Wavefront LASIK and surface retreatments are a hoax!

Wavefront LASIK and surface retreatments are a hoax. Once you rip up a
flap or remove the epithelium, the wavefront map is no longer
applicable to that eye. No wonder so many patients are made worse by
wavefront retreatments.

What do you think, Otis?

Dear southeasteyecare,

I have nothing to say about Lasik.

Only about preveting the development of a negative
refractive STATE of the eye -- at the threshold -- based
on pure science as it concerns the behavior of
all natural eyes.

Best,

Otis




(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Wavefront LASIK and surface retreatments are a hoax. Once you rip up a
> flap or remove the epithelium, the wavefront map is no longer
> applicable to that eye. No wonder so many patients are made worse by
> wavefront retreatments.
>
> What do you think, Otis?

I certainly agree the plus-prevention on the threshold
is a decision or choice the person himself must
make,

Given the arrogance of Dr. Grant, and his hostility
towards the preventive second-opinion, I doubt
that you will ever be involved in effective
plus-prevention.

Best,

Otis



Mike Tyner wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
> > I have nothing to say about Lasik.
> >
> > Only about preveting the development of a negative
> > refractive STATE of the eye -- at the threshold -- based
>
> And don't forget you're also the local expert on that vast conspiracy of eye
> doctors and opticians who all work to keep your therapy from being offered
> to the public.
>
> -MT

Dear Mike,

The "eye doctor" who gets involved with the SCIENTIFIC
FACTS -- and can judge them CORRECTLY will
have his child BEGIN wearing that plus at the
threshold -- when it MUST be used to be effective.

The SECOND-OPINION ODs children will simply
NEVER enter into a negative refractive STATE because
of that knowledge and wisdom.

It is his concern for his own children's visual
welfare, and the ability to "control" their "near"
environment with the proper-strength plus
that makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

But you are a "majority-opinion OD" who
can not understan that TRUE ISSUE. I indeed
regret that fact -- but that is the way it is.

Best,

Otis




Mike Tyner wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
> > Given the arrogance of Dr. Grant, and his hostility
> > towards the preventive second-opinion, I doubt
> > that you will ever be involved in effective
> > plus-prevention.
>
> Every eye doctor in the world would get "involved" if you simply show us
> that it works.
>
> -MT

Mike,

If you wish to argue that the plus does not "work" in
5 minutes -- I would agree with you.

If you wish to argue that plus-prevention is tedious -- I will
agree with you.

But when you insist that a minus 3 diopter lens
has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of the
natural eye -- I must totally disagree with
you because science tells us the dead
opposite of your biased belief.

Best,

Otis

+++++++++++

Dear Prevention-minded freind,

The "problem" with plus-prevention.

People often ask how I "know" that prevention is possible at the
threshold. The reason it this:

1. It has already been accomplised (on the threshold of 20/60, or
-1.25
diopters) and

2. The fundamental science of the eye's behavior says so. (Primate
studies).

Now what is the problem? The problem is this:

1. It is tedious.

2. Most people have NO INTEREST in clearing their vision
with a plus -- since it is tedious. They want their vision
made-sharp in 5 minutes with a minus.

Anyone wishing to "clear" their vision (from 20/60) must understand
this issue.

Here is the example of 34 cases where vision was "cleared" from
a negative value to normal.

But this should be a "factor" in your decision to help your
child "clear" from 20/60. Note that it took several months
to clear. This is what I would expect for your child. It
takes commitment on the part of the parent and child.
Both must "stick" with it.

Also note that the "plus" was 3.5 diopters. I think that the
"plus" should be about 2.5 diopters -- but your child can
work "up" to that amount of plus.

You have taken one MAJOR STEP in vision clearing.
You measured her snellen youself. In my opinion, if
you see the vision-clearing results -- you will believe them.
I think that is the only way to be confident.

I know this is completely "new" to you -- so take your
time. Accept that it is "difficult" but possible. But
it truly does take personal determination and
resolve, and trust in your own ability.

Best,

Otis

++++++++




Vision Clearing -- Both the Success and the difficulties.
« on: September 11, 2006

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

The "Plus" has been used to clear vision in the past.

But the effort requires strong resolve to do it.

Here is the discussion:

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

By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.

Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004

----------+ | Chapter IX | +--------


The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia
which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at
the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to
reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more. In most
cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and
patience; but a few experiments after the following example will
suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is
possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by
repression at the near point.

This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes
an open question.


EXAMPLE CASES

Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
-1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of
two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
just perceptibly less.


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

Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;

...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.

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


[Comment: Anyone considering "prevention" must understand this
issue. There is no "easy way" of prevention. As Chalmers
said -- the person must fully understand this issue. It is
for this reason that I suggest full transfer of "control"
to the person himself. If he lacks the motivation to look
at the chart, and "clear" himself, then no "third party"
(i.e., OD) can do it for the person. This is why I
separate a true-medical problem from preventing a negative
refractive status in the natural eye. I believe that the
above staement simply clarifies that point. OSB]



________________________

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states.

I suggest that there is a profound difference concerning "pure
science" and "pure medicine". And I suggest the difference is
this:

Medicine: Must deal with a great mass of people walking in off the
street. There might be some "intelligent" people but
that can never be the assumption of the medical doctor.
The result is that we get "canned" procedures that
"work" instantly. I consider that people in this
profession have no choice but to conduct that kind of
work -- and I would do the same thing IN THEIR
PROFESSION. That would not make it "right" but I do
understand them -- and what they are doing. Also
let me include the incredible arrogant statement by
"Dr. Grant", as the worst of the worst -- where he
declares himself a "God" in his office. That is why
I would avoid these M.O. ODs -- and accept them
for detecting exclusively MEDICAL problems. And
a negative refractive STATE of -1.25 diopters (20/60)
is NOT a medical problem.


Science: Must "step back" from that situation, and think about the
behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system.
Engineers and scientists simply do not deal with
children, nor with others that do not understand
the need to work on prevention with the plus.

But when you ask very fundamental questions about whether a
population of eyes (primates) are dynamic, you get the
"second-opinion" answer, that POTENTIALLY a negative refractive
status could be prevented -- before the minus lens is applied.

I believe that pure science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not
medical -- experiments proves that point.) But that is the nature
of our arguments. Many concepts in science simply can never be
reduced to "medicine" (as per the above)
and we should understand that truth.

This is how I separate "medical issues" from scientific
concepts and experimental and objective testing.

But that is why it took a scientist like Dr. Stirling
Colgate to do the "work" correctly and clear his vision from 20/70
to 20/20.

His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the
primate eye, again on a pure-scientific (not medical) level.

Use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can
have positive and negative refractive status (as a dynamic device)
and this situation becomes much clearer.

Best,

Otis




Mike Tyner wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
> > Given the arrogance of Dr. Grant, and his hostility
> > towards the preventive second-opinion, I doubt
> > that you will ever be involved in effective
> > plus-prevention.
>
> Every eye doctor in the world would get "involved" if you simply show us
> that it works.
>
> -MT

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> I have nothing to say about Lasik.
>

Thats what this thread was about. so why did you reply?
You should just shut up if you have "nothing to say" about a topic.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >
> > I have nothing to say about Lasik.
> >
>
> Thats what this thread was about. so why did you reply?
> You should just shut up if you have "nothing to say" about a topic.

Otis has nothing to say about a number of things.

DrG

On 9/16/06 9:30 AM, in article
(E-Mail Removed). com,
"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Wavefront LASIK and surface retreatments are a hoax. Once you rip up a
> flap or remove the epithelium, the wavefront map is no longer
> applicable to that eye. No wonder so many patients are made worse by
> wavefront retreatments.
>
> What do you think, Otis?
>

Not coming from the optometric profession, whenever I hear about wavefront
correction, I think interferometry. When I think of interferometry, I think
of measuring optical error to a fraction of a wavelength such as 1/10 wave
or less. I doubt that eye surfaces are so stable or reproducible so that
measurement of error to less than a wavelength or two is truly meaningful.
Thus, although you truly are correcting the wavefront, use of the term
"wavefront" IMPLIES working at an unrealistically high precision when vision
is involved.

If there is a hoax, it lies in puffery that makes it sound better than it
really is.

Bill
-- Fermez le Bush

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >
> > I have nothing to say about Lasik.
> >
>
> Thats what this thread was about. so why did you reply?

PClar -- why do you not READ the lead in statement.

I was personally asked to make a comment.


> You should just shut up if you have "nothing to say" about a topic.

Your opinion. This is an "open" site -- and all opinions
are welcome.

Otis

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

> Dear southeasteyecare,
>
> I have nothing to say about Lasik.
>
> Only about preveting the development of a negative
> refractive STATE of the eye -- at the threshold -- based
> on pure science as it concerns the behavior of
> all natural eyes.

Except that SCIENCE has already proved you wrong, you idiotic zealot.
Not once in nearly three years of posting your bullshit over and over
and over again have you ever replied to anyone's request for supportive
scientific data that validates your "theory". Just one peer reviewed
real scientific study that proves you right.

Of course you can't, because there are indeed good scientific studies
that prove you wrong.

Geez! Get a life. At the threshold.

LB, O.D.