Author Topic: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.  (Read 27779 times)

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #60 on: October 03, 2012, 08:36:35 PM »
1) No one will wear plus always. This is because the moment we go out or take a break from near work we have to remove plus  lenses so that we see more clear .

On this point I agree.  And also, for those times you take them off, you will also end up giving near glances, whereby your accomodative system will respond or be excercised normally.

2) If you follow eye exercises like rotation , convergence & divergence , stretching will make the muscles strong enough to remove the blur at close.

I am not sure how it happens.  But eventually you consistently make it clear at that distance, and keep pushing the blur out further whereby the same symptom appears.  But take off the plus lenses, and the symptom goes away.

Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #61 on: October 03, 2012, 09:01:32 PM »
Peter

I don't have a proof for point 2 & can state only my case.

What I have observed with exercises my peripheral view had improved. Also I feel exercises gives the eye extra flexibility  needed to use plus at near which puts more than natural burden on our system .

Initially when I started with reduced glasses for reading ( My myopia is high) I use to feel a tiredness in eyes & also eyes use to take some time to see clear even with full prescription at near & far.

After following exercises for many months I can switch quickly with no blur or tiredness feeling . I personally follow the exercises supported in PVS by David .


Proh
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 09:03:48 PM by PROH »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #62 on: October 04, 2012, 03:31:03 AM »
Proh,

My “Advocacy” and Understanding on these issues:

“If we know a truth then we must do our best to live by it and pass it on to our children.”

Otis Brown

“At some point, the truth you uncover is going to demand a response. And that could change everything.”

- Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator

“Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.”

- Spencer Johnson

“They love us and they love the truth so perfectly that they will not indulge us by collaborating in our lies and leading us to believe we’re doing right when we’re not.

When we’re mired in any degree of self-deception, we cannot fathom how desperately we need the solid, immovable truth that true friends revere.

– C. Terry Warner, Bonds That Make Us Free, Healing Our Relationships, Coming To Ourselves


Hi Peter

First of all I thank you & Otis for good discussion on this topic.

The two side effects you discussed can have very low probability .

1) No one will wear plus always. This is because the moment we go out or take a break from near work we have to remove plus  lenses so that we see more clear .
2) If you follow eye exercises like rotation , convergence & divergence , stretching will make the muscles strong enough to remove the blur at close.

What is your view

Proh

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #63 on: October 04, 2012, 09:28:55 AM »
Hi Proh,
I truly don't know what you mean by this statement:

The two side effects you discussed can have very low probability .

1) No one will wear plus always. This is because the moment we go out or take a break from near work we have to remove plus  lenses so that we see more clear .

Otis>  Of course - but I don't know what you mean.  The OBVIOUS thing to do, when our eyes have a SLIGHT negative status (i.e., 20/40, -1 diopter) is to immediately "fix" it with a minus lens.

Otis> I truly understand that issue.  But, it takes a first-rate mind, and a hell of a lot of motivation to NOT FIX IT THAT WAY. 

Otis> It take a mind that realizes that this (at 20/40) is simply the NATRUAL EYE "adapting" to long-term near, and can never be considered a "failure".  I know you want to "fix the error" - but that never helps.

Otis> The only other alternative, is to realize that you "fix the near" with a plus.  That truly does require BOTH good insights, and long-term persistence in wearing the plus (which gets the "near" into the "far distance". 

Otis> Thus NO minus, and heavy, persistence of the plus 2.5 for ALL CLOSE WORK.

Otis> That works, but it is not a "cure" in any sense of the word.

Otis - I don't see "exercise" as being a solution.

Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #64 on: October 04, 2012, 08:32:47 PM »
Hi Otis

I was referring the peter post.

Quote
Summarizing what I have learned as far as risks of using plus therapy at near.  From an OD, what would be expected in my case is that I would only cause double vision at near while using the device, or the plus lenses.  Once I stop using the device, the double vision symptom would go away.  That does not seem to be too harsh of a risk situation.  The other risk is associated with using plus for far as well as near.  I think the idea is to give your eyes/brain breaks to allow them to accomodate and converge under naked eye conditions occasionally.  So I think that risk can be mitigated by taking daily breaks, and not doing 100% forceful plus therapy 24/7.

Also I have posted what my observations are .
I also agree with you that exercise alone  are  not cure but they are helpful. There are many posts by Todd who has also supported that we should work at edge of focus with eye exercises. I feel Todd & others who have done the combination of both can add.

Proh
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 09:09:42 PM by PROH »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #65 on: October 05, 2012, 04:18:05 AM »
Hi Proh,

You are correct. David DeAnglis and others made HEAVY use of a plus - and exercise of various sorts.  I have no argument, or dispute about that.  But if you are asking what "I" would PERSONALLY do, the I would make heavy use of the plus, because that is incredibly easy to do. But it does take knowledge that this process must be started - AND CONTINUED - as long as you are in a "school environment".

If you think getting a "young person" to wear a plus is difficult - you can only imagine how impossible it is to get them to do "exercise" on a regular or long-term basis.

It is my choice if I only wear the plus for prevention, and always confirm that I pass the 20/40 line.  Peter mentions a "risk" from wearing a plus for near - implying that we should NOT wear the plus when our Snellen is at 20/40.

I study the entire primate eye, and know for certain that ANY WEARING OF A MINUS LENS IS "HIGH RISK" FOR CREATING MUCH MORE MYOPIA.  But, as before, I wear the plus for this typing that I am doing - to protect my distant vision.  I have no "fear" of wearing the plus in this manner.  I would FEAR losing my distant vision (if I verified 20/40) and DID NOT WEAR THAT PLUS.

Thus, there is fear.  I fear the minus lens for scientific reasons, and the fact that it helps nothing at all.  I do agree that (for my own testing purposes)  that when I have 20/40, I will use a -1/2 to confirm I HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF 20/20 ON MY RETINA. Then, I would not wear the minus - because of the danger of it. I would obligate myself to make heavy use of the plus, until I confirmed 20/20.

I know people "fear" the plus, as described by Zane.  That is tragic, because now Zane is at -3.5 diopters - and if in school, his vision will continue down, down, down.  No one can help him - because he was in fear of using the plus correctly.

This is truly and "educated choice" for a parent of child.  You can neglect it - but if you ignore it - there is no "second-chance" in my opinion.

Otis



Hi Otis

I was referring the peter post.

Quote
Summarizing what I have learned as far as risks of using plus therapy at near.  From an OD, what would be expected in my case is that I would only cause double vision at near while using the device, or the plus lenses.  Once I stop using the device, the double vision symptom would go away.  That does not seem to be too harsh of a risk situation.  The other risk is associated with using plus for far as well as near.  I think the idea is to give your eyes/brain breaks to allow them to accomodate and converge under naked eye conditions occasionally.  So I think that risk can be mitigated by taking daily breaks, and not doing 100% forceful plus therapy 24/7.

Also I have posted what my observations are .
I also agree with you that exercise alone  are  not cure but they are helpful. There are many posts by Todd who has also supported that we should work at edge of focus with eye exercises. I feel Todd & others who have done the combination of both can add.

Proh


Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #66 on: October 05, 2012, 04:45:16 AM »
I agree with you that wearing plus is difficult for kids & exercises more than that . But a good mix of  both will produce more favorable effects . we should al least try .
I am doing some mild  exercises with my daughter , only 5-10 min but least have a habit for future .

Proh

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #67 on: October 05, 2012, 05:06:24 AM »
Hi Proh,

I went through this with my sister and her children.  Since we all "love" convention and the minus lens -  it was very hard for her to accept the necessity that, with wisdom, her children should wear the "plus", when required, through the school years.  Virtually NO ONE is told about that "down" rate of -2/3 diopters per year - or if told this truth - WILL TAKE IT SERIOUSLY AND WEAR THE PLUS WHEN AT 20/40.  Thus true success is to know this - EXACTLY - and know you can't teach the Eskimo children to wear the plus when at 20/40.  I have no objection to "exercise", but I think a person must concentrate on the "long-term" down rate, and understand that success is to personally verify WHEN YOU OBJECTIVELY SEE YOUR VISION GOING DOWN - and start prevention as soon as possible with a strong plus. 

No I can't "proven" that my sister's children were successful - because success (always pass the 20/40 line under YOUR control) - is NEVER CONSIDERED A SUCCESS.

That is the "pure hell" of even attempting to talk about prevention with a plus (when at 20/40).  They have no interest, and will never do it.  The consequence of neglect are very serious - but they don't understand WHY you must do it yourself before you go much below 20/40. 

People in medicine, simply can only "react" to a self-created negative status that we CREATE by our 'long-term near work".  It would be my intention to TAKE TOTAL PERSONAL responsibility (as Dr. Colgate did), always verify 20/40 or better at home, and then never "accept" a bad prescription in an office.

In fact, from my videos, you see me verifying 20/20, and positive status of +3/4 diopters - because I am an engineer, and know exactly what I am doing and why I am doing it.

Last time I went to an OD (with my 20/20) HE WANTED TO PRESCRIBE A STRONG LENS.  I took it home, again read 20/20 on my Snellen - and tore up the prescription.

Otis




I agree with you that wearing plus is difficult for kids & exercises more than that . But a good mix of  both will produce more favorable effects . we should al least try .
I am doing some mild  exercises with my daughter , only 5-10 min but least have a habit for future .

Proh

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #68 on: October 05, 2012, 05:21:23 AM »
Hi Proh,

Subject: People who take total control with the plus - and always wear the plus when necessary - because they are smart.

Even Dr. Colgate did not "know" about that -2/3 diopters per year.  You now know this for your own child. The Eskimo children did not know this (because no one would tell them).

Colgate was wise, and started before he went "below" 20/60. He did not support "exercise" as he states. He had a hard time getting a "plus" when necessary.  Whenever he saw his vision "go down", he just re-started wearing the plus.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/AboutUs.txt

I think any "wise, motivated child" at age 14 could do this - with STRONG PARENTAL SUPPORT.  Real solutions come, to from "external" people - but from the "internal" wisdom of the person himself.

That is the real lesson we should teach ourselves.

Otis

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #69 on: October 05, 2012, 06:36:39 AM »

Last time I went to an OD (with my 20/20) HE WANTED TO PRESCRIBE A STRONG LENS.  I took it home, again read 20/20 on my Snellen - and tore up the prescription.


There was no harm in keeping the perscription for your records.

The OD gave you a perscription that compensated for your refractive error as they measured it.

This is why if I ever improve my accuity and get to the 20/25 level or better, I am not going to expect sharp distance vision.  But I am expecting it will be good and clear enough as I assume I will continue to have a refractive error.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #70 on: October 05, 2012, 06:48:47 AM »
Hi Peter,

I know that both of us are honest about these issues.  I don't have a "refractive error", and my Snellen is 20/20.  To "prescribe" a +3/4 diopter lens for me, that would cost me $175 - is JUST WRONG!  Further, I don't 'argue" with an OD in his office.  Keeping a "record" of an excessive an inaccurate measurement, is never "good science".  My measurements are far more accurate than an OD in his office - who does not have the time and devotion to "measurement science" - that I do.

I am indeed "on the hook" to pass the 20/40 or better myself.  I wish that everyone did this - and had my experience making these accurate measurements.  In fact I have promoted a "engineering study" where each would-be student would be taught HOW the measure their refractive state - PERSONALLY.

I truly believe that if you EXPLAIN to a person HOW to make a measurement, and then INSURE he is accurate, he will be successful.  Perhaps I have more confidence in the motivation and intelligence in my fellow engineers than you do.  I don't dispute you, however.

I only state that MOST PEOPLE don't have the intensive motivation that I do.  Remember, I think a pilot (at 20/40, and -3/4 diopters) WOULD have the motivation, and with the addition of self-measurement - would succeed.

Maybe I am a "wild optimist" - but I think that type of scientific study would succeed.  It succeeded with Brian Severson and Todd, why not others who are at 20/40?

Otis




Last time I went to an OD (with my 20/20) HE WANTED TO PRESCRIBE A STRONG LENS.  I took it home, again read 20/20 on my Snellen - and tore up the prescription.


There was no harm in keeping the perscription for your records.

The OD gave you a perscription that compensated for your refractive error as they measured it.

This is why if I ever improve my accuity and get to the 20/25 level or better, I am not going to expect sharp distance vision.  But I am expecting it will be good and clear enough as I assume I will continue to have a refractive error.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #71 on: October 05, 2012, 08:24:05 AM »
Hi Peter and Proh,
Subject: Why I have great respect for medical people - including the fact that they can't help anyone with prevention at 20/50

I would suggest you read the remarks of "Zane" here.  They show a young man "interested" in plus-prevention, and then developing a GREAT FEAR OF WEARING A PLUS.

http://gettingstronger.org/2012/04/how-one-person-improved-his-vision/#comments

This is why I do everything myself.  I don't ask anyone to do something that I would not do.  I think you both know that I have objective, 20/20 vision.  I think you both know I am competent to measure my own refractive state - ACCURATELY.

You ask WHY I do not "trust" and OD or MD measurement, or why I ask a person to  verify his own Snellen chart.

I had a friend, Dennis Romish.  He has a -4.00 diopter prescription.  I asked him to READ HIS OWN SNELLEN.  It was about 20/50.  This seemed impossible.  The eye does not change by 3.5 diopters in three weeks.  But, since  he was at 20/50, I asked him to wear the plus - and continue.  In due course he read the 20/40 and went and passed the DMV requirement in Maryland.  You ask me why I should BLINDLY trust any "prescription"?  That is why I do not "TRUST".  I hope you understand.

Otis

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #72 on: October 05, 2012, 12:21:07 PM »
Hi Peter,

I know that both of us are honest about these issues.  I don't have a "refractive error", and my Snellen is 20/20.  To "prescribe" a +3/4 diopter lens for me, that would cost me $175 - is JUST WRONG!  Further, I don't 'argue" with an OD in his office.  Keeping a "record" of an excessive an inaccurate measurement, is never "good science".  My measurements are far more accurate than an OD in his office - who does not have the time and devotion to "measurement science" - that I do.


Hi Otis,

Like I've said before I'm no expert.  I can clear the 20/30 line and even the 20/20 line, and sometimes even the 20/15 line.  But I can also barely clear the 20/100 line at other daylight times of the day depending on how much I choose or don't choose to work my eyes.  So there is quite a variable nature to my eyesight.  I also know if I place -1.25 lenses on my eye, that my Snellon is clear top to bottom - no need to even test my accuity.   So, my assumption on those in my situation (like the pilots you mentioned) is that they have improved their accuity to the point that they consistently read the 20/20 line with much less variable accuity than me. I tip my hat to them as I would love to be in that situation. 

Peter

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #73 on: October 05, 2012, 12:55:41 PM »
Dear Peter,

I take this situation as we "learn together". I can think and work only that way.  As you said, you simply do not wear the plus.  I accept that truth - and I don't expect you to do so.

The "variable Snellen" is completely NORMAL!!  The fact that you PERSONALLY check it yourself - is of extreme value. Only in this way do you FIND OUT.

I know you have your own "trial lens" kit - as I do.  Certainly  a -1 will "clear" all the way down  to 20/15.  That is a FACT.

Now if you were like Brian Severson who did not "hold back" from HEAVY USE OF THE PLUS, you MIGHT find that this "variable Snellen" would be come less and less. But, with respect to YOU - I don't thing you have a strong reason to wear the plus.  Brian needed to get "rid" of the "variable Snellen" and you do not have the motivation to do it. (Again, I never deny the truly intense motivation it takes to wear a plus for nine months - to finally change your refractive state by +1 diopters.)

This is again why I consider this as NOT a medical problem.  Most people will "choke" if an OD makes the recommendation - because he knows for DEAD CERTAIN that the "general public" will NOT wear the plus - for the same reason that I know you are not going to wear the plus.  (But that is the problem of the "general public".)

Otis



Hi Peter,

I know that both of us are honest about these issues.  I don't have a "refractive error", and my Snellen is 20/20.  To "prescribe" a +3/4 diopter lens for me, that would cost me $175 - is JUST WRONG!  Further, I don't 'argue" with an OD in his office.  Keeping a "record" of an excessive an inaccurate measurement, is never "good science".  My measurements are far more accurate than an OD in his office - who does not have the time and devotion to "measurement science" - that I do.


Hi Otis,

Like I've said before I'm no expert.  I can clear the 20/30 line and even the 20/20 line, and sometimes even the 20/15 line.  But I can also barely clear the 20/100 line at other daylight times of the day depending on how much I choose or don't choose to work my eyes.  So there is quite a variable nature to my eyesight.  I also know if I place -1.25 lenses on my eye, that my Snellon is clear top to bottom - no need to even test my accuity.   So, my assumption on those in my situation (like the pilots you mentioned) is that they have improved their accuity to the point that they consistently read the 20/20 line with much less variable accuity than me. I tip my hat to them as I would love to be in that situation. 

Peter

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #74 on: October 06, 2012, 11:12:03 AM »

Subject: Peter and I are friends

I am always curious about these issues.  Peter took some steps that I consider crucial - for an intellectual, and a scientist. He actually obtained a Snellen and a trial-lens kit.  Further, he even check his Snellen by reading THROUGH a +1.25 diotper lens - and could read 20/25 - briefly.  I think we both agree, that Peter has no interest in wearing a plus for prevention.  I am often asked to help people who are SIMILAR to Peter.  It is truly impossible to do that.  What it really difficult it that prevention (reducing "Variable Snellen") is that you MUST make a long-term commitment to the plus.  Pilots can an have done it - because they value their distant vision - more that their "fear" of wearing the plus properly.  This was posted on I-SEE, but I think that any scientific preventive program must understand Peter's point-of-view.

++++++

Dr. Judy OD,

Based on your explanations below on what an optometrist can recommend, I thought I'd outline a current scenario for me and whether there is any standard optical practice deviation I could possibly expect.

Although I have not been using pluses, I did try however briefly to use them many months back (for perhaps an hour 2 days in a row).

In any case, I have several times when measuring myself against my snellon put on plus 1.25 standard readers, and attempted to see which lines I could bring into focus. Based on your previous explanation of fusional vergence, I wanted to ask you if that still makes sense for me.

A few times when I put on the +1.25 readers to look at the snellon, I have succeeded into bringing into clarity the 20/25 line. Most of the time I will bring into focus the 20/30 line as well. Again, this is brief (from 20 seconds to a minute) that I am able to hold it. I suspect this aligns with fusional stimulation helping me verge.

My question is whether my momentary ability to read the 20/25 line on the snellon would in any way suggest that I might be able to improve my vision
further with less change of that double-vision at near risk you explained. You also suggested earlier I may have taught myself how to constrict my pupils in order to see at distance, and so this may be also be the +1.25 explanation as
well.

I guess it all comes back to the frustrating situation that I can only find out within a research setup exactly what I am doing. If you have any recommendations on someone with that setup that may be interested in seeing me, please let me know.

Thanks,
Peter

++++++

I want to make it VERY CLEAR that I am not a critic of either Peter or Judy.  But I do suggest that Todd's recovery from -3.0 diopters (about 20/60), is confirmed by objective science.  What is also confirmed is that people love to TALK about prevention - while doing absolutely NOTHING to implement it.

Thanks!