Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
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.
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.
Another way to tell if vision is truly getting better is if vision seems more acryllic.
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.

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.


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).

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.

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.
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.

You build science - on facts, not on medical opinions.
Rehabilitation / Why no MD will ever help you at 20/50, and -1.0 diopters.
« Last post by OtisBrown on December 26, 2017, 03:04:44 PM »
Todd was both very smart - and very motivated, when at 20/50.  (About -1.5 diopters).
Did he go to a medical person and BEG HIM FOR HELP.  Or was he smart enough to know the scientific truth - in this video.

They treat every one the same.  Have a hard time reading the 20/50 line?  You are considered both too stupid, and to low motivated to take any "preventive step", under your wise educated, persistence.

Yes, I use two lenses, for reading.  D1 is for reading at 24 inches.  (About a +2.25)
My D2 - is about 16 inches.  I use about a +3.25 for that distance.

Some people are very lucky, when they pass the 20/40 line - on their home Snellen.  Do you check?  Where are you?

I do not ask a person to do something - that I would not do.  But I limit my support for truly motivated people, who are still able to read the 20/50 line, although slightly blurry.

This i not in medical, just hold up a minus lens, impress the person and send him on his way.

Science - has to be more than doing that.

Equally - and being fair - ask why everyone fails - when they are at 20/50.
The major reason - is that they do not, "trust" the concept of prevention.  The next reason - the refuse to set up a Snellen - and read it objectively, as described in this video.

Then they will say, " Otis, you are trying to make money off me".  Fair enough. 
But my reasons, was to help my sister's three children, always AVOID GETTING DEEPER THAN 20/40.  (Always pass the DMV, and self-measure their own refraction - if they wished.

They took the PROVEN, -1/2 diopter per year, that your refraction "goes down" for each year in school, very seriously. 
That mean that the started, or re-started wearing the plus, when they personally saw their visual acuity "going down" towards 20/40.  This is absolutely not medicine, and the eye is not, "medically defective", in that range.

That is what you must understand - if you wish to avoid entry into myopia.

This is what Brian Severson did, when he asked for help to get back to 20/20 (as a pilot).

I just provided objective science, and said that no OD would ever help him, "get back out of it".

But he did not, "argue with me".  He did not, "complain" about wearing the plus, for being, "in fear" of wearing of plus, or that the plus (for prevention) would, "hurt his eyes" in some way.

That is in fact, what STOPS all ODs and MDs from saying anything at all.

That is a matter of, "your fear" that you must understand. 

But what is the plus about?  It is about the natural eye being highly responsive to, "near" habits of children.

Correctly understood, and the "plus" is like living out doors, most of the time.

But that is the concept people hate.  I hate the idea that I must wear a plus (always) for prevention, when I am still passing the 20/50 to 20/60 line.

In my opinion, if you are in Junior High School - that is your last chance to stay out of it - and get back to 20/20.

I thank Todd - for his success. You KNOW he is not attempting to, "make money off you", or sell you anything at all.

Enjoy !
Believe it or not - I am not that much of a critic of optometry.  I just do not like their "science" or their, "office arrogance".  But I do accept that the abject ignorance of the public (walking in off the street), will always mean the child will get the strongest minus possible, and will be told to, "wear that strong minus for all close work", and that will, "help your vision get better".  I will let you judge that statement, and the people who make it.  Here is a short video reviewing the experience of Todd Becker and Jake Steiner - for your thoughtful review.  Both are successful, and make very "limited claims".

The public is indeed ignorant.  The public loves the doctor who makes the person's vision extremely sharp, from a strong minus.  Only years later, when you are at minus 7 diopters, to some people, "wake up" to the damage that, "first minus " is certain to do.

Todd specified two distances, "D1 and D2".  Jake talks about, "focus challenge", and other terms like that.
The I see, "D1 and D2" as me wearing a plus lens for 25 inches, and a plus for 15 inches.
But then everyone says, " I do not like doing that".  Or they demand that Todd or Jake, "go to an OD" to be what, "confirmed"??
No - you confirm - by putting up a Snellen and reading it yourself.  ODs are a waste of both money and your time.  They are very expensive.

But there is a good reason why people fail - at 20/50 - entering a four year college.  They refuse to take long-term plus wearing seriously.  For me - that defines the problem.

PREVENTION IT GOING TO BE TOTALLY PERSONAL !  At 20/50, you either, "get the idea", or you fail to understand.  I am not insulting you - but that is the harsh reality that an optometrist faces.  He is NOT GOING TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTARY - EVER.

The eye is normal, is the range of + / - 2 diopters.  The bad theory of optometry, is to call all normal refraction, "defects" or, "errors" so that they can, "prescribe something".  That is why a truly bad theory - is so totally destructive.

I now personally, measure my own refraction, which is now, it in the normal, "positive value" stage.

Eventually, people like Todd and Jake, will convince more people (including their own children) to begin prevention at 20/40 (self measured -1 diopter).

But - equally - hell might freeze over - before true scientific prevention is offered - at 20/40.

You can put be down as a devout believer in science - and the impossibility of helping anyone if you use the word, "cure".

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10