Actually, my husband got the focometer for me for my birthday because I wanted one so bad. This probably sounds like an insane thing to do considering the cost (~$500), but I'm very glad that I have one. We decided to spend the money for a couple of reasons: first, the OD charges a significant amount of money for testing the refractive state (over $100/visit) and the conditions are so unfavorable during their testing (as you know) that I was afraid I wouldnt' get a very accurate "reading" from them. I wanted to be able to test my own refractive error at home under different conditions to see how this affected what would be considered my "prescription". I have found that it can vary by as much as one diopter just from light levels and my stress level. Second, I wanted to be able to test my refractive state as often as I desired (multiple times per day even). If I had gone to the eye doctor I would have spent far more than I did on my focometer. My sister-in-law said that I could go in for one visit (the $100 visit) and then each refractive error reading after that would be $25. But after a year of visits this would add up significantly based on how often I like to test my eyes. It also helps me gauge what an appropriate reduced lens would be for different working conditions - I can sit a specific distance from my computer at work and determine the minimum minus lens necessary to see without straining. I have noticed in your posts that you discourage any use of the minus lens, and I whole-heartedly agree, but unfortunately my myopic state is high enough that I require a minus lens to get most work done (without straining to see). When I don't need my lenses, I don't wear them.
I agree with you, I think it's great to be able to test my refractive state at home by myself. I feel in control of the situation and it is much more relaxed, and fun, than going to the eye doctor. The nice part is that I can play around with it, check to see how swinging affects my prescription and so on- it's an interesting opportunity that I wouldn't have if I only utilized the resources at a doctor's office. It's unfortunate that our society encourages us to place all of our trust in doctors because a routine check of refractive state progress can be accomplished at home with very little education and a higher degree of certainty and understanding in the result.
I really like the focometer. It's very easy to use! It came with a small booklet of very simple instructions. It is used only on one eye at a time, which is somewhat unfortunate, but you could buy two I guess and test them together (cost prohibits me from doing this). There is a mounting screw on the bottom where it can be mounted on a tripod, I just hold it in my hand. The focometer looks like a telephoto lens you would use on an SLR camera. It has a comfortable flexible eye piece that you put up to your eye and then you rotate the collar until the clock chart comes in focus (at the level I desire!). It can test up to a + or - 8 diopter refractive error, which is plenty for me (I am at approx -7 D, worst case, right eye). The astigmatism measurement is a little more confusing without having a picture of the clock chart to use as a reference for explanation. If you are interested in learning more about this send me a private message and I would be happy to give more detail. It's a simple measurement but the description may take a while to explain.
I hope this answers your questions! I would be happy to tell you more if you are interested.
My basic "thinking" about Bates and all second-opinion methods -- is about empowerment.
I am a great believer in making your own measurements. I truly doubt and don't trust measurements
made by others -- however well-intended.
I strongly support ODs an OMDs who will sit and talk to you about what is required of your
visual-acuity -- and will show you how YOU make these measurements. That way,
you can go home, use Bates (and other methods) clear your vision, and get
on with your life with vision that passes the standard DMV test (or better). if they
would do THAT for me, and I could clear my vision -- I would profoundly respect them.
Quote:Hi Otis,
Actually, my husband got the focometer for me for my birthday because I wanted one so bad. This probably sounds like an insane thing to do considering the cost (~$500), but I'm very glad that I have one. We decided to spend the money for a couple of reasons: first, the OD charges a significant amount of money for testing the refractive state (over $100/visit) and the conditions are so unfavorable during their testing (as you know) that I was afraid I wouldnt' get a very accurate "reading" from them. I wanted to be able to test my own refractive error at home under different conditions to see how this affected what would be considered my "prescription". I have found that it can vary by as much as one diopter just from light levels and my stress level.
I had seen the advertisement and the $500 stopped me. :
I had "dreamed" of "inventing" and instrument exactly like this one. I thought it could be
cheaper and simpler. But is does open up many possibilties -- and that would be for
group to SHARE this instrument so they can share their experience.
That is all that I have for now -- but your description is of considerable value to me.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://id302.securedata.net/infocusonline.org/merchantmanager/product_info.php?cPath=3&products_id=1">https://id302.securedata.net/infocusonl ... ducts_id=1</a><!-- m -->
David- thanks for making this a new topic. It definitely was out of place
Otis,
I agree, empowerment is the most important tool.
Sharing an instrument like the focometer would be very powerful. I think if Bates practitioners could form community groups this would be very feasible. I know I would be more than happy to share my focometer with others if they were interested. The only issue would be to make sure waivers were signed to eliminate liability issues- unfortunately this is a very real problem. If I had enough money I would open up a free clinic where people could come and use things like the focometer and help each work on improving their vision! Do you know if there is an organized Bates community model that has been started?
Thanks for posting the image and the accuracy. I have read that if you interpolate between the 1/4 diopter markings it is even accurate beyond this. However, the 1/4 diopter accuracy is plenty fine enough.
What I had considered doing -- was to contact a "flight college", where
the students (who have the highest motivation possible) would
be taught the use of the Focometer.
Thus, they could use preventive methods (Bates and others) and
CONFIRM, that BOTH there Snellen was clearing, and
their refractive STATE was changing from a negative
to positive value.
Thus they could be in complete MEASUREMENT control
of of the entire process.
Most pilots are not to-far GONE, and I would bet that
(when the get the idea), and see there Snellen go
from 20/60 back to 20/20, and their refractive STATE
changing -- would NEVER QUIT. And after
four years or intensive close work REQUIRED in
a four year college -- would graduate with
crystal clear distant vision.
They could do all of this themselves. There would
be no need for a majority-opinion OD to "muck" with
this process.
I know that (from Bates 1913 study) it took about six
months to "clear" vision from 20/60 to normal.
That study was NEVER REPEATED. And further THERE WAS
NEVER ANY FURTHER EFFORT TO REPEAT THAT SUCCESS.
I think it is time we repeat this success using people who
are "older" and understand the purpose and goal of the
effort.
This is a great idea to utilize the focometer at a flight school! The company that sells the focometer (<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.infocusonline.org">http://www.infocusonline.org</a><!-- w -->) does conduct a training for using the focometer. The intention is to use this device to help people in underdeveloped countries, but a "representative" could go to this training (it's only $150 I think) and then use this to teach others at the flight school. Please send me a private message if you end up implementing something like this; I would be very interested in how it is accepted and how it progresses. I believe it would be accepted well as these students have a lot to lose if their eyesight is not "perfect". Also, it seems that in cultures like the Air Force and NASA etc the general rules don't apply. There seem to be more people at these institutions with open minds who are willing to try something new due to the possibility of benefit.
In the future if you have any additional questions about the focometer please feel free to send me a message. I would be happy to share what I have learned or help in anyway possible.
Subject: The benitit of a successful PREVENTIVE study.
Quote:This is a great idea to utilize the focometer at a flight school! The company that sells the focometer (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.infocusonline.org">http://www.infocusonline.org</a><!-- m -->) does conduct a training for using the focometer.
Thanks!
The intention is to use this device to help people in underdeveloped countries, but a "representative" could go to this training (it's only $150 I think) and then use this to teach others at the flight school.
Otis> Most engineers PREFER to do their own measurements. If the engineer-pilot (at 20/60 and -1.5 diopters) can clear his
vision back to normal -- then that will convince the engineer-pilot that he is doing it RIGHT.
Please send me a private message if you end up implementing something like this;
Otis> I posted some commentary on your site.
I would be very interested in how it is accepted and how it progresses.
Otis> You will find the proposal by clicking:
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.myopiafree.com">http://www.myopiafree.com</a><!-- w -->
and then
"Aeronautical College"
The Focometer would be a "natural" for pilots who wish to keep their refractive STATE positive
during four years of intensive close-work. It is known that the eye in college goes "down"
at a steady 1/3 diopter per year. The idea is to prevent it -- and reverse it from 20/60 and
-1.5 diopters.
Quote:I believe it would be accepted well as these students have a lot to lose if their eyesight is not "perfect".
Otis> Provided they UNDERSTAND the concept -- and they are fully EMPOWERED -- the I believe
they will be successful.
Quote:Also, it seems that in cultures like the Air Force and NASA etc the general rules don't apply. There seem to be more people at these institutions with open minds who are willing to try something new due to the possibility of benefit.
Otis> I have had some experience in ATTEMPTING to initiate these studies. They always get "spiked" by
some stick-in-the mud OD or MD. ???
Otis> That TRULY is the problem. Not science, and not facts.
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:otisbrown@embarqmail.com">otisbrown@embarqmail.com</a><!-- e -->
In attempting to organize a preventive effort (using Bates or
other methods), I need to know your judgment of the accuracy
of the Focometer.
What I need is your measurements (in diopters). It would
just be a matter oa making ten measurements -- and sending
me the data. Take the data over a 15 minute period of time.
Then I can calcuate the mean and standard-deviation of the
data.
Any study with YOU in control of the data -- would start
with that basic measurement.
It is obviously my belief that Bates' mistake (in his 1913 study) was to NOT
intellectually empower the students. i.e., they did not know what
they were doing -- nor why. ???
If the group were older, and HIGHLY MOTIVATED, and SAW (by actual
measurement) both there Snellen clearing AND their
refractive STATE moving positive -- THEN they would
personally accept PROOF that they confirmed for themselves.
Thus no one would TELL them they were successful.
And all these "arguments" about "proof" would go away.
