Well it looks like ill be giving soft contact lens orthoK a try very soon!

My eyes really suck at -5(left) -4.5(right) they used to be worse but
thanks to NVI they have improved about a diopter! I want to chop off
more myopia so its soft contact lens orthoK for me! Improvements of up
to 2 diopters have been measured for those who have tried! Ill be happy
with at least a diopter reduction, that combined with my countined
efforts at NVI will make a real dent in my significent myopia. Myopia
blurs expotentionally. -1 blurs very little, -2 is three times as bad,
-3 is many times worse, -4 is already off the charts! High myopia at -6
is so bad without correction you are functionally blind and helpless
without full time correction, everything would be massivately blurry, a
bunch of fuzzy colors.

Good Luck, AceMan!

But I would get some assessment of the capability of Ortho-K before
I went too much further.

And, as always, there is Lasik, as you posted.

Otis

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> My eyes really suck at -5(left) -4.5(right) they used to be worse but
> thanks to NVI they have improved about a diopter! I want to chop off
> more myopia so its soft contact lens orthoK for me! Improvements of up
> to 2 diopters have been measured for those who have tried! Ill be happy
> with at least a diopter reduction, that combined with my countined
> efforts at NVI will make a real dent in my significent myopia. Myopia
> blurs expotentionally. -1 blurs very little, -2 is three times as bad,
> -3 is many times worse, -4 is already off the charts! High myopia at -6
> is so bad without correction you are functionally blind and helpless
> without full time correction, everything would be massivately blurry, a
> bunch of fuzzy colors.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Good Luck, AceMan!
>
> But I would get some assessment of the capability of Ortho-K before
> I went too much further.
>
> And, as always, there is Lasik, as you posted.
>
> Otis


I have a clear idea of orthoK's capabilities which will become crystal
clear with actual experience. Otis, you should consider orthoK too, you
can reduce your prescription by more than half and improve vision
several-fold, perhaps as much as ten-fold! Lasik is not needed for over
95% of people nor do they have a good reason for it, especially those
whos eyes arent that bad. OrthoK should be displacing lasik once more
optometrists offer it and more people know about it.

Dear AceMan,

I must agree with Retinula on Ortho-K.

It was developed for pilots who had to get their Snellen to
go from 20/50 to 20/20. For THAT purpose it is worth
the $1,600 -- perhaps.

But at your -5 diopters (after years of wearing a strong minus) I think
the only real prospect is Lasik for you.

Typically -- if you use Ortho-K -- you must continue to use it.

If you stop, the cornea will "rebound" and you will be back
to your original refractive STATE.

There are no "easy" solutions at all

Best,

Otis




(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > Good Luck, AceMan!
> >
> > But I would get some assessment of the capability of Ortho-K before
> > I went too much further.
> >
> > And, as always, there is Lasik, as you posted.
> >
> > Otis
>
>
> I have a clear idea of orthoK's capabilities which will become crystal
> clear with actual experience. Otis, you should consider orthoK too, you
> can reduce your prescription by more than half and improve vision
> several-fold, perhaps as much as ten-fold! Lasik is not needed for over
> 95% of people nor do they have a good reason for it, especially those
> whos eyes arent that bad. OrthoK should be displacing lasik once more
> optometrists offer it and more people know about it.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dear AceMan,
>
> I must agree with Retinula on Ortho-K.
>
> It was developed for pilots who had to get their Snellen to
> go from 20/50 to 20/20. For THAT purpose it is worth
> the $1,600 -- perhaps.
>
> But at your -5 diopters (after years of wearing a strong minus) I think
> the only real prospect is Lasik for you.
>
> Typically -- if you use Ortho-K -- you must continue to use it.
>
> If you stop, the cornea will "rebound" and you will be back
> to your original refractive STATE.
>
> There are no "easy" solutions at all
>
> Best,
>
> Otis


Otis, arent you interested in orthoK? Maybe you can get your snellen
down to 20/200 or something. This is much, much better than where you
are at now. You still wont need glasses for reading. Maybe you want to
be a pilot. I think you are allowed to be up to 20/200 if you clear
20/20 with glasses then you can become a pilot! I am not interested in
being a pilot, I just want to improve my vision. Getting down to -3 is
almost three times better than -5! I know orthoK is temporary, ill be
using it every other night, its as easy as brushing your teeth. NVI
plus orthoK will make a big difference in my UCVA. You can do the same
Otis

Dear AceMan,

Sorry, you do not understand my personal motivations in doing this
PREVENTIVE work.

It is rather obvious (because of the Oakley-Young study) that
PREVENTION
must be matter of choice -- before any minus is used.

This must be a matter of review for the parents and child. The
minus is profoundly "easy", and very few people feel the
"motivation" to use is correctly.

As your college friend August (at -1 diopter) established it -- you
can clear your vision back to 20/20 -- PROVIDED you do not
use a minus.

I know that this becomes a personal choice. Given the profound
hostility to the concept by the majority-opinion ODs on
sci.med.vision, it is obvious that they will have nothing
to do with successful prevention.

And indeed you can not PAY anyone for successful PREVENTION.

You must figure out how to do it yourself. And that
is a tough choice for most people.

But good luck with your "vision clearing". I still suggest
that Ortho-K would be a poor bet for you and your will be
disapointed in the long-term reesults of it.

Best,

Otis



(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > Dear AceMan,
> >
> > I must agree with Retinula on Ortho-K.
> >
> > It was developed for pilots who had to get their Snellen to
> > go from 20/50 to 20/20. For THAT purpose it is worth
> > the $1,600 -- perhaps.
> >
> > But at your -5 diopters (after years of wearing a strong minus) I think
> > the only real prospect is Lasik for you.
> >
> > Typically -- if you use Ortho-K -- you must continue to use it.
> >
> > If you stop, the cornea will "rebound" and you will be back
> > to your original refractive STATE.
> >
> > There are no "easy" solutions at all
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Otis
>
>
> Otis, arent you interested in orthoK? Maybe you can get your snellen
> down to 20/200 or something. This is much, much better than where you
> are at now. You still wont need glasses for reading. Maybe you want to
> be a pilot. I think you are allowed to be up to 20/200 if you clear
> 20/20 with glasses then you can become a pilot! I am not interested in
> being a pilot, I just want to improve my vision. Getting down to -3 is
> almost three times better than -5! I know orthoK is temporary, ill be
> using it every other night, its as easy as brushing your teeth. NVI
> plus orthoK will make a big difference in my UCVA. You can do the same
> Otis

"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com:

> It was developed for pilots who had to get their Snellen to
> go from 20/50 to 20/20. For THAT purpose it is worth
> the $1,600 -- perhaps.

Please prove this Otis. When are you going to learn not to talk about
something you have no knowledge about?

I bet you won't provide proof of what you said above, because it's non
existant.

Allen

"Mike Tyner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) :

> So the FAA and the military now accepts Ortho-k as a means of passing
> the vision requirements?

Dayem Mike,

I better tell my FAA doc the above so he can have a rip roaring laugh. or
two or three..... He'd probably revoke my medical for insanity if I
suggested this LOL

Allen

Mike Tyner wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
> > It was developed for pilots who had to get their Snellen to
> > go from 20/50 to 20/20. For THAT purpose it is worth
> > the $1,600 -- perhaps.
>
> So the FAA and the military now accepts Ortho-k as a means of passing the
> vision requirements?
>
> -MT


The military doesnt accept orthoK and frowns even on glasses. PRK is
extremely popular for this reason and also because glasses are a
liability in combat, if you lose or break them you must retreat
carefully! OrthoK can be used for commerical pilots, firemen, cops,
athlates and anyone for the matter that wishes for less myopia and less
dependence on glasses.


Dear Otis,


I am aware of your motives for preventing myopia. Its a choice between
the child and parent. I was never informed of that choice, majority
opinion optometrists tell me it wouldnt have mattered. The evidence I
read says minus is partially responsable for stair-case myopia. Had I
never touched the minus, I probably would have been around a -2, maybe
-3 at worst instead of the -4.5 and -5 I am now! I know genes play a
factor, but so does environment. Thanks for the luck in me clearing my
vision. I am too myopic to pass the 20/40 DMV but maybe I can clear
20/200 which would be a personal achievement. May I ask why you are
negative about orthoK? You dont think orthoK would be right for you
either? Wondering why.


Best regards, your friend Aceman

(E-Mail Removed) wrote in

> OrthoK can be used for commerical pilots, firemen, cops,
> athlates and anyone for the matter that wishes for less myopia and
> less dependence on glasses.

PLEASE prove this!!!! FAA cites PLEASE

Allen