 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2006Optician's advice
My prescription is -2.75. My optician tells me I should wear glasses full time with this prescription. I'm reluctant to. Is this commonplace? Thanks consider natural vision improvement, especially the Bates method. You may wear glasses for distance but KEEP THEM off for close work!!! I am a -4 and I see much better from near WITHOUT glasses! I have done natural vision improvement and went from a -5 to a -4 and still improving! On 2/16/06 2:15 PM, in article 5bfc0a1fff044@uwe, "Peter Holmes via MedKB.com" <u12288@uwe> wrote: > My prescription is -2.75. My optician tells me I should wear glasses full > time with this prescription. I'm reluctant to. Is this commonplace? Thanks Don't take medical advice from an optician!. Could you have meant optometrist or ophthalmologist? Even so, as you can see from previous posts here, there is plenty of controversy regarding such advice. Bill -- Ferme le Bush Salmon Egg I'm in the UK, we only have opticians here! What else can I do but take their advice!! >On 2/16/06 2:15 PM, in article 5bfc0a1fff044@uwe, "Peter Holmes via >MedKB.com" <u12288@uwe> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >-- Ferme le Bush On 2/17/06 1:05 PM, in article 5c0801a527a96@uwe, "Peter Holmes via MedKB.com" <u12288@uwe> wrote: > Salmon Egg I'm in the UK, we only have opticians here! What else can I do but > take their advice!! It appears that there is no equivalent in the USA of your "optician." Here, "optician" can mean many things ranging from a dispensing optician to one who figures Schmidt corrector plates for fancy astronomical telescopes. It never refers to a medical practitioner. What are the duties of your kind of optician? Bill -- Ferme le Bush Dear Peter, You will get two opinions. The "second opinion" is by Professor David Guyton (JHU) that you keep that minus off, unless absolutly necessary. Make your choice accordingly. Otis > Dear Peter, > > You will get two opinions. Dear Peter, Please disregard Otis's posting. He is not in the medical profession, nor in any position to give medical advice. Thank you! Allen\ ask your eye doctor. do not take advise from kooks over the internet like otisbrown and acemanvx. i am an eye doctor myself, but you should discuss your question with your own eye doctor. nevertheless my recommendation is this-- if you want to see clearly in the distance (driving, watching TV from a distance, etc.) then wear your glasses. if you want to see things close to you (read a book, etc.) then either take them off or leave them on. it doesn't matter. whichever is most convenient. there is no detriment or gain from wearing your glasses full time, and there is no detriment or gain from taking them off to read. the only effect they have is to help you see in the distance when they are on. and there is absolutely no controversy about those points. the controversy is in the minds of the untrained uneducated trolls who continue to post in this forum. Speak to your optician about it but commons sense should prevail here. You should need them for dirving, everything else is a matter of choice, as long as safety is not compromised. My prescription is about the same as yours and I never wear my glasses unless driving or watching a movie. I find no need for them otherwise but that is just me. I hate wearing corrective eyeware and the hassles accompanying having to do so so my preference is to forgo the corrective eyeware whenever possible. You should also consider some kind of visual therapy to see if you can reduce your prescription and improve upon the myopia. I can only speak for my own experience in that I have reduced my prescrption 1 diopter, probably from training the visual system to be more effiecient in processing information. Some people on this site will tell you therapy will not help and I can only tell you what has worked for me so far but it cannot hurt to check into it. Bassslapper Are you really happy with your vision without glasses except for driving? I need glasses at night even for walking down the street, if I want to see where I'm going that is, but during the day I can get by. My partner thinks my vision is cr*p and teases me about it. That doesn't make me ready for wearing 24/7 though. Is it likely some optical professionals just more keen on making sure all their patients have20/20 vision? >Speak to your optician about it but commons sense should prevail here. >You should need them for dirving, everything else is a matter of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >will not help and I can only tell you what has worked for me so far but >it cannot hurt to check into it. I mentioned natural vision improvement earlier in this thread. If he does that, he can keep glasses off for good except for driving unless he can get to 20/40 >I mentioned natural vision improvement earlier in this thread. If he > does that, he can keep glasses off for good except for driving unless > he can get to 20/40 Yes, but this week you believe "natural vision improvement" works for everybody. -MT and last week it was orthoK, even though he as never tried it. i guess just reading a few web sites makes you an expert. or maybe eating a few mushrooms. > and last week it was orthoK, even though he as never > tried it. i guess just reading a few web sites makes you > an expert. or maybe eating a few mushrooms. "this one makes you large and this one makes you small". Mom and Dad will be happy. Getting your eye exercises off the web shouldn't cost anything. ...or is it only the expensive "systems" that work. -Quick "Yes, but this week you believe "natural vision improvement" works for everybody." My mistake, it works for only 95% of people. It sure has worked wonders for me and I am not about to stop there! I consider orthoK "planB" if im not seeing well enough to forgo glasses most of the time. If I can get my myopia to less than -3 in the better eye, ill officially be considered a low myope and able to go without glasses alot more than now at -4. I think theres a good chance I can get below -3 :) On 2/16/06 8:38 PM, in article 1140151081.376058.261170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "p.clarkii@gmail.com" > ask your eye doctor. do not take advise from kooks over the internet > like otisbrown and acemanvx. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is in the minds of the untrained uneducated trolls who continue to post > in this forum. Even though I am not an eye doctor, I can think logically, at least some of the time. The mere fact that I am posting is evidence that there IS controversy. Being indoctrinated is not the same as being educated. I have extensive background in science and optics although not in medical aspects thereof. Over the years, I have seen medical fads come and go. Where is the definitive evidence that there is no controversy? I am asking for evidence, not catechism. Bill -- Ferme le Bush |
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.