 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2005if not Bates, what will work?
Rishi Giovanni Gatti, if you think that Bates wouldn't work, then what method will work? what is your glasses pescription now? have you improved your vision any? Joe, Did Rishi Gatti change his mind? Does he think that "Bates" will not work. Is he still reading sci.med.vision. I wonder. Otis Laser surgery, OrthoK, glasses, contact lenses. These all work. Master Bates doesn't work, has never worked and will never work. Bates was wrong from the start. Women do not go colour blind when they look through plano lenses either, as Bates claims. Unfortunately, no-one has come up with a way to make the eyeball shorter yet. dr grant > Unfortunately, no-one has come up with a way to make the eyeball > shorter yet. The "Catman" seems to beg the question that too-long eyeballs are the cause of myopia. Are there any long eyeballs which are not myopic? -- Dicky Dear Dicky, The problem is that they have ASSUMED that all eyes are "frozen" box cameras. The living eye is not like that. But the myth continues. What you measure is a refractive state -- and it has been proven by science that the natural eye will change its refractive STATE when you: 1. Place a population of natural eyes in a more confined visual environment and 2. Place a minus lens (mild) on that same population of natural eyes. The problem of "understanding is when you ASSUME that you can take a relative refractive state (directly measured) and convert into a "length". The failure is in the assumption. You can do an optical analysis of a "frozen eye", as is commonly done, but that only proves your mathematical ability. It NEVER proves that you assumption was correct in the first place. Best, Otis > The problem is that they have ASSUMED > that all eyes are "frozen" box cameras. disregard Otis. his statement about "box camera" eyes is something that HE SAYS. no eye doctor or other poster has ever said this except Otis. Once again he is foisting his opinions, biases, and misquotes on everyone else. stay tuned and hear his other "Otisisms" which include Raphaelson, an old study performed by Young, quotes from his nephew, and names of famous dead optometrists whom he claims he knows. get a real life Otis. You f.cking w.nker. What the f.ck are you talking about??? A myopic eye is one which is longer than the focal point of the eye. Any questions yet?? The reason for this is axial elongation of the eye. This is due to genetic factors as well as environmental factors. Comprehendo??? Show some evidebce otherwise. grant > You f.cking w.nker. > > What the f.ck are you talking about??? Would it be possible to make it clear which f.cking w.nker your question is addressed to? > A myopic eye is one which is longer than the focal point of the eye. > Any questions yet?? Could we say, more in general, that a myopic eye is one which has lost its ability to focus an image so far as the retina? > The reason for this is axial elongation of the eye. Is that the only possibility? Could there be any axially-elongate non-myopic eyes? -- Dicky Dear Dick Adams, Subject: The man who "lost" the scientific argument. You will find that I have made very basic statements (proven in pure science) that the natural eye pehaves as an "auto-focused" camera. The fact that "Catman-X" and "P.Clar" must revert to foul languate tells you about the quality of their "scientific arguments. But as always, enjoy our pleasant arguments that respects our opinions about the dynamic nature of the natural eye. Best, Otis >The fact that "Catman-X" and "P.Clar" must revert >to foul languate tells you about the >quality of their "scientific arguments. *Perhaps* not as much as your lobotomy has influenced yours....  SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live > But as always, enjoy our pleasant arguments > that respects our opinions about the dynamic > nature of the natural eye. It's always nice to maintain the moral high ground when promoting disproven therapy. -MT The fact that "Catman-X" and "P.Clar" must revert >to foul languate tells you about the >quality of their "scientific arguments. Otis> Oh, I forgot, also Neil Brooks: Neil > *Perhaps* not as much as your lobotomy has influenced yours.... Otis> I rest my "case". >Otis> I rest my "case". We haven't had any luck *getting you* to rest your case. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live > A myopic eye is one which is longer than the focal point of the eye. > Any questions yet?? > > The reason for this is axial elongation of the eye. This is due to > genetic factors as well as environmental factors. Comprehendo??? My understanding is that the ability of the eye to refract has to do with the curvature of the cornea, the power of that little lens inside, and the distance between the cornea and the retina. Is my understanding not correct? When I was going to have my first cataract surgery, they had a machine that measured the curvature of my cornea and used sound waves to measure the length of my eye. The little lens inside didn't matter, since the surgery was basically going to eliminate its ability to refract. I'm a very happy camper now. After both surgeries, I am plano in both eyes. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > When I was going to have my first cataract surgery, they had a machine > that measured the curvature of my cornea and used sound waves to measure > the length of my eye. The little lens inside didn't matter, since the > surgery was basically going to eliminate its ability to refract. I'm a > very happy camper now. After both surgeries, I am plano in both eyes. If you had a zero (or very low) power *implant*, you must have been very myopic before surgery: 15-20D. SignatureRobert Kopp http://analytic.tripod.com > > When I was going to have my first cataract surgery, they had a machine > > that measured the curvature of my cornea and used sound waves to measure [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you had a zero (or very low) power *implant*, you must have been very > myopic before surgery: 15-20D. I was pretty myopic. I had a 2D and 6D implant. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA No grant Dear Joe, I think we "lost" Rish Gatti. Otis >Dear Joe, > >I think we "lost" Rish Gatti. > >Otis With your rich knowledge of sextant use and celestial navigation, I think you ought to make a quest of finding him. In Native American culture, and apropos of s.m.v., this should be your "Vision" Quest [rimshot]. Travel both near and far, to the far reaches of the globe, in search of Rishi. Time should not be a factor. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Will my vision improve faster if I stop wearing my -5 glasses? Things will be quite blurry initially but shouldnt it clear up in the following months? I am not a candidate for refractive surgury and I cant tolerate soft contacts. Do want to try custom zwave RGP but dad doesnt want to spend the money and he says I wont like them either. I want to see better without glasses and reduce my glasses dependancy! What in the world makes you think that your vision will improve faster if you stop wearing your eyeglasses? Why do you want to try RGP lenses if you cannot tolerate soft lenses? ZWAVE lenses are just another gimmick. DrG my friend says RGP are much more forgiving on dry eyes and many who cant tolerate soft contacts do fine with RGP. Many post lasik people with dry eyes wear RGP contacts to improve their poor lasik vision. My dad also thinks its a gimmic. However many sware by those new zwave custom RGP which are the best, period! Dr. Bates says glasses are a crutch for imperfect vision and once the crutches are removed your vision can heal Ace, one thing I have learned is that a good story sells. ZWAVE tells a good story on their website. Many patients swear by RGP contact lenses of many brands. The same goes for soft. The same goes for LASIK or Intacs. I've been fitting contact lenses for more than 20 years. I have a large contact lens practice. I probably sell more Acuvue Oasys than anybody else in my area. I've also fit many patients with RGP lenses, including post-LASIK patients. I'll stick to what I said earlier, which is that if you cannot tolerate the best soft lens available, you will probably not be happy with an RGP lens, except maybe the Macrolens, which DOES have the comfort approaching that of a soft lens. Dr. Bates published many, many years ago, and was limited by the knowledge of his day. He also was wrong about a great many things, eyeglasses included. DrG Greg is spot on here. Problems with soft lenses make the possibility of RGP success limited. The first thing I would look at are the new breed of silicone hydrogel which don't dry nearly as much and I am fitting more and more. As far as Master Bates goes, he drew false conclusions from his results. He claimed that your eye changed shape, it doesn't. b-scan ultrasound proves this conclusively. Bates did not have this luxury. He also claims he could use a retinoscope on people from across the street. My retinoscope has problems over 1m and it is a 3.5V Keeler, vastly brighter than anything available to Bates. Dan, you are correct and wrong. The corneal curve and axial length dictate the ocular correction, but the cornea barely changes shape after 5-10 years of age. Axial elongation is the means of going myopic. In theory, steepening corneal curvature will do the same, but hthis doesn't happen much, if at all. grant > Dan, you are correct and wrong. The corneal curve and axial length > dictate the ocular correction, but the cornea barely changes shape > after 5-10 years of age. Axial elongation is the means of going myopic. > In theory, steepening corneal curvature will do the same, but hthis > doesn't happen much, if at all. Thanks, Grant. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA This probably isn't even worth arguing about, but from my experience, it is the derrogatory word using, degrading, close-minded individuals who are often wrong. Do I even have to go into historical details? Galileo comes to mind, as most people know, he was told to take back all of his genius discoveries about gravity and what not, because they threatened the beliefs of the church (thus, the church, like people on this site, was angry). From day to day, it seems the people who are most cruel in their responses, are often so, because they know in their heart of hearts that what they advocate is wrong. You tell someone about the possibilities of improving their vision and they get the most skeptical look on their face. However, this skepticism is usually always followed by a worried look and then anger. Anger because they know deep down that all the pain and discomfort in their eyes, never had to exist. And, you just brought up all the thoughts and emotions that have been dwelling within. People with glasses don't want to doubt their need to wear them. Of course, they aren't going to be happy about that. It seems that anger is often the first emotion when man begins to realize the truth. Very eloquent. I believe also that a response from frustration can so easily look like one of anger. Glenn Hagele Executive Director USAEyes.org "Consider and Choose With Confidence" Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org I am not a doctor. > This probably isn't even worth arguing about, but but you are going to anyway? My newsreader says that this is a reply to a thread about Bates. If that's what you want to do, fine. Just stop trying to convince others to try something that reputable doctors say doesn't probably work. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > It seems that anger is often the first emotion when man begins to > realize the truth. But then there are those of us who break into paroxysms of idiotic laughter. > ... Just stop trying to convince others to try something that > reputable doctors say doesn't probably work. Commendable loyalty! Well, better convince them to take an evaluative stance when it comes to stuff they say does work, particular when cutting or zapping is involved. -- Dicky Dear Dicky, Dan makes a "logical fallicy" in this statement, "all reputable doctors". If he said "all majority-opinion doctors" it would have been OK. However honest second-opinion reputable doctors get their own children to wear a full-strength plus (at age of 5) just to avoid the entry into a negative refractive state. That is the true meaning of the "second-opinion". +++++++++++++++ Dan> ... Just stop trying to convince others to try something that reputable doctors say doesn't probably work. Commendable loyalty! Well, better convince them to take an evaluative stance when it comes to stuff they say does work, particular when cutting or zapping is involved. Dicky > Dear Dicky, > > Dan makes a "logical fallicy" in this statement, "all > reputable doctors". If he said "all majority-opinion > doctors" it would have been OK. You are the acknowledged expert at rewriting other's posts. I admit that I should have added "most" in front of "reputable". I never used the word "all". > Dan> ... Just stop trying to convince others to try something that > reputable doctors say doesn't probably work. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it comes to stuff they say does work, particular when cutting > or zapping is involved. We are talking the "plus lens" stuff here, not cutting or zapping. I have been cut four times (the last in July) and zapped three times. I am quite convinced that I would be totally blind without this. I would rather be able to see than avoid the minor risk of cutting or zapping. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Dear Eli, Subject: Thanks! What an excellent and preceptive statement for the need for fundamental change in attitude towards true-prevention. There have been quite a few ODs and MDs who have intimated "true-prevention" with the plus -- but they face serious obstacles -- namly the reactions of the "majority-opinion" ODs on this site. If I were an OD, I would not have the courage to deal with there un-scientific approach to understanding the proven dynamic behavior of the primate eye. Further the public does "love" that impressive minus lens. That does not make it "right", but it does make is understandable on a scientific level. Just remember that the second-opinion (i.e., true-prevention with the plus) is now established by ODs who wish to protect their own children, and avoid stair-case myopia by heavy use of the plus at the threshold. When "experts" disagree, then it is wise to understand the "deep" issues -- and begin to ask questions. The questions you ask untilmatily lead you to a better (although bitter) truth. In fact is was the study of Galileo that led me to the conclusion that the second-opinion was valid -- even though difficult to implement. Best, Otis I knew Otis couldn't resist comparing himself to Galileo! What a narcissist! Unbelievable. Also, where is that "army" of minority opinion "experts," and where do they publish the information that the stubborn use of plus lenses prevents/reverses myopia in humans? Perhaps, like Otis, they are above having to play by the rules of the scientific method and evidence based medicine. Or, perhaps they are content to practice their art in the confines of their own homes, beyond the scrutiny of their colleagues. I do wish them success in their endeavors, and beseech them to publish the results of their "experiments" using their own children as subjects. In short, reasonable people ask Otis to put up or shut up, but he will do neither. I do agree with Otis on one thing: It does take tremendous courage to promote ideas that -- unlike those of Galileo -- have not withstood scientific scrutiny nor the test of time. DrG galileo-- now that's the first time i've heard you drop that name. you really are a smart guy otis. anyone who reads galileo must truly understand the pathophysiology of myopia progression in humans. what an egotist you are. you fancy yourself to be quite the intellectual don't you otis. >This probably isn't even worth arguing about, but from my experience, >it is the derrogatory word using, degrading, close-minded individuals [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >that. It seems that anger is often the first emotion when man begins to >realize the truth. Well ... That was as rife with logical fallacies as a typical OSB post. Were it not for the minimum of typo's and the absence of (inexplicable) quotation marks, I'd assume you were he. All the best. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Eli, You didn't make one mention of Bates, vision improvement, or even name names. Very nice! And yet, so far you've already been flamed once for it. You are, of course, right on the money. The way I see it, every time one of the residents here displays an emotional response to the point where they launch insults, as does happen nearly every time, surely a number of people question the integrity of those who act childish with large words, and as a result, even more interest in the Bates method, or whatever the topic might be, is generated. They don't realize that they're just helping the cause with nearly every response, because they can't help but slip in insults nearly every time. Why? Because, as you say, a part of them is struggling with the truth. And, despite this being pointed out, they will continue to do it, and effectively they will continue to promote what they struggle against. Ironically, the site that refers the largest amount of traffic to my Bates site is quackwatch.com, which is just another example of this. Dave www.iblindness.org >This probably isn't even worth arguing about, but from my experience, >it is the derrogatory word using, degrading, close-minded individuals [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >that. It seems that anger is often the first emotion when man begins to >realize the truth. --- http://store.iblindness.org http://www.iblindness.org Dave K <noemail@nospam.com> wrote, in part: >The way I see it, every >time one of the residents here displays an emotional response to the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >time. Why? Because, as you say, a part of them is struggling with the >truth. Silly people would believe this. Smart people know that--even though a surgeon, as an example, may be an egotistical w.nker--if he is a great and much lauded surgeon--he's the one you want. Silly people can't separate demeanor from wisdom. Silly people will entrust their very health to somebody with an exceptionally pleasant affect ... and no knowledge whatsoever. Regardless, none of this banter proves the efficacy of either plus lens theory or the Bates method. Wanna try using the Scientific Method, rather than discrediting skeptics?? Here's a start (no charge): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence Glad to have you. Have a pleasant day. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Without trying to be rude, Dave K., this is sci.med.vision. Discussions of Bates and other theories that have not withstood scientific scrutiny belong somewhere else. In this way, naturally antagonistic discussions can be avoided. Having visited here before, I'm sure you agree. DrG Thank you Dave and Otis for the kind answers. Also, thanks Neil for the information about anecdotal evidence, which I am in complete agreement with. What Bates, Otis, Dave, I and thousands of others believe is largely anecdotal. However, as wikipedia states, often the scientific process begins with anecdotal evidence. Soon this evidence leads to hypotheses and then to experimentation and then to theory. Yet, part of the very nature of a theory is that it may be disproven. The theory of plate tectonics sounds great, and there is certainly lots of evidence, observations, and experiments to support it, but is there any reason to consider this truth? Humans are always trying to explain things and seem to think the world is perfectly explainable and fits neatly together. But, it certainly isn't. So, when I put on glasses and feel pain, discomfort, and general confusion--when I see that the world doesn't look or feel the same anymore--I may start ignoring other theories that were based on years of past experience and years of experimentation and evidence. I may even look into things that sound like complete hooeey and could be embarrassing to exhibit in front of another person. Furthermore, when I experiment with these strange things and begin to realize that, in fact, these were habits that I once had naturally and somehow lost ( I can still remember when I used to constantly move my head, breath deeply, blink frequently, etc.) I will become increasingly convinced that maybe, for me anyway, there is some truth behind these methods. Finally, when I realize that using my imagination can induce physical sensations in my eyes and my mind of relaxation, and then lead to clearer vision. Whoa! You may say, "well, obviously you imagined that you were seeing clearly, but you weren't actually. It's just blur interpretation." Humph, it could be, possibly, that people with normal sight actually imagine thay are seeing clearly. What is the difference between "real life" and imagination, anyway. All of a sudden the scientific process goes out the door; for it is a process that fails time and time again. > All of a sudden the scientific process goes out the door; for it is a > process that fails time and time again. It certainly fails when it's used to test the value of "imagining perfect blackness" or staring at the sun. Faith needs no evidence. -MT >Thank you Dave and Otis for the kind answers. Also, thanks Neil for the >information about anecdotal evidence, which I am in complete agreement [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >hypotheses and then to experimentation and then to theory. Yet, part of >the very nature of a theory is that it may be disproven. Actually, to my knowledge, what Bates, Otis, Dave, and you begin is *strictly* anecdotal. Considering how long these theories have been in existence, there must be an awfully compelling reason why studies conducted within the scientific method, continually fail to prove their efficacy. >The theory of plate tectonics sounds great, and there is certainly lots >of evidence, observations, and experiments to support it, but is there >any reason to consider this truth? Humans are always trying to explain >things and seem to think the world is perfectly explainable and fits >neatly together. But, it certainly isn't. I find the use of plate tectonics in this context to be a whopper of a false analogy. Controlled experiments regarding tectonic plates are infinitely more difficult to conduct than studies of the impact of particular optometric solutions on a particular (and appropriately defined) group of people. People, it seems, are more readily available than either tectonic plates or control planets. >So, when I put on glasses and feel pain, discomfort, and general >confusion--when I see that the world doesn't look or feel the same >anymore--I may start ignoring other theories that were based on years >of past experience and years of experimentation and evidence. I may >even look into things that sound like complete hooeey and could be >embarrassing to exhibit in front of another person. Or you may equate correlation with causation, inappropriately. >Furthermore, when I experiment with these strange things and begin to >realize that, in fact, these were habits that I once had naturally and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >physical sensations in my eyes and my mind of relaxation, and then lead >to clearer vision. Whoa! All of that is cool, and fun, and intriguing. Please don't preach it as either fact or science, though. By definition, you'd be incorrect. >You may say, "well, obviously you imagined that you were seeing >clearly, but you weren't actually. It's just blur interpretation." >Humph, it could be, possibly, that people with normal sight actually >imagine thay are seeing clearly. What is the difference between "real >life" and imagination, anyway. All I would say is "Prove your hypothesis via the Scientific Method or call it your unproven (in many cases, the right term would be "currently disproven") hypothesis *whenever* you reference it in a public context." >All of a sudden the scientific process goes out the door; for it is a >process that fails time and time again. The process actually doesn't fail. The hypothesis does. Recognize the problem Make observations regarding the problem Devise a hypothesis that may explain the problem Conduct experiments of your hypothesis Arrive at conclusions based on your testing It's an amazingly simple, and effective, process. Its simplicity, elegance, and efficacy frighten some contributors to this forum into paralysis. The process has no horns on its head. The Emperor simply has no clothes. Fear not. Real scientists welcome the *real* answers, whether they support their original hypothesis or not. Zealots and frauds shy away from requests for proof. In which camp shall we consider you a denizen? SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Eli, That was a nicely written, fuzzy bunch of unscientific mush. DrG Dear Eli, Subject: Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states. I suggest that there is a profound difference from "pure science" and "pure medicine". And I suggest the difference is this: Medicine deals with a great mass of people walking in off the street. There might be some "intelligent" people but that can never be the assumption of the medical doctor. The result is that we get "canned" proceedures that "work" instantly. I consider that people in this profession have no choice but to that kind of work -- and I would do the same thing IN THEIR PROFESSION. That would not make it "right" but I do understand them -- and what they are doing. Science "steps back" from that situation, and thinks about the behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system. Engineers and scientists simply do not deal with children, nor mothers with 8th grade educations, nor endless complaints about God-knows-what. But when you ask very fundamental quesitons about whether a population of eyes (primates) are dynamic, you get the "second-opinion" answer, that POTENTIALLY a negative refractive status could be prevented -- before the minus lens is applied. I believe that pures science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not medical -- experiment proves that point.) But that is the nature of our arguments. Many concepts in science simply can never be reduced to "medicine" and we should understand this truth. I enjoyed your write-up about pure science, and the "habit" of tossing science out the window when a concept (like the dynamic eye) can never produce a quick-fix in 15 minutes. But that is how I separate "medical issues" from scientific concepts and experimental obective testing. But that is why it took a scientist like Dr. Stirling Colgate to do the "work" correclty and clear his vision from 20/70 ot 20/20. His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the primate eye, again on a pure-scientific (not medial) level. Use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can have positive and negative refractive states (as a dynamic, device) and this situation becomes much clearer. Best, Otis > Use the term "refractive state" where > the natural eye can have positive and > negative refractive states (as a dynamic, > device) and this situation becomes > much clearer. Just as confusing as all the rest of it. An eye needing a "negative" lens has a positive refractive state. So how many subjects did Dr. Colgate use? How many primates did he experiment on? How many humans? -MT "a good story sells. ZWAVE tells a good story on their website" is it a gimmic like dad thinks? I read that this is the most technologically advanced contact lense able to compensate for your corneal topography aberrations. This results in vision better than youll ever see with glasses and standard soft contacts. "I'll stick to what I said earlier, which is that if you cannot tolerate the best soft lens available, you will probably not be happy with an RGP lens" my friend does think ill have success with RGP lenses and she told me alot of her friends couldnt tolerate soft lenses but RGPs worked fine. Theres no harm trying but its a money issue and will set my family back $2000 to try. I could try regular RGP but they wont fit me right, only those with perfect regular corneas. I have high order aberrations and irregular astigmastim and the lense will be pressing on the high spots. Plus something I didnt know till recently is dust is a big issue for RGP wearers and my local doctor warned me about this. Get a tiny spec in your eye and itll really hurt! One of my friends couldnt agree more and every other day he gets intense pain in his eye(s) due to dust and has to remove the RGP right there and then! Theres other shortcommings with RGP. I think ill be better off trying ortho-k do you have any comments or experience reguarding this? "He also was wrong about a great many things, eyeglasses included." Its true his theories are controversal but I see people DO improve their vision. I bet in the majority of cases, they were resolving their pseudomyopia. I dont think much can be done for axil myopia however. "The corneal curve and axial length dictate the ocular correction" you forgot the lense. A thick lense , either naturally or due to accomodation results in myopia. Sometimes people are born with lenses thicker than normal and hence are myopic at birth. pseudomyopia is a lense thats constantly accomodating and is too thick for clear distance vision. This is something eye exercises can remedy. That's fine, Ace. I know you from other boards. We make the rounds, don't we? How many RGP's have you fit in your lifetime? How many has your friend fit? How many types of RGP lenses have you fit, or your friend fitted? Have you or your friend actually seen other patients who have been fitted with the type of lens you have been recommended? How many complex cases -- I mean really complex cases have you seen in your lifetime? Would you like to compare your stats to mine? I don't think so. DrG I am looking into RGP as a patient, not a doctor. Sorry for the confusion. My friend is also a patient and shes tried RGP but her eyes are too dry to tolerate those but thats lasik for her. My friend knows a bunch of people who had success with RGP, many with dry eyes and other difficult cases. She did reccomend zwave contacts to me and two great doctors who fit them in my state. I dont have any experience with RGP. I am not making any comparsions, your the expert, not me! Whats your take on ortho-k? I think its more suitable for me than RGP. If I get RGP ill still need reading glasses and carry contact lense solution at all times in case dust gets in my eye and I have to remove the lense. I have thought over RGP and its a tradeoff for glasses in terms of hassles. With glasses I have to deal with dusty, smeared lenses like 10x a day. With contacts ill have to deal with reading glasses all the time and the pain everytime I get a spec of dust in my eyes. Ortho-k sounds like much less hassle to me. As I replied earlier, I don't think that RGPs are necessarily the way to proceed after reading your history of intolerance to soft lenses. If it were me, I would try some of the newer lenses, such as Acuvue Oasys, Purevison, or Focus N&D first. Have you? Your prescription seems a bit out of range for orthokeratology. Is your friend a doctor? How is it then that she "knows a bunch of people who had success with RGP" and also recommends "ZWAVE"? Is your friend a cyber-friend who also lurks on other bulletin boards? Something about the internet that confers instant authority status. DrG Hey Greg, this is a 12 year old who has to ask mummy to get an eye test. Don't worry, mummy will protect him from the big bad optometrist. In the meantime we have to put up with doofy pretending to know something. For god's sake F*&$ off doofy!!! |
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.