Non surgical approuch that risks no harm
lasikrollette
lasiks...@yahoo.com
lasikrollette wrote:
> http://www.isecureonline.com/reports/AVIS/E600E746/?o=383504&u=12489576&l=789807&g=330
the 'lasik-at-home' hoax was cheaper
Ace
natural vision improvement does work but dont expect to be free of
glasses if you are -3 or worse. Most people improve about a diopter or
two.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
LOL
And for some, just as effective.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
serebel
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2006 11:11:31 -0700, lasiks...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >lasikrollette wrote:
> >> http://www.isecureonline.com/reports/AVIS/E600E746/?o=383504&u=12489576&l=789807&g=330
> >
> >the 'lasik-at-home' hoax was cheaper
>
> LOL
>
> And for some, just as effective.
Burch is too cheap to have had lasik done anywhere else but at home.
Since Ace claims that natural vision therapy works, we all know it
doesn't.
Ragnar
<klaatu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.isecureonline.com/reports/AVIS/E600E746/?o=383504&u=12489576&l=789807&g=330
That is nothing more than the Bates method for $30
The See Clearly method is the Bates method for $350
The Bates method itself is free since it copyright expired.
All 3 of them are a waste of time. The results are very temporary,
and not very significant.
Here's another method of improving vision without surgery. SQUINT.
Ace
You must be one of those disbelievers. Results are permanent so as long
as you learn how to use your eyes properly. They usually are modest but
one guy claims to have gone from -7 to -3 which is an improvement of
fivefold or more! -7 is so bad youd only be able to count fingers a few
feet from your face while at -3 you can easily see your friend's face
across a room and more.
Ragnar
You probably believe in the tooth fairy.
Ironically... you believe all this crap about orthoK and the bates
method... yet you don't believe the results of the most performed
surgery of all time - LASIK.
serebel
Ace wrote:
>>
>
> You must be one of those disbelievers. Results are permanent so as long
> as you learn how to use your eyes properly. They usually are modest but
> one guy claims to have gone from -7 to -3 which is an improvement of
> fivefold or more! -7 is so bad youd only be able to count fingers a few
> feet from your face while at -3 you can easily see your friend's face
> across a room and more.
The guy who claims to have gone from -7 to -3 is lying. Ace chooses to
believe it because it's what Ace wants to hear.
Ace did not have lasik, ortho-k, or that natural bull thingy. Now with
all your "experience" Ace, which one works the best?
Ace
Ragnar wrote:
> You are out of your mind.
> You probably believe in the tooth fairy.
>
> Ironically... you believe all this crap about orthoK and the bates
> method... yet you don't believe the results of the most performed
> surgery of all time - LASIK.
If you read Bates book, he explains how effecient it works. Some of
what he said is hard to believe and I remain skeptical. He had a case
story of a young girl who was 20/20(also 10/10) who did natural vision
improvement and improved to 20/10. She kept improving her eyes to the
point she saw 20/5 which was as good as a hawk! I would believe NVI can
reduce myopia but I dont see how it will make perfect 20/20 vision
better if theres no myopia! He presents all sorts of unusual cases
including a -15 lady with worse than 20/4000 uncorrected vision
improving tenfold and even of a blind man being able to see again but
blurry.
OrthoK is much more believable and it works like contacts but its
"effects" stick for days after the retainer lens is removed. Lasts up
to a week in very low myopia, 2-3 days in low myopia and half a day in
moderate myopia. OrthoK is a must for pilots, swimmers and athlates as
they cant go with glasses.
Ace
Actually if he has tonic accomodation thats possible, but unusual to
have this much tonic accomodation. He may have also been overminused at
-7 even considering manifast refraction. Natural vision improvement
works best. I am going to get atropine treatment for a week and
whatever my cyclopegic refraction is, thats my axial myopia plus any
cylindar my cornea has. Then ill enjoy my improved vision and await
new, safer technologies to further improve me
serebel
Ace wrote:
>
>
> Actually if he has tonic accomodation thats possible, but unusual to
> have this much tonic accomodation. He may have also been overminused at
> -7 even considering manifast refraction. Natural vision improvement
> works best. I am going to get atropine treatment for a week and
> whatever my cyclopegic refraction is, thats my axial myopia plus any
> cylindar my cornea has. Then ill enjoy my improved vision and await
> new, safer technologies to further improve me
You should go for LSD treatment just to bring you even.
Of course Bates says his method works. Ken Lay said Enron was solvent
and earning huge profits too.
Ace
So you want to call a famous man and optometrist of 100 years ago a
"retard" and a liar? He might have said some controversal things and
stretched the truth a bit on some testimonals but the bottom line is
natural vision improvement works
Ragnar
vision amongst the general population. His ideas are impractical,
obsolete, and a bit silly.. but then they used to think that we would
eventually fly to the moon in WW1 style bi-planes.
What is disgusting is that contemporary marketers are trying to make a
buck off of those antiquated therapies. They should be called the
rapists instead of therapists.