Eyeglasses and retail optometry are scams

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know. I suspect it works in a similar way to how it corrects amblyopia in children, neurological stimulation. It's not prescribed because it takes a very long time, requires a lot of patience, and maybe carries even more of a stigma than it does in children.

*EDIT* I do not believe eye patching will improve some forms of astigmatism, such as corneal birth defect or permanent injuries to the eye. It definitely improves lens-induced astigmatism which comes from years of wearing glasses, and subjecting your eyes to hyperoptic defocus.

Patching does not change the surface of your cornea, the cause of astigmatism. All you are doing is causing the brain to pay attention to the other eye and dominate your vision.

 

[Tippit]

Patching does not change the surface of your cornea, the cause of astigmatism. All you are doing is causing the brain to pay attention to the other eye and dominate your vision.

Lens-induced astigmatism has to do with the irregular shape of the eyeball, not any corneal defect, caused by hyperopic defocus, much as it causes progressive myopia (an elongated, but not otherwise irregular) eyeball. I also think there is a neurological aspect to some or perhaps all types of astigmatisms, and that is what the patching addresses.

As I understand, for any significant difference in visual acuity between the eyes, sometimes the brain will suppress the "weaker" eye, which manifests in amblyopia (lazy eye) in children and adults, and also astigmatism to some degree.

In any case, lens-induced astigmatism, which I am sure is what I have, is caused by years of wearing glasses, and is also treatable by myopic defocus - wearing weaker cylinder corrections, active focusing with the affected eye, and patching. I agree that patching will do nothing, or virtually nothing to improve corneal astigmatism (or defect or injury of the lens itself).

 

[Tippit]

Here is a fairly comprehensive list of the different types of astigmatisms:

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/astigmatism

Note that there are some forms which occur even given perfectly healthy corneas AND lenses, which necessarily mean that it is the retina at the back of the eyes which are irregularly shaped and the cause of the refractive error. It is Jake Steiner's contention (and mine, through experience) that this is not permanent, and perfectly treatable without surgery or permanent eyeglass correction.

It's also possible that a portion of my astigmatism is due to some defect or injury, and that I will plateau at some point. Time will tell.

 

[hecd2]

What is the point of these discussions around the highly questionable anecdotal reports of a single subject? Tippit's highly questionable personal anecdotes are of no more value in determining whether a particular therapy is efficacious than the highly questionable personal anecdotes of our homeopathic, supplement-devouring friend.

 

[Pixel42]

I have been wearing glasses for over 50 years. I do not have astigmatism. What does that anecdote prove? The same as any other anecdote. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have astigmatism. My contact lenses corrected it by pulling the cornea into its proper shape. Regardless of how misshapen the whole eye is, the contacts corrected it by pulling the cornea into the curvature of the contacts. Patching an eye does not correct that. Period. Full stop.

During my NP education I learned how to use an ophthalmoscope. I found it impossible to use my non-dominant eye. Regardless, when covering the dominant eye the other eye could see just fine with the contact lens correction. If I had wanted to, that is where patching would have corrected the problem by retraining the brain to use the non-dominant eye equally.

After radial keratotomy I didn't need glasses for more than 30 years. Now that I no longer wear contacts and my lenses and corneas have had age related changes, I need glasses again, at first only for reading and now I need them for distance but nothing like before the keratotomy when my vision was worse than 20:200 in both eyes making me legally blind without correction.

There's no way exercising my lenses and patching either eye would have corrected 20:200 vision or the astigmatism.

My anecdote outweighs the OP anecdote. This thread belongs in the Woo subforum*.


*One can patch an eye to force the other eye to work better. And one might be able to make small corrections in one's vision by exercising the lens muscle (you look at something close then something far repeatedly). But you can only see small improvements in vision, you could not exercise a lens to go beyond what is physically possible which one would need to correct 20:200 vision.

 

[Tippit]

I have astigmatism. My contact lenses corrected it by pulling the cornea into its proper shape. Regardless of how misshapen the whole eye is, the contacts corrected it by pulling the cornea into the curvature of the contacts. Patching an eye does not correct that. Period. Full stop.

During my NP education I learned how to use an ophthalmoscope. I found it impossible to use my non-dominant eye. Regardless, when covering the dominant eye the other eye could see just fine with the contact lens correction. If I had wanted to, that is where patching would have corrected the problem by retraining the brain to use the non-dominant eye equally.

After radial keratotomy I didn't need glasses for more than 30 years. Now that I no longer wear contacts and my lenses and corneas have had age related changes, I need glasses again, at first only for reading and now I need them for distance but nothing like before the keratotomy when my vision was worse than 20:200 in both eyes making me legally blind without correction.

There's no way exercising my lenses and patching either eye would have corrected 20:200 vision or the astigmatism.

My anecdote outweighs the OP anecdote. This thread belongs in the Woo subforum*.


*One can patch an eye to force the other eye to work better. And one might be able to make small corrections in one's vision by exercising the lens muscle (you look at something close then something far repeatedly). But you can only see small improvements in vision, you could not exercise a lens to go beyond what is physically possible which one would need to correct 20:200 vision.

Cleary you didn’t read the thread, starting with my very first post that describes not only my experience, but the science behind the method. It is fairly clear to me that patching does not improve any astigmatism that is the result of cornea or lens problems. But as for the case of irregularly shaped eyeballs, it does (see the google scholar links that I posted above for studies relating to hyperopic defocus, and how the eye’s shape can change dynamically as the result of hyperopic or myopic defocus).

When I started this, my last official right eye prescription was OD SPH -2.00 CYL -0.75. If you aggregate the correction and convert it to a snellen fraction, that is WORSE than 20/300. There is absolutely no question that this method works, and works well, as I stopped using glasses entirely in September of 2018, and my vision has steadily improved since then. The last diopter, plus lingering astigmatism in my right eye is all that I have left to improve, and it has been the last diopter that has been the slowest progression.

My claim is falsifiable. I have my old prescriptions and glasses, and if I test, it will be around 20/30 to 20/35. I will put as much money up as you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cleary you didn’t read the thread, starting with my very first post that describes not only my experience, but the science behind the method. ...

Clearly you overrate your science citations if that is what they even are (it's a stretch to call any of that evidence based).

The OP and your citations definitely belong in the woo forum.

 

[Tippit]

Clearly you overrate your science citations if that is what they even are (it's a stretch to call any of that evidence based).

The OP and your citations definitely belong in the woo forum.

I think you are a waste of my time, but let me explain what falsifiability means. It means my claim can be proven false, or true. I can easily get tested by an ophthalmologist who can either confirm or deny my ability to see to a certain acuity, and who can also confirm an absence of surgery.

If I were to take this test, it would document phenomenal improvement from my last prescription which would directly contradict the idea that progressive myopia is a genetic condition. I would also bet money that I’ve improved beyond 20/35, because Thats what the Snellen chart in my office indicates.

I can then provide evidence of my prior condition with prescriptions, and eyeglasses. I am pretty sure I can obtain records from optometrists as well, in case you doubt my credibility, which seems apparent. Then there is the fact that I’m telling you directly about how much my vision has improved, both subjectively, and objectively as demonstrated by my ability to read the Snellen.

I’m not sure what it is about the pseudo-skeptics like you on this forum for whom apparently no evidence is able to convince you, and for whom everyone who makes claims that contradict what you think you know about the word must be a liar, but this only serves to keep you hopelessly ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[arthwollipot]

...pseudo-skeptics like you...

There it is.

 

[Gamolon]

I’m not sure what it is about the pseudo-skeptics like you on this forum for whom apparently no evidence is able to convince you, and for whom everyone who makes claims that contradict what you think you know about the word must be a liar, but this only serves to keep you hopelessly ignorant.

That's pretty bold statement to make given the fact that you've provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

 

[RolandRat]

I can easily get tested by an ophthalmologist who can either confirm or deny my ability to see to a certain acuity, and who can also confirm an absence of surgery.

If I were to take this test, it would document phenomenal improvement from my last prescription which would directly contradict the idea that progressive myopia is a genetic condition. I would also bet money that I’ve improved beyond 20/35, because Thats what the Snellen chart in my office indicates.

I can then provide evidence of my prior condition with prescriptions, and eyeglasses. I am pretty sure I can obtain records from optometrists as well, in case you doubt my credibility, which seems apparent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not just do that?

 

[Gamolon]

I am pretty sure I can obtain records from optometrists as well, in case you doubt my credibility, which seems apparent.

And why SHOULDN'T we doubt you're credibility? We're just supposed to believe everything you say because you've laid down a bunch of numbers and fancy terms with no supporting evidence?

 

[hecd2]

let me explain what falsifiability means. It means my claim can be proven false, or true. I can easily get tested by an ophthalmologist who can either confirm or deny my ability to see to a certain acuity, and who can also confirm an absence of surgery.

Let me explain that what you are presenting is no more than your personal anecdote and is of no value whatsoever in determining whether a particular procedure is efficacious. If, as in this case, it is not possible to double blind the trial, you at least need a trial with controls, with sufficient power to get a statistically significant result, and blinded from the researchers.

What you are doing is no different from homeopathic and supplement proponents who insist that their good health and improved conditions are a result of whatever mumbo jumbo they happen to believe in. On its own, it's worthless.

 

[Tippit]

That's pretty bold statement to make given the fact that you've provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

We’re in a thread with numerous posts containing links to peer reviewed controlled studies, none of which has been mentioned by anyone but me. This is what the pseudo-skeptic does - ignore evidence that might contradict their bias.

On the contrary, there is no evidence that any of the evidence was received.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tippit]

Why not just do that?

A fair question, and I plan on it when I actually become emmetropic. I see no reason to enrich those in the eyecare profession for the intervening stages.

In the meantime, i will enjoy the benefits of the method I’ve described.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tippit]

Let me explain that what you are presenting is no more than your personal anecdote and is of no value whatsoever in determining whether a particular procedure is efficacious. If, as in this case, it is not possible to double blind the trial, you at least need a trial with controls, with sufficient power to get a statistically significant result, and blinded from the researchers.

What you are doing is no different from homeopathic and supplement proponents who insist that their good health and improved conditions are a result of whatever mumbo jumbo they happen to believe in. On its own, it's worthless.

I’m not making a “mumbo-jumbo claim of good health”, I’m making a specific, objective, falsifiable scientific claim. Measuring visual acuity with a Snellen chart is very easy and straightforward, although there are a lot of factors to be controlled for.

There is also the likelihood that, once having an authentic test result from an ophthalmologist or optometrist, I will simply be accused of being a liar, which is more or less what is happening now. Either the results will be called into question, or my prior diagnoses will be called into question, or both.

It doesn’t profit me what anyone here believes, and to be honest I am posting my experience here just to elicit the typical reaction. Eventually I may post some authentic results, and smirk at the typical reaction to those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hecd2]

There is also the likelihood that, once having an authentic test result from an ophthalmologist or optometrist, I will simply be accused of being a liar, which is more or less what is happening now.

You have missed the point entirely. Even if you get 1000 ophthalmologists to sign off on your improved vision, it is still, on its own a worthless anecdote so far as demonstrating the efficacy of a procedure is concerned. What is needed is a blinded statistically significant trial with controls and elimination of confounding factors. You can post here till you are blue in the face about your wonderful recovery of acuity, but it is no different in kind from the claims of homeopathy and supplement users.

 

[Gamolon]

and to be honest I am posting my experience here just to elicit the typical reaction.

So you're admitting to being a troll.

Good to know.

 

[Tippit]

I have been wearing glasses for over 50 years. I do not have astigmatism. What does that anecdote prove? The same as any other anecdote. Absolutely nothing.

You've been wearing glasses for fifty years, and you have no axis/cylinder correction in either eye? I find that remarkable, assuming that you're telling me the truth, which I have no reason to believe that you are not. How often and under what circumstances do you actually wear your glasses?