 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2007Instant Vision Improvement
I finally decided to check my vision using the Snellen chart recommended by Otis. My vision was instantly improved dramatically! I set the distance to 10 feet from the computer screen. The chart generate the letters size adjusted to the specified distance. First I checked my vision wearing my new computer glasses (PAL) with both eyes. Result: 20/20. Then I checked my left good eye. Result: 20/20. Next I checked my right bad eye. Result: 20/25, though the letters were not sharp and clear, but I could read them. I repeated the same with random different letters and could always tell what they were but could never see them clearly. Then I took my glasses off. Results: 2 eyes combined -- blurry 20/60 Left eye -- blurry 20/60 Right eye -- blurry 20/60. Miracle! Miracle! Instant improvement! I should do what Otis recommends ("objective" self testing) and continue to "clear my Snellen"! Never trust optometrists and ophthalmologists again, they just want to over prescribe, give me staircase myopia and sell me their wretched products. Actually, I should be ready for the "plus prevention" now, never mind my age. Or maybe I have just begun doing something "right", following Andrew's method? Obviously my attitude is very posative and right. Do you think that adding palming, sunning, stress reduction (will yoga help?) and total removal of eye strain is the way to go? I am on my way to redemption! I can envision the shortening of my elongated myopic eyeballs, the spontaneous disappearance of my macular pucker and the rebuilding of the cones that I lost due to my macular hole and retinal detachment. i-see! i-see! No i-blindness for me! I think I have a bottle of champagne somewhere in the house. It's time to celebrate. Where are my glasses? I need to find this bloody bottle! > I finally decided to check my vision using the Snellen chart > recommended by Otis. My vision was instantly improved dramatically! [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > time to celebrate. Where are my glasses? I need to find this bloody > bottle! Additional comments: I did a 10 feet test because I don't have 20 feet in my computer room. The chart that I used is: http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html I used my new PAL computer glasses because my distance new glasses are not yet ready. I anticipate even better results with them. The IVAC chart is not designed to check vision better than 20/20. When I wanted to excel beyond the 20/20 I got the following message: "At 20/15, the images are too small to read on this monitor, you can: 1. Make the letters larger or 2. Stand farther away from the screen (increase distance)" Of course, I still have the presbyopia issue, but I am not worried about it. Being myopic I could always read without glasses, at least with my good eye. As to the bad eye... well... I hope that improving my attitude will resolve this issue as well. i-see! i-see! Dear Brainy, Subject: Always good to check your Snellen. I am pleased you did so. But I certainly never suggest "instant" clearing. Also, the rest is your honest opinion. Good luck, Otis > > I finally decided to check my vision using the Snellen chart > > recommended by Otis. My vision was instantly improved dramatically! [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Aug 19, 9:03 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Brainy, > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - FYI... She was probably making fun of you, Otis. Everybody does. Also, "top-posting" is considered horrible Netiquette, but -- in the grand scheme of your myriad offenses -- it's really rather trivial. > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thanks Neil. I was afraid that nobody understands my weird sense of humor. Didn't Quasimodo warned you about my sarcastic tendencies? BTW, all the facts I listed are true. However, I have doubts about the accuracy of this IVAC chart. I don't believe it's designed to the conventional standard. I do know that my vision is NOT 20/20. Nonetheless, the PAL glasses are wonderful -- although designed for intermediate distance and progressing to computer and reading, I can safely drive with them, and I do! > Subject: Always good to check your Snellen. > I am pleased you did so. > But I certainly never suggest "instant" clearing. I had an interesting encounter with "the Snellen" today. A lady refracted at +1.25 but she could see "the Snellen" almost as well through her old +3.25 glasses. She's getting more nearsighted but she's been wearing too much plus. She definitely sees "the Snellen" better now without her glasses. She could see with +325 almost as well as she could see with no glasses at all. Why is that? -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Your report. That is all well and good -- except that it is anecdotal, and I have no means of checking anything you stated. Second-opinion best, Otis > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -MT Otis wrote: > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Otis And there you have it, folks. Just when you think that our friendly neighborhood f.cking idiot, Otis Brown couldn't be ANY MORE f.cking idiotic, he writes something like this. It just about HAS to be mental illness, no? I mean ... who, in the entire world, would have the STONES to be THIS HYPOCRITICAL and still sign their name to it? Otis, you are the ranking KING of unverifiable, third-hand anecdotes (and lies), yet you put them forward as though they are some sort of scientifically valid gospel. What IS wrong with you, man? Seriously. SEEK HELP. [we can fully expect that Otis will shortly DELETE that last post, but ... it lives on, in infamy, ALL OVER the Internet]. > That is all well and good -- except that it is > anecdotal, and I have no means of checking > anything you stated. I didn't ask whether it happened or not. The question was about the Snellen. You claim to know a lot about the Snellen. I asked how somebody could score almost the same on the Snellen with a) no glasses, b) +125 glasses and c) +325 glasses. You said it's aways good to be checking the Snellen. What are we checking? -MT >I asked how somebody could score almost the same on the Snellen with a) no >glasses, b) +125 glasses and c) +325 glasses. > >You said it's aways good to be checking the Snellen. What are we checking? > >-MT We are checking visual acuity which is different from refraction. L > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anecdotal, and I have no means of checking > anything you stated. Anecdotal information is as good as gold. better than statistically- analyzed treatment groups as compared to untreated control groups-- right? and anything will work if you only try hard enough. if a treatment fails, then its because the subject did not really try hard enough. Kind of like the development in Joy versus Keith. Joy is weak-minded while Keith, your favorite, is rock-hard and as stubborn as his uncle. Damn the data. Damn the proof. Just try try try and believe the claims of success from others. Thats the key to myopia prevention. >Anecdotal information is as good as gold. better than statistically- >analyzed treatment groups as compared to untreated control groups-- >right? Anecdotal informatin is certainly as good as gold. Objective controlled tests completely ignore the eyemind, while the subjective anecdotal report holds hints for where the real problem lies; in the mind that is. >Just try try try and believe the claims >Thats the key to myopia prevention. Quite the contrary, my friend- The key is to NOT TRY at all. > >Anecdotal information is as good as gold. better than statistically- > >analyzed treatment groups as compared to untreated control groups-- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anecdotal report holds hints for where the real problem lies; in the > mind that is. perhaps practicing reading the Snellen chart sharpens the "eyemind". Or could it facilitate memorizing the chart. > >Just try try try and believe the claims > >Thats the key to myopia prevention. > > Quite the contrary, my friend- The key is to NOT TRY at all. but your good friend and hero Otis says trying hard is everything. Now if I were to say that having years of experience in measuring people's refractive error, and being trained in the basic sciences underlying the mechanisms of vision, and seeing literally THOUSANDS of patients every year, would make me a better judge of what the eye is capable of and what is best when treating a patient's vision-- especially as compared to a 15 year old -- would you argue against that? >but your good friend and hero Otis says trying hard is everything. Well my good friend Otis is an idiot then. Trying hard is the most stupid thing you can possibly do. >would make me a better judge of what the eye is >capable of and what is best You don't know a thing about what the eye is capable of. You have to rely on silly crutches to 'correct' your patients. What a stupid idea. Why don't you try and learn to cure your patients instead. Obviously, you're too dumb for that. >would you argue against that? Obviously I would, or why would I be here arguing AGAINST the ODs. Wow you're stupid. So what if you've seen THOUSANDS of patients every year. So what if you know about the mechanisms of vision. Like I care. How many of those people have you CURED? I'm not talking about spasm of accomodation cure (which doctors can't do intelligently anyway -- they have to use crap drugs like cyclopegia everyday which is just stupid) I'm talking about real true myopia and true cures. Let me think; zero! > >but your good friend and hero Otis says trying hard is everything. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > have to use crap drugs like cyclopegia everyday which is just stupid) > I'm talking about real true myopia and true cures. Let me think; zero! ============ don't get so emotional young child. you show your stupidity and reveal your egotism. so you think you understand vision and refractive care better than eye doctors? you will have little chance of ever learning anything in your lifetime much less become an ophthalmologist. flame away kiddo, no matter whatever of your aliases you use. On Aug 21, 1:31 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > >but your good friend and hero Otis says trying hard is everything. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > your lifetime much less become an ophthalmologist. flame away kiddo, > no matter whatever of your aliases you use. This is the finest retort our Great P.Clar can come up with...? > On Aug 21, 1:31 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > This is the finest retort our Great P.Clar can come up with...? Do you believe the newsgroup is for verbal sorties against others? Is this what motivates you? I agree. You are just a kid and belong somewhere else that doesn't involve science, medicine, or vision. Do you believe I could care any less about what you believe? Please, take your idiot-ness to sci.idiot.stupidity. > especially as compared to a 15 year old -- would you argue against > that? You must not have much experience with teens. They know *everything*, and adults, especially ones in positions of authority, like doctors and their teachers, know *nothing*. Oh, it's that stupid stereotyped generalization of teenagers, where we are seen as the naive persons who believe they know everything. Certainly not! We, unlike stupid doctors, do not prance around in white robes with the self conceited belief we know everything, and are the 'Angels of Medicine'. In fact, we investigate the facts and are able to show far more intelligence than the stupid old people, who cling to their stupid old theories in a state of foolish inertia. We ask question; is vision really incurable? Is looking at the sun really injurious to sight? What really causes imperfect sight? We are not so gullible like the demonstrated idiots of your kind. Common sense, old man! Use it! >You must not have much experience with teens. They know *everything*, >and adults, especially ones in positions of authority, like doctors and >their teachers, know *nothing*. Be silent. Please, do not pass onto others your contagious stereotypical stupidity. It is truly an enormous level of idiotness you have revealed. > Please, do not pass onto others your contagious stereotypical > stupidity. > > It is truly an enormous level of idiotness you have revealed. Indeed. Stultus est sicut stultus dicit. >> Subject: Always good to check your Snellen. >> I am pleased you did so. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Why is that? No enough input info. and I do not have enough knoledge. Some of physiological explanations may be: 1. if she were presbiopic, refracting +1.25 and glasses really for reading she probably see Snellen worse in glasses + 3.25. (does not work in this case) 2. she refracted without cycloplegia, and her accommodation were “on” during the measurements, which as I understand unusual, Provided that she has enough “accommodation amplitude”, looking on "the Snellen" she can accommodate without glasses. Probably all these explanation are irrelevant here, I think. Is it her first visit to you ? Anyway Why is that ? Lena > I had an interesting encounter with "the Snellen" today. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT Dear Mike, > I had an interesting encounter with "the Snellen" today. > > A lady refracted at +1.25 but she could see "the Snellen" almost as well > through her old +3.25 glasses. Why was she refracted at +1.25 if she could see almost as well through her old +3.25 glasses? > She definitely sees "the Snellen" better now without her glasses. She could see > with +325 almost as well as she could see with no glasses at all. Why was she refracted at +1.25 if she could see with +325 almost as well as she could see with no glasses at all? Thanks in advance for your response. MCP > Why was she refracted at +1.25 if she could see almost as well through > her old +3.25 glasses? Because she said +125 was better than +325. Better than +225. Better than +200. We repeated that part of the refraction a few times. And because she came in saying her far vision had gotten blurry with glasses. It's just remarkable that she could make out 20/25 on "the Snellen" with no glasses, +125 glasses, and +325 glasses. It just shows why "the Snellen" isn't reliable as a test of refraction. -MT > It's just remarkable that she could make out 20/25 on "the Snellen" with no > glasses, +125 glasses, and +325 glasses. > > It just shows why "the Snellen" isn't reliable as a test of refraction. > > -MT Dear Mike, If "the Snellen" isn't reliable as a test of refraction, what is? Thanks. MCP > If "the Snellen" isn't reliable as a test of refraction, what is? If you want scientific consistency, you'd use cycloplegia and calibrated autorefractors. A much cheaper alternative is retinoscopy under cycloplegia. Both of those techniques are highly repeatable, but usually neither one exactly matches your "subjective" refraction. Subjective refraction is guided by your own choices. It relies on the refractionist to bracket back-and-forth, 1-or-2, narrowing down to your own chosen endpoints, which we call "subjectively manifest refraction". That's what most glasses are made from, and what most people consider "getting the prescription right." Subjective refraction is a compromise between the physical optics determined by instruments and the subject's own "posture" - the resting forces and tensions of a couple dozen muscles that are all alive and moving if you're awake. In adults, I rarely use cycloplegics for subjective refraction. -MT Dear Mike, In general a person is not myopic (your "negative refraction") when they read 20/20 with no minus lens on. That is, at 20 feet, read 3/8 inch letters. Exactly what was her refraction? -2 diopters, -3 diotpers? Is this a case where the cycloplegic refaction is profoundly different than the so-called "subjective" refraction? Is it not also true that there can be profound difference between the "subjective" refraction, relative to the paralyized refraction. Perhaps that is the mistake you are making. Did you make this measurement with cycloplegia? Thanks, Otis > <myopiac...@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -MT > In general a person is not myopic (your "negative refraction") > when they read 20/20 with no minus lens on. It wasn't a question about myopia. It was about the Snellen. > Exactly what was her refraction? > -2 diopters, -3 diotpers? +1.25, as I said. > Is this a case where the cycloplegic refaction is > profoundly different than the so-called "subjective" refraction? It may have been, but I chose not to use cycloplegics to determine her glasses prescription. > Is it not also true that there can be profound difference > between the "subjective" refraction, relative to > the paralyized refraction. It can be. But 4 years ago her refraction was +3.25. Now it's +1.25. > Perhaps that is the mistake you are making. Perhaps I'm making a mistake. I certainly won't be surprised to see her come back with problems. > Did you make this measurement with cycloplegia? No. She was too old to have much accommodation. -MT > Dear Mike, > > In general a person is not myopic (your "negative refraction") > when they read 20/20 with no minus lens on. wow. heavy concept. but of course there is a difference between a blurry 20/20 and a sharp 20/20. and if someone can barely see 20/20 without glasses and then comes and complains of difficulties driving at night, and if then a slight minus correction is found to be the problem and is given to be worn only when needed, it can be quite satisfying to them AND quite harmless. there is no such thing as staircase myopia so using slight minus to sharpen a slightly blurred image is without risk. is this the line of argumentation you seek? but wasn't the person MT referring to a hyperope? I wonder if she might have small pupils. Many older people do and can therefore see via the pinhole effect over quite a range of powers. > Dear Brainy, > > Subject: Always good to check your Snellen. > > I am pleased you did so. yes. the more you read the chart the easier it is to interpret the next time. just check your Snellen everyday and before you know it, you're vision will be perfect. prevention is so easy. Are you stupid? Using the snellen is not some kind of silly trick where you just remember the order of letters. You will know if your vision has improved or not because everything else (as well as the snellen chart) will become clearer. How hard is that to understand! So for example, if you read the snellen chart everyday your familiarity increases and it becomes an optimum. That means each time you read it, your acuity is brought to the level of your memory. So the better your memory the better the acuity. The same method can be used with a calendar, or or signboard. It's just cooler to use the snellen chart. >but of course there is a difference between a blurry 20/20 and a sharp >20/20. and if someone can barely see 20/20 without glasses and then >comes and complains of difficulties driving at night, Yes, there is a difference obviously. But if the person is reading the chart and sees it blurry, then obviously he would say so. It's not like he's trying to 'lie' or 'win' the 'Game of Snellen'. He wants good vision, so he would be honest about what he sees to the doctor. And seeing a blurry 20/20 is not really seeing 20/20, obviously. It's more like seeing 20/40 or 20/50. And likewise, seeing a blurry 20/40 is like seeing a sharp 20/70. Etc. > I finally decided to check my vision using the Snellen chart > recommended by Otis. My vision was instantly improved dramatically! [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > time to celebrate. Where are my glasses? I need to find this bloody > bottle! It sounds like you have taken the advice on sunning a bit too seriously and have stayed out in the sun far too long.  SignatureNicolaas. ... The more we learn, the more we discover how much we still have to learn. Wisdom lies in surviving this. > > I finally decided to check my vision using the Snellen chart > > recommended by Otis. My vision was instantly improved dramatically! [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yeah, it's the sun, I'm sure. It's very intense here in southern Arizona. You do sunning most of the time, even when you don't intend it, like walking from your air conditioned car to the air conditioned optic shop. Do you think air conditioning is OK? >>> I finally decided to check my vision using the Snellen chart >>> recommended by Otis. My vision was instantly improved dramatically! [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > it, like walking from your air conditioned car to the air conditioned > optic shop. Do you think air conditioning is OK? I really wouldn't know. I live in a climate where air conditioning is infrequently installed, occasionally wished for, but never essential. SignatureNicolaas. ... Far better to regret not having done some things, than to regret some of the things you have done. Hi, We haven't got air conditioning where I live. It's too expensive and we can't afford it. But it's not hot in the UK anyway! To Neil: What means "top posting"? Is it when you reply to the beginning post? And is it bad etiquettes because you are ignoring all the other posts which came after the first one. I think? All this internet terms are confusing. To Nicolaas: I really really like the quotes in your signatures. They are so inspiring to me, every time I read one of them. How do you get it to change every time you post. Are you using a macro, or did you program a code so that it happens automatically? Please please show me how. To Ms.Brainy: The Snellen chart is used for the attainment of perfect sight because it acts as an 'optimum'. An optimum means a thing which when you look at it, it improves your vision because your mind is already familiar with it, and relaxes and fills in the details, even if your physical eye was not capable of doing so. I know, it sounds stupid, but it really really does work. Bates used it with school children in the 1900s and found that when the snellen chart was read, every day with first one eye, then the other, and then both eyes, that the vision of those with imperfect sight (myopia or astigmatism, mostly) that their vision would almost always improve when they had completed a reading (which takes only 20 seconds of your day -- so even if you are lazy like you say you are in your profile, it doesn't matter, it's not like you have to do much, just sit back and read the snellen chart.). Within a month, he effectively found that in practically all of the children who were aged under 12, and who had not ever worn glasses but had minor errors of refraction, that the error of refraction had been eliminated and they had attained normal sight; whilst those with more serious errors of refraction had largely ameliorated their condition to the point of near-normality. Thus the snellen chart is both the best prevention of myopia (much better than plus lenses, Otis) and also as a cure to errors of refraction; for children. Why is the use of this simple technique not adopted, then, in all the schools around the world? Honestly, I don't know. Inertia, ignorance, folly, I would guess! > To Nicolaas: I really really like the quotes in your signatures. They > are so inspiring to me, every time I read one of them. How do you get > it to change every time you post. Are you using a macro, or did you > program a code so that it happens automatically? Please please show me > how. A small program called TagGen used in conjunction with my news client (40tude Dialog). It picks a random tagline from a file containing about 250 taglines which I have collected over the course of time. SignatureNicolaas. ... Far better to regret not having done some things, than to regret some of the things you have done. > To Neil: What means "top posting"? Is it when you reply to the > beginning post? And is it bad etiquettes because you are ignoring all > the other posts which came after the first one. I think? All this > internet terms are confusing. It means putting your reply before or "on top" of the previous quoted message. "Bottom posting" is the opposite, like when Dr. Leukoma quotes several pages of prior message, then puts his comment at the bottom. "Embedded" means interleaving quotes with your replies. -MT To Mike: Thank you very very much for explaining. But luckily top posting doesn't happen in Google groups, which orders it according to date and time, and not who is replying to what post. That's such a confusing system, I can't believe a newsreader would use it. See, that's why I said that Google is the best one. It's easier and quick. Wow, Dr Leukoma is a boy! I always imagined him as a girl! > Wow, Dr Leukoma is a boy! I always imagined him as a girl! Have you been peeping? Naughty! SignatureNicolaas. ... Far better to regret not having done some things, than to regret some of the things you have done. It doesn't refer to the order of messages. "Top posting" means placing your reply "on top" like I have here. Google has nothing to do with it. -MT > To Mike: Thank you very very much for explaining. But luckily top > posting doesn't happen in Google groups, which orders it according to > date and time, and not who is replying to what post. That's such a > confusing system, I can't believe a newsreader would use it. See, > that's why I said that Google is the best one. It's easier and quick. Oh, now I got it! Thank you so much! |
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.