Ortho-K, anyone here have experience or knowlege?

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by acemanvx, Dec 18, 2005.

  1. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Mike> Who asked for yours?


    Ace > Ortho-K, anyone here have experience or knowlege?

    Let us be clear. I DID NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE!!

    Ace asked for general knowledge about Ortho-K. What
    I provided was back-ground material. Got it?

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 19, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. acemanvx

    A Lieberman Guest

    WRONG AGAIN OTIS.

    Try going to http://www.answers.com/topic/advice for the definition of
    advice.

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Dec 19, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    No, I do not "fit" contacts -- I NEVER
    SAID I DID.
    of Ortho-K, and professional pilots
    magizines, the general atributes of
    Ortho-K became clear.

    But PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE,
    correct any statement I have made
    about Orth-K, that you feel is
    either not accurate or not correct.

    I am certain that Ace will be
    interested in what you have to
    say on the subject.

    Don't be shy.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 19, 2005
    #23
  4. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Mike,

    And I asked you to provide supporting commentary
    to my statements about the INDUSTRY of Ortho-K.

    Instead you attack me -- rather than responding
    to Ace's questions. Is that always your
    style? Attack the person who is looking
    for more accurate answers to difficult
    questions?

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 19, 2005
    #24
  5. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Subject: Evading questions not answering them.

    I see you have done it yet again! You again attacked
    me, an not "corrected" the general statements I made
    about Ortho-K. If you think they are not correct -- then
    redefine them -- or answer them.

    Yes, I expect accurate answers from you concerning
    the dynamic beahvior of the living eye.

    And it is obvious that you are always going to
    evade them also -- because you hate the
    implications of the correct and accurate
    scientific answers.

    Let us try again. I stated that Ortho-K can
    clear vision from about -2 diopters to "normal",
    and it has been used by pilots for that purpose. Now,
    do you:

    1. Agree?

    2. Disagree?

    Then I said, that when a pilot stops using the "retainer",
    his vision tends to return towards -2 diopters. Now,
    do you:

    1. Agree?

    2. Disagree?

    Now, rather than attacking me, why not provide your
    own assessment of these answers?

    Best,

    Otis

    ___________


    So that's what you're doing? Looking for "more accurate answers?"

    I'm glad you told us. We would have missed that.


    -MT
     
    otisbrown, Dec 19, 2005
    #25
  6. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Be careful, Uncle Otie. Your rabid insecurity, blatant hypocrisy,
    hostile defensiveness, and intellectual shortcomings are all showing
    .... again.
     
    Neil Brooks, Dec 19, 2005
    #26
  7. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    So I can only expect to clear -2 diopters of myopia with OrthoK? I
    could do that in conjuction with clearing pseudomyopia and the -2
    reduction due to OrthoK may somewhat reduce my dependancy on glasses
    which should make it easier to resolve my pseudomyopia as well. I read
    in vision improvement books including one by Dr. Bates who says glasses
    are crutches that hinder improvement and often cause stair case myopia.
    Otis would agree with that too. One of my friends who does vision
    improvement says its much easier to improve and results come faster if
    your not wearing glasses. Right now im too "blind" to go without
    glasses for more than 10 minutes. I am -5 or near that and its a
    significent amount of myopia.

    I am -5(left) -4.5(right) with very slight astigmastim. OrthoK can
    clear -2 diopters plus my minimal astigmastim. This will put me down to
    -3(left) and -2.5(right) letting me clear 20/200 without a problem. How
    long does it take orthoK to clear -2 diopters if the retainer lense is
    worn nightly? I will countinue to wear my -3.25 computer glasses till
    they become too strong then ill just forgo glasses.(or as Otis puts it,
    the evil minus lense!) This is when ill start being able to clear my
    pseudomyopia and get down further, perhaps to 20/70? 20/50? I will use
    the plus lense for extended periods of reading or near work to keep my
    vision sharp and also because my accomodative amplitude isnt too good.
    I dont drive so I have no DVM obligations to clear 20/40. I wont be
    needing the minus lense even if I fall a little shy of that. Ill be
    completely free of the minus lense and will only need the plus lense
    for prolonged near work as a precaution and to greatly reduce eyestrain
    and accomodative spasms. Otis never claims to be a doctor. Perhaps hes
    a scientist or philosopher?

    Again to clarify, I am/should be -5 and -4.5. I should get down to -3
    and -2.5 or therebouts and easily clear 20/200. Then being able to see
    well enough to function without the minus lense, I then can keep
    clearing my vision by resolving my pseudomyopia. I should attain a
    level of vision that while not perfect 20/20(cant even be corrected to
    that anyway) or even a bit shy of 20/40, will let me be very functional
    without the minus lense. Ill be able to see the computer clearly
    without strain due to my slight residual myopia and only need plus
    lense for prolonged near work.
     
    acemanvx, Dec 19, 2005
    #27
  8. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Dr. Bates published in 1919. His ideas have had eighty-six years to
    catch fire. We are still wearing contact lenses and eyeglasses.
    ....or a carmudgeon?
    As I said, why don't you just *do it* and report back your results.
    Since clear unaided vision is not your goal, the results should be
    successful.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 19, 2005
    #28
  9. Dr. Bates would have been horrified by the idea of contact lenses, since
    they hadn't been invented yet at the time he did his phony "research".

    w.stacy, o.d.
     
    William Stacy, Dec 19, 2005
    #29
  10. Disagree......I have fitted ortho-lenses that "cleared" vision by 4.5D and
    a friend of mine managed to "clear" a patient by 5.50D It really depends on
    the e-value
    Strongly disagree.....................When a Pilot, Doctor, lawyer, humans
    stops wearing their retainers, they will all go back to their previous
    K-readings. (To Uncle that means they will "unclear themselves" to their
    pre-treatment Rx.). Do not know if the same applies to chickens, monkeys,
    etc.

    Roland J. Izaac
     
    Philip D Izaac, Dec 20, 2005
    #30
  11. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    Otis and anyone is welcome to give me advice. I know many of you arent
    doctors, some may be patients or know other patients with experience
    reguarding orthoK. Anything that helps me learn more about orthoK is
    welcomed! I now know that orthoK is good for correcting -2 diopters(and
    less) I do hope I can achieve a little more than -2 diopters correction
    so I can further reduce my dependancy on glasses.


    "Dr. Bates published in 1919. His ideas have had eighty-six years to
    catch fire. We are still wearing contact lenses and eyeglasses."


    Theres too many non believers and with all the near work people do,
    they are just ruining their eyes. Hey 86 years ago there were no
    computers and almost everyone used their eyes for distance only! Now
    most people use their eyes for near only! Did you know the percentage
    of myopes today is MUCH greater than it was in the past?


    "As I said, why don't you just *do it* and report back your results.
    Since clear unaided vision is not your goal, the results should be
    successful."


    Well it helps to learn more about something before jumping in it. Of
    course I need to also schedule an appointment with an orthoK doctor for
    an eye exam and questioning. I am guaranteed clear distance vision
    without glasses and with glasses I should keep my 20/30 BCVA and
    possibily see like half of the 20/25 line due to much less minification
    of weaker glasses. I did email an orthoK optometrist who says I
    definately will be seeing every bit as good as I do now with glasses,
    or else he can tweak the contact lenses to further improve me.
    Not only can orthoK not fully correct me, I cant and dont want to be
    fully corrected because I dont have a high accomodative amplitude. I am
    not about to trade distance glasses for readers but by keeping some
    myopia(-5 is too much!) I will greatly improve my distance vision,
    greatly reduce dependancy on glasses and yet still not need readers.


    "Dr. Bates would have been horrified by the idea of contact lenses,
    since
    they hadn't been invented yet at the time he did his phony "research"."


    LOL I hope no one mentions lasik to "him" as for his research, hes
    fully qualified being a doctor and optometrist so he knew everything
    about the eyes. Yes modern optometrists do disagree with some of his
    points. I think he was claiming you can improve all imperfect vision to
    20/20. You cant if you have too much myopia. Hyperopia can be cleared
    if done early in childhood while your still undergoing emmetropization.
    Almost everyone starts out as a hyperope, this is normal and glasses
    arent needed unless your a high hyperope than only get glasses strong
    enough for clear vision and let the child accomodate the rest.


    "No, your answers were right... ortho-K works, but
    it's temporary, it's limited, and as you love to say, it's expensive. I

    don't see much point to it, except where glasses are hazardous or
    inconvenient."


    I will take any improvement in my uncorrected vision. I want to wake up
    to a clear(er) world, see the digital clock without squinting, wake up
    and look around my bedroom clear(er) without first reaching for
    glasses. Id love to shower and swim without so much blur. I have
    started taking up biking and working out and may do other outdoor
    activities. Not needing glasses for such activities is quite a
    convinence. Best of all, I can greatly reduce my dependancy in the evil
    minus lense and save my eyes from stair-case myopia and also resolve my
    pseudomyopia.


    "Disagree......I have fitted ortho-lenses that "cleared" vision by
    4.5D and
    a friend of mine managed to "clear" a patient by 5.50D It really
    depends on
    the e-value"


    That is a CRAZY amount of myopia cleared! Actually I read that orthoK
    is technicially capable of clearing up to -6 diopters, its not relistic
    and not really possible. Clearing less than -3 diopters(which is
    considered low myopia) is both possible and relistic. Clearing -3 to -4
    diopters becomes tricky and difficult and many dont achieve this much
    clearing. I may be a -4.5 and -5 but this is my manifast refraction. I
    could be considerabily less with cycoplegia and I do NOT want to clear
    more than my cycoplegic refraction because the cycoplegic shows my true
    axial myopia. Pseudomyopia will resolve on/in itself once I stop
    wearing the evil minus lenses so much. Not only that, Ive already
    mentioned why I want to be slightly undercorrected as well. All people
    over 40 who use the computer alot understands me.
     
    acemanvx, Dec 21, 2005
    #31
  12. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    Let me add something important.

    "Ortho-k may be a good option if you suffer from dry eyes. It's been
    found that this condition is sometimes worsened by LASIK."

    My dry eyes isnt bad, id say mild. I still make tears but they get dry
    at times if im in front of the computer alot or if im tired. Sometimes
    when I wake in the morning my eyes are a little dry for a short time.
    Lasik would make dry eyes worse as they said so thats another advantage
    of orthoK and why im interested in it :) I can reduce my myopia from -5
    and -4.5 to -3 and -2.5(orthoK clears about 2 diopters) then I can
    further reduce it by resolving my pseudomyopia.
     
    acemanvx, Dec 21, 2005
    #32
  13. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I think I can see your future. Although RGP lenses offer the only hope
    of correcting you to 20/20, you will not pursue them because of lens
    intolerance. This is one of the reasons you will not pursue
    orthokeratology. The other reason is that your parents won't shell out
    the money on any treatment that isn't permanent and cannot fully
    correct your myopia, and that you will probably give up on anyway.
    Insofar as eye exercises, Bates, and other nonsense...I guess if you've
    got the time on your hands it won't hurt. Of course, it won't help
    much, either.

    Also, from your posts on other boards, I see that you have become
    anti-refractive surgery. Which means that you will continue to wear
    eyeglasses into the foreseeable future, unless of course you decide to
    pursue the only realistic option open to you which is getting fitted
    for one of the newer silicone-hydrogel soft lenses....or wait until the
    new hybrid SynergEyes lens is available in your area.

    Best of luck.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 21, 2005
    #33
  14. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    Subject: These sci.med.vision OD will ALWAYS be majority-opinion
    "selective" in
    the studies they cite.

    Some thoughts on majority-opinion OD bias.

    Since there is no "arguing" with these ODs and they are totally
    blind about the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye, I
    would suggest recognizing the type of "bias" that they represents.

    Myself, and other ODs will report the Oakley-Young study,
    that was better organized and controlled, that demonstrated that a
    strong-plus, used systematically has the effect of stopping
    refractive movement in a negative direction. (Than
    the so-called "Shotwell" study.)

    The "plus" group went down at 0.025 diopters (virtually zero)
    while the full-minus went down at a rate of -0.53 diopters per
    year.

    So rather than attempting to deal with these ODs' intense
    bias, the better idea is to simply state the second-opinion, and
    the basis for it.

    But the real "test" of an optometrist in reviewing these type
    of studies, is the judgment of a parent who has HIS OWN CHILD at a
    refractive state of zero diopters.

    What to do?

    Given the he can only "control" his own child, then the ONLY
    prevention he can conduct is to put his own child in a strong
    plus. This is the real "measure" of a competent "second opinion".

    This is of course what Steve Leung is doing with his own five
    year-old daughter.

    We can "learn" from this -- or ignore it. But at least you
    should be aware of this type of second-opinion judgment.

    Best,

    Otis

    _______________________________________________________

    From: "Otis S. Brown" <>

    Subject: Understanding the SCIENTIFIC BASIS for the preventive
    second-opinion

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states.

    I suggest that there is a profound difference concerning "pure
    science" and "pure medicine". And I suggest the difference is
    this:

    Medicine: Must deal with a great mass of people walking in off the
    street. There might be some "intelligent" people but
    that can never be the assumption of the medical doctor.
    The result is that we get "canned" procedures that
    "work" instantly. I consider that people in this
    profession have no choice but to conduct that kind of
    work -- and I would do the same thing IN THEIR
    PROFESSION. That would not make it "right" but I do
    understand them -- and what they are doing.

    Science: Must "step back" from that situation, and think about the
    behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system.
    Engineers and scientists simply do not deal with
    children, nor with others that do not understand
    the need to work on prevention with the plus.

    But when you ask very fundament questions about whether a
    population of eyes (primates) are dynamic, you get the
    "second-opinion" answer, that POTENTIALLY a negative refractive
    status could be prevented -- before the minus lens is applied.

    I believe that pure science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not
    medical -- experiments proves that point.) But that is the nature
    of our arguments. Many concepts in science simply can never be
    reduced to "medicine" and we should understand that truth.

    I enjoyed your write-up about pure science, and the
    majority-opinion "habit"
    of tossing science out the window when a concept (like the dynamic
    eye) can not produce a quick-fix in 15 minutes. That seems
    to be the only criteria for the "public" and the majority opinion OD.
    Maybe they were "made" for each other.

    But that is how I separate "medical issues" from scientific
    concepts and experimental and objective testing.

    But that is why it took a scientist like Dr. Stirling
    Colgate to do the "work" correctly with the plus and clear his vision
    from 20/70
    to 20/20.

    His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the
    primate eye, again on a pure-scientific (not medical) level.

    Use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can
    have positive and negative refractive status (as a dynamic device)
    and this situation becomes much clearer.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 21, 2005
    #34
  15. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    I value your intelligence. I believe that if you and your parents
    had been offered "prevention" with the plus -- and you had
    the motivation for it -- your vision would now be better-than
    20/40.

    In my opinion, the living eye will go "down" when you place
    a minus lens on it. This has been proven on a scientific
    level (but not "medical" level.) That means that great
    "caution" should be used in "prescribing a minus" in my
    opinion.

    Here is "Steve" a man who was "myopic", but decided
    to make agressive use of the plus -- and clear
    to PASS the DMV level test.

    As always, enjoy our pleasant discussions about the
    proven dynamic quality of the natural primate eye.

    Best,

    Otis

    _____________


    Dear Prevention-minded friends,

    Steve contacted vision-improvement-site with a -3 diopter
    prescription and eye-chart about 20/200.

    Here is the proof of the success of vision clearing from
    20/200 to normal.

    Keep an open mind as to these new methods. You might be able
    to employ them yourself -- if you are prepared to make the effort.
    The complete discussion is reported at:

    http://www.visionimprovementsite.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi

    for your research interests.

    Enjoy,

    Otis

    _________________________________

    Steve-8631 contacted vision-improvement-site on:

    Sep 9th, 2005, 10:31pm

    Newbie seeking help

    Hi,

    I read as much as I can in the last 2 days about preventing
    nearsightedness.

    Let me tell you my situation. I started wearing glasses at
    the age of 13. At 28 (now 38) I started wearing contacts lens.
    For many years I looked for a "cure" but didn't find any. My last
    test shows that my power is 275 for both eyes (that's how they
    tell me) and it has been pretty much stable for the last few
    years. I still have faith that I can have perfect sight without
    minus glasses or contact lens.

    I just got a +1.5 lens for me to start using while I'm using
    computers. I work a lot with my computers.

    My questions is. Since it is dangerous for me to drive
    without glasses or contact lens. What do you suggest for me now,
    a lower powered minus glasses or contact lens. If yes what power
    do you suggest!

    I'm planning to start today using +1.5 lens & try to get
    comfortable with it.

    Wish me luck.

    Rgds, Steve

    P/S - I've printed the eye charts, will stick it today & check out
    where I stand

    __________________________

    Dear Steve,

    After a great deal of research, I discovered that SOME ODs
    know what a total disaster that minus lens is. They call it
    "poison glasses for children." My issue is this -- why not TELL US
    ABOUT THIS BEFORE THEY PUT THAT FIRST MINUS LENS ON US?

    Tragically, they keep their mouth shut -- and will not say
    squat. Nearsightedness is preventable in that first stage, and I
    would GLADLY PAY the OD for his information and time -- even if I
    had to take TOTAL responsibility and do ALL THE WORK MYSELF --
    including monitoring my "clearing" on my own eye chart.

    [This is my "rant" for today. That being said, the next step
    is asking about what you "want" in terms of vision clearing.]

    I would never use the term "perfect" -- because no eyes are
    perfect.

    I would look for a goal of always passing the DMV (1.8 cm at
    6 meters) as a reasonable attainable goal.

    I would start by reading your own eye chart.

    In fact this is very easy. Just click on www.myopiafree.com

    and then eyechart 2 (lower right)

    and enter 1 inch and 10 feet, and read the eye chart on your
    monitor at 10 feet.

    I would guess you can read the 20/200 line.

    Let us know.

    Best,

    Otis

    _________________________

    Dear Otis,

    I tried the test I can see at 20/200 but very blur. By
    saying "perfect" I meant 20/20 vision, this is what I want ( I
    know some people reading this might be laughing, no problem, if
    only they know what true 20/20 vision means to me, oh well...).
    If I've known this when I was 13 yrs old , I don't have to go thru
    this now, but life is a lesson and anything is possible is my firm
    belief.

    Otis , please tell me what I can do next. I believe my case
    can be conquered if you guide me how to approach this matter.

    BTW, I work in an office mostly dealing with computers at work
    & home...and of course I also drive quite a bit everyday.

    If you require any other info, please let me know.

    Thanks a million, Steve

    ________________________

    AND FOUR MONTHS LATER, STEVE'S VISION IS 20/40 OR BETTER.

    Dec 7th, 2005, 8:16am,

    Dear Otis & Brian,

    Steve> Brian, thanks for the tips. I do zooming once a while but
    not consistent. However I do eye rolls a little more frequent
    compared to zooming.

    Otis> Special Request on "reporting"

    Otis> The accepted standard for reading a "line" is that you read
    1/2 the letters correctly.

    For purpose of consistency, please report your Snellen that
    way.

    You said you read all the letters on the 20/40 line.

    I would suspect you are reading letters on the 20/30 line.
    If you read 1/2 the letters, the say you pass the 20/30 line.

    This is just for "consistency" with the commercial standard.

    Best,

    Otis

    ______________________

    From: Steve

    Noted above guideline. I actually see 1/2 of 20/30 line, but
    it is very inconsistent, so therefore decided not to "report".
    I'm sure I'll see 20/30 line one day. Please also be informed
    that I have many "flashes", sometimes I can see the 20/20 line
    very clearly.

    The day will come, I'm sure of it. All I have to do is work,
    work & work.

    Cheers, Steve

    __________________________________________

    December 9, 2005

    Dear Steve,

    I personally consider that anyone with better-that 20/40
    vision -- has a WONDERFUL SUCCESS! That is my "standard". Vision
    above that is just great.

    The DMV "gave up" on 20/20 as being an "excessive"
    requirement, and would not require a minus lens until vision less
    than 20/40. I believe that is a reasonable policy.

    Also, you reported -3.0 diopters and less-than 20/200, four
    months ago.

    People with less than 20/200 vision are classed as "legally
    blind". So if you had lost your glasses then -- you would have
    been legally blind!

    I know that is not quite the case -- but you have made a
    PROFOUND improvement.

    Keep up the good work!

    Getting to 20/20 is however a very slow process. (Try tennis
    and football -- or go the beach, sail, get OUT!) When working to
    "better" 20/40, that seems to "help" most of all.

    Best,

    Otis

    ___________________________________


    Dear Otis,

    First of all I would like to thank you from the bottom of my
    heart for your strong dedication to guide others to improve their
    eye sight. Not everyone has that kind of passion or time to do
    that.

    I will definitely update my progress as times goes by. My
    personal challenge(altho a little tough) is to "compete" with my
    niece who has a 20/10 vision and during bright days she has 20/8
    vision. Now, that is what I call great eyesight. I even read
    some having a 20/4 vision...awesome.

    With a little a bit of innovation & persistence, most people
    can achieve what they desire. To me it is important not to have a
    " mental block". If you say you can , chances are you can. If
    you say you can't , chances are you can't. So to me, my mental
    outlook is very important on most outcomes in my life. I only
    wished that I got to know this new found knowledge much earlier,
    anyway better late than never

    Cheers, Steve

    P/S - FYI, I just got (about 2 weeks ago) a pair of +1.5 lens for
    my niece for her nearwork. I like to "preserve" her good
    eyesight. Oh yes! I definitely know what to do for my
    daughter as well when she is 6-7 years old( I can see that
    she has a little poor eyesight, she's 4+ now). As for my
    wife, she has glasses of - 0.50 & -1.00 on the other eye(
    thankfully she never used glasses much, so it stayed that
    way)and can read 20/40 line before using plus lens. In less
    then 3 months with irregular use of +1.5 lens (initially
    +1.0 lens)....now she can read 1/2 of 20/15
    line...........I'm so happy for her .

    I have another niece who has -7.0 prescription but
    unfortunately she is not motivated to improve her vision, so
    I can't do much for her.

    Steve

    ___________________________

    Otis

    Senior Member

    Re: Newbie seeking help

    Dec 9, 2005 at 8:51pm

    Dear Steve,

    Thanks for your kind statements.

    You would not believe the hostility I get when I suggest this
    "preventive" alternative. Most people act as though I spit in
    their face. That is how bad it is. These people do not get a
    "second" offer of prevention with the plus.

    I am convinced that any child, at age 5, who has 20/20 (and a
    positive refractive state) could keep their vision clear through
    high school and college. But it does take commitment and work.

    Most people go running to an OD, who tells them, "Oh, we
    heard about that -- it does not work. Don't bother with it." And
    then the kid gets an over-prescribed minus -- and "loves" it.

    Only much later, after he develops "stair-case" myopia from
    the minus, does he "wake up" and realize that his vision has been
    destroyed -- for life.

    I think you have been very lucky. If your refractive status
    gets beyond -3 diopters, "clearing" becomes very difficult.

    But obviously, why should ANYONE ALLOW IT TO GET THAT BAD?

    I think we are ALL OWED A DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE BY ANY
    TRUE-PROFESSIONAL WHO DEALS WITH THE PUBLIC. (But that is my
    "rant.")

    I am convinced that only an "educated" parent can help their
    own child. And now you can do that. With guidance and support
    from you (and ODs like Steve Leung) eventually others will "get
    the idea") and that will be the "preventive" future for your
    children.

    Best of luck,

    Otis

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

    From Steve: (20/200 to 20/30)

    Hi everyone,

    Just like to add my view.

    Initially when I first found out this forum, I was very
    excited...an opportunity to improve my vision. This has been a
    desire since my late teens, so you can imagine my excitement, then
    came the disappointment reading Otis' statement that people with
    20/70 or more has slim chances of improving vision to 20/40 or
    better. Not exactly those words but something to that
    understanding. Naturally, I was very irritated of this
    "statement", where else I can find ppl with 20/200 or worse have
    improved to 20/20 vision. So I was thinking why Otis kept saying
    that & dampening people's spirit/motivation to improve their
    vision. So when I started, I was not so happy but persisted to
    use plus lens, thinking that I got nothing to lose.....and my
    vision started to improve

    As time went by I understood, why Otis made such
    statement(after much reading). IMHO, it is not to dampen a
    person's spirit or motivation but NOT TO OVER CLAIM the
    "cure/prevention" and secondly, if you read at this place :
    www.google.com

    then select Groups and type

    sci.med.vision

    You'll be astonished how a lot of people bash Otis. In my
    opinion Otis has nothing to gain out of this, he just want to
    spread the knowledge of the "second opinion" but unfortunately a
    lot people don't accept it.

    So later I realized and began to have a different view why
    Otis keeps saying that. A better view of course.

    IMHO, anybody who has no medical problem( eyes) has a very
    good chance to improve their vision. They can improve their
    vision with plus lens or with some exercises ( Brian is one of the
    best proof we have here ). You can do it with either one or with
    a combination of both. Which one works faster or better, I really
    don't know. To me it is purely an individual experience & effort.
    You have to do it yourself with persistence, testing & innovation.

    I hope people will stop bashing Otis(at sci.med.vision) and I
    hope people will try which "system" works the best for them. I
    feel all methods has its pro & cons. Its a persons choice to pick
    plus lens or the exercises to clear their vision. If a person
    don't believe these choices we have, then they must just move on
    in life. Search for the ultimate natural "thing" to improve their
    vision.

    Nobody can give guarantees & I'm sure there are disclaimers
    somewhere in the website.

    Everything I said was based on my opinion, so don't use it
    against me. I sincerely hope that I didn't offend anyone in what
    I said above.

    Oh yes, I also want to thank Robert & Patrick for their
    views, opinions & suggestions.

    Just my 2 cents. Chill out everybody

    Cheers,

    Steve
    ___________________________________

    Dear Steve,

    Thanks for the write-up!

    Most parents -- if offered the plus -- will recoil in horror,
    that their child must put on a plus for reading.

    That is 99 percent of the population at this time. (I
    personally think they should go through an "educational" process
    before deciding to put their child in a minus -- with the
    either-or, now-or-never issue clearly explained to the parents and
    child.)

    But AFTER a parent has cleared his vision from 20/200 to
    20/30, he becomes sufficiently "expert" to understand the meaning
    and use of this "second opinion".

    Now your children have a "fighting chance" to keep their
    distant vision clear through the school years.

    That is what I "fight" for -- your right to an
    informed, competent second-opinion at the threshold
    when it can be truly effective.

    Sincerely,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 21, 2005
    #35
  16. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    This is fun, Uncle Otie. Thanks for giving me another stellar
    opportunity! By the way: as usual, you've covered nearly every tenet
    of the mentally ill poster in this one

    ====

    From the Net Loon Index for Usenet Science Newsgroups

    see: http://www.scn.org/~bh162/net-loon_index.html

    Poster states that their hypothesis is as revolutionary as
    Darwin's/Huxley's/Einstein's/Newton's/Bohr's/Pauli's /etc.'s
    hypothesis (pick any famous dead scientist), but the poster cannot
    provide any concrete testable predictions of their own hypothesis (+
    20 points).

    Commonly forces their hypothesis into discussion threads that are
    discussing other topics. (+ 40 points)

    Claims to be an expert or a "specialist" on the subject but will not
    give their credentials when asked. (+ 40 points)
    Prefaces (or ends) their statement with a comment about how
    misguided/shortsighted/brainwashed/delusional the professional
    scientific community is. (+ 40 points)

    Claims that the professional science community is trying to silence
    him/her because the professional science community is trying to cover
    up the "truth". (+40 points)
    Prefaces (or ends) their statement with a comment about how
    misguided/shortsighted/brainwashed/delusional the professional
    scientific community is. (+ 40 points)

    Claims that the professional science community is trying to silence
    him/her because the professional science community is trying to cover
    up the "truth". (+40 points)
    Shows (or admits) no/little knowledge of other people's previous work
    on the subject. (+ 40 points)

    Consistently uses quotes from only one book/paper/article/TV-show as
    the sole external support for their theory. (+ 20 points)

    Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided by
    others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is strong
    evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points)
    Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided by
    others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is strong
    evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points)
    Commonly forces their hypothesis into discussion threads that are
    discussing other topics. (+ 40 points)
    Makes a statement that is clearly vacuous (i.e., without content).
    (+10 points per statement)
    Makes a statement that is clearly vacuous (i.e., without content).
    (+10 points per statement)
    Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be false. (+10 points
    per statement)
    Consistently uses quotes from only one book/paper/article/TV-show as
    the sole external support for their theory. (+ 20 points)

    Hey, Otis: ** WHAP **!!
     
    Neil Brooks, Dec 21, 2005
    #36
  17. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I believe that--if I continue to ride my bicycle at least 150 miles a
    week--I'll get taller. Unfortunately, there's no evidence that this
    is true. Sigh.
    Again, kudos, Uncle Otie. You might be getting closer to a bit of
    intellectual honesty here. It's a long way from saying "this has been
    disproven in every proper test of which I'm aware," but ... it's a
    start.

    FOR THOSE READING: What Otis actually MEANS is: this theory MAY work
    with monkeys and chickens, but it seems to fall apart when tried on
    humans.
    Aw, DANGIT! You just slipped back into n=1, anecdotal crap that
    shoots apart any credibility as a "scientist" that you may claim.

    Don't you understand the scientific method? Here. Read about it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
    Again, pretty intellectually dishonest here, Uncle Otie. I'm FAIRLY
    certain that nobody coming to this newsgroup is seeking advice on
    whether or not to put glasses on their chimpanzee.

    Trying to control the argument by controlling the terminology has
    never gained you credibility, nor proven your hypothesis
    (which--again, admirably--you seem to be changing EVER SO SLIGHTLY to
    discuss PSEUDOmyopia, not axial myopia. But these relapses ... sad
    .... so, so sad....).

    In fact, somebody who pays attention to what it is you spout is
    *bound* to notice the contrived terminology you so favor and will
    readily disregard your ideas.

    "proven dynamic quality of the natural primate eye??"

    Who talks like that?
     
    Neil Brooks, Dec 21, 2005
    #37
  18. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    Nice read Otis. clearing 20/200 to 20/40 DMV is rare. You said most
    dont clear to DMV if they are worse than 20/70. Why arent optometrists
    giving everyone cycoplegic refractions so they can avoid pseudomyopia
    and stop their eyes from getting more axial myopia? Ive said several
    times already, I reeeeeeeally need a cycoplegic refraction and I am
    getting one asap! This will tell me how much myopia I can clear. True
    and full 20/10 vision is rare, many optometrists overstate your
    accuracy. I have already explained how. My sister's friend was declared
    20/10 but she cant see any of the 20/10 and barely 8 out of 10 20/13. I
    have been declared 20/25 and sometimes even 20/20 but 20/30 is the
    smallest I can reliabily read. At least 25% cant be corrected to 20/20.
    20/4 vision? Thats better than a hawk's 20/5! 20/4 would be able to see
    the 20/20 line from 100 feet! How good can human vision get Otis? One
    guy said it can get to 20/2 which is as good as an eagle but only like
    1 in a billion have that. Its a freak of nature blessing type of
    ability! If it was hypothethical and I could choose to fly like
    superman or have eagle vision, it would be a hard choice! I get shivers
    just imagining what 20/2 looks like, or even 20/10! I seriously believe
    ill be seeing 20/10 oneday, probably not soon. They could have very
    advanced wavefront glasses or contacts some decades away that will give
    almost everyone 20/10 or better vision! In fact your retina will pretty
    much be the limiting factor and not high order aberrations which limit
    most people to 20/15 to 20/40 currently. I did read that theres special
    instruments that can simulate 20/10 vision for some people and an
    increase in your BCVA for almost all. It uses like 5000 tiny mirrors to
    correct your high order aberrations.

    http://www.zinkle.com/p/articles/mi_m0BFU/is_12_89/ai_113644570

    You can use a pinhole right now and at home for a little taste of
    slightly improved vision beyond your BCVA. Expect about half a line
    improvement but if you have alot of aberrations you can improve 2 or
    more lines! I improved my 20/30 BCVA left eye to 20/25 and my 20/40
    BCVA(?!) right eye to 20/30 with half of 20/25 readable. I was amazed
    how rich the contrast was! Letters became noticabily blacker, the edges
    of the letters bolder and better defined, any doubling was greatly
    reduced!


    http://www.aao.org/aao/news/eyenet/archive/01_00/cover.html

    Machine with many tiny mirrors(100,000?!) that can simulate 20/10
    vision for you. 99.9% of retinas are capable of 20/10 even if the
    corneal shape is only capable of 20/20, 20/30, even 20/40! The lucky
    few are 20/10 because they have very little aberrations while the
    unlucky can be 20/40 or worse!


    http://www.llnl.gov/str/October04/Gilliom.html

    Oneday glasses will correct high order aberrations and humans will see
    20/10, 20/8 or even better! 20/10 will be the new standard of vision!


    By one estimate, about half of the population has higher-order
    aberrations that produce a noticeable reduction in acuity and 15
    percent would achieve a major benefit from having their aberrations
    corrected.


    Unfortunately, it is more difficult to conceive of how spectacles with
    wavefront-corrected lenses would work because the lenses would either
    have to move as the eye moved to keep the optical axes of the lenses
    aligned with the eyes, or the shapes of the lenses would have to be
    constantly changed to maintain the proper alignment with the eyes.
    Neither alternative seems feasible at the present time.


    My comment: todays wavefront glasses technology does exist but youd
    have to perfectly align your eyes to the wavefront impression in the
    glasses to see perfect. Your eyes are always moving so this isnt
    possible till they make glasses with many tiny lenses that constantly
    move with your eyes. Big technology hurdle!


    http://www.opt.pacificu.edu/ce/catalog/10260-RS/WavefrontSalmon.html

    good article that explains why some people have better BCVA than
    others.
     
    acemanvx, Dec 21, 2005
    #38
  19. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    "I think I can see your future. Although RGP lenses offer the only
    hope
    of correcting you to 20/20, you will not pursue them because of lens
    intolerance. This is one of the reasons you will not pursue
    orthokeratology. The other reason is that your parents won't shell out

    the money on any treatment that isn't permanent and cannot fully
    correct your myopia, and that you will probably give up on anyway.
    Insofar as eye exercises, Bates, and other nonsense...I guess if you've

    got the time on your hands it won't hurt. Of course, it won't help
    much, either.

    Also, from your posts on other boards, I see that you have become
    anti-refractive surgery. Which means that you will continue to wear
    eyeglasses into the foreseeable future, unless of course you decide to
    pursue the only realistic option open to you which is getting fitted
    for one of the newer silicone-hydrogel soft lenses....or wait until the

    new hybrid SynergEyes lens is available in your area."


    Once wavefront tech takes off, I have a 99.9% chance of getting 20/10
    or better if my retinas capable of it. Theres talk of wavefront glasses
    and contacts. Right now yes its true RGP contacts give the best
    possible vision. Thanks for mentioning SynergEyes lenses! I read they
    are RGP in the center embedded in soft contact. Those with large pupils
    may not like them at night and in low light due to the small RGP
    optical zone. I dont know how much a problem dust is for those but for
    real RGP contacts dust is your worst enemy. Get a tiny spec in your
    eyes, they will get trapped under the contact and really hurt! For this
    reason, orthoK is definately more apealable. Doesnt orthoK provide good
    vision when your still wearing the retainer lense? Doesnt it work as
    well as an RGP lense? Yes im intolerant to soft contacts but I am not
    ruling out orthoK. Many people used orthoK successfuly despite not
    liking soft contacts.

    Well im not quite anti lasik, it seems OK for those really desperate to
    redude/rid themselves of glasses at the expense of usually worse
    vision. Its great for those who arent picky and not needing glasses(for
    the time being) is more important than the best possible vision. Many
    people are perfectly happy to get 20/30 or even 20/40 after lasik when
    they were equal or better with glasses/contacts. Residual refractive
    error and high order aberrations are responsable for this. Lasik has
    other risks like dry eyes and irritation too. I think as wavefront
    technology matures in glasses/contacts lasik will lose popularity as
    most people will still need glasses after lasik to get really sharp
    vision anyway. Even now a good number of people still wear glasses part
    time after lasik. You yourself would have been farsighted and in
    bifocals if you got lasik. Your currently -3.25 and take your glasses
    off to read and can be corrected to 20/15? which is just
    amazing!!!!!!!!!!
     
    acemanvx, Dec 21, 2005
    #39
  20. acemanvx

    CatmanX Guest


    Where did you get this from? You may get improvement from Wavefront
    specs, but not perfect vision, especially if you have crap optics
    already.

    Who cares, noone wears retainers through the day.
    What planet are you from? OK isn't for people who are unconcerned about
    their vision. It is for people who want good vision.

    For christ sake dickhead, learn about what you speak of. OK is a great
    treaiment for myopes. It is not the alternative to Lasik, as Lasik is
    not the alternative to glasses. It is simply another means of
    correction, admittedly a brilliant one. As with Lasik, all appropriate
    measures need to be taken to ensure that the right candidates are
    selected.

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Dec 21, 2005
    #40
    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.