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

http://members.aol.com/myopiaprev/improvin.htm

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
myope!

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

or "pescription"

 

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.

 

spelling isnt my forte.


"And you don't think your accommodation could cause atypical responses
with
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
error.


"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!

 

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
smart.

 

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.

 

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
information.

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.

 

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.

LB

 

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.

 

"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
friends?


"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
is
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?

 

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.

 

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.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/ia_vision_improvement.html

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:

From QuackWatch.com:
====================
'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.'
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html

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:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt
=Abstract&list_uids=8436795


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
problems;
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/predawn/F95/laservision.htm
latest FTC:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/chaserevel.htm

The Quackwatch eye page:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html


Best,

LB, O.D.

 

wrote in @t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:

Great ideas.

 

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.

 

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

-Quick

 

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".

 

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