Clearing your vision, hormesis, and people who have done it.

[OtisBrown]

Dear Friends,
Todd describes, hormesis, as 'getting stronger', and the wisdom to "take charge" of your own life.  He applied this "stoic" concept to himself and cleared his Snellen to normal.  I know there are other people who have been able to clear their vision to normal (from say, 20/60 and -1 diopter) but it indeed takes a "strong will" to do it -- in my opinion.  It is necessary to document success -- to help others who have that type of "will".  Here is a statement by my friend, Stirling Colgate, and his success with the 'stoic' use of the plus to clear his vision back to normal:
Stirling's reply:
++++++++++++++
Yes I wrote that section of the book, but I am a physicist and if I prescribe
and am not a doctor, the consequences are serious, like law-suits, jail etc.

Indeed we are locked into an ancient paradigm ***. I was able to understand
about focus and eye sight when I was 13 and so could do it for myself, as using
strong plus lenses as I could use for a short while, months, and then plus
for all reading for the rest of my life, now 73.

I reversed nearsighted to normal three times during the war II, because lost
glasses several times and with reading close -- reverted to nearsightedness. I
always returned to 20-20 for distance when wearing the plus.
Dr. Stirling Colgate Ph.D.
+++++++++++


*** The "paradigm" of a "ray trace" eye, versus a "dynamic natural eye" having
postive and negative refractive STATES. Only the "ray trace" model is taught to
ODs. The are in total ignorance of ANY OTHER (PREVENTION) POSSIBLITY. OSB

[shadowfoot]

Wow, that is the ultimate experiment to really prove something. Maybe I should do that some day under the supervision of some researches. The experiment is this: induce strong myopia my close reading all the time and using minus lenses and then reverse it using plus lenses. I know of no better way to prove the theory. I probably won't do it though -- I value my vision too much.

[OtisBrown]

Hi Shadow,
Let me suggest this -- the "researchers" are more confused that most of the general public at this point.  This was the real discovery of Stirling Colgate -- that he was smarter than they were.  I know you learned this lesson, because you obtained a strong plus, and wore it to clear your Snellen to better-than 20/20.  That is REAL EMPOWERMENT.  But you suggest "making yourself myopia" by wearing a strong minus.  Just the knowledge of the effect of a minus would convince me to AVOID WEARING IT.  But for the record, this is what SCIENCE tells us about the effect of a minus, i.e., IT CAUSES SERIOUS MYOPIA ALL BY ITSELF!!!

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

Thus why should I "cause" myself to become myopic -- to prove a point that has already been proven.

In fact, our "long-term" near 1) Induces a mild negative state of about -1 diopter and 20/40, but then, in an attempt to "help" we 2) Get a strong minus, and are not told about the proven effect of the minus on the natural eye.  This is a true problem of the "researchers" -- they are not paying attention the truly adverse effect of a minus lens, nor to item #1 either.  You comments are excellent.  Otis

Wow, that is the ultimate experiment to really prove something. Maybe I should do that some day under the supervision of some researches. The experiment is this: induce strong myopia my close reading all the time and using minus lenses and then reverse it using plus lenses. I know of no better way to prove the theory. I probably won't do it though -- I value my vision too much.

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  I always believe in "doing plus-prevention myself".

This includes the use of a plus after you have

1) Confirmed 20/40 to 20/60 on your Snellen.

2) Used a -1/2 to -1.0 diopter lens to confirm that I can clear the Snellen to 20/20 with that lens.

3) This is to confirm that my retina and eye are excellent, and that I have a negative state of about -3/4 diopters.

From that self-measured situation, you can exert control, and slowly change your refractive state from -3/4 diopters to zero diopters, thus clearing your Snellen back to normal (a refractive state of from zero to +1/2 diopter.)

Here is how to "plush print" with a +2 to +2.5 diopter.  Clearly, you must select your plus lens, and actually check this out in a drug store -- at no cost to you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXMXO-ve9eo&feature=youtu.be

This is the approach used by pilots to clear their distant vision after inducing a mild negative status from long-term close work for one to three years.

Reversing a negative status for the natural eye, is indeed slow, but wise if you want your distant vision clear, in my opinion.

Enjoy,

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  Pilots with 20/20 -- go down the drain -- because no one will help them.
Here is the tragedy.  This is from Chis who at 18 years old had 20/20 and refractive status of zero.  (Short story).
++++++++++
New on here and wanted to write a quick backstory and my reasons for wanting to
get my vision back.

I entered the US Air Force Academy as Pilot-Qualified. I had 20/20 vision. In
my junior year, my vision began to deteriorate from all the studying (160+
academic hours in 4 years!). Mandatory physicals revealed my vision had gone
from 20/20 to 20/50. They prescribed minus lenses. I was being taught not to
question so I didn't question.

By the spring of my senior year, my vision had degraded to probably 20/100.
It's a longer story than you want to read, but I basically lost my PQ. This
changed the entire arc of my life and career. Instead of going to pilot
training, spending a career in the Air Force, and fulfilling a childhood dream,
I went into Satellite Engineering and US Space Command. Of course, this
required constant computer and near work which would continue to degrade my eyes
in my 20's.

I'm now 42. I'm at -5.0D in both eyes. I believe my myopia was functionally
induced because no eye doctor that I've seen between then and now recommended
that I simply not wear my minus lenses and instead use the plus lenses for close
work. I would get hints from time to time, but it was like they were telling me
illicit information.
+++++++++++++
Otis> It does take great motivation to prevent.  If he had only been told that the natural eye goes DOWN by -1.4 diopters in for years -- if a plus is not used.
He would have been intelligent to understand the facts and science supporting prevention.  But the medical department -- will not say ANYTHING.  What are they afraid of?

Otis> Had he started with the plus, as soon as he was at 20/30, he could have gotten out if it, and stayed out of it.  But the minus and his long-term work in "silos" simply accelerated that "down path".  I am NOT going to make "claims" about prevention -- but I truly think we (or he) was cheated out of a preventive future, by this idea that a negative state of the eye, CAN NOT EVEN BE PREVENTED. 

Otis> I hope we learn from this un-necessary tragedy.  This statement must be part of that "learning process".

[OtisBrown]

Subject; Why do doctors remain silent -- about the possibility of prevention at 20/40 and -3/4 diopters.

Here are the reasons:

To the extent you are not told about the adverse effect of a minus lens on the natural eye (as pure science) you are being led down the prim-rose path. You may not either like, or accept the need for prevention (when you are at 20/40 on your Snellen), but you should know about this (preventive) second-opinion. No OD or MD would have to take long to discuss this with you. But they all should give you a reference (wed site) that discusses (prevention) at 20/40.

Why "doctors" remain silent. The reason is that the fear YOU WILL SUE THEM, if they advocate prevention, and you feel that it does not "work" for you. That is not a "scam", that is their fear of being sued for malpractice.

The doctors feel that their ONLY JOB, is to have you look at a Snellen, and if you have trouble reading the 20/40 line, then their ONLY JOB is to put you into a -3/4 diopter lens.  I think that science is more than that.  But I like to fully understand the reasons why they remain silent, when I would rather protect my distant vision myself.  It is important to understand this issue, and why prevention under your control is both necessary and wise.

Otis

[OtisBrown]

We all look up to people in the medical profession.  But HOW MANY OF US WILL TAKE THEIR ADVICE -- ON PLUS-PREVENTION.

No many, I am afraid.  But for the record, here is Dr. Viikari's statement about prevention.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kaisu Viikari

but I yet not convincend that you read Lucian Damocs case?

Kaisu
++++++

Dear Kaisu,

Yes, I read it and I will post it for those who wish to learn.

I just think that it would be very wise to START the preventive process (by
the person himself) before that first over-prescribed minus is placed on the
young child's face.

If the parents can not ACCEPT the need for prevention AT THAT POINT, then I
regret the consequences for the child -- because of that rejection.

This is why I call your advocacy the second-opinion.

But the person himself must understand the need to:

1) Monitor his own Snellen
2) Check his refractive status himself
3) Never let his Snellen go below 20/40
4) Work with prevention-minded people to make certain the above is true.

Yes, in this process the case of Lucian should be presented.  I totally
agree!

Otis

+++++

http://www.kaisuviikari.com/testimonials.htm

Prevention does take a lot of personal intelligence and resolve.  I hope we learn this in the future.

I only ask all PROFESSIONALS to respect the second-opinion, and for kids at 20/40, broach a discussion about plus-prevention.  Once this is down, all prevention depends, not on the OD or MD, but rather on the person himself.

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject: Why must I wear a plus (when I am an 20/40 and hate wearing  a plus for near)?

Re:  My OD told me that a plus "will not work".  Why should I take personal responsibility to IGNORE his recommendation that I NOT protect my distant vision with  my own plus lens?

Here is part of my attempt to answer the question of "WHY" it would be wise to ignore destructive "standard practice", and check your Snellen yourself.

+++++++

I had good eye-doctor describe much of this problem (including my bad faults  as a child).  But it is very difficult to describe to a mother, WHY, when  the child has 20/40 and refraction of -1 diopter, the child should NOT wear  that obvious minus lens, and instead 1) Sit up, and 2) For the long-term,  always wear a plus, and read at the "just blur" point.

Unless the person has a good education, and the motivation to do it -- the  child will simply IGNORE ALL WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO HELP HIM.

For the person who asks, "WHY", you have provided some of the answer.  I  hope everyone read your description of how we ask, "WHY", and how the public  always ignores the answer -- or does not answer his own question of "WHY".

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/whyrvw.htm

As you might know, I "arm twisted" my nephew to use the plus, when it  "...got blurry out there".

He did this in a logical and consistent answer.  He is highly intelligent,  wise and motivated.

How do I know he did this (under his wise control).

1) Because he never failed the DMV requirement of 20/40. and when we checked  together, he read the 20/20 line

2) Because if he did not do this, he would be about -4 diopters (about  20/200) at this time.

I don't know if I ever answered his "WHY" question, but he did it correctly.

I have advocated that a preventive program be initiated with engineers at a  four year college -- who had a starting refractive state of -3/4 diopters.

I think the question of "why" could be answered, and they would become  successful.

But the study will never be conducted.  WHY?  Because I am an engineer, and  because Dr. Kaisu IS DENIED PUBLICATION IN HER MEDICAL JOURNALS. That's why.

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  We all look up to people posting here -- who have become successful.

That is Todd, Shadowfoot, and Peter to a certain extent.  I will post my commentary here -- to avoid conflict.  But thanks to all for their success.  Otis

[OtisBrown]

Question> Is the plus safe for use in children?  How do you know?  How many children have worn the plus?

50 years of using the plus! Yes, it is true. But it is combined with a minus lens -- for children. The other problem with the bifocal, is that the "upper minus" is over-prescribed. This is why intelligence and maturity is required (at 20/40) to use the plus ALONE with no minus. Safe? Children wear this bifocal for years.

But this defines the issue.  It takes a person (at 20/40) to actually take FULL RESPONSIBILITY (and resolve) to LOOK AT THE SNELLEN (verify 20/40) and then (avoid the minus), while he makes heavy use of the plus (for all near), and begin to exceed the required 20/40 line.  This is why the process is SO DEPENDENT ON THE PERSON HIMSELF.  Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  Why call preventive analysis and work, "MyopiaFree"?

The reason I call my work, "MyopiaFree" (or PREVENTION) is that
1) I don't charge you any money for it AT ALL
2) I wish I had this information supplied to me AUTOMATICALLY when I was on the threshold -- when success is most probable. 
3) I am honest about how difficult "just prevention" is.
4) By "MyopiaFree", I mean it costs "no money" and if you are successful, (pass the 20/40 line and eventually 20/20) then you are "Free of Myopia".
5) I don't make excessive claims, and have no reason to do so.
6) I see the "Bates people" making vast excessive claims -- and always I think it wrong to make excessive claims.
Otis