This lady improved her vision and wrote a diary of her experience! I am doing the same!

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by acemanvx, Feb 22, 2006.

  1. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    I suggest you all read and learn from her experience. I owe her credit
    for contributating to my vision improvement. I used to be -6 and -5.
    Now I am -4.75 and -4.25 respectivately and still improving. My near
    point in the worse eye is a little over 20cm and in the better eye its
    a little under 25cm. I also do other types of eye exercises. It would
    be nice to get past 30cm which would make me less than -3.5 diopters.
    Theres no telling how much ill improve but Bate has advanced exercises
    that will make mincemeat of myopia! I think I have a reasonable chance
    to get below -3 in one or even both eyes, making me officially a low
    acemanvx, Feb 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. acemanvx

    CatmanX Guest

    Yes, it is really important to see beyond 30cm. Your quality of life
    will be so much better as well. What it goes to show is that you were
    incorrectly prescribed in the first place, nothing more.

    dr grant
    CatmanX, Feb 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    You dont know anything about me nor her. Even if we got the wrong power
    glasses, you cant explain how we improved our vision. What do glasses
    have to do with how much better we see without glasses? By the way, my
    pescription of -6 was not wrong back then. I did not see as well with
    less power. Now I see fine with weaker glasses.
    acemanvx, Feb 22, 2006
  4. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    actually I do and so does she. The glasses im wearing now could
    technically be the wrong power, but untill I remove all my
    accommodative spasm, I need those glasses to see well. I was tested
    manifast at -6 before I started vision improvement. -6 was the correct
    glasses power back then. My manifast refraction has dropped now.
    acemanvx, Feb 22, 2006
  5. acemanvx

    p.clarkii Guest

    or "pescription"
    p.clarkii, Feb 22, 2006
  6. acemanvx

    John S Guest

    I thought, I already commented on his spelling and driving skills?
    I would like credit first.
    Oh, don't forget about living in the bomb shelter.
    Bomb shelters increase myopia, but not intelligence.
    John S, Feb 22, 2006
  7. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    spelling isnt my forte.

    "And you don't think your accommodation could cause atypical responses
    contacts and vertex distance?"

    This seems to be the rule than the expection for those under 40. Most
    of my friend's wear glasses 1.25 times higher than their contact
    pescription. Dry eyes and base curve also play a factor. Converting
    from glasses to contacts or vice versa is not clear cut and the subject
    must actually try the contacts. May need a few pairs due to trial and

    "When you're 50, you can expect the textbook formula for vertex
    adjustment to
    work quite well. But by then, you'll probably level off around -250 and

    vertex distance doesn't normally require power adjustments at -250."

    I wouldnt even bother with correction if I got down to -2.5 contacts
    would be useless as I dont like monovision nor mulifocals. Id only need
    glasses sometimes for seeing in the distance. I however plan to get my
    vision to -2.5 or therebouts asap and not when I get old. I want to
    enjoy my reduced dependancy on glasses now!
    acemanvx, Feb 22, 2006
  8. acemanvx

    CatmanX Guest

    Unfortunately, intellegence isn't either. Unfortunately, it is us that
    have to live with your crap.

    Sure, at -2.50 you don't need glasses. That is what I tell all my
    patients that want new specs. You are so dumb you make George W look
    CatmanX, Feb 23, 2006
  9. acemanvx

    Bassslapper Guest

    I am down to -2.50 and only wear glasses to drive. As long as safety is
    not compromised, what does it matter if someone does not want to wear
    their glasses? There are people out there with prescriptions weaker
    than mine who would not think about going without corrective eyeware.
    It's all about what you are comfortable with.
    Bassslapper, Feb 23, 2006

  10. Absolutely nobody cares if someone chooses not to wear glasses. What we
    care about is the TEDIOUSNESS and POINTLESSNESS of a debate that hasn't
    been advanced one iota since it was first presented here years ago. We
    care about the misrepresentation of fact to those coming here for

    The risk is, of course, that those who are actually in a position to help
    people with real problems will be chased off, and not be available for
    those who need them. Witness, for example, the recent poster whose child
    seems to have had a real misdiagnosis that might have impacted her visual
    development. Nonsense that wouldn't have been appropriate for the thread
    even if it were accruate (which it wasn't) was spouted by the same old
    peanut gallery, while the health care practitioners got the poster
    pointed in the right direction. Now, consider what the scenario could
    have been if those practitioners gave up months ago.

    So, what is comes down to is that an arrogant man who likes to hear the
    sound of his own voice and believes that his "scientific" ideas are on
    the level of Galileo's and a day tripper without a clue are killing a
    resource that has helped a number of people over a number of years.

    That's usenet for you.

    My suggestion is that we modify the warning message to state a synopsis
    of the mainstream opinion on vision improvement (plus lens, bates,etc),
    warn those who want to try Bates not to stare at the sun, state that the
    pointless debate will not be engaged, list the names of the jokers du
    jour, and add all the names to the plonk file.
    Scott Seidman, Feb 23, 2006
  11. acemanvx

    LarryDoc Guest

    By all means, Scott, write it up! We Who Care can review it and get it
    posted daily if need be, as Bev has been kind enough to do for the
    Monday posting.

    Note: The old(er), somewhat overweight, despondent, sick man Who's Name
    Must Not Be Said has been posting the exact same drivel for four
    straight years. This month is his usenet anniversary.

    LarryDoc, Feb 23, 2006

  12. Let's kick it around a little bit. I'll try to come up with at least an
    outline for early next week.

    I think the important points are that
    -staircase myopia has never been demonstrated, and spectacle correction
    of myopia has never been demonstrated to increase myopia.

    -axial vs accomodative myopia, and that the suspicion is that the
    purported therapies are suspected to alleviate some accomodative myopia

    -near work probably has some relationship to the development of myopia,
    as does genetics, but no therapy has been proven to stop myopia
    progression in humans.

    -in general, "myopia prevention therapies", while probably ineffective,
    are generally harmless to adults, aside from sun gazing, which should
    never be done

    -common wisdom dictates that you should not interfere with your
    children's visual development. Any suspicion of visual problems in
    children should be aggressively pursued by an eye care professional, and
    any prevention matters employed on children should FIRST be discussed
    with your eye care professional

    -health care decisions should be made in conjunction with a health care
    professional in a doctor/patient relationship. The internet does not
    serve this role.

    -non-responsiveness to posts involving alternative approaches does not
    suggest any endorsement of these approaches, merely a reticence to engage
    in pointless debate

    Anything major I've missed, or gotten wrong. I think the bit about not
    messing with kids vision is fairly important, but I'm not sure I've got
    it worded right.
    Scott Seidman, Feb 23, 2006
  13. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    "Unfortunately, intellegence isn't either. Unfortunately, it is us that

    have to live with your crap."

    Manners most definately isnt your forte. How do you expect to make

    "Sure, at -2.50 you don't need glasses. That is what I tell all my
    patients that want new specs."

    With a wink, remind them they still legally required to wear glasses
    for driving. Also tell them they can wear glasses as little as they
    want, maybe if they wear them just to watch movies?

    "I am down to -2.50 and only wear glasses to drive. As long as safety
    not compromised, what does it matter if someone does not want to wear
    their glasses?"

    you hit it on the nail!

    "There are people out there with prescriptions weaker
    than mine who would not think about going without corrective eyeware.
    It's all about what you are comfortable with."

    They really love glasses and feel "undressed" without them. For them,
    its more to do with looks than functioning. The great majority of my
    friends and people I know who are about -1 to -1.5 wear glasses very
    seldom or never.

    anyway what do you think of her diary? Are you doing the same
    exercises, bassslapper?
    acemanvx, Feb 24, 2006
  14. acemanvx

    p.clarkii Guest

    in conjunction with your point #4 listed above, why not give a link to
    otis' forum or website so that persons interested in his crackpot
    method can take their discussion offline from here.

    and maybe a reference to the fact that those snakeoil salesman who
    promote the "i see clearly" method are currently being sued by the
    state of iowa for fraud.
    p.clarkii, Feb 24, 2006
  15. acemanvx

    LarryDoc Guest

    We should change the title of this thread. No need to involve Ace in
    this. Or anything of science, or even remotely requiring common sense.
    But I digress ..............

    Here's the link to the See Clearly Method fraud case.

    I believe the State of California has either initiated or completed
    legal action again the company. I was unable to find a substantiating
    reference, however.

    Here's one that's sure to come around again: The pinhole glasses scam:

    'Several entrepreneurs have marketed "pyramid" or "pinhole" glasses
    consisting of opaque material with multiple slits or perforations. The
    "technology" involved has been known for centuries and was used before
    glass lenses were invented. Light passing through a small hole (or
    holes) is restricted to rays coming straight from the viewed object;
    these rays do not need focusing to bring them to a point. Modern
    promoters claim their products are better than conventional lenses.
    Actually, both reduce the focus effort needed to read, but pinhole
    glasses are much less useful because they restrict contrast,
    brightness, and the field of view [28]. Worn as sunglasses, they can
    even be harmful because the holes allow damaging ultraviolet rays to
    reach the eye.'

    The citation #28 refers to an article in the Journal of the American
    Optometric Association. Though the full-text isn't available online,
    a MEDLINE abstract/citation can be found here, with the full article
    likely available at a local medical university library:

    From the FTC (Federal Trade Commission):
    'The FTC alleged that, among other things, the defendants represented
    that the pinhole glasses could correct vision disorders and
    permanently cure a wide range of vision deficiencies, including
    farsightedness, nearsightedness and astigmatism. In two separate
    settlements, the defendants would be prohibited in the future from
    making the alleged false claims or engaging in the practices
    challenged by the FTC . . . This is the fifth FTC case challenging
    claims for pinhole eyeglasses . . . In fact, the FTC complaint
    alleges, contrary to the defendants' representations, that:
    -- the use of pinhole eyeglasses does not result in long-
    term improvement in these vision problems;
    -- pinhole eyeglasses do not cure, correct or ameliorate
    specific vision problems;
    -- pinhole eyeglasses are not an adequate substitute for
    prescription lenses or contact lenses;
    -- the efficacy of pinhole eyeglasses in improving vision
    has not been proven by scientific research;
    -- pinhole eyeglasses do not eliminate the need for
    professional diagnosis and treatment of vision
    latest FTC:

    The Quackwatch eye page:


    LB, O.D.
    LarryDoc, Feb 24, 2006
  16. wrote in

    Great ideas.
    Scott Seidman, Feb 24, 2006
  17. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    Its true some vision improvement claims are unsubstained and
    exaggerated. Relisticlly, the average person improves a diopter and a
    half. Older people wont improve as much because some of the improvement
    is due to relieving tonic accomodation. The reason why the courts are
    after them is they make exaggerated claims. This leaves many customers
    disapointed. What they should say is: most, but not all people will
    improve their vision. You may not be free of glasses, but you can get
    weaker glasses and reduce your dependancy on glasses.
    acemanvx, Feb 24, 2006
  18. acemanvx

    Quick Guest

    Right... "Using our system you can wear these glasses
    instead of those glasses!" Where do I send my money?

    Quick, Feb 24, 2006
  19. acemanvx

    p.clarkii Guest

    the average person improves a diopter and a half.
    why do you make such declarative statements as if you know things for a
    fact, or as if you have some kind of training or experience in the
    subject? you are just a kid who takes drugs and surfs the internet
    while mooching off of your parents. you should either not post at all
    (preferable) or preface your remarks with "i think".
    p.clarkii, Feb 24, 2006
  20. acemanvx

    RT Guest

    What about all those friends of yours who have improved up to 5
    diopters? I thought that was your goal.
    RT, Feb 25, 2006
    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.