When I was sixteen, I was diagnosed with progressive myopia (nearsightedness), and prescribed eyeglasses. I was told that this was a genetic condition and that I would have to correct my vision for the rest of my life. Subsequent to that, with nearly each visit to the eye doctor (whose office was usually located in a retail optometry store), I was told that my vision was deteriorating, and I would receive a slightly stronger prescription to correct for this.
Fast forward to about 2014. I remember sitting in front of the computer (where I've spend a large fraction of my life, in front of computers), noticing that I had difficulty seeing clearly. In prior years, I had also tried Orthokeratology - special contact lenses which seek to reshape the cornea, with limited success (the lenses, worn overnight, would grant clear vision for a number of days, then hours) until I gave up. I also wore toric lenses periodically for nearsightedness and astigmatism. Frustrated at the thought of visiting the optometrist and receiving yet another, stronger prescription, I started researching possible alternatives. In 2014 I decided to try the Bates method, which is a series of eye exercises and eye relaxation methods. There was some limited improvement, but since it calls for the complete removal of correction, and the fact that it did not improve my uncorrected vision enough to be functional, I gave up, discouraged.
Fast forward to late 2017. My eyesight was worse than ever, and I was on the verge of getting a new prescription and a new pair of glasses. My latest prescription was OS -1.75 OD -2.0 CYL -0.75. This is quite moderate as far as both myopia and astigmatism are concerned, but bad enough to render me almost practically blind, unable to drive, or perform most tasks requiring distance vision. My right eye prescription with the astigmatism converted into a Snellen fraction was equivalent to nearly 20/300 vision - legally blind!
It was about this time that in the course of research I came across a youtube channel run by a Jake Steiner, advocating something called "Reduced Lens Therapy" for the naturopathic treatment of myopia. After experiencing the mixed results from the Bates method, I was highly skeptical, but I decided that I had nothing to lose and gave it a shot. Steiner advocates using a "normalized" prescription for distance use, which is basically correction to about 20/50, and "differential" lenses which are weaker, for computer or near work.
Fast forward to January 2018. After deciding that I could see the computer well enough after increasing fonts and scale to avoid buying differential lenses, I received my first pair of normalized lenses @ OS -1.75 OD -1.75, with the astigmatism prescription completely omitted (which I would later come to realize was a mistake). The improvement over the course of the next two months was nothing short of miraculous. It was evident that I was overprescribed by as much as .5 diopter in each eye, at least. After progressing to even weaker lenses (OS -1.25 OD -1.25, and then eventually just -1 diopter) by September of 2018 I decided that I could stop wearing glasses permanently, and I did.
As of today, I am glasses free, and I have about 20/30 uncorrected vision on the Snellen test, still with a slight astigmatism in my right eye which is improving on a monthly basis.
Now, here is the science behind this, with a short lesson in optical biology, and the reason why eyeglasses, and the larger industry of retail optometry is a scam.
Light bouncing off of near objects is more divergent than light bouncing off of distant objects, and therefore requires more refractive power by the human eye in order to properly place the image on the retina in the back of the eye obtaining clarity. The ciliary body, which is a circular body of ligaments and muscles, either contracts or expands causing the lens to curve or flatten, enabling the eye to focus on either near or distance objects, respectively. This is the process of visual accommodation.
As 21st century humans, we spend an inordinate amount of time in front of screens, whether they're televisions, monitors, or phones, as opposed to our ancestors. This constant near work, and thus, constant contraction by the ciliary muscle is the principal cause of eyestrain, and when this eyestrain becomes chronic, ciliary spasm occurs where the muscle freezes entirely and the lens is temporarily "locked" in a curved position. This results in blurry distance vision, a condition called "pseudomyopia". Here is where the scam begins. The correct treatment for pseudomyopia, is to simply practice good visual hygiene, which includes taking breaks from near visual work (20-20-20 rule, every 20 minutes stare at an object 20' away for at least 20 seconds), going for walks, taking hard breaks after a few hours of computer use, and generally spending more time outside engaging your distance vision and allowing your ciliary muscle to relax.
Instead, we go to the optometrist with the (chronically but temporarily) blurry vision where we're tested in a dark room with a projected image of the Snellen chart, and we're diagnosed with an "un-curable" genetic condition that requires either surgery, or a lifetime of vision correction to overcome.
At this point, we are usually prescribed glasses for permanent use. The glasses, especially when used with near objects, cause unfocused light to emit *behind* the retina, which causes a stimulus triggering the eye to actually physically elongate in shape (axial elongation), making it impossible for the uncorrected lens to properly focus the image on the retina. This process is scientifically well-documented, and is called hyperoptic defocus. Thus pseudomyopia becomes progressive myopia, and the condition worsens over time depending mostly on the habits of the wearer.
This begets a cycle which benefits lens and frame manufacturers and retail optometrists to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. Most retail optometrists are probably unaware of this, but it's likely that the executives of the lens and frame manufacturers are. Retail optometry is based on junk science and the profit motive, and operates in direct contradiction to actual science.
While overprescribed eyeglasses undoubtedly make everyone see better, and in some cases very happy, they also create a physical handicap, a lifelong dependency, and a lifetime of unnecessary wasted time and money. You have been informed!
Fast forward to about 2014. I remember sitting in front of the computer (where I've spend a large fraction of my life, in front of computers), noticing that I had difficulty seeing clearly. In prior years, I had also tried Orthokeratology - special contact lenses which seek to reshape the cornea, with limited success (the lenses, worn overnight, would grant clear vision for a number of days, then hours) until I gave up. I also wore toric lenses periodically for nearsightedness and astigmatism. Frustrated at the thought of visiting the optometrist and receiving yet another, stronger prescription, I started researching possible alternatives. In 2014 I decided to try the Bates method, which is a series of eye exercises and eye relaxation methods. There was some limited improvement, but since it calls for the complete removal of correction, and the fact that it did not improve my uncorrected vision enough to be functional, I gave up, discouraged.
Fast forward to late 2017. My eyesight was worse than ever, and I was on the verge of getting a new prescription and a new pair of glasses. My latest prescription was OS -1.75 OD -2.0 CYL -0.75. This is quite moderate as far as both myopia and astigmatism are concerned, but bad enough to render me almost practically blind, unable to drive, or perform most tasks requiring distance vision. My right eye prescription with the astigmatism converted into a Snellen fraction was equivalent to nearly 20/300 vision - legally blind!
It was about this time that in the course of research I came across a youtube channel run by a Jake Steiner, advocating something called "Reduced Lens Therapy" for the naturopathic treatment of myopia. After experiencing the mixed results from the Bates method, I was highly skeptical, but I decided that I had nothing to lose and gave it a shot. Steiner advocates using a "normalized" prescription for distance use, which is basically correction to about 20/50, and "differential" lenses which are weaker, for computer or near work.
Fast forward to January 2018. After deciding that I could see the computer well enough after increasing fonts and scale to avoid buying differential lenses, I received my first pair of normalized lenses @ OS -1.75 OD -1.75, with the astigmatism prescription completely omitted (which I would later come to realize was a mistake). The improvement over the course of the next two months was nothing short of miraculous. It was evident that I was overprescribed by as much as .5 diopter in each eye, at least. After progressing to even weaker lenses (OS -1.25 OD -1.25, and then eventually just -1 diopter) by September of 2018 I decided that I could stop wearing glasses permanently, and I did.
As of today, I am glasses free, and I have about 20/30 uncorrected vision on the Snellen test, still with a slight astigmatism in my right eye which is improving on a monthly basis.
Now, here is the science behind this, with a short lesson in optical biology, and the reason why eyeglasses, and the larger industry of retail optometry is a scam.
Light bouncing off of near objects is more divergent than light bouncing off of distant objects, and therefore requires more refractive power by the human eye in order to properly place the image on the retina in the back of the eye obtaining clarity. The ciliary body, which is a circular body of ligaments and muscles, either contracts or expands causing the lens to curve or flatten, enabling the eye to focus on either near or distance objects, respectively. This is the process of visual accommodation.
As 21st century humans, we spend an inordinate amount of time in front of screens, whether they're televisions, monitors, or phones, as opposed to our ancestors. This constant near work, and thus, constant contraction by the ciliary muscle is the principal cause of eyestrain, and when this eyestrain becomes chronic, ciliary spasm occurs where the muscle freezes entirely and the lens is temporarily "locked" in a curved position. This results in blurry distance vision, a condition called "pseudomyopia". Here is where the scam begins. The correct treatment for pseudomyopia, is to simply practice good visual hygiene, which includes taking breaks from near visual work (20-20-20 rule, every 20 minutes stare at an object 20' away for at least 20 seconds), going for walks, taking hard breaks after a few hours of computer use, and generally spending more time outside engaging your distance vision and allowing your ciliary muscle to relax.
Instead, we go to the optometrist with the (chronically but temporarily) blurry vision where we're tested in a dark room with a projected image of the Snellen chart, and we're diagnosed with an "un-curable" genetic condition that requires either surgery, or a lifetime of vision correction to overcome.
At this point, we are usually prescribed glasses for permanent use. The glasses, especially when used with near objects, cause unfocused light to emit *behind* the retina, which causes a stimulus triggering the eye to actually physically elongate in shape (axial elongation), making it impossible for the uncorrected lens to properly focus the image on the retina. This process is scientifically well-documented, and is called hyperoptic defocus. Thus pseudomyopia becomes progressive myopia, and the condition worsens over time depending mostly on the habits of the wearer.
This begets a cycle which benefits lens and frame manufacturers and retail optometrists to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. Most retail optometrists are probably unaware of this, but it's likely that the executives of the lens and frame manufacturers are. Retail optometry is based on junk science and the profit motive, and operates in direct contradiction to actual science.
While overprescribed eyeglasses undoubtedly make everyone see better, and in some cases very happy, they also create a physical handicap, a lifelong dependency, and a lifetime of unnecessary wasted time and money. You have been informed!
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3kKs4VI
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire