So I can only expect to clear -2 diopters of myopia with OrthoK? I
could do that in conjuction with clearing pseudomyopia and the -2
reduction due to OrthoK may somewhat reduce my dependancy on glasses
which should make it easier to resolve my pseudomyopia as well. I read
in vision improvement books including one by Dr. Bates who says glasses
are crutches that hinder improvement and often cause stair case myopia.
Otis would agree with that too. One of my friends who does vision
improvement says its much easier to improve and results come faster if
your not wearing glasses. Right now im too "blind" to go without
glasses for more than 10 minutes. I am -5 or near that and its a
significent amount of myopia.

I am -5(left) -4.5(right) with very slight astigmastim. OrthoK can
clear -2 diopters plus my minimal astigmastim. This will put me down to
-3(left) and -2.5(right) letting me clear 20/200 without a problem. How
long does it take orthoK to clear -2 diopters if the retainer lense is
worn nightly? I will countinue to wear my -3.25 computer glasses till
they become too strong then ill just forgo glasses.(or as Otis puts it,
the evil minus lense!) This is when ill start being able to clear my
pseudomyopia and get down further, perhaps to 20/70? 20/50? I will use
the plus lense for extended periods of reading or near work to keep my
vision sharp and also because my accomodative amplitude isnt too good.
I dont drive so I have no DVM obligations to clear 20/40. I wont be
needing the minus lense even if I fall a little shy of that. Ill be
completely free of the minus lense and will only need the plus lense
for prolonged near work as a precaution and to greatly reduce eyestrain
and accomodative spasms. Otis never claims to be a doctor. Perhaps hes
a scientist or philosopher?

Again to clarify, I am/should be -5 and -4.5. I should get down to -3
and -2.5 or therebouts and easily clear 20/200. Then being able to see
well enough to function without the minus lense, I then can keep
clearing my vision by resolving my pseudomyopia. I should attain a
level of vision that while not perfect 20/20(cant even be corrected to
that anyway) or even a bit shy of 20/40, will let me be very functional
without the minus lense. Ill be able to see the computer clearly
without strain due to my slight residual myopia and only need plus
lense for prolonged near work.

Let me add something important.

"Ortho-k may be a good option if you suffer from dry eyes. It's been
found that this condition is sometimes worsened by LASIK."

My dry eyes isnt bad, id say mild. I still make tears but they get dry
at times if im in front of the computer alot or if im tired. Sometimes
when I wake in the morning my eyes are a little dry for a short time.
Lasik would make dry eyes worse as they said so thats another advantage
of orthoK and why im interested in it :) I can reduce my myopia from -5
and -4.5 to -3 and -2.5(orthoK clears about 2 diopters) then I can
further reduce it by resolving my pseudomyopia.

I think I can see your future.  Although RGP lenses offer the only hope
of correcting you to 20/20, you will not pursue them because of lens
intolerance.  This is one of the reasons you will not pursue
orthokeratology.  The other reason is that your parents won't shell out
the money on any treatment that isn't permanent and cannot fully
correct your myopia, and that you will probably give up on anyway.
Insofar as eye exercises, Bates, and other nonsense...I guess if you've
got the time on your hands it won't hurt.  Of course, it won't help
much, either.

Also, from your posts on other boards, I see that you have become
anti-refractive surgery.  Which means that you will continue to wear
eyeglasses into the foreseeable future, unless of course you decide to
pursue the only realistic option open to you which is getting fitted
for one of the newer silicone-hydrogel soft lenses....or wait until the
new hybrid SynergEyes lens is available in your area.

Best of luck.

DrG

Dear Ace,

Subject:  These sci.med.vision OD will ALWAYS be majority-opinion
"selective" in
     the studies they cite.

   Some thoughts on majority-opinion OD bias.

    Since there is no "arguing" with these ODs and they are totally
blind about the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye, I
would suggest recognizing the type of "bias" that they represents.

    Myself, and other ODs will report the Oakley-Young study,
that was better organized and controlled, that demonstrated that a
strong-plus, used systematically has the effect of stopping
refractive movement in a negative direction.  (Than
the so-called "Shotwell" study.)

    The "plus" group went down at 0.025 diopters (virtually zero)
while the full-minus went down at a rate of -0.53 diopters per
year.

    So rather than attempting to deal with these ODs' intense
bias, the better idea is to simply state the second-opinion, and
the basis for it.

    But the real "test" of an optometrist in reviewing these type
of studies, is the judgment of a parent who has HIS OWN CHILD at a
refractive state of zero diopters.

    What to do?

    Given the he can only "control" his own child, then the ONLY
prevention he can conduct is to put his own child in a strong
plus.  This is the real "measure" of a competent "second opinion".

    This is of course what Steve Leung is doing with his own five
year-old daughter.

    We can "learn" from this -- or ignore it.  But at least you
should be aware of this type of second-opinion judgment.

Best,

Otis

_______________________________________________________

From:  "Otis S.  Brown" <otisbrown@pa.net>

Subject:  Understanding the SCIENTIFIC BASIS for the preventive
     second-opinion

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states.

    I suggest that there is a profound difference concerning "pure
science" and "pure medicine".  And I suggest the difference is
this:

Medicine:  Must deal 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" procedures that
      "work" instantly.  I consider that people in this
      profession have no choice but to conduct 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:   Must "step back" from that situation, and think about the
      behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system.
      Engineers and scientists simply do not deal with
      children, nor with others that do not understand
      the need to work on prevention with the plus.

    But when you ask very fundament questions 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 pure science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not
medical -- experiments 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 that truth.

    I enjoyed your write-up about pure science, and the
majority-opinion "habit"
of tossing science out the window when a concept (like the dynamic
eye) can not produce a quick-fix in 15 minutes.  That seems
to be the only criteria for the "public" and the majority opinion OD.
Maybe they were "made" for each other.

    But that is how I separate "medical issues" from scientific
concepts and experimental and objective testing.

    But that is why it took a scientist like Dr.  Stirling
Colgate to do the "work" correctly with the plus and clear his vision
from 20/70
to 20/20.

    His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the
primate eye, again on a pure-scientific (not medical) level.

    Use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can
have positive and negative refractive status (as a dynamic device)
and this situation becomes much clearer.

Best,

Otis

Dear Ace,

I value your intelligence.  I believe that if you and your parents
had been offered "prevention" with the plus -- and you had
the motivation for it -- your vision would now be better-than
20/40.

In my opinion, the living eye will go "down" when you place
a minus lens on it.  This has been proven on a scientific
level (but not "medical" level.)  That means that great
"caution" should be used in "prescribing a minus" in my
opinion.

Here is "Steve" a man who was "myopic", but decided
to make agressive use of the plus -- and clear
to PASS the DMV level test.

As always, enjoy our pleasant discussions about the
proven dynamic quality of the natural primate eye.

Best,

Otis

_____________

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

    Steve contacted vision-improvement-site with a -3 diopter
prescription and eye-chart about 20/200.

    Here is the proof of the success of vision clearing from
20/200 to normal.

    Keep an open mind as to these new methods.  You might be able
to employ them yourself -- if you are prepared to make the effort.
The complete discussion is reported at:

http://www.visionimprovementsite.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi

    for your research interests.

    Enjoy,

    Otis

    _________________________________

Steve-8631 contacted vision-improvement-site on:

Sep 9th, 2005, 10:31pm

Newbie seeking help

    Hi,

    I read as much as I can in the last 2 days about preventing
nearsightedness.

    Let me tell you my situation.  I started wearing glasses at
the age of 13.  At 28 (now 38) I started wearing contacts lens.
For many years I looked for a "cure" but didn't find any.  My last
test shows that my power is 275 for both eyes (that's how they
tell me) and it has been pretty much stable for the last few
years.    I still have faith that I can have perfect sight without
minus glasses or contact lens.

    I just got a +1.5 lens for me to start using while I'm using
computers.  I work a lot with my computers.

    My questions is.  Since it is dangerous for me to drive
without glasses or contact lens.  What do you suggest for me now,
a lower powered minus glasses or contact lens.    If yes what power
do you suggest!

    I'm planning to start today using +1.5 lens & try to get
comfortable with it.

    Wish me luck.

    Rgds, Steve

P/S - I've printed the eye charts, will stick it today & check out
     where I stand

    __________________________

    Dear Steve,

    After a great deal of research, I discovered that SOME ODs
know what a total disaster that minus lens is.    They call it
"poison glasses for children." My issue is this -- why not TELL US
ABOUT THIS BEFORE THEY PUT THAT FIRST MINUS LENS ON US?

    Tragically, they keep their mouth shut -- and will not say
squat.    Nearsightedness is preventable in that first stage, and I
would GLADLY PAY the OD for his information and time -- even if I
had to take TOTAL responsibility and do ALL THE WORK MYSELF --
including monitoring my "clearing" on my own eye chart.

    [This is my "rant" for today.  That being said, the next step
is asking about what you "want" in terms of vision clearing.]

    I would never use the term "perfect" -- because no eyes are
perfect.

    I would look for a goal of always passing the DMV (1.8 cm at
6 meters) as a reasonable attainable goal.

    I would start by reading your own eye chart.

    In fact this is very easy.  Just click on www.myopiafree.com

    and then eyechart 2 (lower right)

    and enter 1 inch and 10 feet, and read the eye chart on your
monitor at 10 feet.

I would guess you can read the 20/200 line.

Let us know.

Best,

Otis

_________________________

    Dear Otis,

    I tried the test I can see at 20/200 but very blur.  By
saying "perfect" I meant 20/20 vision, this is what I want ( I
know some people reading this might be laughing, no problem, if
only they know what true 20/20 vision means to me, oh well...).
If I've known this when I was 13 yrs old , I don't have to go thru
this now, but life is a lesson and anything is possible is my firm
belief.

    Otis , please tell me what I can do next.    I believe my case
can be conquered if you guide me how to approach this matter.

    BTW, I work in an office mostly dealing with computers at work
& home...and of course I also drive quite a bit everyday.

    If you require any other info, please let me know.

    Thanks a million, Steve

________________________

    AND FOUR MONTHS LATER, STEVE'S VISION IS 20/40 OR BETTER.

    Dec 7th, 2005, 8:16am,

    Dear Otis & Brian,

Steve>    Brian, thanks for the tips.  I do zooming once a while but
not consistent.  However I do eye rolls a little more frequent
compared to zooming.

Otis>  Special Request on "reporting"

Otis>  The accepted standard for reading a "line" is that you read
      1/2 the letters correctly.

    For purpose of consistency, please report your Snellen that
way.

    You said you read all the letters on the 20/40 line.

    I would suspect you are reading letters on the 20/30 line.
If you read 1/2 the letters, the say you pass the 20/30 line.

    This is just for "consistency" with the commercial standard.

    Best,

    Otis

    ______________________

    From:  Steve

    Noted above guideline.  I actually see 1/2 of 20/30 line, but
it is very inconsistent, so therefore decided not to "report".
I'm sure I'll see 20/30 line one day.  Please also be informed
that I have many "flashes", sometimes I can see the 20/20 line
very clearly.

    The day will come, I'm sure of it.  All I have to do is work,
work & work.

    Cheers, Steve

__________________________________________

    December 9, 2005

    Dear Steve,

    I personally consider that anyone with better-that 20/40
vision -- has a WONDERFUL SUCCESS!  That is my "standard".  Vision
above that is just great.

    The DMV "gave up" on 20/20 as being an "excessive"
requirement, and would not require a minus lens until vision less
than 20/40.  I believe that is a reasonable policy.

    Also, you reported -3.0 diopters and less-than 20/200, four
months ago.

    People with less than 20/200 vision are classed as "legally
blind".  So if you had lost your glasses then -- you would have
been legally blind!

    I know that is not quite the case -- but you have made a
PROFOUND improvement.

    Keep up the good work!

    Getting to 20/20 is however a very slow process.  (Try tennis
and football -- or go the beach, sail, get OUT!) When working to
"better" 20/40, that seems to "help" most of all.

    Best,

    Otis

___________________________________

    Dear Otis,

    First of all I would like to thank you from the bottom of my
heart for your strong dedication to guide others to improve their
eye sight.  Not everyone has that kind of passion or time to do
that.

    I will definitely update my progress as times goes by.  My
personal challenge(altho a little tough) is to "compete" with my
niece who has a 20/10 vision and during bright days she has 20/8
vision.  Now, that is what I call great eyesight.  I even read
some having a 20/4 vision...awesome.

    With a little a bit of innovation & persistence, most people
can achieve what they desire.  To me it is important not to have a
" mental block".  If you say you can , chances are you can.  If
you say you can't , chances are you can't.  So to me, my mental
outlook is very important on most outcomes in my life.    I only
wished that I got to know this new found knowledge much earlier,
anyway better late than never

    Cheers, Steve

P/S - FYI, I just got (about 2 weeks ago) a pair of +1.5 lens for
     my niece for her nearwork.  I like to "preserve" her good
     eyesight.  Oh yes!  I definitely know what to do for my
     daughter as well when she is 6-7 years old( I can see that
     she has a little poor eyesight, she's 4+ now).  As for my
     wife, she has glasses of - 0.50 & -1.00 on the other eye(
     thankfully she never used glasses much, so it stayed that
     way)and can read 20/40 line before using plus lens.  In less
     then 3 months with irregular use of +1.5 lens (initially
     +1.0 lens)....now she can read 1/2 of 20/15
     line...........I'm so happy for her .

     I have another niece who has -7.0 prescription but
     unfortunately she is not motivated to improve her vision, so
     I can't do much for her.

     Steve

___________________________

    Otis

    Senior Member

    Re:  Newbie seeking help

    Dec 9, 2005 at 8:51pm

    Dear Steve,

    Thanks for your kind statements.

    You would not believe the hostility I get when I suggest this
"preventive" alternative.  Most people act as though I spit in
their face.  That is how bad it is.  These people do not get a
"second" offer of prevention with the plus.

    I am convinced that any child, at age 5, who has 20/20 (and a
positive refractive state) could keep their vision clear through
high school and college.  But it does take commitment and work.

    Most people go running to an OD, who tells them, "Oh, we
heard about that -- it does not work.  Don't bother with it." And
then the kid gets an over-prescribed minus -- and "loves" it.

   Only much later, after he develops "stair-case" myopia from
the minus, does he "wake up" and realize that his vision has been
destroyed -- for life.

    I think you have been very lucky.    If your refractive status
gets beyond -3 diopters, "clearing" becomes very difficult.

    But obviously, why should ANYONE ALLOW IT TO GET THAT BAD?

    I think we are ALL OWED A DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE BY ANY
TRUE-PROFESSIONAL WHO DEALS WITH THE PUBLIC.  (But that is my
"rant.")

    I am convinced that only an "educated" parent can help their
own child.  And now you can do that.  With guidance and support
from you (and ODs like Steve Leung) eventually others will "get
the idea") and that will be the "preventive" future for your
children.

    Best of luck,

    Otis

================

    From Steve:  (20/200 to 20/30)

    Hi everyone,

    Just like to add my view.

    Initially when I first found out this forum, I was very
excited...an opportunity to improve my vision.    This has been a
desire since my late teens, so you can imagine my excitement, then
came the disappointment reading Otis' statement that people with
20/70 or more has slim chances of improving vision to 20/40 or
better.  Not exactly those words but something to that
understanding.    Naturally, I was very irritated of this
"statement", where else I can find ppl with 20/200 or worse have
improved to 20/20 vision.  So I was thinking why Otis kept saying
that & dampening people's spirit/motivation to improve their
vision.  So when I started, I was not so happy but persisted to
use plus lens, thinking that I got nothing to lose.....and my
vision started to improve

    As time went by I understood, why Otis made such
statement(after much reading).    IMHO, it is not to dampen a
person's spirit or motivation but NOT TO OVER CLAIM the
"cure/prevention" and secondly, if you read at this place :
www.google.com

    then select Groups and type

    sci.med.vision

    You'll be astonished how a lot of people bash Otis.  In my
opinion Otis has nothing to gain out of this, he just want to
spread the knowledge of the "second opinion" but unfortunately a
lot people don't accept it.

    So later I realized and began to have a different view why
Otis keeps saying that.  A better view of course.

    IMHO, anybody who has no medical problem( eyes) has a very
good chance to improve their vision.  They can improve their
vision with plus lens or with some exercises ( Brian is one of the
best proof we have here ).  You can do it with either one or with
a combination of both.    Which one works faster or better, I really
don't know.  To me it is purely an individual experience & effort.
You have to do it yourself with persistence, testing & innovation.

    I hope people will stop bashing Otis(at sci.med.vision) and I
hope people will try which "system" works the best for them.  I
feel all methods has its pro & cons.  Its a persons choice to pick
plus lens or the exercises to clear their vision.  If a person
don't believe these choices we have, then they must just move on
in life.  Search for the ultimate natural "thing" to improve their
vision.

    Nobody can give guarantees & I'm sure there are disclaimers
somewhere in the website.

    Everything I said was based on my opinion, so don't use it
against me.  I sincerely hope that I didn't offend anyone in what
I said above.

    Oh yes, I also want to thank Robert & Patrick for their
views, opinions & suggestions.

    Just my 2 cents.  Chill out everybody

    Cheers,

    Steve
___________________________________

    Dear Steve,

    Thanks for the write-up!

    Most parents -- if offered the plus -- will recoil in horror,
that their child must put on a plus for reading.

    That is 99 percent of the population at this time.  (I
personally think they should go through an "educational" process
before deciding to put their child in a minus -- with the
either-or, now-or-never issue clearly explained to the parents and
child.)

    But AFTER a parent has cleared his vision from 20/200 to
20/30, he becomes sufficiently "expert" to understand the meaning
and use of this "second opinion".

    Now your children have a "fighting chance" to keep their
distant vision clear through the school years.

    That is what I "fight" for -- your right to an
informed, competent second-opinion at the threshold
when it can be truly effective.

    Sincerely,

    Otis