I will be busy over this Thanksgiving Holiday and as a result will not be posting about any vision improvement. I can say that for the last couple of days I’m still experiencing improved vision and am getting better about practicing my good vision habits all day rather than just in front of the chart.
Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate and I’ll be back in a week!
Subject: How “informative” was your last eye exam?
Was it like this?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xLdHcYiFEyA
Or did your optometrist discuss preventive methods,
and offer you a choice?
Did the OD ask you to review Bates methods, and read your own Snellen at home?
For instance, (before that first minus) checking sites like i-see, chinamyopia.org and many others?
Or was he to “fast” with “one better, two better”, as in the above video.
Did you get the feeling that you were being “rushed”
through the exam?
This might seem exagerated to be funny — but many a truth is said in jest.
Enjoy,
Subject: Some (maybe most) ODs LOVE to be myopic
Re: When I was at -1.5 diopter — I would want to get out of
it. (A Clarifying discussion — below) — However difficult that might be.
Re: Let the person be informed — because his choice has
life-time consequences for himself.
Re: Once all MEDICAL issues are cleared off the table (i.e.,
retina detachment, R.P., macular degeneration, and the
natural eye has ONLY a normal negative refractive STATE) –
that he can measure himself — then it is up to the person
himself to take plus-prevention seriously.
Re: If the OD thinks that -1.5 diopter (and 20/70) is wonderful), then it will be impossible for him to assist you in clearing your vision with a plus.
I am certain that majority-opinion Dr. Kon believes that Snellen
clearing is IMPOSSIBLE. But that only means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Kon to be involved with Snellen clearing, under control of the person himself.
Here is the “nub” of our argument. Exactly WHO is going to
be in control of your long-term distant vision? To clear it and keep it clear for life?
You or and optometist who thinks it is wonderful if you are -1.0 diopter myopic, and you would love to become -1.5 diopter myopic.
If this is your OD, then find another who does care about prevention.
Otis
================
Kon> As far as trying to eliminate the -1.50 D myopia, I would
first consider whether this adaptation that these healthy
eyes have tried to bring about, due to the demands of the
world we live in, is a totally unwanted one.
Otis> I judge, also, that this is the natural eye responding (as a
dynamic system) to a simple change in its average visual
environment (in diopters). The resultant negative STATE
appears as an “error” or “fault” — but in my opinion, it is
not, or is superficially a “fault”.
Otis> But I am first to admit that most people don’t value their
distant vision (at that point) to face the issue squarely,
and take the preventive issue seriously. This is an issue
that each person on i-see must face and answer. (Again, in
my opinion). I am currently wearing a + lens, to avoid
“going negative” again. I GREATLY value my 20/20, and use of
a plus to keep it is indeed “worth it” to me.
Kon> I am -1 D and am in my late forties and would now wish I
could have always been -1.50 D instead, as that would have
got me longer in life without the need of reading glasses.
Otis> I LOVE my 20/20, and wearing a “plus” to keep it, is of
great value to me. Wearing a “plus” for near is the easiest
thing I have ever done, and the result well worth it.
Kon> If my work were outdoors, I would have wished zero myopia, but not in my situation.
Otis> I wished to be a professional pilot when I was 17 years odl. I would have gladly worn a +2.5 diopter — to clear my Snellen and pass the military requirements for flight. That must be an “informed” choice for a pilot at -3/4 to -1.25 diopters.
Kon> A young -1.50 myope will always be able to read very
comfortably without glasses.
Otis> Most people with a refractive STATE of zero, can “read” up to about the age of 40 with no plus. But that is indeed a
choice — best left to an informed person, competent to make OBJECTIVE Snellen measurements.
Kon> If he became normal-sighted, he would need to wear plus lenses at near if he wished to do whatever is possible to
prevent recurrence of myopia.
Otis> If a man, with a refractive STATE of -1 diopter (and 20/50 vision) wishes to clear his Snellen (with a plus — at
virtually no cost to him), I think he could find the internal
motivation to do exactly what I am now doing.
Kon> It may be that the latter involves more hours of wearing
glasses than if he were -1.50 myopic.
Otis> As you perhaps know, once a child starts into a negative
STATE (at age 8), his vision goes DOWN at a rate of about
-3/4 diopter per year. Obviously SOMETHING must be done.
Otis> But if nothing is done to PREVENT, you are almost certain
that the child’s refractive STATE will continue down at that
rate up to high school. Thus if not “prevented” at the -1
diopter, the child, after 8 years of “nose on book” will be
at -4 diopter, and will be wearing that -5 diopter ALL THE
TIME.
Otis> Use of the plus (at the threshold) means that (by self
discipline) the child will only use a plus for near. His
sports will be with no lens. He will be qualified as a
pilot. He will avoid the much higher rate for a detached
retina for the higher levels of myopia.
Otis> But that is indeed a very difficult issue we are reviewing here. I believe that the parent should be correctly
informed (not “fear informed” that Bates is BAD for you) and you should make the choice at the threshold.
Otis> But I agree it is a personal choice, and I have no argument with you about your choice of loving to
be myopic, and wishing you were more so.
Best,
Otis
-Otis- I find it strange that some people actually want to have myopia (and I’m positive there are others beside Dr. Kon) He uses the reasoning that his myopia, and even a stronger myopia, helps counteract the effects of presbyopia. However, the preventative methods not only work for myopia, they also work for other visual conditions (such as hyperopia, astigmatism, etc.). Dr. Bates himself reversed his presbyopia.
Even eye care professionals should do their own research on preventative methods (however, it’s obvious most of them don’t).
Dear Mark,
Subject: I have check my own eyes — for “accommodation”.
Accommodation is the ability of the retina to detect (micro) blur, and change the power of the eye to restore clear focus on the retina. (This is technically a “closed loop” system.)
I determine my range of accommodation by use of a plus lens (i.e., a +1/2 dipoter just begins to blur, and the negative range is that I can read this screen at 24 inches or (40/24) or -1.6 diotpers.
My accommodation range is thefore a total of 2.1 diopters. These OD state that there is NO ACCOMMODATION with a “fixed” lens — which is what I now have. That is just false. The eye still “accommodates”, but to a lesser extent. This is another “false statement” by these majority-opinion ODs.
But I consider this an “engineering trade off”.
Because we each must make our own “informed” choice in this matter — it is necessary to know what you want in your life.
Sassy cleary wants out of it.
The “cataract” gave me no choice. I had to have it, or not drive a car.
But I can now do what I think wise.
So like Sassy, I am devoted to prevention, in the same way that Sassy is devoted to slowly working her way out of it.
Each of is “determined” to do what is right for us — as engineers.
That is what I consider the true meaning of Bates/Prentice advocacy.
Enjoy,
Otis
Visual Acuity Standards.
If you are working to “clear” your Snellen, then
it is good to know that a certain degree of
“compromise” might be necessary. Here
are the classifications for your interest — from Alex.
According to “Vision and Work” by James Sheedy (published in /
Occupational Ergonomics Handbook/, CRC Press, New York, 2006)
http://books.google.com/books?id=RZZEq79P_uEC&pg=PT450
20/10 – 20/25 ……. Normal vision
20/30 – 20/60 ……. Near normal vision
20/70 – 20/160 ….. Moderate visual impairment or low vision
20/200 – 20/400 ….. Severe visual impairment or low vision, legal
blindness (U.S.)
20/500 – 20/1000 … Profound visual impairment or low vision,
moderate blindness
less than 20/1000 … Near total visual impairment, severe blindnes,
near total blindness
See also:
http://www.aoa.org/low-vision.xml
How well do you see without glasses? Most people know that “20/20″ is
normal but beyond that, the numbers may not mean anything. Now you can
answer with a standardized, descriptive term. “I threw away my glasses
and whereas without them I used to be moderately visually impaired,
now I have near normal vision!”
–Alex
Sassy — Here an OD (Judy) states that she sees people go from -8 diopters to 20/40.
So, now Judy will “accept” your success?
Otis
============
Subject: 20/50-20/100 unaided acuity after -8 D myopic prescription
Lisa> That’s odd. I was pretty sure I remembered you reporting on this list in the
past that 20/20 from a -8 myope was something you had not seen, only from
lower myopes. Maybe it was someone else in the conventional optometry world.
=============
Question> Can you point me toward a control group of -8 myopes who achieve 20/20, even momentarily?
Judy> When I measure the acuity of uncorrected high myopes with a pinhole
mask, getting 20/20 to 20/30 is common. Momentary constriction of the
pupil would have a similar effect.
Judy
Sassy — The medical “lie”
Subject: The ophthalmic community is absolute in
its position that there is no cure for myopia
I wish these publications would be honest. This is false when you study Bates and Prentice. Of all the “objections” I have, it is false statements like this that give me the most grief.
But I will agree that the word ‘cure’ is terrible — in this context — and should be avoided.
I will not post the full article — but here is the essence of it.
Otis
=============
Childhood Myopia: No Clear Choice for Clear Vision
By Kim M. Norton
For The Record
Vol. 17 No. 10 P. 38
The International Myopia Prevention Association has questioned the
use of prescription lenses in children. Is it misguided thinking?
There is growing controversy in the ophthalmic community about the
correct course of action for treating myopia or nearsightedness when
a child presents with blurry vision, headaches, and squinting.
Although it is considered the standard of care, some say a
prescription for a minus lens may not be the best approach to
childhood myopia.
Some experts say myopia is the result of an inherited multigene that
predetermines whether a child will be myopic and the severity of the
myopia. Opponents of prescription lenses say myopia is not inherited;
rather, it is caused by outside factors resulting in the
overaccommodation of the ciliary muscles, which renders the child
myopic.
Currently, the standard of care for a pediatric myopic patient is to
prescribe a minus lens to help the child see more clearly. A minus
lens helps focus rays of light further into the myopic eye so a clear
image will be displayed on the retina. When a person is myopic, the
eyeball is slightly longer than normal, which makes distant objects
appear blurry.
Prescription eyeglasses help make distance vision clearer, but only
while the lenses are worn.
The ophthalmic community is absolute in
its position that there is no cure for myopia; however, refractive options are able to correct distance vision.
These options include prescription lenses, contact lenses, orthokeratology, and refractive surgery.
==============
Why do they “cut it off” with those “options”.
They got their head burried in the “sand” — it
seems.
Otis
Dear Sassy,
Subject: The “brain dead” optometrist
I get tired of optometrists who “defend” their
“practice” — but never our right to an
informed preventive opinion.
They truly have a “lock” on this situation.
This is why I argue for a Bates 1913 study to
be conducted among EDUCATED engineers
and scientists.
And AVOID the “Judy’s” of this world.
Here is the discussion:
=============
Dear Judy (Majority-opinion OD)
Subject: It depends on WHO is going to be in
control!!!
Re: If it is to be a wise engineer, making
his own objective measurements of his
own refractive STATE — then I believe
that a successful PREVENTIVE study
could be conducted (no thanks to you).
But that issue remains in the future.
Much as I suggested in i-see, it takes
BOTH intelligence, engineering “smarts” and
motivation to do this correctly.
This means the person can not be treated
like an “ignorant person” — but must
have the insightful motivation to do was
is essential for true prevention.
That means individual “empowerment” of these
issues — that you so totally deny.
Second-opinion (preventive) best,
Otis
============
— In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, “drjudy65″ wrote:
Otis> > > Dear Myopia-prevention person,
Biased Publication> > > Issue: The ophthalmic community is absolute in its position that there is no cure for myopia
Otis> I wish these publications would be honest. This is false when you study Bates and Prentice. Of all the “objections” I have, it is error-assumption statement like this that give me the most grief.
Otis> But I will agree that the word `cure’ is terrible – in
this context – and use of the word should be avoided.
JUdy> Unfortunately Bates and Prentice did not publish controlled
studies.
[ Another majority-opinion lie. No study is perfect, but Bates 1913 study was good -- as far as it went. But it was "killed" by bone-heads -- as Judy demonstrates she is. OSB ]
Judy> When well designed, double blind, randomized human clinical trials show that myopia can be reversed with the use of Bates exercises or plus lenses, the ophthalmic community will embrace those therapies.
> Judy
===============
Let me be frank. That is like asking cigarette producers to run a sudy to prove that smoking cigarettes cause cancer.
It is never going to happen.
Grow up, wake up.
Otis
>
The Majority-opinion response by Judy:
Otis> This is why I argue for a Bates 1913 study to
be conducted among EDUCATED engineers
and scientists.
Judy> I look forward to reading the study once you have recruited the
engineers and scientists and have published your results.
Judy
=========
Otis> As always:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series6/vision_correction.shtml
Otis> What do you expect?
I expect the 30 people making money by teaching Bates exercises to fund
well designed clinical trials of the method.
Judy
=========
If you are waiting for Judy to admit any scientific truth — the I will suggest that hell will probably “frost over” first.
So I do give up on Judy.
Currently I have 20/20, and a protective refractive STATE of +1/2 diopters.
I wear the plus to protect my distant vision — now that I know what a diaster Judy is — over-prescribing that first minus lens.
It is exactly this situation that Dr. Bates attempted to prevent.
Otis
Otis,
I’d like to see an emphasis on the fact that vision varies from moment to moment in whatever study you are involved in; I think seeing the human organic eye like a machine is part of the problem. My vision varies from near normal (in sunlight when I’m relaxed) to moderately visually impaired (most of the time). You know I’m working daily to improve this. I used to be legally blind without glasses (I was told this as a child by an OD which really frightened me & probably caused me to constrict even further). My point is to be careful of putting people in rigid categories which they’ll have a hard time getting out of.
Thanks for listening. I know your focus is prevention, not improvement, since you corrected your own myopia surgically. Just be careful of categorizing those of us who are still myopic but improving, as our vision is NOT static.
Nancy
Dear Sassy,
I often wondered (with all the honest difficulties) WHY no one attempted a “follow-up” of the Bates/Prentice method(s).
Here Alex Eulenberg answers the questions WHY.
==========
Subject: Why Bates instructors don’t sponsor clinical trials
drjudy65 wrote:
Judy> I expect the 30 people making money by teaching Bates exercises to fund well designed clinical trials of the method.
========
Alex Second-opinon commentary:
They won’t because:
1. Bates teachers get plenty of business without such clinical trials.
The idea that you can improve vision via exercise makes sense, as does
the idea that optometrist objectors can be disregarded because of their
conflict of interest. Most people actually do not want to see clinical
trials; they are quite satisfied with testimonials. Bates teachers have
no interest in convincing optometrists anything.
We should stop right there, but….
2. “30″ Bates teachers, even if they pooled their resources, would
probably not be able to fund the kind of study that would meet the
Optometric community’s current standards. The COMET study was supported
by “National Eye Institute Grants EY11805, EY11756, EY11754, EY11740,
EY11752, and EY11755, and by Essilor of America, Marchon Eyewear, Marco
Technologies, and Welch Allyn”. As for being able to get grants from the
National Eye Institute, recall that Don Rehm tried to get a grant to do
a study on his Myopter and was denied. Fat chance getting a grant from a
company that makes lenses or optometric equipment to do research on a
study that, if successful, would make their product obsolete.
3. Supposing the Bates teachers could round up the money, and the
cooperation of qualified optometrists (no journal would trust the Bates
teachers to make the measurements), if the clinical trials showed no
effect or a negative effect, obviously that would be detrimental to
their business.
4. If the clinical trials showed a positive effect, the optometrists
will probably find some new reason to disregard this effect. Not sure
exactly what they’ll say, but they never cease to amaze me with their
ingenuity in such matters.
5. Best case: the clinical trials show an undeniable positive effect.
Optometry as we know it is done for, but then so are the Bates
instructors. Since this “therapy” has been “proven” to “cure” myopia,
laws will prohibit the instruction of these techniques in exchange for
money without an optometric or medical license.
–Alex