Will Orth-C replace Ortho-K -- for Ace

Dear Ace,

For your interest, here is a new site where it is claimed
that you can "improve" your distant vision from -2 diopters -- and
perhaps more.

http://www.reversingnearsightedness.com

It this correct? Will it work? What do YOU THINK?

What do the ODs think of this method?

Best,

Otis

 

Very interesting read. Do you know anyone who had experience with it?
You never told me about your own myopia and how much of your vision you
improved. You also have told people to throw in the towel and get
lasik. Whats the point of lasik if you can improve your vision
naturally?

I am skeptical of orthoC. It sounds too easy and I dont see how a plano
contact can improve your vision in 15 minutes. It takes many months of
proper eye relaxation techiques(spell?) to achieve results. I recall
your wisdom saying the rate of improvement is 3/4 to 1 diopter per
year. I have been improving my vision for a year and this is exactly
how much improvement I have achieved. I am motivated and will keep
doing vision improvement and reduce my myopia further. I think I can
improve another 1.5 diopters and possibly clear 20/200 UCVA!

 

Dear Ace,

Subject: PREVENTION, not "cure" for a negative refractive state.

Re: Getting "blown off" by DrL who, when I ask for help with
prevention -- tells me to get stuffed.

There is no questions in my mind, (and from the study of the primate
eye) that you INDUCE a negative refractive state from your own (my own)
bad visual "habits". I accep that fact, long after it was too late to
do anything about it. We both have learned about this majority-opinion
"attitude" when we ask for "help" with prevention, and suggest the use
of the plus for that purpose.

I am convinced, now, that if a negative refractive state is ever to be
prevented, then it must be prevented at the threshold -- or not at all.
But further, given the fact of "no help" from these majority-opinion
ODs, you have no choice but to figure out how to "prevent" under your
own control.

This is why I "promoted" my nephew in his use of the plus. i.e., learn
how from my mistake. (A "metaphysical" solution -- if you understand
that issue.)

To furter respond:

===========


Very interesting read. Do you know anyone who had experience with it?

Otis> I have heard of one -- I will post it.

You never told me about your own myopia and how much of your vision you

improved.

Otis> I never suggested that. My vision was "shot" from my bad visual
habits as
a 6-year-old child, and "compounded" by
an over-prescribed minus -- which I was ordered to wear ALL THE TIME.
These are inter-locking errors, and the situation can not be "reversed"
beyond about 20/60 (or -1.25 diopters.) I refuse to make ANY "CLAIMS"
ABOUT ANY OF THESE STATEMENTS.

You also have told people to throw in the towel and get
lasik.

Otis> Not exactly. What I said that you should have been offered the
preventive method when you were at -1 diopters. Once you start that
stair-case business with an over-prescribed minus -- "recovery" is no
longer possible. But you seem to "agonize" over that issue. If you
wish your vision "clear" from -5 diopters -- then the only method that
works in 1 week is Lasik. But that is indeed your choice.


Whats the point of lasik if you can improve your vision
naturally?

Otis> If you mean can you "improve" your vision naturally from 20/70
to 20/40 or better, and avoid stair-case myopia (as my nephew did) then
you should do it. The problem? EVeryone seems to "want" 20/10 vision
from that minus -- even when they are passing the 20/40 line!!!

Otis> There is a profound conflict. You can not have BOTH extremenly
sharp vision instantly from a minus, and not get stair-case myopia as a
"seconday" effect.

Otis> That does mean that you understand these issues -- from a
second-opinion OD. And you make up your mind accordingly. This is
again the reason that I "arm twisted" my nephew to understand these
issues, and make the second-opinion choice -- to his personal
advantage.

This is an engineering "trade-off".

Best,

Otis

 

Dear Ace,

Here is the response if have on Ortho-C.

I would be interested in more information on this for your benifit.

==================

I heard about this in Biology class once. We had a med student come and
talk to
us, and she said her class was the 'guinea pigs' for these types of
lens. She
said they didn't really work, and most of the people got hollow(?)
vision (where
the edges of every object is blurry).

But this was 2 years ago, maybe they fixed it up since then.

John F.

 

Dear Aceman,

Subject: Your vision as a YoYo.

With the motivation you have NOW, you could have avoided -5 diopters --
in my opinion. Now the "road back" is indeed difficult. But PLEASE do
not let me stop you. It IS POSSIBLE, but vision clearing seems to
"work" at about +1/2 diopter per year. I hope your motivation is very
strong. Here is an optometrist who has done it. I am certain (from
the primate eyes) that she is both accurate and correct.

http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html

Enjoy the "read". Let us know how you evaluate this site.

Best,

Otis

 

OH OKAAAAYYYYY

Practicing without a medical licence by giving medical advice!

Allen

 

Dear Otis,

You are saving your nephews eyes! What dioptric value of myopia was he
and where was he at? 20/50? 20/70? Where is he at now?

Sorry to hear about your ruined eyes at 6! Thats a very young age to be
myopic and your doctor did a great disservice by telling you to wear
glasses full time(unless you had significent astigmastim then bifocals
should have been pescribed) Its a fact nearsighted people see great
from near without glasses. Plus lenses should be used from near to halt
and even reverse myopia! My eyes also got ruined but not as fast nor
bad. I checked my old pescription and I used to be -4.25! I was 17 back
then too! Basically I have undone the damage of 6 years and im now
seeing as well as I did back when I was 17! Let me try to remember what
my pescription was over the years

at age 10=-.5 but no glasses given
at age 12=-1
at age 13=-1.5
at age 14=-2.25
at age 15=-3.25
at age 16=-3.75
at age 17=-4.25
at age 18=-4.75
at age 21=-5.25
at age 23=-5.75


I am almost 24 now and have gotten down to -4.75 in the worse eye!
Thats a whole diopter improvement!


"Once you start that
stair-case business with an over-prescribed minus -- "recovery" is no
longer possible. But you seem to "agonize" over that issue. If you
wish your vision "clear" from -5 diopters -- then the only method that
works in 1 week is Lasik. But that is indeed your choice."


A full recovery isnt possible past the threshold of -1 to -2 diopters
but I can improve my vision and be less myopic. I wont clear 20/40 but
ill still improve. Yes I do agonize, I wish I knew about prevention
back when I was 12! Yes lasik is a "cure" of sorts but it does not
address the underlying problem of myopia. Lasik wont guarantee my eyes
wont change and it wont relieve any strains of bad vision habit. You
see better but your eyes arent relaxed like they should be. Finally
youve read all the risks of lasik. Lasik seems to be the easy way out
and most people couldnt be bothered to take years to improve a couple
diopters when lasik takes a day and they see 20/20 or close to it.


"The problem? EVeryone seems to "want" 20/10 vision
from that minus -- even when they are passing the 20/40 line!!!"

except only 1%, maybe a tiny bit more can be corrected to 20/10. I can
quote this optometrist who said 20/10 is so rare he sees less than 2%
test at 20/10, period. I could say people want to be 20/20 even if they
are only a little shy of it. Then they ruin their eyes and go downhill
fast! They are like oh well who cares, I see 20/20 with glasses!


"There is a profound conflict. You can not have BOTH extremenly
sharp vision instantly from a minus, and not get stair-case myopia as a

"seconday" effect."

Sad thing people choose instant gratification and pay the price. They
choose the minus lens instead of plus and enjoy clear vision but become
more and more myopic


"She
said they didn't really work, and most of the people got hollow(?)
vision (where
the edges of every object is blurry)."


I think ill stick to natural vision improvement and forgo orthoK,
orthoK and any sort of contact lens. I will forgo glasses whenever its
not neccessary. I undercorrect myself most of the time to allow for
improvement.


"Now the "road back" is indeed difficult. But PLEASE do
not let me stop you. It IS POSSIBLE, but vision clearing seems to
"work" at about +1/2 diopter per year. I hope your motivation is very
strong. Here is an optometrist who has done it."


I am reading it now. Long read! He was about -3.5 and got down to -.5
so thats 3 diopters of improvement which is doable. I hate to sound
pessimistic but I am being relistic. I used to be -5 now I am -4. I
will be very, very happy to get down to -2 or even -3 it will make a
very big difference in my UCVA and reduced dependancy on glasses.
Accroding to my book on "relearning how to see" the testimonals show
most people reducing their myopia by 2 to 3 diopters. Occasionally 4.
Me going from -5 to -2 will be bliss!!!!!!

 

Dear Mike,

Subject: The issue was that I PERSONALLY was in control
of my eye-to-target distance.

As a child, I simply did not realize the importance of that "distance".

As an engineer studying the dynamic behavior of the naural primate
eye -- I realize how CRITICAL it was to "control" that distance.

No OD or MD could do this for me. I "own" my eyes -- therefore
that was my responsibility.

It is not the "reading" per-se, it was that distance.

(You will see kids reading on my site with there eye's 4 inches off the
page. Some mothers think that is "cute". I think that is
a real problem -- but we do disagree on that point as gentlemen.
After all, you are not the child's mother.)

I think this is part of the "Scurvey" metaphor.

That would be like the seamen going to the dentist to have
there bleeding gums fixed with a medication -- when the
"real" reason had nothing to do with denistry. The
dentist could only "fix" the result. He has absolutly
NO CONTROL over the resaons for the "bad teeth".

But that is why I take personal responsibility -- and
through education of this nature, provide this information
to my nephew.

Assigning "responsibility" in this manner, then I
recognize that you truly are not "responsible" -- with
due respect for the dentist who had to deal with
bleeding gums with astringent -- when he has
no "control" as all over the real reason for
the loose teeth of the sailer.

Best,

Otis

 

I suppose we should charge Captain J. Cook with medical
mal-practice for forcing his sailers to eat fresh veggies and
sourcraut -- and frest meat when available.

Yes, Captain James Cook was practicing medicine
with out a license.

Jeeze!

Otis

 

Dear Aceman,

Subject: Keith "preserved" his distant vision -- by his own efforts.

Re: I described to Keith Dr. Rapahelson's experience with,
"The Printer's Son", which basically says that an OD can
not help you with true-prevention.

As long as Keith personally passes ALL LEGAL VA TESTS,
BY PERSONAL VERIFICATION, then he has NO MEDICAL
PROBLEM! Although Keith was declared "nearsighted" at
age 13, (darkened room, poor illuminated Snellen, instrument
myopia effect) he did not "fill" the "prescription".)

I think it took him some time (after seeing "blur" himself -- he
did not check his chart) to finally "wake up" and realize that
he had to take personal control over his distant vision -- which
is what he did.

Since the "down" rate at a 4 year college (West Point) is -1.3
diotpers to -1.6 diopters -- men in perfect health -- but much
"close work), it followed that if Keith wished to keep his
vision "clear" he had to monitor his chart, and keep his
vision clear during those four years. The consequences
of HIS neglect, would have been about 20/140 vision.

This is the "Scurvey" example. The person himself (with
accruate knowledge of the natural eye's behavior) ends
the "near" environment with the systematic use of the
plus, and as per the primate studies, always passes
the DMV -- under his control.

But that reflects on the wise judgment of Keith. Many,
many people have no interest at all in their distant
vision, and could NEVER pursuade themselves to
use the PREVENTIVE plus as he did.

Thus, Keith removed this issue from optometry.

After all, who is going to wear a minus -- if he
always personally verifies he always passes the
DMV test?

More later,

Otis

 

Nice try Otis. Your example means squat, zilch zero.

Never heard of needing a prescription for lettuce or sour kraut.

I have heard of needing a prescription to prescribe plus lenses on eyes
that need correction.

So, again, you are not in any position to give medical advice.

I'd be more then happy to testify against you *smile* should witnesses be
needed to testify against you practicing medicine without a license.

Allen

 

Dear Allen,

In reviewing Dr. Raphaelson's commentary, I realized that
there was no possibility of his ever helping the
general public "off the street". And I would
suggest the reasons are not "medical",
but rather the "Neil Brooks" effect (metaphor).

In the same manner as the dentist being unable
to help the sailor with bleeding gums, so
also could Raphaelson do NOTHING to
help the public. But that is a problem
when you do not understand these
issues.

Raphaelson could only help his own family -- and
do absolutly NOTHING for the public. And indeed
the "public" is profoundly hostile to prevention -- and
you and many others have demonstrated -- again
and again. Do I need to prove that point?

But some people do "learn", and make there
own "resoution" to preserve their distant vision -- if
provided with objective scientific truth as
proven by the primate studies.

Yes, this is the second opinion, but obviously
"implementation" will have to be by the person
himself.

i.e., more scientific understanding -- less medical
domination --- if you get my drift.

Best,

Otis

 

"While I never read in glasses, I took notes in them. I sat through
high school and college and graduate school in them. No one ever
suggested a bifocal in class or plus spectacles over the contacts to
read. I told two contact lens specialists in two cities that I couldn't
read through my contact lenses. They both frowned and said "You should
be able to read through them," and that was that when I was a child."


I also almost never read in glasses. Its bad for your eyes and makes
things worse. Nearsighted people see fine from near without glasses,
why wear glasses for near for nothing or worse? As for her not seeing
clearly in contacts, sounds like insufficent accomodation. I have the
same issue.


"I reduced my need for minus prescriptions by gradually adapting to
weaker and weaker lenses in the reverse of the process of adaptation
that led me into serious myopia in the first place."


Look what she did! No wonder why my vision has improved! I remember
bumping my glasses pescription to -4.5 down from -5.75 and I was seeing
20/80 at first then 3 weeks later 20/70. Now I see very near my BCVA in
them! Its amazing how clear those old -4.5 glasses are! I used to see
20/70 with -4.25s now I see 20/40 sometimes in those! Thats just ONE
line shy of my 20/30 BCVA!

" You train a patient whenever you put a lens on him," Francke told me.
That means you change programs in the brain. Why not train patients
into weaker instead of stronger lenses? Even if it takes seven years,
that person can be changed for life"


It took me a year of training to reduce my myopia by a diopter. Good
things come to those who are patient. I expect to improve another half
to full diopter by the beginning of 2007.


"In some cases, as Dr. John Thomas has suggested,33 strong lenses may
even cause tissues changes. We know from research with chickens and
monkeys34 that a blurry image on the fovea causes increased axial
length and stretching in the posterior pole like that in some
hereditary myopes. It also may be true of humans, as observed in
identical twins.35 Thomas speculates that it may be the blurry image
created by the high minus lens distortion at the periphery that causes
myopic degeneration and eyeball stretching. Indeed, in chickens "only
peripheral field occlusion is necessary to induce a myopia shift, while
the central retina is receiving sharp images," Crewther, Crewther,
Nathan and Kiely reported.36 Elio Raviola and Torsten Wiesel speculated
years ago that "the retina exerts a control on eye growth by releasing
regulatory molecules whose production is influenced by the pattern of
light stimulation."37"

Otis was right!


"Luckily, I never did develop major retinal changes that we see in high
myopes."

This is why very high myopes(-10 and up) sometimes(fairly commonly)
cant correct to 20/20 with contacts and even worse with spectacles(due
to minification) One optometrist who posts on google groups said he
sees patients around -15 diopters(myopia in the teens) with only 20/40
to 20/50 BSCVA. Looking at my notes, this guy whos -18 diopters can
only correct to 20/60 with glasses. I know several more around -10 with
20/30 in glasses. One guy was -14 and 20/30 BSCVA, 20/25 with contacts
which dont minify.


Here is the link Otis posted:

http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html

Thanks Otis, great read! I have learned so much and I look forward to
greatly reducing my dependancy on glasses over time, little by little.
I want my good vision back and I am going to work to get it!

 

WTF are you talking about Otis?????

Allen

 

Dear Otis,


Ace> You are saving your nephews eyes! What dioptric value of myopia
was he
and where was he at? 20/50? 20/70?

Otis> You only need a trial-lens kit and a Snellen at 20 feet to do
this "conversion".
It works out it takes about a -1.25 to -1.75 lens to "clear" the 20/20
line. But
this depends STRONGLY on the illumination of the Snellen chart.

Ace> Where is he at now?

Otis> When he started this process at age 13, I am certain he was
"indifferent" to it. Only in college, when he saw his vision going
"down" did
he "wake up" as realize the consequence of NOT ending his near
environment with a +2 diopter plus.

Otis> I am certain his eye-chart changed, but he always passed
the DMV -- which is all that I would worry about. He wrote
a short passage for my book (on my site -- for free) describing
his experience.

Otis> He is now 40 years old. Remember -- I consider it a
great success -- if he just kept passing the DMV (of 20/40).

Otis> He last passed the Snellen at 20/15 (both eyes).

Otis> But remember, the majority-opinion ODs will insist that
Keith never would have been myopic anyway, and the plus
never had this "preventive" effect, i.e., Keith did not have
the "myopic-genetic" gene. Thus this proves nothing,
by their "book keeping".

Otis> But Keith knows the Oakley-Young study,
as well as the West Point statistics. And this is
the second-opinion.

Best,

Otis

 

Coming from a man who is not in the medical profession, seems that you are
out of line Otis giving medical advice. Keep adding this to public forums
and yes, the lawsuit against you sure will put you on the losing side.

Otis, you are not in the medical profession and in no position to give
medical advice. The above is medical advice on eyes that need correction.

Allen

 

Why are you giving Otis such a hard time? Glasses doesnt really count
as medicine, its an optical device. Otis saved him from a lifetime of
myopia! Contacts are kinda medical devices but glasses arent in the
same class. If anyone wants to sue Otis, we will all testify FOR him. I
support Otis all the way and will get others to be on Otis side. He has
done NO one harm and has saved many from myopia. Why does it bother you
so much? You want people to be myopic so you can make your money
selling them glasses, eh?

 

You can't get glasses without a prescription to correct eyes that need
medical attention to correct.

Therefore, without the proper credentials, you cannot just willy nilly give
out glasses or provide medical advice without the proper credentials.

Incorrect. They both correct vision. So, glasses are medical devices just
as contact lenses.

I> f anyone wants to sue Otis, we will all testify FOR him. I

Since I am not in the medical profession, I don't make any money selling
glasses.

I think it's important that new people coming to this newsgroup knows that
Otis is not in the medical profession and is not in the position to give
medical advice. Can't be any simpler then that.

Allen

 

"You can't get glasses without a prescription to correct eyes that need

medical attention to correct."

online you can and in thrift stores too. You can get reading glasses
anywhere without a pescription so technically Otis has done NOTHING
wrong by telling someone to get reading glasses(also known as plus
lenses) as they arent considered pescription nor medicial devices, but
passive aids for presbyopia and the like. Loophole there for Otis!


"Incorrect. They both correct vision. So, glasses are medical devices
just
as contact lenses."

I think glasses is class I medical device, contacts are class II. Much
stricter regulations for contacts than glasses.


"I think it's important that new people coming to this newsgroup knows
that
Otis is not in the medical profession and is not in the position to
give
medical advice. Can't be any simpler then that."

Otis has not once claimed he was a doctor of any kind and what he says
is his opinion from a non medical standpoint. Perhaps he should make a
disclaimer in his signature saying hes not a doctor and whatever he
says is his opinion and should not be substituted as medical advice but
just an opinion only. This disclaimer frees him from any liabilities.

 

Wrong again. Otis is telling people to put on plus lenses on eyes that are
myopic without regard to their usage. Readers are exactly for that, assist
in reading, not correcting defective DISTANCE vision.

Nope, not a loophole, Otis is continuing to hang himself every time he
gives medical advice on eyes that need correction for distance.

Bottom line, is that it takes a medical practitioner to dispense class I
medical devices, not an UNQUALIFIED engineer.

Your right, he has not claimed he was a doctor, but he is claiming from
UNRELIABLE and UNVERIFIED sources. He drops what he calls other doctor
names like they support him in his so called plus therapy. He claims that
others have improved their vision, yet his so called subjects have yet to
come forward.

People coming in this group need to know his sources are not current
sources. They need to know he is not qualified to give medical advice.
They need to know he is not in the medical profession.

Every post I have responded to him has included quotes from him in which he
is giving medical advice. He is not qualified to give MEDICAL advice. I
will continue to do this so that others don't fall into his quackery
position.

Allen