 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2006Can a myope improve unaided sight - YES or NO
hello all i am interested in knowing what each of you [expert or not] personally think about this. pls use all the scientific or otherwise knowledge you possess, just personal opinions, based on our education, religious beliefs and misconceptions, erasoned judgement, ... all the shabang, and the final gist of it. Just answer in YES/NO Question: Is it possible for *at least one* person with elongated eyeball myopia [not the other temporary kind] to improve sight and get better unaided far vision [he may use them while improving], without any invasive/medical procedures. If you have seen even one case, or think it is million to one shot, please respond YES, otherwise NO. thanks for your input of course no tricks, like narrowing eyelids (squinting) or producing visible tears etc the so called pupil control *is* allowed > hello all > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > thanks for your input ummwellduh <contactsn@gmail.com> wrote in part: > Question: Is it possible for *at least one* person with > elongated eyeball myopia [not the other temporary kind] > to improve sight and get better unaided far vision [he may > use them while improving], without any invasive/medical > procedures. If you have seen even one case, or think it is > million to one shot, please respond YES, otherwise NO. Who cares? It is impossible to formally prove a negative because you cannot enumerate the full population. The real question is whether the odds against improvement are worth the costs of trying and failing. A failed treatment has very high patient costs in terms of safety and self-confidence. > thanks for your input You are welcome. -- Robert i have not asked proofs....i am least interested in proofs just one's personal opinion one might have formed based on their education, training, experience with patients, own personal experience, misconceptions, beliefs etc etc. ie in a word, upto the present moment whats their take on this question. They need not put their professional reputation behind it, because it is only a part of what they are. but it would definitely be interesting coming from a prefessional (bcoz they are more exposed to incidents in their field) as for costs of treatment, you need not back it up with a treatment plan. can one start on any treatment with a plain YES/NO??!! > ummwellduh <contactsn@gmail.com> wrote in part: > > Question: Is it possible for *at least one* person with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -- Robert > i have not asked proofs....i am least interested in proofs > can one start on any treatment with a plain YES/NO??!! Care to state your agenda? -Quick i want to get the gist of each person's research, education, experience, belief, brainwashing etc regarding this issue and avoid running around understanding the complicated experiments an what they signify, and whether or not they apply to humans...thats why i want to know the *personal* opinion not professional one [although t can be based on [professional knowledge] ....... and then try out [or not] non invasive, safe [according to me], relatively easy [ie not requiring revolutionary changes in daily life] stuff to improve unaided vision. > > i have not asked proofs....i am least interested in proofs > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Quick ummwellduh <contactsn@gmail.com> wrote in part: > i want to get the gist of each person's research, education, > experience, belief, brainwashing etc regarding this issue and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > relatively easy [ie not requiring revolutionary changes in daily > life] stuff to improve unaided vision. You want data from people, yet aren't saying how you will use it. Impolite, and it would be irresponsible to provide data under such conditions. It is good you recognize you have a decision to make, so let me show you a different approach: There is a cost to wearing minus lenses to correct myopia, maybe a net discounted lifetime cost about 1000 hours of wasted effort. There is a cost to trying Bates or other exercises, say 40 hours if it works and 100 hours if it does not (from the frustration, mistakes & extra effort). Trying is only mathematically worth it if there is a 9.4% or greater chance of success. I doubt randomized statistics would support a success rate anywhere near that. Probably several orders of magnatude lower. At that point, it becomes a foolish and dangerous hope, worse than a lottery ticket. Ethical physicians would not advise a patient even try unless they felt the patient unusually likely to succeeed, or unusually tolerant of failure (not easily frustrated). I doubt either applies in your case. But still, physicians are not veterinarians and patients are not meat. The patients own values and wishes must be considered even if wildly different from the physicians, and advised according to their values. Or referred if the gulf is too great. -- Robert > You want data from people, yet aren't saying how you will use it. > Impolite, and it would be irresponsible to provide data under > such conditions. i did give people upfront 'thanks' for their "data" [YES/NO] people can just take it and not even provide any data, that is also fine by me. although i didnt get any pointed YES/NO from you, i observed that you did pick up the freebee 'thanks'! > It is good you recognize you have a decision to make, so let > me show you a different approach: oh no! > There is a cost to wearing minus lenses to correct myopia, maybe > a net discounted lifetime cost about 1000 hours of wasted effort. > There is a cost to trying Bates or other exercises, say 40 hours > if it works and 100 hours if it does not (from the frustration, > mistakes & extra effort). too computational... > Trying is only mathematically worth it if there is a 9.4% or > greater chance of success. I doubt randomized statistics would > support a success rate anywhere near that. Probably several > orders of magnatude lower. At that point, it becomes a foolish > and dangerous hope, worse than a lottery ticket. *not* interested in proofs, theories, statistics.... > Ethical physicians would not advise a patient even try unless > they felt the patient unusually likely to succeeed, or unusually i dont know how to identify an ethical person from unethical..... let alone physicians....[_and_ i dont want to know *how*...] > tolerant of failure (not easily frustrated). I doubt either > applies in your case. > But still, physicians are not veterinarians and patients are > not meat. The patients own values and wishes must be considered > even if wildly different from the physicians, and advised according > to their values. Or referred if the gulf is too great. thats a personal opinion i dont remember asking! and a these seem like good reasons not to tell 'how I would use it [*data*]' > -- Robert > i dont know how to identify an ethical person from unethical..... > let alone physicians....[_and_ i dont want to know *how*...] What you _do_ want to know - a promise to reduce axial myopia with exercises or lenses would not come from an "ethical" doctor. So far, I count three or professionals answering "no". I don't hear anybody saying "yes." -MT > > i dont know how to identify an ethical person from unethical..... > > let alone physicians....[_and_ i dont want to know *how*...] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT looks like its a unanimous NO...on this thread i went thru some other posts, and found you mentioned the book projector might work. could you pls elaborate how it might work? or did you mean only the tonic accomodation? "ummwellduh" <contactsn@gmail.com> wrote in message > looks like its a unanimous NO...on this thread > i went thru some other posts, and found you mentioned > the book projector might work. could you pls elaborate how > it might work? or did you mean only the tonic accomodation? The relationship between myopia and accommodation has been studied so many times, from so many different angles that a direct relationship would have stood out. And it just ain't there. The same, simple statistics DO show a relationship between hours spent in close work, and how close they hold their work. For those reasons, doctors recommend work breaks and reasonable reading distances (google "Harmon distance"). (Simple statistics also show that atropine daily will more-or-less halt the progress of myopia. In developing myopia, we KNOW working distance and time matter. We KNOW accommodation isn't involved because we've manipulated it with lenses. So we have to ask what's left. I can think of a couple of things, mainly convergence and "awareness of near". The experts might come up with one or two more factors that make close vision different from far vision. But the projector might well address the "closeness" factor in a way that uniquely slows the rate of myopia creep. In other words, we can't fool the eye with lenses, but we might by moving the working distance out in real space. I can't say I've seen any study that addressed this. That's why the projector idea can't be counted out. Problem is, we think environment only accounts for at most 20% of myopia. The rest seems to be hard-wired and genetic. So is it worth the cost of an overhead projector and the disruption of having to use a clunky doo-dah to read, when you're 12 years old? What few effects _have_ been found by manipulating lenses or doing excercises or wearing/not wearing were too small and unpredictable to be "clinically useful." Not to say it can't happen. But you won't find many doctors recommending it. -MT, OD ummwellduh <contactsn@gmail.com> wrote in part: > thats a personal opinion i dont remember asking! You didn't. But posters can answer however they please. You cannot control debate but you might be able to shape it. I see you doing a poor job even for your own aims. > and a these seem like good reasons not to tell 'how I would > use it [*data*]' So you must not expect [m]any of your desired replies. -- Robert "ummwellduh" <contactsn@gmail.com> wrote in news:1153331408.751196.281610 @i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > thats a personal opinion i dont remember asking! Frankly, if you don't welcome the discussion you generated, ignore it, or don't post it to usenet in the first place  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply his personal opinion on me is not generated by me and its totally off the topic... and to point it out goes in the direction of 'shaping the discussion' as he himself mentions... > "ummwellduh" <contactsn@gmail.com> wrote in news:1153331408.751196.281610 > @i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Frankly, if you don't welcome the discussion you generated, ignore it, or > don't post it to usenet in the first place > i want to get the gist of each person's research, education, > experience, belief, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > [ie not requiring revolutionary changes in daily life] stuff to improve > unaided vision. Dear Friend, If you read Dr. Judy's post -- then any "clearing" you might experience is a matter of "random" chance. You should factor her judgment into any judgment or decision you might make. You will find that the "experts" profoundly DISAGREE on PREVENTION. Some say it is possiible, others, impossible. What ever you decide, I would suggest that you post your current "prescription", and that you personally determine what you can read on your Snellen. When you say "improvement" is it wise to understand your "starting" point -- and your desired "end-point", and the PROBABILITY that you can reach your desired goal -- or not. And as you say -- with very slight effort. >From what I have seen, I would suggest that if you are in any "deeper" than about 20/60 -- you probably will not be successful. Assuming minimum effort. But good luck. Let us know what you decide. Best, Otis > > i want to get the gist of each person's research, education, > > experience, belief, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > should factor her judgment into any judgment or decision you > might make. i would consider it lucky to be that 'random' case > You will find that the "experts" profoundly DISAGREE on > PREVENTION. Some say it is possiible, others, impossible. i guess i am beyond 'prevention' stage...not so young anymore > What ever you decide, I would suggest that you > post your current "prescription", and that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and the PROBABILITY that you can reach your > desired goal -- or not. i am not sure if i want to make it another 'project' measuring and tracking it in a 'professional' way.. and i am not entering any snellen chart contest... so it is fine if it is just a qualitative 'improvment', i am not trying to prove any one method's effictiveness in any quantitavie way.... i will know when i see clearly, regardless of what the chart or statistics say... > And as you say -- with very slight effort. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Assuming minimum effort. i am not sure "effort" is the way to go ... > But good luck. Let us know what you decide. > > Best, > > Otis thanks > You will find that the "experts" profoundly DISAGREE on > PREVENTION. Some say it is possiible, others, impossible. This is frankly a lie. Otis plays it like half the experts agree with him. Really it's more like 1 in 1000. > What ever you decide, I would suggest that you > post your current "prescription", and that > you personally determine what you can read > on your Snellen. Which accomplishes exactly nothing except massaging Otis' ego. > When you say "improvement" is it wise to understand > your "starting" point -- and your desired "end-point", > and the PROBABILITY that you can reach your > desired goal -- or not. Yeah, if you're testing refraction, it's probably best to test refraction. So why do you insist on testing acuity? >>From what I have seen, I would suggest that if you > are in any "deeper" than about 20/60 -- you > probably will not be successful. Wise prediction. So axial myopia can be cured if it's better than "about 20/60"? -MT > hello all > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > thanks for your input Probably not. Once your eyeball enlongates into axial myopia, its permanent. Sorry to say. This is why Otis preaches and advocates prevention at the treshold. What is your prescription now and how old were you when you got your first glasses? You may be able to relieve tonic accomodation which will reduce your prescription. OrthoK can further reduce your myopia. Theres lasik and even IOLs but both options are risky and may ruin your clear correctable vision. > > hello all > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > further reduce your myopia. Theres lasik and even IOLs but both options > are risky and may ruin your clear correctable vision. assuming someone never did any eye exercises, and has axial myopia, and into 40s, would that mean he/she still might have tonic accomodation left from young age that can be relieved and some improvment made? as i understand, tonic accomodation is a reversible thing as opposed to axial myopia. > Question: Is it possible for *at least one* person with elongated > eyeball myopia [not the other temporary kind] to improve sight and get > better unaided far vision [he may use them while improving], without > any invasive/medical procedures. Is it possible to reverse myopia by changing the physical properties of the eye with effort or training or exercise? Short answer, no. Don't waste your time. Is it possible to slow the progress of myopia with effort or training or exercise? Myopia specialists don't believe so. The FDA doesn't think so. Respected authorities don't approve of the practice because nothing has been found that works, when compared to nontreated controls. There are astounding stories of "recovery" from myopia but the evidence says they would have happened with or without treatment. Eventually, about half of all myopes improve to some degree. In some it is early, as they release excess accommodation. This process _can_ respond to training and _can_ be dramatic so this is the source for most "miracle cures." Other myopes improve later, between 25 and 50, usually just 0.50 to 1.00 diopter. The chemistry (index gradient) of the crystalline lens starts changing with age, affecting everyone, not just myopes. But either way, spontaneous "improvement" is so common that it's easy to misinterpret as "miraculous." -MT, OD > Is it possible to slow the progress of myopia with effort or training > or exercise? > > Myopia specialists don't believe so. The FDA doesn't think so. > Respected authorities don't approve of the practice because nothing > has been found that works, when compared to nontreated controls. How about by not reading or doing as much close work? I think there _is_ science to connect close work to the development of myopia, right? Whether this "cure" is worse than the disease is another question. -- > > Is it possible to slow the progress of myopia with effort or training > > or exercise? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Whether this "cure" is worse than the disease is another question. > -- true. hardly possible to avoid near work forever...but, as long as you think it *cures*... the implication is significant > > Question: Is it possible for *at least one* person with elongated > > eyeball myopia [not the other temporary kind] to improve sight and get [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > -MT, OD "Is it possible to slow the progress of myopia with effort or training or exercise? Myopia specialists don't believe so. The FDA doesn't think so. Respected authorities don't approve of the practice because nothing has been found that works, when compared to nontreated controls." It is possible to slow down or even stop myopia progression, just not reverse it(unless its just tonic accomodation) Otis plus lens theory has been tried on many with much success. Eye exercises will also work wonders. Reducing near work is another way to slow down myopia. Excess accomodation is probably the main reason why most people(under 40) respond to natural vision improvement, but hey it works. It just cant shorten your eye. I am getting atropine soon to do away with excess accomodation and reduce my dependancy on what is overminus glasses. My uncorrected vision may improve on the order of several times as well, making me much more functional without glasses. > cant shorten your eye. I am getting atropine soon to do away with > excess accomodation and reduce my dependancy on what is overminus > glasses. My uncorrected vision may improve on the order of several > times as well, making me much more functional without glasses. So the effect of atropine will be permanent? -MT > hello all > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > any invasive/medical procedures. If you have seen even one case, or > think it is million to one shot, please respond YES, otherwise NO. Myopes and non myopes may see a change in refraction over time either increase or decrease in the myopic direction, usually due to aging changes in the lens. These changes are not uncommon, the patient was not trying to achieve the change and we see them in practice almost daily. If you mean can myopes reduce their myopia via eye exercises, foods, herbal supplements, avoiding near work etc etc, then my answer would be no. Dr Judy > Just answer in YES/NO Absolutely, YES. Unless you mean enough improvement to actually make a difference. Then NO. |
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
|
©2009 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.