Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Vision improvement test questions

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
 
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.