Student uses plus to clear vision.
Otis
Otis
Using the prevention technique advoacted by second-opinion
optometrists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuC7a1lkrk
On Dec 27, 10:55 pm, Otis <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> http://schwerdfeger.name/articles/pluslens.shtml
>
> Enjoy,
Otis
There is a tendency to insist that even prevention is impossible. It
is necessary to listen to ODs who, with dedication and effort, have
managed to get their refractive STATE to change from a negative value
of -3 diotpers (about 20/200) to normal under THEIR dedicated
control. A refractive STATE of zero is essentially 20/20.
Here are some comments by Dr. Orfield on the subject:
=============
By Dr. Orfield
Note: The author underwent myopia reduction from a spectacle
prescription of -3.87 DS and -3.37 DS to -.50 DS and -.25 DS
over a period of seven years.
Whenever I am considering a minus lens increase for a progressing
myope I
think of Ray Bradbury’s story, “The Man in the Rorschach Shirt,” about
the
psychologist who got new glasses and suddenly saw only “pores.” Losing
his more
holistic insights, he said: “Have you ever thought, did you know, that
people
are for the most part pores..Pores. A million, ten billion .. pores.
Everywhere
and everyone. People crowding buses, theaters, telephone booths, all
pore and
little substance. Small pores on tiny women. Big pores on monster
men ..”31
The experience of giving up myopia has made me very conservative
in lens
prescribing, especially in new myopes. I see that our instruments and
darkened
rooms and the myope’s tendency to accommodative spasm lead us to
frequent
over-dosing with minus. This then unfortunately determines forever
after that
person’s brain program for seeing space.
Arnold Sherman describes myopic progression as the process of the
patient’s
visual system transforming itself so that it is suited fornear, if
flexibility
is not possible. Then:
When an adaptation is decompensated (by stronger minus lenses), a
readaptation will occur in order to achieve steady state performance
at near
tasks, resulting in a further increase of myopia.32
He calls the continual prescribing of more minus without any
intervention
the “iatrogenic” cause of myopia.
I would add to what Sherman has said that the
adaptation to stronger and stronger minus lenses is a brain program
and that
reducing myopia is necessarily brain re-programming. It is the
restructuring of
one’s entire perception of space, of where things are, and what size
they are,
and of how one’s eyes respond to that motorically.
It is my experience that minus lenses cause both the ambient and
focal visual processes to be repatterned so that the resulting world
is no
longer the “space world” that one sees and the translation between the
two is a constant
effort that wastes brain energy.
But I did not know this when I was a child.
I didn’t know it when I was grown up, either, until I had reduced
enough of my myopia to see it.
Now, I explain to patients that when we prescribe maximum minus
for central
acuity we sacrifice more of their ambient vision, more of the
periphery.
We also take away the comfort at near they have unconsciously
achieved by becoming more
myopic.
If we increase minus we have to cancel it off at near with
reading
lenses in order to hold the line on further deterioration.
If I must increase minus, I give separate lenses for the
classroom with
as little extra power as possible.
Patients are instructed to sit in front where they “won’t need
binoculars.” I tell law students that I am giving them just enough
minus “to
take the edge off their panic” in class, so they don’t accommodate and
make
things worse. They are to wear it only in class in a bifocal
prescription.
Outside, they go back to their habitual rx. If there is any plus
acceptance,
they get computer glasses as well. While there are those who will not
budge from
their need for more and more dioptric power for full-time wear, most
people, I
find, are eager to stop the process if someone will show them how.
Others, though they are few, even want to attempt a reduction
program. I warn them it is
very long and very slow and involves many shifts in lenses. We can do
it more
easily now, though, with disposable contacts than when I was going
through it in
the ’70s and early ’80s.
”You train a patient whenever you put a lens on him,” Francke
told me. That
means you change programs in the brain.
Why not train patients into weaker instead of stronger lenses?
Even if it takes seven years, that person can be changed for
life.
In some cases, as Dr. John Thomas has suggested, 33 strong lenses
may even
cause tissues changes. We know from research with chickens and monkeys
34 that a
blurry image on the fovea causes increased axial length and stretching
in the
posterior pole like that in some hereditary myopes. It also may be
true of
humans, as observed in identical twins. 35 Thomas speculates that it
may be the
blurry image created by the high minus lens distortion at the
periphery that
causes myopic degeneration and eyeball stretching. Indeed, in chickens
“only
peripheral field occlusion is necessary to induce a myopia shift,
while the
central retina is receiving sharp images,” Crewther, Crewther, Nathan
and Kiely
reported.36 Elio Raviola and Torsten Wiesel speculated years ago that
“the
retina exerts a control on eye growth by releasing regulatory
molecules whose
production is influenced by the pattern of light stimulation.”37
Overall eye enlargement and increased axial length does exist in
high
myopia. 38 We automatically assume, though, that it is the elongation
of the eye
that occurs first, in some spontaneous manner, causing the myopia,
causing the
light to fall short. We think of this enlargement or elongation as the
definition of myopia. We need to entertain the thought that myopic
changes in
the eyeball could develop secondarily from chemical signals put out by
a retina
responding to central blur caused by other factors such as
accommodative spasm.
This could then be compounded by blur in the periphery caused by the
very
compensatory minus lenses that are supposed to correct the problem.
We need to examine our model of vision again in the light of
retinal
research, successful myopia reduction, and a great many cases of
multiple
personality where, depending on the personality in charge, the glasses
can vary
in prescription quite significantly.39,40
Luckily, I never did develop major retinal changes that we see in
high
myopes. I never wore my lenses full time because I could not read
through them
and I read a large part of every day. That also may be why it was
relatively
easy for me to train out of them.
> > Enjoy,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks
dishonest about this subject.
From: http://www.chinamyopia.org/Preventionmagazine1973.htm
"When Otis S. Brown was a young boy, he dreamed of someday
becoming an airline pilot. In fact, everything he did throughout
those early days in grade school was aimed at achieving that goal.
Then, disaster struck, and Otis Brown's dreams of becoming a
pilot faded as he was fitted with increasingly stronger minus
glasses to correct a worsening case of myopia, or nearsightedness,
a condition which causes distant objects to appear blurred."
I'm sorry your dreams were shattered, Otis, but that's no excuse for
lying and hurting people.
Otis
Cleary the majrotiy-opinion is against ALL PREVENTIVE MEASURES.
This is tragic, of course.
But highly qualified professionals (and ophthalmologist) support you
if you wish prevention (with a plus, on the threshold).
True Science and prevention best,
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Neil Brooks
> Cleary the majrotiy-opinion is against ALL PREVENTIVE MEASURES.
I don't know what "the majrotiy [sic. I mean REALLY sick]" is,
but ... do you have any evidence that anything you hawk works any
better than placebo (doing nothing)?
If so, then ... why have you NEVER presented it?
Hmmm.
> This is tragic, of course.
I agree with that.
Otis
Prevention (on the threshold) is never "easy". But it is possible. I
indeed support optometrists -- second-opinion that is.
Here are my remarks thanking and supporting Steve Leung OD:
http://www.chinamyopia.org/special/feelbackfromotis.htm
As well as all courageous Doctors like Dr. Kaisu, who support YOUR
RIGHT to an informed, competent second-opinion.
Enjoy,
Neil Brooks
> Prevention (on the threshold) is never "easy". But it is possible.
Apparently, what is NOT possible is YOU presenting ANY evidence that
ANY prevention method that you offer works ANY better than placebo
(doing nothing).
You're an idiot, Otis. Always were. Always will be.
Shame.
Otis
"Eyestrain, its cause ..."
By Maurice Brumer, second-opinon optometrist.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~brumermaurice/gallery.html
Enjoy,