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

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?