 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2006Well it looks like ill be giving soft contact lens orthoK a try very soon!
My eyes really suck at -5(left) -4.5(right) they used to be worse but thanks to NVI they have improved about a diopter! I want to chop off more myopia so its soft contact lens orthoK for me! Improvements of up to 2 diopters have been measured for those who have tried! Ill be happy with at least a diopter reduction, that combined with my countined efforts at NVI will make a real dent in my significent myopia. Myopia blurs expotentionally. -1 blurs very little, -2 is three times as bad, -3 is many times worse, -4 is already off the charts! High myopia at -6 is so bad without correction you are functionally blind and helpless without full time correction, everything would be massivately blurry, a bunch of fuzzy colors. Good Luck, AceMan! But I would get some assessment of the capability of Ortho-K before I went too much further. And, as always, there is Lasik, as you posted. Otis > My eyes really suck at -5(left) -4.5(right) they used to be worse but > thanks to NVI they have improved about a diopter! I want to chop off [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > without full time correction, everything would be massivately blurry, a > bunch of fuzzy colors. > Good Luck, AceMan! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Otis I have a clear idea of orthoK's capabilities which will become crystal clear with actual experience. Otis, you should consider orthoK too, you can reduce your prescription by more than half and improve vision several-fold, perhaps as much as ten-fold! Lasik is not needed for over 95% of people nor do they have a good reason for it, especially those whos eyes arent that bad. OrthoK should be displacing lasik once more optometrists offer it and more people know about it. Dear AceMan, I must agree with Retinula on Ortho-K. It was developed for pilots who had to get their Snellen to go from 20/50 to 20/20. For THAT purpose it is worth the $1,600 -- perhaps. But at your -5 diopters (after years of wearing a strong minus) I think the only real prospect is Lasik for you. Typically -- if you use Ortho-K -- you must continue to use it. If you stop, the cornea will "rebound" and you will be back to your original refractive STATE. There are no "easy" solutions at all Best, Otis > > Good Luck, AceMan! > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > whos eyes arent that bad. OrthoK should be displacing lasik once more > optometrists offer it and more people know about it. > Dear AceMan, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Otis Otis, arent you interested in orthoK? Maybe you can get your snellen down to 20/200 or something. This is much, much better than where you are at now. You still wont need glasses for reading. Maybe you want to be a pilot. I think you are allowed to be up to 20/200 if you clear 20/20 with glasses then you can become a pilot! I am not interested in being a pilot, I just want to improve my vision. Getting down to -3 is almost three times better than -5! I know orthoK is temporary, ill be using it every other night, its as easy as brushing your teeth. NVI plus orthoK will make a big difference in my UCVA. You can do the same Otis :) Dear AceMan, Sorry, you do not understand my personal motivations in doing this PREVENTIVE work. It is rather obvious (because of the Oakley-Young study) that PREVENTION must be matter of choice -- before any minus is used. This must be a matter of review for the parents and child. The minus is profoundly "easy", and very few people feel the "motivation" to use is correctly. As your college friend August (at -1 diopter) established it -- you can clear your vision back to 20/20 -- PROVIDED you do not use a minus. I know that this becomes a personal choice. Given the profound hostility to the concept by the majority-opinion ODs on sci.med.vision, it is obvious that they will have nothing to do with successful prevention. And indeed you can not PAY anyone for successful PREVENTION. You must figure out how to do it yourself. And that is a tough choice for most people. But good luck with your "vision clearing". I still suggest that Ortho-K would be a poor bet for you and your will be disapointed in the long-term reesults of it. Best, Otis > > Dear AceMan, > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > plus orthoK will make a big difference in my UCVA. You can do the same > Otis :) > It was developed for pilots who had to get their Snellen to > go from 20/50 to 20/20. For THAT purpose it is worth > the $1,600 -- perhaps. So the FAA and the military now accepts Ortho-k as a means of passing the vision requirements? -MT > So the FAA and the military now accepts Ortho-k as a means of passing > the vision requirements? Dayem Mike, I better tell my FAA doc the above so he can have a rip roaring laugh. or two or three..... He'd probably revoke my medical for insanity if I suggested this LOL Allen > > It was developed for pilots who had to get their Snellen to > > go from 20/50 to 20/20. For THAT purpose it is worth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -MT The military doesnt accept orthoK and frowns even on glasses. PRK is extremely popular for this reason and also because glasses are a liability in combat, if you lose or break them you must retreat carefully! OrthoK can be used for commerical pilots, firemen, cops, athlates and anyone for the matter that wishes for less myopia and less dependence on glasses. Dear Otis, I am aware of your motives for preventing myopia. Its a choice between the child and parent. I was never informed of that choice, majority opinion optometrists tell me it wouldnt have mattered. The evidence I read says minus is partially responsable for stair-case myopia. Had I never touched the minus, I probably would have been around a -2, maybe -3 at worst instead of the -4.5 and -5 I am now! I know genes play a factor, but so does environment. Thanks for the luck in me clearing my vision. I am too myopic to pass the 20/40 DMV but maybe I can clear 20/200 which would be a personal achievement. May I ask why you are negative about orthoK? You dont think orthoK would be right for you either? Wondering why. Best regards, your friend Aceman acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote in > OrthoK can be used for commerical pilots, firemen, cops, > athlates and anyone for the matter that wishes for less myopia and > less dependence on glasses. PLEASE prove this!!!! FAA cites PLEASE Allen > acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Allen "I passed my Pilots FAA exam at 20/20 after testing at 20/200 only a few weeks ago." R.C.. The fourth patient was a 20-year-old male who is in the military. He wanted to enter flight school, but could not because he had 20/200 vision in both eyes. He wanted to become a flight candidate and he was interested in improving his unaided acuity so he could pass the vision test requirements. Within one month of treatment with orthokeratology lenses, he achieved 20/20 vision and he passed the flight school vision test. He now has unrestricted FAA clearance for flight vision testing. Most of the change in his vision occurred within two days of lens wear In January 2004, the FAA removed its restriction on Orthokeratology contact lenses and flying. If a pilot undergoing Ortho-K presents for a FAA medical So you are wrong, OrthoK is allowed by the FAA! acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote in news:1154888669.634752.206710 @i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > In January 2004, the FAA removed its restriction on Orthokeratology > contact lenses and flying. If a pilot undergoing Ortho-K presents for a > FAA medical > > So you are wrong, OrthoK is allowed by the FAA! Until you provide proof, it's only your word only. Please provide a FAA reference. Thank you! Allen > acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote in news:1154888669.634752.206710 > @i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Allen Just google it, youll see that orthoK is allowed > Just google it, youll see that orthoK is allowed I googled it, and it proved my point. IT DOES NOT removed the vision requirement restriction. For your convienance go to http://www.aviationmedicine.com/articles/index.cfm? fuseaction=displayArticle&articleID=60&navID=67&contentID=67 Ya might want to research what you talk about before posting, What little credibility you have just keeps going further south. Allen > > Just google it, youll see that orthoK is allowed > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Allen I see many websites that say its allowed. Even if not, just wear your glasses then. Because I have no special restrictions, I can get orthoK and so can 99% of people. Dear AceMan, You are correct. The "requirements" posted by the various military organizations undergo review. What was true 30 years ago has changed -- no doubt. I think you posted a statement that the Naval Academy ALLOWED PRK for students. I think you have the report. And PRK or Lasik are far more "serious" than Ortho-K. I would not "bother" with Liberman. He gets it all wrong. Otis > > > Just google it, youll see that orthoK is allowed > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > glasses then. Because I have no special restrictions, I can get orthoK > and so can 99% of people. > Dear AceMan, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Otis I should have orthoK available to me within about a week! Will keep you all updated! Question: how long does it take scl(soft contact lens) orthoK to start molding my cornea? One night's wear for results? > Question: how long does it take scl(soft contact lens) orthoK to start > molding my cornea? One night's wear for results? You actually asking a question? I thought you had ALL the answers! No one here takes you seriously, so why do you bother to ask? Geez. Soft lens OK hey Larry. I've been doing OK for 14 years and never heard of it. He thinks some aberrations noted in journals are a new treatment. What a dickhead. dr grant > Soft lens OK hey Larry. I've been doing OK for 14 years and never heard > of it. Actually, a group of ODs has already filed a patent on this application. I know, I know. I had to shake my head, too, when I read it. I'm sure you know who they are. One of them is a fellow Auzzie, a large, bearded fellow. DrG >> Soft lens OK hey Larry. I've been doing OK for 14 years and never heard >> of it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it. I'm sure you know who they are. One of them is a fellow Auzzie, a >large, bearded fellow. I will have to ask a guy I know down in Australia (<http://tinyurl.com/fq32f>) if he has heard anything about this. :^O > I will have to ask a guy I know down in Australia > (<http://tinyurl.com/fq32f>) if he has heard anything about this. > > :^O LOL! Yes, I'm sure he could point you in the right direction. DrG Anon E. Muss schreef: >>> Soft lens OK hey Larry. I've been doing OK for 14 years and never heard >>> of it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I will have to ask a guy I know down in Australia > (<http://tinyurl.com/fq32f>) if he has heard anything about this. This picture must be taken during his extended wear on RGP materials investigations some 20 years ago, do you have by any chance a more recent one of this very amiable professor? Jan (normally Dutch spoken) [snip] >> I will have to ask a guy I know down in Australia >> (<http://tinyurl.com/fq32f>) if he has heard anything about this. > >This picture must be taken during his extended wear on RGP materials >investigations some 20 years ago, do you have by any chance a more >recent one of this very amiable professor? <http://tinyurl.com/owch8> You get to seperate the wheat from the chaff. The first one was, obviously, taken in 2005. > Soft lens OK hey Larry. I've been doing OK for 14 years and never heard > of it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > dr grant I am laughting at the fact you just_got_owned! I am gonna save this, too funny! Doctor G here has verified that a patent has already been made for scl orthoK! For people with a low prescription, scl orthoK is far cheaper and works fine. Regular contact lenses in fact can have an orthoK effect, intentional or not. > I am laughting at the fact you just_got_owned! I am gonna save this, > too funny! Doctor G here has verified that a patent has already been > made for scl orthoK! For people with a low prescription, scl orthoK is > far cheaper and works fine. Regular contact lenses in fact can have an > orthoK effect, intentional or not. Filing a patent means no such thing. DrG >> Soft lens OK hey Larry. I've been doing OK for 14 years >> and never heard of it. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > works fine. Regular contact lenses in fact can have an > orthoK effect, intentional or not. Let me guess... You're talking about that thing you heard about people inverting their soft contacts and getting an OrthoK effect? -Quick > The military doesnt accept orthoK and frowns even on glasses. Surely you don't mean Otis was wrong? -MT > It was developed for pilots who had to get their Snellen to > go from 20/50 to 20/20. For THAT purpose it is worth > the $1,600 -- perhaps. Please prove this Otis. When are you going to learn not to talk about something you have no knowledge about? I bet you won't provide proof of what you said above, because it's non existant. Allen |
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.