 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005OD's Opinions On Vision Impovement for Myopia (Otis please do not reply)
I am new to vision improvement. I am specifically looking for the opinions of OD's. Please read my post and let me know what you think. Please keep the replies CIVIL and intelligent. Otis, with all due respect, please do NOT reply. I know your views and respect them. I am interested in hearing, in detail, what the OD's have to say. So far I have read about 4 different methods or approaches: 1) Bates and variations 2) Psychological (Kaplan) 3) Plus Lens (Otis) 4) Myopic Reading Syndrome (Robin Parsons) I have been doing a form of the Bates Method and the Plus Lens method for 12 weeks. I have a new reduced prescription (2.0D reduction in both eyes with no correction for mild astigmatism). I am palming, using eye chart, etc. I have experienced "clear flashes" and have been able to read street signs, store signs and other signs with great clarity and acuity (20/40) when the lighting is good. Natural lighting is best for me. My clear flashes can last anywhere from 1 to 30 seconds. Sometimes tearing is involved. Sometimes there are no tears. My questions for the OD's are as follows: (1) Do you believe one can cure one's myopia with any of the above approaches? (2) I do not consider my temporary clear flashes as a cure to my myopia. How do you explain them? (3) Do you believe clear flashes can be prolonged? (4) If you do not believe it is possible to cure one's myopia with these natural type of approaches please explain why. (5) If you do not believe it is possible to cure one's myopia as described above then how do you explain individual success stories or claims? Please provide detailed arguments. NOTE: I have read many of the optometry research articles and reviews posted in these forums. I have a fair understanding of the history and findings. Please add anything else you would like. Thank you, Jamie > I am new to vision improvement. I am specifically looking for the opinions > of OD's. Please read my post and let me know what you think. Please keep > the replies CIVIL and intelligent. Civil is something you should not require because your questions are undoubtly stupid and arrogant. > Otis, with all due respect, please do NOT reply. I know your views and > respect them. I am interested in hearing, in detail, what the OD's have to > say. > > So far I have read about 4 different methods or approaches: There are none of these four: the only method that works is the system of methods based on the normal eye. If you call number one "Bates and variations", you deny Bates himself, which is the only method that works for everyone who practices it. Other methods are just futile, consolations for the gullible. > 1) Bates and variations > 2) Psychological (Kaplan) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with no correction for mild astigmatism). I am palming, using eye chart, > etc. You are doing very wrong and damaging you eyes and intelligence. > I have experienced "clear flashes" and have been able to read street signs, > store signs and other signs with great clarity and acuity (20/40) when the > lighting is good. Natural lighting is best for me. My clear flashes can > last anywhere from 1 to 30 seconds. Sometimes tearing is involved. > Sometimes there are no tears. Now this is something: GREAT CLARITY AND ACUITY 20/40??? Great clarity is 20/10, or 20/5. What are you talking about? > My questions for the OD's are as follows: Now let the od-idiots wash your brain and call you all sorts of names. Why can't you understand that these people are criminals if not idiots? They won't answer you. There are no answers to your questions. > (1) Do you believe one can cure one's myopia with any of the above > approaches? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > posted in these forums. I have a fair understanding of the history and > findings. I don't think you have understood the very basic fundamentals. Otherwise your need to write this stupid message was not there. Otis, please don't tempt me to lower myself to the level of the childish comments you made. You come off sounding like an old senile man. Take it easy on yourself. I wanted to hear from the OD's - not you. I have read your theories and comments elsewhere. As I said before I respect them and find them very interesting. Furthermore, I don't really care how ignorant you think I sound or am. Of course I should be ignorant. I am by no means an expert in this field and I have only been reading up on it for a month or two. My knowledge on the subject is irrelevant. My progress is what matters. The fact that you cannot "see" that raises questions. To all the OD's out there: PLEASE IGNORE OTIS'S REPLIES TO MY ORIGINAL POST. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU AND YOUR OPINIONS ON MY COMMENTS. I DO NOT NEED TO HEAR ANYONE CRITIZE OTIS' VIEW. THAT WILL NOT GET ME ANYWHERE. Thank you >Otis, please don't tempt me to lower myself to the level of the childish >comments you made. You come off sounding like an old senile man. Take it [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Thank you That wasn't Otis. It was Rishi. Thank you. I missed that somehow. I must be myopic and crazy myself :) Otis - my apologies. Rishi, please respect my wishes as you are not an OD. Thank you > Rishi, please respect my wishes as you are not an OD. I respect your wishes but as far as the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses I understand much more than anybody else in the world, so you should not feel offended. > I am new to vision improvement. I am specifically looking for the opinions > of OD's. Please read my post and let me know what you think. Please keep [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > (1) Do you believe one can cure one's myopia with any of the above > approaches? The clinical trials of Bates and Plus Lens show little to no effect. Kaplan's material has no basis in science and he has done no clinical trials. I am not familiar with Parsons's ideas. > (2) I do not consider my temporary clear flashes as a cure to my myopia. > How do you explain them? Short term tearing causing a tear lens or short term pupil constriction or lid squinting. > (3) Do you believe clear flashes can be prolonged? No > (4) If you do not believe it is possible to cure one's myopia with these > natural type of approaches please explain why. For the same reason I would not believe it possible to make your nose smaller by smelling things or your eyes stick out less by listening harder. This methods need to explain, in scientific terms, how exercises, good thinking or wearing the wrong glasses will make the physical tissues of the eye change their shape and/or size. > (5) If you do not believe it is possible to cure one's myopia as described > above then how do you explain individual success stories or claims? Please > provide detailed arguments. Individual claims are just that, largely claims. Claims, to be believed should be accompanied by pre and post treatment cycloplegic refraction results. In 27 years of practice, I have seen numerous adult individuals become less myopic over time without doing any exercises or using any therapy. It happens. What we don't hear is how many individuals tried the method and it didn't work. If 100 people try it, 2 find success and 98 don't, then I am inclined to believe the two successful cases would have lost their myopia during the normal case of living, not due to the method. To believe that any of the methods you cited can cure myopia, you need to find published, well controlled, clinical trials of the methods. That way, you can compare the results of treatment to the results of no treatment. These types of trials have been done recently with the plus lens (no effect), were done in the '40s and '50s with Bates (no effect), and have not been done with Kaplan's methods. > NOTE: I have read many of the optometry research articles and reviews > posted in these forums. I have a fair understanding of the history and > findings. I would suggest you do a PubMed search and not rely upon this forum for research. If you have researched via PubMed, then you likely already know the odds of success. Dr Judy > Please add anything else you would like. > > Thank you, > > Jamie > For the same reason I would not believe it possible to make your nose > smaller by smelling things or your eyes stick out less by listening > harder. Sorry, typo, should be "ears" not eyes. Dr Judy Thank you Dr. Judy for your candid reply. For many reasons your scientific, statistical approach is very appealing to me - that is, assuming the relevant research was well designed and executed and assuming that the bias of the researches did not influence their results. Let's assume that is the case. One thing I still struggle with is the ease with which you explain away the anecdotal evidence. Perhaps I am gullible, but I do believe the individuals who claim to have improved their vision. As far as my own case is concerned, I am 35 years old. Before I started my own vision improvement I could not make out the big “E” on the Snellen chart. My prescription is roughly R-3.75, L-3.25. I have not participated in any courses or bought any “flakey” products. As I mentioned above, I am able to see much better during clear flashes. At times I experience a clear flash with no extra tearing. At times they occur in a successive fashion, almost one after the other, for a period of 30 minutes. Are these experiences truly that easily explained away? I have never experienced a clear flash until I started working on my vision. If I understand your view correctly, if my vision improves – let’s say it goes back to 20/20 and can be confirmed in an OD’s office – then it was due to natural causes which to date are unexplainable and occur during mid-life? If it does end up taking say 10 years for my vision to improve, then I would agree 100% that it was due to natural change related to mid-life. My mother was myopic and is no longer so – but her change occurred somewhere between the ages of 50 and 60. If I were fortunate enough to improve or cure my myopia in a much less time then, assuming I have been honest in my claims, would you not be curious? Science is a process of continuous improvement. The scientific method is the process by which we, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world. Ideas which were once proclaimed “truths” in the name of science have since been overturned. Is there any possibility in your mind that someday we will have a better understanding of how vision works that will open up ways to cure myopia? Do you ever wonder if that method is already out there and just poorly understand and/or poorly replicated? > Thank you Dr. Judy for your candid reply. For many reasons your > scientific, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > individuals > who claim to have improved their vision. I believe them too. However, what cannot be known from just one case is whether the vision improvement method caused the improvement or if it was chance. The only way to know if the method works is to do a clinical trial. Single cases do not provide evidence that a method works, however, if published as case reports, they do provide researchers with a reason to explore the method with a clinical trial. Over the years, I have repeatedly urged Otis and others to have someone confirm the pre and post treatment cycloplegic refraction and publish the case. If several cases are published, then researchers will have enough evidence to apply for grants for clinical trials. So far they have not done this, yet to continue to rail against me as opposed to new ideas. Dr Judy snip > Science is a process of continuous improvement. The scientific method is > the process by which we, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct > an accurate representation of the world. Ideas which were once proclaimed > ?truths? in the name of science have since been overturned. Is there any > possibility in your mind that someday we will have a better understanding > of how vision works that will open up ways to cure myopia? Do you ever > wonder if that method is already out there and just poorly understand > and/or poorly replicated? What do you want by Dr. Judy? He has a successful practice in destroying the vision of people, who pay him very well. What are you asking of him??? He is not interested! He is not a pure scientist. Just a seller of bad treatments! You should invest your energies in finding a complete cure, which you won't find if you follow wrong methods. http://TheCentralFixation.com > (1) Do you believe one can cure one's myopia with any of the above > approaches? No. > (2) I do not consider my temporary clear flashes as a cure to my myopia. > How do you explain them? To my knowledge, nobody has ever demonstrated a mechanism for "clear flashes" under laboratory conditions. I find it extremely unlikely that your eyeball becomes shorter or your cornea becomes flatter during these episodes. That leaves a finite set of possible explanations - squinting, tearing, pupil changes, relaxed accommodation, and improved blur interpretation. > (3) Do you believe clear flashes can be prolonged? Only when they're a product of relaxed accommodation. Most young myopes over-accommodate a little and they can be trained not to. Some of them over-accommodate a lot and their "cures" can be spectacular. But the same "cure" happens spontaneously by the time they reach 45 or 50, as accommodation diminishes. Perhaps half the myopic population experiences spontaneous "improvement" of a half-diopter or more, after their myopia "levels off". > (4) If you do not believe it is possible to cure one's myopia with these > natural type of approaches please explain why. Because the eye is mostly cartilaginous and that sort of tissue doesn't respond to "natural approaches" anywhere else in the body. It's like changing the shape of your ears by listening to the "right" music. > (5) If you do not believe it is possible to cure one's myopia as described > above then how do you explain individual success stories or claims? Please > provide detailed arguments. "Natural" vision improvement occurs as a result of relaxed accommodation, squinting, and improved blur interpretation. > NOTE: I have read many of the optometry research articles and reviews > posted in these forums. I have a fair understanding of the history and > findings. Then you know that it was common for doctors to offer behavioral "myopia cures" 50 years ago, but now it's considered false advertising. -MT Thank you Dr. Judy for your candid reply. For many reasons your scientific, statistical approach is very appealing to me - that is, assuming the relevant research was well designed and executed and assuming that the bias of the researches did not influence their results. Let's assume that is the case. One thing I still struggle with is the ease with which you explain away the anecdotal evidence. Perhaps I am gullible, but I do believe the individuals who claim to have improved their vision. As far as my own case is concerned, I am 35 years old. Before I started my own vision improvement I could not make out the big “E” on the Snellen chart. My prescription is roughly R-3.75, L-3.25. I have not participated in any courses or bought any “flakey” products. As I mentioned above, I am able to see much better during clear flashes. At times I experience a clear flash with no extra tearing. At times they occur in a successive fashion, almost one after the other, for a period of 30 minutes. Are these experiences truly that easily explained away? I have never experienced a clear flash until I started working on my vision. If I understand correctly your view is that if my vision improves – let’s say it goes back to 20/20 and can be confirmed in an OD’s office – then it was due to natural causes which to date are unexplainable and occur during mid-life? If it does end up taking say 10 years for my vision to improve, then I would agree 100% that it was due to natural change related to mid- life. My mother was myopic and is no longer so – but her change occurred somewhere between the ages of 50 and 60. If I were fortunate enough to improve or cure my myopia in a much less time then, assuming I have been honest in my claims, would you not be curious? Science is a process of continuous improvement. The scientific method is the process by which we, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world. Ideas which were once proclaimed “truths” in the name of science have since been overturned. Is there any possibility in your mind that someday we will have a better understanding of how vision works that will open up ways to cure myopia? Do you ever wonder if that method is already out there and just poorly understand and/or poorly replicated? MT, You stated, "That leaves a finite set of possible explanations - squinting, tearing, pupil changes, relaxed accommodation, and improved blur interpretation." You also stated that clear flashes can be prolonged, "Only when they're a product of relaxed accommodation. Most young myopes over-accommodate a little and they can be trained not to. Some of them over-accommodate a lot and their "cures" can be spectacular. But the same "cure" happens spontaneously by the time they reach 45 or 50, as accommodation diminishes. Perhaps half the myopic population experiences spontaneous "improvement" of a half-diopter or more, after their myopia "levels off"." You also stated, “"Natural" vision improvement occurs as a result of relaxed accommodation, squinting, and improved blur interpretation.” In your opinion where does that leave someone like me? I have been myopic since I was 17. I am now 35. My current prescription is roughly R–3.75, L- 3.25 (plus astigmatisms in both eyes). Do you believe someone such as myself could return to 20/20 vision through relaxed accommodation and improved blur interpretation? If yes, that would be pretty incredible regardless of the mechanism, cause, theory, approach, etc. I can assure you that I have had some pretty incredible clear flashes in very good natural lighting where I can see unbelievable well when compared with the expected 20/300 vision that my prescription would indicate. On the flip side, I am lucky if I can see much better than 20/300 when the lighting is poor. Please keep in mind that I am curious for yours and other OD’s opinions. I am not trying to challenge or incessantly argue with you guys. I am in the process of gathering all opinions out of curiosity. Thanks! > In your opinion where does that leave someone like me? I have been myopic > since I was 17. I am now 35. My current prescription is roughly R?3.75, L- > 3.25 (plus astigmatisms in both eyes). If you fit the "typical" pattern and natural history, it leaves you doing what most people do. You start with no myopia, it gets worse for 2 or 20 years and then levels off. Then it often improves *a little*, and it's stable for 10-30 more years after that. After 60, the average swings toward myopia again, presumably due to pre-cataract changes in the crystalline lens. > Do you believe someone such as myself could return to 20/20 vision through > relaxed accommodation and improved blur interpretation? If yes, that would > be pretty incredible regardless of the mechanism, cause, theory, approach, > etc. "Incredible" is the right word, ok. There are always individual idiosyncrasies. But if you apply "relaxed accommodation and improved blur interpretation" to 100 35-year-olds, one or two might show marked improvement, 10 or 20 will show a line or two of Snellen improvement. 20 or 30 will *believe* they've improved but test the same, and the rest will consider it a waste of time. The one or two who experience "miraculous recovery" will become vocal disciples of whatever technique they happened to use. Accommodation is semivoluntary and ideally suited for placebo effects. > I can assure you that I have had some pretty incredible clear flashes in > very good natural lighting where I can see unbelievable well when compared > with the expected 20/300 vision that my prescription would indicate. On > the > flip side, I am lucky if I can see much better than 20/300 when the > lighting is poor. I don't doubt your word, or your observation. I don't know the mechanism but the differences in bright vs dim light virtually screams "depth-of-field." How well can you see through a pinhole? If you haven't tried it, you might be surprised. If your "flashes" give better acuity than a pinhole, I'll be astounded. > Please keep in mind that I am curious for yours and other OD?s opinions. I > am not trying to challenge or incessantly argue with you guys. I am in the > process of gathering all opinions out of curiosity. I entered optometry after working in neurological electrodiagnostics for ten years. I was determined to find the "vision improvement" techniques with sound scientific basis. I found some, but it was disappointing that I could never find a single behavioral technique that reliably reduces myopia, except in young myopes with excess accommodation. -MT > If you fit the "typical" pattern and natural history, it leaves you doing > what most people do. You start with no myopia, it gets worse for 2 or 20 > years and then levels off. Then it often improves *a little*, and it's for me started at 13 and stopped at 16. at 20 I removed glasses and recovered one dioptre. I got quickly clear flashes at 21. Then I did not follow any treatment because of the absurdity of the book that were available at that time. > stable for 10-30 more years after that. After 60, the average swings toward > myopia again, presumably due to pre-cataract changes in the crystalline > lens. Now at 35 I can see 20/15 or 20/10 in good light. What to do? I can see 20/20 or 10/10 in not so good electric light. No question of pupil contracting. > "Incredible" is the right word, ok. It's not: when you live it, it's not, it's simply the way it should be. Anyway even I single case shatters your theories and your experience. Your model is destroyed by one single case. It's not such a strong model, indeed. > I don't doubt your word, or your observation. I don't know the mechanism but > the differences in bright vs dim light virtually screams "depth-of-field." It's not, because in time the bad light conditions produce a good vision all the same. > How well can you see through a pinhole? If you haven't tried it, you might > be surprised. If your "flashes" give better acuity than a pinhole, I'll be > astounded. It is evident that your ignorance is full. You do not know of what we are talking. Pinhole effect decreases the brightness of the visual field. It is incomparable with the clear flash of perfect sight. In the clear flash of perfect sight the visual field is FULLY BRIGHT. The vision is tunnelized into the central-fixation area, and one can see the whole of his mental field like a supercharged cinemascope screen, full of details and color and movement. > I entered optometry after working in neurological electrodiagnostics for ten > years. I was determined to find the "vision improvement" techniques with > sound scientific basis. I found some, but it was disappointing that I could > never find a single behavioral technique that reliably reduces myopia, > except in young myopes with excess accommodation. You searched in the wrong field: you didn't even read Dr. Bates 1920-1940 book, neither the Emily book, neither the MacCracken book. Perhaps you haven't read the statistical evidence published dirung then years of research on the N.Y. Med. Journ. Ten years are a long time for a method to be studied. http://TheCentralFixation.com > I can assure you that I have had some pretty incredible clear flashes in > very good natural lighting where I can see unbelievable well when compared > with the expected 20/300 vision that my prescription would indicate. On the > flip side, I am lucky if I can see much better than 20/300 when the > lighting is poor. I am not an OD, but I used to be an amateur photographer and have taken optics physics classes in college. It is a simple fact of physics that your ability to focus far and near improves with more light. When a photographer is taking pictures in good light, they can "stop" the lens down and everything will be in focus from a few feet away out to infinity. When they take a picture in poor light, then they can focus a few feet away, or they can focus at infinity, but whichever they choose, the other will be blurry. This is why eye tests can only be done with the same light level. That 20/300 is only correct at a certain light level.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net I understand the optics and reason why I can see better in good lighting vs poor lighting. I guess I just did not expect to go from 20/300 in poor lighting to 20/30 or whatever in good lighting. I have experienced a few rare clear flashes in poor lighting where I was able to see better than 20/300. MT, You said, "There are always individual idiosyncrasies. But if you apply "relaxed accommodation and improved blur interpretation" to 100 35-year- olds, one or two might show marked improvement, 10 or 20 will show a line or two of Snellen improvement. 20 or 30 will *believe* they've improved but test the same, and the rest will consider it a waste of time. The one or two who experience "miraculous recovery" will become vocal disciples of whatever technique they happened to use. Accommodation is semivoluntary and ideally suited for placebo effects." Fair enough. But I have experienced more than 1 or 2 lines of Snellen improvement. I have experienced maybe 5 lines of improvement. Admittedly I cannot read all of these lines all of the time. If I went in to get tested I could reproduce my results but I would not be able to do it quickly. If the OD had the patience I could do it in anywhere from 1 to 15 mintues I would imagine. But I have only been doing this for 12 weeks remember. Based on the discussion above I have or am pretty close to reaching my best vision. However, I feel as if I am close to a break through. I feel as if I could make significant improvements anytime...as if I am on the verge of a major jump. I could always be nuts :) or one of the rare exceptions I guess. So time will tell? > MT, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I could always be nuts :) or one of the rare exceptions I guess. If you want to know if the clear flashes are due to true decrease in myopia and not to pupil or accomodation effects, get a cycloplegic refraction and ask the doctor to use cyclogly or homoatropine. The cycloplegic refraction will tell you if your myopia has decreased. These two drugs will eliminate accomodation and keep your pupil dilated for about 12 hours; test to see if you can manage any clear flashes while the drugs are in effect. It would be best to test acuity at home with a hand held rotating Es or Landolt Cs (you will need a friend to help) to avoid any chart memorization. Again, if you get results, please publish them. One case does not prove anything, but can give researchers a reason to try a controlled clinical trial. Dr Judy > So time will tell? Judy, Two family friends are OD's. I am thinking about discussing this topic with them - I have not mentioned it to them yet. I am also thinking of asking whether they would be interested in testing me on a regular basis. I know this is not a controlled study by any means but it would be valuable for myself. I believe I understand what you are getting at when you recommend I have a cycloplegic refraction test done. Let's assume my lens does not change shape and continues with the same refractive error. If I could achieve 20/20 vision through pupil, accomodative or blur interpretation effects would that not be useful? > Two family friends are OD's. I am thinking about discussing this topic with > them - I have not mentioned it to them yet. I am also thinking of asking > whether they would be interested in testing me on a regular basis. I know > this is not a controlled study by any means but it would be valuable for > myself. NO PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM THEM, THEY WILL CONVINCE YOU OF THE COTRARY OF YOUR EXPERIENCE AND THIS IS ONE MAJOR CAUSE OF FAILURE IN THE TREATMENT! YOU SHOULD RETIRE TO STUDY THE ORIGINAL METHODS IN A PLACE WHERE NOBODY CAN INFLUENCE YOU OR DISTURB YOU! THESE ARE SPIRITUAL MATTERS. VERY FRAGILE BUT VERY TRUE INDEED. > I believe I understand what you are getting at when you recommend I have a > cycloplegic refraction test done. Let's assume my lens does not change > shape and continues with the same refractive error. If I could achieve > 20/20 vision through pupil, accomodative or blur interpretation effects > would that not be useful? I fear for you that you are spoiling your genuine efforts. > Judy, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 20/20 vision through pupil, accomodative or blur interpretation effects > would that not be useful? Hello Jamie, I am the same age as you. My prescription is also almost the same as yours, -2.50(Left) and -3.25(Right) with no astigmatism. Funny thing is it used to be -3.50(Left) and -3.75(Right) but I now suspect this was due to overcorrection and the 'decrease' already occurred while I was wearing my old pair of glasses at -3.50 both eyes. I too was hoping to improve my vision without undergoing surgery or relying on glasses/contacts. Since Dec 2004, I have tried using plus lenses for computer work, not wearing glasses when I don't need to see clearly and exercising my eyes. I also went to an ophthalmologist to get my eyes tested under cyclopegia. My conclusion after almost 4 months is that it makes no difference. The ophthalmologist only confirmed I had slight pseudomyopia, about 0.25 for both eyes. Pseudomyopia, as you know, is myopia due to overly tense ciliary muscles. I too see a lot further in bright sunlight but this, as others have explained, is due to the increased depth of field due to a smaller pupil size. I can also get better vision by squinting and tearing. My mother too is myopic, while my dad only started wearing glasses probably in the presbyopic years. My mother's vision improved as she got older but remained myopic until today. Her prescription is probably slightly better than mine. In the end, nothing really changes and frankly I'm quite sick of seeing blur. I am now considering PRK/LASEK/Epi-LASEK or extended wear contacts to fix my myopia. > In the end, nothing really changes and frankly I'm quite sick of seeing > blur. I am now considering PRK/LASEK/Epi-LASEK or extended wear contacts to > fix my myopia. You did not follow the right method which is based on three provisions: 1) discard the glasses permanently at whatever cost 2) learn to look at the sun 3) read fine and micro print every day in low light. http://TheCentralFixation.com > > Judy, > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > blur. I am now considering PRK/LASEK/Epi-LASEK or extended wear contacts to > fix my myopia. Yes, unfortunately there is no "cure" for myopia, yet. At this stage, there are only "treatments," such as eyeglasses, contact lenses, and refractive surgery. From the standpoint of common sense and safety, I would give the contact lenses a try. The preliminary data on the silicone-hydrogel lenses is that the rate of eye infection during overnight wear is a factor of 10 lower than with conventional contact lenses. Unfortunately, with refractive surgery, the risk of a long-term complication is significantly higher. Also, contact lenses do not change the eye's natural optics, whereas refractive surgery does, but in the wrong direction. However, on the not-too-distant horizon, there may be drug treatments for myopia. For example, the daily use of atropine has been shown to completely halt the progression of myopia. Unfortunately, the there are too many side-effects. But, there are other atropine analogues without the annoying side-effects that are now being tested. Unfortunately, no drug has been found to reverse myopia. DrG > Yes, unfortunately there is no "cure" for myopia, yet. At this stage, > there are only "treatments," such as eyeglasses, contact lenses, and > refractive surgery. From the standpoint of common sense and safety, I The cure is there and was discovered by one eye doctor one hudred of years ago. I don't know why you say there is no cure. The girl of -23 D who is under treatment today phoned me about another step in her progress: the T which should be seen at 35 feet was seen at 15 feet with no indoor electric light and no exercise in relaxation whatsoever. The second eye, which is the weaker, could see the R of the 50 feet line. You please explain how this can be possible. The girl once removed the glasses on Jan 1 this year, could not see anything whatsoever at more than 5 cm distance from her eyes. Another boy of 25 today phoned me that she has started self-treatment since 15 days, from a -15 D prescription. I asked him to keep me informed of his progress. Your dirty inventions like silicon-hydrogel and other sticky things are just another cheat like glasses, contacts and operations. I really have a hard time in understanding the difference between a criminal and an idiot, when I have to think to ODs. http://TheCentralFixation.com > From the standpoint of common sense and safety, I > would give the contact lenses a try. The preliminary data on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > do not change the eye's natural optics, whereas refractive surgery > does, but in the wrong direction. How safe is it to wear the 30-day extended wear lenses for the full term? I went to my optician today and she says most people wear it for around 20 days and start feeling uncomfortable. In a study published in the Lancet in 1999, and prior to the introduction of the silicone-hydrogel lens technology, the risk of developing bacterial keratitis from sleeping in contact lenses was 1/500 cases per year, with approximately 13% losing some vision from scarring. This is consistent with previous studies. Preliminary data from worldwide post-market studies indicate that the risk of developing bacterial keratitis from sleeping in a silicone-hydrogel lens is about 1/4000 per year, with the same visual morbidity. Compare this with the 1% or 3% long-term complication rate from LASIK. Both the Focus N&D and Purevision are approved for up to 30 days of continuous wear in the U.S. So is the Menicon-Z RGP lens. I suggest that if the lens feels uncomfortable, that it be removed and replaced -- whether at 30 days, 20 days, or 7 days. There are people who have had LASIK who experience extreme discomfort 24/7. They don't have the luxury of removing their contacts for relief. DrG > In a study published in the Lancet in 1999, and prior to the > introduction of the silicone-hydrogel lens technology, the risk of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > had LASIK who experience extreme discomfort 24/7. They don't have the > luxury of removing their contacts for relief. Agreed. However I do find the scarring resulting from the bacterial keratitis rather unnerving. I read about some teenage boys who went swimming with the lenses and contracted keratitis one day after resulting in scarring. http://bjo.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/86/3/355 > Agreed. However I do find the scarring resulting from the bacterial > keratitis rather unnerving. I read about some teenage boys who went > swimming with the lenses and contracted keratitis one day after resulting > in scarring. > > http://bjo.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/86/3/355 > Agreed. However I do find the scarring resulting from the bacterial > keratitis rather unnerving. I read about some teenage boys who went > swimming with the lenses and contracted keratitis one day after resulting > in scarring. So who recommends swimming in contacts? -MT Certainly, eye infections are unnerving. But, look how much the incidence has been reduced with overnight contact lens wear. In fact, it was never as high as the scaremongers would have had us believe. You are talking about acanthamoeba. In more than 20 years of clinical practice in a large contact lens practice, I didn't see my first case of acanthamoeba until 2004. Then, I saw several cases within 6 months. It seems as though that there are outbreaks, probably due to microclimate that is favorable for acanthamoeba. The incidence of this infection has been estimated to be 1/250,000. I have seen three cases in my entire career. I have seen many more incidences of vision reduced by refractive surgery in any given year. As Dr. Tyner said, we don't recommend that you swim with contact lenses. DrG > You are talking about acanthamoeba. In more than 20 years of clinical > practice in a large contact lens practice, I didn't see my first case Actually he's citing a BMJ article describing less exotic bacterial keratitis - corynebacterium, s. marcescens, candida. -MT > Judy, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 20/20 vision through pupil, accomodative or blur interpretation effects > would that not be useful? Useful for what? If achieved through relaxation of accommodation, then you were over corrected and using the proper correction makes sense. If you only can achieve 20/20 in bright light when your pupils are small, then I fail to see the utility of taking your glasses off outdoors in bright light to see a poor 20/20 and then putting them back on for everything else. But if you would find it useful, go ahead. Blur interpretation only really works for familiar targets (ie Snellen chart). If you are trying to find or see something novel (faces, street signs, labels at the grocery store), it would be more useful to be able to see quickly and clearly instead of spending a minute or two squinting and guessing. But, again, that is me. If not wearing glasses or contacts is very important to you and you want to sacrifice clarity for no glasses or contacts, that is your choice. Please do not drive cars, snowmobiles, boats, operate heavy machinery or do other tasks that would endanger other people without your glasses. > Useful for what? If achieved through relaxation of accommodation, then you > were over corrected and using the proper correction makes sense. If you > only can achieve 20/20 in bright light when your pupils are small, then I > fail to see the utility of taking your glasses off outdoors in bright light > to see a poor 20/20 and then putting them back on for everything else. But > if you would find it useful, go ahead. Unfortunately people wearing glasses cannot stand the light of a bright sky, they need to squint or sunglasses, and this has a bad effect on vision, as everybody knows, but YOU! > Blur interpretation only really works for familiar targets (ie Snellen > chart). If you are trying to find or see something novel (faces, street Where did you find this? You start to repeat like a parrot what I write??? Where and when has a doctor said that a Snellen chart is "familiar"? > signs, labels at the grocery store), it would be more useful to be able to > see quickly and clearly instead of spending a minute or two squinting and > guessing. But, again, that is me. If not wearing glasses or contacts is > very important to you and you want to sacrifice clarity for no glasses or > contacts, that is your choice. In fact poor Jamie has not yet understood that a true cure is completely different. She is amids big strain, indeed. The approach is wrong. I know from personal experience. The true cure is totally different matter. I hope she understands this before her brain is washed by you and your ignorant comrades. > If you want to know if the clear flashes are due to true decrease in myopia > and not to pupil or accomodation effects, get a cycloplegic refraction and > ask the doctor to use cyclogly or homoatropine. The cycloplegic refraction > will tell you if your myopia has decreased. These two drugs will eliminate > accomodation and keep your pupil dilated for about 12 hours; test to see if > you can manage any clear flashes while the drugs are in effect. She is not able to do that now. > It would be best to test acuity at home with a hand held rotating Es or > Landolt Cs (you will need a friend to help) to avoid any chart memorization. Chart memoriziation is one fundamental of the cure. Strange charts have to be used for test purposes only once th cure is completed. > Fair enough. But I have experienced more than 1 or 2 lines of Snellen > improvement. I have experienced maybe 5 lines of improvement. Admittedly I > cannot read all of these lines all of the time. If I went in to get tested > I could reproduce my results but I would not be able to do it quickly. Reproducibility is extremely important when "therapies" are chosen or discarded. > I could always be nuts :) or one of the rare exceptions I guess. > > So time will tell? Remember that people your age often improve spontaneously, once they quit getting worse. -MT > Reproducibility is extremely important when "therapies" are chosen or > discarded. You speak as if man is a mere reproducible matter and not an individual soul with emotions, thoughts and aspirations. > Remember that people your age often improve spontaneously, once they quit > getting worse. No comment. > So time will tell? Unless you drop the wrong methods, time won't do any difference. You start to look at the sun and result will come quickly. But you should discard the glasses. Don't do as all the other vision improvement idiots have always done: do not wear lighter glasses. Don't have the fear of the sun. > This is why eye tests can only be done with the same light level. That > 20/300 is only correct at a certain light level. You simply do not know of what you are talking when we speak of flashes of perfect or supra-normal vision in any condition of light. My first clear flash was on a February morning, one o' clock pm, a cold winter day, with no sun but a slighty mist. It was for 30 seconds I guess and I could look around moving the eyes and head without losing the perfect vision. I could read the church clock (that's why I remember the time) and the sign on a baker shop, the one with a slanted cursive writings, very difficult to read. Then it came the blur again, but my life was changed. Dr. Bates was right and you OD-sellers-of-bad-treatments are all wrong. I'm sorry but this is the truth. People is getting cures over time. I see my clients of two years ago are very happy. Some have passed with full compliance the DMV tests. No question of age-related improvement: they can read micro print at 20 cm or less. So what? http://TheCEntralFixation.com > I can assure you that I have had some pretty incredible clear flashes in > very good natural lighting where I can see unbelievable well when compared > with the expected 20/300 vision that my prescription would indicate. On the > flip side, I am lucky if I can see much better than 20/300 when the > lighting is poor. This is because you are following bad methods: the key to solve your problem is starting to learn how to look at the sun for any length of time and any sort of place. > Please keep in mind that I am curious for yours and other OD?s opinions. I > am not trying to challenge or incessantly argue with you guys. I am in the > process of gathering all opinions out of curiosity. That's why you won't be cured, because you continue to argue and find strange ways to delay the good practice, thinking that some learned men here can help you into an understanding which they do not possess. I am replying here not because I care for you, nor for arguing with the so-called learned men, but because some other more intelligent readers may find new encouragement to follow good methods. http://TheCentralFixation.com > MT, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > In your opinion where does that leave someone like me? I have been myopic > since I was 17. I am now 35. My current prescription is roughly R?3.75, L- > 3.25 (plus astigmatisms in both eyes). > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > flip side, I am lucky if I can see much better than 20/300 when the > lighting is poor. Well, I have seen Asians with 4 diopters of myopia read the 20/200 line. This is quite common in my practice. Asians always score better on the eye chart than their Caucasion counterparts for the same amount of myopia. How can can this be explained? Simple. Asians eyes have narrow fissures, which acts like a narrow aperture, which acts like a pinhole, which acts like a high f-stop on a single reflex camera lens which increases depth of field and depth of focus. In bright light, the pupil constricts. In dim light, the pupil dilates. Now, do you understand the principle? DrG > Asians always score better > on the eye chart than their Caucasion counterparts for the same amount > of myopia. How can can this be explained? Simple. Asians eyes have > narrow fissures, Are they that slitty eyed? I think a more asian friendly explanation from the point of view of mainstream thinking is that because asians are more intelligent than white folks they are better at interpreting the blurr. Surely? > > Asians always score better > > on the eye chart than their Caucasion counterparts for the same [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Surely? Surely you jest as usual. DrG > pinhole, which acts like a high f-stop on a single reflex camera lens > which increases depth of field and depth of focus. I sell pinholes with 1,2 mm diameter holes. This consents to the client to see much better the snellen chart, in some cases all the lines. Do you think indoors a pupil can constrict to 1,2 mm? What is the average of pupil size in myopic people once you take off the glasses and the room is not so lighted? > Do you think indoors a pupil can constrict to 1,2 mm? > > What is the average of pupil size in myopic people once you take off > the glasses and the room is not so lighted? Rishi This effect is proportional to degree of myopia. A high myope will get a much bigger result for a small pupil than a low myope. Dont underestimate this effect. I am even finding now at age 49 that i have a better acuity in my right eye for distance vision **when i am focused for near vision**. That seemed really weird until i remembered the pupil gets smaller for near vision - my accommodation is failing:-( > This effect is proportional to degree of myopia. A high myope will get > a much bigger result for a small pupil than a low myope. I wonder why this girl could not see anything at inception of treatment after removing her -23 D eyeglasses, so much that she was unable to cross the street, while now she can see the outline of mountains in the landscape and can see people in the restaurant many meters away under poor electric light, although she cannot still recognize unfamiliar faces. Something is at work here, and the pupil size vatiation does not count (otherwise it should have cunted also in the beginning). Now, OD here say that it is against their advice to swim with contacts. Good to know... What are they offering to their poor patients, instead? > Because the eye is mostly cartilaginous and that sort of tissue doesn't > respond to "natural approaches" anywhere else in the body. It's like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Natural" vision improvement occurs as a result of relaxed accommodation, > squinting, and improved blur interpretation. Then I don't know how do you explain my client reading at 7 feet the line marked 5 on a black chart under good electric light, when she was prescripted -23 D. Strange as it may seem, she is able to read the letters when she swings a little her gaze, while she is unable to read them if she stares. Please explain. Rishi, Thank you for your genuine concern. I think I should explain my general approach before you worry too much though. In general I tend to ask everyone for their opinion. I am an avid reader and like to learn about opposing opinions. Part of this behavior may be based in my myopia. With vision improvement I have been trying to hear from all parties....people who support Bates, people who support Kaplan, people who support plus lens work, etc. I am also very interested in hearing what the dissenting or opposing opinions are - that is one reason why I would like to learn as much as I can from the OD's out there. As far as my own choices are concerned, I can assure you that I will NEVER consider PRK/LASEK/Epi-LASEK or any of those irreversible invasive solutions to my myopia. I am too fearful of the possible consequences and I am not inconvenienced enough by my myopia to consider them for myself. I am not a believer in voluntary surgery whether it be for cosmetic reasons or for my myopia. If I were legally blind or if my vision was much worse then I would consider these approaches. At –3.75 I can manage just fine even with glasses and contacts. I am committed to giving any and all forms of natural vision improvement a good effort. I have been doing this for 12 weeks. I figure I will try improving my vision for at least 1 year by these methods. I just spent 3 years working on some other chronic physical problems and did not stop until I was able to improve my condition. One orthopedic surgeon told me I needed surgery in my shoulder. I proved him wrong. I am sure I will dedicate myself to improving my vision just as much. If I am unable to improve my vision significantly within a reasonable timeframe then I will go back to my glasses with full or near full prescription. At the age of 35 it will not be a huge loss. Regardless of the results, the learning experience will be extremely valuable. And if all goes well then just maybe I will be able to discard my glasses forever and see 20/20. > In general I tend to ask everyone for their opinion. I am an avid reader > and like to learn about opposing opinions. Part of this behavior may be > based in my myopia. I'm not interested in your myopia, but I am interested in the dissemination of the true cure of imperfect sight in general. > With vision improvement I have been trying to hear from all > parties....people who support Bates, people who support Kaplan, people who There are no people who support Bates, except perhaps a very few, very few, intelligent individual. If you are in New York, there is one guy about your eyes who seems to have grasped much of Bates and has discarded everything else. If you join my perfectsight group on Yahoo! you may meet him. > I would consider these approaches. At ?3.75 I can manage just fine even > with glasses and contacts. This is a wrong approach: you show to be still linked to these things. Detach yourself from this wrong pattern of thought. The cure is not possible until you do this. > I am committed to giving any and all forms of natural vision improvement a > good effort. I have been doing this for 12 weeks. I figure I will try > improving my vision for at least 1 year by these methods. I just spent 3 Please, stop this nonsense: the cure may take more, so what? The cure is not easily predictable because we don't know how much you will practice CORRECTLY the principles of the normal eye. In the meanwhile, the vision improves continuously, but you have to stay away from eyeglasses otherwise it's impossible. The cure is PERFECT SIGHT *WITHOUT GLASSES*. It is written in gold letters on the book. *WHITOUT GLASSES* simply means you have to discard them. It's so clear! > improve my vision significantly within a reasonable timeframe then I will > go back to my glasses with full or near full prescription. At the age of 35 And so you are killing yourself with your own hands! Can't you see your wrongodings??? It's unbelievable. It's like saying: I WANT TO LEARN TO FLY BUT I STILL LIKE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE GROUND, BUT PLEASE, I REALLY DO LOVE TO WANT TO FLY... > it will not be a huge loss. Regardless of the results, the learning > experience will be extremely valuable. And if all goes well then just maybe > I will be able to discard my glasses forever and see 20/20. It is not that you get 20/20 AND THEN you discard the glasses. You first MUST discard the glasses, then you can reach 20/20. Why people do not want to understand this, I do not know!!! http://TheCentralFixation.com >> In general I tend to ask everyone for their opinion. I am an avid >reader [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > >http://TheCentralFixation.com Quick question, Rishi . . . and forgive me if it sounds inappropriate: Do you regularly have to wear turtleneck shirts to keep the foreskin from covering up your head? Just wondering. Carry on. Rishi, are you myopic? What is your vision history? > Rishi, are you myopic? What is your vision history? WHAT??? Search on google if you want to know about me and my work. So you are arrogant too? I don't care about your work. I wanted to know what is your current and historical refractive status? Do you wear glasses? I cannot find that on google. Judy, Thanks for all of your replies. Hopefully I will be able to continue talking to and corresponding with many other OD’s as well as I learn more about this field. One thing came to mind while reading your posts. You seem to rely heavily on “science” and the existing research. While that may provide a good starting point for discussion and consideration, it has been shown that the scientific method as currently employed today can be highly flawed in cases. I am by no means an expert in this area of research and debate, but I do know that there are whole dissertations written on this topic. I am also not even a novice in optometry research – I am nearly completely ignorant. However, others in this forum seem to stress the issue of “vested interests”. I do know that research is currently biased in the following ways: 1) There is bias away from performing studies to prove that one’s ideas are wrong. 2) There is a bias away from performing studies which will not result in knowledge that will have profitable outcomes. 3) There is a bias away from performing studies which jeopardize the researcher’s likelihood of receiving future funding. 4) There is a bias away from performing studies which jeopardize the researcher’s likelihood of getting published. Does it ever cross your mind that this situation might be fogging your field of expertise? > 4) There is a bias away from performing studies which jeopardize the > researcher?s likelihood of getting published. > > Does it ever cross your mind that this situation might be fogging your > field of expertise? Did it ever cross your mind I would be published in Scientific American if I could show even one behavioral technique was effective? Or that a doctor who could legitimately advertise a nonsurgical cure for myopia would have more patients than he could handle? -MT > Did it ever cross your mind I would be published in Scientific American if I > could show even one behavioral technique was effective? Scientific American has published the discoveries of Dr. Bates. Look in the archives! Rishi, So in your view what are the correct steps for improving vision. So far from you I have heard the following: 1) Remove your glasess, period. Never put minus lenses on a myope. Never. 2) Look at the sun (I assume you mean with eyes closed). Sunning. What else do you suggest or can you post a link to a place where I can see your suggestions? Thanks To all the OD's on here....I realize that one case does not prove anything but I set up lighting conditions in my room last night that are very similar if not exact to the conditions in an OD's office. I then worked with my Snellen and got to 20/50. I am ~ -3.5D so 20/50 is pretty darn good. I was not squinting. I had a mirror in my hand to confirm that my pupils were very dialated. It was difficult to reproduce and it occurred at a lower frequency, but I could read the 20/50 line. Dear Jamie, Subject: Pardon the interruption Depending on how you look at it, you are probably over-prescribed by from -2.5 to 3.0 diopters. A trial-lens kit (of your own) would show you could "clear" the 20/40 line with about -1/2 to -3/4 diopters. If you wish -- I will supply a source of these lenses for about $19. Plan to do some more scientific testing? Making confirming measurements YOUSELF is a powerful tool in engineering and science. Best, Otis Otis, Thank you for the tip. Please feel free to jump on board and reply all you want to my post (thank you for respecting my wishes by the way). I'll see if I can figure out how to change my post subject heading. Jamie Otis, I have just ordered some -1.5D glasses for maybe $30 including shipping. I plan on ordering some additional glasses with a weaker prescription still, so I will keep you posted. Jamie ONE CHALLENGE FOR JAMIE: reproduce the same eyechart with inverted colors: black background, white letters. Do you wanna bet that you will see easily 20/30 or 20/20 in the same light conditions? Drop the ODs, they understand nothing, they simply move in the restricted range of their own business applications, no way that they will help you. They are happy if 1 out of 500 only will develop serious infections by the use of contacts, and they simply HOPE that this happens because the poor fellow that will be caught in such a trap will be a good patient to spoil. For this reason, they are against any new implementation of better treatments. But the industry goes on and invents new things, and so the battle goes on and who always loses is the poor gullible patient. > To all the OD's on here....I realize that one case does not prove anything > but I set up lighting conditions in my room last night that are very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It was difficult to reproduce and it occurred at a lower frequency, but I > could read the 20/50 line. You have either familiarized yourself with the optotype or, as Otis said, you are not really as myopic as your prescription suggests, which means that you have a significant accommodative component to your myopia. In real life, you don't have the luxury of sitting in a semi-lit room to study a line of letters until you can 'identify' them. On your next eye appointment, make sure that you have a cycloplegic refraction. About 15 or 20 years ago, an optometrist by the name of Trachtman invented a device called the Accommotrac. Quite simply, it was a device that measured the refractive status of the eye in conjunction with an auditory biofeedback signal. The device was sold to optometrists for the purpose of charging patients for a series of treatments to reduce myopia. Indeed, the device did seem to work for some patients and not for others. In the end, one could find many of the Accommotrac devices on the secondary market a few years later. Today, they are not being used at all. Some years ago, and to satisfy my own curiosity, I surveyed the literature on the subject, and went so far as to make calls on the academics at Pacific University College of Optometry. My interest was in doing this myself and charging patients for it. What I discovered was that relaxation techniques could reduce myopia in the pseudomyopic population (if you could identify them), but that the results tended not to be permanent. These are the very same patients whose prescription tends to decline naturally, with age and declining accommodation. DrG Very interesting. Think most OD's are aware of this tool and associated literature? What about pseudo-myopia in a -23 D prescription? > 1) Remove your glasess, period. Never put minus lenses on a myope. Never. Never put any eyeglasses to anybody! > 2) Look at the sun (I assume you mean with eyes closed). Sunning. No, eyes open, with discretion, and the word is sun-treatment. > What else do you suggest or can you post a link to a place where I can see > your suggestions? All the things published by Dr. Bates, 1896-1930. It's the only system that truly works. http://TheCentralFixation.com |
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.