Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

How large a zone can orthoK go up to? 7mm? larger?

5 views
Skip to first unread message

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 8, 2006, 6:16:10 PM3/8/06
to
Due to my huge pupils, I will want the largest zone possible. I know
6mm is standard but theres also 5.5mm and 5mm as well as larger. I have
seen 7mm and heard of even larger! I googled it and orthoK is indeed
available in 7mm. Not sure if larger but 7mm is not bad as my pupil
probably wont get over 7mm except in near total darkness. I am willing
to accept mild halos and starbursts or rather, a mild increase over
what I have. I use my vision in the day much more than night and I dont
drive anyway so it wouldnt matter. If worse for worse comes, orthoK is
reversable and I can stop orthoK then resume it anytime.

p.cl...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 8, 2006, 7:29:02 PM3/8/06
to
your pupils wouldn't be so large if you quit eating mushrooms.
now go discover girls or something-- quit fixating on vision

RT

unread,
Mar 8, 2006, 8:17:43 PM3/8/06
to
In article <1141864142.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
p.cl...@gmail.com wrote:

> your pupils wouldn't be so large if you quit eating mushrooms.
> now go discover girls or something-- quit fixating on vision

Kim - Plus size model's Dreambook
... Saturday, September 14th 2002 - 06:12:40 AM Name: ace. E-mail
address: acem...@yahoo.com. Comments: I enjoyed looking at the photos
:) got any more photos? ...
books.dreambook.com/kimhawke/kimhawke.html - 9k - Supplemental Result -

--
~RT

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Mar 8, 2006, 10:28:56 PM3/8/06
to
Ace,

In my opinion, 7 mm is out of the question for your prescription. The
amount of correction is inversely proportional to the diameter of the
treatment zone. Look up Munnerlyn's formula for the exact
relationship. One generally has only 50 microns of tissue to play
with, so figure out the maximum depth is 50 microns, the diameter is 7
mm. How much correction in diopters can result?

Drg

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 5:44:40 AM3/9/06
to
Making a 7mm optic does not equate to the optic zone created on the
cornea.

Anyway, no-one would touch a douche like you anyway Nancy.

dr grant

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 7:55:56 AM3/9/06
to
This is true. But, since you are the "expert," exactly what
probability do you give to getting that accomplished, pretending that
the k's and eccentricity are "average"?

DrG

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 7:41:49 PM3/9/06
to
"One generally has only 50 microns of tissue to play
with, so figure out the maximum depth is 50 microns, the diameter is 7
mm. How much correction in diopters can result?"


OrthoK can only flatten 1/3 to 1/2 of that. If you have 50-60 microns
to play with, figure about 25 microns maximum to play with. With 6mm
orthoK, thats 6 microns per diopter so 4 diopter improvement is about
the limit. with 7mm zone, its 8 microns per diopter so the limit
becomes 3 diopters.


"In my opinion, 7 mm is out of the question for your prescription."


I wear -3.25 glasses most of the time.


"Making a 7mm optic does not equate to the optic zone created on the
cornea."


itll be about 6.75 mm for a 3 diopter correction. I will see if I can
get 7.5mm or even 8mm zone orthoK.

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 9:25:32 PM3/9/06
to
OK, Ace. You win. Nobody can tell you anything.

So, run along and get OK and report back to us.

The OK nomograms are derived from Munnerlyn's formula as any OK expert
will tell you. Of course the amount of tissue displaced will vary with
the thickness of the epithelium, and is not the same for everybody.

DrG

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 6:56:29 AM3/10/06
to
Actually most are derived from Jessen's formula, with the exception of
BE, which take a different tack.

However, you are correct in thinking that Nancy is a dickhead. She
really is. She does not listen, she thinks you are an OK expert, when
you have publically ridiculed OK (as is your right) and then tells you
how to prescribe RGP lenses.

I agree with you Lou, Nancy is one sick puppy.

Happy refracting brother in lenses.

dr grant

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 7:03:35 AM3/10/06
to
His formula says theres a .25 diopter regression after 4 hours and a .5
diopter after 10 hours. Wont make a difference to me since ill be
undercorrected anyway.

He also states a .75 diopter regression after 16 hours for 3 diopter
correction. Ok so ill just move a couple inches closer to the computer
monitor, no biggie.

He also found that when comparing the regression at seven-day, 30-day
and 90-day intervals, the amount of regression appeared to slightly
decrease with time

additionally, orthoK was preferred by a higher percentage of subjects
than glasses or soft contacts. This means your more likley to be happy
with orthoK than with glasses!


Before enrolling in the study, 82 percent of the subjects were soft
contact lens wearers, and at the conclusion of the study, only 18
percent of them preferred to continue to wear soft contact lenses. The
subjects who preferred soft contact lenses or spectacle correction over
Paragon CRT lenses were the ones who reported the most complaints of
lens discomfort and glare or flare.


I cant find much more info, but from what I can see, -6 diopters is the
limit for 5mm orthoK, -4 for 6mm and -3 for 7mm.

5mm orthoK displaces 4mm of tissue per diopter(4x6=24)
6mm orthoK displaces 6mm of tissue per diopter(6x4=24)
7mm orthoK displaces 8mm of tissue per diopter(8x3=24)

"Of course the amount of tissue displaced will vary with
the thickness of the epithelium, and is not the same for everybody."


The above figures are for a thick epithelium. If mine is average
thickness, ill expect an improvemen of -2.25 or -2.5 diopters plus a
reduction or elimination of my astigmastim.


DrG, you are presbyopic so you know full well the benefits of your -3.5
pescription in seeing clearly from 11.5 inches. If you sit about 2 feet
from the computer, a -1.75 undercorrection is needed. If you got OrthoK
and fully corrected, youd need reading glasses for near and
intermediate. If your OrthoK undercorrected you, you wont need glasses
except for reading fine print or for driving and watching movies.

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 7:14:28 AM3/10/06
to
Fuck, I laughed so hard I nearly shat.

Lou Coma knows more about the math of OK than you and he doesn't know
the start of it as he does not do it. However, he does know math and he
knows that the bigger the zone, the smaller the change.

Now to you Nancy. You are stupid. You post crap that is not worthy of
posting and if I were moderator (Christ I wish I was) you would never
post here or anywhere again.

You don't know shit. You don't know the start of shit. You know OK even
less.

Just PISS OFF and stop annoying the general public with your shit.

dr grant

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 7:21:18 AM3/10/06
to
If you think you know so much, why dont you educate me instead of
spouting off vuglarities? Teach me about OK, o master!

drgrant...@hotmail.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 8:06:56 AM3/10/06
to
Why would I waste my time. You are a parasite. You know noting and
learn nothing.

Go away.

dr grant

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 8:40:13 AM3/10/06
to

Your figures are close to mine. When I say thickness, I mean the
saggital thickness, which is the difference in thickness between the
center and the edge of the treatment area. OK causes the central
cornea to thin by pushing epithelium out into the mid-periphery, where
it piles-up. Helen Swarbrick published an excellent study on this a
few years back. She found that the average dioptric change was 1.66.
This was accomplished by an average central thinning of 9.3 microns and
an average mid-peripheral thickening of 10.9 microns. The effective
saggital depth is about 20 microns, or 12 microns/diopter for a 6 mm
zone. With a total of 50 microns to play with (25+25), this works out
to about 2.75 to 3.00 diopters of change for a 7.0 mm zone, ASSUMING
the lens mechanics would permit it.

The above is only theoretical, which is why I asked Dr. Mason to
comment from his personal experience. Instead, he made some obscure
reference to the founder and patron saint of orthokeratology, George
Jessen, and did not answer the question directly.

With respect to being presbyopic, my preference is for 100% clarity at
infinity, and 100% clarity at whatever nearpoint distance I am working,
which means that I prefer to wear progressive lenses over my contact
lenses. I have zero tolerance for blur, and zero tolerance for
fluctuating vision. This means that I would not be a good candidate
for either OK or LASIK.

DrG
http://www.coppellfamilyeyecare.com

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 8:58:00 AM3/10/06
to

CatmanX wrote:
> Actually most are derived from Jessen's formula, with the exception of
> BE, which take a different tack.

Virtually all of the OK experts who publish make reference to
Munnerlyn's formula. For those who don't know, the Jessen to whom
Grant refers is George Jessen, the co-founder of Wesley-Jessen, and the
widely acknowledged founder of modern OK, who was still practicing and
lecturing in Chicago during the time I went to school there.


>
> However, you are correct in thinking that Nancy is a dickhead. She
> really is. She does not listen, she thinks you are an OK expert, when
> you have publically ridiculed OK (as is your right) and then tells you
> how to prescribe RGP lenses.
>

I have never publicly ridiculed OK, Grant. We have calmly and
rationally discussed different sides of the OK issue. Although I am
certified to do OK, I don't do much of it. For me, and for now,
overnight OK is not on the table. For me, OK is still a means by which
patients can extend the refractive effects after their lenses are
removed for the evening, or for sports and other activities.

DrG

Dan Abel

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 1:14:52 PM3/10/06
to
In article <1141992868.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"CatmanX" <drg...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Fuck, I laughed so hard I nearly shat.


CatmanX

acemanvx

coincidence?


> dr grant

No capital "D". No period. Does "dr" stand for Donald Randolph, or
"don't reply"?

--
Dan Abel
da...@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 2:31:22 PM3/10/06
to
The guys who design OK lenses all use Jessens formula, which is
prescribing a lens that is 4D flatter than flat K. The only exception
to this is the BE series, which chooses base curve according the the
required change in script. Munnerlyn's formula is only used in
publications to discuss corneal curve changes, not in calculation and
design of lenses.\\

dr grant

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 3:48:23 PM3/10/06
to

Here we go. Of course, that statement didn't sound right, and so I
called up a lens designer. He calculates the base curve from the
patients RX and the corneal curvature. He indicated that the method
you describe is somewhat outdated.

DrG

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 11:09:27 PM3/10/06
to
Actually, he just used Jessen's formula. Add the script to the flat K
(in D) and add an extra 0.50. This is the indicated base curve for your
lens. That is Jessen's formula. Your lens designer used it, CRT uses
it, Tabb uses it, Euclid uses it, R&R use it. This is why with all
these designs, you get a +0.50 overrefraction over your trial lens.

grant

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 11:26:27 PM3/10/06
to

Sorry, I was confused. In the previous post, you said 4 diopters
flatter than K. If you said just add 0.50 diopters of minus to the
script, I would have understood. In fact, I would have understood
better if you had said 0.75 diopters added to the script.

DrG

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 11:35:49 PM3/10/06
to
By the way, for those who don't understand, Grant is making the point
that shoots for an over-correction of 0.50 to 0.75 diopters in
orthokeratology to allow for the normal regression during the day.

So, in essence you wake up a little farsighted and go to bed a little
nearsighted.

DrG

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 11:57:14 PM3/10/06
to
Sorry, at 5.00am the formula didn't come straight away.

grant

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 12:00:57 AM3/11/06
to
Sorry, I missed your point here. You were trying to score one were you
not?

It has always been standard practice to overcorrect slightly. The
benefit is you get 6/6 acuity all day. I don't have a problem with it,
neither do my patients.

grant

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 7:20:27 AM3/11/06
to

CatmanX wrote:
> Sorry, I missed your point here. You were trying to score one were you
> not?

I believe that I stated "for the benefit of those who don't
understand." There are many non-professionals here.


>
> It has always been standard practice to overcorrect slightly. The
> benefit is you get 6/6 acuity all day. I don't have a problem with it,
> neither do my patients.

I would have a problem with it for myself.

Cheers.

DrG

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 8:32:39 AM3/11/06
to
Firstly, you don't know you'd have a problem if you don't try it.
Second, if you don't like it, don't do it. It really is simple. You
really try to spoil for a fight every time you post. You really should
lighten up a little Greg.

dr grant

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 9:03:07 AM3/11/06
to
Dont mind Grant, he is rude and childish to everyone. I do my best to
treat everyone with respect. I will be making an appointment with Dr.
Maller, the orthoK expert soon and ask him lots of questions and get
lots of testing. If he says orthoK isnt for me then be it. If he says I
have a reasonable chance of it working out, ill be going for it!

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 3:56:22 PM3/11/06
to
That's really good. I am sure you will teach him all he needs to know
about contacts and evil myopia.

dr grant

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 12, 2006, 7:01:17 PM3/12/06
to
He will be the teacher. I ask questions and listen to his answers. I
still want to know how large orthoK can go to. It appears that no one
here knows

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 12, 2006, 7:36:54 PM3/12/06
to
I can already tell you that it won't work. You won't listen, so I won't
tell you.

Suffice to say, 7.0mm zones are rarely made and the effect is that they
have little if any effect when you are trying to correct over 3D of
myopia.

I now suppose we will have to put up with you lecturing us about OK for
the next year of 2 like you did with Lasik. You never went for that
either. You won't see Ken Maller and you will still tell us how much
you know about OK.

Pity my 14 years prescribing and selling OK lenses isn't good enough
for you, but we all know you know more than any OD does.

Time to go away Nancy.

dr grant

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 7:32:03 PM3/13/06
to
"Suffice to say, 7.0mm zones are rarely made and the effect is that
they
have little if any effect when you are trying to correct over 3D of
myopia."


a -3d correction is definately enough. I wear -3.25 glasses and have
been exclusivately for the last 3 weeks. I dont like my full power
glasses, they give me headaches, make things blurry from near and
strain my eyes and make me feel dizzy. I think my cylindar and
anisometropia is also responsable for this. My script is:


left eye: -4.5 sphere, -.75 cylindar(140 axis) correctable to 20/30
right eye: -3.5 sphere, -1.5 cylindar(55 axis) correctable to 20/40


OrthoK should take care of all my cylindar in left eye and most or all
in right eye. OrthoK can also take care of anisometropia by balancing
both eyes so they are no more than half diopter difference.


"I now suppose we will have to put up with you lecturing us about OK
for
the next year of 2 like you did with Lasik."


I will lecture people on anything I know about.


"You won't see Ken Maller and you will still tell us how much
you know about OK."


I plan on making an appointment with Maller next week. He will teach me
all I need to know. If he says orthoK is for me or if its not for me, I
will trust his judgement. If he doesnt feel I will get anywhere with
orthoK, ill put it off and save my money and just deal with
undercorrected glasses and my crappy distance vision. if he says orthoK
is likley to work, I am going for it!


"Pity my 14 years prescribing and selling OK lenses isn't good enough
for you"


You didnt say so sir! Tell me your experience. How much cylindar can
orthoK on average reduce? How much myopia on average for 7mm orthoK
zone? Is there 7.5mm or even 8mm zones?

p.cl...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 7:55:38 PM3/13/06
to
i bet you don't have many friends do you ace/nancy?

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 2:37:17 AM3/14/06
to

> OrthoK should take care of all my cylindar in left eye and most
or all
> in right eye. OrthoK can also take care of anisometropia by
balancing
> both eyes so they are no more than half diopter difference.

You are talking about correcting one eye by -2D and the other by -3D
are you? I hope your e values are appropriate.

> I will lecture people on anything I know about.

Yes, but this is a topic (another one) that you know nothing about.


> I plan on making an appointment with Maller next week. He will
teach me
> all I need to know.

You will bore him stupid with your demands. H


> You didnt say so sir! Tell me your experience. How much cylindar
can
> orthoK on average reduce? How much myopia on average for 7mm
orthoK
> zone? Is there 7.5mm or even 8mm zones?

I have repeatedly written of having prescribed OK for many years. I
have disagreed with many, such as Greg Gemoules about OK, when he has
never practiced it. You have once again failed to listen, like with
myopia prevention, a topic of which I am also somewhat an expert.

I know of no OK designs that go to a 7mm OZ. It is not practical from a
fluid hydraulics perspective. The largest OZ I know of is 6.5mm and
this is only ordered after suitable fitting with a 6mm lens is
confirmed.

Your astigmatism is not going to be corrected by OK. Oblique cyls do
not reduce and in many cases will get worse with OK. You have not done
your homework correctly.

Good luck to Ken, he will need it.

dr grant

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 11:43:36 PM3/14/06
to
"You are talking about correcting one eye by -2D and the other by -3D
are you? I hope your e values are appropriate."


My left eye's cornea is steeper by half a diopter and im a diopter more
myopic in that eye but less astigmastic. The left eye is the dormant
one so I want to balance it out and have both eyes be near each other
instead of the left eye worse.


"Yes, but this is a topic (another one) that you know nothing about."


thats why I research all about vision online :) I know most of the
basics and some of the intermediates.


"You will bore him stupid with your demands."


For the $150 I am paying him for less than an hour of his time, he had
better be polite and patient. I know his time is very valuable and he
gets paid a fortune for it. You would probably just sit tight and
listen to any moron that pays you a fortune.


"like with
myopia prevention, a topic of which I am also somewhat an expert."


Otis is probably the real expert here from what he says/claims. You can
learn alot from Dr. Bates, he is qualified to say whatever he does
because he is/was a licenced doctor! I improved my vision and now
orthoK can take me to the point I dont need the crutches of
glasses(bates words)

"I know of no OK designs that go to a 7mm OZ. It is not practical from
a
fluid hydraulics perspective."


he finds there is an improvement in night vision patient who are
"20/happy." He suggests using a 7mm optical zone size for fitting
post-surgical patients to control the size of the entrance pupil.
Typically he uses a 10.6mm overall diameter lens for orthokeratology
applications.


If it wasnt pratical, why does it exist? Reguardless, I will ask Dr.
Maller what he thinks of 7mm zone orthoK and if he thinks its
approperate for me or anyone. I dont know if 6mm is going to be enough
because of my huge pupils. 7mm makes me feel much better.


"Your astigmatism is not going to be corrected by OK. Oblique cyls do
not reduce and in many cases will get worse with OK. You have not done
your homework correctly."


WTR astigmatism up to 1.50 D and ATR or oblique astigmatism up to 0.75
D can be corrected.


This is what I found when I researched. Your experience is what
matters. Have you ever seen anyone improve ATR or OBL astigmatism with
orthoK? If not, why isnt it possible and why do they claim up to -.75
is possible?


The amount of astigmatism you can treat with ortho-K depends on several
factors, including the existing degree of myopia and the type of
reverse-geometry lenses being used. For low amounts of simple
astigmatism, elliptical lenses (rather than reverse geometry) may be
useful, he explains. For example, for 2.00D of simple astigmatism, Dr.
Day would fit a lens with eccentricity value of 0.8 fitted on-K to
perform orthokeratology.

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 1:06:29 AM3/15/06
to

> My left eye's cornea is steeper by half a diopter and im a diopter more
> myopic in that eye but less astigmastic. The left eye is the dormant
> one so I want to balance it out and have both eyes be near each other
> instead of the left eye worse.

Curve has minimal effect with 1D difference. You are still attempting
to create a 1D variance.

> thats why I research all about vision online :) I know most of the
> basics and some of the intermediates.

You know little of the basics, so stop telling people how to do it.

> For the $150 I am paying him for less than an hour of his time, he had
> better be polite and patient. I know his time is very valuable and he
> gets paid a fortune for it. You would probably just sit tight and
> listen to any moron that pays you a fortune.

At $150.00 he is giving his time away. Lawyers will charge 10x that
amount.


> Otis is probably the real expert here from what he says/claims. You can
> learn alot from Dr. Bates, he is qualified to say whatever he does
> because he is/was a licenced doctor! I improved my vision and now
> orthoK can take me to the point I dont need the crutches of
> glasses(bates words)

Cletis is not an expert, Bates was less of an expert. Bates knew
nothing and made mistakes in his assessments. If you knew anything
about eyes you would see that straight away.


> he finds there is an improvement in night vision patient who are
> "20/happy." He suggests using a 7mm optical zone size for fitting
> post-surgical patients to control the size of the entrance pupil.
> Typically he uses a 10.6mm overall diameter lens for orthokeratology
> applications.


Post RS is not OK. They are both RGLs but share nothing else.


> If it wasnt pratical, why does it exist? Reguardless, I will ask Dr.
> Maller what he thinks of 7mm zone orthoK and if he thinks its
> approperate for me or anyone. I dont know if 6mm is going to be enough
> because of my huge pupils. 7mm makes me feel much better.

7mm OZ is for post RS, not OK. The effect will diminish significantly.


> WTR astigmatism up to 1.50 D and ATR or oblique astigmatism up to 0.75
> D can be corrected.


Where did you read that rubbish? Roughlty 1/2 wtr cyl will reduce, not
all and atr and oblique cyls do not change or get worse. Read the
literature.


> This is what I found when I researched. Your experience is what
> matters. Have you ever seen anyone improve ATR or OBL astigmatism with
> orthoK? If not, why isnt it possible and why do they claim up to -.75
> is possible?


No, I hope like hell it doesn't get worse or not take it on at all.
When toric OK is available then it is feasible, but outside of
Switzerland I don't know of anyone doing it.

> The amount of astigmatism you can treat with ortho-K depends on several
> factors, including the existing degree of myopia and the type of
> reverse-geometry lenses being used. For low amounts of simple
> astigmatism, elliptical lenses (rather than reverse geometry) may be
> useful, he explains. For example, for 2.00D of simple astigmatism, Dr.
> Day would fit a lens with eccentricity value of 0.8 fitted on-K to
> perform orthokeratology.


This is not an RGL it is a standard design.

otis...@pa.net

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 4:08:32 PM3/15/06
to

Dear AceMan,

Subject: Correction of your statement.

Steve Leung OD is the expert of the preventive second-opinion. I only
suggest that you be informed of this second-opinion before
you begin wearing a minus lens all the time.

Ace> "like with


myopia prevention, a topic of which I am also somewhat an expert."

Otis> If you had been informed ot the preventive second-opinion,
and USED IT WISELY, your refractive state would be
positive, and you would be passing the DMV. That is
what you needed -- but never received.

Ace> Otis is probably the real expert here from what he says/claims.

Otis> I make a statement ONLY about the behavior of
all natural (primate) eyes -- when tested on
an "engineering" level. I expect that the person
interested in the preventive second-opinion should
review this proven behavior -- and decide if "prevention"
is what he is willing to do FOR HIMSELF. That is
your right.

You can
learn alot from Dr. Bates, he is qualified to say whatever he does
because he is/was a licenced doctor!

Otis> Bates was a well-respected second-opinion ophthalmologists
of 80 years ago.


I improved my vision and now
orthoK can take me to the point I dont need the crutches of
glasses(bates words)

Otis> If you have a "taget", then I suggest you plan
to pass the DMV in your state -- with no minus lens.
If OrthoK can do that -- then you have
achieved your goal.

Good luck!

Otis

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 11:48:17 PM3/15/06
to
"Curve has minimal effect with 1D difference. You are still attempting
to create a 1D variance."


no reason why you cant correct one eye less than the other. If orthoK
can be used for monovision, I see no reason why it cant fix my
anisometropia


"Cletis is not an expert, Bates was less of an expert. Bates knew
nothing and made mistakes in his assessments. If you knew anything
about eyes you would see that straight away."


thousands of people have improved their vision the Bates way. I have a
book on natural vision improvement and in the testimonals, we have
people improving 2 or 3 diopters! One guy went from -8 to -4! Another
went from -5 to -2.25! I think he no longer wears glasses except for
driving now.


"Post RS is not OK. They are both RGLs but share nothing else."


I cant find much on 7mm zones on google for orthoK. I will ask Maller
if its possible and festable, especially for me. If not, ill take 6.5mm
zone. Maller will measure my pupils in darnkess, dim light and room
light. He will advise if my pupil size will be too much of a problem
with 6.5mm orthoK. I may experience some slight vision quirks in dim
light but if its not bad, I can deal with it. He will tell me what I
can expect.


"Where did you read that rubbish? Roughlty 1/2 wtr cyl will reduce, not

all and atr and oblique cyls do not change or get worse. Read the
literature."


Im sure theres toric OK out there. Maller will advise me on this and if
he feels theres a toric OK solution for my astigmastim.


I agree with what Otis said. OK is the only way I can significentally
improve my UCVA safely. Intacs is safer than prk and lasik but riskier
than orthoK and costs far more. Lasik is popular but ive seen way too
many bad things about it to bother taking the risk. Too risky and not
reversable. Ragnar, SErebel and RT wouldnt be singing its praises if
lasik didnt go perfect for those 3 men. They all acknowleged that they
could have been the one with a bad lasik experience. Its like rolling
the dice. If Maller says im not a good candidate for orthoK I will just
stick to glasses and trying my best to improve my vision naturally. Ill
probably get down to -3 with NVI but thats it. I should be thankful im
not a -10 or anything heh.

Dan Abel

unread,
Mar 16, 2006, 12:28:54 AM3/16/06
to
In article <1142484497.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
acem...@yahoo.com wrote:


> thousands of people have improved their vision the Bates way. I have a
> book on natural vision improvement and in the testimonals, we have
> people improving 2 or 3 diopters! One guy went from -8 to -4! Another
> went from -5 to -2.25! I think he no longer wears glasses except for
> driving now.


That's nothing. Rishi claims a 20D improvement using Bates.

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 16, 2006, 5:52:11 AM3/16/06
to
Precisely Dan. The problem with these ancedotal testimonials is they do
not have any validity. Who says they improved their eyes? WHere is the
OD or MD that tested pre and post treatment that verifies this? I have
seen several hundred presumed improved myopes. Funny though, not one
has had any subjective myopia reduction. They still read the same on
the letter chart and end up with the same script.

Repeat NOT ONE HAS EVER GOT BETTER.

dr grant

RT

unread,
Mar 16, 2006, 8:05:13 AM3/16/06
to

> I see no reason why it cant fix my
> anisometropia

I read about this guy who was able to fix his anisometropia with
colloidal silver. He washed his eye in it every morning. It's fairly
easy to order over the internet, or you can purchase your own set up to
make it at home.

--
~RT

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 16, 2006, 11:04:59 AM3/16/06
to
"That's nothing. Rishi claims a 20D improvement using Bates."


dont see how improving 20 diopters is possible. This would mean severe
axial enlongation and you cant reverse axial myopia. I have heard of a
few rare cases of a 5 diopter improvement but my research and reading
the testimonals show most people improving from half diopter to 3
diopters. It works but cant do the impossible. I improved my vision by
a diopter so far and will probably improve an additional diopter. I
will probably get into the -3 range. I used to be in the -5 range, now
I am in the -4 range.


"I have
seen several hundred presumed improved myopes. Funny though, not one
has had any subjective myopia reduction. They still read the same on
the letter chart and end up with the same script."


well I did. Did all those people have no pseudomyopia? I have
pseudomyopia and by improving upon this, my subjective refraction
changed. I have gotten cycloplegia and this further reduced my
pescription. I will improve down to whatever my axial myopia is.
pseudomyopia is something that I will make go away.

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 8:00:31 AM3/19/06
to

CatmanX wrote:

> I have repeatedly written of having prescribed OK for many years. I
> have disagreed with many, such as Greg Gemoules about OK, when he has
> never practiced it. You have once again failed to listen, like with
> myopia prevention, a topic of which I am also somewhat an expert.

You almost got this one past me, Grant. You are incorrect to say that
I have never practiced OK. I just don't do much of it. Most of the
reverse geometry contact lenses in my practice are used for
post-refractive fittings.

I believe that we have one fundamental disagreement over OK, which is a
disagreement over the safety of OVERNIGHT OK, and putting children into
overnight OK. I am not alone in the opinion that overnight OK is
inadvisable for children.

I am also aware of the reports of damaging ulcerative keratitis in
children undergoing overnight OK appearing in the peer-reviewed
literature. I am aware that this kind of adverse publicity is damaging
to the market for OK and to practices heavily reliant on OK. Please
note that I am not the author of any of these case reports.

DrG
http://www.coppellfamilyeyecare.com

acem...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 19, 2006, 1:50:41 PM3/19/06
to
has anyone heard about corneal molding where special eyedrops are
inserted to make the cornea more malable then you only need to wear
orthoK once a week or less? This would make orthoK explode in
popularity and possibily make lasik nearly obsolete except for those
with very high pescriptions.

0 new messages