 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2006For Ace -- A review of your refractive history
Dear Ace, Subject: Ace, Sorry for the delay in evaluating your refractive history -- that you requested. Otis> A comparision to your "down" rate with the Oakly-Young study. Otis> The Oakley-Young study showed that the funamental eye would go "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year, versus the virutally a rate of zero diopters per year for the "plus" group. Ace > You are saving your nephews eyes! What dioptric value of myopia was he and where was he at? 20/50? 20/70? Where is he at now? Ace > Sorry to hear about your ruined eyes at 6! Thats a very young age to be myopic and your doctor did a great disservice by telling you to wear glasses full time (unless you had significent astigmastim then bifocals should have been pescribed) Its a fact nearsighted people see great from near without glasses. Plus lenses should be used from near to halt and even reverse myopia! Ace > My eyes also got ruined but not as fast nor bad. I checked my old pescription and I used to be -4.25! I was 17 back then too! Basically I have undone the damage of 6 years and im now seeing as well as I did back when I was 17! Let me try to remember what my pescription was over the years Ace's Refractive History: at age 10 = -.5 but no glasses given at age 12 = -1 at age 13 = -1.5 at age 14 = -2.25 at age 15 = -3.25 at age 16 = -3.75 at age 17 = -4.25 at age 18 = -4.75 at age 21 = -5.25 at age 23 = -5.75 Otis> Here are the rates predicted from the Oakley-Young study: Minus lens The prediction for the plus group: group: Reference: Colgate and Keith's use of the plus (Oakley-Young 250+ in study) Age 12 = -0.5 Age 12 = -.5 (Plus started -- eye chart checked) Age 13 = -1.0 Age 13 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Age 14 = -1.5 Age 14 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Age 15 = -2.0 Age 15 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Age 16 = -2.5 Age 16 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Age 17 = -3.0 Age 17 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Age 18 = -3.5 Age 18 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Age 19 = -4.0 Age 19 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Age 20 = -4.5 Age 20 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Age 21 = -5.0 Age 21 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Age 22 = -5.5 Age 22 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Age 23 = -6.0 Age 23 = -.5 to +.5 (Always pass DMV) Ace > I am almost 24 now and have gotten down to -4.75 in the worse eye! Thats a whole diopter improvement! Ace > "Once you start that stair-case business with an over-prescribed minus -- "recovery" is no longer possible. But you seem to "agonize" over that issue. If you wish your vision "clear" from -5 diopters -- then the only method that works in 1 week is Lasik. But that is indeed your choice." Otis> There is a lot of "consistent" work required in the use of the plus. The question would be if you had to fortitude to do it. Most people lack that resolve, or have no interest in protecting their distant vision with the plus. Ace > A full recovery isnt possible past the threshold of -1 to -2 diopters but I can improve my vision and be less myopic. I wont clear 20/40 but ill still improve. Yes I do agonize, I wish I knew about prevention back when I was 12! Yes lasik is a "cure" of sorts but it does not address the underlying problem of myopia. Lasik wont guarantee my eyes wont change and it wont relieve any strains of bad vision habit. You see better but your eyes arent relaxed like they should be. Finally youve read all the risks of lasik. Lasik seems to be the easy way out and most people couldnt be bothered to take years to improve a couple diopters when lasik takes a day and they see 20/20 or close to it. Ace > "The problem? Everyone seems to "want" 20/10 vision from that minus -- even when they are passing the 20/40 line!!!" Ace > except only 1%, maybe a tiny bit more can be corrected to 20/10. I can quote this optometrist who said 20/10 is so rare he sees less than 2% test at 20/10, period. I could say people want to be 20/20 even if they are only a little shy of it. Then they ruin their eyes and go downhill fast! They are like oh well who cares, I see 20/20 with glasses! Otis> "There is a profound conflict. You can not have BOTH extremenly sharp vision instantly from a minus, and not get stair-case myopia as a "seconday" effect." Ace > Sad thing people choose instant gratification and pay the price. They choose the minus lens instead of plus and enjoy clear vision but become more and more myopic Otis> "Now the "road back" is indeed difficult. But PLEASE do not let me stop you. It IS POSSIBLE, but vision clearing seems to "work" at about +1/2 diopter per year. I hope your motivation is very strong. Here is an optometrist who has done it." Ace > I am reading it now. Long read! He was about -3.5 and got down to -.5 so thats 3 diopters of improvement which is doable. I hate to sound pessimistic but I am being relistic. I used to be -5 now I am -4. I will be very, very happy to get down to -2 or even -3 it will make a very big difference in my UCVA and reduced dependancy on glasses. Accroding to my book on "relearning how to see" the testimonals show most people reducing their myopia by 2 to 3 diopters. Occasionally 4. Me going from -5 to -2 will be bliss!!! :) Ace thanks for pasting my record for all to see! My rates concided closely with the Oakley-Young study! I did indeed go down half a diopter but I went down a diopter for a couple years when I wore the evil minus lens full time. Before that my progression of myopia was slower. I still got worse because I held reading materials way too close to my eyes, like 6-8 inches close if I remember. I wish I knew about the plus lens, your friend and rejected the minus lens, your enemy! My brother didnt know about this either but he rejected the minus lens not because of knowlege but because he hated glasses. You could say he accidentally slowed down his myopia then stopped it from getting worse than -1.25. To the day he does not wear glasses except for driving. I am working to undo some of the damage ive done to my eyes. The testimonal is I was recently tested at 20/40 to 20/50 with my -4.25 glasses! I remember last year I was tested at 20/70 with -4.5 glasses! I now see 20/30(my BCVA) in them! Another testimonal is I measured the nearpoint with a ruler and my outstretched hand(from tip of thumb to tip of pinky) I started with an 18cm nearpoint and now im up to 21cm! I can see an inch to an inch and a half past my outstretched hand! When I read, I now can see comfortabily at 11 inches from my eyes! My parents told me I used to read much closer, like 6 inches(way too close even for my pescription back then) I expect to improve another half diopter by this fall. I expect to get my pescription to at least -3(spherical equivalent) in the long term. Its a work in progress that takes patience to see results. Otis, what pescription did you start and how much have you improved? > when I wore the evil minus lens > full time. >I wish I knew about the plus lens, your > friend and rejected the minus lens, your enemy! > > My brother didnt know about this either but he rejected the minus Fie, fie on the evil minus lens, demon of the ape eye. Reject the temptation, that evil minus lens that let's us see clearly. Listen friends, life is in the blur. Reject insight, eyesight--rely on hindsight. Let's go back, time to see 20/20--our future lies with the ace (oops...ape) whisperer. LOL!  Signature~RT > Otis, what pescription did you start and how much have > you improved? uh oh... (and do you have before and after pictures?) -Quick > Otis> "There is a profound conflict. You can not have BOTH > extremenly sharp vision instantly from a minus, and not get > stair-case myopia as a "seconday" effect." Until you present some evidence that "stair-case" myopia exists, we must wonder about your purpose for misrepresenting facts. Why does the FDA refuse to require warning labels on minus lenses? Easy - it's a conspiracy! -MT http://www.preventmyopia.org/prescription.html http://www.preventmyopia.org/validation.html http://www.preventmyopia.org/faq.html Otis was right! http://www.preventmyopia.org/images/viciouscycle.jpg http://www.preventmyopia.org/images/viciouscycle2.jpg > http://www.preventmyopia.org/prescription.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Otis was right! Oh look, here's a website on alien abduction http://www.abduct.com/ oh, in fact if you google "alien abduction" over 2 million sites come up. It's true, it's true! Signature~RT Dear Ace, Subject: Science is right! Francis Young is correct about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. Re: THe SECOND OPINION (preventing a negative refractive state of the primate eye) is correct. Ace, I think you should have been offered this "second opinion". I have no idea how you would have "reacted" to it -- and most people are "hostile" to it. But I do respect your ingelligence in this matter. But in a deeper sense -- your right of choice. There are people who HATE CHANGE, and HATE people who ask exact questions about the behavior of the primate eye. I have NO ANSWER for the person who declares, "...I am not a primate". Fine, then forget all scientific analysis of the living dynamic eye. Ace, your questions are all over the map -- with due respect. But gradully they would get "focused" and you would get the "better" answer. Just enjoy the give-and-take of our discussions. That is what a true education is all about. Best, Otis > Dear Ace, > > Subject: Science is right! ...theme song of Weird Science playin in background. > But I do respect your ingelligence in this matter. > But in a deeper sense -- your right of choice. Parse error... > Ace, your questions are all over the map -- with due > respect. What about the one where he asked how much you've "cleared" your own vision? -Quick Mike> Until you present some evidence that "stair-case" myopia exists, we must wonder about your purpose for misrepresenting facts. Otis> I just did in the Oakley-Young study. What don't you understand about the fact that the minus group went down by -2 diopters, while the "plus" did not chage? Otis> But even more fundamental. Do not you understand that the naturel eye is a sophisticated system and is EXPECTED to change its refractive state in a negative direction when: 1. You place a -3 diopter lens on it, and 2. Place it in a more-confined enviroment, and 3. The effect of BOTH is that the eye's REFRACTIVE STATE (as measureed) will slowly change in a negative direction. (Note -- a NATURAL PROCESS.) But I forgot. You throw out the window ALL SCIENCE AND FACTS -- IF THEY WOULD PERTURB THE TRADITIONAL METHOD OF THE LAST 400 YEARS. But, yes, I expect nothing from you -- not because the "conspiracy" idea in your head -- it is rather the Neil Brooks effect -- where you would have the bejesus sued out of you if you even SUGGESTED that a person have and "informed choice" in this matter. That is not a "conspiricay" -- that is just "self protection" on your part. And, for that reason I respect the fact that you can help NO ONE with true prevention. Best, Otis Mike> Why does the FDA refuse to require warning labels on minus lenses? Otis> That is not just certain. Perhaps they fear having the bejesus sued out of them by the Neil Brooks effect. Easy - it's a conspiracy! Otis> Easy, it is because it is 1,000 times easier to "quick fix" the person in 10 minutes -- rather than to discuss the issue with a parent like RT, who prefers very-sharp vision for his child. Otis> If everyone loves that minus lens -- the they should have what ever they want. Otis> It would be like me attempting to stop a child from becomming obeses. Otis> That is a problem with the child -- and not a problem with science. We both should understand the difference. Best, Otis -MT >> Mike> Until you present some evidence that "stair-case" >> myopia exists, we must wonder about your purpose for >> misrepresenting facts. > Otis> I just did in the Oakley-Young study. What don't you understand > about the fact that the minus group went down by -2 diopters, > while the "plus" did not chage? I don't understand why one refuted study should define everything about the "behavior of the natural eye." I don't understand why subsequent studies comparing myopes wearing glasses with myopes not wearing showed NO DIFFERENCE. I don't understand why virtually all the PhD researchers would LIE about the effect of minus lenses. I don't understand why the FDA won't say that minus lenses promote myopia. I don't understand why the preventmyopia web site offers no reference to any study that controverts your assertion. I don't understand why you assume wearing minus lenses is the same stimulus as a constant close environment. I do understand why you and Donald Rehm are considered "lunatic fringe." -MT Mike> I don't understand why virtually all the PhD researchers would LIE about the effect of minus Otis> All SCIENTIST LIE about the behavior of the priamte eye. Otis> You PRSUME facts not in evidence. You PRESUME to speak for ALL PH.D.? WOW are you arrogant. But again, that is the "majority opinion" speaking. Otis> The second-opinion is profoundly different. You truly have your head io the sand. Best, Otis > Otis> The second-opinion is profoundly different. You > truly have your head io the sand. Or in Medline. Ever heard of it? -MT > otisbrown@pa.netwrote > Ace > Sorry to hear about your ruined eyes at 6! Thats a ver > young age to be myopic and your doctor did a grea [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > near without glasses. Plus lenses should be used from nea > to halt and even reverse myopia Otis. for all of your quoting and researching about vision.. yo really haven't learned anything about it's basics. First of all yo talk about RUINING eyes. As far as I am concerned the eye is stil pretty damn healthy. Furthermore, if you have sufficient astigmatis why on God's given earth would where a bifocal?! It has ABSOLUTEL nothing to do with astigmatism. Do you even know what astigmatis is? it's when the shape of your cornea or lenticular isn't perfectl spherical/even. Wearing a bifocal before your time will only cause you to increas your dependency on it much earlier in your lifetime. Furthermore, you quote these second opinion optometrists all the time Let me tell you when I was young I had a high myopic prescription an I refused to wear glasses .. as a result my eyes JUMPED to a -2.0 prescription within a year. THAT is coming from personal experience So plussing yourself to slow down myopia is NOT the way to go Optometrists and Ophthalmologists MAY correct a person to a Blurr 20/20 but a comfortable 20/25 because people love to over minu themselves. Optometrists do not like to over plus or over minus person. If youover a minus a person which is quite easily done, i makes reading more tiring.. esp. for eary presbyopes Considering your mistaken understanding about ASTIGMATISM.. I thin you've either misunderstood the research that you've been readin AND/OR you're just taking their research too far. HOW old are you OTIS? I can't understand how you could possibly hav the time to learn about all of this and decide that ever professional in this forum is just evil to get the world to be myopi like crazy. If that was the case.. none of the optometrists ophthalmologists, or opticians would be wearing any corrective lense eh? esp their kids? cause they'd keep all of this valuebl information to themselves Dear Dragon, Subject: Jumping to conclusions -- from statements made by Ace. Re: The preventive second opinion still stands -- as presented and supported by Steve Leung OD at: www.chinamyopia.org You can make your own choice or decisions about true-prevention accordingly. But once you start wearing that minus lens -- you can foget about keeping your distant vision clear for life. In "disputes" of this nature there will never be a "perfect" solution -- and NONE should ever be expected. I would gladly PAY a second-opinion optometrist for the support he could provide me. You would not, and would receive a full-strength minus. The choice is yours -- not mine. There is no "evil" in this -- only honest choice. Some further response: Considering your mistaken understanding about ASTIGMATISM.. Otis> I have said almost nothing about astigmatism. Consider that staement "corrected". Drag> I think you've either misunderstood the research that you've been reading AND/OR you're just taking their research too far. Otis> You have jumped to a conclusion. Dragon> HOW old are you OTIS? Otis> 66 -- how old are you? Dragon> I can't understand how you could possibly have the time to learn about all of this and decide that every professional Otis> Please do not give me this, "every professional" business. The second opinion is prevention with plus -- at the treshold. This becomes an honest choice for the person himself to make. Drag> in this forum is just evil ... Otis> Yor distorting words again. I NEVER SAID THAT. Neither the majority opinion, OR THE SECOND OPINION is "evil". They are opinions about the proven dynamic behavior of the natural primate eye. Science my friend -- not medicine. Drag> to get the world to be myopic like crazy. Otis> Again, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS. Read my words carefully about the refractive states of the natural eye -- and the proven behavior of it. Drag> If that was the case.. none of the optometrists, ophthalmologists, or opticians would be wearing any corrective lenses eh? Otis> Good point! But they do "eat" there own point. That is the one question that did trouble me -- until I met Jacob Raphaelson and saw that he had in fact put his own children in a plus -- even as he knew he could not help the public. Drag> esp their kids? Otis> Second-opinion Steve Leung OD has his kids (refractive state zero) now using the plus for all close work. That is WHY there is a second-opinion -- and how it can grow. Drag> cause they'd keep all of this valueble information to themselves.. Otis> No, because some ignorant psycho like Neil Brooks who does not understand squat -- will sue their a.s off. If I were an OD I sure as hell would not put myself "at risk" from such idiots -- would you? Otis> That is why an OD who understands the proven dynamic behavior of the primate eye -- can only help his own children. Wise up -- my friend. Best, Otis > Dear Dragon, > > Subject: Jumping to conclusions -- from statements made by Ace. > > Re: The preventive second opinion still stands -- as presented > and supported by Steve Leung OD at: Dear friends, Please disregard Otis postings. The second opinion DOES NOT stand. Allen > Furthermore, you quote these second opinion optometrists all the time. > Let me tell you when I was young I had a high myopic prescription and > I refused to wear glasses .. as a result my eyes JUMPED to a -2.00 > prescription within a year. THAT is coming from personal experience. > So plussing yourself to slow down myopia is NOT the way to go. otis is a moron and a zealot. ignor him. your experience might be explained by the results of Chung et al. which shows that not properly correcting myopia might actually cause it to accelerate. otis refuses to acknowledge this study. -- Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9. The Chung study is a small (n=94), 2 year randomized and masked prospective study comparing the effects of full-time undercorrection (UC, by approx 0.75 D) with full-time fully correction (FC) in young myopes (mean: -2.86 D). The study group comprised approximately 1.4 time the numbers of girls as boys with Chinese and Malay ethnic groups being approximately equally represented. Over the 2 years of the study, the FC group showed a progression of -0.77 D compared to the UC group that exhibited a progression of -1.00 D. Rates of eye growth also differed between the two groups, as expected, being slower for the FC group. |
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.