Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Rehabilitation / For the beginner - Scientific truth - trumps the minus lens.
« Last post by OtisBrown on November 12, 2016, 07:01:05 AM »

I spent a very long time - looking for an OD who would EXPLAIN this tragic situation to me!
I accept that the "minus" is very easy - in an office.  I accept that few people will accept the concept that we must get "rid of", our "near" with an intelligent plus lens.  This is indeed a long-term proposition.  I would urge a person to NEVER get into an "eye length" argument with an OD.  Because "eye length" - is never measured.   I will post the science (for all natural eyes) that shows or suggests that a "minus", used as an instant quick-fix, in fact is a long-term problem - and makes matters get, "out of hand" - rapidly.

NOTE: This is pure science - for all natural eyes.  If you can "make this connection", you might be able to convince yourself to 1) Avoid the minus lens (assuming self-checked 20/40), and accept long-term plus wear, starting in High School. 

(See the attached posts - about objective science.)
Rehabilitation / How to "deal" with an arrogant optometrist?
« Last post by OtisBrown on November 12, 2016, 05:25:26 AM »
I am friends with optometrists!  But, in many ways, I judge that they are "tone deaf", to the concept of prevention (before that first minus lens).  I will post this remark by Despina (OD), where she totally ignores the issue of "low myopia", and the need to consider wearing a plus, to get your Snellen, "back to 20/40", and self-measure your own refraction - at home.  Here are the remarks:

I am certain that Despina is sincere.  But being sincere - does not solve any problems.  If you have a mild negative status - you will ALWAYS get a strong minus prescription.  Despina - needs to discuss this issue with you.  A supportive OD, should discuss the need for you to accept the 20/40 line - as a reasonable standard - for all our children.  No OD will do this for you.  He will try to sell you "Ortho-K", or contact lenses.  But he will NEVER trust your intelligence - to intentionally avoid wearing a minus lens, and personally verify  both your Snelllen (easy to do), and your refractive state (that takes more wise effort).

If they would meet the above conditions - I would negotiate with them.  But they are absolute.  No one can get himself  out of it (or at least to 20/40.  If anyone does it - the OD will say it was a "tear film", and that, "... it never happens".

SO ... what do I suggest?  For a strong prescription - I make no suggestion.  For a mild prescription - I strong suggest self-checking.

We must PASS a reasonable objective standard - at home.  That is the 20/40 line.

For myself - If I were in that STATUS,  I would order a minus one glasses - from Zennioptical, for about $10.  Then I would verify that I could read the 20/25 line though that simple " - 1 D).  I would then use that lens for driving at night.

For near, I would be wearing a +2.0 for ALL READING I DO.  (And I do a lot of reading and computer work !!)

Virtually on OD will help you with this.  They figure it is, "... not their responsibility..."  because it takes wisdom and long-term plus wearing to get objective results.

In that sense - I agree with them.  Most people are bored, or have no interest at all. In the sense of "pure default", I do accept the OD's argument - because few people have any interest at all.

Add  your own thoughts.  I might have a "problem" with long-term plus wearing - but quite frankly - there is no other choice.
I came across an interesting study the other day regarding presbyopia:

Essentially what happened in the study was they took a number of people who normally wore reading glasses for presbyopia, and had them undergo a sort of vision training.  The training involved intensively focusing to try and resolve minor differences in color contrast (from about 2 feet away).  After several months of training, the subjects' presbyopia was significantly improved, and all of them were able to read a newspaper without reading glasses, something that they could not do before.

The scientists did some optical measurements of their eyes before and after, and didn't observe any changes with the eyes themselves.  Therefore, they concluded that the difference must be with how the brain processes the images that the eyes received.  That is, the brain become better at "deblurring" images. 

I found this an interesting study for a couple of reasons.  First, it shows that it is indeed possible to overcome presbyopia to some extent.  Second, it raises the question:  are improvements in vision like some on this forum (myself included) have experienced due changes in the eye itself, or rather in our brains' processing of the images it receives?  Or maybe both?  The subjects' accommodation (which didn't change) was measured, rather than axial length directly....but that might amount to the same thing.  I'm not sure on that. 

If the improvements in vision are purely neural, then that suggests to me that there might well be a limit on how much improvement can occur.  I'd like to believe that's not the case, though. 
Rehabilitation / Re: Can the eye grow shorter?
« Last post by j23 on November 10, 2016, 02:30:45 AM »
its been so long i forgot about this forum.

yes the eye can get shorter. i know a few people who are very farsighted +6D or more. Particular a boy who is 8 years old and about +10D  Obviously none of these people are born that farsighted. They are probably born +1D to +3D and then at young age they went to see an (somewhat greedy, unethical, or plain boneheaded) optometrist who gave them a strong plus when they don't need it, resulting in very very hyperopic vision.

so this shows through some type of defocus the eye can move in the positive direction (the possibility is there). so its logical to assume that reading at the blur point (with or without a plus) for sustained period of time will cause the eyes to get shorter.

The example about a young boy may be not that easy to explain with "eye got shorter".
At the same time eye grows in axial length, the lens and cornea are flattening (I guess of a bit growing), thus the lens are flatter, comparing to eye not lenthening enough you can grow refraction error of +10D even if you had +3D when born.

The rule is 1mm axial length is around +3D difference.

you can look at statistics year by year - child eye length
newborn - 17mm
3 year old - 20mm

So everything counts:
"cornea accounts for approximately two-thirds of this refractive power (about 40 dioptres) and the crystalline lens contributes the remaining one-third (about 20 dioptres)."

There is a reason why glasses are prescribed for farsighted children - there is a belief and knowledge that eye muscles are too strained which can lead to different diseases if not corrected (not full but properly under-correct, so eye can still grow maybe a bit slower ). Of course one can relieve a child with natural method (look far to get more rest of accomodation) - but sometimes even this is not enough "in nowadays lifestyle".

Rehabilitation / I wish no money was involved in optometry !
« Last post by OtisBrown on November 09, 2016, 06:59:44 PM »
Here are remarks by Despina (OD).
About prevention, and a minus lens, she stated, accurately, that, "... we do not know what else to do ..."
The result, when you are at 20/40 (self-measured -1 diopter) is that you always get a very strong minus lens (giving
you 20/15, and 20/10 vision), and you lose you vision to that FIRST minus lens - because money is more important
than helping you with prevention.
I can sympathize with her.  But then I look at that proven -1/2 diopter per year (that she should know about) and
the fact that I am an innocent child - who does not wish to be slammed into a strong minus lens.
I want HELP.  But you the "patient" and regarded as, "dumb".  I think I am owed more than that type of treatment.
Respect my intelligence. Give me a choice.  Show me that -1/2 dioper per year.  That is the mark of a real professional.

Here are the remarks by Despina - for your interest.  It is valuable that Jake has her posting her opinion on his site.

What is truly learned - was from a "family man" optometrist. He INSISTED that his own three girls always
1) Sit up, and always, 2) Wear a strong plus for all close work.

That is how prevention can work.  Of course - his 3 girls, always passed the DMV requirement and never wore a minus lens.
But that is what I mean when I say - you must be wise enough to do prevention yourself.

Start wearing a minus lens - and I will agree - you will not be able to get out of it.  That is how serious this
problem is.
Rehabilitation / Re: For Beginner: Questions and Answers.
« Last post by OtisBrown on November 09, 2016, 06:34:21 PM »
If I wore plus lenses when I got my first minus or even better some years earlier when starting studying for hours most propably I wouldn't have to deal with added problems as diplopia, left-right ratio and good night vision now.
The good thing is that after many months of patching my eye I have some flashes of good vision for my right eye now.

Hi Alex -
I also believe, that if a GOOD optometrist, had told me about that proven -1/2 diopter per year, per each year I was in school, I would have convinced my self to either 1) Start wearing the plus with long-term consistency, or 2) Would have accepted responsibility for that -1/2 diopter per year - that I was certain to get into if:

1) I did not start wearing the plus for the long-term, and
2) If I thought that the "plus" was "therapy".

It is this issue of "not being told", by an optometrist - that concerns me the most.

People here seem to think that the "plus" is therapy and that it will "cure" them in a short time.  This is the tragedy - of all of us.

I give it to the ODs.  We do not WANT prevention - if it means long-term wearing of a plus.

Give them that much.  You want your vision extremely shart, instantly.  If you do not get it - the OD who is trying to help you - is INCOMPETENT - IN YOUR MIND.

That is why you will get "silence" from any OD if you attempt to get, 1) a reduced prescription, 2) advice on how to get out of it (self-measured 20/40), and 3) Your intelligence insulted - if you ask if the minus is high risk - for making matters far worse.

I truly wish "money" could be removed from the optometry business - and scientific honesty could prevail.

There were some OD who were HONEST with me - as I am honest with them. 
Rehabilitation / Re: For Beginner: Questions and Answers.
« Last post by Alex_Myopic on November 09, 2016, 12:25:54 PM »
If I wore plus lenses when I got my first minus or even better some years earlier when starting studying for hours most propably I wouldn't have to deal with added problems as diplopia, left-right ratio and good night vision now.
The good thing is that after many months of patching my eye I have some flashes of good vision for my right eye now.
Rehabilitation / Re: A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.
« Last post by OtisBrown on November 09, 2016, 09:38:06 AM »
Hi -
I truly like Jake. He is at least MAKING A START.
I personally never say, "therapy", or "cure", or anything medical.  I object to those who think that the plus is "therapy" - at all.
I also limit myself to people who can still see the 20/40 line (self-measure -1 diopter) and are in high school.

The person who can not "commit" to long-term plus wearing - will not succeed.
As I posted above - our natural eyes, "go down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year - of that I am totally certain -as pure science.
The "kids" wore a plus - and were successful - over five years. That means INTENTIONAL and long-term plus wearing.

A person who thinks that the plus ls "short term" - is in total ignorance of the problem.

I am a friend of Don Rehm.  He argues for the plus, of course, and would add a "myopter" - if you wished to use it.

But simple spherical lenses (as I am wearing them) cost me $10.  My trial lenses, about $30. 

But - it takes a very strong will - to do it.

Rehabilitation / The complete destruction of our vision with the FIRST minus lens.
« Last post by OtisBrown on November 09, 2016, 07:02:04 AM »
I have personal friends - who are "medical", that is ODs and MD.

I agree that dealing with the great, 'mass of humanity", in the sense of prevention (at 20/40) -- is impossible.

But here is what happens - when you put a young person in to a strong minus - and pretend that it is, "perfectly safe".

I only advocate - that you be INFORMED - of the possibility of prevention, when in High School, and still able to read the 20/40 line.

But will ANY OD "volunteer" this information to you.  The answer is a profound NO - because they do not think you have both the intelligence and motivation to take true prevention seriously.   That is total OD arrogance. 

Todd was successful because 1) He is an engineer, 2) He had a "weak" prescription, 3) He took long-term plus wearing very seriously,  4) He took passing the 20/40 line (DMV REQUIREMENT) very seriously.

I do not advocate that a person attempt to work on "prevention" unless he is like Todd.

I will enjoy your commentary on this issue.  The question is this.  "Do you want a discussion about this issue, while you can still read the 20/40 line?"   
Rehabilitation / Re: A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.
« Last post by j23 on November 09, 2016, 04:25:31 AM »

Subject:  The reality is that we must pass the 20/30 and 20/25 line. 

The demand for 20/10 vision - is not reasonable.  But if the "plus" were truly pushed for several  years - you could succeed.  Here
is the commentary.   That proven -1/2 diopter per year, must be taken very seriously.

By Dimitriy -
  To my amazement within a mere four weeks I noticed a definitive improvement in my acuity and could suddenly see perfectly in my old pair of -1’s.  Filled with a sense of hope and jubilation I pushed forward by wearing strong plus lenses most of the time excluding activities where I absolutely needed to see well in the hopes that soon my vision would return to its perfect glory.  Over the next 1 to 2 years I tried many variations of plus lens therapy but unfortunately my vision wouldn’t budge and despite having occasional flashes of perfect vision without glasses there was no stability to my improvement.
It has been about 5 month now since I have started applying the principles of your method and the results are nothing short of amazing.  I can now see nearly 20/10 in fluorescent lighting in -1.25L/ -1.5R and have crystal clear clarity at night time with that prescription.  In a mere 5 month I have knocked out a diopter of blur and currently wear -0.5L/-0.75R for my normalized prescription.  I plan to soon equalize that normalized to-0.5/-0.5 and continue the march toward perfect clarity.  My goal is to eventually be able to see as well in a +0.5 prescription as I currently do with the -1.25.

Hi Otis

When I am reading this lines, that one can succeed to "squint" his eyes by only around 1D (and the first visible sign of better acuity is after 4 weeks which can be attributed rather to ocular muscles training or ciliary spasm release than to reshape of the eye) and then plus lens didn't work any further despite trying different techniques with the PLUS.

Also I wonder about any negative effects - a case described by Rheim:
that convergence is broken after e.g. a year thus giving no further help or prevention effect for a mild myope (was -1D only) !

More about the convergence topic -

Thus question arise - maybe a modified version of plus teraphy to WALK with plus lenses (to have more natural conditions) is more suitable for eye, than take them for reading  ?

Then the person is using "active focus" teraphy of Jake rather than PLUS lenses (maybe he was using PLUS, but it is not mentioned)
Anyway a more proof would be if Dmitriy really re-gained another diopter.

And Jake is saying about PLUS that try to avoid if possible to replace with pulling at natural distance (yes I know not reasonable for an office white collar workers)


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]