Prescription "error" by -4 diopters?
Otis
Subject: The claimed accuracy of a "prescription" to 1/4 diopter.
Re: You have to "wonder" about such accuracy
They eye has a power of about 60 diopters.
a
A change of four diopters in several months would be almost
"impossible".
This man cleared his Snellen to 20/40 or better in several months.
(This means no minus lens required for driving a car.).
The only reasonable conclusion is that he was "over-prescribed" (by
accident) by a consistent -3 to -4 diopters.
Enjoy this technical/engineering review of prescription accuracy,
==============
VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT
VISION
By Dennis Romich
My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis
Brown discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for
restoring the myopic eye to normal.
Without telling Otis, I decided to attempt to use the plus lens, and
see what would happen, since the approach seemed reasonable and much
safer than any other method.
I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The
lens was a +1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass
for people who have lost their near vision.
I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus
lenses which I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my
vision worsened, and the Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens.
My distance vision without prescription lenses was very bad through
high school, college, and graduate school. The last professional check
(Ophthalmologist) showed that my prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right
eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This is approximately 20/320
vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I would be classed
as legally blind without my glasses.
As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed
that my distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I
purchased Otis' book, and checked my eyes against the eye chart.
They were 20/30, which means I will pass the standard driver's
license criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription lenses.
Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens.
He stated that most individuals could return their vision from 20/70
to 20/20, but he felt that returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was
hard to believe.
Since I have done it successfully, I have no doubt that other
individuals who have a similar problem could obtain similar results
using Otis' recommended method of vision restoration.
I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in
both Engineering and Business Administration.
==========
Those are the facts. Believe it or not.
Enjoy,
Neil Brooks
Unverifiable third-hand anecdotes -- particularly when posted by you
(a person of questionable faculties who makes money from selling a
book with a very specific and particular (if bogus) point of view --
are absolutely worthless.
Why is that concept so far beyond you?
It does make people wonder....
Jan
many snips made...............
> They eye has a power of about 60 diopters.
> a
> A change of four diopters in several months would be almost
> "impossible".
>
> This man cleared his Snellen to 20/40 or better in several months.
> (This means no minus lens required for driving a car.).
And it also means you have a vision acuity of 50% of what is normally
possible.
In other words this person takes the risk not seeing your child crossing
the street where he could driving his car.
Where is your own responsibility layman Otis.
Rules are fine, taking your own responsibilities however are better.
> Those are the facts. Believe it or not.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
PS, your thumb must be a gigantic one layman Otis.
Dan Abel
Jan <nospam@nospam> wrote:
> Otis schreef:
>
> many snips made...............
>
> > They eye has a power of about 60 diopters.
> > a
> > A change of four diopters in several months would be almost
> > "impossible".
> >
> > This man cleared his Snellen to 20/40 or better in several months.
> > (This means no minus lens required for driving a car.).
>
> And it also means you have a vision acuity of 50% of what is normally
> possible.
> In other words this person takes the risk not seeing your child crossing
> the street where he could driving his car.
> Where is your own responsibility layman Otis.
> Rules are fine, taking your own responsibilities however are better.
>
> > Those are the facts. Believe it or not.
I choose not to believe them. I really doubt that the testing
conditions were the same.
> Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
>
> PS, your thumb must be a gigantic one layman Otis.
Are we talking about the proverbial Dutch "thumb in the dyke", or is
this something different?
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Mike Tyner
"Otis" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> Subject: The claimed accuracy of a "prescription" to 1/4 diopter.
>
> Re: You have to "wonder" about such accuracy
No, YOU have to wonder because you're self-taught and your professor is a
narrow-minded idiot.
When you do actually take college-level physiology, you learn something
about the "sources" of "variability", and the "causes" for such "miraculous"
"results".
-MT
Jan
I'm sorry Dan, I misused the Dutch expression "uit je duim zuigen" which
literally translated in English means "suck out of your thumb"
It stands for invent a story.
The bigger the fantasy the bigger the thumb.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)