Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Hi Gang,
I know you want an OD or MD, to support you. But guess what, there is NO MONEY IN HELPING YOU AVOID ENTRY, or at 20/40, getting a refractive change, necessary to go from 20/50 to 20/30 to 20/20. 
They run clearly "corrupted" studies, to convince themselves of their on, "God Hood" in their office.  I do not even argue with them any more.  But, I do look at objective science, (for all natural or dynamic eyes).  This type of question is direct, and must be understood clearly by you.  Here is a 3 minute video, that convinced *me* that my personal habits as a child, "creates negative state" for my normal eyes.

When I asked, "what caused myopia", I just got self serving bull shit for an answer.  (I can understand that response - they never think that anyone in their office has any intelligence of scientific ability.  (Who knows, maybe they are correct with 99 % of the population.)

But when you ask, "I wonder what would happen, exactly, if I put a strong minus, on at totally normal (emmetropic) eye". (Refractive state, exactly zero.)

Try that question, on the next OD you meet - if you have the guts to do so. 

Or just look at the vido.  (This is CONFIRMED in objective science by the Smith III study.)  It is final science - if you have that ability.  It is absolutely denied, because the ODs know that they do not "like" the implication, if all natural eyes (yours included) behave that way. 

So, study science - and choose your preventive choice.  Todd did it, "his way", and after all, exceeding the DMV is all that is truly required.  More that 20/40, is pure gravy.

Enjoy this science - I certainly do - and trust deeply this science.

Now, do you have any scientific questions?
J23 -- SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE TO CORRUPTED STUDIES.  (Minus lens - good for you! )
I have seen this "internal studies" that declare the minus lens to be both "wonderful and safe".  A massive body of science, says that the minus lens - is never safe.

Yes, I do, "contest" this study - because I have exhaustively reviewed a study that shows that the minus DOES MAKE MATTERS WORSE. This study was not corrupted by intense bias.

Read the PDF copy, or check the Excel Spread sheet.

The kids, wearing a plus, DID NOT GO DOWN.

The kids, wearing a strong minus, WENT DOWN AT A RATE OF -2/3 DIOPTERS PER YEAR FOR EACH YEAR IN SCHOOL !!

That proves that the minus lens - is a terrible idea - and should be avoided - if possible.

At least, let us have a rational discussion of this issue, before you even start wearing that first minus, when at 20/40.

Do not expect an OD to ever be honest with you - about this science.  Too much of his money - is lost - if he is honest.
Rehabilitation / Re: my journey from( -4.5 ,-4.5)
« Last post by OtisBrown on November 01, 2017, 11:25:24 AM »
Hi Alex,
I finally realized that only an OD who understood the science of all natural eyes - would be able to help his own children, AVOID ENTRY, into nearsightedness.

The rest of us, "dumb bunnies" will never understand it, and will "refuse it", if the discussion ever came up.

The advantage for Antonio's children - is that this type of prevention, does not cost anything at all.

Just a parent who will always insist that the child, ALWAYS sit up, and ALWAYS wear a strong plus for near.

The type of intellectual discipline, is severe.  I am certain that no one "medical" will ever discuss this subject with you.

But, Alex, you are doing great.  I check my own "home Snellen" (brightly lit) for 20/40.  Then, I continue to check for 20/20.  That is the only right way to do prevention, "on your own".

Keep positing, and keep checking your own Snellen.

I now use a "trial lens kit" on myself.  The only scientific was.

People do not like science, and they do not like people who challenge you to think about prevention when at 20/40.  So - here is an optometrist you can learn to detest.

Yes he is Odious, to tell you how and why Todd Becker made himself successful, because he had the wisdom to, "commit" to wearing the plus when at 20/40.

But no one else - has any interest in this truly difficult science.
What Antonio's results suggest, about Todd's use of the plus, and passing the 20/40 line, and then the 20/20 line - under your control.

Todd strongly wore a plus, from "mild myopia".  He did, what Antonio's kids were forced to do.  He slowly got a refractive change, from negative value (of refractive status) to a positive value (positive refraction, not a defect or error.)

Todd's success - is made credible by the fact that an optometrist saw in advance that his children would become myopic, unless they wore a plus, long-term for prevention.

The only objective measurement required, is that you not be "deeper" than 20/50, and you make your own refractive measurements.  Getting a positive refractive change, of +3/4 diopters, is a VERY SLOW PROCESS, not for those with a casual interest.

Antonio's work, shows that he had no fear of his kids wearing a plus.  There is no harm from wearing a plus correctly.  That is the lesson we should learn from Antonio.

I do consider that "just prevention" is very difficult.  For that reason, I do not allow myself to become a critic of an optometrist.

Here is Optometrist Antonio Medina, and his wisdom, to insist that his own two children wear a plus, correctly, before their refractive STATE goes below 0.0 diopters (so called emmetropia).

Some "Jargon" is used, in optometry.  The word, "Hyperopia", sounds like a defect.  It is not, it is a positive STATE of the natural eye, when understood as science.

Here is the seven page description of how Antonio kept his kids wearing the plus for 9 years.

While the results are very clear, since Antonio made the measurements, it is also clear that the general public (you and I) would reject the concept of  wearing a plus for "just prevention".

But this is the first time that an OD, or anyone has truly conducted a scientific effort, that is successful.


Rehabilitation / Re: Irritaded eye only at sleep
« Last post by Alex_Myopic on October 31, 2017, 02:40:51 PM »
Unlike me for some people their RCE is provoked by dry eyes due to tears evaporation due to bad lip layer in the tear film. Then some people with this condition find that 5% salty water is not the solution for them. But here are some helful informations for them:

"Clogged glands are the number one contributor to severe evaporative dry eye (MGD). The larger XL uses gel packs 30% larger than tranquileyes®, allowing for an extended compress duration, required for severe MGD. Use tranquileyes xl® for immediate and long-term relief from severe dry eye, MGD or blepharitis."

" have been getting RCEs for years but they are much better controlled since I saw my NHS consultant.

I have a tear film that breaks up very quickly especially at night so my eyelids stick to my corneas and cause erosions when I go into REM or wake up. (If you have a different cause this treatment may not be enough for you.) I was getting two or three a night before I was treated but I do not get infections.

Surprisingly he said to use celluvisc during the DAY and, surprisingly, that alone helped a bit. Punctal plugs, though, were painful and had to be removed.

I now use celluvisc every hour or so during the day, more as it gets near bedtime. I do a heat treatment with tranquileyes and celluvisc before bed as it seems to hydrate my eyes nicely. I then use a line of lacrliube then a squeeze of viscotears into the corner of my eyes, neither doing any good on their own. I wear tranquileyes all night but I have to replace the lacrilube and viscotears combo two or three times during the night.

When I wake up, I gently move my eyelids so they are not stuck down.

This regime has made a great difference to me, I have gone weeks without an erosion but they are not gone completely and there is no pattern to when they recur.

I noticed that getting anything in my eyes would cause an erosion that night so I wear padded biker glasses outside and clear ones indoors if I am doing anything that could be dusty.

In the morning, I wipe down my eye margins with a hypoallergenic eye makeup remover pad using a different part for top and bottom of each eye.

I hope you find something to help

R "

First, I support the concept of the plus, as the second-opinion.  But you can not "share" prevention, with a person who believes that all prevention (at 20/40, self -1.0 diopter) is totally impossible.

Here are two video. The first, a graph of their "Box Camera" theory (Helmholtz- Donders) that has never been subjected to an objective scientific test.

All fundamental eyes are dynamic.  In pure science (where you actually run the test yourself), the eye is always proved to be responsive to its average value of accommodation.

It is up to you - to decide who is honest an accurate in this type of analytical science.

The second concept, fully supports Todd's, concept and success. 

I never recommend that a person even START with any prevention, unless he can read the 20/50 line, and can find in himself the motivation for long-term plus wearing.

This is absolutely NOT MEDICINE, and no one should ever think it is. There is not cure.
Subject: Why I do not trust "medical studies" that are extremely biased and divorced from scientific common sense.

Budapest! That is where "Women Killing" by doctors - was brought to an end - by Ignaz Semmelweis.  Ignaz ran a prevention study - under his control.  Ignaz brought the death rate down from 15% to 1%.  How did the doctors respond to Ignaz's success?  Absolutely - they did NOT.  These doctors ran THEIR OWN STUDY, to convince themselves - that it was OK to dissect a corpse - and then deliver a baby.  The results of their new medical study - when implemented?  Women continued to die at the 15 % rate for the next 30 years.  This is why I do not trust optometry-myopia studies.  What did these doctors do to Ignaz?  The fired him - for life.  No good deed - goes un-punished !!  Moral of the story?  Do not trust studies that are isolated from objective science.  There is science - that does support Jake's success.  No one should attempt to put Jake down - who is medical.


Avoiding ENTRY, into "negative status", can not be done by any medical person.  But I agree.  If you wish to AVOID entry, you should study objective science, and avoid this type of intellectually blind, "medical attitude".

But, I  limit myself to ONLY PEOPLE, who are in the range of 20/40, and can self -measure their own refraction.  It take long-term, and intense dedication to always do better than 20/40, and, get to 20/20.

The study by Frank Young, proved that prevention, like this, is possible.

It is all up to you.

Just do not believe these, "cooked" studies.
Hi J23 -
Any one who studies the "closed world" of medicine, knows that they run "studies" to justify their existence.  So, if you "doubt" the minus lens, they will run a study to PROVE that the minus lens is not only "safe" but helps you in the long-term.

I object.  They never think to put a minus lens on the totally normal eye - and FIND OUT, its true effect.  If you are prepared to think of all fundamental eyes as, "dynamic", you could deduce the correct answer, (eyes measured as a refractive STATE, never as an "error".)

This study - is bogus as basic science - if you ask the RIGHT QUESTIONS.  If you want to be a slave to that, "first minus", the go ahead and believe them.  I prefer science.

I also do not argue for "recovery" much beyond 20/50 (self measured -1.0 diopter).

That does mean "accepting" the need to self check both your refraction, and "accept" long-term plus wearing (for near) with nothing for distance.

That means I simply do not trust anyone who tells me that the minus  lens is even "safe".

But - you must understand - that there are studies that contradict the statement - that these people, "jumped to".

I will post a short statement about MDs, "running their own study" to show that "not washing hands", was safe. 

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10