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. |