My vision is improving naturally! I can see just about perfect with -4 glasses!

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by acemanvx, May 31, 2006.

  1. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    I started off at -6(left) -5.25(right) and now with my -4.5(left)
    -4(right) glasses I see almost perfect! At the near point I started at
    18cm(-5.5) and now im up to 22cm(-4.5) therefore ive improved a whole
    diopter! Yay for natural vision improvement! I believe I can get my
    left eye(both eyes in fact) to better than -4 :)
     
    acemanvx, May 31, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    I bet you "started" at about -1.25 diopters (or about 20/60).

    If a second-opinion OD has OFFERED YOU A PREVENTIVE-CHOICE,
    and you had done your own research -- used the plus agressively -- I
    bet that would have cleared-off that -1 diopters -- and you
    would have found that you passed all legal VA requirements.

    But it is essential that you understand the science behind
    prevention -- before you begin wearing that wretched
    minus lens -- all the time.

    But good luck on your NVI work.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest



    I probably did when I was a little boy. All the reading and computer
    probably got me to -1 but instead of being offered the plus lens and
    natural vision improvement, I was handed a minus lens where my
    stair-case myopia begun and I progressed downhill at 1/2 to 3/4
    diopters a year. Now most of the damage is done and I will never see
    20/40 unaided again. I am going to improve my vision as much as
    possible with NVI and when epithelial thinning is ready for prime time,
    Ill get it to take off another -1.5 diopters of my pescription. This
    will significentally reduce my dependancy on glasses.
     
    acemanvx, May 31, 2006
    #3
  4. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Did you (God forbid) have a DNA twin who did NO reading and computer
    work and did NOT experience the same thing?

    No?? Well ... this IS SCI.med.vision -- not "amusing little stories
    from which only illogical conclusions may be inferred".med.vision, you
    know.
    Correlation does not imply causation.

    Please go move in with Otis and Doogle, where the three of you may talk
    of this to your hearts' content. Please stop spewing this forth here.
    It isn't science. The science, in fact, contradicts it.
     
    Neil Brooks, May 31, 2006
    #4
  5. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Doogle,

    Try to ignore the snide remarks of the M.O. ODs on sci.med.vision.

    They are using a 400 year-old method that, will working
    instantly in an office (an impressing SOME PEOPLE) has
    the unfortunate secondary effect of creating stair-case
    myopia -- if worn all the time.

    Just remember, that in time some people "wake up" to
    this tragic situation -- and will provide LEADERSHIP
    in prevention -- if you will let them.

    But, I would suggest reading the remarks of the
    second-opnion scientists Dr. Stirling Colgage,
    and the remarks of the world-famous researcher,
    Dr. Francis Young.

    Then ask these ODs on sci.med.vision how many
    research papers THEY have published on the
    dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye. You
    can ask them for their C V. also.

    And if they claim a Ph.D. -- ask them
    for their dissertation topic.

    Remember, you children can have a better
    PREVENTIVE future. Just ask the supposed-preventive
    OD about the effect of a -3 diopter lens on
    the primate eye.

    If they EVADE the question -- then find another
    true prevention-minded OD -- and be prepared
    to LEARN from him.

    Like Steve Leung:

    www.chinamyopia.org

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 1, 2006
    #5
  6. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    You really DO love that young boy, don't you ... you sick, sick old
    man.

    Hey, Otis:

    Care to answer these questions?

    1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
    widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in
    saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly … in ANY regard?

    2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
    the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
    minus lens, the myopia was prevented?

    3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
    corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
    of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?

    4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
    you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
    this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this
    claim?

    5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
    "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
    establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It
    doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your
    position.

    6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
    recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you
    aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
    lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
    esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
    that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
    convergence disorder?

    7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
    International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
    presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm
    states:

    Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
    aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?

    8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success
    story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins
    is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and
    that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?

    9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
    Deakins?

    10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is,
    I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
    your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
    that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
    that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
    were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
    ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
    nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If
    so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy
    was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
    received any money for this book.

    11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you
    have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?

    12. Presuming that you understand the difference between
    accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you
    please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES
    axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES
    axial-length myopia

    13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
    optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
    than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
    opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
    have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
    please provide it?

    14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have
    any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think
    it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that
    he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his
    website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as
    inducements to sell both your and his book?

    15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though
    your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she
    is, at this time, a myope?


    Thank you.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jun 1, 2006
    #6
  7. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest


    Otis about 50,000 times. Many others believe glasses make your eyes
    worse but they admit defeat as they need glasses anyway to see. My eyes
    got worse FASTER once I got glasses. My brother almost never used
    glasses so his eyes just didnt get worse!
    I think Neil is implying glasses made no difference and my eyes would
    get worse reguardless. Id like him to explain why then? Why, if myopia
    is an adaption to seeing clear from near would my eyes need to keep
    getting worse unless I fool them into constantly adapting by wearing
    glasses?
     
    acemanvx, Jun 1, 2006
    #7
    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.