Vision Clearing from 20/140 with Ortho-K and Plus 3

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » Vision Clearing from 20/140 with Ortho-K and Plus 3

Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Author

Message

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:44 pm

Guest

Dear Second-opinion friends,

We are here on sci.med.vision to learn of successful methods
others have used to clear their vision to 20/20. This
is a report on a work in progress to achieve that goal.

Vision-clearing with the plus is indeed slow. But some
people have succeeded from the 20/70 level (about -1.25 dipoters)
to 20/20 with the plus alone.

Yves (name changed) used the plus at 20/140 (about -2 diopters), and
saw
little progress.

He decided (on his own) to clear with Ortho-K, and then use a
+3 diopter for ALL CLOSE WORK to retain the result of
Ortho-K.

This is possible, because the Ortho-K lens reshapes the
cornea, so that the eye's total power can be changed from, say 60
diopters to 58 diopters, giving him a refractive STATE of zero
diopters and 20/20 vision.

The problem is that the cornea "springs back" and you lose
what you have gained after a week -- when you quit wearing that
retainer.

Yves is doing an experiment. Here he confirms that his
refractive power of his eyes is now about 56 diopters, and his
refractive STATE is about +2 diopters, i.e., Ortho-K has achieved
a total power change of 4 diopters.

Refractive STATE of +2 diopters? That means that he can read
20/20 through a +2 diopter lens. Eskimos in the "open" with good
vision have reafractive STATES from zero to +3 diopters -- normal
and typical values for refractive STATES.

Here is Yves commentary.

=====================

Yves> Update:

Alright, it's been two weeks now since i started ortho-k, For
the last 5 days or so my left eye upon taking the contacts off in
the morning was a little fogged, meaning i had a slight fog-like
effect when i was looking at objects which would dissipate by the
end of the day.

All this time i'm using +3 for the computer work of course.
During the night from friday to saturday I could not wear the
contacts, as soon as i put them on i had horrible eye tearing...
Next night i was pretty tired, so i just put the contacts in and
went to sleep. On Monday woke up, took the contancts off - boom -
both eyes now had the fogging effect and were swollen like i was
stung by bees.

For experimentation i put on +2 and i could see the 20/20, i
thought that was a bit strange. I went to the doctor for an
emergency meeting that day and he simply thought that this was due
to the bad solution and gave me a new one to try.... hmm, I said
ok and went home...

Quote:

From Monday to Tuesday I didn't wear the contacts at night,
the swelling dissipated and i currently have 20/20 in both eyes...

Here's my theory: since I was using the plus lense all the
time for computer pretty much 8 hours a day, i think the shape of
my eye has actually changed making the current ortho-k
prescription too strong, that's why i could see 20/20 with the +2
on... not sure if that makes much sense, let me know what you
think otis. Also this morning I could read the computer screen
from 1.5 meters with +3 on..

My plan is to skip another night and see how much it goes
down by tomorrow night.

Thanks!

Yves

===========

It is my belief that Yves will be successful, and will
maintain a refractive STATE of +1/2 diopter (or better) and therefore
20/20.

But I expect that it will take about three months, of
continuous use before the +3 diopter will "lock" his
refractive STATE at +1/2 diopter and 20/20 vision.

Best,

Otis

Neil Brooks

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:22 pm

Guest

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

Quote:

This
is a report on a work in progress to achieve that goal.

This is another Elevator Boy, unverifiable, third-party anecdote.
Please ignore it. Mr. Brown has a horrible allergy to facts, honesty,
and truth.

[snip]

Mike Tyner

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:47 pm

Guest

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

Quote:

We are here on sci.med.vision to learn of successful methods
others have used to clear their vision to 20/20.

No, we're here to learn why anecdotes are treacherous evidence.

Quote:

Vision-clearing with the plus is indeed slow. But some
people have succeeded from the 20/70 level (about -1.25 dipoters)
to 20/20 with the plus alone.

Yve's eyes did not grow shorter. Tonic accommodation is not anatomical
myopia. In the real world we have to consider them separately. You don't.

-MT

CatmanX

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:32 pm

Guest

Once again you show what a total moron you are Cletis. (Def: Moron -
one with an IQ<70)

If this were real, the simple answer is Yves would be overcorrected
with OK. He would also be the first person in history to use +3.00 on
a computer as we all sit 33cm from the screen.

In reality, you are still making up stories as we have run out of
Francis Young stories and Steven Leung has distanced himself from you.
Even Christine Wildsoet thinks you are a total dickhead.

dr grant

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:47 pm

Guest

Dear SUPPORTIVE Ortho-K friends,

Fortunately a scientific concept of the
natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
developed and published. See:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.

This blue-tint mathematical model of the fundamental eye's
proven behavior is correct in science.

The only issue is the scale of this response, (both
plus and minus). It is indeed slow.

Yves has changed the power of his eyes by
about 4 diopters, from 60 to 56 diopters
by altering the shape of the cornea.

The cornean will "spring back" in about
a week, unless Yves gets rid of that
wretched "near" environment with a plus 3.

If he continues to use the +3 for ALL close work
the "blue-tint" mathmatical model will "kick in",
and pick up the slack as the cornea springs back.

Thus the plus effect (blue tint model) will
enable Yves to retain a refractive STATE of
+1 dioper (and 20/20) long after the
"spring back" effect has worn off.

Yves shall see in time if this it the truth.

This would be a powerful "selling" tool for
Orth-K -- in the future.

As the second-opinion -- of course!

It would beat Lasik that has serious secondary
consequences.

Best,

Otis

On Feb 8, 3:32 pm, "CatmanX" <drgr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

Quote:

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:54 pm

Guest

Dear prevention-minded friends,

Here is some clarification about plus-prevention
ENABLED by Ortho-K.

Dear Yves,

Subject: The majority-opinion against Ortho-K

I am glad you posted this -- see 20/20 through a plus 2
diopters. When you are able to do this, your refractive STATE is
+2 diopters.

Yves> "...actually changed making the current ortho-k prescription
too strong, that's why i could see 20/20 with the +2 on...
"

Actually, this proves how EFFECTIVE Ortho-K actually is. You
could quit wearing Ortho-K until the cornea "springs back" to zero
diopters (i.e., a +1/2 diopter would blur the 20/20 line.

Yves> "...not sure if that makes much sense, let me know what you
think otis.

Otis> A refractive STATE of +2 diopters (as you measured it) is a
buffer. Thus, I would strongly recommend that you go on
"hold" with your Ortho-K retainer, until you find that a +1
diopter will blur the 20/20 line for you.

Otis> In fact I would not wear the Ortho-K until you again see
blur on the 20/20 line.

Otis> This is wear a set of low-cost plus lenses would be of value
for this type of checking.

Yves > "...Also this morning I could read the computer screen from
1.5 meters with +3 on..".

Otis> More valuable information for me and you.

Otis> This simply proves that you have a temporary refractive
STATE of about +2 diopters.

Otis> You can now check for "spring back" of the cornea. As this
"spring-back" occurs you will find that the blur-point
simply moves closer, to about 0.5 cm.

Otis> There is no reason to wear the Ortho-K "retainer" until that
happens.

Otis> I am VERY INTERESTED IN THIS PROCESS FOR BOTH OF US!

Otis> If your refractive STATE were zero, the point of just-blur
would be about 13 inches through a +3 diopter lens.

Otis> What a GREAT learning experience!

Otis

+++++++++++++++

========

On Feb 8, 4:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Quote:

Mike Tyner

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:58 pm

Guest

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

Quote:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.

At what age?

Quote:

This blue-tint mathematical model of the fundamental eye's
proven behavior is correct in science.

At what age?

Quote:

The only issue is the scale of this response, (both
plus and minus). It is indeed slow.

At what age?

-MT

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:34 pm

Guest

Dear Second-opinion Friends,

The Normal eye can be expected to be dynamic.

The blue-tint mathematical model for the NORMAL eye
can be verified -- and has been under a number of
objective tests.

If the blue-tint concept is correct for Yves normal eyes,
then there are two possible results:

1. The blue-tint model (predicting stablization at +1/2 diopter,
20/20) is correct. When Yves stops using the Ortho-K Retainer,
his refractive STATS will be at 1/2 to +1 diopter -- WHICH
HE WILL VERIFY with a +1/2 to +1 diopter lens.

2. The blue-tint model is not accurate. When the use
of the Ortho-K retainer is stopped, his refractve state
will go from 56 diopters back to 60 diopters, and
his relative refractive STATE will be -2 diopters,
with a Snellen of 20/140.

Since this process takes very strong dedication, we
can not predict this result.

But, assuming Yves sticks with this effort, I will report
results in terms of refractive STATE as they develop.

Best,

Otis

On Feb 8, 4:58 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:

Quote:

otisbr...@pa.net> wrote

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.

At what age?

This blue-tint mathematical model of the fundamental eye's
proven behavior is correct in science.

At what age?

The only issue is the scale of this response, (both
plus and minus). It is indeed slow.

At what age?

-MT

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:32 am

Guest

Subject: My opinion about Ortho-K, and a follow-up +3 diopter.

If you pay $1,600 for Ortho-K, and that clears your refractive
STATE from -2 diopters to +2 diopters then that is
great.

I regard this like a dental operation. Effective for
its purpose.

I regard the use of the plus 3 for all close work -- like
brushing your teeth on a daily basis -- to keep
what you have gained for the $1,600 you paid
to get to a positive refractive STATE.

I think that anyone selling Ortho-K, should
automatically DISCUSS the possibility
of using the plus, and SAVING the
$1,600 that the person invested
in his distant vision.

That is the real issue for Yves. Since
his is making these refractive STATE measurements
himself on his NORMAL eye, he can also
make the judgment about the results also.

If successful, his retainer is not Ortho-K, but
rather a $9 plus lens.

And the "price" of "brushing your teeth" on
a regular basis.

Sounds like a good trade-off to me.

Otis

On Feb 8, 9:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Quote:

CatmanX

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:24 am

Guest

You are ramming so much crap up your cake-hole Cletis you are falling
apart at the seams.

It appears that stuffing too much crap up your rear really does have
crap coming out your mouth.

Try discussing science for once, it may help with the constipation.

dr grant

Mike Tyner

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:03 am

Guest

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

Quote:

If you pay $1,600 for Ortho-K, and that clears your refractive
STATE from -2 diopters to +2 diopters then that is
great.

I regard this like a dental operation. Effective for
its purpose.

Like pulling a tooth that always grows back.

Quote:

I regard the use of the plus 3 for all close work -- like
brushing your teeth on a daily basis -- to keep
what you have gained for the $1,600 you paid
to get to a positive refractive STATE.

So that's why ortho-K includes a free pair of +3.00 reading glasses?

Quote:

I think that anyone selling Ortho-K, should
automatically DISCUSS the possibility
of using the plus, and SAVING the
$1,600 that the person invested
in his distant vision.

That's because ortho-K works, sorta. The other doesn't.

Quote:

That is the real issue for Yves. Since
his is making these refractive STATE measurements
himself on his NORMAL eye, he can also
make the judgment about the results also.

Yes. Self-evaluation is the epitome of good experimental design.

Quote:

If successful, his retainer is not Ortho-K, but
rather a $9 plus lens.

*If*? Whaddya mean *if*?

Quote:

And the "price" of "brushing your teeth" on
a regular basis.

Like a $1600 haircut?

Quote:

Sounds like a good trade-off to me.

Sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. Not that you care.

-MT

Dr Judy

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:49 pm

Guest

On Feb 8, 4:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Quote:

Fortunately a scientific concept of the
natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
developed and published. See:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.

Perhaps readers may want to check out Dr Wildsoet's home page before
accepting "proven". In it she says:

"The etiology of human myopia remains poorly understood."

and she says:

"Of the many questions waiting to be answered:

What aspects of visual experience and associated retinal images
underlie myopia?
What are the ocular growth signals and how are they signaled from the
retina and sclera?
How do myopic eyes achieve their enlarged dimensions?
Is it possible to inhibit myopic growth pharmacologically in ways that
may be suitable for use in humans? "

With regard to the diagram, this is a diagram illustrating
emmetropization in young animals when hyperopia is imposed by minus
lenses (it has little to no relevance to correcting myopia with minus)

"However, experimentally imposed focusing errors (refractive errors)
also trigger emmetropization: for example, with hyperopia imposed with
negative defocusing lenses, the eye elongates and with imposed myopia
(with positive defocusing lenses), eye growth is inhibited. In both
cases, the end result in young animals is emmetropia with the lenses
in place"

Dr Judy

Neil Brooks

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:15 pm

Guest

Dr Judy wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 8, 4:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Fortunately a scientific concept of the
natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
developed and published. See:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.

Perhaps readers may want to check out Dr Wildsoet's home page before
accepting "proven". In it she says:

"The etiology of human myopia remains poorly understood."

and she says:

"Of the many questions waiting to be answered:

What aspects of visual experience and associated retinal images
underlie myopia?
What are the ocular growth signals and how are they signaled from the
retina and sclera?
How do myopic eyes achieve their enlarged dimensions?
Is it possible to inhibit myopic growth pharmacologically in ways that
may be suitable for use in humans? "

With regard to the diagram, this is a diagram illustrating
emmetropization in young animals when hyperopia is imposed by minus
lenses (it has little to no relevance to correcting myopia with minus)

"However, experimentally imposed focusing errors (refractive errors)
also trigger emmetropization: for example, with hyperopia imposed with
negative defocusing lenses, the eye elongates and with imposed myopia
(with positive defocusing lenses), eye growth is inhibited. In both
cases, the end result in young animals is emmetropia with the lenses
in place"

I was an Electrical Engineering major in college. I always get a
chuckle when Elevator Boy tries to pull "closed-loop feedback system"
analogies out of his arse.

Think of your home's oven as an analogy.

You set the thermostat for 350 degrees (F).

If the oven is already at 275F, then the thermostat will signal an
INcrease in temperature.

If the oven is already at 425F, then the thermostat will signal a
DEcrease in temperature.

IF, however, the oven is already at 350F -- the desired temperature --
then the thermostat will not signal any change.

Elevator boy can't even make the simplest of engineering metaphors work.
....

He also cannot differentiate between age groups (dangerous, I think).

He also cannot differentiate between chickens, shrews, monkeys, and
people (possibly explaining why he never reproduced. Possibly).

He also cannot differentiate between near-point esophores and those
without binocular abnormalities.

He also cannot differentiate between correlation and causation.

He has great difficulty with honesty and factual information (presents
nephew as 'success story' while forgetting about myopic niece).

I suspect he is a =deeply= religious man. While some who hold such
strong beliefs can still be objective observers of scientific fact--he
cannot.

It goes on and on and on. The pathology ... she runs quite deep.

Dr. Leukoma

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:46 pm

Guest

On Feb 8, 3:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Quote:

Otis,

Which theory do you believe best explains why humans become
nearsighted? Is it because of over-accommodation, under-
accommodation, off-axis hyperopic defocus?

Do you know that optometrists are actually involved in this research?
Can you name some of them?

DrG

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:17 pm

Guest

Dear Open-minded freinds,

Subject: The easy minus lens.

Yes, a quick-fix works and is profoundly impressive.

It it were proven to be SAFE, then everything would
be OK.

The problem is -- that is NOT the case.

Fortunately a scientific concept of the
natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
developed and published. See:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.

Now the question is, who is supporting HONEST
PREVENTIVE MEASURES, and who do you
TRUST and why?

One thing is certain. When I discuss plus-prevention
and the honest difficulties with is -- I also discuss
profound arrogance and the effect it has on understanding
the nature of plus-prevention at the threshold.

And this is an example of that insufferable arrogance.

I believe is having an OPEN and HONEST discussion
about the natural eye's proven behavior. Indeed,
I will call is the second-opinion if you wish.

But any discussion of these wide ranging scientific
paradigms must review Catman's blind attitude towards
science and the facts.

No progress is possible under this circumstance presented
below.

=================

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank,
and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him.

Mark Twain

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
the point is to discover them."

Galileo

Quote:

From Dr. Grant

Speaking seriously, and as a professional, there are a few
points I wish to make.

1) In my consulting room, as you correctly stated, I am god.

2) I earned that right through study, hard work and developing a
reputation for quality work, excellent results and caring for
my patients and their welfare.

3) You have not earned that right. You are a pathetic little
pissant that insults the very fibre of prevention of myopia.
You do not deal with 20 patients a day wanting to see
clearly, you do not have to ensure that a kid can see the
board in class, as well as read and function outside the
classroom.

4) You have no concept of the issues, I and every other OD must
face on a daily basis for the best welfare of each and every
one of our patients. You prefer to pontificate about evil
minus and second opinion crap, whose supporters are less
credible than yourself.

5) You keep talking about second opinion doctors, but never name
any other than Steven Leung. Why is this? I do know several
OD's in Hong Kong and Singapore and Steven Leung is held in
the esteem that I hold you and Nancy. He has no basis to his
method, he just uses the fear of parents to sell his glasses
for his own profit. His website is a fraud and most of the
links don't work. There is no scientific validation, just
fear-mongering.

All in all, you are a pathetic, miserable sycophant that has
nothing to provdie other than fear. No answers, no proof,
nothing.

Crawl back under your rock and fester away.

dr grant (CatMan)

=============

Quote:

Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:04 am Science Forum Index