This article is part of a long term vision improvement experiment. To get the full value of what I am learning, be sure to check out the introductory article which also has links to all of my updates.
Over two years after I started writing about it, my articles on natural vision improvement are by far the most popular things on this site. At the time I was trying to write informative articles on just about any topic, which included some personal blogging. Since then this site has evolved into a platform for my apps business, but I’ve kept many of the original articles available. The vision improvement articles are too popular to take down. Of course, I don’t make a dime from this. It’s just information.
Why is this topic so popular with people? I mean, there’s not that much to say about it. At first I was hoping to have an update every week or so but I gave up that idea pretty quickly.
Part of it is that people hate to wear glasses. They hate the feeling. They hate the burden. But I think it goes deeper.
People feel cheated. People feel misled by the guardians of health. I certainly feel misled. When I was a teenager, I fought against optometrists for years. I didn’t believe in wearing glasses. When my high school checked everybody’s vision, I made sure I was home that day (I was “sick” — sick of school!). When my mom’s optometrist sent a card asking for an appointment for me and my brother, I threw the card away.
A few years later, though, I decided to stop fighting it. I thought that maybe it was best to just accept the reality that I needed glasses. I was really into accepting reality back then. I thought it was positive, to accept what is. And you can see what happened. Years of worsening vision and floaters.
All progress depends on the unreasonable man, and I’ve returned to being unreasonable like I used to be. I understand that reality is what it is, but I believe it can be changed in many cases, and I should do what ever I can to change it.
There is a difference between accepting reality and acknowledging it. We need to acknowledge reality. We need to make peace with the facts of existence. Acceptance, however, implies that we stop there and embrace the way things are, and let them be.
I have no doubt that optometrists want me to be healthy and have a good life. The problem is, their definition of health is not necessarily my definition. This is why I must refuse to accept their view of reality.
There was a time when it was considered sophisticated or elite to wear glasses. There are people who see glamor instead of dependence. There are people who value a life of reading books and doing accounting over being alive, being outside, and playing. These people, with the best of intentions, wanted to fix everyone else, and used their own values as the measuring stick.
You have to be careful about the values that a medical treatment implicitly forces on you. I once had some pain in my feet. I saw a podiatrist who said that my feet were too flexible. It would cost $16,000 to have pins inserted in them, and this might or might not solve the problem (20% chance it would). And I would have to wear special orthotics for the rest of my life anyway.
I ignored his advice and started walking barefoot. The pain disappeared within days and has never returned.
How could the podiatrist recommend such a radical intervention? Was he just out to get my money? I don’t think so. I think that in his value system, everybody needs to be a certain way, and everybody needs to wear shoes. He was trying to do his best to offer me his vision of health, which includes, by implication, a life where wearing shoes is normal, because society says so.
I cured my own problem because I have different values. I believe that shoes are unnatural and probably the cause of many foot problems. I don’t believe that I need to adapt my feet so they are comfortable in shoes, so I can fit in and make society happy. My feet are much happier without shoes. I saved $16,000, irreversible surgery on my feet, and tremendous pain. More importantly, I identified and fulfilled my own vision of myself.
I think optometrists operate in the same way. They just see wearing glasses as a normal part of life. They don’t see dependence, they see utility. “Here, wear these. Solves your problem, doesn’t it? Glad I could help. Now go home and never take them off.” That reality is acceptable to many people, but not to me.
Modern medicine doesn’t have all the answers, and what they consider to be a healthy way of life — wearing glasses and special orthotics, taking pills every day — is not necessarily what you personally would consider a healthy way of life.
I’m thankful for all the people who come here and post their own stories. I’m glad to know the topic is so popular, and that people are taking charge of their own health. I want to encourage that as much as possible. Hopefully, I’ll continue to have progress to write about.
18 Comments
Hi Tod,
You are right! We need to take charge of our own health. I am now responsible for my daughter’s vision. I stop her from wearing the S$300 prescript glass (-2.25). I request for her to sit in front in school with pinhole glass. I let her read story books on 42″ TV. I give her +1 glass for doing homework, so that zero accommodation is required while doing close work. We really really need to educate ourselves in order to protect our family.
Hi Tod, What is medical reality? I my judgment, it is “satifying” us the general public with a strong minus lens. In ignorance we “buy” into the minus, and would reject prevention (with plus or other methods) at that point. But even the ODs destroy their own children’s eyes with a minus. Here is the rationale of one for your interest:
++++++
Otis> Judy, why don’t ODs help their own children with Plus-prevention?
Judy> I’m an optometrist, I work in a group with five other optometrists, in a city with several dozen optometrists,have a few dozen acquaintances who are optometrists and none of us have our children use plus at near unless those are hyperopic. (Hyperopic? The natural eye with a positive refractive state.)
Otis> In this sense, the use of a strong minus (makes matter worse) is indeed not a scam, but not wise either.
+++++++
The “medical reality” is that they lack the ability to tell us scientific truth (that the minus makes matters worse) when we are at 20/40. But what Judy’s statement means in practice is that if you wish prevention, you will have to be wise and do it yourself.
Otis> So there are no illusions about plus-prevention, I will post remarks by a Dr. Prentice. He showed that, if a person would start the wearing a plus (with a prescription of -1 diopter, or about 20/50), he could slowly get out of it. So what is the problem? It is that most people can not make the commitment to wearing the plus for all close work (books and computer). At 20/40, you can avoid the minus. But the long-term resolve is very difficult for most people. It truly takes long-term motivation to do this.
Prentice 1> Medical people — who have truly recognized the natural eye’s behavior, and that, at least at the threshold — IT IS PREVENTABLE. Here is the commentary by a profoundly insightful ophthalmologist. But, as Dr. Prentice states, plus prevention (at -1 diopter is tedious). But to say that “prevention will never happen” is a tragic statement — because it prevents a preventive scientific study our effort — that could be effective
Prentice 2> Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work. (-1.25 D is about 20/50 to 20/60 on a Snellen)
Prentice 3 > After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4 D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths vision
Prentice 4 > Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases …but the process is very tedious for the patients, and unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost impossible to induce them to undergo the trial. [ Otis> This is truly the issue. It MUST be the person’s wisdom, to accept the “tedious” use of a plus, and to do it with no let up, that would make prevention (at 20/50, -3/4 diopter) possible. THAT is the real and only issue.
I think we should be informed of this issue when reasonable success is possible. I hate to “find out” about successful prevention, after my vision has been un-necessarly destroyed by that minus lens. It the future, we might be able to teach our children of this issue, before that first destructive minus lens — in my opinion.
Hi, we see the advantage of plus glasses which is the elimination of accommodation at close work, which is the root cause of myopia. However it brings the side effect of dizziness as it upset the strong relationship between accommodation and converging of eye balls on close object. When we look nearer, accommodation increases, convergent also increases. We can’t increase convergent without increase accommodation. Plus glass simply remove accommodation while the two eye balls still converge on the same near object. Children have no idea of the concept and never have the will to overcome the discomfort. As parent, we need to help them. I am now looking at a device called Myopter that will “fool” the eyes and remove the discomfort by duplicating the close image into 2 images and place 1 on the left, the other on the right so that the convergent is removed too. I am going to place order for 1 set soon. US$260.
I have friends in ophthalmogy and optometry. But they feel that there ONLY PURPOSE IN LIFE IS TO “FIX’ YOU WITH A STRONG MINUS LENS. The feel totally insulted if you ask about prevention (when you are at 20/50). They feel you have much LESS EDUCATION that they do. In a way this is “ethical” but they are blind as a bat about prevention. (I only say prevention to -1 diopter.) Read Dr. Prentics’ comment about the public rejecting prevention when it could have the best effect.
Posted on a site where the woman claimed that she was “duped” into believing that nearsightedness could not be prevented.
=====
Majority Opinion OD> Also, any OD professional DOES NOT go through YEARS of training because we want to get out and “dup people”. We work hard and take oaths to proudly uphold standards of care to HELP people. My whole family is myopic and need glasses or contacts to see clearly in the distance. My father also had a lazy eye when he was younger. I joined the profession because I wanted to help others and educate them on their eye conditions. I LOVE and take PRIDE in helping people everyday!
+++++
Well, then I think that they are “blind” to the possiblity of prevention at 20/40 to 20/60. There is not need to get angry about this — but you must take care of yourself, and they are no help.
Hi Edwin,
Subject: The tragic habits of children — but the “hope” of a 13 year-old kid who convinced himself he had to wear the plus.
Edwin> Children have no idea of the concept and never have the will to overcome the discomfort. As parent, we need to help them.
Otis> I agree! But when my nephew “started into myopia” I explained the idea that if he did not wear the plus, his vision would go down at -1/2 diopter per year. Even at age 13 he was wise, and did not wish this to happen. Here is his commentary:
FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WEARING A PLUS LENS
Dear Uncle, February 19
Thank you very much for the book, “How to Avoid
Nearsightedness”. I got it yesterday after I came back from the
weekend. I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I
have a great deal of school work to read.
I would imagine you’ll be pleased to have me tell you that
one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check
my eyes with the eye chart. I am able to read the 20/20 line on
the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most
of the time now. I have always passed the driver’s license eye
test.
I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I
read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total
reading I do. I started using them as much as possible again
because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I
didn’t check them on a chart). I am lucky to have an uncle who
showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my
nearsightedness.
One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and
then use or adapt methods to work for me. In the last few years I
have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don’t use the
magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to
deteriorate. Then I realize it’s time to do something to stop
that process.
At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I
know what it does for my vision. Thanks for taking the time to
tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for
the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending
me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the
methods I am using.
Keith B.
+++++++
Keith kept this up through the college years. (Our eyes go down by -1.4 diopters in college.) Judged against that predictable future — he was indeed successful.
Dear Scientific-Engineering friends,
Separating “medical reality” from true scientific reality.
My nephew is a man who is working on plus-prevention. We all have “run ins” with medical people who believe that their office is “scientific reality”. It is not, and never was. But prevention is still difficult — but possible.
Long-term NEAR creates negative status for the natural eye. At every turn, medical people (with few exceptions) attempt to DENY SCIENCE.
So what does science tell us about long-term near. It is not easy to condense this data — but it is necessary to present it to those who take science seriously. These are the refractive states of primates kept in a cage for seven years. Massive and serious myopia (negative state of the natural dynamic eye).
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/SaveEye.html
When will we stop pretending that you can put your eyes in long-term near — with NO EFFECT AT ALL ON OUR REFRACTIVE STATE?
I accept responsibility for myself — and my “bad habits”? Why can’t an OD or MD take the time to send us to these preventive sites when we still verify 20/40 to 20/50 on our won Snellen charts?
I had received glasses following my first major eye exam ever. Upon entering college I had slight difficulty reading some of the professors writing on the board, sitting about 15-20 feet from the board. Reading road signs was also becoming a problem, being blurry when too far away and causing me to be distracted trying to focus on them. I had a standard procedure, at least I believe so, and received a prescription of -0.50 diopters for each eye. The change the glasses made was immense, at least what me and my father who has also near-sighted vision agrees. My step-mother and her daughter disagree that the glasses are having any effect at all. I have noticed that after removing my glasses, there is a noticeable full sight blurriness that slowly goes away in my vision. Your articles on this have been MOST interesting! It really makes me question how ODs can potentially make people with near decent vision eyeglass dependent and virtually life-long customers. I want to give glasses a yearly chance, my next eye appointment, with this optometrist and another to see if there is indeed a decline in my vision. Hopefully I won’t damage my eyes too badly! I’ll have to try out similar techniques to exercise my eyes, because I definitely believe glasses are an odd obstacle to get used to. Thanks again Tod!
I used to think that I could trust and OD, and we could have an honest conversation about prevention — using Bates or Plus methods. I no longer think that your OD is going to be honest with you, and respect you. Here is the video that shows there true colors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr0a1pEaavo&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL10A9B50AB91353A9
I realize that prevention is possible — but not if you go to an OD for any advice. They just call you “stupid” and worse.
Hi Zack,
I know how impressive a strong minus is — when you first receive it. But equally, I know that I must check myself to get an accurate judgment. You must pass the 20/40 line for driving a car. I check this myself. I suggest you do the same:
virtually life-long customers. I want to give Zack> …my next eye appointment, with this optometrist and another to see if there is indeed a decline in my vision. Hopefully I won’t damage my eyes too badly! I’ll have to try out similar techniques to exercise my eyes, because I definitely believe glasses are an odd obstacle to get used to. Thanks again Tod!
Otis> The OD doesn not have time, nor motivation to teach you Snellen clearing. Rather that “bother” him with these issues, why not just get a Snellen chart, set it up and read it. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUkoSSgVOs&feature=g-upl&context=G2d4039eAUAAAAAAAZAA
I use a plus to protect my distant vision. This video has a Link to an eye chart. Why not find out what you actually read — and let us know? We will help you if we can.
Hi Zach> Since you are entering a four-year college, let me provide some additional information. I would guess your prescription is about -3/4 diopter, and your Snellen is probably about 20/50. (Almost passes the DMV.) Knowing that, and the history of Annoplis and West Point, I will say that your vision will go down by -1.4 diopters in four years — if you do nothing about it.
Zach> I had received glasses following my first major eye exam ever. Upon entering college I had slight difficulty reading some of the professors writing on the board, sitting about 15-20 feet from the board. Reading road signs was also becoming a problem, being blurry when too far away and causing me to be distracted trying to focus on them.
Otis> Thus your vision will probably go to -2.0 diopters, and you will not be able to pass the 20/40 line on your Snellen. Pilots with motivation had worn a “plus” for all close work, and gradually cleared their Snellen, thus avoiding the -2 diopters of myopia that you will develop. But I know how difficult it will be for you to 1) Not wear the minus and 2) Wear a +2 for all reading — to prevent becoming myopic. No OD is going to tell you this.
Subject: Why don’t ODs help their own children with prevention?
I know we are given the impression that all ODs are hostile to the concept of having a child begin wearing the (preventive) plus before the child even begins to lose 20/20 on his Snellen. This is not the entire story, so I must show that, for his own child, an OD will insist his child “be wise” and wear the plus. For those of you who are now wearing the plus, I post this to show the wisdom and safety of doing so.
Some ODs, seeing the massive amount of myopia that has developed if no plus is used, “wake up” and insist that their own child wear the “best plus” possible. This is a story of Father/Son optometry and the wise useof the plus — even AFTER getting to 20/20.
This is a story by Paul Harris, behavioral optometrist. In 1996 he wrote to the newsgroup sci.med.vision, saying:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/msg/3d07f6f5f866c5c0
Remarks by Paul Harris OD:
I started wearing single vision plus to play chess and this was upped and upped.
NOTE: I was measured with a 14 to 1 ACA ratio. 16 eso at near through
whatever distance lens of the time and 2 eso with +1.00 add over that.
The standard theory was “push plus”. This was done and I ended up at one point
wearing +2.25 OD/ +2.50 OS (1) with a +1.50 add for 10 years. (2)
I measured well up in +3.00 range when my father (my optometrist then) was done
with me. There was no latent hyperopia over the +1.00. The additional amounts
were built up slowly over time in response to my optometric care.
Once I did VT 13 years ago I now wear just some plus for near and nothing for
distance. My subjective now is +1.25 OU (3) which I choose not to wear and do
great. In fact I now see better than ever. (4)
+++++++
1. Left eye and Right eye.
2. Plus for distance and more plus for near!
3. OU = Both eyes. So-called “subjective” is objective when you have your own
Snellen and test lenses. I means you can read 20/20 at 20 feet, and, can
continue to read 20/20 as you put stronger and stronger plus lenses on yourself,
until you find a lens that “just blurs” the 20/20 line. The point here is the
necessity and safety of continued wearing of the plus lens, to not only get to
20/20 (refractive state zero) but to develop some “protective” positive status
for your eyes.
4. In order to keep your Snellen clear, it is necessary to measure a refractive
state of zero to some positive value — yourself. This shows the total safety
of the plus, and the wisdom of long-term wear. The fact that a parent will
insist that his own child wear the plus should be very instructive to all of us.
Subject: The second-opinion on threshold prevention.
I support science, and your right to be informed of the concept of self-protection of your distant vision for life — even if you must do this yourself. People are successful with these preventive methods, if they start them before they have lost too much of their distant vision. Here is a book that details how prevention can be possible.
http://www.i-see.org/otis_brown/
Otis
Dr. Bates stated the second-opinion, that, with reason, you could prevent entry into nearsightedness — if you avoided wearing a minus lens. The majority-opinion ODs attack Bates endlessly for making false claims. But the reality it that he did not do that. Here is the first statement of his 1913 study:
MYOPIA PREVENTION BY TEACHERS.
By W. H. BATES, M.D.,
New York
Myopia with elongation of the eyeball is incurable. It is usually acquired during school life. Acute myopia, spasm of the accommodation, or functional myopia is an early stage of incurable myopia.
Otis> Whether is “methods” would have worked — remain an “open question”. But it clear that ONLY THRESHOLD PREVENTION (BEFORE THAT FIRST MINUS) IS POSSIBLE.
Otis> There has been no follow-up, where prevention would be restricted to people at 20/40 to 20/50, who could get out of it using “exercise”, or a plus lens. In fact, people who can commit to wearing a plus lens (and confirming results on their own Snellen, confirm results — and avoid any use of a minus lens. Pilots do this, but they know for certain that no OD or MD will be of any help to them.
Subject: When experts totally contradict each other — you must make a educated choice to “prevent” under your control.
“Medical Reality” is to feed the “public” (you and I) distortions of scientific fact and truth. It is not about helping you to understand the need for prevention, before a minus lens is put on your face.
Here an OD giving assurance that a minus is perfectly safe, and you should expect your child to get stair case myopia — and you should not be concerned about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-hUPMni1jw&feature=related
Here is an OD that says that prevention would be wise and possible, from about 20/40, about -1 diopter — if the plus is used correctly.
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html
I always prefer scientific truth, to being led down the “prim-rose path”, only to find that these ODs don’t have the courage to tell you that, 1) Long-term near creates negative status for the natural eye, and 2) An over-prescribed minus lens, creates stair-case myopia.
I personally think it is time for scientific truth, and enough of ODs telling us “office fibs”, because we can’t take scientific truth.
Tod — you can delete this if you wish.
Subject: Fair play — equal time for the majority-opinion OD.
BlueOD> …kind of depends on his age doesn’t it Otis? Or maybe you don’t
understand.
and why does his eye have to be “negative”. I know you have
difficulty following this, but not everyone is a myope. There are
emmetropes, amblyopes, anisometropes, hyperopes, astigmates, and
patients with mixed prescriptions. You are only capable of thinking
about things through the narrow slit of your own personal experiences
and that’s what makes you so unable to understand the overwhelming
facts that some trained and experienced professionals have taken the
time to present to you here over the years. Yet instead you just
default to your standard “dullard denial” stance.
Why don’t you go off somewhere else (there’s probably a “dementia”
forum out there somewhere) and give someone engineering advise on
building airplane engines, bridges, or something. Perhaps you have
something of value to say to someone on those topics. But here you
just keep shoving your foot farther and farther into your mouth every
time you open it. You’re kind of pathetic. You are doing a
disservice to the old spectacle-peddlers whose outdated theories that
you still adhere to. Ever notice how there seems to be fewer and
fewer of your like-minded buddies around. Science moves on. Old
notions get displaced by medical facts.
I know what Raphaelson and Merrill Allen have done! Fade away. Go
the way of the buggy-whip. There’s a new sheriff in town, and it’s
called medical science.
Indeed there is a lot of ongoing modern research on the topic of
myopia development all over the world. Why aren’t you all over that?
Why do you keep clinging onto a few old studies that have since been
proven wrong, and instead try to use some convoluted logic to proclaim
that all primate eyes are “fundamental eyes” blah blah blah. Get real
man. Or fade away.
Big Blue OS
++++++
I believe in “standing up” for your right if choice — for prevention. The personal attacks — don’t concern me.
Your long-term visual welfare is more important than my personal feelings.
This is the reason I get my own Snellen and trial-lens kit, and check myself.
The other people Big Blue OD attacks, are people who advocate that you be informed of EDUCATED CHOICE TO PREVENT. Obviously Blue must attack them also.
Otis
Hi, I was just wondering what your eyesight was at now? On your last post you said you had -2.50 vision, has it improved since then?
-2.50 is the last “official” number from an optometrist. I only get an exam once a year, so near the end of summer at the latest, we’ll see if it improves at all.