Vision Clearing from -2.75 diopters to normal in < 3 yrs..

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Jul 6, 2007.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    As you know, I advocate that a person receive eye exams.

    But equally, I adovcate that they be offered the PREVENTIVE
    second-opinion, before their Snellen goes below 20/50 or so.
    (About -1.25 diopters.)

    I have changed the name of "Mike" below, to
    protect him from you-know-who.

    In the 9th grade, Mike had a -2.75 diopter lens.

    After reading Bates and other advocacy, he decided
    ON HIS OWN to quit cold-turkey.

    I offered to provide SUGGESTIONS based on Steve Leung's

    Today he passes the DMV visual-acuity requirements
    of 20/40. He must continue using these preventive
    methods through the college years, since
    the un-protected eye goes DOWN at -1/3 diopter per year.


    Dear Mike,

    As you might know, I come under extreme attacks because I
    advocate that you:

    1. Have a medical exam (of course), but then,

    2. If you wish to clear your Snellen, you must do it yourself.

    There are far to many medical people who consider that
    quick-fixing with a minus is PERFECT, and will not talk to you
    about prevention.

    I OBJECT to that general attitude.

    But equally, I understand how hard it is to assert your own
    "force of will" for prevention.

    I will post some remarks on how to separate true "medical"
    visual issues, from a negative refractive STATE for your eyes --
    which you can deal with yourself. (In my opinion.)

    Some more commentary:


    Mike> I have noticed a pattern. When looking at my monitor
    eye-chart the letters that I most often get wrong are letters that
    can look like other letters. Like I might think a K is an X or a
    C is a G or a P is an F or an O is D or an E is a B. But I don't
    get letters wrong that are more unique. Like a Z.

    Otis> The Snellen was a SIMPLIFICATION of a means to quickly
    determine if you had 1 minute-of-arc resolution.
    (Cameras, and astronomy issues).

    Otis> An eye with a good retina, and a positive refractive STATE
    will have resolution (visual acuity) on that order. It is
    clear that some letters are "easier" than others, but the
    intention is that you get the "average", or read 1/2
    letters correctly (just to be consistent, for yourself and

    Mike> I was looking through my -.5 and thought to myself how close
    I am to perfect vision. I looked without it and then looked with
    it and there wasn't much difference.

    Otis> When clearing from -3 diopters (where you were, from "cold
    turkey"), then getting to 20/60 or better was critical.
    Going about 20/40, is much MORE DIFFICULT. 20/20 by ALL
    STANDARDS is very, very sharp vision. You will see a lot
    of detail -- that you NEVER saw before when you had a -3
    diopter "prescription".

    Mike> Concerning OD prevention with the plus.

    Mike> Also I don't really see why prevention couldn't be

    Otis> I wish it could be. In fact, I endorse PAYING an OD for
    this type of advice. As a practical matter, only one OD
    will actually help it.

    Otis> That is the reality. When I mention this on,
    I am told that he is a TOTAL JERK, and should be kicked
    out of optometry. Further, I am told that he should be
    sued for malpractice. There is a PROFOUND disincentive to
    help ANYONE with plus-prevention. That is a harsh truth.

    Mike> When I think of all of the people that wear a minus that
    don't really need it they just do what there OD tells them.

    Otis> I have suggested to Steve that he DISCUSS these issues with
    their clients, and send the person to

    Otis> If the child and parent are RECEPTIVE to vision clearing
    then they could proceed -- and avoid the minus. But
    nothing like this is going to happen, given the profound
    hostility of the majority-opinion ODs.

    Mike> So if he said that they needed a plus they would probably

    Otis> I would read my book, and the section on, the "Printer's
    Son". If the parent only wants his child to see, very
    VERY sharp, then the plus would seem to be a "joke" to the
    parents. You know how your own parents judge your work
    with the plus.

    Mike> I know that there is an instant effect of clarity if I look
    through a plus at a near object. You could easily "trick" people
    into thinking that there near vision is defective. Also if the
    attitude was that everyone should wear a plus lens you would
    include the people that pass the 20/20 line.

    Otis> You are RIGHT!!! But that would required and intelligent
    and INFORMED parent and child to understand WHY they must
    wear the plus at the threshold. Tragically, most people
    are either not that "smart", or do not care about their
    distant vision to do anything about it. But if YOU DO,
    then YOU can do something about it.

    Mike> It would seem to me that if the ODs advocated prevention they
    would increase profits not lose them.

    Otis> That remains an open question. So far I get endless
    hostility against BOTH the concept and the implementation
    of it. For now, you have to stand alone and do what you
    can for yourself.

    Mike> Through my time using the plus I have learned how to tell
    what other people's focal states are as well. If I look at their
    glasses while there wearing them I can tell if they are wearing a
    plus or a minus and the relative strength of the lens.

    Otis> Excellent! A course in physics and science will help you
    understand these issues.

    Mike> I told you that so I can tell you this. When I was at a
    store I passed a little kid and his mom pushing him in the cart.
    The kid must not have been over 5 years old and he was wearing

    Mike> However I could tell that he was wearing plus lenses of about
    +2. I have seen very little kids wearing glasses and all of them
    have been wearing pluses. Further proof that all people are born
    with positive focal states.

    Otis> Absolutely! But these "pluses" are prescribed because that
    positive refractive STATE is considered and "error", that
    must be "fixed" with the plus. The concept is profoundly
    different. But you are right, the doctor can prescribe
    the plus -- but the parents MUST understand the reason and
    goals for doing so.

    Mike> I was thinking back to the first time I was found not to pass
    the 20/20 line. My little sister and I were getting an exam
    before school started I was about 10 or 11 and she was 6 or 7. I
    was found to be nearsighted and she was found to be farsighted.

    Otis> Most REASONABLE ODs will measure a positive refractive STATE
    (and 20/20) and NEVER prescribe a plus. A positive
    refractive STATE is (tragically) called "farsighted", and
    considered an error or defect for that reason. In fact it
    is very valuable in a young child.

    Mike> Come to think of it I don't think I had ever had an eye
    examination before the age of about 9 or 10. I wonder what would
    have happened if I had been tested at age 6 or 7.

    Otis> Your refractive STATE would have been about +1/2 to 0.0
    diopters -- as a reasonable estimate.

    Maybe I would have been "farsighted" and maybe I would not be
    in this situation right now.

    Otis> If your refractive STATE were zero, (i.e., 20/20, but a +1/2
    would blur the 20/20 line, then your OD or MD should have
    SUGGESTED the use of the plus at that time. But your
    mother simply would not have "understood", so NO OD OR MD

    Mike> I have told my little sister how lucky she is. She reads a
    lot. I told her that if she had waited until about the time I was
    tested about 10 or 11 she would have probably been nearsighted.

    Mike> But what has happened has happened and nothing can change
    that. I can only control what I do now.

    Otis> That is exactly "it". You think that "third parties" can
    help you. They can in a crude sense with an
    over-prescribed minus lens. But, for personal issues like
    this, only you can help yourself.

    Otis> I do not see any other way to do it.


    otisbrown, Jul 6, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    but then you advocate that the person ignor any and all advise from
    the doctor who gives him the exam and instead you suggest that they
    wear plus lenses instead. you really should be clear about what you
    advocate otis.
    do you realize that 20/50 acuity can be caused by a multitude of
    problems, e.g. astigmatism, amblyopia, hyperopia, cataracts, corneal
    scarring, retinal pathology, etc.?
    quit tip-toeing around the truth. you gave him medical advise.
    well that sucks. 20/40 is blurry. and furthermore 20/40 is not very
    different from 20/50 which is his starting point after all your
    therapy. not much of an effect, right otis?
    bullshit. you can't read and understand data can you Otis? a
    subgroup of patients termed progressive myopes develop myopia at this
    rate, not the whole population or the average of the whole population.

    you are a simpleton thinker otis. I truly doubt that you ever were an
    p.clarkii, Jul 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    I think he was. For the choo-choo trains in his parents' basement.
    Guest, Jul 7, 2007
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Otis> Mike further discusses his work to clear from 20/200 to 20/30.



    Subject: Clear 20/30

    Mike> As for my visual accuity before using the plus by what my
    standards are today i.e. no squinting. I guess I would have
    20/200 or worse (my eye chart only went to 20/200.) I had done
    research and I did know that 20/200 was legal blindness but I just
    couldn't accept how much my vision had deteriorated. I did not
    want to be LEGALLY BLIND.

    Mike> I am a huge football fan and I love large 4th quarter
    comeback from behind victories and seeing as how my "4th quarter"
    started out at 20/200 -2.75 I can't help but feel like I am in

    Mike> In helping Morgan I have had to think back about when I
    started out using the plus lens. Functioning with legal
    blindness. Things that I did that helped. It made me remember an
    excersize that I had forgotten about. I printed off an eyechart
    that has this pattern on it (l:l:l:) I wear my pluses and just try
    to make things clear. Long story short I have gone to a pretty
    clear 20/40 to a halfways clear 20/30 to a clear 20/30 and a
    halfways clear 20/25 within 5 days.

    Mike> My dad once told me a story that went like this. A scientist
    fed two dogs. Before he fed them he rang a bell. He did this
    every time he fed them for about a year. Then he took them into a
    lab and rang the bell and the dogs started salivating. They were
    drooling pretty good. They had a physiological response to a bell
    being rung.

    Mike> I have used this idea in my use of the plus. Every time I do
    something that brings about better vision such as using the plus I
    memorize what my eyes felt like at the time. Then I look at an
    eyechart and try to make them feel the same way.

    Mike> I have been told that you cannot volentarily focus your eyes
    but I think I can to an extent. Today I looked at a blurry 20/30
    like usual and I thought of what my eyes felt like with a plus on
    them. I consiously tried to make them feel like that and I saw
    20/30 get clear. I actually managed to pass 20/25 without
    squinting but 20/20 is still out of reach. I know that this
    cannot be a result of my pupil because I did the same thing in
    darkness (clear 20/30).

    Mike> One thing that I noticed was that after getting 20/30 into
    focus I tested myself 7 hours later and the 20/30 held.

    Mike> As you said before everyone has there own understanding that
    makes sense to them but not to everyone else. I understand whats
    happening. I don't know how clearly this is to understand for you
    but to me it makes perfect sense.


    (As always, Mike's name has been changed to protect
    him from harassment by you-know-who.)

    otisbrown, Jul 8, 2007
  5. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    Dear Otis "Cut and Run" Brown:

    please explain to us why uncorrected hyperopes, who strain to see at
    distance and near 24/7, do not develop into myopes, or a least become
    less hyperopic.

    while you are at it, why not explain why uncorrected myopes, who are
    essentially wearing weak reading glasses 24/7, do not become less
    myopic overtime but instead oftentimes become even more myopic.

    And how can you explain why children who have been intentionally
    overminused do not become more myopic than children who have not been
    overminused. I thought you told us that staircase myopia would cause
    their refractive error to increase.

    And why did your very own neice, Joy, whom you harassed into following
    your crackpot recommendations of wearing the "preventative plus" still
    turn out to be myopic and now has a rescrti,

    just answer the questions and don't revert to another raphaelson story
    or another lie about a famous eye doctor that you were friends with
    who told you what a genius you really are. Just face it Otis, you are
    no Galileo. You are just a washed up old retired sanitary engineer
    who has an axe to grind because you couldn't qualify to be a jet pilot
    like you wanted to be because you had thick glasses (you wouldn't have
    made it anyway).
    p.clarkii, Jul 8, 2007
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    The Majority-opinion is that the minus works and is

    The Second-opinion is that, it is a "necessary" evil.

    Here Mike (name changed to protect him from
    you-know-who) discusses his successful efforts
    to clear his Snellen to pass the DMV Legal




    Dear Mike,

    Re: Mike cleared his vision from -2.75 dipoters, 20/200, to pass
    all LEGAL DMV visual acuity requirements -- by his own
    efforts with a plus lens and other methods.

    Statement: What a powerful and effective vision-clearing success
    you have accomplished.

    I ALWAYS HOPE that the person I talk to will "get the

    And you have done so -- to your own credit.

    Given the basic data you provided, a refractive STATE of
    -2.75 diopters, and a current STATE of -0.75 diopters, you have
    gotten your natural eyes to change by +2 diopters in about two

    The base-line data for kids in a "school" environment, is
    -1/2 diopters AVERAGE. Thus, while you would have gone DOWN by -1
    diopters, you instead went up by +2 diopters.

    That is a profound success, given the majority-opinion that

    I always say prevention, because I understand that
    vision-clearing is a two step process.

    1. To SLOWLY get to 20/40 (pass all the REASONABLE DMV tests),

    2. To SUSTAIN THE SUCCESS you have achieved, of 20/40 or better.

    Part 2 is more important that Part 1 -- in my opinion.

    I know your parents do not "approve" of what you are doing,
    and your friends will not have a "clue" about what you are doing.

    But you have achieved an "impossible" success -- by any

    More commentary:


    Mike> Otis,

    Mike> You mentioned that my eyes would have gone down an
    additional -4 diopters throughout college. -4 minus my
    -2.75 would equal -6.75.

    Otis> These numbers (-1/2 diopter per year) are average -- of
    course. You might have gone down to -8 diopters, or
    perhaps only -5 diopters. But you would have been blind
    without the minus, and would have had to wear it 16/7.

    Mike> That just so happens to be my mothers exact focal state and
    she went to a 4 year college. I looked on her contacts box
    and it said -6.75. I guess I have her genes when it comes
    to adaptability of the eyes.

    Otis> Yes, and you also have her intelligence, which you wisely
    used to come to grips with this problem. You have been
    insightful about these issues -- to you personal advantage.

    Mike> Concerning Neil Brooks and other Majority opinion holders:

    Mike> It does not phase me a bit to have criticism. You forget
    that I live with 4 people like that.

    Otis> So did I. My father, my mother, and my sister. But they
    RESPECTED my curiosity -- even though they did not
    understand it, and the reasons for it.

    Mike> To simply have someone write up an e mail criticizing me is
    actually a much easier thing to deal with then your own
    immediate family.

    Otis> Yes, when my family thought badly of me -- THAT HURT. But
    then there were people like Raphaelson who had a "vision"
    of how a preventive future could exist -- and that helped
    ease the "hurt".

    Mike> One benefit to living with criticism on a regular basis from
    people that close to you is that you develop a very thick
    skin. Like water off a ducks back.

    Otis> I know it is tough. But I saw Raphaelson "stand tall" and
    fight, and so I had to do the same thing he did.

    Mike> Concerning Ortho K

    Mike> To me ortho K is perfect for many people out there. It is
    expensive so it makes the OD happy and you get naked eye
    20/20 or better so the customer is happy.

    Otis> That is exactly it. If a person is in a "hurry" to get to
    20/20 or better, then Ortho-K can change your refractive
    STATE by +2 diopters. The slower way is indeed continued
    use of the plus. That is why I had you determine your
    refractive STATE yourself. I also wanted you to understand
    that 20/40 is a profound SUCCESS, and that you should not
    be discouraged because further clearing is VERY SLOW. You
    are a profound success NOW.

    Mike> Personally I will not use Ortho K because I think that what
    I am doing is very valuable for others.

    Otis> For others, but always FOR YOURSELF. I know that no one
    will listen to you and me. The only person who truly
    "matters" is yourself and your own judgment of these
    issues. It is the quality of your mind that counts for

    Mike> I am charting new territory.

    Otis> Yes you are. But the "world" will never recognize it.

    Mike> From legal blindness to nearly perfect vision is a long way.

    Otis> Yes, but only you know you have done it, against a
    statistical back-drop of -1/2 diopter per year.

    Mike> I did this without ortho K and I think I can make it the
    rest of the way without it.

    Otis> I think you can also. Once you pass the 20/40 line, I take
    the use of the plus to be like brushing teeth on a regular
    basis. You do it because you know what will happen if you
    don't do it. Obviously this is another personal choice.

    Mike> Concerning current visual status

    Mike> Last night I couldn't sleep and got up at 11:55. I tested
    my vision. It was in complete darkness. I wanted to see
    if I could pass the 20/30 line. I accidentally clicked
    "smaller" one too many times and got the 20/25 line. I
    thought I was reading the 20/30 line but actually I was
    reading the 20/25.

    Mike> I read this line clearly but still no non squinting 20/20.

    Otis> No-squinting 20/20 will take time. You have -0.75 to -1
    diopter to "clear", and that is indeed slow. When people
    "clear" as you have done, the eye "plateaus" at 20/30 and
    tends to stay there for some time. This is something you
    must accept. Just rejoice in your 20/40 vision, and keep
    working at it.

    Mike> However I tested my vision at 11:30 in the afternoon today
    and it was a usual 20/40. I don't know why my vision gets
    worse in the day time but gets better at night.

    Otis> Variation of two or three lines is absolutely normal. Just
    be prepared for it. You are now looking a SLOW clearing.

    Mike> At my local drug store I was looking at plus lenses and I
    found something interesting. Bifocal plus lenses. I don't
    think I will get them because I don't think they are
    necessary but nevertheless I thought they were interesting.

    Otis> Yes -- interesting. But the simple plus is the better idea
    for you -- in my opinion.

    Otis> Keep up the excellent work, and keep me posted about your
    thoughts. This is a learning experience for BOTH OF US --
    and I enjoy the work.



    otisbrown, Jul 11, 2007
  7. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest


    Wow. Yet another third-hand, unverifiable anecdote from the
    notoriously dishonest Otis Brown.

    I'd suggest it be summarily disregarded.
    Neil Brooks, Jul 11, 2007
  8. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Judy,

    I did in fact pass on your message.

    It is obviously that he judged that you were "nit picking"
    the definition.

    I said, that if he lost or broke his glasses, he would
    be functionally, "blind" with no minus lens on his face.

    You discredit this man's intelligence on the subject.

    We BOTH know that you can place a -3 diopter lens
    on a person with 20/200, and create 20/20 vision -- but
    that is not the point.

    The real issue is that Mike understood that the scientific
    facts show that the natural eye will respond to an
    applied -3 diotper lens, by changing its refractive
    STATE by -2 diopters in less than six months.

    But that is pure science, and NOT MEDICINE, if
    you like to nit-pick.

    This suggests that while the minus works, and is
    impressive in five minutes, it is not, in the long-run
    a "better" solution.

    This is the issue that Mike understood, and took
    effective actions to change his refracitve STATE
    by +2 diopters in two years, thus clearing his
    Snellen to meet or exceed the legal visual-acuity
    requirments of the DMV.

    He also understands that he will continue working with
    the plus, and in time might clear off the reaming
    -0.75 diopters that currently remain.

    Obviously that will depend on his own understanding
    and motivaiton to be successful -- the same as
    Dr. Stirling Colgate was successful.


    otisbrown, Jul 12, 2007
  9. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    Again Otis, you demonstrate your narrow-minded and simplistic
    understanding of vision correction and vision development.

    Sorry, but people can have acuities of 20/200 due to hyperopia,
    astigmatism, cataracts, and many other causes. WE do not know that a
    -3.00 lens will cause a 20/200 acuity to correct to 20/20. sorry if
    that's being a little too detailed for you. i realize you like to
    simply everything
    Sorry, but no such data exists. We are talking about humans here
    Otis, not monkeys who were caged and had -3.00D lenses sutured
    permanently to their eyes even though they did not need any refractive
    correction. The situation you are trying to compare is a person who
    actually might have a -3.00D prescription and whom you are correcting
    back to emmetropia. Apples and oranges Otis. The monkeys didn't need
    any correction while Mike apparently does (or perhaps he just has
    cataracts-- but thats a detail you just ignor). The monkeys ended up
    overcorrected by 3.00 diopters while Mike presumably would not. And
    after the monkeys wore -3.00 D lenses that were not necessary to
    achieve emmetropia they most likely developed reflex pseudomyopia from
    being overminused. Sorry that you probably don't understand any of
    that but just suffice it to say that once again, you are proven wrong
    and your attempts to extrapolate old data from monkeys to humans who
    actually need the lenses to achieve normal vision is inappropriate.
    what a moronic statement. right up there with "fundamental eye" and
    other blah blah that you just make up and makes no sense to anyone but
    i guess not if you prefer to stumple around in a blur, and fail to see
    a car driving toward you while cross the street.
    more than likely Mike was a hyperope who actually saw more clearly
    with +2.00 lenses on.
    but I'm sure you just don't understand that.
    Vision correction is so simple for you isn't it Otis. Everyone is
    just like Stirling Colgate and your nephew Keith. Just avoid the
    wretched minus and use "the plus" and the planets will all come into
    alignment. But then there's that problem with your neice Joy who
    followed your approach and still ended up myopic. Oh well, she always
    was a little weak-willed. If she would have just tried a little
    harder she could have made it.

    Life is good when you are a simpleton isn't it Otis.
    p.clarkii, Jul 12, 2007
  10. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    Nit picking???????

    So its okay to just make up a new definition to suit your purposes?

    Great. Guess I can say I'm legally a fighter pilot after I build a
    paper one and send it across the room.

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Jul 13, 2007
  11. Great. Guess I can say I'm legally a fighter pilot after I build a
    Didn't we all?

    Ah, I miss the days of being a care free child...

    Kisame Hoshigaki, Jul 13, 2007
    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.