 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2005Ortho-K did NOT work for me
Now what?!? I paid my eye doctor $750 upfront and after 7 sets of contacts and 10 drawn out months -- approximately 30 visits, many weeks of poor vision -- I am out not only contacts, but the entire $750. He never once stated to me that there was a possibility that this would not work on me. Nor did the Ortho-K site state this. My eye prescription is not really even all that bad... -2.0 and -1.75 .. the astigmatism is 10 and 140 respectively ... whatever those numbers really mean. The first two months he used non-torics and I was horribly far-sighted -- I could easily tell that the blue semi-circle band 2/3-rds down on my eyes on the computer screen (from the cornea mapping) was obviously not right. It was difficult doing my job and I ended up taking a lot of Motrin for the eye strain headaches. He then figured out that I needed the torics after 2 sets. My guess is that he was learning on me and learned a lot from me. I am pursuing trying to get my money back as I feel any reputable eye doctor would have either (1) told me there was a chance this was not going to work and (2) not kept me on this roller coaster for 10 months. He obviously was new to this. And of course he doesn't want to give me any of my money back at this point. Anybody else have a problem with Ortho-K? If he did not tell you that it might not work, I think you may have a valid claim (you may have to go to court to get it). It sounds like he probably did 750 worth of work, but should have disclosed the quite variable results of ortho k up front. w.stacy,o.d. > Now what?!? I paid my eye doctor $750 upfront and after 7 sets of > contacts and 10 drawn out months -- approximately 30 visits, many weeks [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Anybody else have a problem with Ortho-K? It seems nothing ever talks about the variable results of Ortho-K or the possibility that is may simply not work. I did talk with another eye doctor here in town who does ortho-k and CRT. He said within 90 days the determination should have been made as to whether or not this process is going to work for a patient. Have you heard anything to this? Thanks, C. Greene Dear C. Greene, Sorry they did not tell you about the "variable" results. I understand that Lasik produces better results, although the cost runs $3000 to $4000, and some have effects that can not be reversed. What is your eye-chart vision with no glasses? Best, Otis (Engineer) > What is your eye-chart vision with no glasses? He told us his refraction: -175 and -200, with some astigmatism. What do you conclude - should he be wearing +100? -MT This discussion has gone south. Lasik nor my eyesite are the issues here, Ortho-K is and how it's not portrayed to give "variable" results by either my eye doctor or the Ortho-K.net website (and in some cases not work at all). Not to mention I'm still out my initial payment of $750 - never even got a new soft lens prescription out of that money. My eyesite, as noted above really is not all that poor, but poor enough that I rely on glasses or contacts everyday. Contacts and glasses are tough with sports and swimming - so I was very hopeful for Ortho-K. Thanks for all the comments. C. Greene >This discussion has gone south. > I did offer some (I think appropriate) advice under the original name of this thread; it got changed, so you might have missed it (it was the very 1st response after your original post). Things do tend do get confused when the local trolls inject their "opinions" and the professionals react rather knee-jerkily (we tend to do that). It's like if I, an optometrist, went over to the alt.electrical.engineering group and said they should use aluminum instead of copper wire, because I'm certain Cu is causing dementia. My cousin got it and she has copper wiring in her house, but my uncle didn't get it and he has aluminum wiring... w.stacy, o.d. perhaps that explains Otis' dementia. copper on the brain. > perhaps that explains Otis' dementia. copper on the brain. UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTION ALERT! Please show your evidence suggesting the existence of such an organ.  SignatureRegards, Nicolaas. ... At times, our intelligence gets in the way of our being smart. Dear Nic, Subject: The nature of the "second opinion". What you are hearing from these ODs -- is the majority opinion. They attack anyone, and anything that suggests that (experimentally) the natural eye is a dynamic system. Fortunately, there are a few ODs who pay attention to the experimental data itself, and realize that: 1. Prevention (at -3/4 diopters) is indeed difficult but possible. 2. Will provide support to the parents who will accept the concept of prevention for their own child. Given the obvious abuse, it is hardly surprising that ANY OD will offer this kind of preventive support to a parent -- under any circumstance. But I would read: www.chinamyopia.org Just to understand a "balance" on this issue. As always, enjoy our pleasant academic discussion about the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. i.e., think for yourself. Best, Otis > They attack anyone, and anything that suggests that (experimentally) > the natural eye is a dynamic system. Please show us evidence that all species behave the same at all ages. > 1. Prevention (at -3/4 diopters) is indeed difficult but possible. Please show us that this works. HUMAN experimental data shows that it doesn't. > 2. Will provide support to the parents who will accept the concept > of prevention for their own child. Despite the evidence, we should sell snake oil? > But I would read: > www.chinamyopia.org > Just to understand a "balance" on this issue. You read web sites. I read Medline. > i.e., think for yourself. i.e., ask for the efficacy data. -MT Dear Mike, I made no statement to C. Greene. Go back and read my posts on this thread -- please. Further remarks on Ortho-K, and pilots for Mr. Greene. The method was developed as a "special" method allowing pilots to "clear" their visual acuity from 20/40 to 20/20 -- by use of a contact lens. It was generally understood (at least by the pilots) that this had to be continued as long as they needed naked eye 20/20 vision. When Ortho-K was stopped, the visual acuity (corneal shape) would revert to its previous state. I hope your OD explained this to you -- or the brochure explained that "reality" to you. Best, Otis > The method was developed as a "special" method allowing > pilots to "clear" their visual acuity from 20/40 to 20/20 -- by > use of a contact lens. I am a pilot Otis and I am interested Please provide proof OUTSIDE your website. I bet you can't or won't. > It was generally understood (at least by the pilots) that > this had to be continued as long as they needed > naked eye 20/20 vision. When Ortho-K was stopped, > the visual acuity (corneal shape) would revert > to its previous state. Really, please provide references OUTSIDE YOUR WEBSITE. I bet you can't or won't. Allen > I made no statement to C. Greene. Go back and read > my posts on this thread -- please. You wanted to know his "eye-chart vision with no glasses." What does that tell you? -MT > What is your eye-chart vision with no glasses? Dear Mike, Since "outdoors" did not respond, that tells me he has no interest in prevention -- plain and simple. Beyond that point, the issue is moot. Best, Otis > Beyond that point, the issue is moot. Good. Now we can get to the real issue. Which is: Why don't all those doctors practicing "prevention" get together and publish their efficacy data? Why are they hiding their results from the rest of us? I wanna sell "prevention" too! -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Scientific prevention -- based on Francis Young's bifocal study results. It is clear from this study that prevention is about the only alternative to the "traditional" minus lens. It is very easy to use the minus. It produces instant results -- and perhaps almost no one is interested in "prevention" -=- except for a professional pilot who must maintain 20/20 to keep his career -- for the most part. You can never "prescribe" prevention. It depends too much on the motivation of the person concerned with the issue. But the last "inference" you have made is that ALL ODs are "against" prevention. This false! As you well know, Steve Leung OD has his own children wearing a "plus" WHEN EVER the child sits down to do any reading or writing. This is because Steve has "control" over his own child. He does NOT have control over the "general public", and so his "authority" does not extend beyond his own family. There are, perhaps, some parents who can learn from a presentation of this "second opinion" and the reasons for it. It is also clear (from Francis Young's study) that prevention is an either-or choice the person must make BEFORE he begins wearing the minus lens. There is a lot of "bias" in this discussion -- no doubt. If a person (i.e., "The Printer's Son), fails to understand the intent and purpose of the plus lens -- then indeed the "cause" is lost completely at that point. But that is indeed a personal decision for the pareints concerned with protecting their child's distant vision through the school years. It is something for them to consider. Best, Otis > But the last "inference" you have made is that ALL ODs > are "against" prevention. This false! I did not read this inference into any of Dr. Tyner's remarks. I fact, I have seen you make many statements of this type in which you intentionally create strawman arguments so that you can launch into one of your tirades. This is why I have characterized your statements as being automated, just like spam. DrG > Subject: Scientific prevention -- based on Francis Young's bifocal > study results. > > It is very easy to use the minus. It produces instant results And it works! People see better. They can drive safely. And it doesn't hurt them. > You can never "prescribe" prevention. It depends too much > on the motivation of the person concerned with the issue. There is no "prevention" scheme that is proven to work. Thats the point. If something worked then doctors would fall all over themselves to prescribe it and patients would want it. If you ever find a proven prevention scheme that works in humans (not chickens or monkeys) just point me in the direction of the scientific efficacy data and I will be very interested! > As you well know, Steve Leung OD has his own > children wearing a "plus" WHEN EVER the child [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so his "authority" does not extend beyond his own > family. Sure. He can do anything he wants to his family unless it is shown to actually cause them harm. Then child protective services will take over. If he has data to present to other practitioners then please let him present it. BTW, is it true that he is under investigation from licensing authorities for inappropriate clinical practices? Why would you continue to reference such a person? > There are, perhaps, some parents who can learn from > a presentation of this "second opinion" and the reasons > for it. All those parents would learn is that you have a theory that has been shown not to be effective in humans. How valuable is that information to anyone. Your "second opinion" is in reality nothing more than an old 1960's and 1970's-vintage theory that never panned out when it was finally tested scientifically. Why can't you accept reality Otis? Go look for a different "second opinion"-- one that will actually works or at least hasn't been disproven. > There is a lot of "bias" in this discussion -- no doubt. No doubt. And it comes from you. You won't accept published scientific evidence that opposes your opinion. Is it bias or senile stubbornness? > If a person (i.e., "The Printer's Son), fails to understand the > intent and purpose of the plus lens -- then indeed the > "cause" is lost completely at that point. Yawn. good old Raphaelson again huh! > It is clear from this study that prevention is about the only > alternative to the "traditional" minus lens. So why don't ophthalmologists recommend it? > It is something for them to consider. So is Laetrile. -MT what do you know about this topic? go away troll To all: I have not replied until now -- this topic has truly gone south and does not even resemble my original issue with Ortho-K. Thanks to William Stacy, OD, for his reply as that was what I was looking for. I am not a pilot seeking 20/20 vision. I am simply a software developer that needs my vision to do my job everyday, so the fact that I was dealing with really horrible eyesight from Ortho-K lenses was an issue. I liked the concept of a non-surgical solution to lasik -- too bad it doesn't work for me. Unfortunately my eye doctor did not inform me at any point in this 10 months of trial that it doesn't work for everyone that has been deemed a candidate (I think I was his first case that didn't work). Now, I need to decide whether to attempt to get all my money back or simply split the cost with him. My eyes are back to normal and I'm back in my soft contacts doing just fine. Probably won't seek out lasik after this experience. Thanks for all the comments, C. Greene |
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.