how long will it take

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by heynita2000, Feb 28, 2005.

  1. heynita2000

    heynita2000 Guest

    12 years ago I was wearing -4.75 -2.25 90 axis
    -4.50 -2.50 90 axis
    It took 12 years to get down to a -4 -2.00 90 axis.Im sick of
    waiting. Im 58 years old .How do I speed this process up.I dont want to
    be 80 befor I can see without my glasses.Im going without them 5 or so
    hours a day hoping this will
    speed it up.Im wearing a -3.00 no clyinder now so I can see the
    computor screen.
    Im doing swinging , near far ,I walked to the library with them
    off.Can't wait for summer.I think things will look a lot clearer in the

    sunlight.
     
    heynita2000, Feb 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. heynita2000

    Dom Guest

    Well at this rate it will take about 64 more years so you'll be about 122
    years old.

    Who told you your vision would ever return to normal? I think you've been
    had. Sure there is often a slight reduction in myopia through the 40's and
    into the 50's but often the vision is quite stable from late 50's through
    the 60's. If you want to see clearly but don't like glasses, then wear
    contacts or have laser surgery.

    Dom
     
    Dom, Feb 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. heynita2000

    g.gatti Guest

    Another victim of the fraudolent theory of weaker glasses.
     
    g.gatti, Feb 28, 2005
    #3
  4. heynita2000

    Guest Guest

    A quite common process at your age.

    Snip...

    Im wearing a -3.00 no clyinder now so I can see the
    Yes, can you also read what is on the screen?
    With the age of 58 you are supposed to, in my country people having your age
    are the real rockers
     
    Guest, Mar 1, 2005
    #4
  5. heynita2000

    heynita2000 Guest

    Your negativity is causing me to try harder.I didnt mention befor that
    my last perscription was -5.75 -2.00 90 axis
    -5.50 -2.25 90 axis I didnt get it
    filled. Am I glad. My goal is to see ar least 20/40 out of the -3 no
    cylinder at the end of this year.
     
    heynita2000, Mar 1, 2005
    #5
  6. heynita2000

    g.gatti Guest

    No question of negativity but of simple truth.

    The method you are following is outrageous.

    The idiots who comment about the "normal process" are fraudolent too
    because if this was the case, why they prescribe always stronger
    glasses unless the patient complains? They should be able to check for
    it in advance.

    refractive errors depend on the mind of the subject, not on the charts
    of the ignorant doctors


    http://TheCentralFixation.com
     
    g.gatti, Mar 1, 2005
    #6
  7. heynita2000

    Guest Guest

    This is what you wrote before:

    12 years ago I was wearing -4.75 -2.25 90 axis
    -4.50 -2.50 90 axis
    It took 12 years to get down to a -4 -2.00 90 axis.

    Strange.........

    Am I glad. My goal is to see ar least 20/40 out of the -3 no
    Wish you lots of succes rocker.
     
    Guest, Mar 1, 2005
    #7
  8. heynita2000

    Dr Judy Guest

    Its good to have goals, but they need to be realistic. If you truly want to
    see without glasses then the solution is either contacts or refractive
    surgery, both proven effective methods.

    The alternative methods that involve swinging exercises, plus lenses, going
    without glasses and so on have had little to no success in clinical trials.

    I would like to fly. I can use a hang glider, a airplane or a helicopter
    and be sure of success. I can also try attaching feathers to my arms but
    that method is highly unlikely to achieve my goal, no matter how hard I try.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Mar 1, 2005
    #8
  9. heynita2000

    Neil Brooks Guest

    If you do this, please post pictures nonetheless ;-)
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 1, 2005
    #9
  10. heynita2000

    The Real Bev Guest

    That's only because you don't BELIEVE! You must think good thoughts and
    try harder. And staring at the sun couldn't hurt...
     
    The Real Bev, Mar 2, 2005
    #10
  11. heynita2000

    retinula Guest

    I am unsure why you think that your vision will return to near normal
    after a period of time not wearing glasses. It won't. Do not believe
    some of the foolish unlearned people who post here like Rishi and Otis.
    Only glasses, contacts, or surgery can significantly affect your
    refraction. I think you must already know this anyway.
     
    retinula, Mar 2, 2005
    #11
  12. heynita2000

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Heynita,
    There are people on this site who are "negative" about
    prevention. (Shocked, I am that such people should exist.)

    The post about "Mike" is true. He was given a -2.75 diopter
    lens -- but "gave up" on this over-prescription. But equally,
    when he checked himself, he found his eye-chart was
    about 20/60 to 20/70.

    If you do this "clearing" work you MUST pass the Snellen-DMV
    line of 1.8 cm at 6 meteres. If you do not, then you MUST get
    a minus lens to pass that line.

    It is true that some people are successful with prevention
    (passing the DMV) and others are not. It is impossible
    to predict who will have the motivation to do it
    successfully -- and who will not.

    So enjoy these discussions -- and good luck.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 2, 2005
    #12
  13. What's your plan to clear her astigmatism? Perhaps plus lenses 90 degrees
    off axis?

    Scott
     
    Scott Seidman, Mar 2, 2005
    #13
  14. heynita2000

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Otis,

    A couple of quick things:


    1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for
    the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems
    a little narcissistic and self-serving, don't you think?


    2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri,
    etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the
    highest of scrutiny before being labeled as "safe," "accurate,"
    "state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister.
    It's up there for you to surmount.


    Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on
    unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general
    public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of
    credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses.


    Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors
    on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a
    huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They
    may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth
    by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I
    don't think it is).


    But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot.


    The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others.
    Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing,
    accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in
    what you spout -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe
    your methods, you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with
    Bagolini, Heimholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all
    the other paragons whose names are memorialized in the annals of
    vision care.


    Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who
    creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help.
    "Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt. It does
    nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your signature said, "I am
    not a doctor. My theories are my own, have not been proved, and are
    not shared by most in the medical community. Further, I am
    pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses
    legitimately tested. Consult your doctor."


    Neil
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 2, 2005
    #14
  15. heynita2000

    g.gatti Guest

    How can you be so blind for not seeing that people are SUFFERING much
    more for your glasses than for the imperfect sight without glasses?

    You not only are blind but very stupid and criminal too!!!
     
    g.gatti, Mar 2, 2005
    #15
  16. heynita2000

    Dan Abel Guest


    I think I mentioned this before, but my wife failed the DMV vision
    screening, and her OD didn't give her a minus lens. He gave her a plus
    lens instead. Do you think that had anything to do with the fact that she
    is farsighted?


    :-(
     
    Dan Abel, Mar 2, 2005
    #16
  17. heynita2000

    heynita2000 Guest

    Wearing - over corrected - lense got me myoptic ,so why cant over
    corrected + lense get me out of it?????? Why dont you try wearing -
    lense.A little stronger ever month till your wearing a -3.If the lense
    dont affect the eye then you eyes shouldnt get myoptic .Right. Or are
    you chicken to try.
     
    heynita2000, Mar 2, 2005
    #17
  18. heynita2000

    g.gatti Guest

    Eye correction is seriously short sighted
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    * 19:00 20 November 2002
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    * Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
    * Andy Coghlan and Michael Le Page

    Related Articles

    * Short-sightedness may be tied to refined diet
    * 5 April 2002
    * Eyeball squeezing could correct sight
    * 21 March 2002
    * Severed optical nerves can be made to grow again
    * 5 December 2001
    * Search New Scientist
    * Contact us

    Web Links

    * Optometry, Anglia Polytechnic University
    * British College of Optometrists
    * Eye development
    * Myopia
    * Vision Research

    The Trip of a Lifetime to the Arctic
    Decline in eyesight
    Enlarge image
    Decline in eyesight
    Short-sighted theory
    Enlarge image
    Short-sighted theory

    Millions of people worldwide may have worse eyesight and even be more
    likely to go blind because of a long-held but misguided idea about how
    to correct short-sightedness. A study intended to confirm the theory
    has instead been stopped because the children's eyesight was getting
    worse, New Scientist has learned.

    For decades, many optometrists have been routinely "undercorrecting"
    short-sightedness, or myopia, when prescribing glasses or contact
    lenses.

    "What was done was done with the best of intentions," says optometrist
    Daniel O'Leary of Anglia Polytechnic University in Cambridge, England.
    Indeed, his study of 94 children in Malaysia sought to prove the value
    of undercorrection. Instead, it showed the opposite.

    While the number of children involved was small, amazingly it is the
    largest and most rigorous study to date. "The study was meant to run
    for three years but after two years, when we found out we were making
    the children's eyes worse, we had to stop it prematurely," O'Leary
    says. "Short-sighted people need to know it's not the thing to do."

    The results have been hailed by some optometrists as key evidence that
    could change the way children are treated. "It's the strongest evidence
    I've seen in this field," says Paul Adler, a spokesman for Britain's
    College of Optometrists. "It could change prescribing practice
    worldwide."
    Epidemic proportions

    There is still much debate about the causes of myopia, but it is
    certainly common in children who spend a lot of time reading or doing
    close work. It has reached epidemic proportions in Far Eastern
    countries such as Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, where 90 per cent of
    young people are short-sighted, compared with 15 to 30 per cent in
    Europe and the US.

    In short-sighted people, the muscles in the eye cannot flatten the lens
    enough to focus light from distant objects directly on the retina.
    Instead, the point of focus is in front of the retina, creating a
    blurred image (see graphic). Glasses can fully correct this problem,
    moving the focal point back onto the retina.

    But when people wearing normal glasses look at close objects, the focus
    point is usually behind the retina. The theory is that to try to
    "refind" this focal point for near objects, their eyeballs actually
    elongate. Not only does this make distance vision even worse, it also
    increases the risk of serious eye diseases such as retinal detachment,
    glaucoma and retinopathy, all of which can lead to blindness.

    According to this theory, undercorrection should help stop the eyeball
    elongating. When they undercorrect, optometrists prescribe a lens that
    focuses light from distant objects just in front of the retina, rather
    than exactly on the retina.
    Children and chicks

    Yet the only proof that it works comes from a study of just 33 Japanese
    children in 1965, and from studies on chicks in the 1990s. And these
    studies have since been attacked as lacking rigour or relevance.

    In their trial, O'Leary and his colleagues at the National University
    of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur, undercorrected the sight of half the
    children and fully corrected the rest. Then they measured the length of
    the eyeball with ultrasound every six months. To their surprise, they
    found that the eyeball elongates faster when vision is undercorrected.

    As a result, the team reports in a paper that will appear in Vision
    Research, on average the vision of the 47 children with undercorrected
    myopia deteriorated more rapidly than those given full correction (see
    graph). Yet full correction has long been out of fashion. "I had to go
    back to 1938 to find someone in the literature saying a full correction
    should be made," O'Leary says.

    The explanation for his results, O'Leary speculates, is that the eye
    cannot tell whether the focal point is in front of the retina or behind
    it. It just grows backwards if the image is out of focus - which means
    that not wearing glasses might be even worse than undercorrection. "Any
    blurred vision will make myopia worse," he says.
    Demolishing assumptions

    Adler thinks this is a key conclusion that demolishes previous
    assumptions and could help optometrists develop better treatments in
    the future. Other researchers, however, think further studies are
    needed to prove that any kind of blurred vision makes myopia worse.

    Undercorrection could be bad for adults as well, O'Leary thinks,
    although any decline is likely to be slower than in children. His
    findings suggest that generations of people worldwide could have
    somewhat worse eyesight because of the popularity of undercorrection.

    The reason is that vision research is not a priority in Europe and the
    US, O'Leary says. "Studies have been few and far between. It's hard to
    get funding for myopia research in the West."

    O'Leary's message to doctors, patients and parents is unequivocal. "No
    glasses is the worst option of all," he says. "But don't undercorrect.
    Go for full correction."

    MY COMMENTS

    1)
    This O'Leary is cheating you: if he knows his jobs, he already knows
    that FULL CORRECTION is an impossibility, as a matter of fact: one
    prescriber puts one correction, another puts another one, and you all
    know this very well.

    2)
    Vision research is not a priority: OF COURSE BECAUSE THE MARKET SELLS
    VERY WELL, WHO IS GOING TO DESTROING IT BY FINDING THE CURE???

    3)
    Undercorrection: the perfect solution for the stupids!
    I may agree that undercorrection is really an ugly solution, no
    surprise that the "natural vision improvement" people are very much in
    favour of it...
    It's just a stupidity.
    The glasses should be discarded at the inception of treatment, and
    being without them is just a great source of encouragment to go on with
    the treatment and find a complete cure, as many intelligent people are
    doing.

    4)
    Full correction.
    Why so few doctors go for it?
    It is evident that it is a strain to put an eye behind a "full
    correction", that is always an over-correction, given the difficulty in
    finding the right correction for any given time, as you all learned men
    know well.
    The fact that the most perfect auto-refractometer gives numbers which
    are then challenged by the Snellen test with trial lenses... It says it
    all...
    The overcorrection is really very harmful, as this O'Leary says
    himself.

    5) Deterioration of Eyes and Vision
    They do not say what happened to the group with NO CORRECTION AT ALL:
    but they did not do this test, the article talks about only TWO GROUPS,
    the undercorrected and the fully corrected...

    6) But, what I'm talking about?
    These people still DO NOT KNOW the cause of myopia... And try to
    correct it and offer a solution???

    This is all just rubbish.

    The cure is plain and simple.

    http://TheCentralFixation.com
     
    g.gatti, Mar 3, 2005
    #18
  19. heynita2000

    heynita2000 Guest

    Im not sure what your trying to say.But it gave me an idea. I have a
    pair of -1.75 -1.25 90 axis. I took the lense out and turned them
    so the side is at the bottom.know I have plenty blur at 90 degrees and
    I still see -3 the other way. Im wearin a -3 now.Ill put the other
    ones on when I get home. They should give me 5 diopter of blur at 90
    and 1 diopter of blur at 180.
    Sence I pased my drivers lience with -4.00 -2.00 90 axis.Do you know
    what im trying to say yet.???????
     
    heynita2000, Mar 3, 2005
    #19
  20. To make this very clear I WAS KIDDING. This is very unlikely to change
    your astigmatism. It will change your visual acuity for the worse, and I
    don't recommend it.

    Scott
     
    Scott Seidman, Mar 3, 2005
    #20
    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.