 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005Current status -- Clearing from -1.5 diopters (20/60)
Dear Prevention Minded Friends, Subject: Professor T. Grosvenor's suggestion that true-prevention be started BEFORE the minus lens was used. Re: Objection to the minus -- by ODs themselves. While it is very easy to impress a person with a minus lens -- the "second opinion" has been to be very careful about using it. That "concern" must be understood by a person on the threshold of myopia. Jon expressed a desire to clear his vision by use of the plus. He personally decided to avoid the minus -- and will willing to make a very strong personal commitment to using a plus -- almost all the time -- for prevention. The result is that he personally verified his "vision clearing" -- first to 20/40 (to pass the DMV requirement) and then to 20/20. 20/20 took longer. In any event here is is commentary for your interest. In the future, other young men who take prevention seriously will be able to accomplish the same result -- if they have the motivation for it. Best, Otis Engineer Reference: www.chinamyopia.org _______________________ Dear Jon, Thanks for the "update". I also am very pleased with your obvious success -- given the incredible opposition I receive on the subject on sci.med.vision. Some have even suggested that your right to a second opinion should be destroyed. Because you have "cleared" to 20/20 -- under adverse circumstances, you are indeed an "expert" -- far more then most. When you "hung" at 20/25 -- I had my doubts. But now you have made it. More commentary: ________________________ Jon > As of today my vision is better than its been yet, exactly four weeks ago i took about 2 steps forward, and for the next three weeks i never took that step back, then a week ago i took another step forward, and still no steps back. My vison is "stable" every day in the way that i dont regress. day by day i get a little better. Otis> That is a great success as far as I am concerned. Jon > Passing the 20/20 line is no problem now, I can see mostly everything now without any strain. Otis> It is incredible how many people can not seem to "work" prevention the way you have done it. That is their loss -- I guess. Jon > I go on to the regional science fair next Tuesday, and i can't wait. Jon > I have found that there is nothing better for reversing nearsightedness than looking in the actual distance. I find looking close up for a second and then looking far away without the plus lens is good for my eyes, a few times a day. Jon > A few weeks ago I went to visit some of my cousins and relatives who live abotu 90 minutes away, and i decided i wouldn't wear my plus lenses for the week end just to see what happened, and so i did, i actually triped a few times because everything was smaller and seemed further away, Jon > so when i was looking for ice on the ground when i was walking i triped, because i wasnt used to it, it was kind of funny. anyway, my vision didnt change at all, i was so happy that i never regressed. Otis> I learned a lot from YOU -- and your reports. Jon > I still have "debates" with people about the plus lens and then others will agree with me, it can be really fun, these people who think they are so smart, but i know that i am the one who is right. Otis> You are "right" of course -- but no one is going to "believe" you. But you know -- and Stirling Colgate knows -- and that is all that matters. Jon > So very happy. Jon (Name changed to protect him from people who insist that his right to clear his vision to 20/20 with the plus -- must be destroyted. _________________________________ To: "Stirling Colgate" Subject: Fw: vision update Dear Stirling, Otis> It is wonderful to find a young man -- full of hope, and developing knowledge. Otis> I don't know Jon's future -- but I suspect it will be similar to yours. Otis> Some people are "smart" in school -- and Jonathan is. Otis> But very few are "smart" for themselves -- and he has that kind of wisdom. Otis> But how rare for a person to have these qualities at a young age. > Subject: Professor T. Grosvenor's suggestion that > true-prevention be started BEFORE > the minus lens was used. I was a student of Ted Grosvenor's. You continually misquote him (I'm not surprised). Dr. Grosvenor was an objective scientist. He evaluated myopia research and at one point in time considered plus lens therapy to be promising. However, after the data was collected and evaluated, he did what any other objective-thinking person would have done-- he backed off of his original notions and stated that proof had still not yet been presented. Why can't you do that Otis. "One-track" Otis. > Dear Prevention Minded Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Re: Objection to the minus -- by ODs themselves. =========================================== Otis "Engineer" is a zealot who advocates his "plus lens" prevention theory without good reason. There is no scientific data to prove what he proposes. He would ask that all myopes (=nearsighted persons) go around wearing plus reading glasses in hopes that it will eventually reverse their nearsightedness. Nevermind that the blurry distance vision that myopes complain about is made worse by plus lenses! Nevermind that there is no proof for what he claims. If you are interested in Otis' approach, I have some other links that you might also be interested in: GET RICH QUICK http://www.clickvolume.net http://www.meetmark.com HARD PENILE ERECTIONS USING NATURAL HERBS http://www.herbaalex.com/panadex.htm LOOK AND FEEL YOUNGER http://www.youngeryounger.com FIND A BEAUTIFUL RUSSIAN WIFE http://www.russianladies.com For information on killfilling (filtering out the posts of a troll or spammer like Otis) see the following link: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm For additional information on handling "trolls", refer to this link: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm Dear "RM", It would be nice if you would actually THINK. I do advocate that a person check to make certain that he passes the DMV requirement -- that apply to him, i.e., the he personally READ 1.8 cm letters at 6 meters. It is clear that people who PASS this standard will in a darkened room will "test" for "night" vision and will receive a -2 diopters (standard) or perhaps -3 diopters (If the OD "believes" in providing 20/18, 20/15 and perhaps 20/10. Thus true prevention will be under control of the person himself (as per the "Jon" case stated above), If the individual has the fortitude to do it, then as "Jon" did it -- it is possible to clear to 20/20. At that point this issue is engineering-sience, since there is NO NEED nor requirement for an OD to over-prescri;bed the minus lens. There is high quality REPEATABLE SCIENCE that demonstrates that the NATURAL EYE moves in a negative direction when you place a minus lens on it. This data is so clear, and repeatable -- that it would be hard to miss -- except that RM has a "professional interest" in denying this self-same OBJECTIVE scientific data. If RM made the statement that the "public" would not "accept" his recommendation to use the plus "properly" then I would agree COMPLETELY with him. But not for reasons of science -- but rather because most of the public has scant motiavtion to do the work of vision clearing. Furhter, vision clearing is VERY EXPENSIVE in terms of personal effort. In terms of "cost" (as Jon has done it) the spherical plus lenses are sold for about $10 over-the-counter. An lastly, I advocate that the person involved have a MEDICAL exam before he starts this preventive process -- to ellimate any true medical problems -- and Jon did. Only AFTER that, should the person begin work on true prevention -- obviously under his own strong personal control Jon will keep his distant vision through the next seven years in college, while his friends will "suffer" under the standard "down" rate of -1.1 to -1.6 diopters in four years as seen in colleges where complete recorrds are maintained. As always, enjoy this pleasant conversation about our academic study of the dynamic nature of the eye. Best, Otis Engineer > There is high quality REPEATABLE SCIENCE that > demonstrates that the NATURAL EYE moves in > a negative direction when you place a minus lens > on it. Then why don't myopes get nearsighted faster when they wear correction? -MT > Dear Prevention Minded Friends, > > Subject: Professor T. Grosvenor's suggestion that > true-prevention be started BEFORE > the minus lens was used. Here are Grosvenor's actual comments, published just after he did plus lens research which showed plus to not prevent or reduce myopia. I'll leave it to readers to decide if Ted was suggesting that "true-prevention be started BEFORE the minus lens was used" "Comment in: a.. Optom Vis Sci. 1990 Feb;67(2):150-2. Myopia: what can we do about it clinically? Grosvenor T. College of Optometry, University of Houston, Texas. Methods that have been used by vision practitioners for the control of myopia include visual training, biofeedback training, undercorrection, overcorrection, the use of bifocal lenses, the use of contact lenses, the instillation of atropine, and refractive surgery. With some exceptions the use of these methods has achieved only limited success. The lack of success with the less-invasive methods--which are based on the supposition that myopia is caused by accommodation--may be due to the fact that they are used for eyes that are already myopic and therefore have already undergone axial elongation and scleral stretching. If it were possible to predict which children were at risk for the development of myopia, vision practitioners would be able to institute procedures for the control of myopia when only a minimum of scleral stretching has occurred. Risk factors that warrant investigation include the axial length/corneal radius ratio and the resting state of accommodation." Dr Judy |
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.