Wavefront LASIK and surface retreatments are a hoax!

Discussion in 'Laser Eye Surgery' started by southeasteyecare, Sep 16, 2006.

  1. Wavefront LASIK and surface retreatments are a hoax. Once you rip up a
    flap or remove the epithelium, the wavefront map is no longer
    applicable to that eye. No wonder so many patients are made worse by
    wavefront retreatments.

    What do you think, Otis?
    southeasteyecare, Sep 16, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. southeasteyecare

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear southeasteyecare,

    I have nothing to say about Lasik.

    Only about preveting the development of a negative
    refractive STATE of the eye -- at the threshold -- based
    on pure science as it concerns the behavior of
    all natural eyes.


    otisbrown, Sep 16, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. southeasteyecare

    otisbrown Guest

    I certainly agree the plus-prevention on the threshold
    is a decision or choice the person himself must

    Given the arrogance of Dr. Grant, and his hostility
    towards the preventive second-opinion, I doubt
    that you will ever be involved in effective


    otisbrown, Sep 16, 2006
  4. southeasteyecare

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    The "eye doctor" who gets involved with the SCIENTIFIC
    FACTS -- and can judge them CORRECTLY will
    have his child BEGIN wearing that plus at the
    threshold -- when it MUST be used to be effective.

    The SECOND-OPINION ODs children will simply
    NEVER enter into a negative refractive STATE because
    of that knowledge and wisdom.

    It is his concern for his own children's visual
    welfare, and the ability to "control" their "near"
    environment with the proper-strength plus
    that makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

    But you are a "majority-opinion OD" who
    can not understan that TRUE ISSUE. I indeed
    regret that fact -- but that is the way it is.


    otisbrown, Sep 17, 2006
  5. southeasteyecare

    otisbrown Guest


    If you wish to argue that the plus does not "work" in
    5 minutes -- I would agree with you.

    If you wish to argue that plus-prevention is tedious -- I will
    agree with you.

    But when you insist that a minus 3 diopter lens
    has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of the
    natural eye -- I must totally disagree with
    you because science tells us the dead
    opposite of your biased belief.




    Dear Prevention-minded freind,

    The "problem" with plus-prevention.

    People often ask how I "know" that prevention is possible at the
    threshold. The reason it this:

    1. It has already been accomplised (on the threshold of 20/60, or
    diopters) and

    2. The fundamental science of the eye's behavior says so. (Primate

    Now what is the problem? The problem is this:

    1. It is tedious.

    2. Most people have NO INTEREST in clearing their vision
    with a plus -- since it is tedious. They want their vision
    made-sharp in 5 minutes with a minus.

    Anyone wishing to "clear" their vision (from 20/60) must understand
    this issue.

    Here is the example of 34 cases where vision was "cleared" from
    a negative value to normal.

    But this should be a "factor" in your decision to help your
    child "clear" from 20/60. Note that it took several months
    to clear. This is what I would expect for your child. It
    takes commitment on the part of the parent and child.
    Both must "stick" with it.

    Also note that the "plus" was 3.5 diopters. I think that the
    "plus" should be about 2.5 diopters -- but your child can
    work "up" to that amount of plus.

    You have taken one MAJOR STEP in vision clearing.
    You measured her snellen youself. In my opinion, if
    you see the vision-clearing results -- you will believe them.
    I think that is the only way to be confident.

    I know this is completely "new" to you -- so take your
    time. Accept that it is "difficult" but possible. But
    it truly does take personal determination and
    resolve, and trust in your own ability.




    Vision Clearing -- Both the Success and the difficulties.
    « on: September 11, 2006


    The "Plus" has been used to clear vision in the past.

    But the effort requires strong resolve to do it.

    Here is the discussion:


    By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.

    Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004

    ----------+ | Chapter IX | +--------

    The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia
    which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
    refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
    axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
    near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at
    the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to
    reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more. In most
    cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and
    patience; but a few experiments after the following example will
    suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is
    possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by
    repression at the near point.

    This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes
    an open question.


    Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
    -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of
    two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
    recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
    and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

    After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
    was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
    was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
    the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
    writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
    D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
    examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
    while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
    just perceptibly less.


    Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;

    ...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
    unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
    impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.


    [Comment: Anyone considering "prevention" must understand this
    issue. There is no "easy way" of prevention. As Chalmers
    said -- the person must fully understand this issue. It is
    for this reason that I suggest full transfer of "control"
    to the person himself. If he lacks the motivation to look
    at the chart, and "clear" himself, then no "third party"
    (i.e., OD) can do it for the person. This is why I
    separate a true-medical problem from preventing a negative
    refractive status in the natural eye. I believe that the
    above staement simply clarifies that point. OSB]


    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states.

    I suggest that there is a profound difference concerning "pure
    science" and "pure medicine". And I suggest the difference is

    Medicine: Must deal with a great mass of people walking in off the
    street. There might be some "intelligent" people but
    that can never be the assumption of the medical doctor.
    The result is that we get "canned" procedures that
    "work" instantly. I consider that people in this
    profession have no choice but to conduct that kind of
    work -- and I would do the same thing IN THEIR
    PROFESSION. That would not make it "right" but I do
    understand them -- and what they are doing. Also
    let me include the incredible arrogant statement by
    "Dr. Grant", as the worst of the worst -- where he
    declares himself a "God" in his office. That is why
    I would avoid these M.O. ODs -- and accept them
    for detecting exclusively MEDICAL problems. And
    a negative refractive STATE of -1.25 diopters (20/60)
    is NOT a medical problem.

    Science: Must "step back" from that situation, and think about the
    behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system.
    Engineers and scientists simply do not deal with
    children, nor with others that do not understand
    the need to work on prevention with the plus.

    But when you ask very fundamental questions about whether a
    population of eyes (primates) are dynamic, you get the
    "second-opinion" answer, that POTENTIALLY a negative refractive
    status could be prevented -- before the minus lens is applied.

    I believe that pure science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not
    medical -- experiments proves that point.) But that is the nature
    of our arguments. Many concepts in science simply can never be
    reduced to "medicine" (as per the above)
    and we should understand that truth.

    This is how I separate "medical issues" from scientific
    concepts and experimental and objective testing.

    But that is why it took a scientist like Dr. Stirling
    Colgate to do the "work" correctly and clear his vision from 20/70
    to 20/20.

    His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the
    primate eye, again on a pure-scientific (not medical) level.

    Use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can
    have positive and negative refractive status (as a dynamic device)
    and this situation becomes much clearer.


    otisbrown, Sep 17, 2006
  6. southeasteyecare

    p.clarkii Guest

    Thats what this thread was about. so why did you reply?
    You should just shut up if you have "nothing to say" about a topic.
    p.clarkii, Sep 17, 2006
  7. southeasteyecare

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Otis has nothing to say about a number of things.

    Dr. Leukoma, Sep 17, 2006
  8. southeasteyecare

    Salmon Egg Guest

    Not coming from the optometric profession, whenever I hear about wavefront
    correction, I think interferometry. When I think of interferometry, I think
    of measuring optical error to a fraction of a wavelength such as 1/10 wave
    or less. I doubt that eye surfaces are so stable or reproducible so that
    measurement of error to less than a wavelength or two is truly meaningful.
    Thus, although you truly are correcting the wavefront, use of the term
    "wavefront" IMPLIES working at an unrealistically high precision when vision
    is involved.

    If there is a hoax, it lies in puffery that makes it sound better than it
    really is.

    -- Fermez le Bush
    Salmon Egg, Sep 17, 2006
  9. southeasteyecare

    otisbrown Guest

    PClar -- why do you not READ the lead in statement.

    I was personally asked to make a comment.

    Your opinion. This is an "open" site -- and all opinions
    are welcome.

    otisbrown, Sep 17, 2006
  10. southeasteyecare

    LarryDoc Guest

    Except that SCIENCE has already proved you wrong, you idiotic zealot.
    Not once in nearly three years of posting your bullshit over and over
    and over again have you ever replied to anyone's request for supportive
    scientific data that validates your "theory". Just one peer reviewed
    real scientific study that proves you right.

    Of course you can't, because there are indeed good scientific studies
    that prove you wrong.

    Geez! Get a life. At the threshold.

    LB, O.D.
    LarryDoc, Sep 17, 2006
  11. southeasteyecare

    A Lieberma Guest


    YOUR opinions are not welcomed here.

    Why don't you try to take a scientific poll? Bet you will find you are

    A Lieberma, Sep 17, 2006
  12. southeasteyecare

    otisbrown Guest


    Science is not a "vote" or a popularity contest -- that you
    think it is.

    "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not
    worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."


    "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
    the point is to discover them."

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed
    citizens can change the world. Indeed it's the only thing that
    ever has.

    Margaret Mead

    Every creative act involves ... a new innocence of
    perception, liberated from the cataract of accepted belief.

    Arthur Koestler

    Those who fall in love with practice without science are like
    a sailor who enters a ship without a helm or compass, and who
    never can be certain whither he is going.

    Leonardo da Vinci



    otisbrown, Sep 17, 2006
  13. southeasteyecare

    retinula Guest

    you started off your reply just fine--- "i have nothing to say...".
    its the diarrhea that followed that you should have held back.
    retinula, Sep 17, 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.