Recent Posts

1

Diet / Re: supplements for eye health

« Last post by arydberg on December 29, 2018, 09:25:07 AM »

I have been making my own bread.   I buy wheat berries and grind them into flour.    I mix Einkorn wheat with Hard Red.    It really seems that the Einkorn has had a long slow improvement in my eyesight. 

2

Rehabilitation / Making your own Test Lens Set for $35.

« Last post by OtisBrown on July 31, 2018, 06:36:31 AM »

Todd - was successful.  Why - because he looked at his own Snellen, and wore a plus.  I see endless over-prescriptions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AxzpOyFQjs&t=287s

I finally "gave up" on any OD actually helping me to go from 20/50 to 20/20,  (refraction -1.0 diopters to +1/2 diopter).
So here are the test lenses that I use to measure my refraction.   
I am at 20/20, not because any OD would help - but because I make my own measurements. 
Remember - by doing this - you become an expert.  This is not medicine - but self-protecting common scientific sense.
I get my lenses from Zenniopical.com - they are good quality. 

3

Rehabilitation / Why a medical person, "Will never talk to you about prevention at 20/50".

« Last post by OtisBrown on June 23, 2018, 05:41:47 AM »

Dear pure-prevention friends,
There are indeed, legal reasons, for the dead silence when you ask any question about "recovery" from 20/50.  Here is a video explaining why they seem so, "dumb" to me about Todd's success.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAxJnynlGh0&t=2s

Todd was successful.  Why?  Because he had the "smarts" to by-pass the crazy self-defense attitude as it exists in medicine.
In fact, at 20/40 (self measured -1 diopter) the problem is coming exclusively from the child's nose-on-page habit.  There is no other reason for that first, "negative state" for our totally normal eyes.

I am typing this, reading an writing though a +2.5 diopter.  This is to protect my confirmed 20/20 vision on my Snellen.
I do not advocate that anyone attempt to do this - unless he can confirm 20/50 on his own Snellen.
But you must understand - why no one medical, will not help you. 

4

Rehabilitation / Making Todd's methods - a success, by your own objective measurements.

« Last post by OtisBrown on June 06, 2018, 12:56:15 PM »

Dear Brave, Intelligent friends,
Todd, is indeed a success - and confirmed by object science.  But - you must set up your own Snellen, and actually look at it - for the long term.  No OD can do this for you.  Here is how I measure my own refraction, as I continue to wear the plus with this type of success.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJhdyqhqQ6k

I think the key, is self-measurements (assuming you are close to 20/40, and self measured -1 diopter).
No OD will ever help you with this.  They think it is all impossible.
Enjoy,

5

Rehabilitation / Re: practice print pushing

« Last post by OtisBrown on June 06, 2018, 12:52:45 PM »

Hi Sleep -
You are totally correct.  It is always good to hear of a person's objective success - and Todd's leadership with that success.
Otis

6

Rehabilitation / Re: practice print pushing

« Last post by sleepmaster4 on May 28, 2018, 03:05:33 AM »

For print pushing, start out with a weak plus lens of +.5 on small enough print if your eyes are in the low -3s or less.

Avoid minus lenses completely.

7

Rehabilitation / practice print pushing

« Last post by foie on May 22, 2018, 06:08:00 AM »

Hello everybody ! About print pushing, is this more useful to read very smalls  print characters with normal Lens correction or read normals characters  with strong plus Lens glasses  ??  What is the best méthod ? Do you have some news from Kuber ?  Thanks !!!!!!

8

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.

9

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

10

Rehabilitation / Re: BannedFromTheGym.blogspot.com to 20/20 Vision Part 1: R-4.0,L-4.5 to -1.25,-1.25

« Last post by sleepmaster4 on March 24, 2018, 10:42:15 AM »

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.