Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Rehabilitation / Re: Monocular Double Vision & Astigmatism--Connection?
« Last post by Alex_Myopic on April 24, 2018, 12:06:03 PM »
Hi chris1213,

after about 3 weeks of taking into account in my plus lenses the right/left eyes refractive state ratio, I feel my vision is more stable at far distance and a little sharper. Although I will measure left and right visual acuity in few months and that will be a more objective review.

 I now feel while print pushing that also my weaker eye does active focus and with both open they cooperate better. And not just feel but testing and closing my dominant eye while I'm at the medium blur zone while print pushing. Then I see that my weaker eye is at this zone and not at the blur zone that cannot make out the letters as I was before.

 Even with my weaker eye wearing a lower plus lens, it continues to sees just a little worse than my left stronger and I knew this would happen when doing my Snellen test before buying the lens. If I marked that my difference was 0.75D and not 0.5D that I had many chances to change my dominant eye and messing around. I didn't want that to happen.

 I'm so happy with those first signs of improvement that I'll take the nest step and start wearing myopic glasses again after many months just for a few hours per day while watching the subtitles on the tv at far distance (print pulling I think is named in this forum). So I will buy 0D for my good left and -0.5D for my right eye with diplopia. (Even my good eye has much room for improvement because I only see 20/20 line on a sunny day).

 And yes, taking the "equivalence function" in diopters instead of cylinders with the suggestion that Mr Brown and others gave us is very satisfactory.

 I'm glad you are an active member of this forum chris and I'm willing to report my results and hear from others like you about this very hard problem of dealing with diplopia after years of eye rehab.  I also continue to do my active focus as an exercise with a Snellen chart and my astigmatic wheel exercise mod. I can clear diplopia for a few minutes in the 2nd exercise but the result doesn't lock in.

 Before buying my new lens I did the Snellen chart not at 6m but at 3m in order to be more accurate about the L/R visual acuity ratio, because at 6m my vision fluctuates a bit and I thing at 3m we can be more accurate to a degree of 0.25D difference.

 Small children that deal with amblyopia are made by doctors to patch for some time. So I definitely think that >=0.5diopters or 1 cylinder difference can stop the progress of even the good dominant eye in order not to result in amblyopia.

 One other notice I've made at the astigmatic wheel is that a line that I can see without diplopia with my good eye and see it double with my bad then if I look the same line with both my eyes the brain doesn't just cancel out the diplopia from my bad eye but there is some diplopia also in the fused image.
2
Rehabilitation / Re: Monocular Double Vision & Astigmatism--Connection?
« Last post by chris1213 on April 24, 2018, 08:49:13 AM »
Alex, thank you very much for your post. Like you, I've also dealt with monocular diplopia for years now. Your post made me realize something. I never thought that maybe the difference in diopters between both my eyes has kept me in this plateau for such a long time. Since the difference between my eyes doesn't seem "that bad" and I wanted to "simplify" my prescription I thought that having the same diopters on both the right and the left lens would be my best option. But now I can see (no pun intended) that I was most likely wrong.

My right (dominant) eye resolves double vision and gives me clear flashes a lot of times but my left (weaker) eye barely does so the clear flashes goes away quickly and I have a hard time keeping them. You said "-0.25D is a small difference between the two eyes and might be due to a dominant eye but -0.5D difference due to diplopia means about -1 cylinder difference" and that could be the reason that my brain ends up not being able to resolve the double vision evenly and fully because one eye is giving too much more blur than the other.

Please share more about what you're doing now! I hope we're into something here.

I'll look into evening my prescription by taking into account the diopter difference between my eyes. Thank you again!

About 3,5 years later and I found this topic extremely interesting to me. After years of rehab I found myself in this condition too (monocular double vision) although I started with 0 astigmatism and -2,25D myopia.

 Today after self-experimenting with my older spherical lenses of various degree I found that a spherical equivalent can make my diplopia disappear 100% when it is most prominent, while looking at the astigmatic wheel! The more I increased the diopters the closer the two ghosting lines where getting and more sharp until they became one at about  -0,5D!

I'd like to thank Mr Otis Brown for learning me the spherical equivalent of a myopic prescription with astigmatism.
I got to a point that gave up plus lenses because my weaker eye did't improve although I patched. So I thought that with this difference in my eyes I could get my sharp eye sharper while wearing plus lenses with the same prescription.  Now I could buy plus glasses taking into account the SE (spherical equivalent) in my weaker eye.

I've been into a plateau for almost 1,5 years and I find this way might be a breakthrough. I can even wear a 0 diopters in my left and -0.5D in my eye with diplopia while reading subtitles in the tv or at night when myopia is more apparent.

I feel my right eye is becoming too lazy and adapted to blur and diplopia not taking account this difference and SE make matters more simple especially if I want another pair of plus lenses for too close distance (reading a book) and another for my computer screen. -0.25D is a small difference between the two eyes and might be due to a dominant eye but -0.5D difference due to diplopia means about -1 cylinder difference so one must take it into account even for plus reading glasses, because that way we read at the edge of blur so diplopia is apparent even then. Reading with plus lenses is not like "reading something in small distance so I can neglect even medium astigmatism". If I close my dominant eye while reading with my current plus glasses the weaker eye cannot make out the letters.

So in the question 1 in the first post my answear is yes because reading with plus lenses is not a close distance activity in relaton to the image perceived in the eye. Spherical equivalent clears the problem. Some posted that undercorrected cylinders are best in order to aim at the problematic meridians more correctly but that would make matters more complicated and expensive.

In question number 4 I've noticed the same thing to me too!


A video of Jake telling people with low myopia to wear undercorrected glasses at night for the eyes in order not to adapt to blur and be at a plateau even if not wearing minus at all. He doesn't talk in this video about the refractive ratio in the two eyes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNwz_gcNXQ&t=40s
3
I decided to answer some questions here as well.

For awhile, the +1.0 lens seemed too weak and the +1.25 lens seemed too strong. Leaving the +1.25 lens on for a half-second, "one-one" instead of the full "one-one-thousand", seemed to be the sweetspot between shaking eye shape out of its inertia and too much stress on the eyeball which is counterproductive. This may not matter in the first diopter of vision improvement, but by the third diopter the eye is more resistant to change. Using plus lenses for a half-second seemed to work best when looking at a laptop computer keyboard just after hours of looking into extreme distances outdoors.

Right now I'm working on moving my eyes left because I think further axial length shortening is only possible if the eyes are straight, so that plus lens stimulus tugs on the center of the back of the eyeball to make it less far back. Once that's achieved, it will be time to see if plus lenses work again. I first tested -1.25 two months after turning 40. So there's a few more years left till my mid 40s to figure this out before change in lens shape starts to lessen nearsightedness further without eyeball shape needing to change.

That appears to be what helped Peter Grunwald.  Someone said that Grunwald went from -10 to -1. If that's true, he likely went from -10 to something like -3 on eyeball shape change over many years, and -3 to -1 from lens shape change in old age:

https://www.eyebody.com/about-peter-grunwald/

Not a proponent of his method btw. 
4
Rehabilitation / Re: Monocular Double Vision & Astigmatism--Connection?
« Last post by Alex_Myopic on March 20, 2018, 04:03:42 PM »
About 3,5 years later and I found this topic extremely interesting to me. After years of rehab I found myself in this condition too (monocular double vision) although I started with 0 astigmatism and -2,25D myopia.

 Today after self-experimenting with my older spherical lenses of various degree I found that a spherical equivalent can make my diplopia disappear 100% when it is most prominent, while looking at the astigmatic wheel! The more I increased the diopters the closer the two ghosting lines where getting and more sharp until they became one at about  -0,5D!

I'd like to thank Mr Otis Brown for learning me the spherical equivalent of a myopic prescription with astigmatism.
I got to a point that gave up plus lenses because my weaker eye did't improve although I patched. So I thought that with this difference in my eyes I could get my sharp eye sharper while wearing plus lenses with the same prescription.  Now I could buy plus glasses taking into account the SE (spherical equivalent) in my weaker eye.

I've been into a plateau for almost 1,5 years and I find this way might be a breakthrough. I can even wear a 0 diopters in my left and -0.5D in my eye with diplopia while reading subtitles in the tv or at night when myopia is more apparent.

I feel my right eye is becoming too lazy and adapted to blur and diplopia not taking account this difference and SE make matters more simple especially if I want another pair of plus lenses for too close distance (reading a book) and another for my computer screen. -0.25D is a small difference between the two eyes and might be due to a dominant eye but -0.5D difference due to diplopia means about -1 cylinder difference so one must take it into account even for plus reading glasses, because that way we read at the edge of blur so diplopia is apparent even then. Reading with plus lenses is not like "reading something in small distance so I can neglect even medium astigmatism". If I close my dominant eye while reading with my current plus glasses the weaker eye cannot make out the letters.

So in the question 1 in the first post my answear is yes because reading with plus lenses is not a close distance activity in relaton to the image perceived in the eye. Spherical equivalent clears the problem. Some posted that undercorrected cylinders are best in order to aim at the problematic meridians more correctly but that would make matters more complicated and expensive.

In question number 4 I've noticed the same thing to me too!


A video of Jake telling people with low myopia to wear undercorrected glasses at night for the eyes in order not to adapt to blur and be at a plateau even if not wearing minus at all. He doesn't talk in this video about the refractive ratio in the two eyes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYNwz_gcNXQ&t=40s
5
Rehabilitation / Re: Diplopia
« Last post by Alex_Myopic on February 27, 2018, 03:58:37 PM »
When trying eye patches I noticed that even silk eye patches can put a force on the closed eye, especially in the cornea when moving. So I find my old cardboard and fabric with conic shape eye patch much better because it doesn't touch the patched eye so it can be open and move freely.
If someone searches for "concave eye patch" on ebay he will find those patches that have zero presure on the cornea and can leave it open inside.
6
Another way to tell if vision is truly getting better is if vision seems more acryllic.
7
Rehabilitation / Objective science, not medical B. S.
« Last post by OtisBrown on January 16, 2018, 08:03:08 AM »
Dear "Getting Stronger" friends,
I always wish to be presented with objective scientific facts.  Then I will make a judgment about the dynamic behavior of all fundamental eyes.  No more medical interpretation and distortions.  Just provide me with the objective facts concerning the proven behavior of all fundamental eyes!  When you learn to look at science that way -- you can learn from the facts. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAj0wD1X43I&t=2s

If the question is about Todd being successful, you will find the proof for threshold prevention -- in this type of scientific data. 
My statement is that an intelligently worn "plus" (at 20/50) is like living, "out doors", once you get the idea from the experiment and this science.

Certainly wearing a preventive plus - they way that Todd did it - will never become, "popular".  But even that becomes and educated, scientific choice.

Enjoy,

8
What are the ACTUAL FACTS - THE ACTUAL SCIENCE?  Here is a short video - explaining the statistics, of wearing the plus when at 20/40, (self measured -1.0 diopters).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoDRoIr6zqc&t=56s

Enjoy!
9
For those of you who like pure science, theory and logic, this is the science of prevention, for those who are close to reading the 20/40 line, or self-measured -1 diopter. 
Do not fight or argue with anyone "medical", you are wasted their time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4fYZ5fmvLY

Let this be my deep respect for Dr. Raphaelson, and Dr. Prentice, who said that the, "general public" would be totally hostile to all prevention (at 20/40), and the no recovery would be possible - if a medical person were, "involved".
Do not ask for any recovery beyond about 20/40.
10
Dear Friends,
I know how difficult it is to accept the necessity - to do what Todd did - wear the plus to get a refractive change, in a positive direction - under his control.  For me, prevention means I accept long-term plus wearing - as a requirement on me.  I also accept that I must monitor my own Snellen, to make certain I always pass the required DMV line - and better.

There are medical people who say, "... show us the science " that proves all fundamental eyes are dynamic.
Here is the peer reviewed study - that shows how sensitive all natural eyes are to their accommodation systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX6cxS6FDi8&t=411s

You build science - on facts, not on medical opinions.
Enjoy,
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10