Author Topic: Optometrist's OPINION, and the 20/40, deadly, "Event Horizon" - where you fight.  (Read 1529 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Subject: An Optometrist's OPINION, and the 20/40, deadly, "Event Horizon" - where you fight for your long-term distant vision.

Issue:  There are ODs who "rail" against their so-called, "under-prescription."  (Attached is an example of that professional anger - which removes their involvement in my life.)

I consider (as in science) that the last chance you have to slowly restore your Snellen to reasonable-normal, to started at self-confirmed 20/40 (self measured -1 diopter.)

I make NO CLAIM of anyone's success.  I consider this an educated, scientific "either/or" choice that can not involve the opinion, or measurement of an optometrist. 

This is why I always verify my own Snellen, and am very happy when I always exceed the 20/25 line.  This is why no one should do this measurement - but yourself.  Always before you 1) Go to an OD, and 2) Go for your DMV check, where you must exceed the 20/40 line.

This is not a "medical issue".  It is a matter of "personal education, in science and fact". 

I will add my commentary - to "balance" this self-serving OD's opinion.

Remember, there are sincere, honest optometrist who believe as I do - that the person must do all objective prevention himself.

(Remember, there are ODs who think the over-prescribed minus is a very bad idea.  I never forget them.  I honor them by my statement.  They are
correct, but I must take care of prevention, completely alone, while prevention is possible. )


OD> Subject:  New Breakthroughs.

OD> We need to stop obsessing with over/under-correction and look into other options.

Otis> Notice, by "we" he means himself.  He does not mean you and me.  The entire tenner, is not about successful prevention, is it about an OD telling you that he is always right, and you are always wrong.   In fact, that first minus (worn all the time - because you do not know any better - is the permanent killer of your natural vision. )

Otis> Typical extreme opinion, that you are incompetent to engage in true-prevention under your control.  Not wearing a minus lens (when you objectively pass the 20/40 line, is not "under-correction".  It is very wise to not wear the minus at all.  You can also always wear a plus for near, all during the school years.  Do not ask an OD for any help doing this.

OD>  Recent studies from Australia and East Asia suggest bright outdoor light could reduce myopia progression. Innovative lens designs have also been shown to be effective. Atropine and similar cycloplegic drugs have delivered promising results as well. In comparison, over/undercorrection are clinically irrelevant.

Otis> Long-term studies show that "long-term near" create negative status, and it would be wise to understand the proven science behind this experimental reality. REMEMBER, the OD has no interest in YOU slowly getting a change of +3/4 diopters, and back to 20/25.  It is not his "business interest".  It is all "money" for him, and all your permanent vision-loss for you.

OD>  I am not sure what this means for adult myopes,

Otis> The wise person, who AVOIDED this OD, by intentionally wearing a plus, full time though the school years, NEVER BECOMES AND "ADULT MYOPE". But this is no thanks to the OD who over-prescribed a person at 20/40, with a -2.5 diopters for full time wear.

OD> ...but unless the exact AL/choroid regulation mechanism is unraveled or a surprise study shows myopia reversal in a large population study, our options are limited.

Otis> He is not talking about YOUR options, when you are the "Event Horizon" for true prevention.

OD> Thankfully, the picture is getting somewhat clearer: the human eye needs excellent illumination and visual acuity to properly regulate eye shape.

Otis> At least he acknowledges this truth.

OD> Peripheral defocus also seems to be very important. Let's hope we can somehow take advantage of these findings.

Otis> I have a poor opinion of this OD.  Other ODs, have been very clear about that FIRST over-prescribed minus lens.  It is indeed POISON, and you should understand this ODs "attitude" against science and self-prevention.

Otis> Let us be clear about this arrogant optometrist.  His interest is ONLY in "lens sales".

Otis> This is why you can not trust this optometrist.  It is all about money for him.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2015, 03:35:07 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Subject:  The "event horizon", when you objectively reject wearing a minus lens - permanently.

There is a REASONABLE standard - that I must ALWAYS pass, under my control.  That is reading most of the letters on the 20/40 line.  No one cares about this - but me.  No one cares about "getting back out of it" - but you.  If you do not care, then no one cares. 

But given my dis-trust of an OD in his office, I must always take the fact that my Snellen is "down to" 20/40, very seriously - because the OD will not take science seriously.  This is why I get my test lenses from Zennioptical, for $15.  Then I can verify my refractive state is slightly negative.  Then I can safely begin wearing a strong plus for all close work, under my wise control.  Here "endmyopia" reviews this critical subject for all people with the "smarts" to do prevention under their control.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Subject:  Let me add the following as a legal responsibility.

I am a pilot, so I always meet the FAA regulations. I do this my monitoring my own Snellen, and making certain I am far above this objective requirement. If a person is looking for a “point” where he can stop wearing a minus lens – then this is a good objective measure. (People have their own “agenda” on this subject so they just do not listen to any preventive advice - nor do they take warnings seriously about this issue.)

I will always EXCEED the objective legal requirement - on my own.   But most people can not "give up" wearing that minus - because it is so impressive.


Eye standards for a third-class (FAA) airman medical certificate are:

(a) Distant visual acuity of 20/40 or better in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If corrective lenses (spectacles or contact lenses) are necessary for 20/40 vision, the person may be eligible only on the condition that corrective lenses are worn while exercising the privileges of an airman certificate.


I think too many people are “in love” with extreme sharpness, produced by a -2 diopter lens.

So when you suggest they stop wearing it (when at 20/40) they refuse to do it.

I have had people (with verified 20/40) INSIST that they always must wear a -1 diopter contact lens. 

I “give up” on that type of person. It take real resolve, to get better than 20/40, and you will have to do this by your own “agenda”. I RESPECT legal requirements that I objectively confirm.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 04:01:27 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Subject: Why I feel cheated by optometrists ... who do  not tell me what they know.

Issue: Until I ask them if they know the minus lens is bad for my eyes.  Then they answer with a "chuckle", and say that, "yes, we knew this all along".

This is why I gave up on ODs. Maybe you trust them - but I can not.

Kim>  I actually asked my optometrist about lens induced myopia, and I was in utter disbelief by the end of the appointment.

Kim>  I told him about how I read about lens induced myopia, and how I have been reading from some papers written by ph.d students on how wearing glasses that are meant to see far for close up work was bad.

Kim>  He told me that everything I said was true.

I have been going to him since I was a child, so I asked him why didn't he prescribed me differential prescriptions instead or tell me about any of this the last 15 or so years.

Kim> He chuckled and told me that it was too late for me now ...

Otis> In other words, he knew for certain that the minus would screw Kim's refractive state up - permanently.  But he did not feel ANY RESPONSIBILITY to TELL HER TO NOT WEAR THE MINUS LENS - at that stage in her life.

Kim> I was 10 years old when I started going to him for glasses!

Otis> Why not tell Kim, when she is 10 years old, about the adverse effect of a strong minus, when she still has 20/40 vision, and can avoid the minus??

Otis> Why not present her with objective science?

Otis> I will argue for intelligent prevention, with and FOR the person, but not if the person starts wearing a strong minus all the time. Then is
WILL BE TOO LATE for Kim - and all children.

Otis> Yes, I do know it takes a wise person to understand how dangerous a minus lens is - as perfect science.  I understand that very few
people will take plus-prevention seriously, when they can make full prevention effective for themselves.

Otis> But I do plead for the OD, to JUST WARN ME about the profound and adverse effect the minus lens has on all natural eye.

Otis> Let *ME* look at the facts of science. Let *ME* make the scientific choice - about plus prevention.

Otis> If I make the wrong choice - then the "nearsightedness" I develop - is my own fault - not the fault of the optometrist.

Otis> Do not force me to ASK YOU, and then have you TELL ME, "Chuckle", yes I knew the minus lens was bad for you ... but now it is too late for you now.  Sorry!


« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 04:30:21 PM by OtisBrown »