Myopia cures

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by dark_lord, Oct 4, 2003.

  1. dark_lord

    dark_lord Guest

    I have a slight myopia (-0.5), but as the time passes by, I feel it is
    advancing. I am wondering do the eye-exercises help reduce my dioptry, has
    anyone tried it? If it does, please tell some successful methods.

    dark_lord, Oct 4, 2003
  2. dark_lord

    Dr Judy Guest

    You will get lots of advice, please be aware that no method has been shown
    in human clinical trials to be effective. There are books, likely
    available for free in your public library, that outline some to the methods
    if you want to try them. Do not pay any money to obtain any information or
    devices claiming to provide a cure for myopia, you will be throwing your
    money away. If you search Google groups using myopia as a search word, you
    will hundreds of discussions about this.

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Oct 4, 2003
  3. dark_lord

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Domibud,

    You will get many suggestions on this issue.

    I obviously have my own opinion about this
    issue -- regarding PREVENTION, not a "cure".

    The two methods of prevention started a long time ago
    as an objection to the use of a minus lens.

    They are:

    William Bates (1920) who argued that the wearing of a minus lens
    produced a situation where initial vision of 20/70
    (after the application of a minus lens) would
    change to 20/200. He advocated "exercises" or
    "relaxation" as a solution -- and avoiding the
    use of the minus lens.

    Dr. Jacob Raphaelso (1900 -- 1968) who
    argued that you should be offered a choice
    to use a plus lens (magnifing lens) at the
    threshold level of -1/2 diopter (20/50) vision.

    No one can give you any absolute advice here.

    It is of couse very easy to demonstrate sharp
    vision with a minus lens. Most people want nothing
    else other than that.

    But the few who "object" sometimes find that
    they can work their way out of it.

    It will be indeed a very difficult choice for your. You
    might wish to check my site:

    or Fran's site (who advocates vision training)

    We all enjoy the pleasant back-and-forth discussion
    about scientific studies that prove the dynamic
    behavior of the natural (not defective) eye.

    Think and act for yourself. The eaay thing to
    do -- is to do nothing.

    Only you are going to actually know the result of any
    actions or choice you might take.


    Otis Brown, Oct 5, 2003
  4. dark_lord

    Wu Guest

    My opinion on situation is as follows:

    If you want to stop progression, you can probably do so by using
    reading glasses when appropriate - for example, using the computer,
    while doing work, studying, reading, playing the piano, etc. Use an
    appropriate strength - it can be helpful to have the print very
    slightly blurry. I was at -0.75 when I got myself a pair of +1.50
    reading glasses and I used them for all my near-work activities. I
    also used a book called "Improve your Vision without Glasses or
    Contact Lenses", with some good results - within about a month, my
    refraction was -0.50, and that small improvement made a huge
    difference in what I could and could not read at a distance.

    However, to reverse the myopia is tougher. I haven't been successful
    yet, but I don't think it's impossible. I'm convinced, though, that it
    takes, number one above all, tremendous motivation and a good
    attitude. Beyond that, you may wind up having to change your diet,
    your studying habits, and your lifestyle choices (getting more sleep,
    going outdoors more). I don't think there's a cookbook method for
    reversing myopia, but I do think that it is possible when myopia is
    minor, and some optometrists even agree that mild myopia may be
    curable. I suggest you find as many books as you can, and actually
    follow the methods that they advocate, and believe in what you do -
    you have to believe and accept that it is possible in order to
    succeed. Best of luck :)
    Wu, Oct 14, 2003
  5. dark_lord

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    OK, here we go again. Only if the myopia is "pseudo-myopia," i.e. NOT
    axial myopia, does it stand a chance of being reversed. People in their
    fourth and fifth decades often undergo a slight downward shift in their
    myopia, presumably from the lens. However, pseudomyopia rarely accounts
    for more than a diopter or so. Your case falls into that category.

    A small amount of myopia is largely irrelevant, as it helps with close
    work. Most researchers are concerned with true myopia, or axial myopia.


    (Wu) wrote in
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 15, 2003
  6. An obvious question for you, doc:

    If one has pseudo-myopia, and keeps powering up the glasses (no Bates,
    no reading glasses...) ... he WILL eventually reach a point in which he
    will be 100% corrected and his pseudo-myopia won't progress any further,
    won't he?
    Pipino Il Breve, Oct 15, 2003
  7. dark_lord

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Of course, in some cases. Any person who undergoes a refraction is by
    definition "100% corrected," until a change occurs. In fact, an individual
    might have accommodative as well as axial components to their myopia, which
    is probably why some people are seen to regress partially, instead of
    fully. A reasonable question would be whether accommodative myopia is
    always a precursor to axial myopia.

    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 15, 2003
  8. If one has pseudo-myopia, and keeps powering up the glasses (no
    I hoped more than "some cases"..!

    What happens in the other cases?

    Pipino Il Breve, Oct 15, 2003
  9. Of course, in some cases.

    It's difficult to conceive a more stupid person than this idiot Mr.

    Again he tries to find some relief following the academic teachings.

    What more proof is he waiting for?

    The evidence is clear that these people, the academics, professors,
    doctors, learned men, know nothing about the cure of imperfect sight.

    It is so clear!

    Pipino, WAKE UP!
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Oct 15, 2003
  10. dark_lord

    Wu Guest

    Some of us have 10, 15 or 20+ years before we need reading glasses...
    so what do we do in the mean time? Seeing clearly is a nice thing :)
    Wu, Oct 18, 2003
  11. dark_lord

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Tom,

    This is clearly an individual choice. If a person is 18 years old
    is a low myope (-1/4 diopter) and reads the Snellen at
    20/30 -- and 20/20 is required, then he is going to
    work to clear his distant vision to 20/20, and a focal
    status of +1/4 diopter. (Mild hyperope).

    This is a change of +1/4 diopter.

    When he is 50 years old, and retains a focal status of zero,
    then yes, he will have lost 1/4 diopter of his "near" vision.

    So the mild myope could read objects at -2.50 diopters,
    and the +1/4 diopter "hyperope" will read at -2.0 diopters.

    So one can read at 20 inches, where as the other can read
    at 16 inches. I guess if those 4 inches are important
    to you then you should remain midly myopic (an lose
    you pilots qualification) for 30 years, maybe remaining
    myopic is a good idea.

    If that 1/2 diopter is important to the pilot who clears
    his distant vision must be a judgment
    of the person concerned with it.


    Otis Brown, Oct 18, 2003
  12. dark_lord

    A Lieberman Guest

    Hmmm, just curious if your "pilots qualification" meets the definition
    of the FAA at

    I am a pilot, and know the qualifications. I just wonder if you do.

    Of course you live in a different country and it may vary there, but to
    say across the board that you lose 4 inches of vision and cannot fly an
    airplane, when IT IS FULLY CORRECTABLE is a very misleading statement.

    (who has no depth perception and still can land a plane.)

    A Lieberman, Oct 18, 2003
  13. dark_lord

    A Lieberman Guest


    Can't speak for Canary Islands, but I have a class three medical
    certificate. There are three classes of medical examinations for a
    pilots certificate. My class would be the least "intrusive".

    The vision test was actually just as intensive as if I had gone to an
    optometrist (though no dialation). First test was for acuity (I am
    myopic and amblyopia). I passed 20/20 with contacts in each eye, and
    20/15 with both eyes. Second test was for stereoscopic vision, and I
    failed that miserably. First question from the doctor was did I have
    double vision. No, was my answer. Third test was for near, and mid
    range vision, which I did fine, no accomodation problem. Because I
    failed the stereoscopic vision test and also depth perception test, the
    doctor did have to call the FAA to see if I could proceed with my
    license issuance. FAA said as long as I didn't report double vision
    problems there is no reason for him not to issue the medical

    I would suspect from my experiences that your subject may have had more
    then just amblyopic problems or stereoscopic vision problems (double
    vision?? seeing two runways not a good thing :). Like you said though,
    maybe Canary Islands do have stricter vision rules and require both eyes
    work together. But as in my case, it is not necessary to have both eyes
    stereoscopic as I have adapted accordingly. I have not missed the runway
    to date *smile*.

    At my age, I have to keep my medical current every two years. My first
    examination was more or less did I have a heartbeat, see and hear, but
    the second examination was much more extensive, so it can also depend on
    the doctor conducting the exam too. I bring this out as maybe your
    Canary Island subject may have had a different outcome with another

    I think that Otis needs to do homework on what criteria pilots need to
    get a current medical certificate OR be specific to his country. To
    paint a picture that a person losing 4 inches of near / mid range vision
    will lose a current medical certificate (see his prior post) is totally
    irresponsible WHEN the vision is corrected to at least 20 /40.

    For private pilots like myself, you can go to for the FAA 3rd
    class medical requirements. On the same page are the 1st and 2nd class
    requirements (2nd and 1st class are pilots that fly the grown up
    planes). Just scroll up to see those classes.

    A Lieberman, Oct 19, 2003
  14. dark_lord

    A Lieberman Guest

    I need to clarify my last sentence to read is corrected to
    at least 20/40 for third class and 20/20 for first and second class
    medical certificates.

    A Lieberman, Oct 19, 2003
  15. dark_lord

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    Thanks for the FAA web site.

    Thanks for your commentary. I am also a pilot,
    although not active.

    Here is my understanding of the visual requirements
    that pilots MUST meet for distant vision.

    Remember: The discussion was started by a person
    stating that he wished he was myopic, because he
    hated being "presbyopic". I stated that
    a person who made an effort and cleared his
    distant vision from 20/30 to 20/20 (as per a
    highly motivated pilot) would lose a SLIGHT amount
    of "near" vision when he was between 45 to 60.

    Here are the visual requirements, as of 1990.
    If you wish to admend them then please do so.
    For aditional details you can read
    my site:


    3rd CLASS:

    Distant vision -- at least 20/50, without correction; or if vision is
    poorer than 20/50, must correct to 20/30 or better with corrective
    2nd CLASS:

    Distant vision -- same as 1st.

    1st CLASS:

    Distant Vision -- 20/20 in each eye separately without correction or
    at least 20/100 in each eye separately corrected to 20/20 or better
    with corrective lenses.


    In checking your focal status, you will determine either that you can
    or cannot read the 20/20 line. If you read the 20/40 line you will
    still pass the state test for a driver's license. (The 20/40 line
    translates into a focal state of about -1/2 diopter.) If as a
    potential military pilot if you cannot read the 20/20 line your
    professional flying career will go on hold.

    The Naval and Air Force Academy students (who are not offered the use
    of the plus lens) never recover from a slight amount of
    nearsightedness. It is also true that the Naval and Air Force Academy
    will not accept you for a flying career if you have less than naked
    eye 20/20. However, the Air Academy has recently relaxed its
    requirement, and will allow you to continue with less than 20/20 --
    after entering with 20/20.

    The airlines have changed their policies -- somewhat. Delta
    categorically requires naked eye 20/20, but the other airlines have
    changed their requirements from a minimum of no worse than 20/30
    (focal state -0.25 Diopters), to a minimum of 20/100. If you use a
    "quick fix", or negative lens, your vision will worsen, and there is a
    high probability that you will go below the Airline minimums, even
    with a waiver. It is a situation that you should wish to avoid.

    The experimental data, and the testimony of scientists, pilots and
    ophthalmologists, indicates that you can recover from 20/40. It is
    obviously better to get out of nearsightedness than continue to keep
    it. Given the choice between a nearsighted pilot and a
    non-nearsighted pilot, the airline will choose the pilot who can read
    the 20/20 line without minus-lens glasses.

    The approach recommended in this book requires that you wear the plus
    lens for almost all close work, and take over complete control of the
    situation. This requirement may perhaps seem a burden, but you must
    decide -- the inconvenience of plus lens use, or the loss of your
    career as a professional pilot with the loss of your distance visual

    Otis Brown, Oct 19, 2003
  16. dark_lord

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Fran,

    Thanks for the commentary.
    The classical theory says that the range (stop-to-stop) of accommodation
    reduces with age. I certainly agree with that statement.
    (Life is a bitch -- and then you die.)

    If everything else is equal, and the accommodative range is
    2 diopters, then a person with a focal status of -1/4 diopter (20/30)
    will be able to read print clearly at 16 inches, where as the
    a person with a focal status of +1/4 diopter will be able
    to see at 20/20 and be able to read at 20 inches.

    Yes Fran, it is vary controversial to say that the eye
    can change its focal status as the "accomodation system"
    is changed -- through modification by VT or plus lens use.

    The only objection I have to Otis' plus lens
    What I said was that a person who reads at 20 inches (-2 diopters)
    and uses a +2 dioter lens at that distance is effectively
    reading at optical-infinity. If he does this consistently
    it is as though he is living and working out-doors.

    Under the above circumstance the focal power of the
    internal lens is changed by +2 diopters.

    As far as "reversing" mild myopia of 20/30, I would
    think that highly motivated pilots would have that
    interest -- even if the general population does not.


    Otis Brown, Oct 19, 2003
  17. dark_lord

    A Lieberman Guest


    Please go to for
    current visual criteria set by the FAA. Keep in mind, this would be the
    baseline for what airlines may use. I don't have the criteria for
    airlines, but instinct says, that some do have a stricter criteria then
    the FAA.

    The way you posted your information, you made it look like it was FAA
    endorsed, when it is / was not. You may want to post the "source" of
    your information along with the text to prevent confusion for other
    readers of your posts.

    A sample of airline pilot medical criteria can be found at:

    Southwest airlines

    Delta airlines

    Just on these two airlines, it appears the "base line" criteria for
    pilots and vision would be the FAA standards. Delta looks to me to have
    an additional medical evaluation.
    Just like the airlines, military does have it's own criteria, but again,
    to make you look more credible, you may want to post the "source" of
    your posting (preferably from a military website).

    You quoted 1990 FAA criteria, which makes me think the rest of your
    posting was outdated.

    A Lieberman, Oct 19, 2003
  18. dark_lord

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    I will post the FAA requirements from my site
    so that the pilot at 20/30 can understand them
    from the official source.

    I said NOTHING about "near requirement".

    The issue concerned mild nearightedness (20/30) which
    would disqualify a military pilot, versus mild hyperopia
    (20/20) and positive focal status of +1/4 diopter.

    I have seen pilots using a mild plus lens for
    reading charts in the cockpit -- when they
    get to 55 or so. They are not "kicked out"
    if they use a plus lens in this manner.

    Are you insisting that they are?


    Otis Brown, Oct 19, 2003
  19. dark_lord

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    I do not keep a "running list" of all changes
    in "visual requirements" and I would be pointless
    to do so.

    Indeed each orgainzation has its standards, and
    the pilot concerned should check the requirments
    as they concern him -- and the ophthalmologist who
    is helping him clear his distant vision
    to standard 20/20.

    If you had read my book you would have a clearer
    understanding of these issues.

    The posting was a "thumbnail" reference.

    The standard is that you read 5 minute-of-angle
    characters at 20 feet. If you can not
    do this in military flying you are not qualified.

    But thanks for the posting of standards. I will
    place them on my web site for the use of the
    pilots who are interested in them.


    Otis Brown, Oct 19, 2003
  20. dark_lord

    Luke Scharf Guest

    I had almost exactly the same experience -- with the same result.

    Actually, I applied for a Class II the last time I went to see an AME
    (aviation medical examiner, for the non-pilots in the group) in and it was
    even easier than for the Class II.  Apparently, for a Class II, the AME
    doesn't have to defer to the FAA like he/she does for the Class III. 
    Yes, both the AME and I know it doesn't seem to make sense.  It doesn't
    have to make sense, though, it's the FAA!

    So, for anyone with good acuity and good health but who doesn't have
    stereopsis, I'd suggest applying for a Class II medical.  I tested 20/20
    in my right eye and 20/30 in my left eye, so I'm cleared to fly
    commercially without glasses.  With much less fuss than I had with my
    Class III.

    Anyway, my prism glasses (3 base-out prism-units in each eye) seem to work
    well.  Also, because of a -1.00 correction in the left eye, the left
    ("weaker") eye now has better acuity than my right (plano, "stronger")
    eye.  It seems to me that when I use the "weaker" eye that I get some

    I hadn't been up since late August -- but yesterday, the weather was so
    beautiful that I had to run down to my local airport and rent a Cessna
    172.  I flew over to a small local airport and did some touch-and-goes. 
    About halfway back (5500', 120mph), I remembered that I had the glasses on
    and switched to the "weaker" eye.  Wham!  The panel suddenly looked a
    lot more vivid and 3-dimensional like.  Cool, but a little distracting. 
    The mountains looked the same, though, since they were either 1000'
    beneath me or more than 5 miles away. Yay stereopsis!

    The extra acuity in my "weaker" eye definitely helped with
    traffic-spotting.  Without glasses, I sometimes have trouble spotting
    traffic that is more than a couple of miles away, so I tend to be rather
    verbose on the radio -- especially when coming into a busy pattern.  This
    time, though, I managed to spot other aircraft much more easily, and at
    about twice the distance from where I usually see them. "Traffic in
    sight, seven-three-foxtrot!"

    I'd also spent the morning flirting with a really nice girl -- so between
    that and flying in this beautiful sunny fall weather, it was a Very Good
    Day! It was such a good day that I had to share it with anyone who will
    listen! :)

    -Luke "Altitude Makes Me High" Scharf
    Luke Scharf, Oct 19, 2003
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.