Lasik is probably more effective and can correct a wider range but its
still not guaranteed to keep you out of glasses and if your not happy
with lasik theres no going back. Ill stick to natural vision
improvement and take whatever reduction in myopia I can get

<acemanvx[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138520906.618497.294840[at]z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

Again, when you write "the truth is", how do you know what "the truth is"?
Because that's what the ortho-k practitioners say.

But yes, I'd agree, that ortho-K is probably far less risky than Lasik. Not
comparable.

On the other hand though, I think it is far less effective than Lasik. Not
even close. (I'm not advocating Lasik, btw. Just since you compared those
two procedures, in terms of riskiness, in which case you are correct, I
thought you should also compare the efficacy of the two procedures.)

acemanvx[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

Well. It sounds like you have it all sorted out and
all the proof you need. Was there a point to your post?

-Quick

Ive read about orthoK and they say its much safer than lasik. Those who
disagree were challenged to prove that orthoK is as dangerous as lasik.
Of course no one could prove it because I am correct. If by chance
someone does prove it and its true that orthoK has risks comparable to
lasik, I will forget about orthoK as I am not willing to take such a
big risk. But the truth is orthoK is pratically as safe as regular
contact lenses!

<acemanvx[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138433310.587606.299760[at]f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

How do you know that? Have you used it?

actually it is true. Todays orthoK is far different than orthoK of 20
years back. Its also a great solution to reduce your dependancy than
glasses and a much safer alternative than lasik

<acemanvx[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138044149.958972.192290[at]f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

That's what they say, the people advertising this thing, who want to make
money from it. That doesn't mean that it's true.

What was your pescription back then? What is it now? Back then, orthoK
was only good for -.5 to -1.5 diopters and once in a while someone
would improve by -2 diopters. Todays orthoK is much, much more advanced
and can improve large amounts of myopia like -3.5 to -5 diopters! Its
also much faster and more effecient

I had Ortho-K decades ago (early 70s), when I think it first came out. As
with you, the promise of seeing without glasses was appealing. (Up until
then I hadn't worn contacts either. Those were my first.)

Well, I have never been able to see without corrective lenses. If the
ortho-k helped my myopia at all, it was slight, not a noticeable
improvement. Yet, I think the ortho-k might have given me astigmatism, or
made my astigmatism worse.

I'm very skeptical of this procedure, a gimmick to make money IMO.

<acemanvx[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135969264.190148.142580[at]g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

Heres my comments from what ive read so far:

1. OrthoK is the safest way to reshape your cornea. No cornea is
removed, ablated or destroyed. Its analogous to a belt shaping your
waist to a slimmer shape.

2. OrthoK is about a third the price of refractive surgury.

3. OrthoK not being permaent is much more of a blessing than a curse.
Get lasik or PRK and if you arent satisfied, too bad your stuck with
it, theres no "undoing" surgury. Not happy with orthoK? Just stop
wearing it and in short time youll revert back to the way you were and
go back to glasses.

4. Theres people arguing that lasik is quick, effective and permaent
while orthoK takes time. Whats the hurry? Slow and steady is where its
at

5. someone said "That could put the laser centers out of business in a
hurry!"
We have yet to see this happen but once contact and orthoK technology
experiences a breakthru, it very well could. Who would risk their eyes
with lasik when orthoK will give you clear vision for a week with just
one night wear?

6. no drugs nor chemicals are needed for orthoK, just sometimes
artifical tear drops which are just mostly water anyway without
medicines or chemicals

7. I obtained good result in orthokeratholy up to 4.00. I asked an
ortho-k OD and he said that ortho0k is good for people with up to -4.00

Ace: I agree with that! My myopia is only a little more than that so
most of it will be removed with orthoK and besides I have a little
pseudomyopia that will work its way out so ill end up with excellent
distance vision anyway.

8. Depending on the corneal shape of the patient,
changes as much as 4 to 5 diopters of myopia/astigmatism can be
worked with. Typically the best results are in the 3 to 4
diopter range.
Ace: not a problem for me, in fact a slight undercorrection is
beneficial for a "presbyope" like me.

9. I tried Orthokeratology about a year and a half
ago. I was left -4.75
and right -5.25. It was great at first. I have
never been able to
leave the molds out for more than an hour or two
before my eyes
started regressing.

Ace: I am not looking to correct this much myopia, more like -3 to -4
diopters of my myopia and if I regress I can just use glasses durning
that time or move closer to see clearly. Anything is better than my
terriable vision now!

10. OrthoK is great for those who work in dusty or dry environments
where contact lenses would dry and irritate ones eyes. My contacts dry
my eyes in short time, especially when im outside and the wind blows!
With orthoK I can sleep in them and keep my eyes closed and moisted at
all times