Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005
Vision improvement test questions
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ben - 08 Jun 2005 07:06 GMT Hello,
I am a Air Force ROTC cadet hoping to be a pilot. Currently my eyes are borderline good enough to be a pilot... they are 20/70 in both eyes for distance, with a perscription of 1.25 diopters. My near vision is 20/15, so thats not an issue. If my eyes get any worse, then I will need to get PRK to be a pilot, and the time I have to do that is running out (its extremely complicated, I won't bore you unnecessarily if I don't have to).
A friend sent me some of the See Clearly Method exercises to, hopefully, at least in some minor way help my vision, or perhaps keep it from getting worse if nothing else. However, another person has informed me that the SCM method is generally not considered specific enough to meet all needs. He mentioned this newsgroup and told me to ask about things I could do, be it exercises, supplements, etc., to help my vision as much as possible. He said you might be able to give me am ore specific set of things to do.
So with that in mind, what should I be doing? Will SCM help, or are there other exercises that I should be doing? Do you need any more information? Any help you can give is greatly, greatly appreciated.
John Yasar - 08 Jun 2005 07:49 GMT >However, another person has >informed me that the SCM method is generally not considered specific >enough to meet all needs. He mentioned this newsgroup and told me to >ask about things I could do, be it exercises, supplements, etc., to >help my vision as much as possible. He said you might be able to give >me am ore specific set of things to do. Yep, that is me, and welcome. What I meant was for some types of myopia exercises simply don't do any good. We were talking about "pseudomyopia" with ODs here, check out other topics where I asked questions about pseudomyopia and etc. But again, I believe it will be your OD who will tell you the condition of your eyes, what kind of myopia etc.
Have you ever had a cyclo refraction?
 Signature PV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea Wednesday, 08 Jun 2005 / 15:49:27 Korea Standard Time (+0900)
otisbrown@pa.net - 08 Jun 2005 13:10 GMT Dear Ben,
Subject: Advice for prevention
You are going to receive a great deal of advice on sci.med.vision about prevention -- or keeping your vision clear.
You might visit my site for some detaild information on the subject.
The information and support is absolutly FREE.
www.myopiafree.com
Best,
Otis
Dr. Leukoma - 08 Jun 2005 13:17 GMT > Dear Ben,
> You might visit my site for > some detaild information [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > www.myopiafree.com ...and utterly worthless.
Otis is living proof of how far someone can go (not very in this case) with an amateurish website and the word "prevention."
When you visit his website, please take note of the dates of his reference sources...circa 1970's. Then go to PubMed and print a list of research papers published since then (too voluminous to print).
DrG
William Stacy - 08 Jun 2005 14:40 GMT You sound like a perfect test case.
Although most of the professionals on this group will tell you that it can't be done, and otis' bunch will say it can, "although it will be hard", I say it can't hurt and if I were in your place I'd do a few things:
1. Have a cycloplegic refraction, to be sure of what your eye's structural situation is. Report the numbers here.
2. Read and compute without your glasses, since you obviously don't need them at that distance, and the ciliary relaxation produced also can't hurt.
3. Try whatever cockamamy "strong plus" lenses otis and the SCM recommends (I'm not positive they do no harm, but my guess is they won't hurt you... your mileage may vary).
4. Report your results back here, preferably with another cyclo refraction at the end (give it a few months at least) to see what, if anything happened.
5. Try real hard, so otis won't be able to blame you for any failure to improve, or God forbid for any increase in myopia. Pay homage to otis and his bunch if you do improve. Give the rest of us the raspberry (or vise-versa, depending on how it goes).
Good luck, whatever you do.
w.stacy, o.d.
> Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > there other exercises that I should be doing? Do you need any more > information? Any help you can give is greatly, greatly appreciated. otisbrown@pa.net - 08 Jun 2005 15:06 GMT Dear Ben,
Subject: The "second opinion" approch to prevention.
Each person is different -- in how he thinks and decisions he makes.
It is wise to listen to BOTH sides of a story -- before you take any action.
The stock-standard statement is that using the plus for preveniton is a waste of time. That may be the case for you. If you are going to use the plus the plan on consistent work with it. Slight efforts produce no noticible result.
This hostility towards prevention with the plus is truly incredible -- as you see on this site. Factor that "hostility" into any decision you will make.
Just remember, there are ODs who support the PEVENTIVE concept with the plus.
So take a lot of time -- and just think about what you want to do in your life.
Best,
Otis
otisbrown@pa.net - 08 Jun 2005 15:10 GMT Dear Ben,
Subject: Airforce Captain cleared his vision while in college -- with the plus.
Dispite the incredible hostility to true-prevention by SOME ODs, pilots to figure out how to do it "correctly".
Here are some remarks from Captian Fred Deakins for your interest.
Best,
Otis
+++++++++++++++++++
Note: This is a personal message -- not endorsed by the United States Air Force. Captain Deakins understood the explicit requirements -- and met and exceeded them.
AIR FORCE PILOT USES THE PLUS LENS TO CLEAR HIS DISTANT VISION FROM 20/50 TO 20/20
From: Captain Fred Deakins
To: You who must achieve 20/20.
Hello everyone, I'm a new member of this group of pilots and have found your conversations quite interesting. Like most of you, I am a believer in alternatives to the western philosophy of handing out visual crutches to everyone with eyesight / vision problems. Graduating from college, I found that my vision had regressed to a myopic 20/50 due to near-point stress. At the time, I was in the running for a coveted air force pilot slot, but absolutely had to pass the ophthalmology exam with 20/20 uncorrected (this was back in 1996).
Through good fortune, I found the concept of plus lens vision restoration and began working feverishly to improve my eyesight. I worked about 1 hour every day, 5 days a week and gave my eyes a rest on Saturday and Sunday. I found that by Friday, my vision was terrible, but come Sunday morning, I had eagle vision without any squinting or straining. I kept to my schedule leading up to my initial military flight physical (4 months later) and read the 20/15 over and over again without even knowing it. Needless to say, my life dream was obtained and I now live in New Jersey flying jets out of McGuire AFB.
It worked for me, and I know that it's worked for countless others. Having reset my life goals, I now want to help others who are striving for better vision. I have started a company called America 20/20, and our purpose is to provide first rate instruction and support to those willing to invest time, effort and commitment with the goal of achieving sharp vision without glasses or surgery. [Note: Fred Deakins subsequently disbanded America 20/20 for reasons I am not allowed to talk about. Use your imagination.]
I'll warn you, though...it definitely takes work and persistence on your part. Think about it, our vision deteriorates from prolonged stress and strain in the eye...for most of us taking years to develop. Why should we expect to be able to correct our vision naturally literally over night? Believe me, 4 months is a blink of the eye compared to the 6 or 7 years it took me to ruin my vision (no pun intended). I stopped doing these exercises after my flight physical (3 years ago) and still see 20/20 with very little effort (this was impossible for me before doing this).
It's true that this method (and others) have failed some people. Those with eye disease excluded, I would be willing to bet that this is because it took too much effort on their part and therefore they decided to give up -- and go with the easy solution...corrective minus lenses or some form of eye surgery.
Anyway, I don't usually write long messages, but this is important. I care about each and every one of you who are suffering from any form of disease or accommodative errors of the eye.
Best Regards,
Captain Fred Deakins, USAF
William Stacy - 08 Jun 2005 15:32 GMT > Note: This is a personal message -- not endorsed by the United > States Air Force. Captain Deakins understood the explicit > requirements -- and met and exceeded them. And a compelling one at that. However, I would hope you could contact the Capt. and have HIM post his message here. Please understand that some of us don't explicitly trust the veracity of your posts, and there is no way to authenticate this one unless he steps forward with some semblance of proof. Until then, I afraid I'll have to view Capt. Deakins as a figment of your hyperactive imagination and intensly wishful thinking. As a past USAF Capt. myself, I'm sure the USAF would be glad to help document this apparent miracle, and will no doubt instutute a preventive program for all cadets and pilots upon realizing the quality of the proof.
w.stacy, o.d.
otisbrown@pa.net - 08 Jun 2005 15:44 GMT Dear William,
"Apparent Miracle"???
As you or some other OD stated, pseduo-myopia is preventable.
And recoverable.
Since he obviously cleared to 20/20, you should not be surprised by this result.
Further, base-line data concerning the natural eye's true behavior (i.e., primate-eye, direct testing) shows that the refractive state of the natural eye "follows" its average visual-enviroment.
Fred just confirmed (human experiiment?) that the objective facts are true for the monkey-primate eye and the human-primate eye.
He just applied his techincal analysis (he is an engineer) and resolved the issue of vision-clearing for himself -- no problem.
Best,
Otis
William Stacy - 08 Jun 2005 16:10 GMT > Dear William, > > "Apparent Miracle"??? Your complete disregard of my request for confirmation from the source of your "proof" tends to strengthen my distrust of all your sources. I was reluctant to join those who repeatedly demand confirmation of your "proofs", but am beginning to see why they do it. Until you provide a shred of confirmation from the Captain or from the USAF, I'm afraid I'll have to agree that you are probably a fabricator of evidence. That constitutes the most pathetic excuse for scientific endeavor that can exist.
w.stacy, o.d.
otisbrown@pa.net - 08 Jun 2005 17:19 GMT Dear William,
Subject: I am sorry you are so blind about the fact that the natural eye is proven to be dynamic system.
Others, who have a more "open" understanding of basic science and direct proof, i.e., "input" versus "output" testing -- might well understand the preventive "second opinion".
If you wish to maintain this "internal model" of the eye as a box-camera that is find with me. Just tell the person on the threshold that there is a "second opinion" and that he should take the time to inform himself about it.
But of course you are so full of your own opinion -- you can not do even that.
I am prepared to work with pilots on an engineering-scientific effort concerning true-prevention PROVIDED they personally review the relevant facts, your intenses hostility to the second opinion, and their right to make a "better" decision to protect their long-term vision through a four year college.
You hostility will obviously prevent us from taking even that reasonable step.
Best,
Otis
William Stacy - 08 Jun 2005 17:50 GMT Below you give a very lame response to my questions/requests. It seems to me to be an annoying demonstration of your ability to cut and paste text and a sad demonstration of your inability or unwillingness to follow a threaded discussion on this news group. I'm not going to waste any more bandwidth answering this kind of unresponsive drivel.
So if you want any further input from me, go back through this thread, cut and paste each of my questions/requests that were directed to you, answer each and every one of them (without cutting and pasting from any of your personal archives), and post the result here. Otherwise, I'm afraid I'm going to answer your posts with ad hominums. I think it is legitimate for one scientist to attack another ad hominum when the other fabricates data. As far as I know, that's the *only* time it is legitimate...
w.stacy, o.d.
> Dear William, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Otis Ben - 09 Jun 2005 02:42 GMT Heh, ok, i'm willing to be a guinea pig here. I have never had a cycloplegic refraction done to my eye...at least, not to my knowledge. What does it involve, how much does it cost, and where do I get one? And can anyone give me more exercises to try?
otisbrown@pa.net - 09 Jun 2005 16:26 GMT > Heh, ok, i'm willing to be a guinea pig here. I have never had a > cycloplegic refraction done to my eye...at least, not to my knowledge. > What does it involve, how much does it cost, and where do I get one? > And can anyone give me more exercises to try? Dear Ben,
You asked for information on various methods of vision clearing, right?
If you wish to understand the intense bias against your right to an informed, "second-opinion" please read Neil's rabid attacks on the concept of "informed-consent".
There are other competent ODs who support true prevention with the plus -- and use it on their own chidren so they will not get into nearsighedness -- at all. Please read:
www.chinamyopia.org
To strike a "balance" between these two diametrically methods of "prevention".
My basic approach is as follows -- (ingnoing Niel's incredible hostility to the concept of the second opinion:
___________________________
I'd like to add that in my own experience, the optical profession is made up of highly qualified, competent, caring individuals, some of whom I happen to disagree with. Regardless, I do not envy their positions, for they face quite a dilemma. The existing standard for treating nearsightedness is to let it run wild; traditional treatments do not help nearsightedness, and quite probably make it worse. On the other hand, in adopting newer treatments for nearsightedness the brave ones risk raising the eyebrows of parents, patients, and colleagues alike with unfamiliar treatments that most of us are not accustomed to. (A major goal of this site is to educate the public so that we can be better patients!) That there is a spirited debate between the two camps should not be taken as any sign of disrespect for the optical professionals we so depend on -- none is intended. ja]
_______________________________
So review these issues, take a deep breath -- and make a decision.
Best,
Otis
William Stacy - 09 Jun 2005 18:08 GMT If you've had a dilated exam, you pretty much know what it's like. Cycloplegic refraction means refacting you (measuring your refractive error) after your eyes have been cyclopleged (using dilating eyedrops that also paralyze the focusing mechanism for a few hours). It gives unequivocal results because it removes the variable of patient accommodation (focusing) during the exam. Shouldn't cost more than a regular complete eye exam, and if you've already had that, maybe they might charge for the extra visit, but shouldn't be much. If you have to start over somewhere else, expect to pay their comp. exam fee.
w.stacy, o.d.
> Heh, ok, i'm willing to be a guinea pig here. I have never had a > cycloplegic refraction done to my eye...at least, not to my knowledge. > What does it involve, how much does it cost, and where do I get one? > And can anyone give me more exercises to try? otisbrown@pa.net - 11 Jun 2005 13:17 GMT Dear William,
You complete disregard for proof the the natural eye is dynamic (primate eye) leads me to support the second opinion and advocated by Steve Leung OD.
I would suggest that in any formal scientific review of the safety of the minus lens -- an engineer carefuly review this data himself.
That issue can not be resolved by either your or I.
Best,
Otis
William Stacy - 11 Jun 2005 15:53 GMT Otis: please define "over-prescribed minus lens" in one sentence.
|
|
|