Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Re: correcting spherical without cylinder

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.



You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.

Login | Free MedKB.com registration | Whole discussion thread

The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.

Re: correcting spherical without cylinder

Mike Tyner22 Dec 2006 09:02
> I am interested in bare eye sharp vision, so are my patients.  Of more
> than a thousand patients I have seen so far, not even one failure.

That's all I need to know.

-MT

dr.seagal@yahoo.com22 Dec 2006 08:00
Dear William Stacy,

> The other "Dr." is just wrong.  1.25 cyls just don't disappear, and the idea of ignoring it
> is a  bad one, if you're interested in sharp vision.

You are right about this as far as "conventional optometry" is
concerned.  However, when it comes to Real Optometry, True Optometry,
or REAL EYECARE, astigmatism (and nearsightedness) can be reduced or
completely eliminated if it is not too severe.

"Conventional optometry" deals with sharp vision (quick fix) wearing
glasses, which has side effects or bad consequences.  REAL EYECARE
helps people attain sharp vision bare eye (slightly slower fix).

I am interested in bare eye sharp vision, so are my patients.  Of more
than a thousand patients I have seen so far, not even one failure.

> The other "Dr." is just wrong.

If you say I am wrong, I guess that means my patients came from Mars,
since things like these don't happen in "conventional optometry" in
this world.

Sincerely,
Dr. Seagal

> You've gotten 2 bizarre answers, probably more to come.  Assuming the Rx
> is indeed a CLRx (not a spectacle Rx that is "OK for contacts" type),
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> w.stacy, o.d.

William Stacy21 Dec 2006 22:21
You've gotten 2 bizarre answers, probably more to come.  Assuming the Rx
is indeed a CLRx (not a spectacle Rx that is "OK for contacts" type),
you can get the -11 (no more, and I'm amazed to see who suggested that
little tidbit), and then have the resudual measured while you are
wearing the contacts for the over-wear glasses.  The other "Dr." is just
wrong.  1.25 cyls just don't disappear, and the idea of ignoring it is a
bad one, if you're interested in sharp vision.

w.stacy, o.d.

>I'm probably using the wrong terms, but hopefully you'll get my point.
>If I have a contacts prescription of -11 sph, -1.25 cyl. What would
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>  

Bucky21 Dec 2006 21:29
I'm probably using the wrong terms, but hopefully you'll get my point.
If I have a contacts prescription of -11 sph, -1.25 cyl. What would
happen if I wore spherical contacts -11 and left the astigmatism
uncorrected? What would my "equivalent" vision be like?

The reason I'm asking is because they do not make disposable contacts
with my prescription, only custom-made torics. But they do have
spherical disposables at the same power. I'm just wondering if I could
see decently (everything except reading and driving) without correcting
astigmatism.

Quick links:

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage




©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.