Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Plus Lens
#1
Can someone please tell me what effect wearing plus lens has on the reti (rectus) and oblique muscles of the the eyeball?  I am myopic.
#2
Dear Friend,

The plus lens has no effect on the external muscles of the
eye.

The plus can only have an effect on the accommodation SYSTEM,
consisting of retina and internal lens.

Provided you are no "deeper" than 20/60, the plus
has the effect of moving the "near" work out to the
distance.

Thus if you are spending 8 hours on your computer, wearing
the "plus" would be the same as being out-doors for 8 hours.

Best,

Otis
#3
Quote:The plus can only have an effect on the accommodation SYSTEM,
consisting of retina and internal lens.
oh oh,  but the internal lens is not the agent of accommodation. Big Grin
#4
Hi Paul,

Excellent opinion!

My method of determining if the natural eye's refractive
STATE will change when I place a -3 diopter lens in
front of it -- is to just do it -- and find out what happens.

Click on this:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html">http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html</a><!-- m -->

And watch the blue-tint model change its refractive
STATE by -2 diopters in less than six months.

That is what happens.

Others can develop an infinite number of reasons
why all natural eyes behave in this manner.

The fact is that they do it.

Otis
#5
The blue-tint model is accurate in concept.

But just to ckeck, here are the scientific results.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html">http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html</a><!-- m -->

As always, all opinions are welcome, of course.

And we all see this differently, which is just normal.

Best,

Otis
#6
those websites have nothing to do with the internal eye lens.  I was saying accommodation is not dependent on the eye lens.  This fact can be easily proven with the use of atropine, and it is the one thing plaguing the modern field of optometry.

I'm not disputing plus lens therapy
#7
Dear Paul,

Subject: The endless bullshit of the majority-opinion.

You know Bates got me started on this subject!

I can appreciate the OD (or MD) who tells office "fibs"
to the public, because he only wants to clear your
vision with a minus.

I accept that, and honor it.

But the "fib" that environment HAS NO EFFECT ON
THE EYE -- simply drives me up the wall.

We can talk about "stress" and other issues like that,
but for me, I want to TEST the eye myself.  I truly
get tired of the "fibs" and being led down
the "primrose" path, only to find out that
the easy-fib is never scientific truth.

I am prepared to accept the mistakes I made
with my eyes as a young child.

Staircase myopia from the minus lens is virtually proven.

Prevention by Bates (as per the 1913 study) might
well be more difficult that we can imagine.

But for these majority-opinion ODs to DENY the
need for prevention, or to proclaim that the
minus lens HAS NO EFFECT ON THE EYE,
and that THEREFORE a minus lens is "perfectly safe"
is ridiculous.

I advocate change, and suggest that we have
the IMAGINATION to see things differently.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis
#8
otis Wrote:Staircase myopia from the minus lens is virtually proven.

Where?  Can you point me toward a couple of references?
#9
we are the references.  Has your prescription changed when you got your very first pair of glasses?

my eyesight was 20/20 when I got my first -0.5 lens (was 20/20 for a LONG time), which delivered a 20/10 correction.  My eyesight worstened to 20/40 within a month after wearing the -0.5.  I came to the doc and he prescribed me a -1.0 lens, which corrected me to 20/10 again.  My eyesight worstened to 20/70 within two months.
Why was my eyesight 20/20 for years until prescribed the minus?

I think you all have stories similar to mine.
#10
Dear Paul,

Subject:  Providing information that the minus is a RISK

Your observation that a "minus" does not "help"
is confirmed.

Today it is common knowledge that if you do not
protect, or "prevent" (by Bates or other methods),
you vision will go DOWN as this graph shows:

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

I would ask that all prescribing authorities present
this to the parent and child BEFORE that first
minus is applied.

Knowing that my vision is certain to go
down the drain, I think I would pay attention
to Bates and these other preventive methods.

We now know this, years after Bates confirmed
vision-clearing in 1913.

Except now there is an even greater reason
to start prevention before that wretched minus.

Otis
#11
Paul, my mom put me in shoes when I was young.  After that, my feet didn't stop growing for almost 15 years.  Ya' think it was the shoes' fault?

Around the same age, my folks also took me to the barber for my first haircut.  It's grown longer and longer ever since.  Was it the fault of the barber?

Otis, can you point to something other than "some guy's website" as a reference?  Anybody can put anything they want on their website.  That hardly makes it so.

thanks.
#12
your logic does not make sense to me, let me emphasize a few words from my post:
Quote:my eyesight was 20/20 when I got my first -0.5 lens (was 20/20 for a LONG time [I mean over 16 years]), which delivered a 20/10 correction.  My eyesight worstened to 20/40 within a month after wearing the -0.5.  I came to the doc and he prescribed me a -1.0 lens, which corrected me to 20/10 again.  My eyesight worstened to 20/70 within two months.

Sorry, your analogies do not apply here.  This was my observation, and looks to be the observation of almost all myopic people i've talked to.  Although the time scales were a bit different.
#13
I've been looking into this stuff for the last two years (ever since I decided that I was tired of wearing glasses).

I've seen a bunch of studies that show that negative lenses don't make myopia worse, just as shoes don't make feet longer and haircuts don't cause hair to grow.

That doesn't mean I don't want to make my eyesight better, though.  They're just two different issues.
#14
Dear Paul,

Subject: NoBones from sci.med.vision

There are many skeptics, and negative people.

And many of them are ODs and MDs.

Then thing the EVERYTHING must be REDUCED
to a magic pill (minus lens) in five minutes -- or
it is not science.

They are just plain WRONG.

Bones has no interest in vision-clearing.

Imgination-blindness, is about people who
do not have creative engineering insights
to "see" a better solution.

I think that is the point of David's site.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis
#15
i've definitely seen you resort to insults before.  it's not particularly impressive.

i asked a reasonable question.  i was hoping for a reasonable answer.

Perfect Sight Without Glasses free download