LASIK eye surgery - any thoughts or even better experiences...

Gimpy said:
Our eyes can deceive us. Better to "take the glasses off" ey?
That's what I did, literally. ;)

When I was 5, the "eye, ear, nose, and throat" doctor I saw annually did an eye test, and put me in my first pair of glasses. I recall years later asking just what my vision was, and being told it was 20/200 in the right and 20/40 in the left. Oddly, my right was nearsighted and left farsighted. I continued getting new glasses periodically until I was about 25, then it seemed to become stable. When the glasses needed replacement (for scratches or breakage), the same prescription worked

When I was 35, I came across the "Bates Method" and started wondering if I could do away with the glasses. I noticed that when I woke up, I could see fairly well, and when I put on glasses I could see much better. But when I took them off later, I could hardly see at all. So it appeared that maybe the glasses themselves had an adverse effect. What if I just stopped wearing them entirely? I decided to find out.

I did the Bates exercises for a few days, but then slacked off and stopped. But I didn't put the glasses back on. Gradually, my vision began improving. About six years later, I heard of an alternative vision therapist and visited her twice. She did Bates, but also had a few other tricks. One was "sunning". You go outside in daylight, close your eyes, and point your face to the sun, turning your head back and forth, up and down, so that the sunlight that comes through the eyelids reaches every part of the retina. You do this for about five minutes, a couple of times a day. When you turn away from the sun and open your eyes afterward, colors are all more intense, more "saturated". She considered it healing to the eyes.

She also gave me another eye test. This time, the left was 20/30 and the right was 20/40. Since then, I've taken DMV eye tests too for driver's license renewals, without glasses, and passed. Some 24 years later, I still can't really read print with the left, but it's easy with the right; and the left does well outside with street name signs. So the near/far difference is still there, but not to the degree that correction is needed. At 65, I think I'm doing OK...

Just another data point... ;)
 
Yesterday my wife informed me that my child appears to develop myopia. I was quite shocked because I know my child is only 5 and myopia is progressive. So I went to search the web for treatment and found this site: http://www.myopia.org Here are some interesting passages:

http://www.myopia.org/08chapter3.htm

WHY THE USUAL TREATMENT FOR MYOPIA IS HARMFUL

Assume that a child has just begun to become nearsighted. This means that the ciliary muscle spasm, which has been useful in reducing the infantile farsightedness to zero, is now threatening to cause the eye to continue to elongate and become permanently myopic. The most natural way to relax the spasm, return the vision to normal, and prevent overelongation is to have the child give up all close work and take up activities which only require distance vision.[snip]

[The concave lense glasses] make the eye feel (with regard to focusing effort, at least) that the viewed object is actually closer than it is. In fact, if you follow the dotted lines, you will see that point F is where the viewed object appears to be. In this example, F is also the focal point of the lens. Minus lenses thus move the world closer to the eyes. Note that with these lenses, there is no longer any way that the eye can receive parallel rays. All light rays are diverging to a greater or lesser extent. Since the cause of myopia is too much close work, it is obvious that such glasses, by moving everything closer, will aggravate the condition.

Most of the damage occurs when such glasses are used for reading. Many people use their distance glasses for reading even though they could read without them, merely because the eye specialist has never advised against it. There are also many people who must use their glasses for reading because their myopia has progressed to the point that if they take their glasses they will find that even the book is blurred. Their far point or limit of clear vision is not far enough to reach the book.

A vicious cycle now develops. The minus glasses bring everything closer, making increased accommodation necessary. The increased accommodation causes further lengthening of the eye with the resulting need for even stronger glasses. Many children find they need stronger glasses as often as once a year.

The present, almost universal, practice of allowing a child to read with concave "distance" glasses is ruining the vision of millions of children. Imagine going to a dentist with a toothache and being given medication to remove the symptom (pain) so that you again felt fine. Imagine also that the medication not only failed to stop the decay but even made the decay get worse faster. Each time the pain would begin again, you would return to the dentist for more of the same kind of treatment until finally the tooth became permanently damaged and perhaps useless. This is similar to what we are doing on a regular basis to our children's vision, merely because the errors of the past are being handed down from generation to generation.

It is the old story of treating symptoms and ignoring causes, a situation that has always prevailed in the "healing professions." Prevention is the highest form of health care. The second highest form is treatment of existing problems by removing the cause. A poor third is the treatment or removal of symptoms but ignoring the cause. The fourth, and by far the worst form, is ignoring causes and treating symptoms in a manner that causes the basic problem to get worse. It is in this fourth category that we must place the prescription of concave lenses for acquired myopia. [snip]

The harmful effect of minus lenses is often easy to demonstrate. If a myopic child is given minus lenses to read with for, say, one-half hour, the distance vision after removing the glasses is often found to be appreciably worse than before. The vision can be tested before and after the experiment by using an ordinary wall chart. In other words, the eyes have adapted to the minus lenses by temporarily becoming more myopic. If this type of eye abuse is continued long enough, the distance vision will be permanently damaged.

Concave lenses have been called a poison. They are worse than that. They are more like an addictive drug. With a little imagination, it is possible to see some similarity between putting concave lenses on a beginning myope and giving such a drug to the child. Both the lenses and the drug can be considered addictive insofar as their use results in an ever-increasing dependency and a need for stronger and stronger doses to get the same effect. Both can cause permanent damage to the body if their use is continued for too long. However, it is possible to overcome a dependency on drugs. By going through a withdrawal period, the drug addict can overcome the addiction and begin a new life free from symptoms. The concave lens addict is not so fortunate. The abnormal lengthening of the eye that these lenses cause is permanent. Trying to withdraw from this addiction is futile since the eye will not return to its original shape. The drug pusher is none other than your eye doctor.
 
Back
Top Bottom