 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005My friend's eyesight healed after losing his glasses
I forgot about this miracle. I met someone named Steven Chai in 10th grade. In 11th grade he told me that he lost his glasses after having been through three pairs. He didn't have glasses for 2 months. When the doctor measured his eyes, they found that his vision was better than normal, 20/15. He was about ten. This was in China; he had went there for a few years to learn Chinese so that he could comminicated with his mother, who only spoke Chinese. He is not in America. What do you prevention skeptics have to say about that? Why did he need eyeglasses in the first place? Could it be that he was squinting? I have many asian patients. They typically "see" better than their caucasian counterparts with the same dioptric refractive error. They can do this because their narrow fissures act as a slit aperture. Incidentally, prevention is possible. All that is necessary is that a child be given atropine eyedrops every day for many years. Plus lenses aren't effective. Atropine is. In fact, some eye doctors are advocating the use of atropine as standard practice NOW. DrG >Incidentally, prevention is possible. All that >is necessary is that a >child be given atropine eyedrops every day >for many years. Plus lenses >aren't effective. Atropine is. In fact, some >eye doctors are >advocating the use of atropine as standard >practice NOW. That is good, but are there any side effects. Dr. Leukoma Jun 12, 8:15 am show options Newsgroups: sci.med.vision From: "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> - Find messages by this author Date: 12 Jun 2005 05:15:21 -0700 Local: Sun,Jun 12 2005 8:15 am Subject: Re: My friend's eyesight healed after losing his glasses Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse >Why did he need eyeglasses in the first >place? Could it be that he was >squinting? I don't know, but they gave him glasses, regardless of what he had. They didn't care what he had. This just shows that glasses should not be given to children who do not want them. Glasses should not be given to people who's instincts tell them otherwise. People should be able to make their own choice if they want to get glasses, then, if they find their vision is deteriorating, they themselves alone will be to blame. They didn't care what he had. This just shows that glasses should not > be given to children who do not want them. Glasses should not be given > to people who's instincts tell them otherwise. People should be able > to make their own choice if they want to get glasses, then, if they > find their vision is deteriorating, they themselves alone will be to > blame. My wife made the choice as a child not to wear glasses. Now she is completely and irretreviably blind in the right eye (ambyopia). Since she is right-handed, this means that her eye-hand coordination sucks. She has never been able to play any sort of ball games and never will. Some choice!  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net Dear Asian Friend, Subject: Identify and ellimate MEDICAL problems first. Amblyopia should be identified to you by any competent OD or MD. Assuming EVERY OTHER THING HAS BEEN CHECKED, and your retina is good, then a minus lens is used to "clear" the image. The actual value of the lens used to "clear" depends on measurement conditions. It also depends on the required LEGAL visual acuity standards. One man, Mike, read 20/40 on his eye chart -- which PASSES the legal requirement. When placed in DEEP DUSK measurement conditions a -2 diopter lens was given to him. This issue here is what your goal is. Mikes goal was to clear to 20/20 -- by use of the plus. A -2.0 diopter lens creates an "environment" is all 20 inches or less. It is as though your head was in a box -- with that limitation. Since Mike wished to "clear" it was essential that he get his head "out of that box". Since his vision passes the DMV-Snellen, there was no point or purpose to wearing a -2 diopter lens. Further, he took the responsibility to "clear" beyond the 20/40 line -- thus 20/40 is a TEMPORARY condition for him. I expect that he will get to 20/30 to 20/20, eventually. The process of clearing is indeed slow -- and depends completely on Mikes strong resolve to do the work -- and get the results. Mike quit "cold turky" with a prescription of -2.75 diopters and a eye chart (his check) of 20/70 initially. I insisted that he always PASS the Snellen-DMV, or use a mild minus -- if he could NOT pass the DMV with naked-eye vision. Best, Otis >My wife made the choice as a child not to wear glasses. Now she is >completely and irretreviably blind in the right eye (ambyopia). How old is she? > >My wife made the choice as a child not to wear glasses. Now she is > >completely and irretreviably blind in the right eye (ambyopia). > > How old is she? 55. And I missed the "l" in "amblyopia. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > > >My wife made the choice as a child not to wear glasses. Now she is > > >completely and irretreviably blind in the right eye (ambyopia). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > AIS > dabel@sonic.net Sorry. I meant how old was she when she was faced with the decision to wear glasses or not. Another question, is she also nearsighted? Or is she farsighted? I think you know where I'm going with this... Dear Dan and Friend, Subject: Define Amblyopia At this point I have heard a number of "definitions" of amblyopia. Typically one eye will be "amblyopic" while the other eye can be "corrected" to 20/20 with a minus or plus lens. I believe that originally, it was found that some eyes could not be "corrected" to 20/20 using a lens -- and that the eye that could only produce 20/40 or less was described as "amblyopic". Further, once this condition was found -- it was regarded as permanent. That is the general impression I have of that word. Since my interest is in "vision clearing" from 20/40 to 20/50, that is the first issue to be resolved by OD exam. That is why I suggest that anyone wishing to work on vision clearing FIRST have and OD exam. The exam will elliminate all MEDICAL issues, and the only issue will be clearing a slight negative refractive state of the natural eye. Despite all the "hoopla" against true-prevention by SOME ODs on this site, there are others who support this difficult preventive work. But the work does transfer about 99 percent of the RESPONSIBILITY to the individual himself -- to do the work properly, and safely. Best, Otis > At this point I have heard a number of "definitions" of amblyopia. Meaning, of course, that your "definition" is the most accurate. I bet you're going to tell us. The amblyopia I learned about is pretty well defined and understood. I don't know what type of amblyopia you're describing. > Typically one eye will be "amblyopic" while the other eye > can be "corrected" to 20/20 with a minus or plus lens. That's true for most of the subtypes. Toxic amblyopia is usually bilateral. > I believe that originally, it was found that some > eyes could not be "corrected" to 20/20 using > a lens -- and that the eye that could only > produce 20/40 or less was described as > "amblyopic". If this is your definition, it's a little off-base. > Further, once this condition was found -- it > was regarded as permanent. Yes, but as we've seen before, you're unfamiliar with the concept of neurological plasticity. > That is the general impression I have of that > word. By all means, insert your general impressions. We need more general impressions. > Since my interest is in "vision clearing" from > 20/40 to 20/50, that is the first issue to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the only issue will be clearing a slight > negative refractive state of the natural eye. I fail to see what your myopia therapy has to offer for amblyopia. > Despite all the "hoopla" against true-prevention > by SOME ODs on this site, there are others [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > himself -- to do the work properly, > and safely. Are you talking about preventing amblyopia, or preventing myopia? One responds very nicely to treatment if you catch it early enough. The other doesn't. Guess which is which? -MT > Dear Dan and Friend, > > Subject: Define Amblyopia > > At this point I have heard a number of "definitions" of amblyopia. You've already said too much, Otis. People reading this group don't want multiple answers to questions, they want the one agreed upon answer. You remind me of a woman I used to work with here. She was a computer professional (that was her job), and she felt that it reflected poorly on her if she couldn't answer a computer question. There was nothing you could ask her about computers that she couldn't answer. She didn't always know the *correct* answer, but that never stopped her. I soon learned that I couldn't rely on her answers, because too many of them were just made up. She was a very good actress, and you just couldn't tell when she knew the answer and when she was faking it. I'm not sure that I've ever seen a thread on this group that you haven't answered. In the case of amblyopia, it's clear that you have no clue, but you still can't resist giving answers. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > > > >My wife made the choice as a child not to wear glasses. Now she is > > > >completely and irretreviably blind in the right eye (ambyopia). > > > > > > How old is she? > > > > 55. And I missed the "l" in "amblyopia. > Sorry. I meant how old was she when she was faced with the decision to > wear glasses or not. Another question, is she also nearsighted? Or is > she farsighted? I think you know where I'm going with this... I'm sure that she told me, but I don't remember. She was a small child, though. The glasses did not help her vision, they were a hassle to wear and they actually decreased her vision when they got dirty. She wasn't given a choice, but simply refused to wear them, and her parents gave up trying. She is farsighted, but didn't wear glasses until about a year ago. She failed her DMV vision screening, and now is required to wear glasses to drive. Since they do now help her vision quite a bit, she wears them all the time. They are +1 in the left eye, with a +2 add. And no, I don't know where you are going with this. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >Incidentally, prevention is possible. All that >is necessary is that a >child be given atropine eyedrops every day >for many years. Plus lenses >aren't effective. Atropine is. In fact, some >eye doctors are >advocating the use of atropine as standard >practice NOW. That is good, but are there any side effects. Dr. Leukoma Jun 12, 8:15 am show options Newsgroups: sci.med.vision From: "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> - Find messages by this author Date: 12 Jun 2005 05:15:21 -0700 Local: Sun,Jun 12 2005 8:15 am Subject: Re: My friend's eyesight healed after losing his glasses Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse >Why did he need eyeglasses in the first >place? Could it be that he was >squinting? I don't know, but they gave him glasses, regardless of what he had. They didn't care what he had. This just shows that glasses should not be given to children who do not want them. Glasses should not be given to people who's instincts tell them otherwise. People should be able to make their own choice if they want to get glasses, then, if they find their vision is deteriorating, they themselves alone will be to blame. All I ask for is freedom of choice. although the cure is worse that the disease since with atropine your eyes are constantly dilated and therefore photosensitive. and you can't accommodate so you need bifocals even as a child. no thanks. i'll wait for a treatment with fewer side-effects. |
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.