Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
I am indeed friends with ODs and MDs.  But - I do not appreciate their arrogance.  They have memorized the, "box camera" picture of the eye, that maintains that, all prevention - is impossible.  If fact, with great personal resolve, and persistence, Todd got back to good visual acuity.  But no OD will ever acknowledge - that is reasonable and possible. 

But - please listen to the arguments of this medical person - and make your own intelligent choice.


The Medical / Optometry theory of the eye - by Gigi Bundy.
(Response post to, "Truther Girl", about the eye's behavior. )

I’m an Optician and Vision Therapist of 10 years, I can tell you a few things that are factual:

1) Vision Therapy (the eye exercises that she is referring to) does NOT “cure, fix, etc” your need for glasses.

 2) Your need for glasses is based on the refraction “error” in your eyes. Basically light is not hitting your retinal the “way it’s supposed to” so glasses are a form of “correction” that aid the light to hit your fovea. This is all the physics of your eye.

 3) Your Vision is based on several components, the most basic and COMMON is the way that the light hits your eyes(retina) but if you’re having other issues like eye muscle issues, this will affect the FOCUSING of your’s a completely different t science and that’s why OD’s are specialized in this stuff.

4) Fixing things such as EYE MUSCLE problems will improve Vision, obviously because your eyes can work together better and therefore eliminating focusing problems.

 5) your eyes are very complex, there’s soooooooo much more to it than just an organ.

 6) A yearly eye check up is NOT just to provide you with a pair of glasses. The doctor can asses a health exam by just looking into your eyes. They don’t look at the color of your eyes and the “white part” of your eyes to conclude your health.

There’s something called a RETINA that shows things like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and other life threatening diseases as well as things to prevent you from going blind if it’s treated on time. Do some more research on Vision, these doctors don’t go to school for 8 years to just give you a pair of glasses and make money off of you.
I have never said that, "cure" was possible.  In fact, I have always stated that a person should go to a medical doctor for a medical check. 

For me, this is not about medicine.  The minus works instantly, no doubt.  I object to her failed theory, that insists that all prevention is impossible - based on her failed theory of the eye.
Personally, I gave up on ODs - where they have their loaded pretense of a desire to help you get out of it.  For this reason, I use my own test lenses, and confirm 20/20 to 20/15, on my own Snellen.  This video expresses my scientific opinion, about what would be possible, for the person with great personal resolve to wear the plus correctly, (while still at 20/40, and self measured -1 diopter).

People think they will, "go to an OD who will confirm your, "success".  You are very naive - if you even begin to think that way. 
It is indeed true that just, "staying out of it", and always passing the 20/40 line - is difficult.

But then, that is a matter of your educated choice.
Dear Friends,
I consider that "first minus", when you can still read the 20/50 line, to be deadly.  (The science for that statement is perfect.) 
But I do agree, that I must meet or exceed the 20/40 line, under my control - at all times.  For me, that means long-term plus wearing (very comfortable) and wise. 
Do  I, "bad mouth" these ODs?  No, I do not - because they are blind to objective science.  Are they concerned about the myopia epidemic?  Well - please listen to this 6 minute video.

Yes, prevention, at 20/50 is extremely difficult, with a plus.  But any wearing of any minus lens - and your distant vision goes down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. 

These ODs know these issues.  But they will never, "empower" you to understand them.

I can only, "stand up" for a person, who has the motivation, to "empower" himself to take prevention seriously.  Todd has attempted to help you, with his own success.

Better than 20/20.  What is that?  How did I get there?
I elieve in objective science.  This is why I measure both my visual acuity and refractive state.  I know how hard it is to do what Todd did, in wearing a plus for all close work, until he objectively confirmed 20/20. No OD will ever help you do this.

As always, prevention like this - is truly difficult.  Most people have no motivation, and no long-term persistence.  This is why all ODs will tell you that all prevention (at 20/40) is totally impossible.
I agree - for the people in their office - or who are now wearing a minus lens - yes avoiding is impossible.

But - if the issue is self measurement, then prevention depends on both your insights and motivation - including self-confirming results on your own Snellen.

I am good friend with ODs and MDs.  But they refuse to take any responsibility for any prevention work - when you are still in the "DMV RANGE" for 20/40 to 20/70.  (About a value of -1.25 diopters).  They will never help anyone.  Here is the science - they ignore.

You know, Todd was correct in this subject.  I bear no "ill will"against any OD or MD.  It is just that I must "commit" myself to long-term plus wearing, and long-term Snellen monitoring.   For myself, I consider an objective Snellen in the 20/25 range - to be a total success.  But equally, I can not make any, "claims" about getting out of more than about 20/50.

I just wish that I had had this type of assistance, and education, before I was put into a strong minus, when I could still read the 20/40 line.  Maybe you feel the same way.

Thanks Todd - for making yourself successful !!
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.

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