Single Vision vs bifocal lenses

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by abnerdoorman, Jan 8, 2005.

  1. abnerdoorman

    abnerdoorman Guest

    They got a new doctor at the optometrist I go to. After the exam
    he asked whether I wanted to go with bifocals or single vision
    lenses. The old guy, the last time I went said I abosolutely had
    to go to bifocals which I did. I never did like them. I have a
    really wide vision field for one thing. I'll suck it up an live
    with bifocals if I need to but wearing my old single vision pair
    the last couple days has been LUXURY. So I asked the new doc
    and he said it was really just my call based on the tradeoffs.
    My prescription is

    R -600 -025 150
    L -600 050 020

    R 150
    L 150

    So am I delusional thinking of trying single vision lenses this
    time around? I told them I would think about it for a week. If I did
    that, would it make sense to check into one of the big chain
    places and find the mega cheapest pair of single vision glasses
    they had to try for a month and then write off if it doesn't work
    work out?

    Thanks for any insights you may have on this.

    abnerdoorman, Jan 8, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. abnerdoorman

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Abner,

    This comes down to a personal choice. It is nice
    that your judgment was respected in this matter.

    I have an "under-prescribed" minus that I wear
    around the house all the time. I keep
    a stronger minus in the car -- for driving.

    I would not wear a bifocal -- but that is my
    opinion. Let use know what you decide.


    otisbrown, Jan 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. abnerdoorman

    Guest Guest

    How nice to see how you proved yourself and many others here, your idea of
    wearing a plus lens (less minus power than is needed) did not provide any
    change in your amount off myopia Otis!!

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Guest, Jan 9, 2005
  4. abnerdoorman

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Jan,

    As always -- you jump to your preferred conclusion!

    It is true that when some one puts a strong, over prescribed
    minue lens on your face -- your eyes will adapt to that lens,
    and your self-imposed confined enviroment.

    If you wish to see what kids are doing with their eyes
    (which you totally ignore) why not click on:

    and on -12 diopters.

    I certainly agree that I did this, and my refractive
    state moved negative because of it.

    So I take personal responsibility for doing this
    as a 6 year-old child. That responsibility was
    mine. But I learned from my mistake -- after
    it was too late to do anything about it. Now
    I am stuck with the consequences of both
    my own actions -- and the compounding
    effect of that wretched minus lens.

    This is the resaon why I worked with Dr. Francis
    Young, and my sister's children so that they
    might learn of the absolute necessity of
    "correctly" using the plus as the
    wise Professor of Optometry, Theo Grosvenor
    and other optometrists have strongly recommended.

    It was the "Bifocal" study of Dr. Francis Young
    (and explicit OBJECTIVE experimental data)
    that convinced me that a negative state of
    the natural eye could be truly PREVENTED,
    but only if the person concerned with it
    took engineering-science seriously and
    AGRESSIVELY used the plus and
    personally verified their ability to
    "clear" on the basis of their own
    eye chart -- and trial-lens kit -- if
    they have one.

    This issue is "who is in control".

    But yes, once you start wearing the
    minus lens there is no getting out
    of it.

    A cautionary note for all of us.


    otisbrown, Jan 10, 2005
  5. abnerdoorman

    Guest Guest

    And this is what you realy said Otis:
    I assume your spectacles for driving are not over-prescribed.
    Again Otis you are avoiding the real issue namely wearing an
    under-prescribed minus optical devise such as your glasses in the house
    must have the same effect as your favorite plus lens therapy must have.
    Obviously it does not wich is not a surprice.
    On the other hand, may I say you agree that wearing a correct prescribed
    minus correction does not influence the amount of myopia?
    Can whe say your plus lens therapy thereby is useless?
    If not than try to give a straight answer on these questions.
    If you don't than beat he retreat Otis.

    major snip......
    Does it mean your plus lens therapy is useless for adults who already are
    Then whe make progress!
    Nature, I think.
    Again, does it mean your plus lens therapy is useless to adults?
    Guest, Jan 10, 2005
  6. abnerdoorman

    green eyes Guest

    Dear A,
    Better still, go to a quality optical shop where, if you are not
    comfortable with your single vision lenses, they will allow you to pay
    the difference and switch over to multifocals within the first 90 days.
    You'll stand a much better chance of being comfortable with any
    eyewear if they are measured and fitted by an experienced licensed
    optician...not always easy to find in the chain stores. Nearly any
    reputable optical will allow for changes in RX, or lens types for 90
    days. Just ask so that you're clear on the policy before you spend
    your money.
    green eyes, Jan 11, 2005
  7. abnerdoorman

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Jan,

    Since you declared that the concept that the
    natural eye is dynamic "...must be destroyed",
    I would suggest that it would be impossible
    to have any type of conversation with you
    were true-prevention was the goal.

    Further you don't seem to understand the
    concept of PREVENTION. This meand
    that the person himself must make
    the decision to use the plus PROPERLY
    BEFORE the minus lens is used.

    If he reviews the scientifc facts concerning
    the natural eye's behavior, and chooses
    to reject forceful use of the plus -- then
    than ends the possiblity of effective
    prevention for that person.

    Once he starts using the minus, then
    as per the bifocal studies, he can
    expect his visoin to go down by
    about -1/2 diopter per year.
    You insisted that BOTH the
    groups go donw at that rate.

    I am never going to "fight" with an
    individual about this issue. If he
    chooses YOUR minus lens -- that
    is the end of the possiblity of
    effective prevention -- and his

    And prevention with the plus is difficult -- since it requires
    BOTH self-motivation and persistance. Any you
    can never "prescribe" these qualities in a person.

    To further reply (accepting your hostility to the concept.)

    Does it mean your plus lens therapy is useless for adults who already

    Otis> If a fully informed pilot (at 20/25) entering a four year
    college chooses to reject the use of the plus for prevention,
    then he can expect his vision to go "down" by about
    -1.3 diopters in four years. Once he makes that
    choice, there would be no furter point in using
    the plus -- now would there. The man has
    made he decision -- and has accepted the
    consequences. I certainly would make
    no further attempt to help him. How could I,
    when he will not help himself. Think about it.

    Then whe make progress!

    Nature, I think.

    Otis> Yor biased opinion. But I fogot -- you don't
    look at any direct scientific facts concerning
    the behavior of the natural eye -- under
    direct test. I would think that a pilot
    who valued his distant vision would take
    scientific facts more seriously than
    you do. But yes, the concept that
    a person could have some "smarts"
    about this issue --' ";...; must be destroyed".

    Again, does it mean your plus lens therapy is useless to adults?

    Otis> I NEVER use the term "therapy". Futher, as
    stated, the pilot at 20/25, entering a four year
    college will have to take your attitude
    under consideration in making his choice
    betwee neglect, and motivated use of the
    plus -- when it can be effective.



    otisbrown, Jan 11, 2005
  8. abnerdoorman

    A Lieberman Guest


    Please provide web references to Dr Young's study, OUTSIDE your website.

    Or is Dr Young a made up figure of your imagination.

    A Lieberman, Jan 11, 2005
  9. abnerdoorman

    RM Guest

    Quit misquoting. It's your ridiculous theory on plus lenses for myopic that
    Jan said "must be destroyed". Frankly I suggest we call the licensing
    authorities and report you for practicing a profession without a license.
    Please. Please. Provide us with the scientific facts that you keep talking
    about. You claim you are a good "scientist" with an objective mind-- just
    tell us the "scientific facts" which prove your point and we will be
    convinced. Why won't you do it?
    RM, Jan 11, 2005
  10. abnerdoorman

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    Please go back to sleep.

    Yes, everything you believe is true.

    Scientific truth, research, intelligent
    understanding of the dynamic nature
    of the fundamental eye -- well,
    you are never going to understand
    any of it.

    But some engineers and scientists
    like Stirling Colgate, Steve Leung
    and Francis Young have published
    results that are significant
    and challenge the traditional
    minus-lens method of the
    last 400 years.

    It is time for a change my friend -- even
    if you can not be part of it.


    otisbrown, Jan 11, 2005
  11. abnerdoorman

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Otis Brown replies:
    So, Otis:

    To paraphrase: you are not prepared to provide /any citations/ to back up
    your assertions or attributions? Rather, you'll respond churlishly to Mr.

    You know, there /just might/ be people who frequent this newsgroup who /are/
    interested in your theory. Many of those people, though, are more advanced
    than single-cell organisms and want to see some valid proof.

    Are you prepared to offer any?
    Neil Brooks, Jan 11, 2005
  12. abnerdoorman

    Guest Guest

    An answer in a charlatanic way, much blabla , no content.

    Otis , the person who is avoiding a confrontation with real knowledge in
    human eyecare
    Otis , the person who, when it is getting hot beneath his feet ran out of
    the tread and start an other useless new one.
    Otis, the person who has the stupidity to give answers on subjects in this
    newsgroup without knowing a tiny little bit of the functioning of the eye
    (i.e the low tension glaucoma question).

    Otis, please be so kind and beat the retreat

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Guest, Jan 11, 2005
  13. abnerdoorman

    A Lieberman Guest


    Please provide web references to Stirling Colgate, Steve Leung and Francis
    Young published results, OUTSIDE your website.

    Or is Stirling Colgate, Steve Leung and Francis Young a figment of your

    A Lieberman, Jan 12, 2005
  14. abnerdoorman

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    Steve Leung

    Young and Colgate supporting
    the plus for preventiom ONLY.

    On my site:

    As always, prevention is difficult -- and
    DEPENDS on the person making an
    either-or choice at the threshold,
    Keep an open mind my friend,


    otisbrown, Jan 12, 2005
    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.