EndMyopia - A complaint about expensive glasses.

[Wheelie]

No, you don't understand, I misinterpreted what you said as impossible, you meant it's hard to get results at -4.5..

Both methods (pvs and gettingstronger)  describe using a plus lense only if one has low myopia, to create the point of blur at not too big a distance, but when I (and the guy in your text)  use plus lens  at -4.5, the focal point is around 15cm. What's the idea behind using a plus at these diopter levels?  The eye won't learn to autofocus when everything is too blurry.

[OtisBrown]

Hi Whee,

You do not understand.  When you put a minus lens all all NATURAL EYES, this is what always happens - in pure science.

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

Do you dispute this fact - or do you wish to IGNORE IT ??

The OD HOPES you never understand how THEY screwed up your eyes - now that it is too late to do anything about it.

The issue is to NEVER start wearing a strong minus, lens (because of this proven effect), BEFORE you go below -1 diopter.

I think pure science, (as per above) should be presented to you ,  in a very strong way, BEFORE you are given a minus over-prescribed by
-1 to -2 diopters.

The OD feels that you are too stupid to understand this choice.

Now you are screwed permanently by this OD, BECAUSE YOU WERE GIVEN NO CHOICE, when you could have gotten out of 20/40 (self-measured -1 diopter).

Sorry - I was not the one who put you in  a very strong minus lens.

The OD who did this to you - is to blame.

That is all.

No, you don't understand, I misinterpreted what you said as impossible, you meant it's hard to get results at -4.5..

Both methods (pvs and gettingstronger)  describe using a plus lense only if one has low myopia, to create the point of blur at not too big a distance, but when I (and the guy in your text)  use plus lens  at -4.5, the focal point is around 15cm. What's the idea behind using a plus at these diopter levels?  The eye won't learn to autofocus when everything is too blurry.

[Wheelie]

Actually I'm to blame myself, because I stared too much to screens and books with minus glasses on, didn't know better.

Why does the plus lens improve vision for myopes? It did for me a bit when I worn it for a day (+2 I believe) but why?

[OtisBrown]

Hi Whee,

Actually, the FIRST OD, who saw you at 20/40 (self-measured -1 diopter) screwed your vision up, permanently.  I will explain why in due course.

I advocate that ALL ODS who deal with you professionally, had you a statement:

1)  You have a right to be informed of the second-opinion, that any wearing of a minus lens - will make your distant vision permanently worse.

2) To be effective, at 20/40, you must not wear a minus lens at all (assuming in school, and 20/40 is good enough.)

3) You will wear a strong plus FOR ALL CLOSE WORK, as long as you are in school.  You will always be responsible to objectively
exceed the 20/40 line (and much better) under YOUR control.

4) If you do not do this, or are LAZY about this, or are not concerned, your refraction will go down at a steady rate of
-1/2 diopter .... for each year in school. 

5)  It is all up to you.  The OD can suggest this as totally necessary (as pure science), but you better convince yourself of pure
science, if you are going to ever be successful.

6) My objection?  No OD will ever tell you this.  But it is like Dennis.  I just present objective facts, and they you
choose what you want to do about it.

Then next thing you will tell me is this.  No child will wear a plus for the long term - to save their vision though the school years.

Here is Nate, a medical doctor - who INSISTS that HIS child wear the plus with the intelligence required.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lxDeSBhyjY

Enjoy,

Actually I'm to blame myself, because I stared too much to screens and books with minus glasses on, didn't know better.

Why does the plus lens improve vision for myopes? It did for me a bit when I worn it for a day (+2 I believe) but why?

[Wheelie]

I'm aware of the harm of the minus lens, but it is only harmful when over prescribed and when it is worn for close work.
But never mindmind that.

Why does the plus lens improve vision? I tried to ask that a couple of times, but you don't answer it
Someone said you advocate that newborn babies should  instantly wear the plus lens, this is incorrect right?

[OtisBrown]

Hi Whee,

The minus lens is ALWAYS HARMFUL.   It is always over-prescribed.  To avoid wearing it, (at 20/40), when you are prescribed a -2.25 diotper - you MUST NOT WEAR IT - EVER.

So how do you avoid wearing it?  Well, you objectively read the 20/40 (at home, on your bright Snellen). Then you understand how important it is to START wearing a strong plus, (because you are wise about that issue). You do this, because you never want get into -4 diopters - EVER.

Then you teach yourself some basic, "measurement optometry", by obtaining your OWN test lenses, of -1/2 and -1 diopter (for about $10.

Then you read the PROOF, that,  if in high school, entering college, YOUR REFRACTION WILL GO DOWN AT -1/2 DIOPTER PER YEAR - if you choose to LAUGH at wearing the plus, when at 20/40.

Let me repeat. The plus only has the possibility, IF the person is willing to accept the imperative of looking at pure science himself. 

Then he must accept a reasonable objective standard. That he always personally EXCEEDS the  20/40 line, and passes the only real objective test (go pass the DMV test.)

Then the  truly hard part  You must be smart enough to do this though four years of college.

To difficult for you?

Well then no one can help you.

I am sorry you seem to want a "cure" or "help" when you are at -4 diopters.  Sorry - you are in too deep to be helped.  If I said
anything else - you would say I was lying - to sell you on the concept of "just prevention".

I am NOT going to lie to you.

First you complain about Jake "lying to you" claiming you can get out of -4 diopters. Then you complain about him, "charging you money".

Then you complain when I say you must look at a Snellen.  They you argue with me, when I say that the eye is VERY VERY slow to
respond to the plus, when you can still read the 20/40 line - and can do prevention, only at that point.

Sorry, much as Dennis - I do not lie to you to "sell you" anything at all.

I'm aware of the harm of the minus lens, but it is only harmful when over prescribed and when it is worn for close work.
But never mindmind that.

Why does the plus lens improve vision? I tried to ask that a couple of times, but you don't answer it
Someone said you advocate that newborn babies should  instantly wear the plus lens, this is incorrect right?

[Wheelie]

It isn't over prescribed if the focal point is still in front of the retina, which causes axial shortening according to science. Undercorrection Jake, Todd and David call it.

I asked another question about the plus lens, but you only answer with how bad minus is. Everyone in here is already aware of that, because they've read Todd's articles.

[OtisBrown]

Good,

Now look at a Snellen, and get back to normal.

It isn't over prescribed if the focal point is still in front of the retina, which causes axial shortening according to science. Undercorrection Jake, Todd and David call it.

I asked another question about the plus lens, but you only answer with how bad minus is. Everyone in here is already aware of that, because they've read Todd's articles.

[Wheelie]

Good,

Now look at a Snellen, and get back to normal.

It isn't over prescribed if the focal point is still in front of the retina, which causes axial shortening according to science. Undercorrection Jake, Todd and David call it.



I asked another question about the plus lens, but you only answer with how bad minus is. Everyone in here is already aware of that, because they've read Todd's articles.

I apologize, you did answer my question, didn't read your full post. But what's the science behind the plus lens clearing vision? Jake supposedly was a -4 himself. And charging $1200 for 60 pre-written 'sessions' is 'charging too much money', money is his least favorite subject according to his words lol. 

[Wheelie]

Is it true you said that newborn babies need to wear + immediately?

They also say + lenses cause cataract, is there any truth in this?

[OtisBrown]

Hi Whee,

You are correct, based on  a bad theory of 1865, (Helmholtz).  Yes, children have positive status, and for that reason
SHOULD be prescribed a strong plus.  Here is the objective data, for your interest.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/FundEye.html

Thus these primates should have been prescribed a +4 diopters lens, because they have a refractive ERROR of +4 diopters.

Does that make sense to you?  Why not ask your current OD about this issue?

Here an optometrist (who you totally trust) speaks about "Ending Myopia" !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbLBXGET0aM

You complain about Jake's prices.  What do you think an OD charges for Ortho-K  "End Myopia".

It is about $ 1,500 per year.

And that is for each year you are myopic.  So after 10 years you pay him $ 15,000.

And you are still myopic.  Cost/Benefit Ration?

How effective is that treatment - Whellie.  Perhaps you should do that Ortho-K .

Is it true you said that newborn babies need to wear + immediately?

They also say + lenses cause cataract, is there any truth in this?

[Wheelie]

I don't have an od or optometrist, never been to an od.  I still see perfectly fine with my glasses from 2011,  no -0.50 increase per year like everyone claims, and I did do lots of close work with glasses on.

o-k isn't  a $1500 60 part pre-written newsletter. pvs &  hormesis are free and exactly the same method, except for distance pulling/pushing./focusing
 
No baby or toddler should wear +, doesn't matter what their error is, because most have perfect eyesight when they're older, the body adapts itself. Except for pseudo myopia a + for  close work could  help them.

What's the science behind the + lens according to you? Jake (&  DeAngelis)  say it's just a buzzword, and should  actively be used to create the blur horizon when the myopia is too low. http://endmyopia.org/reader-questions-plus-lens-therapy/

 

[OtisBrown]

Hi Wheelie,

Thank you for your expert opinion.

Now you can proceed to restore your eyes to naked-eye 20/20.

You do not need any of us - any more.

Best,

I don't have an od or optometrist, never been to an od.  I still see perfectly fine with my glasses from 2011,  no -0.50 increase per year like everyone claims, and I did do lots of close work with glasses on.

o-k isn't  a $1500 60 part pre-written newsletter. pvs &  hormesis are free and exactly the same method, except for distance pulling/pushing./focusing
 
No baby or toddler should wear +, doesn't matter what their error is, because most have perfect eyesight when they're older, the body adapts itself. Except for pseudo myopia a + for  close work could  help them.

What's the science behind the + lens according to you? Jake (&  DeAngelis)  say it's just a buzzword, and should  actively be used to create the blur horizon when the myopia is too low. http://endmyopia.org/reader-questions-plus-lens-therapy/

[Wheelie]

No expert opinion, just my view on what does and doesn't seem logical to me.

You provide info on avoidance  afaik (that's the purpose of your book, right?) , I'm looking into  reversal , and Todd and DeAngelis provide everything one needs, and some good scattered info on endmyopia.

It's all about near and far blur horizon, active facussing and light quality to reverse myopia as far as I've become aware from the info. .

[OtisBrown]

Hi Whee,

Thanks for the complement on my book:

https://myopiafree.wordpress.com/book/

By now you know I do not care about money - as such.  The book suggest that it would be very wise for
a pilot, who can still read the 20/40 line (entering a four year college), self-measured -1 diopter, take
"just prevention" very seriously.

But I know each person will "fall by the wayside", when he truly realizes that long-term plus lens wear is required.

But each of us has, "free will" so I just present objective scientific facts (that limits prevention to 20/40),
and allow the person to choose a course of action - that best fits his own professional needs.

I would point out, that this method requires scientific expertise - IN THE MIND OF THE PERSON HIMSELF.

I would also emphasize how difficult it is to do it.  I spell it out - that this method costs nothing in terms of money.

You just have to be smart enough to "figure it out" for yourself.

Enjoy your free will, and educated choice.

Best,

No expert opinion, just my view on what does and doesn't seem logical to me.

You provide info on avoidance  afaik (that's the purpose of your book, right?) , I'm looking into  reversal , and Todd and DeAngelis provide everything one needs, and some good scattered info on endmyopia.

It's all about near and far blur horizon, active facussing and light quality to reverse myopia as far as I've become aware from the info. .