Vision clearing from -2.75 diopters to 20/25

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, May 3, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear prevention minded friends,

    (I have changed Miks name -- for obvious reasons.)

    Sometimes the natural eye will change its
    refractive state in a negative direction.
    For instance, and eye might measure at
    -2.75 diopters, but have "normal eye" myopia,
    or pseudo-myopia -- rather than "eye-length"

    If that is the case, then the individual
    can potentially clear his vision by
    "relaxing" the muscle, and clearing
    his vison to exceed the required
    DMV standard of 20/40 or better.

    Mike received a -1.5 diopter at age
    10, and at age 14 was wearing a
    -2.75 D. He decided to quit
    "cold turkey", and tried "Bates"
    and other recommeded methods
    by "second-opinion" optometrists
    including suggestions by Dr. Orfield
    and others.

    I explained that he MUST pass the
    legal visual requirement of reading
    1.8 cm letters at 6 meters -- when
    he turned 16.

    I also stated that vision-clering
    was VERY SLOW, and the the best
    estimated of "true-clearing" was
    about +1/2 diopter per year.

    The rest was up to him. Here is
    his pleasant review of his
    own work -- and results.

    We are on this earth to help each
    other. Think of it that way.

    Please enjoy!



    Subject: Clearing from -2.75 diopters to 20/20 -- a difficult
    thing to accomplish.

    I just received this from Mike. Please remember that the
    REAL standard that we ALL must pass -- is 20/40, not 20/20.
    However, once a person passes the DMV-Snellen, it is STILL in his
    best interest to continue to 20/20, or close to it.

    As Mike says, it is a great deal of work -- but it beats the
    alternative -- of having your eyes go "down" at a rate of -1/2
    diopter per year (average). [This data comes DIRECTLY from the
    "bifocal" studies. It indicates the consequences of NOT using the
    plus properly.]

    The natural eye -- maintained in the "open" will have a
    postive refractive state from zero to plus 2 dioters.

    The strong plus-lens for all reading simply moves all objects
    out to "infinity". This allows the eye to work the way it is
    designed to work.

    This "i-see" forum is where we hear about preventive
    solutions -- be they the plus lens or other methods. Here is
    Mike's statement about his use of the plus.




    Dear Mike,

    Subject: Reply and discussion

    Mike> Stacy said that -2.5 diopters myopia is a good thing.

    Otis> I obviously believe it is TERRIBLE thing. Someone with THAT
    belief is going to over-prescribe the minus by a profound
    amount. You found this out when you were reading 20/40 --
    and recieved a -2.0 diopter prescription. That is the reason
    why I asked you read your own eye chart. Trust youself --
    and what you see. Take responsibility to know and PASS all
    legal visual requirements that apply to you.

    Mike> Speaking as a person who has been at that -2.75 dipter stage
    -- it is not. I had a heck of a time just getting where I
    am now.

    Otis> I know this -- and I admire you greatly for being willing to
    engage in this type of fight.

    Mike> Even maintaining this effort is not easy.

    Otis> I know. This is why I am aware of only about 20 people in
    this world who have done it successfully. Not easy -- by
    any standard!

    Mike> I would have quit long ago but for the fact that the plus
    works and I got feedback from my eyechart.

    Otis> You are independent minded -- and establish specific goals
    in your life. It takes a "strong will" to do this --

    Mike> I have been hearing about bi-focal studies. My theory about
    bi-focals is that they would make presbyopia occur much
    earlier and severe in a person.

    Otis> Actually, the purpose of the bi-focal studies was to
    demonstrate that the plus could "work" properly under
    "prescription" conditions. As you know the minus is
    over-prescribed by -2 diopters. Just getting rid of that -2.0
    diopters is a major step. The ODs are attempting a
    "compromise" -- and that does not work. Go all-out with the
    plus -- or do not bother with it at all -- in my judgment.

    Mike> I printed off an eyechart -- when I started the plus use and
    measured 20/70 to 20/50 initially. It is the standard
    eyechart with a big E at the top.

    Otis> Your first major decision was to quit the minus cold turkey.
    That was the most important decision. Once I knew you could
    see 20/50 -- I knew there was "hope".

    Mike> I pulled it out again after a few months and WOW! My vision
    amazed me. 20/40 was not just legetable -- it was clear.
    And 20/30 was the clearest I had ever seen it. I read some
    characters on the 20/25 line. Also my 20/20 and my 20/25
    scores are much the same but I thought I would do worse on
    the 20/20, but they were both almost the same.

    Otis> I am very pleased with your own PERSONAL success. I am
    almost certain that you can qualify for flight status --
    with just a little more work. As Stacy said, absolute 20/20
    is a bit excessive. In fact the JAA (European) standard is
    more reasonable. They require 20/20 (both eyes) but allow
    20/30 in an individual eye. Much more acceptable.

    Otis> Very few people can do what you have done. Your desire to
    qualify as a pilot is a strong motivator -- for both your
    learning and the physical work of using the plus
    agressively. I think you have down a terrific job,
    considering the difficulties.




    otisbrown, May 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. I may be wrong, but I think you are encouraging people with myopia to
    drive without their glasses. If that's not correct, please state it.

    If you are, that is a disservice to public safety. For example, a 1.5
    D. myope may be able to "pass the DMV" test without his/her glasses, but
    to drive, especially at night without the correction is just
    irresponsible. Even if they can squeeze out 20/25, it's a very blurred
    20/25 and they would certinaly not be able to discern a pedestrian in
    the roadway as they would if they were in sharp 20/20, 20/15, or 20/10

    Presumably, you even would recommend a pilot who can just see 20/20
    without glasses to fly without them, when the same pilot could see a
    crisp 20/15 or 20/10 with glasses. Another disservice. Another threat
    to safety. Certainly a pilot would detect another plane when it was
    TWICE AS FAR AWAY with 20/10 as compared to 20/20 vision.

    20/20 is Snellen standard vision. It is not perfect vision. Most young
    pilots have or can correct to 20/10, and if they can, that's what they
    should use. Accepting less could be suicidal and/or homicidal.

    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, May 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear William,

    I may be wrong, but I think you are encouraging people with myopia to
    drive without their glasses. If that's not correct, please state it.

    This is absolutly FALSE.

    First, this man is 15 years old.

    Second, in conversations with him, I INSISTED that he have a
    medical exam -- to ellimate all possible MEDICAL problems.
    He did -- and passed the MEDICAL part.

    Thirdly, I explained that he MUST pass the DMV-Snellen in
    the DMV office -- or he could not drive a car.

    Fourth, to that purpose, I insisted that he check his own
    chart to make certain that he EXCEED this requirement -- so
    that when he went to take the test -- he would pass it.

    You think that myopia is a wonderful thing -- and you are
    entitled to that point of view. Mike does not agree
    with you -- and wishes to PROTECT his distance vision -- as
    you do not wish to do so. He has that right.

    That is the status, and I will send this to Mike so he knows
    you are concerned about him.


    20/20 is Snellen standard vision. It is not perfect vision. Most
    pilots have or can correct to 20/10, and if they can, that's what they
    should use. Accepting less could be suicidal and/or homicidal.

    Yes, you can "crank up" on a minus and produce a -1 diopter
    prescription -- when no lens is needed or required.
    This is so-called "best visual acuity" prescription,
    or "over-prescribed" by several diopters. I shudder
    to think of the amount of "stair case" myopia
    prodiced by the BVA practice.



    cc Mike
    otisbrown, May 3, 2005
  4. I had written
    The above nonsense demonstrates a profound ignorance of refraction, or a
    complete inability or refusal to understand my words above. We DO NOT
    crank up the minus to achieve 20/15 or 20/10. Young emmetropes already
    have it with no lenses at all. Hyperopes often need us to "crank up"
    the PLUS to achieve it, and astigmats need us to zero in on their
    toricity to achieve it. Yes, a myopic eye will need some minus to be
    able to read the smallest letters (or see the farthest airplane) their
    eyes are capable of seeing at optical infinity. That is the very
    DEFINITION of myopia. That is NOT overprescribing. Over prescribing is
    adding more minus than is necessary to bring the smallest resolvable
    target into sharp or clear focus. All optometrists avoid
    overprescribing minus by various techniques. Obviously, some are so
    afraid of giving more than is necessary that they end up UNDERCORRECTING
    the myopia. Fine for a 15 year old, although I'd argue he may be
    missing some of the whiteboard info at school. NOT fine for a driver or
    a pilot. I repeat: NOT FINE; read that DANGEROUS.

    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, May 3, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I bet Otis "shudders" everytime he makes a blatantly false, or
    misleading statement about myopic progression and minus lenses in this

    Let's make one thing absolutely clear, Otis, and that is you are
    voicing an "opinion," and not making a factual statement.

    Dr. Leukoma, May 3, 2005
  6. I think it's fine for him to advocate plus (or often more appropriately,
    less minus) for myopia for "training" purposes, as in the safety of ones
    bedroom or whatever. But not where it counts (like flying, driving,
    operating a crane, doing surgery, walking a tightrope, playing tennis,
    racing motorcycles, skiing, you name your activity where there is any
    danger at all). Deliberately recommending detuning someone to a blurred
    20/20 or 20/25 or whatever is "just legal", is just irresponsible, esp.
    from a person who is holding himself out to know something about
    physiological optics. I haven't yet decided if it is just truly
    ignorance, or if it is just snake oil, deliberatly sold to the
    unwitting. Tell me it's not dementia or paranoia.

    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, May 3, 2005
  7. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Of course he can spout, he isn't accountable. I think it is neither
    dementia nor paranoia, just plain hatred of the "system" as he
    perceives it. Of course it couldn't be the genes. It is that cabal of
    evil optometrists...and ophthalmologists

    Dr. Leukoma, May 4, 2005
  8. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Gawd..... 15 years old, barely hitting puberty, and he calls him a man....

    Doesn't drive, can't drink, jailbait..... yet Otis calls him a "man".

    Oh yeah, what credibility you show Otis. Zilch, none when you use children
    for your primary source for your opinions.

    Sheez, another made up character.... In this case, I sure hope so!

    A Lieberman, May 4, 2005
  9. So you told a 15 year old that he "MUST pass the DMV" or he could not
    drive a car? Was this with our without glasses? I mean I'm a little
    slow on the uptake, but I think you just told a minor that he had to
    "pass the DMV" or he could not drive a car. Otis, you are nuts. This
    is beyond the pale. Give it up. Die or something. This has no
    relation to reality....

    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, May 4, 2005
  10. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    For instance, and eye might measure at
    Do you finally acknowledge now that accommodative myopia
    is the only form of myopia where your plus lens therapy has a
    chance to work! If so-- hats off to you Otis. Maybe your
    mind is a little more "dynamic" than I suspected.
    RM, May 4, 2005
  11. otisbrown

    Bushmaster Guest

    Presumably, you even would recommend a pilot who can just see 20/20
    Sir, are you suggesting that the pilot who maintains 20/20 "SHOULD"
    wear minus to have 20/10? Let me get that clear first... HAVING 20/10
    vision doesn't always mean the pilot will spot the target or the
    traffic, that is also an issue of training. I know pilots can take up
    A2A while they are 20/30 or land on an aircraft carrier while they are
    20/40!!! That is why service branches have minimums when it comes to
    visual acuity. Today, if you have 20/20 the service branch WILL
    DEFINITELY NOT suggest you should go and slap another -1/2 or -1 on
    your face in order to get 20/10 so you can see the target sharp. If the
    service branches are not using the snellen for standards then all the
    medical instructions and documents are lying. If they are using it,
    what is this fuss of yours? None of the pilots that I KNOW use minus to
    achieve 20/10, and they have normal 20/20.

    Let us look at this tragedy here...
    smallest >resolvable target into sharp or clear focus.
    when the >same pilot could see a crisp 20/15 or 20/10 with glasses.
    Another disservice.

    So if 20/20 is not normal vision, what is it? Why do service branches
    use it as standard? What does the AF require from its candidates today?
    20/10 or 20/20? Accoding to what standard? What chart do they use? Do
    20/10 jocks go fighter/bomber track while 20/20 go tanker/transport? Do
    20/10 guys go AH-64 while 20/20 or 20/30 go Blackhawk? Answer my
    questions without ad hominems please!!!
    Bushmaster, May 4, 2005
  12. otisbrown

    Bushmaster Guest

    Otis, you are nuts. This is beyond the pale. Give it up. Die or
    something. This has no relation to reality....

    This is pathetic sir, no other words, that kid is also on my email
    group and he knows that he can drive but with glasses if he can not
    pass the DMV. He is not a retard you know, like most would treat 16 and
    below as such nowadays, they know a lot. You on the other hand
    purposely bashing Otis for no reason, his sentence and what he meant is
    clear (from what we are talking about) You are a little slow on a lot
    of things... i.e. Vietnam war is over... :) F-4s are retired like you
    are >:->
    Bushmaster, May 4, 2005
  13. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear RM,

    Mike at 2.75 diopters was NEVER told that he had
    PREVENTABLE myopia.

    The OD simply spun the dials on his phoropter, and declared
    that Mike had myopia and the -2.75 diopter was the "cure".

    The only way that Mike found out that the negative refractive
    state was prevetable -- was to start reading his own
    chart, working VERY HARD with the plus, and verifying
    that VERY SLOWLY the lines on the eye chart
    began to clear.

    But this is no thanks to the OD who said NOTHING about
    the preventive "second opinion" and how to do it.

    Fortunately there are now ODs who WILL support the
    child and parent with this preventive method -- because
    they are using a strong plus on their own chidren.
    I would suggest reading this honest second
    opinion by Steve Leung.

    A true professional would have no problem discussing
    this alternative with parents when their child
    is reading 20/50 -- and a decision must be
    made -- not by you -- but by the parents.

    But you mind is closed to this. By your mind
    is closed to this -- which is why Mike had
    no choice but the figure out how to
    do is himself -- and avoid the
    -1/2 diopter per year "down" rate
    that chidren get into when they begin
    wearing an over-prescribed minus lens
    prescribed for "best visual acuity" -- because
    you believe that they "want" 20/10 vision.

    Respecting a child's right to an informed, second-opinion
    is the first step in preventing a negative refractive
    state of the eye.

    If you informed a parent honestly about this issue,
    the WORST they could do would be to say
    they have no interest in true-prevention. And
    THEN you could place a minus lens on their face.

    Let use learn to grow in wisdom and knowledge
    about this subject my friend.


    otisbrown, May 4, 2005
  14. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Spare me the long blah blah dialogue about the "second opinion" etc. We are
    all so sick of hearing your diatribe about Raphaelson,, old
    dead behavioral optometrists, "the wretched minus", the great OD/MD
    conspiracy to make everyone need eyeglasses, how our minds are "closed"
    while yours is enlightened, etc.

    I am glad that you apparently now realize that some myopia is "preventable"
    and that some is not. Accommodative myopia can perhaps be treated with plus
    lenses, or more realistically simply by not using the minus lens
    prescription, when that patient is doing near tasks. Anatomical myopia,
    which is far more prevalent, and is due to
    increased axial length and/or refractive power of the lens/cornea, cannot be
    treated in this fashion.

    If you are actually agreeing to this Otis then I give you credit for finally
    learning something from all the schooling and references that have been
    provided to you over the last two years.

    PS-- Good eyedocs do not "overprescribe" minus lenses as you seem to
    suggest. Really Otis-- you are so off track with your crusade against minus
    lens correction that you need to switch to something else. You are an
    embarrassment to engineers everywhere. Go back to the sextant and other
    15th century technologies where you are better grounded in the science.

    RM, May 4, 2005
  15. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    In semi-darkness the eye goes to a "dark-focus" or tonic accommodation
    position. This was discovered about 100 years ago by Rayliegh (Sp)
    and others.

    In room illumination this same eye could well have 20/40 vision and
    pass the DMV-Snellen test. (But you NEVER check for this -- of
    course -- but Mike did.)

    Now, if Mike spent 16 hours a day in semi, or deep darkness
    then yes, he should be wearing a -2.5 diopter lens.

    But, under DMV test conditions -- there would be
    no reason to do so, and the -2.5 diopters would be
    grossly over-prescribed.

    But Mike knows this -- because he know what YOU think
    and what YOU DO.

    Equally, Mike accepted personal responsibility to keep his
    distant vision clear -- even though it took time for him
    to do it.

    Yes, his 20/40 was tempoary -- as he worked to clear
    to 20/20. Now that he is at 20/20 he will pass
    the DMV with flying collors -- no thanks to you.

    In the future, should he do long-term studying, and
    see his eye-chart move down to 20/30, then
    he, as aresponsible adult, will simply re-start
    his plus lens use, and clear back
    to 20/20.

    Since you told me that only I have "interest" in prevention
    and you do not -- then you are you concerned that
    Mike figured out how to do this scientific work "correctly"

    You are acting more like a person "defending the faith",
    rather than a person concerned with Mike's long
    term visual welfare.


    otisbrown, May 4, 2005
  16. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Yes, you can "crank up" on a minus and produce a -1 diopter
    Sorry Otis but this simply isn't true. If you a persons best acuity is
    20/20 or 20/15, you cannot "crank up" the minus to produce 20/10. This is
    simply not done in modern eyecare. A myope is routinely given the least
    minus to produce the best visual acuity (BVA) that they can obtain.

    The DMV standard for getting an unrestricted drivers license in most states
    is 20/40 in at least one eye. However, if this were the acuity that
    everyone actually had when they were driving around on a busy interstate
    highway at night then the accident rate would increase astronomically.
    IMHO, everyone should wear their BVA distance prescription when driving
    PERIOD. I don't care one crapola about your "prevention" theories or about
    your notions of "the wretched minus". Everyone needs to see as clearly as
    the optics of their eyes allow when they are driving PERIOD. To recommend
    anything other than that is like recommending they should have a few drinks
    and exceed the speed limit when they drive.
    RM, May 4, 2005
  17. Bushmaster wrote:

    No, I'm suggesting that he should wear whatever it takes to get him to a
    clear 20/10. That could be plus, minus, or any combination of + and -.

    Let me get that clear first... HAVING 20/10
    Of course not. But having 20/10 means that he WILL BE ABLE to spot an
    approaching target sooner than he would if he were a blurred 20/20.

    I know pilots can take up
    Not on my watch, they wouldn't. At least not without their glasses.
    It is STANDARD VISION. I thought everyone on this newsgroup understood
    that simple definition.

    Why do service branches
    Because it is just that.
    William Stacy, May 4, 2005
  18. Bushmaster wrote:

    You on the other hand
    Aren't you the one who suggested dropping the ad hominums?

    I will stick to the facts if you will. But I will always object to
    someone who suggests people do something that could be dangerous. And I
    will challenge when someone states something that is erroneous or
    blatantly false.

    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, May 4, 2005
  19. otisbrown

    Bushmaster Guest

    No, I'm suggesting that he should wear whatever it takes to get him to
    a clear >20/10. That could be plus, minus, or any combination of + and

    Unfortunately and gladly this is not a requirement by the service
    branches.... it is your "yes-no-maybe so-feel good" assertion and it
    has no ground in any medical documents that are in use by service
    branches. It is nonsense to correct someone to 20/10 who already meets
    the service standards.
    I don't know what to say, you are the only "doctor" I have met who
    refers to 20/20 "blurry" That is a start I guess :) I can start
    talking about how fighter pilots spot targets today technically but I
    won't go there..
    Your watch has ended, simply put, 20/40 requirement for Navy is there
    to allow pilots land on the deck without the help of glasses. A pilot
    over 20/40 will not be allowed to do so.
    Well, if it is standard, is it also blurry??? You haven't answered a
    bunch of my questions, "it is just that" is not an answer from a person
    in your position. It is the fact that US Military requires 20/20 from
    its pilot candidates and that is the end of 20/10 story of yours.
    I have applied Otis plus theory successfully, at least I am maintaining
    stable standard vision while my branch of service requires 20/50 from
    its pilots. So Otis theory worked for me so this doesn't mean he is
    completely false. Also since when the truths are ad hominems? Vietnam
    war is over, right? Right! And Phantoms are in museums today, right?
    Right. You are retired as well from the AF in 1975! Enough said!
    Bushmaster, May 4, 2005
  20. Bushmaster wrote:
    It is nonsense to correct someone to 20/10 who already meets
    I never met a pilot who didn't want 20/10 if he could get it, except
    you. They ALWAYS wanted the crispest vision they could get, always.
    You seem afraid of having crisp, sharp vision. And you fly planes. My
    goodness, what a dangerous combo you are. You should stop flying.
    Here we go again. I never met a doctor that DID NOT use the term
    "blurry 20/20" We see use it all the time. It simply means you can
    make out the 20/20 size letters at 20 ft, you can say the letters, but
    it is BLURRY! What part of that don't you understand???
    The the navy has gotten stupid. Why would you "allow" a pilot to land
    with 20/40 when he corrects to 20/20, 20/15 or 20/10? Why on earth?
    (actually, I doubt the navy got stupid, I think your statement is in error).
    It can be clear or it can be blurred. If the refractive error is not
    properly corrected it will be blurry. If the refractive error is
    properly, or fully, corrected (not "over" corrected, just normally
    corrected) it will be CLEAR. It is not exactly rocket science.
    Everyone knows the difference between clear and blurry. I think even you
    do, and maybe Otis does. Why don't you guys admit it?
    I did not retire, but was honorably discharged at the end of my draft
    term. And I am not in retirement from optometry.

    see: if you want the correct information.
    William Stacy, May 4, 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.