Author Topic: Is the "cure" - worse than the disease?  (Read 2223 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Is the "cure" - worse than the disease?
« on: December 26, 2013, 04:35:36 PM »
Subject:  What would be your reaction to an optometrist who said you could "cure" myopia with a plus.

Item: What would be your reaction if the OD told you to put up a Snellen, and take responsibility to get your Snellen clear from 20/40 to 20/20 - completely on your own?

Personally I think we always encounter this profound difficulty when "plus-prevention" is discussed on this forum.

If an optometrist said to the parent (about a child at 20/50, and self-measured - 1.25 diopters), that the child should "accept" that 20/50, and never wear a minus lens - I think the parents would go crazy.

In fact, a number of you have told me that they do not "like" the idea of wearing a plus (at 20/40) to maintain 20/40 (or better).

I appreciate that this is a fair an honest statement.  Or they say, "well, I can't see wearing the plus as working at the 20/40 level" - so obviously they will never wear the plus - understanding the type of total commitment it will take to go from 20/40 to 20/20.

In fact I AGREE, that the plus must NEVER be thought of - as a "cure". For many, wearing the plus (for the long term) would be considered far worse than wearing a minus lens.

Today we have Bates-exercise prevention, and Raphaelson-plus prevention.  I happen to support both methods - but only in the sense of threshold-prevention.  I believe both men said the same thing.

But I am curious about YOUR opinion.  Is prevention possible -- with the restriction that it must begin before you go below 20/60 on your home Snellen?

How do YOU "draw the line" about what responsibility you have to protect your distant vision - for life? Do you think a man in his office is going to help you with this issue?
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 07:45:46 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Is the "cure" - worse than the disease?
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2013, 05:11:48 PM »
Subject:  When Optometrists "advertise" for PREVENTION.

I would "key" of this advertisement - never the promotion of true-prevention.  This OD talks about prevention - but it is NEVER for getting out of it - under your wise control.   What does THAT tell you. In effect, this OD believes in his very soul - that ANY prevention, even from 20/40 to 20/50, is crazy.  This is why I do my own, "optometry" on myself.  But watch the video and add your commentary.  That is why we post here - to learn and understand EXACTLY why ODs think the way they do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKSZCllM-4A

R
You
Nearsighted?

This OD promotes 1) NOT getting out of it.  2) His statement (from -1.0 diopters) is to stop it from GETTING WORSE !  (I agree with that goal - but by NOT wearing a strong minus lens.  3) This ODs recommendation - is to wear your FULL STRENTH minus lens - at all times. (He should give WARNING about the exacerbation effect of the minus). 4) This OD recommends being checked at six-month to yearly intervals (and always get an even stronger minus lens - since you are typically over-prescribed by -1.0 diopters.

So yes, "plus-prevention" is indeed harder that a minus lens. The plus (at 20/40) is NOT A CURE.  It takes a wise person to "figure this out".  When I say, "check your brightly lit Snellen, for 20/40 and better, I am asking for true-prevention - never asking for a "cure".

This is a profoundly difficult choice - for anyone who can still confirm 20/40 or better.

« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 07:47:07 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Is the "cure" - worse than the disease?
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2013, 08:58:22 PM »
optometry is a total gong show.

I just realized how powerful lens power is at the early stages.
D=1/F
D=0 F=infinity(6m<)
D=0.25 F=4
D=0.5 F=2

Due to excessive overprescriptions someone with a distance of focus of say 3.5m (obviously the eye is not static) might be given -0.5 or -0.75, quickly harming eyesight. That's why people  get headaches when they get a new prescription, their eyes are getting worse FAST.

Oh and don't forget the ridiculous "cylinder" prescription causing astigmatism to increase and the eye to deform. Which unfortunately happened to me. There is also the emotional aspect knowing that I was harmed by my eye doctor that pisses me off.

« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 09:06:49 PM by CapitalPrince »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Is the "cure" - worse than the disease?
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2013, 04:58:26 AM »
Hi Sam and friends,

Subject:  The passing of my friend, Dr. Sirling Colgate.

Some very bright people intuitively "figure out" that the minus is a "bad idea" -- and while still at 20/40 -- intensively wear the plus, and always exceed the 20/40 line.  It seems you can never "prescribe this", and Dr. Colgate wrote up what he had accomplished - and submitted the idea to the National Eye Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Colgate

I received Dr. Colgate's manuscript from a friend at the National Eye Institute.  Here is the document:

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

It is perhaps tragic, but the person himself must have the brilliance of Dr. Colgate, to wear the preventive plus correctly, and therefore successfully.

I will deeply miss Stirling Colgate.

Otis

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Is the "cure" - worse than the disease?
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2013, 06:03:53 AM »
I feel lucky that I discovered plus prevention and that the minus is stupid when i can still read 20/30-20/25 consistently. However damage was already done to me with a cyl lens. I can see how the minus is enticing i can put a -0.75D and bam i see 20/15-20/13 no blut. I feel powerful and confident. It takes tremendous resolve to live with the blur. I read stirling colgate's manuscript and i see he must be very intelligent to figure it out at 14. The problem is everyone today wears glasses and no one even gives a thought "maybe i can prevent myself from wearing glasses"

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Is the "cure" - worse than the disease?
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2014, 05:40:22 AM »
Subject: I am certain this subject will come up.  It should be reviewed by a person who considers wearing the plus.

The choice of words - makes a major difference in our understanding of this issue.  No one has "perfect knowledge", and never, "a perfect method".

It is true, that plus-prevention is not for "everyone".  It is also true that the plus does not "cure myopia".  It is also true, that pilots (who have the motivation to wear the plus) are objectively successful.  By this I mean they over-come their fear of the plus and "get the idea" about why it would be wise to wear it.

I always get these questions:

"Has anyone ever been successful?  How can you PROVE that myopia was cured?  Why do I not see ANY RESULTS (after a week or two)?  Why does my optometrist not tell me about plus prevention (at 20/40)?  Will wearing the plus (for near) hurt my long-term vision?  I heard that wearing the plus, causes cataracts - is that true?  I am entering college with 20/40 vision - will my vision get worse?  I understand that people get out of -4 diopters of myopia by doing exercise as Bates recommended - is that true?"

I am certain this list of questions could extend - out to infinity.  For myself, the plus is used by some ODs - on their own children.  The result is that the children stay at "emmetropia", or refractive status of zero diopters.  But the few who do who use the plus in this way - know "our human nature" all too well.  With no education, the public they attempt to serve, will not wear the plus at all.  They will not accept the advice of a medical person to wear the plus, "correctly" while the child still has 20/40. In fact the few ODs who, "Know about the plus", respond with the remark, that, "The parents will not stand for it".  By this they mean that the parents do not want to see their child (with 20/40 vision) sitting down and putting a +2.5 diopter on their eyes when doing close-work. That is where the "line" is about prevention.  Unless the parents understand the consequences of NOT wearing the plus for the child - the child will not be wearing the plus for prevention - under "medical  control".

If you start wearing a plus, you will ask, how do I know Todd (or anyone else) was successful?  Have medical people certified Todd's success?  The answer is that I trust Todd's ability to check his own Snellen, and verify that he passes the DMV (20/40) requirement - as an absolute.  I have no doubt that he was nearsighted, meaning that he could not pass the 20/40 line.  Medical people have no interest in anyone making themselves successful - so we should not get into that argument. I personally refuse to make any claims for myself - but just show how I measure my own refraction and visual acuity.

With the above issues resolved, I will report one success.  I had a friend, Dennis, who had a -3 diopter prescription.  He asked about the plus - but, I thought - he would do nothing about it.  About three months later, he stopped me, and told me he had used a weak plus lens, and it seemed his vision was, "better".  I suggested he actually read his Snellen.  He did, and it was about 20/40 - he said.  I told him he should go to the DMV and pass THEIR TEST.  The first time he failed.  After about a month, he tried again, and passed their visual-acuity test.  I think this is rare, but I know it happens.  This is an effort that only you can resolve.  But I always suggest you read a medical opinion.

http://frauenfeldclinic.com/expectations-fast-can-improve-my-vision/

Dr. Alex is a true leader in these efforts.

Thanks!
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 06:07:43 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline NickGrouwen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Is the "cure" - worse than the disease?
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2014, 07:36:00 AM »
We must teach our offspring to not sit too close at the computer screen, don't hold your smartphone or book to close to your face, etc. If I have children, I would make it a habit for them to sit as far away from books and screen as possible. I didn't and it messed up my eyesight.  I'm thankful for being able to reverse it though.

Actually, many parents already do this. Mine did, but I was young, lazy and didn't care. I was a kid! ;D It's really hard for many people not to sit too close to their books and screens

But yeah in this day and age of screens being everywhere, it is important that we sit as far away from them as possible
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 11:18:05 AM by NickGrouwen »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Is the "cure" - worse than the disease?
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2014, 09:58:54 AM »
Hi Nick,

You are correct - kids are impossible.  I agree that no optometrist can help anyone with prevention.  The real "shock" for me, was the optometrist who recommended to his fellow ODs, that the kids be taught to sit up and wear a plus all the time.  He was told that, "the parents will NOT STAND for their child to do that".  You know what - he was right.

But let me add this.  Todd worked his way out of nearsightedness, because he judged it was possible - and now as an example to others.  But, as Todd reported it, taught his son to do the same thing - so he son was successful.

That, in my opinion, is the only way that plus-prevention can ever be developed.  The optometrists will not "touch it", because they totally believe that, "the parents will not stand for it".  We now know - that unless the kid is "gifted" - he will not "stand for it" either.  I only wish we could share the responsibility for plus-prevention, and I hope that becomes a better future for our children.

Do optometrists know about this situation.  OF COURSE THEY DO.  But they know if you wish to become successful, you will have to do it all by yourself.


« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 05:00:47 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Is the "cure" - worse than the disease?
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2014, 04:53:53 AM »
A good excerpt from Dr Alex Frauenfeld in order not to get disappointed by plateaus and slow improvement after starting with fast improvement. It's not a dead end at the last diopter but at least 0,5D/year.

"Let’s say you are 30, physically active, with a healthy diet, spend nine hours per day in close-up focus (work, reading, TV,  Web browsing), go to the optometrist once a year, and always wear your -4.00 prescribed glasses.  You come to the clinic and ask me, “How fast can I improve my vision?”  I might tell you that by following all recommendations precisely, you will reduce your prescription to -3.00 within two months.  From there, you will improve at a rate of about 0.75 diopters within the first 8-12 months.  Past that, it may take you about a year for each subsequent 0.5 diopters of improvement."

http://frauenfeldclinic.com/expectations-fast-can-improve-my-vision/