Hey Greg, this is a 12 year old who has to ask mummy to get an eye
test.

Don't worry, mummy will protect him from the big bad optometrist. In
the meantime we have to put up with doofy pretending to know something.

For god's sake F*&$ off doofy!!!

As I replied earlier, I don't think that RGPs are necessarily the way
to proceed after reading your history of intolerance to soft lenses.
If it were me, I would try some of the newer lenses, such as Acuvue
Oasys, Purevison, or Focus N&D first. Have you?

Your prescription seems a bit out of range for orthokeratology. Is
your friend a doctor? How is it then that she "knows a bunch of people
who had success with RGP" and also recommends "ZWAVE"? Is your friend
a cyber-friend who also lurks on other bulletin boards? Something
about the internet that confers instant authority status.

DrG

I am looking into RGP as a patient, not a doctor. Sorry for the
confusion. My friend is also a patient and shes tried RGP but her eyes
are too dry to tolerate those but thats lasik for her. My friend knows
a bunch of people who had success with RGP, many with dry eyes and
other difficult cases. She did reccomend zwave contacts to me and two
great doctors who fit them in my state. I dont have any experience with
RGP. I am not making any comparsions, your the expert, not me! Whats
your take on ortho-k? I think its more suitable for me than RGP. If I
get RGP ill still need reading glasses and carry contact lense solution
at all times in case dust gets in my eye and I have to remove the
lense. I have thought over RGP and its a tradeoff for glasses in terms
of hassles. With glasses I have to deal with dusty, smeared lenses like
10x a day. With contacts ill have to deal with reading glasses all the
time and the pain everytime I get a spec of dust in my eyes. Ortho-k
sounds like much less hassle to me.

That's fine, Ace. I know you from other boards. We make the rounds,
don't we?

How many RGP's have you fit in your lifetime? How many has your friend
fit?
How many types of RGP lenses have you fit, or your friend fitted?
Have you or your friend actually seen other patients who have been
fitted with the type of lens you have been recommended?
How many complex cases -- I mean really complex cases have you seen in
your lifetime?
Would you like to compare your stats to mine? I don't think so.

DrG

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

Just as confusing as all the rest of it.

An eye needing a "negative" lens has a positive refractive state.

So how many subjects did Dr. Colgate use?

How many primates did he experiment on?

How many humans?

-MT

"a good story sells. ZWAVE tells
a good story on their website"


is it a gimmic like dad thinks? I read that this is the most
technologically advanced contact lense able to compensate for your
corneal topography aberrations. This results in vision better than
youll ever see with glasses and standard soft contacts.


"I'll stick to what I said earlier,
which is that if you cannot tolerate the best soft lens available, you
will probably not be happy with an RGP lens"


my friend does think ill have success with RGP lenses and she told me
alot of her friends couldnt tolerate soft lenses but RGPs worked fine.
Theres no harm trying but its a money issue and will set my family back
$2000 to try. I could try regular RGP but they wont fit me right, only
those with perfect regular corneas. I have high order aberrations and
irregular astigmastim and the lense will be pressing on the high spots.


Plus something I didnt know till recently is dust is a big issue for
RGP wearers and my local doctor warned me about this. Get a tiny spec
in your eye and itll really hurt! One of my friends couldnt agree more
and every other day he gets intense pain in his eye(s) due to dust and
has to remove the RGP right there and then!

Theres other shortcommings with RGP. I think ill be better off trying
ortho-k do you have any comments or experience reguarding this?


"He also was wrong about a great many things,
eyeglasses included."

Its true his theories are controversal but I see people DO improve
their vision. I bet in the majority of cases, they were resolving their
pseudomyopia. I dont think much can be done for axil myopia however.


"The corneal curve and axial length
dictate the ocular correction"


you forgot the lense. A thick lense , either naturally or due to
accomodation results in myopia.
Sometimes people are born with lenses thicker than normal and hence are
myopic at birth. pseudomyopia is a lense thats constantly accomodating
and is too thick for clear distance vision. This is something eye
exercises can remedy.

Dear Eli,

Subject: Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive
states.

I suggest that there is a profound difference from "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" proceedures
that "work" instantly. I consider that people in
this profession have no choice but to 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 educations,
nor endless complaints about God-knows-what.
But when you ask very fundamental quesitons
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 pures science (i.e.,
the SCIENTIFIC -- not medical -- experiment
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 this 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 and experimental
obective testing.

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

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

Use the term "refractive state" where
the natural eye can have positive and
negative refractive states (as a dynamic,
device) and this situation becomes
much clearer.

Best,

Otis

Eli,

That was a nicely written, fuzzy bunch of unscientific mush.

DrG

"eli" <frostyeli[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Actually, to my knowledge, what Bates, Otis, Dave, and you begin is
*strictly* anecdotal. Considering how long these theories have been
in existence, there must be an awfully compelling reason why studies
conducted within the scientific method, continually fail to prove
their efficacy.

- quote -

I find the use of plate tectonics in this context to be a whopper of a
false analogy. Controlled experiments regarding tectonic plates are
infinitely more difficult to conduct than studies of the impact of
particular optometric solutions on a particular (and appropriately
defined) group of people. People, it seems, are more readily
available than either tectonic plates or control planets.

- quote -

Or you may equate correlation with causation, inappropriately.

- quote -

All of that is cool, and fun, and intriguing. Please don't preach it
as either fact or science, though. By definition, you'd be incorrect.

- quote -

All I would say is "Prove your hypothesis via the Scientific Method or
call it your unproven (in many cases, the right term would be
"currently disproven") hypothesis *whenever* you reference it in a
public context."

- quote -

The process actually doesn't fail. The hypothesis does.

Recognize the problem
Make observations regarding the problem
Devise a hypothesis that may explain the problem
Conduct experiments of your hypothesis
Arrive at conclusions based on your testing

It's an amazingly simple, and effective, process. Its simplicity,
elegance, and efficacy frighten some contributors to this forum into
paralysis. The process has no horns on its head. The Emperor simply
has no clothes.

Fear not. Real scientists welcome the *real* answers, whether they
support their original hypothesis or not. Zealots and frauds shy away
from requests for proof.

In which camp shall we consider you a denizen?
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

"eli" <frostyeli[at]yahoo.com> wrote

- quote -

It certainly fails when it's used to test the value of "imagining perfect
blackness" or staring at the sun.

Faith needs no evidence.

-MT