Re: correcting spherical without cylinder
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
| William Stacy | 22 Dec 2006 17:32 |
I agree. The guy is a fraud. Not a doc at all. Not even a good pretender.
w.stacy, o.d.
> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > |
| Mike Tyner | 22 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.com | 22 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 Stacy | 21 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] > > |
| Bucky | 21 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:
|
|
|