Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: The second-opinion on clearing vision from -2.75 diopters.

No on argues the vision-clearing is easy. I only argue that,
with considerable effort, a person COULD clear his vision
to pass all reasonable visual acuity requirements imposed on him.

Here are some statements by Steve-8631, who took a
strong interest in clearing his vision from -2.75 diopter. I had
strong doubts that he could be successful -- and said so. But
Steve chose to "work on it". In about 3 months he has gone from
about 20/200 to about 20/40.

Here is a discussion about his efforts.

Enjoy!

Otis

====================================

From: Steve - 8631

Newbie seeking help on: Sep 9th, 2005


Hi,

I read as much as I can in the last 2 days about preventing
nearsightedness.

Let me tell you my situation. I started wearing glasses at
the age of 13. At 28 (now 38) I started wearing contacts lens.
For many years I looked for a "cure" but didn't find any. My last
test shows that my power is -2.75 for both eyes (that's how they tell
me) and it has been pretty much stable for the last few years. I
still have faith that I can have perfect sight without minus
glasses or contact lens.

I just got a +1.5 lens for me to start using while I'm using
computers. I work a lot with my computers.

My questions is. Since it is dangerous for me to drive
without glasses or contact lens. What do you suggest for me now,
a lower powered minus glasses or contact lens. If yes what power
do you suggest!

I'm planning to start today using +1.5 lens & try to get
comfortable with it.

Wish me luck.

Rgds,

Steve

P/S - I've printed the eye charts, will stick it today & check out
where I stand

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Steve,

After a great deal of research, I discovered that SOME ODs
know what a total disaster that minus lens is. They call it
"poison glasses for children." My issue is this -- why not TELL
US ABOUT THIS BEFORE THEY PUT THAT FIRST MINUS LENS ON US?

Tragically, they keep their mouth shut -- and will not say
squat. Nearsightedness is preventable in that first stage, and I
would GLADLY PAY the OD for his information and time -- even if I
had to take TOTAL responsibility and do ALL THE WORK MYSELF --
including monitoring my "clearing" on my own eye chart.

[This is my "rant" for today. That being said, the next step
is asking about what you "want" in terms of vision clearing.]

I would never use the term "perfect" -- because no eyes are
perfect.

I would look for a goal of always passing the DMV (1.8 cm at
6 meters) as a reasonable attainable goal.

I would start by reading your own eye chart.

In fact this is very easy. Just click on

www.myopiafree.com

and then eyechart 2 (lower right)

and enter 1 inch and 10 feet, and read the eye chart on your
monitor at 10 feet.

I would guess you can read the 20/200 line - maybe the 20/100
line.

Let us know.

Best,

Otis

====================================

Sep 11th, 2005

Dear Robert & Patrick, thanks a lot for your post.

Dear Otis,

I tried the test I can see at 20/200 but very blur. By
saying "perfect" I meant 20/20 vision, this is what I want (I know
some people reading this might be laughing, no probs, if only they
know what true 20/20 vision means to me, oh well...). If I've
known this when I was 13 yrs old, I don't have to go thru this
now, but life is a lesson and anything is possible is my firm
belief.

Otis , please tell me what I can do next. I believe my case
can be conquered if you guide me how to approach this matter.

BTW, I work in an office mostly dealing with computers at work
& home...and of course I also drive quite a bit everyday.

If you require any other info, please let me know.

Thanks a million,

Steve

=====================================

Hi Robert,

I went and checked my eyes today, since I know for a fact
that I can't get my eyes to improve wearing contacts at full
strength for long hours a day. (BTW, my contacts are -2.75 for
both eyes.)

Now after checking for glasses, my reading was -3.00 for both
eyes, with astig - 0.50 for the right eye.

So, I got my "version" of weak computer glasses (definitely
not very weak) at - 2.25 for both eyes without any correction for
astig, (since I didn't have any correction for astig when I was
wearing contacts anyway)

I will try not use my new specs as much as possible, but try
to use plus lens as much as possible. I've got +1.0 lens to use
for computers, since +1.5 was too strong to use while working with
computers.

BTW, where is Otis, I didn't get any post from him after my
reply to his question

Cheers

Steve

============================

Dear Steve,

Sorry I missed your post.

My interest was in learning what I did "wrong" as a 7
years-old kid -- and attempt to "fix" it for my sister's children.

I learned the hard way that these ODs are arrogant as hell,
and vastly over-prescribe the minus lens on their assumption that
they are "Gods" and scientific facts and proof mean nothing to
them. There are a few "honest" ones, and it is my goal to "steer"
people on the threshold of nearsighteness to them -- for the
purpose of effective prevention.

In "conversations" on sci.med.vision I am constantly told
that a minus lens has no effect on the refractive status of the
eye -- by these over-bearing ODs. I have spent 30 years in an
attempt to verify THEIR THESIS -- that the minus is "perfectly
safe" and does not produce "stair-case" myopia.

The scientific proof and truth is that it does.

If a person sees his eye-chart at 20/70 (the Florida DMV
standard) then he has a good possibility of clearing to 20/40 or
better. Tragically in the interests of a "rapid sale" no OD is
going to tell you about prevention -- at that point.

I know that at -2.75 the situation is bad. I would check
your vision on an eye chart -- just to know where you stand, and
to double-check that -2.75 diopters "prescription".

I would suspect you could read the 20/200 line -- from past
experience.

But BOTH OF US are screwed by this terrible system. I wish I
could be more positive -- but that is the way I "see" it.

A number of young man (Patrick included) had "woken up" to
our sad state of affairs.

If for them the "hours are long" using the plus -- perhaps
they will have learned to avoid the situation we are now in -- I
hope so.

Best,

Otis

-------------------

Dear Steve,

Steve> I would like to know whether it is good to wear plus
lens while I'm driving if it is possible. Will this assist my
vision to improve faster or will this have a detrimental
effect on
the eyes?

Otis> The FIRST thing you must establish is the line you can read
on the eye chart.

Click on:

www.myopiafree.com

And "Eye Chart 2"

Let us know what you read. It will probably be about 20/200.

PLEASE DO NOT DRIVE WITH A PLUS LENS ON!

The plus is intended only to REDUCE (or change) the "near"
environment. The plus will make distant vision blurrier -- and is
NOT intended for distant vision.

For a person with 20/50 to 20/60 vision, the plus can
eliminate the "near" environment.

By persisting in this difficult process, SOME people have
verified there distant vision "clearing" to about 20/30 or so.

The typical requirement for driving a car is 20/40 or better.
Only after you achieve 20/30 should you then go an PASS the
driver-license test.

Only then can you drive a car without the minus lens on your
face.

You must meet the legal visual requirements! Please note
that I am not a medical doctor. Use your own best judgment
accordingly. Also read the legal disclaimer on my site about this
issue.

Best,

Otis

-------------------------------------

Dear Otis,

As per your previous request, I did check & replied as above,
although today I would say that I can see much clearer at 20/200 then
my last test on 11/9. (Sept 11, 2005)

I guess now you know where I stand, vision wise.

I know the danger of driving without glasses or using plus
lens. I won't hold anyone responsible, but what I actually like
to know is, is there any added advantage using plus lens and
looking at a distance, would this accelerate or assist to clear my
vision or would this be detrimental to the eyes.

Although, I've read plus lens should be used to clear vision by
reading slightly blur or push print as mentioned in the forum, but
I like to know whether looking at a distance with plus lens has
similar effect or better.

Thanks for taking time to reply my post

B.rgds,

Steve

-----------------------------

Dear Steve,

You know how much I wanted a "professional" to talk to you
about this issue -- before that minus lens was placed on your
face.

I blame myself for my "bad habits" as a kid -- that got me
into 20/50.

I wrote my book to help others "steel" themselves to use a
plus at that point. (My rant.)

If you are reading 20/200, then that would take a MINIMUM minus
lens to clear the 20/40 line of about -1.5 diopters to -2
diopters.

If you take that minus off for all close work, that is like a
20/50 person wearing a +2 diopter lens.

In your "situation" you could probably wear a +1.0 or +1.25
diopter lens.

As another "test" (for the fun of it), I would suggest
getting some reading material and "push" the book away from you
until you just start to see blur.

I suspect that distance will be about 50 cm or 20 inches.
This is another method of measuring your refractive state.

The "power" is the inverse of the distance, thus

Power = 1 / distance (in meters)

Power = 1 / 0.5 meters

Power = -2 diopters.

I wish we BOTH of us had this "advocacy" before this
situation got out-of-hand.

Best,

Otis

----------------------------

Dear Steve,

Subject: Second thoughts.

I am an "engineer", and typical to engineers, they are "gun
shy" about excessive claims.

I personally tell you that I believe that "vision clearing"
is possible from 20/70 -- because of the reports of the people
who have done it.

But equally, reports by Jacob Liberman, are that you can
"clear" from 20/200 -- using his "methods".

ALL these methods recommend that you attempt to "work" without
that
minus -- unless absolutely necessary. I agree with that
concept, as did Bates.

The "rest", as they say, is up to you.

You should read the Bates method, and do some of the
"exercises" you select.

But above all else, please read your eye chart. That is the
ONLY way you will know the results.

Best,

Otis

-----------------------------

steve8631


Dear Otis,

I hope you can let me know the answer to the above question,
or at least an idea.

Otis > wrote: In your "situation" you could probably wear a
+1.0 or +1.25 diopter lens.

I'm currently using as much as possible the plus lens. At
times +1 or +3 and mostly +2. I use very little of minus lens
now. With the computer I use +1 or without any but view it
slightly blur. I'm getting headaches but I'll persist with plus
lens.

Although, I just started using plus lens but I've done some
crazy things....driving (very carefully) with +1 or +2 lens but
only during bright days . At night I put my -2.25 lens almost at
the tip of my nose & drive with blurred vision and tilt my head
upwards when clear view required. Anyway all this is done only
with the roads I am very familiar with and driving slowly.

==========================

Dear Steve,

Subject: "Diopter" check of your eyes".

I believe that the eye-chart makes or breaks us.

If you begin to see 20/100 then that would be profound
progress.

The fact that "blur" starts at 20 inches for you confirms
approximately, that it would take a -2 diopter lens to "clear"
your eye chart. It is just a check to make certain you are not
"over-prescribed".

You could potentially obtain a -1.5 diopter lens from
zenioptical for $20. This would give you 20/40 vision.

This is a matter of YOUR discretion. Use it carefully.

Got to run -- more later

Otis

============================

Dear Steve,

From myself I wondered why YOU and I never got ONE WORD about
prevention.

This issue did bother me a great deal. I hope it is not to
late for you.

Except for driving a car, then "experimenting" with the plus
is a great idea. Most of the people who "cleared" from 20/70
would some times wear the plus all the time.

Please read:

www.google.com

then select Groups and type

sci.med.vision

And read all the posts AGAINST prevention, and me personally.

Best,

Otis

==================

From Steve:

Hi,

After consistently using plus lens, I now can see a very
blurry 20/70 line from the chart.

I got last Wednesday +4 lens and used on & off at night,
sometimes adding +2 lens , making +6. I cannot say whether it is
help or not as it is too soon to say. But I know for a fact using
+2 & +3 helps.

As usual, I still use plus lens about 5-6 hours a day, in the
hope I will reverse my myopia soonest possible.

Hers to 20/20 vision.

Cheers,

Steve

-------------------

Dear Steve,

Subject: Vision clearing is VERY FRUSTRATING -- be prepared.

Re: I am pleased that you are "on the chart", i.e., 20/70.
The "standard" is that your read 1/2 the letters to pass the line.

The Florida "standard" is 20/70 or better. I do not
recommend that you drive a car at 20/70, but it does mean that you
can "function" without a minus lens most of the time. I suggest
that your goal should be clearing to 20/60 or 20/50 -- and perhaps
20/40.

I suggest "experimenting" with the plus. You can read the
statement about "Mike" on my site who started out at a "blurry"
20/70 just to get a sense of how hard this work is.

To further respond:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi,

After consistently using plus lens, I now can see a very
blurry 20/70 line from the chart.

Otis> Good -- it is easy to check by using EyeChart 2 on my
site.

I got last Wednesday +4 lens and used on & off at night,
sometimes adding +2 lens , making +6.I cannot say whether it is
help or not as it is too soon to say. But I know for a fact using
+2 & +3 helps.

Otis> Being nearsighted "cuts" the strength of the plus you can
use.

As usual, I still use plus lens about 5 - 6 hours a day, in the
hope I will reverse my myopia soonest possible.

Otis> "Reverse myopia" mean clearing the 20/40 line. Once you do
that -- you pass the DMV. I think that is the real test of
success.

-------------------

Dear Steve,

Subject: Some additional suggestions

A lot of my advocacy suggests that you read your own eye
chart -- and trust what you read.

I would suggest printing a number of eye charts and take some
outside in sun light -- and read them there. This is a "best
case" situation -- but it is a good starting point.

The issue is that you use the eye-chart to establish other
objects (like stop signs and other billboards). By doing this you
MIGHT notice "clear flashes" -- as part of this "clearing"
process. Just an "awareness" of your actual clarity seems to help
with this process.

When I was playing tennis -- I could "see" this "flash" -- it
was impressive. It does not "last" at first, but as you work with
the plus -- and monitor those street signs, you will notice it
more often.

Use the method of "Bates" if you can. There is no "one"
perfect method, but I obviously think that the "core" method is
the plus.

Good luck -- to 20/40, and 20/30 and 20/20 if you can.

Keep us posted -- this is a true intellectual and physical
challenge!

steve8631

========================

Dear Otis,

As suggested, I printed another set of charts and pasted
outside my house & checked my vision under the sunlight. At 20
feet I can see better then indoor (even tho well lighted). I can
see blurry 20/60 line and at times the 20/50 line, in comparison
with indoor I can only see blurry 20/70 line.

I feel more motivated to work harder with plus lens.

I'll keep posted my progress later.

Thanks a lot.

B.rgds, Steve

#########################

Dear Steve,

Subject: Vision Testing -- Visual Standards

While you must be the judge of this, let me say that the
State of Georgia requires 20/60 vision to pass the DMV. (Check my
site.) I certainly agree that you MUST gradually clear your vision
to better than this -- say 20/50 or 20/40, but that is what your
"effort" is all about.

It does take VERY CONSISTENT motivation to achieve ANY
RESULTS. The best and only confirmation is your eye chart. You
have read the reports of two teenagers on my site, "Jon and Mike".
I am pleased you are in a "range" were "success" MIGHT be
possible.

I work with scientific proof (not medical proof). They are
profoundly different. When you understand "why" you will
understand (to a certain extent) why the plus can be effective (at
the threshold.)

I would suggest reading my current post on

www.myopiafree.com

under the group:

MyopiaFree2

Just log-on and read the last five postings.

Best,

Otis

-------------------------------------------------------------

December 4, 2005

Hi Everyone,

Just to update my progress.

Now I can see a very blur 20/40 line (reading outside)

With -1.25 lens I can see 20/15 line. If bright sunlight a
few letters of 20/13 line.

My target was to achieve seeing 20/20 line in 3 months i.e.
by Dec 14th 2005.......but looks like I need more time then
expected.

Anyway, I will keep on doing until I reach my goal.

Happy "exercising" your eyes.

Cheers,

Steve

-------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Steve,

Subject: You must be an engineer or a scientist.

Re: Passing a given line.

Re: Illumination level.

I post on i-see. That is mostly a "Bates" site. I always
ask them to READ THE EYE CHART. Mostly they never do.

I believe you started at -3 diopters. (This is mostly in
semi-darkness, so I ignore it -- but it is significant at an
"official" prescription.)

My goal for you is that you read the 20/40 line, and go PASS
the DMV test. Passing the line means "guessing" 1/2 the letters
correctly. So when you "report" -- that is the way to do it. I
know that "vision-clearing" is very frustrating for most, and they
lack the "heart" to do it. I know that you must PERSONALLY see
the results -- and that means "doing it yourself". You feel so
much better about the results.

Some more commentary:

++++++++++++++

Hi Everyone,

Steve> Just to update my progress.

Steve> Now I can see a very blur 20/40 line (reading outside)

Otis> What "counts" is getting 1/2 the letters correctly. A
friend can help with this.

Steve> With -1.25 lens I can see 20/15 line. If bright sunlight a
few letters of 20/13 line.

Otis> This test confirms the "health" of your retina. You have no
medical problem at all. And your eyes have the capability
of 20/25 or better (naked eye.)

Steve> My target was to achieve seeing 20/20 line in 3 months i.e.
by Dec 14th 2005.......but looks like I need more time then
expected.

Otis> From "diopters" the eye will clear at about +1/2 diopter per
year. Obviously "diopters" are screwed up. But that last
improvement to 20/20 is much slower. Count you blessings
that you are passing that 20/40 line -- very few myopes at
previous -3 diopters could do that. Excellent work!

Steve> Anyway, I will keep on doing until I reach my goal.

Otis> That is amazing success -- and you did it yourself.

Steve> Happy "exercising" your eyes.

Otis> I am very pleased that you were strong enough to do it
yourself and follow the "lead" of Dr. Colgate.

Otis> I am also pleased that it was "free", if you ignore your
hard work at it. No one can "prescribe" the intelligence
and motivation it takes to do this work "correctly".

www.myopiafree.com

Best,

Otis

Cheers,

Steve

========================

Dear Steve

Subject: Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states.

I believe that the problem of "nearsightedness" can be
resolved on a scientific level. I owe it to you to explain this
aspect of "vision clearing".

Please enjoy the discussion.

I suggest that there is a profound difference concerning
"pure science" and "pure medicine". And I suggest the difference
is this:

Medicine: deals with a great mass of people walking in off the
street. There might be some "intelligent" people but that
can never be the assumption of the medical doctor. The
result is that we get "canned" procedures that "works"
instantly. I consider that people in this profession have
no choice but to conduct that kind of work -- and I would do
the same thing IN THEIR PROFESSION. That would not make it
"right" but I do understand them -- and what they are doing.

Science: "steps back" from that situation, and thinks about the
behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system. Engineers
and scientists simply do not deal with children, nor mothers
with 8th grade education, nor endless complaints about
God-knows-what.

But when you ask very fundamental questions about whether a
population of eyes (primates) are dynamic, you get the
"second-opinion" answer, that POTENTIALLY a negative refractive
status could be prevented -- before the minus lens is applied.

I believe that pure science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not
medical -- experiments proves that point.) But that is the nature
of our arguments. Many concepts in science simply can never be
reduced to "medicine" and we should understand that truth.

I enjoyed your write-up about pure science, and the "habit"
of tossing science out the window when a concept (like the dynamic
eye) can never produce a quick-fix in 15 minutes.

But that is how I separate "medical issues" from scientific
concepts exclusively experimental, objective and scientific testing.

But that is why it took a scientist like Dr. Stirling
Colgate to do the "work" correctly and clear his vision from 20/70
to 20/20.

His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the
primate eye -- again on a pure-scientific (not medical) level.

Use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can
have positive and negative refractive status (as a dynamic device)
and this situation will become clearer.

Best,

Otis