Glasses makes your eyes worse fast!

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by acemanvx, Aug 10, 2006.

  1. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    Here is what those people speak from experience:


    glasses and contacts can make your eyesight worse too. Your eyes will
    start to rely on the prescription to help you to see, so they will
    start to get lazy!! Then the next time you will need a stronger
    prescription. Make sense?


    eyesight gets worse if you DO wear glasses or contacts. It allows your
    eyes to grow weak because they aren't working. Like any muscle, your
    eyes will "atrophy"(for lack of a better word) without being exercise.


    i was diagnosed with astigmatism 3 yrs ago, and wore glasses 4 a year.
    after that my visions worsen.. we need further advises from drs. i
    guess!


    Eyeglasses and contacts only act as band-aids. They don't improve your
    eyesight. And various studies show that your eyesight can rapidly
    worsen due to relying on eyeglasses and contacts to see.


    "Minus lenses are the most common approach, yet the least likely to
    prevent further myopic progression. Unfortunately, they increase the
    nearpoint stress that is associated with progression."
    -May, 1984. Optometric Extension Program Foundation.


    The fact of the matter is, you don't have to wear glasses, contacts, or
    resort to Lasik surgery to improve your vision. Instead there's a
    safer and easier way to restore your eyesight. It's called natural
    vision improvement and it's widely recognized as a proven method for
    reversing your vision problems.


    The standard approach to vision care is to buy stronger and stronger
    glasses as our eyes get weaker and weaker. However, glasses just treat
    the symptoms and don't fix the problem. In fact, the more we wear
    glasses or contacts, the more our eyes grow dependent on them, and the
    weaker they become.
     
    acemanvx, Aug 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. acemanvx

    Jan Guest

    schreef:
    Yes, nonsense.............


    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Jan, Aug 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. acemanvx

    retinula Guest

    wrote the following unlearned opinion based upon
    absolutely ZERO knowledge of the subject:
    nope. it doesn't make sense. nothing but an old wives tale that has
    been disproven in controlled scientific studies multiple times.
    since the eye is not a muscle, then this reasoning is obviously false.
    with the possible exception of wearing glasses for treatment of
    farsightedness, this statement is totally invalid. no muscle works
    within the eye to help a nearsighted or astigmatic patient see better
    without glasses.

    no, you need to think a little clearer. why do you blame the fact that
    you started to develop astigmatism, and got a spectacle correction for
    it, and then the process continued and got worse, on the glasses you
    got? wasn't the process starting already before you got the glasses?
    why do you think the glasses had anything to do with the continuation
    of the process? when you were a kid and your feet grew and you got new
    shoes, did you blame those shoes when your feet continued to grow
    further?

    your inability to reason clearly about cause and effect, and the true
    anatomy, physiology, and development of the human eye, clearly
    demonstrates your intellectual weaknesses.
    please present to us the "various studies" you speak of. do it now.
    now you claim that you have evidence so you are commited to present it.
    don't dare pull an "otis" and try to change the subject or switch to a
    success story, etc. I want to see your scientific proof that you
    statements are valid. you say such evidence exists so put it forward
    with references, pubmed links, etc. I am ready to provide my evidence
    that what you say has been tested and shown to be bullshit. do it
    now-- you are on the spot!
    sorry, but a 20+ year old newsletter from a declining group of fringe
    optometrists doesn't qualify as proof. these types of thoughts were
    prevalent and were taught in a few optometry schools decades ago and at
    those times the ideas were considered reasonable. however, studies
    that have taken place over the last few decadees have methodically
    PROVEN that these ideas are invalid.

    besides, have you read the actual article in this old newsletter or did
    you get it from otis? do you realize that these newsletters constitute
    the musings and opinions of individual optometrists rather than
    statistically-controlled studies?

    your shit is weak. very weak.
    really? well the attorney general of the state of Iowa doesn't agree.
    some of these "safer and easier" ways are alleged to constitute fraud
    in their opinion and they have taken action against them to protect the
    public.
    http://quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/seeclearly.html
    blah blah blah
    no, the standard approach is to get regular eye exams and to use the
    appropriate refractive correction as the eye changes. in actuality
    most all patients do NOT require stronger and stronger glasses as you
    generalize. glasses or contacts have NO influence on the further
    development of the refractive state of the eye (and thats not my
    opinion-- its a proven fact).

    what are you trying to do-- make a play to take over Otis' position as
    the self-proclaimed spokesperson for the "second opinion" fringe group?

    you need to go back to your old habits of eating mushrooms and
    fantasizing about sex with fat women.
     
    retinula, Aug 10, 2006
    #3
  4. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Retinula,

    Almost all major change in medicine starts out by a small group of
    people who recognize the necessity of intelligently
    "changing the system".

    I am sorry you are ignorant of that fact. But that is indeed
    your majority-opinion -- which is not based on pure science.

    See:

    www.chinamyopia.org

    for a clear statement of the scientific SECOND OPINION.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Aug 10, 2006
    #4
  5. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Your fringe group has actually dwindled in numbers since the 1970's.
    You are basing your recommendation of using OTC reading glasses to
    prevent myopia on what --- "pure science"? Unfortunately, it doesn't
    work in the clinic.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Aug 10, 2006
    #5
  6. acemanvx

    Salmon Egg Guest

    No, but that is why some started washing their hands.

    Bill
    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Aug 10, 2006
    #6
  7. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear AceMan,


    Subject: How and Why the PUBLIC rejects plus-prevention


    The minus is quick-and-obvious. The plus is not.

    Therefore the "minus" always "sells" and the plus does not.

    This explains why it must be the PARENTS who "wake up" to
    plus-prevention. If not, we only create stair-case myopia for
    ourselves -- buy rejecting the plus a the threshold -- when it
    MUST BE USED to be truly effective in keeping your distant vision
    clear for life.

    It is necessary to understand this issue clearly. You must
    figure out how to do this "preventive" work youself -- or become
    victim of that over-prescribed minus.

    No M.O. OD can help you with plus-prevention. And it is a
    waste of time to even argue about it.

    Never forget this story -- it is the truth of this tragic
    situation. You can not transfer "responsibility" to anyone other
    than youself.

    Best,

    Otis

    ++++++++


    WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?


    With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's
    behavior, you would think that the insightful and motivated
    optometrist or ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and
    effective method of solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly
    that in the following example -- with the following result:


    THE PRINTER'S SON


    "It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge
    meeting. She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in
    school. I gave her my card and told her to bring him to my office
    and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles.

    "She said that she had no money at the time and that her
    husband was a printer working in another city. She did not expect
    him home for the next six weeks. I told her all this would not
    matter, that she should bring the boy over and I would fit him
    with a pair of spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them
    when her husband returned home.

    "She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found
    that his vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I
    made him a pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay
    me when her husband came back home.

    "In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to
    me. She stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting
    the glasses. He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints,
    far and near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his
    naked eyes. In fact, she said, the boy could see even better
    without the glasses than with them.

    "I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery
    that quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the
    mother to bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could
    really see well with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in
    and I checked his vision. I found that the father was indeed
    right. The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

    "I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say
    anything to the mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove
    that the boy had poor vision before he received his glasses? And
    who would believe that vision could be restored by just wearing a
    pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks?

    "My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn
    tendency for exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do
    special work on children's eyes and on vision restoration. It
    also enticed me to investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I
    was myself nearsighted.

    "On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be
    cautious in doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons
    who, supposedly, did not need them was almost a crime. And the
    fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a medical
    doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy
    person who might need or be under medical attention, was, and is
    now, and encroachment on the medical profession.

    "To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I
    took the following precautions: First, I quit using the title
    'doctor' in any form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as
    a spectacle fitter and nothing more. Second, I charged a
    reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for
    any special work or relief I gave. I did not advertise about this
    special work. I just did it as a matter of routine whenever or
    wherever I was given the opportunity.

    "Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the
    relationship of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and
    health. I have kept it up, and will continue to do this work as
    long as I continue to have the incentive and capability.

    "Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just
    wearing a pair of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that
    normal vision to the naked eye could be restored to children whose
    eyes have a negative focal state? This was true in 1904, and it
    is also true now, in this decade of 1950." (It continues to be
    true in this decade of 1990 -- Otis Brown)

    This statement cuts "both ways" -- and that is a major issue
    for all of us.


    SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION


    With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a
    profound and adverse effect, you would think that it should be
    possible to develop scientific verification for this
    characteristic of the normal eye. You would be correct. The
    testing and verification is impeccable -- if we restrict our
    attention to the normal eye's behavior.

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

    Remember this:

    If the PARENTS had put their son in a "plus" and verified his
    vision-clearing from 20/50 to 20/20 -- they MIGHT have been
    convinced. But since the PARENTS did not make the measurements --
    they were CONVINCED that Jake was "cheating" them -- by clearing
    their kid's vision back to 20/20.

    This why no OD can help with true-prevention. DO NOT EXPECT
    ANYTHING OF THEM.

    ***********************

    The effect of Raphaelson's staement -- was the recognition
    that if any "preventing" was to be done, then:

    1. I must recognize that if I "want" true-prevention -- I MUST DO
    IT MYSELF -- UNDER MY CONTROL.

    2. The M.O. Optometrist satisfies MOST PEOPLE becase MOST PEOPLE
    have no interest in their distant vision AT ALL! If you
    EVER attempt to help them UNDERSTAND plus-prevention -- they
    get VERY ANGRY at you -- for attempting to help them with
    PREVENTION.

    3. Some issues like this MUST BE DECIDED BY THE PERSON HIMSELF.

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

    If the above is UNDERSTOOD, and the person is not "too deep",
    (i.e., not yet BELOW 20/70 on the Snellen, and not DEPENDENT on
    that minus) then a certain degree of vision-clearing is possible.
    But he must understand the issue of self-motiviation, and
    have a rather intense desire to clear his vision under HIS
    CONTROL.

    There is no "easy" way about this. Just knowledge and common
    sense -- and a realization of the fact that these M.O. OD are
    destructive of you long-term vision. No intentionally, as the
    above will SUGGEST, but destructive none the less.

    The real question is what you PERSONALLY are going to do
    about it.

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

    Dear AceMan,

    Some more stupid remarks by a M.O. OD.

    {Comment: DrL recommended the "bifocal" for a person with 20/50
    vision -- at a cost of $350 OSB]

    (Just remember what S.O. Raphaelson said about this issue.)

    Remember, I said AVOID ENTRY into a negative refractive
    STATE. (Objective science).

    More commentary:


    Otis> but since single-minus costs $350, and a bifocal $350, and
    this August GOT HIS VISION TO PASS THE DMV, then why the
    hell should he wear a minus

    Otis> When a "plus" costs about $8?


    DrL> Probably a lot cheaper at Walmart, or that mail order place
    you are always recommending.


    [Comment: You could get a low-cost $20 minus from Zennioptical if
    you wished. This would be a TEMPORARY MEASURE -- to be used
    on your DASHBOARD -- UNTIL you cleared the 20/40 line and
    passed the DMV. Remember, these M.O. ODs don't give a damm
    about you protecting your distant vision for life. OSB]


    Otis> As long as he takes PERSONAL responsibility to always PASS
    the legal visual-acuity requirement for the DMV, then there
    is no reason at all why he should wear a bi-focal.


    DrL > Well, single vision then. If a person wants to see, that is
    their right. If a cure for myopia were available, I
    certainly would recommend that as well.


    Otis> Again, PREVENTION is not a "cure". But that is a profound
    difference in understanding the eye's proven behavior -- as
    a dynamic system, versus the conceptual errors made by DrL.


    Otis> And in fact, the MINUS part of the bifocal will PREVENT his
    vision- clearing.

    [Comment: In other words, a kid would get a -1.5 diopter in the
    "upper" bifocal -- when he passes the Snellen with 20/40.
    NO GLASSES most of the time, and a plus -- only for near
    work -- at $8. The -1.5 diopter bifocal will always "fail".
    This is the reason why all the "Comet" studies FAIL. It is
    because of that excessive minus on top. This is why the
    plus alone (at the threshold) can be successful -- for the
    person who wakes up in time. OSB]

    DrL> Not according to your pet Young-Oakley study -- remember?

    Otis> Again, DrL is attempting to destroy the real meaning of the
    Oakley-Young study -- which used a +1.5 diopter (plus) and a
    weak minus. The "plus"group did not go down, while the
    pure-minus went down at a rate of -2 diopters in four years.

    Otis> Thus, if the MINUS is avoided, and a stronger plus is used,
    a MOTIVATED person could clear from 20/60 to 20/40 or better
    -- provided he uses no minus at all -- under HIS CONTROL.
    And that truly IS THE ISSUE.


    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


    Dear AceMan,

    Subject: The ignorance of the general public.

    I do not attempt to "deal" with "most people" -- concerning
    plus-prevention.

    All you have to do is go to sci.med.vision and read the
    particularly inane remarks by "Quick" and others.

    If I were a "OD" and had to deal with them -- well they would
    get a strong "minus" and stair-case myopia to follow -- as well as for
    their children.

    They truly shoot themselves in the foot -- with their
    arrogance and ignorance.

    In other words -- you can continue to be part of the
    "problem", or part of the solution.

    The preventive choice is yours, not mine.


    Otis

    +++++++++++++++++++++
     
    otisbrown, Aug 10, 2006
    #7
  8. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    The minus works and the plus does not.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Aug 10, 2006
    #8
  9. acemanvx

    p.clarkii Guest

    Well you have things backwards as usual. The idea that accommodation
    causes myopia started out with a large group of people believing it to
    be a possibility a couple of decades ago. then the studies were done
    that disproved the theory and showed the situation is more complex.
    Now the only people who continue to believe that minus lenses cause
    myopia and plus lenses help to prevent it are a few fringe-group
    freakos like you. either that or someone who has lived under a rock
    for the last 10 years.

    You fantasize about yourself being some tragic figure who is rightfully
    battling against the evil scientific establishment. You fantasize that
    someday people will say "otis was right and we were wrong". well dream
    on old fool. your ideas have been disproven years ago and the truth is
    that your second-opinion friends, if they really exist as an actual
    group or perhaps more as an illusion in your deluded mind, are such a
    dwendling number that you can only name one guy who has a website in
    China.

    you are a joke.

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    p.clarkii, Aug 11, 2006
    #9
  10. acemanvx

    drfrank21 Guest


    Mike, I've never given this much thought but always assumed
    that the visual system wants to maintain spherical equivalency
    (much as the same reason we maintain it on a refraction, dropping
    down a .25 on a -.50 cyl increase).

    frank
     
    drfrank21, Aug 11, 2006
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.