Recent Posts

91

Rehabilitation / Re: Can the eye grow shorter?

« Last post by j23 on November 23, 2016, 02:07:49 AM »

I have a doubt about PLUS
Could anybody help on this ?

What is the answer for axial length of 50+ seniors ? They take stronger and stronger plus not for any prevention but for presyobia.
Then by using such plus (+1 , +2 or even more) they should acquire pretty quickly hyperopia ?

So are they too old to grow the eye shorter (less elastic) ? Or they do not properly wear PLUS (not to the limits which triggers change).

 

92

Rehabilitation / Re: New Prescription- added cylinder back on - Update

« Last post by j23 on November 23, 2016, 01:33:33 AM »

...
I've currently made 3 kids in my locality ditch their -0.5 lens with very recent prescription. Asking them to wear plus is however difficult. Happy if they get out of school without a minus. They can take their own decision for wearing plus after 18.

I do not know how old are the kids you mentioned , but I am sure by not wearing they will not recover (if it was the case everybody would recover automatically). Maybe if their parents  could access http://www.preventmyopia.org/ videos this would help to understand.

When I was 14 years old  - I got -0.5 (matching my cycloplegic refractive error ) - at my country we do not go to optometrist but an eye doctor so then they are able to measure true error. I was never wearing but at the same time I did not change my habits for computers and near work.
It is alawys going only worse then. My doughter who was so clever that when first diagnosed for myopia at 10 years old - she had -1,5 -2.0 S.E with some astigmatism (cycloplegic refractive error). As she is reading a lot, and playing computer it was not going to improve any better (after a year of not using it was slightly worse, especially weaker eye).

So not wearing is not a cure.

For plus wearing - you may be correct that taking on cylinder should help PLUS teraphy - as then the eye is not confused if there is focus or not.
I have this very often - if the eye is strained to its limits to see double or distorted image via 1 eye (after PLUS wearing) as my cycloplegic cylinder is -0.75 in weaker eye. If I did not progress soon then I will consider this modification on myself.

My starting prescription  was-
1) right eye- -2 sph -1.75 cyl
2) left eye      -2 sph  -0.75 cyl

...
Yesterday went to optometrist and got a new prescript
1) right eye- -0.75 sph -.75 cyl
2) left eye      -0.75 sph  -0.5 cyl
with this i could see 20/20 on sellen, both eyes open,

It is very misleading to measure both eyes open then the better eye gives most of the vision. So maybe the progress was from what Otis used to mention - overprescribed in the first place, and then you underprescribe ?


I am sceptical that you are able to maintain this pace of progress. Maybe at start it was possible, but in the long run rather .25 improvement per 3 months is a reasonable expectation. Comparing this to other activities like running - if you had never run, then after some weeks you can be noticably better until you reach your 100% activated physical limits. .

93

Rehabilitation / Re: How to "deal" with an arrogant optometrist?

« Last post by OtisBrown on November 12, 2016, 07:25:34 AM »

I  have no intention to "fight" with an OD in his office.  There is no point to doing that.

The OD has no chance to help you - and that is the simple truth about optometry.

94

Rehabilitation / Re: For the beginner - Scientific truth - trumps the minus lens.

« Last post by OtisBrown on November 12, 2016, 07:20:38 AM »

Is ANYONE successful - when he accepts that long-term plus wearing - is required.

Here are remarks from my nephew, Keith B., who heard what I said about the need to 1) Never wear a minus lens 2) Wear a plus for all close work - during college, 3) Always check and pass the 20/40 line, and 4) The plus is safe - and the minus lens is dangerous - as science shows it to be.  Keith is now over  50 years old.  I admire his success !

=======

From Dr. Raphaelson's experience with, "The Printer's Son", (Chapter 3), it has become clear that you must understand the bad results that occur when you use the negative lens. More than this, Jacob's analysis demonstrated that even a completely dedicated eye doctor can not overcome the popular misconceptions that exists in the public's mind about eye doctors and the use of the preventive lens.

I made a major effort to help my niece and nephew. They developed a clear understanding of the problem of nearsightedness and the type or solution that could be expected. I believe that providing them with a "fighting chance" to defeat the problem is better than providing no chance at all. Both used the plus lens and retained clear distant vision without prescription lenses. They understood that it would take long-term commitment to achieve the desired result. I asked my nephew to write a short note to describe his own effort and outcome as he worked to maintain clear distant vision through college.

FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WEARING A PLUS LENS

Dear Uncle,          February 19, 1990

     Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid
Nearsightedness".  I got it yesterday after I came back from the
weekend.  I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I
have a great deal of school work to read.

     I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that
one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check
my eyes with the eye chart.  I am able to read the 20/20 line on
the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most
of the time now.  I have always passed the driver's license eye
test.

     I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I
read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total
reading I do.  I started using them as much as possible again
because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I
didn't check them on a chart).  I am lucky to have an uncle who
showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my
nearsightedness.

     One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and
then use or adapt methods to work for me.  In the last few years I
have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the
magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to
deteriorate.  Then I realize it's time to do something to stop
that process.

     At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I
know what it does for my vision.  Thanks for taking the time to
tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for
the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending
me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the
methods I am using.

          Keith

95

Rehabilitation / Re: For the beginner - Scientific truth - trumps the minus lens.

« Last post by OtisBrown on November 12, 2016, 07:13:55 AM »

What do the ODs KNOW - and refuse to talk about?

It is the proven -1/2 diopter per year - if you even START wearing a strong minus lens - when you still have 20/40. The above science - shows how bad the minus lens - based on science, not on "medical opinion".

How do they excuse this ignorance?  The simply say that this, -1/2 diopter per year (proven) .... is NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY!

By what "rationality" do they reject this science. They just simply say, "... it is all  YOUR, bad heredity".

This is indeed a tragic "sucker punch", when you EXPECTED THEM  to tell you scientific truth - and encourage you to protect your distant vision for life - even if you must do it yourself.

But the requirement for long-term plus wearing (scientific proof), is very serious.  Very few people are willing to do this - for themselves.  The proof comes from a 5 year study with children - who wore the plus - and saved their vision.

For a mature adult - who can understand this issue - results can be much better.

96

Rehabilitation / Re: For the beginner - Scientific truth - trumps the minus lens.

« Last post by OtisBrown on November 12, 2016, 07:08:28 AM »

For me - perhaps alone - that proven dynamic behavior of all natural eyes - is final.

What concerns me - is the fact that NO OD will "volunteer" this information to you - when you NEED IT THE MOST.

Our eyes do not "become defective" because we change our "average" value of accommodation, from intense close work. (No stress, no strain - at all). No, they simply change their refractive STATE at a rate of -1/2 diopter  per year, year after year after year.  It is important to know this - while you can still read the 20/40 line and AVOID starting with a minus, while hope can still exist for you. 

Telling you the truth, is indeed the "Elephant in the Room".  It is your ignorance of science - that will kill your vision - permanently. 
I only ask an OD to TELL ME, about this issue - while I can still personally, "save my vision" - for life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJmtiIxb9E0

I do not conduct a "popularity contest". Far from it.  I just want to be told scientific truth - in which case if I do not start wearing a plus, in high school, I WILL LOSE MY VISION.

This decision is too critical - to be relegated to an "OD IN HIS OFFICE".  Yet it is always the OD in his office - who is the "Elephant in the Room".  Science is better than that

97

Rehabilitation / Re: For the beginner - Scientific truth - trumps the minus lens.

« Last post by OtisBrown on November 12, 2016, 07:04:50 AM »

Do you want the pure scientific answer - or do you want the "box camera" answer?

This is the question that troubled me the most.  It is a matter of very serious science.  It is necessary to stop talking about, "length", which is always speculation, and talk ONLY about what you actually measure, (refractive STATE).  That is how to clarify this issue - and avoid "medical debates" - that produce only anger and confusion.

To simplify - does the natural eye, control its refractive STATE - based on its average value of accommodation?  To answer this question, you need to experiment on the normal primate eye - with a -3 diopter lens, and eyes with normal refractive states.

A -3 diopter lens will change the average accommodation signal by about +3 diopters.  That is the only objective issue you must understand.  The refractive state, was measured with atropine or other "freezing" drug.

The expected result of the "box camera" theory, is that the normal eye - will never change its refractive STATE, based on a proven change in average accommodation.  Her is the animation of this defining scientific experiment:

The resultant change in refractive STATE, (please IGNORE length change - it is not proven).

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

The refractive STATE change - is proven science.  Do not speculate about "length" - is has no meaning.

Equally, the question - will changing the accommodation direction - have a similar effect. Here is the result:i

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/pos_lens_induce_hyperopia.swf

This is pure-science.  It is totally ignored in medicine.  You are not expected to be smart enough to understand
this critical science - of all natural eyes.

The rest - is up to you!

98

Rehabilitation / For the beginner - Scientific truth - trumps the minus lens.

« Last post by OtisBrown on November 12, 2016, 07:01:05 AM »

From:  A SCIENTIFIC MIND, AND "CAN THE EYE GROW SHORTER:

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.)

99

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:

http://endmyopia.org/even-mild-myopia-linked-poor-quality-life/

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.

100

Rehabilitation / interesting study on presbyopia -- implications for other vision problems too?

« Last post by caimanjosh on November 10, 2016, 11:12:35 AM »

I came across an interesting study the other day regarding presbyopia:  http://www.nature.com/articles/srep00278

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.