Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Farsightedness
#76
An update-my last exam in May 08 resulted in a prescription of -2.00 for each eye, which I never got filled, but instead wore -1.00 full time for distance, and near.
For the past two months I consistently was at 20/200 with my snellen and no glasses, and worse after a lot of close work. I had an appointment with the optometrist, and she confirmed the same snellen readings. She prescribed -1.25 with an add of +.75 each eye. I had this prescription filled and am now back to wearing bifocals.
I now think that the myopia that resulted from my reversing of hyperopia is now permanent. Overall though I think that -1.00 to correct 20/200 is not all that bad. As I have stated before , The strong plus bifocals that i formerly required never produced crisp clear vision, and the constricted side vision was always a problem. The minus lenses give me an excellent wide angle view. Vision with the new glasses is very sharp, for distance, and near. Have 20/20 each eye on snellen, and near charts, and night vision is excellent.
Reply
#77
I returned back to my optometrist in less than six months due to the fact that I get bad distance blurring after doing a lot of close work.
I have been wearing minus 1.25 with a bifocal add of plus .75. This prescription is actually an under correction from the minus 2.00 that she originally wanted me to wear.
She again found my uncorrected vision in each eye to be slightly worse than 20/200.On my home Snellen it is consistently closer to 20/300.
She suggested minus 2.50 lenses with a plus .75 add, but I got her to write the prescription for minus 2.00, and I have only been wearing them after doing prolonged close work to clear up the distance blur. All other time I wear the minus 1.25 bifocals from the time I get up, till bed time.
I had read online that vision is better through glass lenses,so had the minus 2.00 made in glass. Vision with them is very sharp, but they are quite thick, and heavy.
I have resigned myself to the fact that I most likely will need myopic correction, but the trade off is still better than my old astigmatic/ hyperopic correction. My eyes always feel more relaxed than they did when I wore plus glasses.
Reply
#78
Hi Bifocal,

So you reversed your Hyperopia and turned it into Myopia through using the -0.50 D lens?

I don't think your -1.00 D is permanent. Perhaps if you try some Bates Techniques like palming you will reverse it.....

Or perhaps you can do the Plus Lens Therapy to reverse your nearsightedness and turn it back into some slight farsightedness?

I think if I was to do the Retinal Defocus Techniques in David De Angelis book I would be quite content going from Myopic to Hyperopic...... at least that way I would be able to see far away.....

Bifocal are you still out there?

Good luck to all,
blauw
Reply
#79
The myopia that I induced to eliminate my former farsightedness is still about the same as it was a few years back.
My uncorrected vision is at 20/250 in each eye, but I can get 20/40 with the -1.25 glasses that I use full time.
I can read without correction, but wear a + .75 add bifocal to eliminate the strain.
I have been doing the Bates exercises, but just can not function without the glasses.
It seems as though my eyes are stuck in a myopic state. I tried wearing plus glasses, but my eyes can't handle plus now.
It was a pretty easy path going from hyperopia to myopia, but the opposite seems a major hurdle.
My optometrist insists that I should be wearing -3.00, with a + 1.50 add bifocal. She does not believe that I war formerly farsighted. However she was not the doctor I was going to when I was.
Reply
#80
Bifocal, I heard you improve you myopia since your last post in 2009.

Can you tell how it was done?

Thank you.
Reply
#81
Ifernand
I used the method referred to as anticorrective lenses,discussed in this article.
Reply
#82
Here is the website
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/">http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/impr ... r-glasses/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#83
good website. i have used their approach, myself.

be well,

jim
Reply
#84
That's the 'Plus Lens Method'. It causes cataract and other eye problems. See my other posts warning about this. I know some people who advertise this won't be happy that I post against it 'again, again', but it has and continues to cause eye, vision impairment. It's not the Bates Method.
Reply
#85
clarknight Wrote:That's the 'Plus Lens Method'. It causes cataract and other eye problems. See my other posts warning about this. I know some people who advertise this won't be happy that I post against it 'again, again', but it has and continues to cause eye, vision impairment. It's not the Bates Method.


plus lenses MAY cause these things, but i kinda doubt it as I've not seen any studies supporting that allegation. and, if plus lenses cause cataracts, then there are millions of old codgers who use reading glasses because their arms are too short who need to be told they are on the road to visual ruin. On the face of it, the allegation that plus lenses cause cataracts is simply unfounded and unsupported by any scientific evidence or study. Until verifiable scientific evidence is shown that it definitely causes these things, and causes them in statistically significant numbers, I think it is imprudent and improper to state or imply that plus lenses absolutely cause these things.

the website mentioned above is not strictly plus lens. David DeAngelis advocates using reduced strength minus lenses for those with strong minus lens prescriptions.... he advocates the use of no glasses for those with medium myopia.... he advocates plus lenses for those with mild myopia.... his general rule of thumb appears to be to use approx 3 diopters weaker than your prescription... so a person with -4D of correction would use a -1 lens... a person with a -2D prescription would use a +1D lense... and a person with -1D correction normally would use +2D plus lenses....

Further he advocates "listening to your eyes." if there is pain... stop. It's not like he is twisting anybody's arm. Now, Otis, on the other hand, seems to go way over the top with his conspiracy theories and extremisms. But, Otis is a member of the forum there... he is not the founder, nor does he speak for Mr. DeAngelis, even though it may seem like he does...

We all know that plus is not Bates.... that may be why it is here in "other theories and methods." if it were Bates, this discussion would be over in the Bates section. Not everybody pursuing vision improvement is a Bates purist. Even Mary/Clark is not a purist, as she herself has pointed out once or twice.... but you gotta dig for it to find the admission :-).....

I am not a Bates purist..... hell, even our own David is not a Bates purist. Some people are. Some people are not. The goal is improvement... not improvement using only Bates' Method.

Obviously, Mary and I disagree on this issue. Once she provides absolute proof that plus lenses absolute cause cataracts in a majority of cases, then i will relent and become a crusader for her cause. Until then.... i am waiting for some concrete proof that plus lenses can be absolutely proven to cause cataracts in the majority of cases. Failing that... we are left with... "Mary thinks they are bad for you."

be well,

Jim
Reply
#86
Jim, Otis was banned from here I think mostly because of his ranting about plus lens therapy being the solution to myopia increasing, and SECOND OPINION ODs (he wrote in capitals a lot and I always felt like he was screaming at me). He had pretty severe myopia once himself, and had a cataract operation to implant corrective lenses to "fix" it, and now uses plus lenses to maintain his current level of vision. So I guess he thought it would work for everyone else too -- I really do believe he is well-intentioned. Clark/Mary was unaware of Otis's eye surgery until I pointed it out (it was kind of buried in one of his posts), and may have wrongly concluded that the plus lens therapy caused his cataracts. (Clark/Mary, I'm only guessing about this, so please feel free to set the record straight.) In my admittedly limited experience, cataracts often arise from too strong minus lenses and straining for distance vision. And I know once many formerly clear-sighted older people get a reading glasses (plus) prescription, they soon often need a minus lens for distance as well, the bifocals situation. I have a friend who is -9 with beginning cataracts, and my behavioral optometrist told her once that she did not want to see so much, extreme nearsightedness wasn't enough, she had to give herself cataracts to blur out the world!

In any case, I agree with you that it hasn't been proven that plus lenses cause cataracts, and I don't think we should be saying they do. I hope this little history lesson helps add light and clarity, not more confusion!

Final point: whenever I think about cataracts, I picture Dr. Bates squeezing the fish eyeball to cause cloudiness of the lens, then releasing the pressure to let it clear up. Cataracts, like other vision problems, are from strain, pure and simple. And yes, we usually strain to some degree when we adjust our vision to look through any lenses.
Reply
#87
I've no comment on the plus lens theory, but in regard to the author(s?) understanding and portrayal of anything Bates, it appears to me to be not a little lack of understanding. The Wiki quote, no better.
andrew
Reply
#88
Thank you, Nancy, for the added info and clarification.

I remember reading that Otis had been shown the door here. (and why.) Otis now readily admits having had surgery, but he is still a huge proponent. I do believe, like you, that he is well-intentioned. But, he can come on a tad strong at times. As an engineer, his approach and his methodology is outstanding. But, an engineer is not a vision therapist. For engineers, everything is black and white... or as black and white as it can be. For vision therapists.... every eye is unique and rarely are things "black and white." I do not fault Otis intent or passion... just his delivery.

I can say the same for Mary/Clark. Her passion for vision improvement is awesome. I have used her sight for several years as a resource. I have purchased her books in order to help ensure her informative website stays around. I have referred people to her. And when I disagree with her, I disagree. She has accused me of attacking her. I haven't. I have attacked her delivery.... just like Otis'. If a person is going to state something or attempt to present something as a "fact," then that person needs to be ready to back it up with evidence that will stand up to scrutiny. Failing that, one is only stating an unsupported opinion, and it needs to be pointed out as such.

Unsubstantiated, unprovable allegations are a dangerous thing..... Every bias/hatred/discrimination/phobia in the history of the world started with an unsubstantiated, unprovable allegation. Every single one without exception.

In my short life I have learned that the amount of true knowledge that I possess will fit comfortably in a small thimble... with room left over for a thumb! And I've learned that what I control is even less. That said... my philosophical guess is that just every person on the planet should be able to say the same thing. But... most will not. I do not KNOW what absolutely does or does not work when it comes to vision improvement. I do not KNOW what others claim to know... I only know they claim to know it. There is a huge distinction there. Mostly, I suspect, but cannot prove, that I am here and it is now.... beyond that.... i think i'll have a cup of tea, and not worry about my eyes for a bit.

be well,

jim
Reply
#89
arocarty Wrote:I've no comment on the plus lens theory, but in regard to the author(s?) understanding and portrayal of anything Bates, it appears to me to be not a little lack of understanding. The Wiki quote, no better.
andrew


Andrew... which author?

be well,

jim
Reply
#90
jiminos Wrote:arocarty wrote:
I've no comment on the plus lens theory, but in regard to the author(s?) understanding and portrayal of anything Bates, it appears to me to be not a little lack of understanding. The Wiki quote, no better.
andrew



Andrew... which author?

be well,

The author of the blog, Todd Becker I believe the name is -
Reply

5 TIPS TO IMPROVE YOUR VISION IMMEDIATELY!

Quickly prove to yourself that vision improvement is possible, with this free PDF download.

Download Now