Single Vision vs bifocal lenses

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

Bifocal
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.

-A

 

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.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

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
destroyed.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

 

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:

www.myopiafree.com

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.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

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
myopic?
Then whe make progress!

Nature, I think.

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

 

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.

 

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
choice.

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
are
myopic?

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.


Best,

Otis

Engineer

 

Otis,

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

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

Allen

 

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?

 

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.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

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.
Lieberman.

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?

 

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)

 

Otis,

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
imagination.

Allen

 

Dear Allen,

Steve Leung

www.chinamyopia.org

Young and Colgate supporting
the plus for preventiom ONLY.

On my site:

www.myopiafree.com

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

Best,

Otis
Engineer