 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2006This lady improved her vision and wrote a diary of her experience! I am doing the same!
http://members.aol.com/myopiaprev/improvin.htm I suggest you all read and learn from her experience. I owe her credit for contributating to my vision improvement. I used to be -6 and -5. Now I am -4.75 and -4.25 respectivately and still improving. My near point in the worse eye is a little over 20cm and in the better eye its a little under 25cm. I also do other types of eye exercises. It would be nice to get past 30cm which would make me less than -3.5 diopters. Theres no telling how much ill improve but Bate has advanced exercises that will make mincemeat of myopia! I think I have a reasonable chance to get below -3 in one or even both eyes, making me officially a low myope! Yes, it is really important to see beyond 30cm. Your quality of life will be so much better as well. What it goes to show is that you were incorrectly prescribed in the first place, nothing more. dr grant You dont know anything about me nor her. Even if we got the wrong power glasses, you cant explain how we improved our vision. What do glasses have to do with how much better we see without glasses? By the way, my pescription of -6 was not wrong back then. I did not see as well with less power. Now I see fine with weaker glasses. > You dont know anything about me nor her. Even if we got the wrong power > glasses, you cant explain how we improved our vision. What do glasses > have to do with how much better we see without glasses? By the way, my > pescription of -6 was not wrong back then. I did not see as well with > less power. Now I see fine with weaker glasses. Then you don't understand accommodative spasm. -MT actually I do and so does she. The glasses im wearing now could technically be the wrong power, but untill I remove all my accommodative spasm, I need those glasses to see well. I was tested manifast at -6 before I started vision improvement. -6 was the correct glasses power back then. My manifast refraction has dropped now. > actually I do and so does she. The glasses im wearing now could > technically be the wrong power, but untill I remove all my > accommodative spasm, I need those glasses to see well. And you don't think your accommodation could cause atypical responses with contacts and vertex distance? When you're 50, you can expect the textbook formula for vertex adjustment to work quite well. But by then, you'll probably level off around -250 and vertex distance doesn't normally require power adjustments at -250. > I was tested > manifast at -6 before I started vision improvement. -6 was the correct > glasses power back then. My manifast refraction has dropped now. I'm sure it has. Do you think by the time it stabilizes you'll learn to spell "manifest?" -MT > I'm sure it has. Do you think by the time it stabilizes you'll learn to > spell "manifest?" or "pescription" > or "pescription" And the freudian "diagnoise". -MT >> or "pescription" > >And the freudian "diagnoise". > >-MT I thought, I already commented on his spelling and driving skills? I would like credit first. Oh, don't forget about living in the bomb shelter. Bomb shelters increase myopia, but not intelligence. spelling isnt my forte. "And you don't think your accommodation could cause atypical responses with contacts and vertex distance?" This seems to be the rule than the expection for those under 40. Most of my friend's wear glasses 1.25 times higher than their contact pescription. Dry eyes and base curve also play a factor. Converting from glasses to contacts or vice versa is not clear cut and the subject must actually try the contacts. May need a few pairs due to trial and error. "When you're 50, you can expect the textbook formula for vertex adjustment to work quite well. But by then, you'll probably level off around -250 and vertex distance doesn't normally require power adjustments at -250." I wouldnt even bother with correction if I got down to -2.5 contacts would be useless as I dont like monovision nor mulifocals. Id only need glasses sometimes for seeing in the distance. I however plan to get my vision to -2.5 or therebouts asap and not when I get old. I want to enjoy my reduced dependancy on glasses now! > spelling isnt my forte. Unfortunately, intellegence isn't either. Unfortunately, it is us that have to live with your crap. > I wouldnt even bother with correction if I got down to -2.5 contacts > would be useless as I dont like monovision nor mulifocals. Id only need > glasses sometimes for seeing in the distance. I however plan to get my > vision to -2.5 or therebouts asap and not when I get old. I want to > enjoy my reduced dependancy on glasses now! Sure, at -2.50 you don't need glasses. That is what I tell all my patients that want new specs. You are so dumb you make George W look smart. I am down to -2.50 and only wear glasses to drive. As long as safety is not compromised, what does it matter if someone does not want to wear their glasses? There are people out there with prescriptions weaker than mine who would not think about going without corrective eyeware. It's all about what you are comfortable with. > I am down to -2.50 and only wear glasses to drive. As long as safety is > not compromised, what does it matter if someone does not want to wear > their glasses? There are people out there with prescriptions weaker > than mine who would not think about going without corrective eyeware. > It's all about what you are comfortable with. Absolutely nobody cares if someone chooses not to wear glasses. What we care about is the TEDIOUSNESS and POINTLESSNESS of a debate that hasn't been advanced one iota since it was first presented here years ago. We care about the misrepresentation of fact to those coming here for information. The risk is, of course, that those who are actually in a position to help people with real problems will be chased off, and not be available for those who need them. Witness, for example, the recent poster whose child seems to have had a real misdiagnosis that might have impacted her visual development. Nonsense that wouldn't have been appropriate for the thread even if it were accruate (which it wasn't) was spouted by the same old peanut gallery, while the health care practitioners got the poster pointed in the right direction. Now, consider what the scenario could have been if those practitioners gave up months ago. So, what is comes down to is that an arrogant man who likes to hear the sound of his own voice and believes that his "scientific" ideas are on the level of Galileo's and a day tripper without a clue are killing a resource that has helped a number of people over a number of years. That's usenet for you. My suggestion is that we modify the warning message to state a synopsis of the mainstream opinion on vision improvement (plus lens, bates,etc), warn those who want to try Bates not to stare at the sun, state that the pointless debate will not be engaged, list the names of the jokers du jour, and add all the names to the plonk file.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply >Absolutely nobody cares if someone chooses not to wear glasses. What we >care about is the TEDIOUSNESS and POINTLESSNESS of a debate that hasn't [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >pointless debate will not be engaged, list the names of the jokers du >jour, and add all the names to the plonk file. Amen. Very well said. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live > My suggestion is that we modify the warning message to state a synopsis > of the mainstream opinion on vision improvement (plus lens, bates,etc), > warn those who want to try Bates not to stare at the sun, state that the > pointless debate will not be engaged, list the names of the jokers du > jour, and add all the names to the plonk file. By all means, Scott, write it up! We Who Care can review it and get it posted daily if need be, as Bev has been kind enough to do for the Monday posting. Note: The old(er), somewhat overweight, despondent, sick man Who's Name Must Not Be Said has been posting the exact same drivel for four straight years. This month is his usenet anniversary. LB > >> My suggestion is that we modify the warning message to state a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > LB Let's kick it around a little bit. I'll try to come up with at least an outline for early next week. I think the important points are that -staircase myopia has never been demonstrated, and spectacle correction of myopia has never been demonstrated to increase myopia. -axial vs accomodative myopia, and that the suspicion is that the purported therapies are suspected to alleviate some accomodative myopia -near work probably has some relationship to the development of myopia, as does genetics, but no therapy has been proven to stop myopia progression in humans. -in general, "myopia prevention therapies", while probably ineffective, are generally harmless to adults, aside from sun gazing, which should never be done -common wisdom dictates that you should not interfere with your children's visual development. Any suspicion of visual problems in children should be aggressively pursued by an eye care professional, and any prevention matters employed on children should FIRST be discussed with your eye care professional -health care decisions should be made in conjunction with a health care professional in a doctor/patient relationship. The internet does not serve this role. -non-responsiveness to posts involving alternative approaches does not suggest any endorsement of these approaches, merely a reticence to engage in pointless debate Anything major I've missed, or gotten wrong. I think the bit about not messing with kids vision is fairly important, but I'm not sure I've got it worded right. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply in conjunction with your point #4 listed above, why not give a link to otis' forum or website so that persons interested in his crackpot method can take their discussion offline from here. and maybe a reference to the fact that those snakeoil salesman who promote the "i see clearly" method are currently being sued by the state of iowa for fraud. We should change the title of this thread. No need to involve Ace in this. Or anything of science, or even remotely requiring common sense. But I digress .............. Here's the link to the See Clearly Method fraud case. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/ia_vision_improvement.html I believe the State of California has either initiated or completed legal action again the company. I was unable to find a substantiating reference, however. Here's one that's sure to come around again: The pinhole glasses scam: From QuackWatch.com: ==================== 'Several entrepreneurs have marketed "pyramid" or "pinhole" glasses consisting of opaque material with multiple slits or perforations. The "technology" involved has been known for centuries and was used before glass lenses were invented. Light passing through a small hole (or holes) is restricted to rays coming straight from the viewed object; these rays do not need focusing to bring them to a point. Modern promoters claim their products are better than conventional lenses. Actually, both reduce the focus effort needed to read, but pinhole glasses are much less useful because they restrict contrast, brightness, and the field of view [28]. Worn as sunglasses, they can even be harmful because the holes allow damaging ultraviolet rays to reach the eye.' http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html The citation #28 refers to an article in the Journal of the American Optometric Association. Though the full-text isn't available online, a MEDLINE abstract/citation can be found here, with the full article likely available at a local medical university library: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt =Abstract&list_uids=8436795 From the FTC (Federal Trade Commission): ======================================== 'The FTC alleged that, among other things, the defendants represented that the pinhole glasses could correct vision disorders and permanently cure a wide range of vision deficiencies, including farsightedness, nearsightedness and astigmatism. In two separate settlements, the defendants would be prohibited in the future from making the alleged false claims or engaging in the practices challenged by the FTC . . . This is the fifth FTC case challenging claims for pinhole eyeglasses . . . In fact, the FTC complaint alleges, contrary to the defendants' representations, that: -- the use of pinhole eyeglasses does not result in long- term improvement in these vision problems; -- pinhole eyeglasses do not cure, correct or ameliorate specific vision problems; -- pinhole eyeglasses are not an adequate substitute for prescription lenses or contact lenses; -- the efficacy of pinhole eyeglasses in improving vision has not been proven by scientific research; -- pinhole eyeglasses do not eliminate the need for professional diagnosis and treatment of vision problems; http://www.ftc.gov/opa/predawn/F95/laservision.htm latest FTC: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/chaserevel.htm The Quackwatch eye page: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html Best, LB, O.D. p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote in news:1140755029.203958.292500 @t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com: > in conjunction with your point #4 listed above, why not give a link to > otis' forum or website so that persons interested in his crackpot [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > promote the "i see clearly" method are currently being sued by the > state of iowa for fraud. Great ideas. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Its true some vision improvement claims are unsubstained and exaggerated. Relisticlly, the average person improves a diopter and a half. Older people wont improve as much because some of the improvement is due to relieving tonic accomodation. The reason why the courts are after them is they make exaggerated claims. This leaves many customers disapointed. What they should say is: most, but not all people will improve their vision. You may not be free of glasses, but you can get weaker glasses and reduce your dependancy on glasses. > Its true some vision improvement claims are unsubstained > and exaggerated. Relisticlly, the average person improves [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > glasses, but you can get weaker glasses and reduce your > dependancy on glasses. Right... "Using our system you can wear these glasses instead of those glasses!" Where do I send my money? -Quick "Right... "Using our system you can wear these glasses instead of those glasses!" Where do I send my money?" Keep the money. Consider it one of life's free wonders! Just like exercising is free(save for a nominal gym membership) natural vision improvement is free(tiny fee if you buy any books, glasses, aids to help you) "or as if you have some kind of training or experience in the subject? " I experienced my vision improvement myself. "What about all those friends of yours who have improved up to 5 diopters? I thought that was your goal." Most improve about a couple diopters. I helped this guy improve from 20/50 to 20/25 and his goal is to get at least 20/20. He used to be better than 20/20 before bad vision habits. > the average person improves a diopter and a half. > Older people wont improve as much because why do you make such declarative statements as if you know things for a fact, or as if you have some kind of training or experience in the subject? you are just a kid who takes drugs and surfs the internet while mooching off of your parents. you should either not post at all (preferable) or preface your remarks with "i think". > Relisticlly, the average person improves a diopter and a > half. What about all those friends of yours who have improved up to 5 diopters? I thought that was your goal. Signature~RT "Unfortunately, intellegence isn't either. Unfortunately, it is us that have to live with your crap." Manners most definately isnt your forte. How do you expect to make friends? "Sure, at -2.50 you don't need glasses. That is what I tell all my patients that want new specs." With a wink, remind them they still legally required to wear glasses for driving. Also tell them they can wear glasses as little as they want, maybe if they wear them just to watch movies? "I am down to -2.50 and only wear glasses to drive. As long as safety is not compromised, what does it matter if someone does not want to wear their glasses?" you hit it on the nail! "There are people out there with prescriptions weaker than mine who would not think about going without corrective eyeware. It's all about what you are comfortable with." They really love glasses and feel "undressed" without them. For them, its more to do with looks than functioning. The great majority of my friends and people I know who are about -1 to -1.5 wear glasses very seldom or never. anyway what do you think of her diary? Are you doing the same exercises, bassslapper?
|
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.