Plus and minus lenses - some questions

[Lucia]

I've been searching for this info, but I wasn't able to find it. If there's already a topic about this, please let me know.

Minus lenses are used to "correct" nearsightedness and plus lenses to "correct" farsightedness, right? And if the plus lenses are suggested as a way to reverse nearsightedness, is it correct to say that minus lenses could be used as a way to reverse farsightedness? Or minus lenses are so injurious, that they should never be worn, no matter what error of refraction you're trying to reverse?

Another question. I'm wearing a weaker prescription, about -4.75/-5.5. If I would buy plus lenses (something I'm not considering, I want to relearn to see without this kind of external help; is just information about plus and minus I'm looking for), should I buy +4.75/+5.5? Should the plus be the exact opposite of the minus?

Thanks,
Lucia

[otis]

Dear Lucia,

I hold Dr. Bates opinion of the minus lens as a "correction"
for incipient myopia.

He said, roughly, that if a person with 20/70 vision, receives
a strong minus, and wears it all the time, then in
about a week his naked-eye vision will be 20/200.

I think he exaggerated, but the basic idea is correct.  It would
take about 9 to 12 months for the eye to "adapt" to
that minus and reach 20/200.

Thus, the goal is to PREVENT that "adaptation" before
you use, or become dependent on that minus. 

Thus the real purpose of these "second-opinion" sites,
like imagination-blindness, is to understand
WHY Bates made that statement.

I have reviewed this topic on my site:

<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.myopiafree.com">http://www.myopiafree.com</a><!-- w -->

To support, and encourage anyone to begin Bates,
or any other method at that 20/70 -- specifically
to avoid that wretched minus and its proven
effect.

To futher respond:


I've been searching for this info, but I wasn't able to find it. If there's already a topic about this, please let me know.

Otis> See my site.

Minus lenses are used to "correct" nearsightedness and plus lenses to "correct" farsightedness, right?

Otis>  "Farsightedness" is poorly defined.  If you become
older than 40 years old, you tend to develop blur for near
objects.  This is presbyopia, and is poorly described
as "farsightedness".

Otis>  When we induce a negative refractive STATE in
our eyes from long-term near work (call it "stain" if you
like), then you begin to get "blur" at distance. 
It is very easy to make vision sharp with a minus
lens in 5 minutes.  But Dr. Bates judged that
it was a very bad idea -- and recommended
his vision-clearing methods.


And if the plus lenses are suggested as a way to reverse nearsightedness,

Otis>  I would say avoid the use of the minus in the same manner
that Bates said it.  The only difference is that the plus
would be used for all near work, when your
Snellen is 20/70.

is it correct to say that minus lenses could be used as a way to reverse farsightedness?

Otis>  If by "farsighedness" you mean that the eye has
a measured refractive STATE of +1.0 diopters -- the
the answer is yes.  If you place a -3 diopter lens
on an eye with this refractive STATE, the natural
eye's status will change to about -1.0 diopter
inside of six months.

Or minus lenses are so injurious, that they should never be worn, no matter what error of refraction you're trying to reverse?

Otis>  Almost all of us had positive refractive STATE of greater
that zero when we were born.  If you had good vision
at age 5, and started the "reversing" process before
your Snellen goes below 20/70, (about -1.25 diopters)
then I think you could be successful.  I also think
that 20/70 is where you should start the Bates
methods also.

Another question. I'm wearing a weaker prescription, about -4.75/-5.5. If I would buy plus lenses (something I'm not considering, I want to relearn to see without this kind of external help; is just information about plus and minus I'm looking for), should I buy +4.75/+5.5? Should the plus be the exact opposite of the minus?

Otis>  I would stick with Dr. Bates methods methods for now
as your best bet.


Best,

Otis


Thanks,
Lucia

[Lucia]

Hello Otis,

Thanks for your answer. I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner, I'm a little busy these days. I didn't have the opportunity to read carefully your site, but when I do it I'll post any other questions I may have.

Thanks again,
Lucia

[otis]

Dear Lucia,

Thanks for the response.

I think the parents must begin to learn how to
"accept" and use the plus for their children.

David is very nice to allow us to post these remarks.

I advocate the "plus" at the threshold, or before
you start wearing that wretched minus.

Provided that your Snellen does not get below
20/70, then I believe that a combination
of the "plus" AND Bates method, should be
effective for vision-clearing.  After all
that is what we ALL WANT.

But these are all opinions -- mine included.

I remember that Bates advocated that kids
monitor their Snellen -- and clear by doing
his "relaxation" methods.

I think that is part of the "truth" of prevention,
but I simply add that the "plus" can be
part of that "truth" also.

Best,

Otis

[jmulcahy]

Hi! I read in a couple of places that I should get an opposite prescription to help heal my myopia. I am checking here to see if this make sense. I am around -4 and -4.75 (or so, 20/20 is higher probably) which would mean +4 and +4.75! I doubt I could see much with glasses like that, but if they helped my eyes relax back into their normal shape I will order some on Zenni this week!

Thanks a lot.