Ortho-K did NOT work for me

Now what?!? I paid my eye doctor $750 upfront and after 7 sets of
contacts and 10 drawn out months -- approximately 30 visits, many weeks
of poor vision -- I am out not only contacts, but the entire $750. He
never once stated to me that there was a possibility that this would
not work on me. Nor did the Ortho-K site state this. My eye
prescription is not really even all that bad... -2.0 and -1.75 .. the
astigmatism is 10 and 140 respectively ... whatever those numbers
really mean.

The first two months he used non-torics and I was horribly far-sighted
-- I could easily tell that the blue semi-circle band 2/3-rds down on
my eyes on the computer screen (from the cornea mapping) was obviously
not right. It was difficult doing my job and I ended up taking a lot of
Motrin for the eye strain headaches. He then figured out that I needed
the torics after 2 sets. My guess is that he was learning on me and
learned a lot from me.

I am pursuing trying to get my money back as I feel any reputable eye
doctor would have either (1) told me there was a chance this was not
going to work and (2) not kept me on this roller coaster for 10 months.
He obviously was new to this. And of course he doesn't want to give
me any of my money back at this point.

Anybody else have a problem with Ortho-K?

 

If he did not tell you that it might not work, I think you may have a
valid claim (you may have to go to court to get it). It sounds like he
probably did 750 worth of work, but should have disclosed the quite
variable results of ortho k up front.

w.stacy,o.d.

 

It seems nothing ever talks about the variable results of Ortho-K or
the possibility that is may simply not work.

I did talk with another eye doctor here in town who does ortho-k and
CRT. He said within 90 days the determination should have been made as
to whether or not this process is going to work for a patient. Have
you heard anything to this?
Thanks,
C. Greene

 

Dear C. Greene,

Sorry they did not tell you about the "variable" results.

I understand that Lasik produces better results,
although the cost runs $3000 to $4000,
and some have effects that can not be reversed.

What is your eye-chart vision with no glasses?

Best,

Otis
(Engineer)

 

This discussion has gone south. Lasik nor my eyesite are the issues
here, Ortho-K is and how it's not portrayed to give "variable" results
by either my eye doctor or the Ortho-K.net website (and in some cases
not work at all). Not to mention I'm still out my initial payment of
$750 - never even got a new soft lens prescription out of that money.
My eyesite, as noted above really is not all that poor, but poor enough
that I rely on glasses or contacts everyday. Contacts and glasses are
tough with sports and swimming - so I was very hopeful for Ortho-K.
Thanks for all the comments.
C. Greene

 

Dear Mike,

I made no statement to C. Greene. Go back and read
my posts on this thread -- please.

Further remarks on Ortho-K, and pilots for Mr. Greene.

The method was developed as a "special" method allowing
pilots to "clear" their visual acuity from 20/40 to 20/20 -- by
use of a contact lens.

It was generally understood (at least by the pilots) that
this had to be continued as long as they needed
naked eye 20/20 vision. When Ortho-K was stopped,
the visual acuity (corneal shape) would revert
to its previous state.

I hope your OD explained this to you -- or the
brochure explained that "reality" to you.

Best,

Otis

 

I am a pilot Otis and I am interested Please provide proof OUTSIDE your
website.

I bet you can't or won't.

Really, please provide references OUTSIDE YOUR WEBSITE.

I bet you can't or won't.

Allen

 

what do you know about this topic?
go away troll

 

I did offer some (I think appropriate) advice under the original name of
this thread; it got changed, so you might have missed it (it was the
very 1st response after your original post).

Things do tend do get confused when the local trolls inject their
"opinions" and the professionals react rather knee-jerkily (we tend to
do that). It's like if I, an optometrist, went over to the
alt.electrical.engineering group and said they should use aluminum
instead of copper wire, because I'm certain Cu is causing dementia. My
cousin got it and she has copper wiring in her house, but my uncle
didn't get it and he has aluminum wiring...

w.stacy, o.d.

 

perhaps that explains Otis' dementia. copper on the brain.

 

UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTION ALERT!

Please show your evidence suggesting the existence of such an organ.

--
Regards,
Nicolaas.


.... At times, our intelligence gets in the way of our being smart.

 

Dear Mike,

Since "outdoors" did not respond,
that tells me he has no interest
in prevention -- plain and simple.

Beyond that point, the issue is moot.

Best,

Otis

 

Dear Nic,

Subject: The nature of the "second opinion".

What you are hearing from these ODs -- is the majority opinion.

They attack anyone, and anything that suggests that (experimentally)
the natural eye is a dynamic system.

Fortunately, there are a few ODs who pay attention to the experimental
data itself, and realize that:

1. Prevention (at -3/4 diopters) is indeed difficult but possible.

2. Will provide support to the parents who will accept the concept
of prevention for their own child.

Given the obvious abuse, it is hardly surprising that ANY OD will
offer this kind of preventive support to a parent -- under any
circumstance.

But I would read:

www.chinamyopia.org

Just to understand a "balance" on this issue.

As always, enjoy our pleasant academic discussion
about the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye.

i.e., think for yourself.

Best,

Otis

 

Dear Mike,

Subject: Scientific prevention -- based on Francis Young's bifocal
study results.

It is clear from this study that prevention is about the only
alternative to the "traditional" minus lens.

It is very easy to use the minus. It produces instant results -- and
perhaps almost no one is interested in "prevention" -=- except
for a professional pilot who must maintain 20/20 to keep
his career -- for the most part.

You can never "prescribe" prevention. It depends too much
on the motivation of the person concerned with the issue.

But the last "inference" you have made is that ALL ODs
are "against" prevention. This false!

As you well know, Steve Leung OD has his own
children wearing a "plus" WHEN EVER the child
sits down to do any reading or writing. This is
because Steve has "control" over his own child. He
does NOT have control over the "general public", and
so his "authority" does not extend beyond his own
family.

There are, perhaps, some parents who can learn from
a presentation of this "second opinion" and the reasons
for it.

It is also clear (from Francis Young's study) that prevention
is an either-or choice the person must make BEFORE
he begins wearing the minus lens.

There is a lot of "bias" in this discussion -- no doubt.

If a person (i.e., "The Printer's Son), fails to understand the
intent and purpose of the plus lens -- then indeed the
"cause" is lost completely at that point.

But that is indeed a personal decision for the pareints
concerned with protecting their child's distant vision
through the school years.

It is something for them to consider.

Best,

Otis

 

I did not read this inference into any of Dr. Tyner's remarks. I fact,
I have seen you make many statements of this type in which you
intentionally create strawman arguments so that you can launch into one
of your tirades. This is why I have characterized your statements as
being automated, just like spam.

DrG

 

And it works! People see better. They can drive safely. And it doesn't
hurt them.

There is no "prevention" scheme that is proven to work. Thats the point.
If something worked then doctors would fall all over themselves to prescribe
it and patients would want it.

If you ever find a proven prevention scheme that works in humans (not
chickens or monkeys) just point me in the direction of the scientific
efficacy data and I will be very interested!

Sure. He can do anything he wants to his family unless it is shown to
actually cause them harm. Then child protective services will take over.
If he has data to present to other practitioners then please let him present
it. BTW, is it true that he is under investigation from licensing
authorities for inappropriate clinical practices? Why would you continue to
reference such a person?

All those parents would learn is that you have a theory that has been shown
not to be effective in humans. How valuable is that information to anyone.
Your "second opinion" is in reality nothing more than an old 1960's and
1970's-vintage theory that never panned out when it was finally tested
scientifically. Why can't you accept reality Otis? Go look for a different
"second opinion"-- one that will actually works or at least hasn't been
disproven.

No doubt. And it comes from you. You won't accept published scientific
evidence that opposes your opinion. Is it bias or senile stubbornness?

Yawn. good old Raphaelson again huh!

 

To all:
I have not replied until now -- this topic has truly gone south and
does not even resemble my original issue with Ortho-K. Thanks to
William Stacy, OD, for his reply as that was what I was looking for. I
am not a pilot seeking 20/20 vision. I am simply a software developer
that needs my vision to do my job everyday, so the fact that I was
dealing with really horrible eyesight from Ortho-K lenses was an issue.
I liked the concept of a non-surgical solution to lasik -- too bad it
doesn't work for me. Unfortunately my eye doctor did not inform me at
any point in this 10 months of trial that it doesn't work for everyone
that has been deemed a candidate (I think I was his first case that
didn't work). Now, I need to decide whether to attempt to get all my
money back or simply split the cost with him. My eyes are back to
normal and I'm back in my soft contacts doing just fine. Probably
won't seek out lasik after this experience.
Thanks for all the comments,
C. Greene