science"? Unfortunately, it doesn't
work in the clinic.

DrG

On 8/10/06 11:14 AM, in article
(E-Mail Removed), "Mike Tyner"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> Almost all major change in medicine starts out by a small group of
>> people who recognize the necessity of intelligently
>> "changing the system".
>
> So that's why most doctors abandoned plus lenses for myopia?
>
> -MT
>
>
No, but that is why some started washing their hands.

Bill
-- Ferme le Bush

Dear AceMan,


Subject: How and Why the PUBLIC rejects plus-prevention


The minus is quick-and-obvious. The plus is not.

Therefore the "minus" always "sells" and the plus does not.

This explains why it must be the PARENTS who "wake up" to
plus-prevention. If not, we only create stair-case myopia for
ourselves -- buy rejecting the plus a the threshold -- when it
MUST BE USED to be truly effective in keeping your distant vision
clear for life.

It is necessary to understand this issue clearly. You must
figure out how to do this "preventive" work youself -- or become
victim of that over-prescribed minus.

No M.O. OD can help you with plus-prevention. And it is a
waste of time to even argue about it.

Never forget this story -- it is the truth of this tragic
situation. You can not transfer "responsibility" to anyone other
than youself.

Best,

Otis

++++++++


WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?


With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's
behavior, you would think that the insightful and motivated
optometrist or ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and
effective method of solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly
that in the following example -- with the following result:


THE PRINTER'S SON


"It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge
meeting. She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in
school. I gave her my card and told her to bring him to my office
and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles.

"She said that she had no money at the time and that her
husband was a printer working in another city. She did not expect
him home for the next six weeks. I told her all this would not
matter, that she should bring the boy over and I would fit him
with a pair of spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them
when her husband returned home.

"She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found
that his vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I
made him a pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay
me when her husband came back home.

"In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to
me. She stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting
the glasses. He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints,
far and near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his
naked eyes. In fact, she said, the boy could see even better
without the glasses than with them.

"I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery
that quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the
mother to bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could
really see well with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in
and I checked his vision. I found that the father was indeed
right. The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

"I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say
anything to the mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove
that the boy had poor vision before he received his glasses? And
who would believe that vision could be restored by just wearing a
pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks?

"My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn
tendency for exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do
special work on children's eyes and on vision restoration. It
also enticed me to investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I
was myself nearsighted.

"On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be
cautious in doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons
who, supposedly, did not need them was almost a crime. And the
fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a medical
doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy
person who might need or be under medical attention, was, and is
now, and encroachment on the medical profession.

"To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I
took the following precautions: First, I quit using the title
'doctor' in any form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as
a spectacle fitter and nothing more. Second, I charged a
reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for
any special work or relief I gave. I did not advertise about this
special work. I just did it as a matter of routine whenever or
wherever I was given the opportunity.

"Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the
relationship of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and
health. I have kept it up, and will continue to do this work as
long as I continue to have the incentive and capability.

"Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just
wearing a pair of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that
normal vision to the naked eye could be restored to children whose
eyes have a negative focal state? This was true in 1904, and it
is also true now, in this decade of 1950." (It continues to be
true in this decade of 1990 -- Otis Brown)

This statement cuts "both ways" -- and that is a major issue
for all of us.


SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION


With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a
profound and adverse effect, you would think that it should be
possible to develop scientific verification for this
characteristic of the normal eye. You would be correct. The
testing and verification is impeccable -- if we restrict our
attention to the normal eye's behavior.

++++++++++++++

Remember this:

If the PARENTS had put their son in a "plus" and verified his
vision-clearing from 20/50 to 20/20 -- they MIGHT have been
convinced. But since the PARENTS did not make the measurements --
they were CONVINCED that Jake was "cheating" them -- by clearing
their kid's vision back to 20/20.

This why no OD can help with true-prevention. DO NOT EXPECT
ANYTHING OF THEM.

***********************

The effect of Raphaelson's staement -- was the recognition
that if any "preventing" was to be done, then:

1. I must recognize that if I "want" true-prevention -- I MUST DO
IT MYSELF -- UNDER MY CONTROL.

2. The M.O. Optometrist satisfies MOST PEOPLE becase MOST PEOPLE
have no interest in their distant vision AT ALL! If you
EVER attempt to help them UNDERSTAND plus-prevention -- they
get VERY ANGRY at you -- for attempting to help them with
PREVENTION.

3. Some issues like this MUST BE DECIDED BY THE PERSON HIMSELF.

+++++++++++++++

If the above is UNDERSTOOD, and the person is not "too deep",
(i.e., not yet BELOW 20/70 on the Snellen, and not DEPENDENT on
that minus) then a certain degree of vision-clearing is possible.
>From 20/70 to PASS the DMV.

But he must understand the issue of self-motiviation, and
have a rather intense desire to clear his vision under HIS
CONTROL.

There is no "easy" way about this. Just knowledge and common
sense -- and a realization of the fact that these M.O. OD are
destructive of you long-term vision. No intentionally, as the
above will SUGGEST, but destructive none the less.

The real question is what you PERSONALLY are going to do
about it.

==================================

Dear AceMan,

Some more stupid remarks by a M.O. OD.

{Comment: DrL recommended the "bifocal" for a person with 20/50
vision -- at a cost of $350 OSB]

(Just remember what S.O. Raphaelson said about this issue.)

Remember, I said AVOID ENTRY into a negative refractive
STATE. (Objective science).

More commentary:


Otis> but since single-minus costs $350, and a bifocal $350, and
this August GOT HIS VISION TO PASS THE DMV, then why the
hell should he wear a minus

Otis> When a "plus" costs about $8?


DrL> Probably a lot cheaper at Walmart, or that mail order place
you are always recommending.


[Comment: You could get a low-cost $20 minus from Zennioptical if
you wished. This would be a TEMPORARY MEASURE -- to be used
on your DASHBOARD -- UNTIL you cleared the 20/40 line and
passed the DMV. Remember, these M.O. ODs don't give a damm
about you protecting your distant vision for life. OSB]


Otis> As long as he takes PERSONAL responsibility to always PASS
the legal visual-acuity requirement for the DMV, then there
is no reason at all why he should wear a bi-focal.


DrL > Well, single vision then. If a person wants to see, that is
their right. If a cure for myopia were available, I
certainly would recommend that as well.


Otis> Again, PREVENTION is not a "cure". But that is a profound
difference in understanding the eye's proven behavior -- as
a dynamic system, versus the conceptual errors made by DrL.


Otis> And in fact, the MINUS part of the bifocal will PREVENT his
vision- clearing.

[Comment: In other words, a kid would get a -1.5 diopter in the
"upper" bifocal -- when he passes the Snellen with 20/40.
NO GLASSES most of the time, and a plus -- only for near
work -- at $8. The -1.5 diopter bifocal will always "fail".
This is the reason why all the "Comet" studies FAIL. It is
because of that excessive minus on top. This is why the
plus alone (at the threshold) can be successful -- for the
person who wakes up in time. OSB]

DrL> Not according to your pet Young-Oakley study -- remember?

Otis> Again, DrL is attempting to destroy the real meaning of the
Oakley-Young study -- which used a +1.5 diopter (plus) and a
weak minus. The "plus"group did not go down, while the
pure-minus went down at a rate of -2 diopters in four years.

Otis> Thus, if the MINUS is avoided, and a stronger plus is used,
a MOTIVATED person could clear from 20/60 to 20/40 or better
-- provided he uses no minus at all -- under HIS CONTROL.
And that truly IS THE ISSUE.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


Dear AceMan,

Subject: The ignorance of the general public.

I do not attempt to "deal" with "most people" -- concerning
plus-prevention.

All you have to do is go to sci.med.vision and read the
particularly inane remarks by "Quick" and others.

If I were a "OD" and had to deal with them -- well they would
get a strong "minus" and stair-case myopia to follow -- as well as for
their children.

They truly shoot themselves in the foot -- with their
arrogance and ignorance.

In other words -- you can continue to be part of the
"problem", or part of the solution.

The preventive choice is yours, not mine.


Otis

+++++++++++++++++++++

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Here is what those people speak from experience:
>
>
> glasses and contacts can make your eyesight worse too. Your eyes will
> start to rely on the prescription to help you to see, so they will
> start to get lazy!! Then the next time you will need a stronger
> prescription. Make sense?
>
>
> eyesight gets worse if you DO wear glasses or contacts. It allows your
> eyes to grow weak because they aren't working. Like any muscle, your
> eyes will "atrophy"(for lack of a better word) without being exercise.
>
>
> i was diagnosed with astigmatism 3 yrs ago, and wore glasses 4 a year.
> after that my visions worsen.. we need further advises from drs. i
> guess!
>
>
> Eyeglasses and contacts only act as band-aids. They don't improve your
> eyesight. And various studies show that your eyesight can rapidly
> worsen due to relying on eyeglasses and contacts to see.
>
>
> "Minus lenses are the most common approach, yet the least likely to
> prevent further myopic progression. Unfortunately, they increase the
> nearpoint stress that is associated with progression."
> -May, 1984. Optometric Extension Program Foundation.
>
>
> The fact of the matter is, you don't have to wear glasses, contacts, or
> resort to Lasik surgery to improve your vision. Instead there's a
> safer and easier way to restore your eyesight. It's called natural
> vision improvement and it's widely recognized as a proven method for
> reversing your vision problems.
>
>
> The standard approach to vision care is to buy stronger and stronger
> glasses as our eyes get weaker and weaker. However, glasses just treat
> the symptoms and don't fix the problem. In fact, the more we wear
> glasses or contacts, the more our eyes grow dependent on them, and the
> weaker they become.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> The minus is quick-and-obvious. The plus is not.
>
> Therefore the "minus" always "sells" and the plus does not.

The minus works and the plus does not.

DrG

Well you have things backwards as usual. The idea that accommodation
causes myopia started out with a large group of people believing it to
be a possibility a couple of decades ago. then the studies were done
that disproved the theory and showed the situation is more complex.
Now the only people who continue to believe that minus lenses cause
myopia and plus lenses help to prevent it are a few fringe-group
freakos like you. either that or someone who has lived under a rock
for the last 10 years.

You fantasize about yourself being some tragic figure who is rightfully
battling against the evil scientific establishment. You fantasize that
someday people will say "otis was right and we were wrong". well dream
on old fool. your ideas have been disproven years ago and the truth is
that your second-opinion friends, if they really exist as an actual
group or perhaps more as an illusion in your deluded mind, are such a
dwendling number that you can only name one guy who has a website in
China.

you are a joke.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dear Retinula,
>
> Almost all major change in medicine starts out by a small group of
> people who recognize the necessity of intelligently
> "changing the system".
>
> I am sorry you are ignorant of that fact. But that is indeed
> your majority-opinion -- which is not based on pure science.
>
> See:
>
> www.chinamyopia.org
>
> for a clear statement of the scientific SECOND OPINION.

Mike Tyner wrote:
> Since you're the expert, could you explain why people choose *less* minus
> cylinder using JCC when they're under-minused and *more* minus cylinder by
> JCC when they're overminused? I first noticed that after about 5 years in
> practice and I *still* haven't figured it out. Least now I know to watch out
> for it.
>


Mike, I've never given this much thought but always assumed
that the visual system wants to maintain spherical equivalency
(much as the same reason we maintain it on a refraction, dropping
down a .25 on a -.50 cyl increase).

frank