Author Topic: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.  (Read 27856 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2012, 07:42:17 PM »
Peter - This explains to me - why any OD can never 'prescribe prevention'.  Even the most SINCERE person can not do it.

WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?

With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you would think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and effective method of solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly that in the following example -- with the following result:

THE PRINTER'S SON

"It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting. She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave her my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles.

"She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was a printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for the next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she should bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them when her husband returned home.

"She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her husband came back home.

"In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the glasses. He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes. In fact, she said, the boy could see even better without the glasses than with them.

"I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

"I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks?

"My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself nearsighted.

"On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly, did not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the medical profession.

"To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter and nothing more. Second, I charged a reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I just did it as a matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity.

"Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept it up, and will continue to do this work as long as I continue to have the incentive and capability.

++++
The percentage of "incipient myopes" in 1904 was probably about 9 percent.  That was when school started at age 6. But today, kids start much younger - and stay in school far longer.  Today the percentage of "myopes" runs about 70 percent in optometry colleges - and for the general population.

The basic use of a "minus" was started by Johann Kepler in 1610 (a rational analysis - box camera image) was provided by this insightful man. He did 16 years of intense close work and induced negative status in his natural eye. Of course, he found that if he held up a minus lens it "sharpened" his distant vision. So he used it. The basic philosophy of using a minus lens - HAS NOT CHANGED ONE IOTA SINCE THEN.

Best,


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2012, 03:25:54 AM »
HI Proh,

Subject:  Here is a man who cleared his vision to normal.

AN ENGINEER'S UNEXPECTED SUCCESS

Perhaps the most surprising and encouraging result to be achieved was accomplished by accident. Because of my long-term experience with the experimental data, I knew that recovery -- on the average -- would be slow. Anyone who attempts to use the plus lens wants to succeed. It makes sense to help people who have gotten into about 20/80. Any improvement will get you to 20/40, which passes the FAA 3rd class flying license. Recovery, if you are worse than 20/100, is difficult but possible. To present all the facts including surprising results, I asked Dennis to write a letter describing his efforts and ultimate result.

VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT VISION

Dennis Romich,

My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis Brown discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for restoring the myopic eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to attempt to use the plus lens, and see what would happen, since the approach seemed reasonable and much safer than any other method.

I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The lens was a +1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass for people who have lost their near vision.

I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus lenses which I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my vision worsened, and the Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens. My distance vision without prescription lenses was very bad through high school, college, and graduate school. The last professional check (Ophthalmologist) showed that my prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This is approximately 20/320 vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I would be classed as legally blind without my glasses.

As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed that my distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I purchased Otis' book, and checked my eyes against the eye chart. They were 20/30, which means I will pass the standard driver's license criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription lenses.

Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that most individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but he felt that returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe. Since I have done it successfully, I have no doubt that other individuals who have a similar problem could obtain similar results using Otis' recommended method of vision restoration.

I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in both Engineering and Business Administration.

++++++

Proh - some people can make a commitment to wearing the plus - persistently - and others can't do it. I can't predict who will and who will not.  That is the issue.

Best,




Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2012, 06:37:52 PM »
Otis> As always, you ask wise questions.  As always - I never say "cure". It should be clear that I agree that ODs can not CHARGE MONEY FOR PREVENTION. 

Peter>  Why can they not charge money for prevention?  Since there are so many questions about how to use the strong plus forcefully.  There are some parents that take their kids to regular eye exams every year.  First sign of a change in the wrong direction, the OD who is interested in the strong plus, advises the potential way to prevent with a strong, forceful plus.  Then the same OD explains that there have been some cases where negative side effects have occured.  People would be naturally concerned of possible negative effects.  It seems like an easy sell for 3 or 4 follow up sessions when the therapy is started, once per week just to be vigilent.  Then less regular visits. Of course, even without discussing potential side effects, the fact that you must use the strong plus correctly else you will not experience the benefit indicates that there are potential follow up visits just to discuss that, show proper reading distance, discuss proper computer setup, etc.  And then if you go the route of a snellon and test lenses, surely a professional would be able to give you confidence you are doing it right and there would be value in that?

Otis>  Further, the word "cure" remains a problem.  But then that is indeed an honest disagreement.  This opinion comes from my conversation with Raphaelson and HIS prescription of the plus. (But parent a child had NO CLUE AS TO WHY WEARING THE PLUS WOULD BE WISE - AND HAVE TO BE CONTINUED AS LONG AS THE CHILD WAS IN SCHOOL.)  This statement convinced me that PREVENTION (versus cure) had to be in the mind and by the wisdom of the person himself.  I regret that I can never put that kind of "wisdom" in a person's brain.  I do not consider prevention (at 20/40 and -3/4 diopters) to be medical in any sense of the word.  It will always be PERSONAL. We will consider COSTS and TIME to do this also.

Peter>  Remember, I assume you met Raphaelson around the time that applying plus was gaining some support among the alternative (second opinion) practitioners.  Case in point, Paul Harris' father, who Paul Harris says "he gave me plus, and kept upping it because that was the idea at the time".  I think you mentioned Raphaelson was quite elderly at the point you met him, so I am assuming he had not been practicing for a while.  As I understand it, there were optometrists in the 60s who decided to explore the use of the plus much like Paul Harris' father.  Paul Harris does state it was the idea at the time.

Otis> AFTER they are severly myopic. I has stipulated that is TOTALLY TRUE. We are not talking about "treating myopia", but rather PREVENTING ENTRY before a negative status goes below -1 diopters.  Only in that range do I judge that "recovery" is possible. BUT only if the person has considerable force-of-character to make continous use of the plus. Given this severe nature of "wearing the plus" - it is clear that the public will have NO PART OF IT.

Peter>  The public will have a part of it, including parents, if a second opinion OD discusses it with them. Maybe not a large percentage of parents will follow through, but I would expect with the advice, and with a good plan offered by the OD, a significant number would try.  And of course, I would expect many to fail.  Just like many do not get obesity under control and eventually resort to gastric surgery of some sort.

Otis> If you have the wisdom to relize that UNDER OD CONTROL - the COST WILL BE HUGE.  By if you figure out how to INTENTIONALLY DO IS YOURSELF - the COST IN 1) Price of your own test lenses 2) Snellen chart 3) VERY STRONG, CONTINUED RESOLVE.  As far as I am concerned, no OD will be ever able to do this - tragic but so, so true.

Peter>  Cost may be huge, but wouldn't some (like myself) be predisposed to paying up?  A weekly OD training session of 30 minutes costing $75?  People will pay as much for their personal training fitness needs or for a tutor for their child.  If you really desire good natural eyesight for the distance, many would pay up even though it would be considered a waste of money to others.

Peter> I have no doubt a behavioral optometrist would perscribe a strong plus if they believed in its effectiveness as well.

Otis>  I have said, it is only POTENTIALLY effective if used by the wisdom of the PILOT himself - WHO TRULY REALIZES THAT THIS TYPE OF TOTAL COMMITMENT CAN NEVER BE PRESCRIBED. 

Peter>  But like I said, just like a personal fitness trainer teaches someone initially how to work out, gives them encouragement to keep it up regularly, as well as offers advice on nutrition.  Why is it that you can not apply that same theory to the pilot himself?  Particularly, since his livelihood is on the line?  Why wouldn't there be support groups, or people that have helped hundreds in a similar boat, and who the pilot would rely on for their expertise to ensure they are following the technique correctly?

Peter>  By the way Otis, I am not trying to engage you to change your opinion.  Rather, I am just spelling out some logical questions which do not make sense.   I believe most people who have searched the same way I have, have the same difficulty.  You have clearly said that an OD can not do prevention, and I understand your message.  It just doesn't make sense to me. My OD in fact, argued with my friend who had brought in her child with -.5 perscriptions that were just perscribed 4 weeks earlier and convinced her to reject them and start using a perscribed +1 lens instead.  Maybe not a strong plus, but it sure smells like prevention to me, although not the way you define it.  And considering my friend had told me when she got the -.5 that "they were needed, couldn't see the board in school anymore", I think that was a classic example of how the public can accept and not be thought of as not wanting any part of prevention even the way you describe it.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2012, 07:59:38 PM »
Hi Peter,
I will respond to your statements - but first I wanted to show what I learned from Raphaelson:

I appreciate the sincerity of your statements - as I listened to Jacob Raphaelson at age 95.  I had asked myself if ANY OD could "figure it out", and wanted to hear what he had to say. (I was interested in developing the SCIENCE, behind true prevention - and agreed that ONLY prevention was possible.)  You say so easily that an OD should do SOMETHING.  But I truly think the real "hang up" is in the person himself. It is for him to over-come HIS fear of the plus, and to understand that ONLY LONG-TERM WEAR WILL KEEP HIS DISTANT VISION CLEAR. (Remember the bifocal studies I presented?)  I truly don't think you can get out of it - if you start wearing a minus. In any event, I tried to "explain" this to my nephew.  Here ALL CREDIT IS TO HIM - for always wearing the plus before going to an OD. By always passing his Snellen - he never became "subject" to ODs.  I am not "hostile" to ODs, but this is about personal understanding and resolve.  The data shows that the plus must be REPEATEDLY RE-STARTED BY THE PERSON HIMSELF.  Here is my nephew's statement.

He started wearing the plus at age 13 - and now is doing some post-college work.  When he starts the close work - he notices the "blur" and that fires him up - to re-start the plus. Clearly this sensitivity to this need  - can not be prescribed.  Here is his statement from college:



YOU MUST TAKE CONTROL

From Jacob 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 B.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2012, 09:54:15 AM »
Peter,

About being in FEAR of the plus lens.

This is why "pilot motivation" can bring success.

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

He now flys 747s for islandic Air.  He did not argue about it- HE DID IT.

http://loh.nu/index.htm

Did an OD "prescribe" for him - or was he smart enough to figure this out for himself - and do it a NO COST AT ALL.

That is my point.

Best,

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2012, 05:47:23 PM »
Peter,

Otis>  More about Raphaelson.  I met Raphaelson the Winter of 67 at his home. He had written up his idea of threshold prevention since 1904 - and later.  I wanted to LOOK THE MAN IN THE EYES.  He could have been TOTALLY WRONG. But maybe he was correct. How would I choose? How would I decide? Who is right? Who is wrong? What does TRUE SCIENCE have to say about the dynamic character of the fundamental, or natural eye. With that interview - let me respond about preventing negative STATUS for the totally natural eye - having refractive STATES - never "errors".

Peter>  Remember, I assume you met Raphaelson around the time that applying plus was gaining some support among the alternative (second opinion) practitioners. 

Otis> They never use the plus. In 1949, one man used a "minus" on top -and a plus on the bottom.  But that is a "half assed" answer. But still - I appreciate the thought. This allowed for a "plus" study about 1970.

Peter> Case in point, Paul Harris' father, who Paul Harris says "he gave me plus, and kept upping it because that was the idea at the time".

Otis> For his father, and son - yes, because it is indeed "family".  His son has excellent distant vision, and a refractive state of +3/4 diopters. That is a perfect success for the plus. But only his son was successful.

Peter>  I think you mentioned Raphaelson was quite elderly at the point you met him, so I am assuming he had not been practicing for a while. 

Otis> His son-in-law was an ophthalmologist named Felson.  Raphaelson's three daughters wore the plus, and were successful.

Peter> As I understand it, there were optometrists in the 60s who decided to explore the use of the plus much like Paul Harris' father.

Otis> You are mistaken.  The only ones who used the plus were the people we are taking about.  I am talking about the plus before the person's Snellen goes below 20/40.

Peter>  Paul Harris does state it was the idea at the time.

Otis> The "idea" - but pure hell to implement.

Best,


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2012, 03:21:43 AM »
Dear Peter,

Subject: Some people seem to get the idea.

Here is the statement.  Dr. Kaisu is an ophthalmologist.

Best,

Otis

+++++


Dear Kaisu,
Dear Vesa,


  From May this year (2012), I have started the third year
of treatment with plus glasses.

My condition is good / stable.
Nothing has changed.

To be sincere, I can not even remember when was the last time
my eyes teared.
I am very satisfied / contented about the results.
Of course, one must have A LOT of PATIENCE, but the results
are very rewarding.

I will continue to wear the plus glasses and, as long as there are people
willing to listen, tell the good news of PREVENTING MYOPIA using PLUS LENS.


I hope you are both ok and in good shape.
I wish you pleasant summer holidays.

Lucian,
Onesti, Romania
============================================================
Year 3, Month 1 (24), May 2012
Year 3, Month 2 (25), June 2012

    Sleep good, eyes OK, vision normal
    overall mood / status: ok
Glasses:
-far          distance: +3.00
-intermediate distance: +4.00 / +3.50
-reading      distance: +4.50 / +4.00
-monitor/PC   distance: +2.50 / +3.00

Notes:- From May I started the third year of wearing plus lens glasses
              (May 2010 -> May 2012).

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2012, 04:29:20 AM »
Hi Peter,

Here is Lucian's starting prescription of about -3 diopters.


http://www.kaisuviikari.com/testimonials.htm

For my purposes - getting to +3/4 diopters would be an outstanding success.

Best,



Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2012, 05:44:05 PM »
Has he not already eliminated his nearsightedness given the strength of plus lenses he can use for seeing far, intermediate and near? 

Hi Peter,

Here is Lucian's starting prescription of about -3 diopters.


http://www.kaisuviikari.com/testimonials.htm

For my purposes - getting to +3/4 diopters would be an outstanding success.

Best,




Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2012, 06:48:46 PM »
Hi Peter,

I posted his STARTING prescription, of greater-than -3 diopters. The *official* concept is that  you can not get your refractive status to change in a positive direction - by any method known to science.  So ANY recovery, is impossible, so you should just wear your over-prescribed minus all the time, and make no effort with the plus.

If you are a -2.5 diopter myope (as you were), the the concept is that you can not see clearly beyond about 18 inches.  If a -3 diopters, then you can't see beyond 13 inches. (Basic optics of a box-camera.)

So, if after heavy use of a plus, Lucian, and read at 20 inches through a +2, his refractive state must be on-the-order of +1 diopters.  Futher, if is retina is excellent, then his Snellen will be 20/30 to 20/20.  His refractive state is positive.  This is proof that then natural human eye - behaves like the natural primate eye.

I have sent a email to Lucian - to get further confirmation about these details.  I will post the response - with Lucian's concurrence.

Otis


Has he not already eliminated his nearsightedness given the strength of plus lenses he can use for seeing far, intermediate and near? 

Hi Peter,

Here is Lucian's starting prescription of about -3 diopters.


http://www.kaisuviikari.com/testimonials.htm

For my purposes - getting to +3/4 diopters would be an outstanding success.

Best,




Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2012, 06:55:17 PM »
Peter,  For the record, here are Lucian's starting prescriptions. I always work with "Spherical Equivalent" for these comparisons - with other prescriptions.

 (2) September 2005 (Age: 23)

  Right eye: ‐5.00 sph, ‐2.50 cyl,  30 ax

  Left   eye:  ‐2.50 sph, ‐2.00 cyl, 120 ax

  Comment: Quit them after 1 month (were too strong).     

Right Eye = -6.25 (Sph. Equ.)

Left Eye = -3.5  (Sph. Equivalent)

If both eyes have a positive refractive status (measured with Snellen and trial-lens kit) - that is a profound success.

I will ask him to check his visual acuity at 6/6 if I can get in touch with him.

This result is similar to Todd's success in clearing his vision from -3 diopters to normal.

Best,

Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2012, 10:11:16 PM »
Hi Otis Peter


I want to add the the result of our old member "Jansen" of this forum reported on PVS .
He is now at 20/40 starting from 
June 2010: Right eye: -4.50, Left eye: -2.25 w/ +.5 astigmatism
need -0.5D for board in school.


http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?747-My-Improvements-in-a-Year&p=2968#post2968


Proh

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #27 on: July 03, 2012, 04:37:00 AM »
Dear Proh,

I did not know of that progress for Jansen.  Thanks!  For me, exceeding the DMV legal requirement - is very important.  It is very important that I personally check my visual acuity myself.

I further add, that I have enough knowledge to use some simple "check" lenses, so I can find the "minimum minus" that will give me 20/20, from 20/40.  (That way I can obtain any lens or glasses from Zennioptical for $7. 

I "see" a great amount of over-prescription - but I can never prove it.   This is how I would check - so that I control my eyes.

Further, once you get to the 20/50 to 20/40 range - the eye is very slow to go that last 1/2 diopters.  Some people get discouraged at that point, because they expect rapid success. 

Thanks for your post!


Hi Otis Peter


I want to add the the result of our old member "Jansen" of this forum reported on PVS .
He is now at 20/40 starting from 
June 2010: Right eye: -4.50, Left eye: -2.25 w/ +.5 astigmatism
need -0.5D for board in school.


http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?747-My-Improvements-in-a-Year&p=2968#post2968


Proh

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #28 on: July 03, 2012, 04:39:16 AM »
That is awesome!!!!!!!!

Hi Otis Peter


I want to add the the result of our old member "Jansen" of this forum reported on PVS .
He is now at 20/40 starting from 
June 2010: Right eye: -4.50, Left eye: -2.25 w/ +.5 astigmatism
need -0.5D for board in school.


http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?747-My-Improvements-in-a-Year&p=2968#post2968


Proh

Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2012, 08:23:18 AM »
Hi Peter


I suggest you to look at this excersie which helps in improving double image.
http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?280-PVS-Video-tutorial-2-quot-Ocular-Stretching-exercise-fixing-a-point-quot

Or better is have a look at all of them .

Proh