Can a myope improve unaided sight - YES or NO

hello all

i am interested in knowing what each of you [expert or not] personally
think about this. pls use all the scientific or otherwise knowledge you
possess, just personal opinions, based on our education, religious
beliefs and misconceptions, erasoned judgement, ... all the shabang,
and the final gist of it.

Just answer in YES/NO

Question: Is it possible for *at least one* person with elongated
eyeball myopia [not the other temporary kind] to improve sight and get
better unaided far vision [he may use them while improving], without
any invasive/medical procedures. If you have seen even one case, or
think it is million to one shot, please respond YES, otherwise NO.

thanks for your input

 

of course no tricks, like narrowing eyelids (squinting) or producing
visible tears etc
the so called pupil control *is* allowed

 

i have not asked proofs....i am least interested in proofs
just one's personal opinion one might have formed based on their
education, training, experience with patients, own personal
experience, misconceptions, beliefs etc etc.

ie in a word, upto the present moment whats their take on this
question.
They need not put their professional reputation behind it, because it
is only
a part of what they are. but it would definitely be interesting coming
from a prefessional (bcoz they are more exposed to incidents in their
field)

as for costs of treatment, you need not back it up with a treatment
plan.
can one start on any treatment with a plain YES/NO??!!

 

Probably not. Once your eyeball enlongates into axial myopia, its
permanent. Sorry to say. This is why Otis preaches and advocates
prevention at the treshold. What is your prescription now and how old
were you when you got your first glasses? You may be able to relieve
tonic accomodation which will reduce your prescription. OrthoK can
further reduce your myopia. Theres lasik and even IOLs but both options
are risky and may ruin your clear correctable vision.

 

How about by not reading or doing as much close work? I think there
_is_ science to connect close work to the development of myopia, right?
Whether this "cure" is worse than the disease is another question.
--

 

"Is it possible to slow the progress of myopia with effort or training
or
exercise?


Myopia specialists don't believe so. The FDA doesn't think so.
Respected
authorities don't approve of the practice because nothing has been
found
that works, when compared to nontreated controls."


It is possible to slow down or even stop myopia progression, just not
reverse it(unless its just tonic accomodation) Otis plus lens theory
has been tried on many with much success. Eye exercises will also work
wonders. Reducing near work is another way to slow down myopia.


Excess accomodation is probably the main reason why most people(under
40) respond to natural vision improvement, but hey it works. It just
cant shorten your eye. I am getting atropine soon to do away with
excess accomodation and reduce my dependancy on what is overminus
glasses. My uncorrected vision may improve on the order of several
times as well, making me much more functional without glasses.

 

i want to get the gist of each person's research, education,
experience, belief,
brainwashing etc regarding this issue and avoid running around
understanding
the complicated experiments an what they signify, and whether or not
they apply to
humans...thats why i want to know the *personal* opinion not
professional one [although
t can be based on [professional knowledge]
........
and then try out [or not] non invasive, safe [according to me],
relatively easy
[ie not requiring revolutionary changes in daily life] stuff to improve
unaided vision.

 

You want data from people, yet aren't saying how you will use it.
Impolite, and it would be irresponsible to provide data under
such conditions.

It is good you recognize you have a decision to make, so let
me show you a different approach:

There is a cost to wearing minus lenses to correct myopia, maybe
a net discounted lifetime cost about 1000 hours of wasted effort.
There is a cost to trying Bates or other exercises, say 40 hours
if it works and 100 hours if it does not (from the frustration,
mistakes & extra effort).

Trying is only mathematically worth it if there is a 9.4% or
greater chance of success. I doubt randomized statistics would
support a success rate anywhere near that. Probably several
orders of magnatude lower. At that point, it becomes a foolish
and dangerous hope, worse than a lottery ticket.

Ethical physicians would not advise a patient even try unless
they felt the patient unusually likely to succeeed, or unusually
tolerant of failure (not easily frustrated). I doubt either
applies in your case.

But still, physicians are not veterinarians and patients are
not meat. The patients own values and wishes must be considered
even if wildly different from the physicians, and advised according
to their values. Or referred if the gulf is too great.

-- Robert

 

Dear Friend,

If you read Dr. Judy's post -- then any "clearing" you might
experience is a matter of "random" chance. You
should factor her judgment into any judgment or decision you
might make.

You will find that the "experts" profoundly DISAGREE on
PREVENTION. Some say it is possiible, others, impossible.

What ever you decide, I would suggest that you
post your current "prescription", and that
you personally determine what you can read
on your Snellen.

When you say "improvement" is it wise to understand
your "starting" point -- and your desired "end-point",
and the PROBABILITY that you can reach your
desired goal -- or not.

And as you say -- with very slight effort.

are in any "deeper" than about 20/60 -- you
probably will not be successful.

Assuming minimum effort.

But good luck. Let us know what you decide.

Best,

Otis

 

i did give people upfront 'thanks' for their "data" [YES/NO]
people can just take it and not even provide any data, that is also
fine by me. although i didnt get any pointed YES/NO from you,
i observed that you did pick up the freebee 'thanks'!

oh no!

too computational...

*not* interested in proofs, theories, statistics....

i dont know how to identify an ethical person from unethical.....
let alone physicians....[_and_ i dont want to know *how*...]

thats a personal opinion i dont remember asking!
and a these seem like good reasons not to tell 'how I would use it
[*data*]'

 

i would consider it lucky to be that 'random' case

i guess i am beyond 'prevention' stage...not so young anymore

i am not sure if i want to make it another 'project'
measuring and tracking it in a 'professional' way..
and i am not entering any snellen chart contest...
so it is fine if it is just a qualitative 'improvment',
i am not trying to prove any one method's effictiveness
in any quantitavie way.... i will know when i see clearly,
regardless of what the chart or statistics say...

i am not sure "effort" is the way to go ...

thanks

 

You didn't. But posters can answer however they please.
You cannot control debate but you might be able to shape it.
I see you doing a poor job even for your own aims.

So you must not expect [m]any of your desired replies.

-- Robert

 

true. hardly possible to avoid near work forever...but, as long as you
think it *cures*...
the implication is significant

 

assuming someone never did any eye exercises, and has axial myopia,
and into 40s, would that mean he/she still might have tonic
accomodation
left from young age that can be relieved and some improvment made?
as i understand, tonic accomodation is a reversible thing as opposed to
axial myopia.

 

Frankly, if you don't welcome the discussion you generated, ignore it, or
don't post it to usenet in the first place

 

Absolutely, YES.

Unless you mean enough improvement to actually make a difference. Then
NO.

 

looks like its a unanimous NO...on this thread
i went thru some other posts, and found you mentioned
the book projector might work. could you pls elaborate how
it might work? or did you mean only the tonic accomodation?

 

his personal opinion on me is not generated by me and its totally off
the topic...
and to point it out goes in the direction of 'shaping the discussion'
as he himself mentions...