 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2007Vision Clearing with Ortho-K and a Plus Lens.
Dear Second-opinion friends, Yves (name changed) contacted me about the plus. He was about -2 diopters and 20/140. After several months of using the plus he saw no progress and he suggested Ortho-K. So he did Ortho-K and is planning to combine BOTH Ortho-K AND the use of a +3 diopter lens for all computer and reading work. As always, keep an open mind about scientific prevention of a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye. (Ref: the Wildsoet blue-tint dynamic eye concept.) Here is his commentary for your interest. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Yves, Subject: Question About Ortho-K and Plus Prevention I think your reports are great. The effect of strong Ortho-K is to make your refractive STATE POSITIVE. Or, you could read the Snellen through a plus 1 diopter lens. I personally think is will take some time to "anchor" your 20/20 vision with heavy use of the plus 3 diopter lens. So 20/20 is indeed wonderful. But be patient. I think it is going to take about 3 months before you "hold" 20/20 with no Ortho-K. (As an engineer and pilot I am always "cautious" -- as you understand.) But you are the "leader" so just do what you think is necessary, and report to your fellow pilots on your efforts. We are all (including me) learning from YOU. More commentary: ==================== Yves wrote: Yves> Today when driving back home from work it was unbelievable. I have never been able to see so good at night before, everything was as sharp as during the day if not sharper. I came home and looked at my snellen and i could see the 20/15 line with both eyes. In the morning it was 20/20. All day at work I wore the +3 lens in front of the computer... Otis> You are doing it RIGHT!! Yves> The interesting thing i noticed with the plus 3 is that if i look at the screen and then take off the glasses and try to focus my eyes on the monitor, i really feel how hard my eyes are trying to see the screen in front of me. This really must stress the eye muscles a lot. Otis> I agree with you. We should be TAUGHT to use the plus as soon as our refractive STATE moves from a positive value (20/20) to slightly minus. This is my major objection to Dr. Catman Grants incredible arrogance and associated ignorance. But that is the majority-opinion for you. Yves> I think i realize now why my vision has gotten so bad with prolonged computer use. I can't believe OD's prescribe minus glasses and let people wear them in front of the computer... that's just plain horrible. Otis> I always appreciate HONESTY. I TRUSTED a man like Catman Grant. I AM RESPONSIBLE for my bad habits -- but he as a PROFESSIONAL responsibility to DESCRIBE the preventive second-opinion. And then send us to "myopiafree" to do our own research on the issues. I WOULD GLADLY PAY HIM FOR HIS PROFESSIONAL TIME!!! Yves> My plan is to wear the ortho-k for about one or two more weeks now, then i'll try to skip a day and see if I can keep my eyes sharp. Otis> Excellent idea. But be prepared for a "slip-back" towards 20/50. This will take about three months. So "steel" yourself to that expectation. Yves> Will keep you posted. > P.S. If you are tired of your glasses and contacts, give Ortho-k a try, the feeling of not needing anything during the day and just seeing through your eyes is amazing, I can't believe how much i have been missing. The routine is simple: brush your teeth, put ortho-k lenses in, sleep, wake up, get lenses out, brush teeth, go... Yves Dear Second-opinion friends, Some more commentary on using Ortho-K to clear to 20/20, followed by strong use of a +3 diopter to retain distant vision. Otis ============== Dear Yves, The reason I make my "pitch" to would-be pilots is because I know how difficult plus-prevention is. To a certain extent you must believe it is possible to do it -- before you do it successfully -- if that makes sense. That is why my site has the "Eskimo" data on it, as well as the "primate" data. By itself "facts" are not convincing, but they do "point the way". We both know that plus-prevention is an INTRUSION in your life -- intended exclusively for your own personal benefit. By that I mean that "I" do not tell you what to do, but rather you explore the concept and then YOU determine what YOU wish to do for your visual future. I am VERY interested in your progress by working interactively with Ortho-K and the plus, since I am not aware of anyone who has done it they way you plan to do it. You got it right! Use Ortho-K for a week or so, and then stop and rely on the +3 diopter for all close work that is convenient. I expect that your corneas will spring back, and your Snellen will start down towards 20/50. When that happens, just re-start the Ortho-K again. I think that at each iteration the amount that your Snellen "comes down" will be less and less, until you will retain 20/40 or better as required. As Stirling Colgate said, with periods of LONG close work, his Snellen would come "down" so he just re-started with the plus and cleared it when necessary. More commentary: +++++++++++++++= Yves wrote: Yves> For the record, i'm not a pilot, lol :) Not sure how that myth started Maybe someday i'll try... Otis> I started the myth ... sorry! Most people will not "do Ortho-K" unless they have pilot-motivation. Yves> But i do finally believe now that Plus prevention works. Otis> Good, but only you will know this when you can retain 20/20 with no further use of Orth-K. I would suspect it will take from 3 to 5 months. But I can not predict it. Yves> I'm starting to notice that by the end of the day after I use the +3 for 8 hours at work, my vision actually improves since I was just able to see half of the 20/10 line at night more than 12 hours after taking the ortho-k off. Otis> That is INCREDIBLE. The goal is official 20/20, and most of the DMVs only require 20/50 to 20/40. Yves> I think i'm starting to realize why plus prevention takes much longer for people with higher Diopter, the main reason is the dependence on minus at some point during the day, which probably kills the whole plus prevention effort. Otis> That is correct. A strong minus is impressive, and often over-prescribed (i.e., strong enough to create 20/15 vision). That is impressive and "sells". Tragically the majority-opinion ODs refuse to believe that their is a "secondary" effect, in that: 1. The original issue (eye adapts to near) is NEVER addressed, and, 2. The total belief that a minus has no effect on the natural eye's refractive state. Otis> They believe this AGAINST a massive body of scientific evidence that says the exact opposite. Oh, well... Yves> With ortho-k however there is no minus grudge to mess up your vision, so you can understand and see the results much clearer. Otis> I am pleased you took that step with Ortho-K. That could be a "selling point" for Ortho-K, and I would support it. Getting to 20/20 very quickly is impressive to BOTH of us. The only issue is to retain it, and slowly reduce and end the use of Ortho-K. Or at least that is the "hope" for now. Yves> That's my opinion... This weekend i'll try to skip a day and see what happens. Will keep you posted. Otis> All posting here are VERY INTERSTED. Keep up the good work and commentary -- about any subject you wish. Yves> Thanks Otis for everything you are trying to do to let the people understand the second opinion. Otis> Excellent! There is many a pilot who could learn from you! Otis> Life is a journey. So let us travel this road together. ********** On Jan 24, 4:20 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Second-opinion friends, > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > Yves Thanks very much for your ongoing participation via single-person dialogues and unsubstantiated and unverifiable third-hand anecdotes. Dear Neil D. Brooks, The truth is that ONLY Yves will know the ture resuls of his efforts with BOTH Ortho-K AND a plus 3 diopter lens. Ortho-K has been used for the last 30 years for pilots because it has that impressive result described by Yeves. But the "spring-back" of the cornea means that if he quits with Ortho-K, his distant vision will return to 20/140 and -2 diopters. So the real issue FOR HIM is his ability to transistion from the "spring-back" mode to the concept expressed by C. Wildsoet as the blue-tint dynamic behavior of the natural eye. The amount of time it takes for this long-term change in refactive STATE is about 4 to 6 months. The majority-opinion OD say that this type of vision clearing is IMPOSSIBLE. Perhaps. But the ONLY person who can jude the result will be Yves. And we will not know that until he "sticks" with this effort for the next 4 to 6 months. Not an effort for the faint of heart. But if he is successful, only HE will care. Because no one else does. Otis > Thanks very much for your ongoing participation via single-person > dialogues and unsubstantiated and unverifiable third-hand anecdotes. And also, Neil D. Brooks, the concept is based on the dynamic-eye animation provided byt Dr. C. Wildsoet as shown below. http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html If that concept is correct, then Yves will be able to trade a change in corenal radius, for a change in refractive power (or length) induced by systematic use of a plus for all close work. But again, only Yves will be the judge of this scientific model and natural eye's behavior. Otis On Jan 25, 11:15 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Neil D. Brooks, > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Thanks very much for your ongoing participation via single-person > > dialogues and unsubstantiated and unverifiable third-hand anecdotes.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Dear Neil Dense Brooks, Since you do not seem to understand the concept of the dynamic eye, let me reduce it to this analogy. Let us say that you spend $1,600 for major dental work. Let us further sat that the Dentist suggets brushing your teeth on a regular basis so you do not incur a bill for $1,600 on a regular basis. Now you go home AND REFUSE TO BRUST YOU TEETH. It that smart? For all practical purposes what Yves is doing is protecting his $1,600 investment so that he can PERSONALLY VERIFY that he keeps his refractive state POSITIVE, and his Snellen at 20/20. And consistent use of a +3 diopter simply protects his $1,600 investment. Yves is considerably smarter than you Neil on this issue. And ONLY Yves "wins". Otis On Jan 25, 11:21 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > And also, Neil D. Brooks, the concept > is based on the dynamic-eye animation [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > > Thanks very much for your ongoing participation via single-person > > > dialogues and unsubstantiated and unverifiable third-hand anecdotes.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Dear Ortho-K PREVENTION friends, Second-opinion science is about alternative methods to clear your vision to 20/20 -- and keep it there. Ortho-K has the capability to clear vision from about -2 to -3 diopters to zero diopters in a few nights. The real difficulty is that the cornea "springs back" when the "retainer" lens is removed for several nights. Yves has used Ortho-K to clear his vision from 20/140 (about -2 diopters) to 20/20 (Refractive state zero or positive) with Ortho-K. (The total power of the eye is changed from approximately 60 diopters to 58 diopters -- relatively speaking.) We also know that when you place a minus 3 diopter lens on the eye, its refractive STATE will "follow" that minus lens as a natural process. For an animation of this see Wildsoet blue-tint eye changing its refractive STATE from the applied minus. The converse is also shown in this conceptual model of the natural eye's behavior. The issue is to get the initial change with Ortho-K, to allow time for the +3 to have the same effect it does on the blue-tint model. >From the best information we have, this will probably take from 5 to 8 months. This is of course difficult. Here is a status report: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Yves, Subject: Question About Ortho-K and Plus Prevention I am VERY PLEASED that you keep yourself in that plus 3 diopter lens. I think it is very important to understand that "blue-tint" concept of Wildsoet. It is also important to understand that in school our eyes go DOWN at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year. You were at -2 diopters, and it took at least 2 year to get "down" that far. To get the eye's to go "up" will take a serious amount of time. So hang in there my friend. If you are successful (after six to nine months), then the success will be yours EXCLUSIVELY. You will have an impossible job convincing anyone of your success -- including your OD! Some more commentary: ======================== Yves wrote: Yves> Update: > I skipped a night today. (Wearing the "retainer" to sleep in). Woke up in the morning and ... still 20/20. We'll see how it goes towards the end of the day. I have been using the plus +3 at work all the time and my vision has remained sharp all day long. Otis> I suspect that even with aggressive use of the +3 dioper lens, your Snellen will start "down" in about 3 to 5 days. The issue is to see how long it takes until your Snellen comes down to 20/40 to 20/50. I would be VERY interested in how long that takes! So skip another night or so. Yves> It is funny since my doctor was saying that after about 3-6 months some of his patients can skip a night. Otis> It is obvious that he does not insist that they wear a +3 diopter lens for ALL close work. You are truly unique in this effort. Yves> I wonder what he'll say when I tell him that it took me a week. Otis> As your friend I say -- SLOW DOWN. I know this is exciting but remember what I said the eye going down at -1/2 dioper per year. Try to avoid challenging your OD in any way! Otis> The final success is when you go with no Ortho-K for a MONTH minimum and you stay at 20/20. Otis> This success will be EXCLUSIVELY YOUR JUDGMENT, AND OF COURSE READING 20/20. Yves> So good news so far. I'll keep you posted. Otis> I think it is wonderful. And the 20/20 is great! But that blue-tint model (Wildsoet) shows a response on the order of MONTHS. Otis> Try "no night" retainer contact for a week. And let me know when your Snellen goes down to 20/40 or less. Otis> Keep up the excellent work. This could be a profound break-through for you. Best, Otis On Jan 26, 8:48 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Neil Dense Brooks, > [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > > > Thanks very much for your ongoing participation via single-person > > > > dialogues and unsubstantiated and unverifiable third-hand anecdotes.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - "otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in > Otis> I suspect that even with aggressive use of the +3 dioper > lens, your Snellen will start "down" in about 3 to 5 days. > The issue is to see how long it takes until your Snellen > comes down to 20/40 to 20/50. I would be VERY interested in > how long that takes! So skip another night or so. Gee, looks to me the last sentence recommending something without the proper medical training is solid proof that Otis is practicing medicine WITHOUT a qualified licence. Whatchyall think????????? Allen > We also know that when you place a minus 3 diopter lens > on the eye, its refractive STATE will "follow" that minus > lens as a natural process. False and misleading. The majority of -3 myopes are NOT getting worse, despite wearing glasses full-time. > For an animation of this see Wildsoet blue-tint eye > changing its refractive STATE from the applied minus. False and misleading. Wildsoet describes infants. Your patients are not infants. >>From the best information we have, this > will probably take from 5 to 8 months. False and misleading. It doesn't happen. > It is also important to understand that in school our eyes go > DOWN at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year. False and misleading. The majority do not. > You will have an impossible job convincing anyone of your > success -- including your OD! False and misleading. If it works, it can be measured. If it can't be measured, it's imaginary. As if you care. -MT Not only that, but the majority of -3.00 myopes who happen to be between the ages of about 36 to 50 years, will DECREASE in minus in the succeding years if you put a -3.00 lens on them. The ones over 50 will mostly be pretty stable until they start developing cataracts. The rest may increase and may not, regardless of whether you put the minus on them. But then OB likes to generalize his own special personal experience to the entire world, a sign of megalomania, insecurity, or just plain ignorant fallacy, I'm not sure which one applies. Maybe all. The above conclusions are derived from my own personal experience with following more than 25,000 patients over a period of more than 40 years. Not sure what his n value is, but I'm guessing it's a bit fewer. w.stacy, o.d. >>We also know that when you place a minus 3 diopter lens >>on the eye, its refractive STATE will "follow" that minus >>lens as a natural process. > > False and misleading. The majority of -3 myopes are NOT getting worse, > despite wearing glasses full-time. OMFG!!!!! You are a total moron. You know nothing about nothing and yet make conversations with yourself to make your stories seem real. There is no end of crap you have espoused here. Because you are the total w.nker you are, I will not even bother to explain why your made-up story is such total and utter bullshit. However needless to say: STOP THE CRAP AS THE SPATTER STINKS. Dr Grant thats great!. now you suggest orthoK, which physically pushes on the cornea and manipulates it's curvature for a brief time but goes away when you stop using it. and you also continue to recommend +3.00 readers despite the fact that they have been repeatedly shown to be totally ineffective. why don't you add a recommendation for using a special vitamin mixture that only you sell, along with meditation tapes and bible-reading? you're almost ready for advertising on Paul Harvey's radio show. by the way, whatever happened to the State of Pennsylvania's investigation of you for practicing medicine without a license? obviously it hasn't curtailed you moronic posts on this newsgroup. otis you are a zealot and an idiot. you must think people here really care about your phony ideas. do you like trying to mislead people? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On Jan 24, 4:20 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Second-opinion friends, > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > Yves > thats great!. now you suggest orthoK, which physically pushes on the > cornea and manipulates it's curvature for a brief time but goes away > when you stop using it. and you also continue to recommend +3.00 > readers despite the fact that they have been repeatedly shown to be > totally ineffective. For most myopes. My wife is +1.0 for distance and an add of +2.0. +3.0 for readers would be just right. But she wears progressives. > > He was about -2 diopters and 20/140. After several months On Jan 24, 4:20 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > As always, keep an open mind about scientific prevention > of a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye. > (Ref: the Wildsoet blue-tint dynamic eye concept.) Until Dr Wildsoet posts to this group stating that she believes existing myopia in non neo natal humans can be prevented and reversed by using plus lenses to read, please refrain from using her website as a "reference". Dr Judy
|
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.