 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2005Vision Clearing -1.5 D (20/60) to 20/15 -- is that possible?
Dear Friends, Subject: Vision clearing by an intelligent young man. "Jon" (not his real name) consulted with the optometrist Steve Leung, and decided to "work" the preventive method since his prescription was -1.5 diopters -- and he did not want his vision to get worse. He also knew that the "down" rate for college students was -1.1 to -1.7 diopters (West Point) and he wished to avoid that problem when he entered college. By intelligent work with the plus he cleared his vison to 20/20. At that point he could have stopped -- but on his own initiative he decided to continue. This is his current report for your scientific knoweldge and pleasure at his obvious success. Please enjoy. Remember, the ODs on this site state that he had "accommodation myopia" so this result is completely reasonable and scientific. Best, Otis Engineer ____________ Dear otis my vision has improved furthermore, i am now reading at 20/15. my focal state is about -1D my eyes have exactly the same focal state right now, but i do notice the astigmatism in my left eye, i usually have to tilt my head 45 degrees to the left to see things clearer, but i have no astigmatism in my right eye so there is no difference. i also notice a difference between my two eyes in the way colors look.if i go crosseyed or stop converging when looking at something up close so that i see two images, i can see that things through my left eye are brighter, and things through my right eye are kind of tinted darker. irs hard to explain. do you know why this is? things are comming along slowly. my vision improves at a rate of about +3/4D per year. so i will still be at it a year from now, but soon after that i will be done. This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown", "otisbrown@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer". Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is unproven. In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument. Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick psychological needs. No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf. If you have other topics you wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you. Don't waste your time with Otis. Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum. Dear Friends, Of course I also present an honest "second opinion" as demonstrated by quite a few ODs and MDs. Please read the statement by the Ophthalmologist Paul Romano about that issue. "No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. " Good -- let us keep an open mind about the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- and your right to "hear" about this second opinion. "This message is only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. " This man (whoever he is) fails to notice that I post as an "engineer" and only suggest that a person be supplied with information concerning PREVENTION at the threshold. It is simply an "either-or" choice -- which you could eaily turn down. I do not see why there is "concern" about that issue -- except that maybe this man thinks that the concept that the natural eye is dynamic "...must be destroyed". That is hardly the work of an "open mind" respetful of alternative opinions about the proven behavior of the natural eye. Draw your own conclusions. Best, Otis ENGINEER > This man (whoever he is) fails to notice that I post > as an "engineer" .... And that's something of a misrepresentation, unless you are a PE. Scott > Dear Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > his prescription was -1.5 diopters -- and > he did not want his vision to get worse. What exactly is this preventive method? Using true plus lenses or adding plus to one's myopia prescription? Dear Andrew, Subject: Science and the natural eye's behavior. You posted scientific testing of the natural eye, in this case chickens. If you run basic tests of the natural eye you will find that the refractive state (measured by you) will change in a negative direction when you place a minus lens on it. If you don't believe this is true -- then just listen to the "blasts" I get when I state this kink of basic scientific truth. Until you have some respect for this type of scientific proof -- it is very difficult to have discussions about effective prevention. In the above case, this young man started at -1.5 diopters. Yes, he had a COMPLETE medical exam. And yes, he understood the concept of the "second opinion" as stated by Professor Paul Romano and others. And yes, he reviewed everything he could find on the subject. And further he heard LOUD AND CLEAR the statement by Jan who insists that the concept of prevention with the plus must be destroyed. Now, I give up attempting to discuss this issue of true prevention under this circumstance. Let us just say that if you have "pseudo myopia" you can clear your distant vision with a plus. If you have "regular myopia", why then you can not. If you wish to find out in detail what this man actually did (very, very hard work) the click on my site: www.myopiafree.com and read "Teen to 20/20". No one should attempt this type of clearing until after they have a "medical" exam and all medical issues are cleared. Once that is done -- you MIGHT have pseudo myopia, in which case you MIGHT be able to achieve the same result that "Jan" did. Primate research shows that this is possible -- but just very difficult. Enjoy, Otis Engineer [ Any scientific fact I persent will be followed by RM's commentary that you must ignore all scientific fact, and please "trust" RM. Try looking at the facts themselves like and engineer -- and reach your own conclusion. OSB] |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.