My friend's eyesight healed after losing his glasses

I forgot about this miracle. I met someone named Steven Chai in 10th
grade. In 11th grade he told me that he lost his glasses after having
been through three pairs. He didn't have glasses for 2 months. When
the doctor measured his eyes, they found that his vision was better
than normal, 20/15. He was about ten. This was in China; he had went
there for a few years to learn Chinese so that he could comminicated
with his mother, who only spoke Chinese. He is not in America. What
do you prevention skeptics have to say about that?

Why did he need eyeglasses in the first place? Could it be that he was
squinting?

I have many asian patients. They typically "see" better than their
caucasian counterparts with the same dioptric refractive error. They
can do this because their narrow fissures act as a slit aperture.

Incidentally, prevention is possible. All that is necessary is that a
child be given atropine eyedrops every day for many years. Plus lenses
aren't effective. Atropine is. In fact, some eye doctors are
advocating the use of atropine as standard practice NOW.

DrG

>Incidentally, prevention is possible. All that >is necessary is that a
>child be given atropine eyedrops every day >for many years. Plus lenses
>aren't effective. Atropine is. In fact, some >eye doctors are
>advocating the use of atropine as standard >practice NOW.

That is good, but are there any side effects.

Dr. Leukoma Jun 12, 8:15 am show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision
From: "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Jun 2005 05:15:21 -0700
Local: Sun,Jun 12 2005 8:15 am
Subject: Re: My friend's eyesight healed after losing his glasses
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

>Why did he need eyeglasses in the first >place? Could it be that he was
>squinting?

I don't know, but they gave him glasses, regardless of what he had.
They didn't care what he had. This just shows that glasses should not
be given to children who do not want them. Glasses should not be given
to people who's instincts tell them otherwise. People should be able
to make their own choice if they want to get glasses, then, if they
find their vision is deteriorating, they themselves alone will be to
blame.

>Incidentally, prevention is possible. All that >is necessary is that a
>child be given atropine eyedrops every day >for many years. Plus lenses
>aren't effective. Atropine is. In fact, some >eye doctors are
>advocating the use of atropine as standard >practice NOW.

That is good, but are there any side effects.

Dr. Leukoma Jun 12, 8:15 am show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision
From: "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Jun 2005 05:15:21 -0700
Local: Sun,Jun 12 2005 8:15 am
Subject: Re: My friend's eyesight healed after losing his glasses
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

>Why did he need eyeglasses in the first >place? Could it be that he was
>squinting?

I don't know, but they gave him glasses, regardless of what he had.
They didn't care what he had. This just shows that glasses should not
be given to children who do not want them. Glasses should not be given
to people who's instincts tell them otherwise. People should be able
to make their own choice if they want to get glasses, then, if they
find their vision is deteriorating, they themselves alone will be to
blame.

All I ask for is freedom of choice.

In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"CHINESEMALE(age16)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:



They didn't care what he had. This just shows that glasses should not
> be given to children who do not want them. Glasses should not be given
> to people who's instincts tell them otherwise. People should be able
> to make their own choice if they want to get glasses, then, if they
> find their vision is deteriorating, they themselves alone will be to
> blame.


My wife made the choice as a child not to wear glasses. Now she is
completely and irretreviably blind in the right eye (ambyopia). Since she
is right-handed, this means that her eye-hand coordination sucks. She has
never been able to play any sort of ball games and never will. Some
choice!

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
(E-Mail Removed)

Dear Asian Friend,

Subject: Identify and ellimate MEDICAL problems first.

Amblyopia should be identified to you by any competent
OD or MD.

Assuming EVERY OTHER THING HAS BEEN CHECKED,
and your retina is good, then a minus lens
is used to "clear" the image.

The actual value of the lens used to "clear" depends on
measurement conditions.

It also depends on the required LEGAL visual acuity
standards.

One man, Mike, read 20/40 on his eye chart -- which
PASSES the legal requirement.

When placed in DEEP DUSK measurement conditions
a -2 diopter lens was given to him.

This issue here is what your goal is. Mikes
goal was to clear to 20/20 -- by use of the
plus.

A -2.0 diopter lens creates an "environment" is
all 20 inches or less. It is as though your
head was in a box -- with that limitation.

Since Mike wished to "clear" it was essential
that he get his head "out of that box".

Since his vision passes the DMV-Snellen,
there was no point or purpose to wearing
a -2 diopter lens.

Further, he took the responsibility to "clear"
beyond the 20/40 line -- thus 20/40 is
a TEMPORARY condition for him.

I expect that he will get to 20/30 to 20/20,
eventually. The process of clearing
is indeed slow -- and depends completely
on Mikes strong resolve to do the work -- and
get the results.

Mike quit "cold turky" with a prescription
of -2.75 diopters and a eye chart (his check)
of 20/70 initially.

I insisted that he always PASS the Snellen-DMV, or
use a mild minus -- if he could NOT pass the
DMV with naked-eye vision.

Best,

Otis

>My wife made the choice as a child not to wear glasses. Now she is
>completely and irretreviably blind in the right eye (ambyopia).

How old is she?

although the cure is worse that the disease since with atropine your
eyes are constantly dilated and therefore photosensitive. and you can't
accommodate so you need bifocals even as a child. no thanks. i'll
wait for a treatment with fewer side-effects.

In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"CHINESEMALE(age16)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >My wife made the choice as a child not to wear glasses. Now she is
> >completely and irretreviably blind in the right eye (ambyopia).
>
> How old is she?

55. And I missed the "l" in "amblyopia.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
(E-Mail Removed)

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
> "CHINESEMALE(age16)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > >My wife made the choice as a child not to wear glasses. Now she is
> > >completely and irretreviably blind in the right eye (ambyopia).
> >
> > How old is she?
>
> 55. And I missed the "l" in "amblyopia.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
> (E-Mail Removed)

Sorry. I meant how old was she when she was faced with the decision to
wear glasses or not. Another question, is she also nearsighted? Or is
she farsighted? I think you know where I'm going with this...