Vision Clearing from 20/140 with Ortho-K and Plus 3

Dear Second-opinion friends,

We are here on sci.med.vision to learn of successful methods
others have used to clear their vision to 20/20. This
is a report on a work in progress to achieve that goal.

Vision-clearing with the plus is indeed slow. But some
people have succeeded from the 20/70 level (about -1.25 dipoters)
to 20/20 with the plus alone.

Yves (name changed) used the plus at 20/140 (about -2 diopters), and
saw
little progress.

He decided (on his own) to clear with Ortho-K, and then use a
+3 diopter for ALL CLOSE WORK to retain the result of
Ortho-K.

This is possible, because the Ortho-K lens reshapes the
cornea, so that the eye's total power can be changed from, say 60
diopters to 58 diopters, giving him a refractive STATE of zero
diopters and 20/20 vision.

The problem is that the cornea "springs back" and you lose
what you have gained after a week -- when you quit wearing that
retainer.

Yves is doing an experiment. Here he confirms that his
refractive power of his eyes is now about 56 diopters, and his
refractive STATE is about +2 diopters, i.e., Ortho-K has achieved
a total power change of 4 diopters.

Refractive STATE of +2 diopters? That means that he can read
20/20 through a +2 diopter lens. Eskimos in the "open" with good
vision have reafractive STATES from zero to +3 diopters -- normal
and typical values for refractive STATES.

Here is Yves commentary.

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

Yves> Update:

Alright, it's been two weeks now since i started ortho-k, For
the last 5 days or so my left eye upon taking the contacts off in
the morning was a little fogged, meaning i had a slight fog-like
effect when i was looking at objects which would dissipate by the
end of the day.

All this time i'm using +3 for the computer work of course.
During the night from friday to saturday I could not wear the
contacts, as soon as i put them on i had horrible eye tearing...
Next night i was pretty tired, so i just put the contacts in and
went to sleep. On Monday woke up, took the contancts off - boom -
both eyes now had the fogging effect and were swollen like i was
stung by bees.

For experimentation i put on +2 and i could see the 20/20, i
thought that was a bit strange. I went to the doctor for an
emergency meeting that day and he simply thought that this was due
to the bad solution and gave me a new one to try.... hmm, I said
ok and went home...

>From Monday to Tuesday I didn't wear the contacts at night,
the swelling dissipated and i currently have 20/20 in both eyes...

Here's my theory: since I was using the plus lense all the
time for computer pretty much 8 hours a day, i think the shape of
my eye has actually changed making the current ortho-k
prescription too strong, that's why i could see 20/20 with the +2
on... not sure if that makes much sense, let me know what you
think otis. Also this morning I could read the computer screen
from 1.5 meters with +3 on..

My plan is to skip another night and see how much it goes
down by tomorrow night.

Thanks!

Yves

===========

It is my belief that Yves will be successful, and will
maintain a refractive STATE of +1/2 diopter (or better) and therefore
20/20.

But I expect that it will take about three months, of
continuous use before the +3 diopter will "lock" his
refractive STATE at +1/2 diopter and 20/20 vision.

Best,

Otis

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> This
> is a report on a work in progress to achieve that goal.

This is another Elevator Boy, unverifiable, third-party anecdote.
Please ignore it. Mr. Brown has a horrible allergy to facts, honesty,
and truth.

[snip]

Once again you show what a total moron you are Cletis. (Def: Moron -
one with an IQ<70)

If this were real, the simple answer is Yves would be overcorrected
with OK. He would also be the first person in history to use +3.00 on
a computer as we all sit 33cm from the screen.

In reality, you are still making up stories as we have run out of
Francis Young stories and Steven Leung has distanced himself from you.
Even Christine Wildsoet thinks you are a total dickhead.

dr grant

Dear SUPPORTIVE Ortho-K friends,

Fortunately a scientific concept of the
natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
developed and published. See:


http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.

This blue-tint mathematical model of the fundamental eye's
proven behavior is correct in science.

The only issue is the scale of this response, (both
plus and minus). It is indeed slow.

Yves has changed the power of his eyes by
about 4 diopters, from 60 to 56 diopters
by altering the shape of the cornea.

The cornean will "spring back" in about
a week, unless Yves gets rid of that
wretched "near" environment with a plus 3.

If he continues to use the +3 for ALL close work
the "blue-tint" mathmatical model will "kick in",
and pick up the slack as the cornea springs back.

Thus the plus effect (blue tint model) will
enable Yves to retain a refractive STATE of
+1 dioper (and 20/20) long after the
"spring back" effect has worn off.

Yves shall see in time if this it the truth.

This would be a powerful "selling" tool for
Orth-K -- in the future.

As the second-opinion -- of course!

It would beat Lasik that has serious secondary
consequences.

Best,

Otis



On Feb 8, 3:32 pm, "CatmanX" <drgr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Once again you show what a total moron you are Cletis. (Def: Moron -
> one with an IQ<70)
>
> If this were real, the simple answer is Yves would be overcorrected
> with OK. He would also be the first person in history to use +3.00 on
> a computer as we all sit 33cm from the screen.
>
> In reality, you are still making up stories as we have run out of
> Francis Young stories and Steven Leung has distanced himself from you.
> Even Christine Wildsoet thinks you are a total dickhead.
>
> dr grant

Dear prevention-minded friends,

Here is some clarification about plus-prevention
ENABLED by Ortho-K.

Dear Yves,

Subject: The majority-opinion against Ortho-K

I am glad you posted this -- see 20/20 through a plus 2
diopters. When you are able to do this, your refractive STATE is
+2 diopters.

Yves> "...actually changed making the current ortho-k prescription
too strong, that's why i could see 20/20 with the +2 on...
"

Actually, this proves how EFFECTIVE Ortho-K actually is. You
could quit wearing Ortho-K until the cornea "springs back" to zero
diopters (i.e., a +1/2 diopter would blur the 20/20 line.

Yves> "...not sure if that makes much sense, let me know what you
think otis.

Otis> A refractive STATE of +2 diopters (as you measured it) is a
buffer. Thus, I would strongly recommend that you go on
"hold" with your Ortho-K retainer, until you find that a +1
diopter will blur the 20/20 line for you.

Otis> In fact I would not wear the Ortho-K until you again see
blur on the 20/20 line.

Otis> This is wear a set of low-cost plus lenses would be of value
for this type of checking.

Yves > "...Also this morning I could read the computer screen from
1.5 meters with +3 on..".

Otis> More valuable information for me and you.

Otis> This simply proves that you have a temporary refractive
STATE of about +2 diopters.

Otis> You can now check for "spring back" of the cornea. As this
"spring-back" occurs you will find that the blur-point
simply moves closer, to about 0.5 cm.

Otis> There is no reason to wear the Ortho-K "retainer" until that
happens.

Otis> I am VERY INTERESTED IN THIS PROCESS FOR BOTH OF US!

Otis> If your refractive STATE were zero, the point of just-blur
would be about 13 inches through a +3 diopter lens.

Otis> What a GREAT learning experience!

Otis

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


========

On Feb 8, 4:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear SUPPORTIVE Ortho-K friends,
>
> Fortunately a scientific concept of the
> natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
> developed and published. See:
>
> http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html
>
> Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.
>
> This blue-tint mathematical model of the fundamental eye's
> proven behavior is correct in science.
>
> The only issue is the scale of this response, (both
> plus and minus). It is indeed slow.
>
> Yves has changed the power of his eyes by
> about 4 diopters, from 60 to 56 diopters
> by altering the shape of the cornea.
>
> The cornean will "spring back" in about
> a week, unless Yves gets rid of that
> wretched "near" environment with a plus 3.
>
> If he continues to use the +3 for ALL close work
> the "blue-tint" mathmatical model will "kick in",
> and pick up the slack as the cornea springs back.
>
> Thus the plus effect (blue tint model) will
> enable Yves to retain a refractive STATE of
> +1 dioper (and 20/20) long after the
> "spring back" effect has worn off.
>
> Yves shall see in time if this it the truth.
>
> This would be a powerful "selling" tool for
> Orth-K -- in the future.
>
> As the second-opinion -- of course!
>
> It would beat Lasik that has serious secondary
> consequences.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
> On Feb 8, 3:32 pm, "CatmanX" <drgr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Once again you show what a total moron you are Cletis. (Def: Moron -
> > one with an IQ<70)
>
> > If this were real, the simple answer is Yves would be overcorrected
> > with OK. He would also be the first person in history to use +3.00 on
> > a computer as we all sit 33cm from the screen.
>
> > In reality, you are still making up stories as we have run out of
> > Francis Young stories and Steven Leung has distanced himself from you.
> > Even Christine Wildsoet thinks you are a total dickhead.
>
> > dr grant- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Second-opinion Friends,

The Normal eye can be expected to be dynamic.

The blue-tint mathematical model for the NORMAL eye
can be verified -- and has been under a number of
objective tests.

If the blue-tint concept is correct for Yves normal eyes,
then there are two possible results:

1. The blue-tint model (predicting stablization at +1/2 diopter,
20/20) is correct. When Yves stops using the Ortho-K Retainer,
his refractive STATS will be at 1/2 to +1 diopter -- WHICH
HE WILL VERIFY with a +1/2 to +1 diopter lens.

2. The blue-tint model is not accurate. When the use
of the Ortho-K retainer is stopped, his refractve state
will go from 56 diopters back to 60 diopters, and
his relative refractive STATE will be -2 diopters,
with a Snellen of 20/140.

Since this process takes very strong dedication, we
can not predict this result.

But, assuming Yves sticks with this effort, I will report
results in terms of refractive STATE as they develop.

Best,

Otis



On Feb 8, 4:58 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote
>
> >http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html
>
> > Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.
>
> At what age?
>
> > This blue-tint mathematical model of the fundamental eye's
> > proven behavior is correct in science.
>
> At what age?
>
> > The only issue is the scale of this response, (both
> > plus and minus). It is indeed slow.
>
> At what age?
>
> -MT

Subject: My opinion about Ortho-K, and a follow-up +3 diopter.

If you pay $1,600 for Ortho-K, and that clears your refractive
STATE from -2 diopters to +2 diopters then that is
great.

I regard this like a dental operation. Effective for
its purpose.

I regard the use of the plus 3 for all close work -- like
brushing your teeth on a daily basis -- to keep
what you have gained for the $1,600 you paid
to get to a positive refractive STATE.

I think that anyone selling Ortho-K, should
automatically DISCUSS the possibility
of using the plus, and SAVING the
$1,600 that the person invested
in his distant vision.

That is the real issue for Yves. Since
his is making these refractive STATE measurements
himself on his NORMAL eye, he can also
make the judgment about the results also.

If successful, his retainer is not Ortho-K, but
rather a $9 plus lens.

And the "price" of "brushing your teeth" on
a regular basis.

Sounds like a good trade-off to me.

Otis



On Feb 8, 9:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Second-opinion Friends,
>
> The Normal eye can be expected to be dynamic.
>
> The blue-tint mathematical model for the NORMAL eye
> can be verified -- and has been under a number of
> objective tests.
>
> If the blue-tint concept is correct for Yves normal eyes,
> then there are two possible results:
>
> 1. The blue-tint model (predicting stablization at +1/2 diopter,
> 20/20) is correct. When Yves stops using the Ortho-K Retainer,
> his refractive STATS will be at 1/2 to +1 diopter -- WHICH
> HE WILL VERIFY with a +1/2 to +1 diopter lens.
>
> 2. The blue-tint model is not accurate. When the use
> of the Ortho-K retainer is stopped, his refractve state
> will go from 56 diopters back to 60 diopters, and
> his relative refractive STATE will be -2 diopters,
> with a Snellen of 20/140.
>
> Since this process takes very strong dedication, we
> can not predict this result.
>
> But, assuming Yves sticks with this effort, I will report
> results in terms of refractive STATE as they develop.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
> On Feb 8, 4:58 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote
>
> > >http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html
>
> > > Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.
>
> > At what age?
>
> > > This blue-tint mathematical model of the fundamental eye's
> > > proven behavior is correct in science.
>
> > At what age?
>
> > > The only issue is the scale of this response, (both
> > > plus and minus). It is indeed slow.
>
> > At what age?
>
> > -MT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are ramming so much crap up your cake-hole Cletis you are falling
apart at the seams.

It appears that stuffing too much crap up your rear really does have
crap coming out your mouth.

Try discussing science for once, it may help with the constipation.

dr grant

Dr Judy wrote:
> On Feb 8, 4:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
>
>> Fortunately a scientific concept of the
>> natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
>> developed and published. See:
>>
>> http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html
>>
>> Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.
>
> Perhaps readers may want to check out Dr Wildsoet's home page before
> accepting "proven". In it she says:
>
> "The etiology of human myopia remains poorly understood."
>
> and she says:
>
> "Of the many questions waiting to be answered:
>
> What aspects of visual experience and associated retinal images
> underlie myopia?
> What are the ocular growth signals and how are they signaled from the
> retina and sclera?
> How do myopic eyes achieve their enlarged dimensions?
> Is it possible to inhibit myopic growth pharmacologically in ways that
> may be suitable for use in humans? "
>
>
> With regard to the diagram, this is a diagram illustrating
> emmetropization in young animals when hyperopia is imposed by minus
> lenses (it has little to no relevance to correcting myopia with minus)
>
> "However, experimentally imposed focusing errors (refractive errors)
> also trigger emmetropization: for example, with hyperopia imposed with
> negative defocusing lenses, the eye elongates and with imposed myopia
> (with positive defocusing lenses), eye growth is inhibited. In both
> cases, the end result in young animals is emmetropia with the lenses
> in place"

I was an Electrical Engineering major in college. I always get a
chuckle when Elevator Boy tries to pull "closed-loop feedback system"
analogies out of his arse.

Think of your home's oven as an analogy.

You set the thermostat for 350 degrees (F).

If the oven is already at 275F, then the thermostat will signal an
INcrease in temperature.

If the oven is already at 425F, then the thermostat will signal a
DEcrease in temperature.

IF, however, the oven is already at 350F -- the desired temperature --
then the thermostat will not signal any change.

Elevator boy can't even make the simplest of engineering metaphors work.
....

He also cannot differentiate between age groups (dangerous, I think).

He also cannot differentiate between chickens, shrews, monkeys, and
people (possibly explaining why he never reproduced. Possibly).

He also cannot differentiate between near-point esophores and those
without binocular abnormalities.

He also cannot differentiate between correlation and causation.

He has great difficulty with honesty and factual information (presents
nephew as 'success story' while forgetting about myopic niece).

I suspect he is a =deeply= religious man. While some who hold such
strong beliefs can still be objective observers of scientific fact--he
cannot.

It goes on and on and on. The pathology ... she runs quite deep.

On Feb 8, 3:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear SUPPORTIVE Ortho-K friends,
>
> Fortunately a scientific concept of the
> natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
> developed and published. See:
>
> http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html
>
> Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.
>
> This blue-tint mathematical model of the fundamental eye's
> proven behavior is correct in science.
>
> The only issue is the scale of this response, (both
> plus and minus). It is indeed slow.
>
> Yves has changed the power of his eyes by
> about 4 diopters, from 60 to 56 diopters
> by altering the shape of the cornea.
>
> The cornean will "spring back" in about
> a week, unless Yves gets rid of that
> wretched "near" environment with a plus 3.
>
> If he continues to use the +3 for ALL close work
> the "blue-tint" mathmatical model will "kick in",
> and pick up the slack as the cornea springs back.
>
> Thus the plus effect (blue tint model) will
> enable Yves to retain a refractive STATE of
> +1 dioper (and 20/20) long after the
> "spring back" effect has worn off.
>
> Yves shall see in time if this it the truth.
>
> This would be a powerful "selling" tool for
> Orth-K -- in the future.
>
> As the second-opinion -- of course!
>
> It would beat Lasik that has serious secondary
> consequences.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
> On Feb 8, 3:32 pm, "CatmanX" <drgr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Once again you show what a total moron you are Cletis. (Def: Moron -
> > one with an IQ<70)
>
> > If this were real, the simple answer is Yves would be overcorrected
> > with OK. He would also be the first person in history to use +3.00 on
> > a computer as we all sit 33cm from the screen.
>
> > In reality, you are still making up stories as we have run out of
> > Francis Young stories and Steven Leung has distanced himself from you.
> > Even Christine Wildsoet thinks you are a total dickhead.
>
> > dr grant- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Otis,

Which theory do you believe best explains why humans become
nearsighted? Is it because of over-accommodation, under-
accommodation, off-axis hyperopic defocus?

Do you know that optometrists are actually involved in this research?
Can you name some of them?

DrG