I am back from the ophthamologist! My vision had improved! Also 20/25 BSCVA!
acem...@yahoo.com
ophthamologist. You can read about it here.
I went again earlier today to get my manifast refraction. First I went
to exam room one where this pretty, curvy 32-35(?) year old lady had me
read the projector eyechart. Results were the same as last time, 20/50
in left eye, 20/40-1 in right(cant tell between the G and O). This was
with -4.25 glasses. I asked her some questions, she doesnt know much as
shes not a doctor(perhaps his assisant?) She wears contacts of -3 which
are equivalent to -3.75 glasses due to vertex distance and she knew
that part and agreed with me. She has no clue how well she sees UCVA
nor BCVA which is ironic and we both laughted! She just said she sees
"ok" with those contacts. Could be a slight undercorrection which I
suspect anyway since I was supprised she could read from a foot away. I
commented that this close would be blurry and she was like sorry, your
unlucky to have presbyopia at a young age. Her contacts rarely cause
discomfort, lucky her!
Next the ophthamologist tested me with a few minus lenses strait from
the kit. He didnt even use the phororaptor which I found strange. First
he tested my CVA with those -4.25 glasses and the results were
repeatable. Next he placed a -.75 lens over my right eye to give me -5
diopters total. I remarked that things did seem a little clearer but it
became more blurry in the central vision field. He remarked "strange"
Then I suggest he try cylindar so he used that lens and I got to play
with the angel by turning a knob. I watched the 20/40 line then 20/30
line come in focus. I couldnt see any of the 20/25 line which didnt
supprise me. He proclaimed me -4.25 with -.75 at 40 degrees and 20/30
BCVA. Next came the left eye. He placed a -.75 lens and I read the
20/30 without trouble. Then he went strait to -1.25 and the 20/30
became a bit clearer. I told him lets try the 20/25 line for that eye
and he did. I took a 5 second look then said "let me just go for it"
and I read them off in rapid succession. My dad and the doc both said
wow you got them all right, this is amazing! I was supprised and amazed
too and just said thats great! He was done but I said try a -1 lens but
he says it doesnt matter. I said I probably can see just as well with
1/4 diopter less as I dont need -5.5 diopters! He says you can buy a
trial lens set new for $300 and test your vision as much as you want
and test for any improvement.
I then went back to exam room one and tried some trial lenses. I placed
a -.75 and a -1 and compared the difference. There was one but very
small but enough to notice. Then I tried -1 and -1.25 and there was
absolutely no difference. I should have played more with the right eye
but there wasnt time. The conclusion thus far shows I am:
left(OS) count fingers UCVA(20/600) 20/50 with -4.25 glasses, 20/25
with -5.25
right(OD) UCVA 20/400, 20/40 with -4.25 glasses, 20/30 with
-4.25x-.75@40(about -4.63 spherical equivalent)
This all makes sense to me. Using the near point to confirm my results
points around 20cm for the left eye and near 22cm for the right. Those
values change depending how much I relax my eyes for natural vision
improvement. Also a -1 diopter undercorrection in the left eye reduces
me from 20/25 to 20/50 which makes sense as far as 20/xx vs. diopters
go. People who see 20/20 get 20/40 at -1. The right eye is reduced one
line due to the -.75 astigmastim.
Since im set on orthoK, I wont bother getting new glasses, at least not
till after orthoK and also ill have very low dependancy on glasses
after orthoK.
Natural vision improvement gave me 3/4 diopter improvement so far in
the nearly 1 year ive been at it. Otis himself said the recovery rate
is 1/4 diopter per 4 months. I still have a good diopter if not more of
pseudomyopia.
p.cl...@gmail.com
dialogue about what happened in your life today. now i can breath
again.
Neil Brooks
[snip]
I'm sorry. What were you saying? I seem to have nodded off....
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
CatmanX
he got better vision because he actually got the right prescription for
once.
Funny, I can seem to remember someone (or 20 someones) telling our
intrepid doofus to get an eye test for months now.
dr grant
Neil Brooks
>What space ace said was that when he got his eyes tested, he found that
>he got better vision because he actually got the right prescription for
>once.
Ah, thank you. I can get right through that!
>Funny, I can seem to remember someone (or 20 someones) telling our
>intrepid doofus to get an eye test for months now.
Ace's newsreader is very similar to Otis's: it only allows posting,
not reading.
Shame, that.
Dick Adams
<p.cl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136321412.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> we've all been sitting here waiting for you to post your 2000 word
> dialogue about what happened in your life today. now i can breath
> again.
Well I guess he is talking about Ace again. Probably about Ace's post:
news:1136320267.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Ace is leading the discussion here, if not Otis.
Ace's posts are a lot more interesting than p.clark's post. He seems to have
a serious visual problem. He is addressing it maybe naively, but in an
engaging way. I follow his posts with interest, and hope for the best for
him.
You OD's with your noses in the air give me a pain. If Clark is not an OD,
I apologize minimally to the ODs.
--
Dicky
Neil Brooks
As the French say, "to each their tastes" (though they say it in
French, I believe).
I'm glad that you find Ace's posts interesting. I find that Ace uses
s.m.v. like his own personal blog--all exhaust, no intake.
It seems I'm not the only one that feels this way, for whatever that's
worth.
Maybe if Ace were a little more ... interactive? ... responsive? ...
engaged in actual communication? ... then the reaction he received
would differ. Blaming solely the OD's is pretty -- how shall I say
this -- myopic, at the least.
You're relatively new around here, Dick. There was a time--not so
long ago--that people came to this board, asked for help with eye
issues, and got it. Some people--me included--are rather lamenting
the apparent passing of those days.
Neil Brooks
Ok, I read some of it.
>Natural vision improvement gave me 3/4 diopter improvement so far in
>the nearly 1 year ive been at it.
Or having your eyes cyclopleged released some accommodative spasm.
Neither one of us /knows/ which is true, but I'll betcha' I'm a whole
lot closer to being correct than you are.
>Otis himself said
don't finish that sentence. It can't go anywhere worthwhile.
Mike Tyner
"Neil Brooks" <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Ace's newsreader is very similar to Otis's: it only allows posting,
> not reading.
Naw, it must be a different reader. Otis's uses a characteristically odd
quoting method, while Ace's combines several messages so he can post inane
replies to multiple messages in one sitting.
-MT
William Stacy
>Next the ophthamologist tested me with a few minus lenses strait from
>the kit. He didnt even use the phororaptor which I found strange. First
>he tested my CVA with those -4.25 glasses and the results were
>repeatable. Next he placed a -.75 lens over my right eye to give me -5
>diopters total. I remarked that things did seem a little clearer but it
>became more blurry in the central vision field. He remarked "strange"
>Then I suggest he try cylindar so he used that lens and I got to play
>with the angel by turning a knob. I watched the 20/40 line then 20/30
>line come in focus.
>
Phororaptor indeed. Sounds like you went to a paleontologist. Angel
indeed. Cyl is definitely what you need, because astigmatism is what
you've got, and if you look way back in my posts to you, you'll see I
suspected that from the beginning, and I suspect you might even have
more than .75, so you might "play with" the angel (she might just bring
you what you're looking for) of a 1.25 cyl over even less minus (it's
very common for docs who can't do a decent astigmatic refraction to
OVER-minus the spherical equivalent in their vain attempt to get your
BCVA up to snuff).
It would also go a long way to explaining the real nature of your
"presbyopia", you cave man, you.
w.stacy, o.d.
(who just loves refracting on the internet)
Jan
<acem...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:1136320267.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I went again earlier today to get my manifast refraction. First I went
> to exam room one where this pretty, curvy 32-35(?) year old lady had me
> read the projector eyechart.
Ace, watch out, ''they'' say masturbation leads to myopia.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
acem...@yahoo.com
that
he got better vision because he actually got the right prescription for
once."
My ophthamologist said the strongest glasses isnt always the right one.
I am happier undercorrecting myself and it keeps my pseudomyopia in
control and lets me see from closer range.
"Or having your eyes cyclopleged released some accommodative spasm.
Neither one of us /knows/ which is true, but I'll betcha' I'm a whole
lot closer to being correct than you are."
I improved 3/4 diopter by working to relax my pseudomyopia. The
incomplete cyclopegic released another half diopter temporary. I
probably can get down to around -3 in at least one eye when all my
pseudomyopia clears away.
"Phororaptor indeed. Sounds like you went to a paleontologist."
http://www.optik-ripken.de/assets/images/Phoropter.gif
sorry for the confusion. You probably use one like pictured above, sir.
"and I suspect you might even have
more than .75"
My opthamologist put me down for .75
"of a 1.25 cyl over even less minus (it's
very common for docs who can't do a decent astigmatic refraction to
OVER-minus the spherical equivalent in their vain attempt to get your
BCVA up to snuff)."
They do that all the time with soft contact lenses, sometimes
overminusing by around a diopter or even more! I did get overminused in
the left eye at -5 sphere when my sphere is closer to -4 and my
cylindar is around a -1. How hard is it to refract for astigmastim?
There should be no excuse for substituting spherical equivalent fo
cylindar!
"It would also go a long way to explaining the real nature of your
"presbyopia", you cave man, you."
Even with my -4.25 glasses, which most certainly dont overcorrect
things from close arent as clear as they are with weaker glasses or
without any. I can place a +2 lens over my -4.25 glasses and things
from near clear up while things blur in the distance.
"Ace, watch out, ''they'' say masturbation leads to myopia."
LOL I kept my hands to myself and off her and also kept my hands off
myself. My hands did make their way to the trial lenses, this was the
real attraction and I tested them out to determine my pescription. I am
-5.25 spherical equivalent in the left eye although I could be a -5
with -.5 astigmastim. My right eye is like a -4 or therebouts with
about -1 astigmastim. I get different results from manifast
refractions. I do know one thing, my sphere component improved by 3/4
diopter in nearly a year.
Jan
<acem...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:1136405694.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> They do that all the time with soft contact lenses, sometimes
> overminusing by around a diopter or even more!
Who are ''they''?
An optometrist is never ''overminusing'' on purpose, at least he/she try to
avoid this.
> I did get overminused in
> the left eye at -5 sphere when my sphere is closer to -4 and my
> cylindar is around a -1.
If your manifest refraction is S-4,00=C-1,00 and a spherical soft
contactlens is prescribed it must be a S-4,00 or even S-3,75
Stronger is useless and does not make you read more lines, period!
How hard is it to refract for astigmastim?
Not, if skilled
> There should be no excuse for substituting spherical equivalent fo
> cylindar!
Indeed, so why are you still wearing your S-5?
> "Ace, watch out, ''they'' say masturbation leads to myopia."
>
> LOL I kept my hands to myself and off her and also kept my hands off
> myself. My hands did make their way to the trial lenses, this was the
> real attraction and I tested them out to determine my pescription. I am
> -5.25 spherical equivalent in the left eye although I could be a -5
> with -.5 astigmastim.
A few rows earlier you stated your prescription is S-4,00=C-1,00 for the
left eye.
Spherical equivalent than is S-4,50, BTW, optometrists do not use this
factor when prescribing glasses.
My right eye is like a -4 or therebouts with
> about -1 astigmastim. I get different results from manifast
> refractions. I do know one thing, my sphere component improved by 3/4
> diopter in nearly a year.
You succeed to lower your pseudo-myopia part, nothing more nothing less, and
as Catmanx and others already explained it is quit possible there is more to
come.
Ace , give mom and dad a kiss, hands above the sheets and sleep well.
--
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
otis...@pa.net
Dear Jan,
Subject: Please use accurate terminology.
Jan> In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be
destroyed
Otis> Following the proven behavior of the natural primate
eye -- the natural can (and does) have a negative or
positive refractive state (depending on its average
visual environment.
Otis> SInce the natural eye can get into a negative state
(by a prolonged "negative" environment), it follows that
(before a minus lens is appled) the natural eye's refractive
state will "move positive" if the "near" environment is
completely elliminated (at 20/50), and the eye will
more towards 20/20.
Otis> Since this is natural, the word "therapy" must
not be used -- because it is false, and assumes
facts that are not in evidence.
Otis> Good to see you back, Jan.
Otis
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
p.cl...@gmail.com
Dan Abel
> <acem...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> news:1136320267.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > to exam room one where this pretty, curvy 32-35(?) year old lady had me
> Ace, watch out, ''they'' say masturbation leads to myopia.
Relax, Jan, it's just an "eye exercise"!
:-)
--
Dan Abel
da...@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA