Questions for Otis Engineer:

1. What physical structures within the eye are changed by using plus lens
therapy on an
anatomical myope (e.g. myopia caused by increased axial length of the eye or
increased
curvature of the cornea)?  To state it another way, exactly what is it that
plus lenses
do that causes the visual image to be brought to focus on the retina of a
myope?  What
anatomic structures within the eye are changed to achieve this?  Do you
propose that
the length of the eye shortens?  Do you propose that the curvature of the
cornea
flattens? Do you propose that the index of refraction of ocular tissues is
decreased?

2. How can you be so opposed to minus lenses for myopia treatment yet be
unopposed to the
use of LASIK surgery?  In LASIK surgery you are simply removing plus power
from the
cornea by flattening it’s curvature (equivalent to adding minus lens power)
so as to
get the visual image to focus on the retina?

3. Explain how it is that plus lens therapy works for only younger patients
but not for
older ones?  Do you think that the decreased effectiveness of plus lens
treatment for
myopes correlates with the onset of presbyopia?  Doesn’t this observation
support the
notion that plus lens therapy is simply just helping the subpopulation of
myopes that
have an accommodative component to their refractive error? What about
anatomical
myopes?  How do you propose we treat anatomical myopes who apparently, by
your own
experience, aren’t candidates for plus therapy?

4. Explain exactly what the "devastating effects" of minus lens treatment
are for myopes–
and I don’t mean OVERMINUSING them.  I mean simply giving them just enough
minus lens
power to focus the visual image on the retina?  Explain what the devastating
effects
are at an anatomical/physiological/biochemical level.  What structures
within the eye
are changed by the minus lens?

Answer these questions Otis.  Don’t give us any more one-rat studies or case
reports.  Don’t sight any old texts or drop the names of famous old
optometrists.  Just try to explain it on a truly scientific level.

RM

Dear Friends,

Subject: Name calling of the worst sort.

I have many friends in optometry, ophthalmology,
engineering, science and other fields.

The question of the natural eye’s negative refractive
status has caused massive difficulties for all of us.

Some very braive optometrists had pointed
out the need for fundamental change is
approach and understanding.

To call me names (on anyone else) who is
sincerely working towards a better solution
demeans all of us.  The person calling
me names — or inferring that I call
anyone "blood sucker" to totally
non-professional.

If this is his attitude — then trust
in him is totally lost.

You can judge is "attitude" as part
of the problem — not part of the
solution.

Best,

0tis
Engineer

Not.txt

     Subject:  Re:  Challenging questions that Otis can’t answer

     Dear Optomterist RM,

     My, that’s presumptuous!

     Since you have already stated that I "can’t answer" you are
obviously profondly biased by that specific satement.  

     I assume that:

1.  You will not let me answer, or

2.  You will totally IGNORE any answer I provide about
    the behavior of the natural eye as a control-system.

     However, thanks for your thougtful questions.

     I will forward them to the scientist Dr.  Colgate as well as
other engineers interested in true-prevention.

     Remember that Donders-Helmholtz is a THEORY where you ASSUME
that it is FROZEN (as in box-camera).

     It is this assumption that has failed.  Any good engineer can
optically analyize a box-camera.  The calculations can be carried
out to three, four and five significant figures.  But when you are
all done — you have proven nothing.

     The answers you get depends on the type of questions YOU
LEARN TO ASK.

     And the issues (and questions) I ask have to do with the
fundamental question of the dynamic behavior of the natural eye
(as an entity).

     But, I will review your summarized statement that assumes the
Donders-Helmholtz theory concerning the eye.

     Best,

     Otis

     Engineer

____________

"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message

RM > Questions for Otis:

RM > 1.  What physical structures within the eye are changed by
      using plus lens therapy on an anatomical myope (e.g.  myopia
      caused by increased axial length of the eye or increased
      curvature of the cornea)?

Otis> The concept of "length" is an extrapolation of the
      measurement of a refractive-state.  To calculate a "length"
      you must assume a frozen box-camera.

RM > To state it another way, exactly what is it that plus lenses
      do that causes the visual image to be brought to focus on
      the retina of a myope?

Otis> Assuming a refractive-state of -1/2 diopter, then the
      accommodation system will maintain sharp focus up to -1/2
      diopter.  The natural eye can be made to change its
      refractive status from a postive value to -1/2 diopter by

Otis> a.  A strong minus lens.       Thus this reafractive state in not
      open to box-camera analysis.  It CAN BE a temporary state,
      and provided that the visual environment is all moved out to
      "infininty", the same process that created the negative
      refractive state, can be relied on to produce gradual
      clearing — it the person has the persistance to use the
      plus correctly.

Otis> b.  Again, your mistake is to ASSUME a box-camera analysis
      — which is a conceptual error in the first place.

RM > What anatomic structures within the eye are changed to
      achieve this?

Otis> a.  I only report what is actually measured (on an
      input-output) basis.  You are asking for spculation.

RM > Do you propose that the length of the eye shortens?

Otis> a.  No.  It is obvious that when you place a minus lens on
      the natural eye, and the refractive status of this natural
      eye changes in a negative direction that one, several or
      several refractive items MUST CHANGED.  The important fact
      is the truth of direct change (as a sophisticated control
      system) and not be concerned about which — of several —
      components were necessarily chaned to achieve the above
      stated factual result.

RM > Do you propose that the curvature of the cornea flattens?       Do
      you propose that the index of refraction of ocular tissues
      is decreased?

Otis> a.  I am only concerned that when you apply a step-function
      INPUT to this sophisticated system, that the natural eye
      changes its refractive state following the e ^ (-t/TAU)
      function.  I you stating that this does not happen, and this
      result is not repeatable?

RM > 2.  How can you be so opposed to minus lenses for myopia
      treatment yet be unopposed to the use of LASIK surgery?

Otis> a.  That is not what I said.  A person has the right of
      informed choice.  I am never going to stand in a person way
      — what ever his choice.  Once you start wearing the minus
      lens, the concept of true-prevention is moot.  If a person
      is at -6 diopters, the Lasik, or whatever is a matter of
      that persons choice.  I am not "opposed" to the use of a
      minus lens either — if that be the person’s choice.

RM > In LASIK surgery you are simply removing plus power from the
      cornea by flattening it’s curvature (equivalent to adding
      minus lens power) so as to get the visual image to focus on
      the retina?

Otis> a.  Assuming a box-camera "picture" then the analysis is
      correct.

RM > 3.  Explain how it is that plus lens therapy works for only
      younger patients but not for older ones?

Otis> a.  I NEVER use the word "therapy".  And as far at "works" I
      say that the person himself must see the results.  This
      requires a strong will in the person, since true-prevention
      is never easy.  Further the person is not a "patient".  I
      expect that he must have the insight of an engineer to work
      this issue correctly.  Therefore the person would have to be
      old enough to understand the issues, and the effort it will
      take to achieve the desired result.  No, you can never
      "prescribe" the plus for prevention.

RM> Do you think that the decreased effectiveness of plus lens
      treatment for myopes correlates with the onset of
      presbyopia?

Otis> a.  As most of these ODs on sci.med.vision have stated, the
      plus or minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of
      the eye.  I agree that prevention with the plus MUST START
      BEFORE a minus lens is used.  The issue is whether the
      person himself is effective in clearing his vision to pass
      the DMV requirement — and thus avoid any use of the minus
      lens.

b.  Do not confuse "old age" vision situations with
      true-prevention for a young pilot.  An individual at 20/50,
      who wishes to clear to the required standard (and a
      refractiv state of zero) is not concerned about his
      refractive status at age 65.

RM > Doesn’t this observation support the notion that plus lens
      therapy is simply just helping the subpopulation of myopes
      that have an accommodative component to their refractive
      error?

Otis> a.  I do not use the term "therapy".  Further I do not use
      the term "refractive error".

RM> What about anatomical myopes?

Otis> a.  If you place a strong minus 6 D lens on a population of
      young eyes, and they go "down" to -4 diopters — then YOU
      tell me — are they "anatomical myopes" or regular "myopes"
      or accommodation myopies or what, or are they "minus lens"
      myopes?

RM > How do you propose we treat anatomical myopes who apparently,
      by your own experience, aren’t candidates for plus therapy?

Otis> a.  I do not propose you do anything.  In fact, the
      preventive effort is proposed for an engineer-pilot himself
      — should he be interested in "protecting" his distant
      vision through four years of college.  Obviously this is his
      choice — and certainly not your choice or decision at this
      point.

RM > 4.  Explain exactly what the "devastating effects" of minus
      lens treatment are for myopes– and I don’t mean
      OVERMINUSING them.

Otis> a.  The point of intelligent "Shawn’s" work in clearin his
      vision to 20/20 is to AVOID the use of a -1.5 diopter lens
      — thus avoiding the devasting effects of stair-case myopia.
      The effects result in the percentage of detached retinas
      that develop in higher levels of myopia.  (Perkins study —
      "Morbity from Myopia) An ounce of prevention is worth a ton
      of "cure".

Otis> b.  Again you totally miss my point.  You determine if the
      natrual eyes refractive state "follows" the applied minus
      lens to PROVE a dynamic system — on an "input" versus
      "output" basis.  Once an engineer reviews this OBJECTIVE,
      REPEATABLE, SCIENTIFIC data, then the intelligenct, highly
      motivated pilot can make the decision to agressively use the
      plus to clear his distant vision.  That is by his judgment
      — not by YOUR judgment.

RM > I mean simply giving them just enough minus lens power to
      focus the visual image on the retina?

Otis> a.  If the pilot is passing the required Snellen-DMV test,
      then there is no requirement for wearing a minus lens, i.e.,
      20/40 vision.  It is true there will be SLIGHT blur — but
      not enough to fail that DMV test.  The goal for the pilot
      then is to clear his distant vision, by optically moving all
      "near" objects to "infinfinity" with a strong plus for all
      close work.  If the pilot is persistant, then the prediction
      is that he can clear his distant vision in from six to nine
      months.

RM > Explain what the devastating effects are at an
      anatomical/physiological/biochemical level.

Otis> a.  I think that the Perkins study is clear enough.
      Nearsighedness is something you should wish to avoid for
      that reason.

Otis> b.  Using you assumed box-camera model I suppose.  The
      purpose of true prevention is to AVOID getting into
      nearsightedness and thus AVOID these effects.  You seem to
      miss that point.

RM > What structures within the eye are changed by the minus lens?

Otis> It is sufficient to know that the natural eye moves from a
      positive refractive state to a negative refractive state —
      as a control system.  Analysis of how the natural eye
      achieves this result can be determined by future research
      and analysis.  The point is that the natural eye is proven
      to do this.

RM > Answer these questions Otis.  Don’t give us any more one-rat
      studies or case reports.

Otis> a.  Would you accept a
…

read more »

Subject:  Nipidoc, Jesus, and Pure Scientific Facts.

Fundamental Eye:

     From:  Nipidoc

     Jesus H., Otis.  No one is disagreeing with you on this.  But
eye doctors do not run around putting -3 diopters on "fundamental
eyed" people.  We put -3 diopters on 3 diopter myops, and -6
diopters on 6 dioptor myopes, and virtually all scientific
research suggests that by doing this, you do not cause myopia to
develop any faster than if you did NOT do it.

     This is where we are disagreeing with you.

     nipidoc

_________________

Dear Nipidoc,

     Jesus H., Nipidoc.  You argue about what you do in your
"office".  I know you have no choice (in most cases) but to
continue to do what you are doing.  But that issues is a MEDICAL
issue (dealing with people who walk in off the street) and not a
SCIENTIFIC issue.

     Prevention with the plus is not easy, and — if done
correctly, It is up to the person himself to "control" the
situation by clearing his distant vision with a plus.  I consider
that effort to be SCIENTIFIC in nature — and NOT MEDICAL.  The
difference is the preception of objective facts as they concern
the dynamic behavior of the FUNDAMENTAL eye.

     You say:

     "We put -3 diopters on 3 diopter myops, and -6 diopters on 6
dioptor myopes, and virtually all scientific research suggests
that by doing this, you do not cause myopia to develop any faster
than if you did NOT do it." Nipidoc.

     I am certain you are stating what you truly believe.  I
certainaly have seen a great deal of SCIENTIFIC data to cause me
to doubt your belief.

     If you said "all MEDICAL research", then I would not and
COULD NOT disagree with you — because the ultimate "controling
authority" is pure-medical.  I pose no MEDICAL arguments.

     But when you say SCIENTIFIC research the issue is profoundly
different, and then the PREDICTIVE ACCURACY of the
Donders-Helmholtz theory becomes critical.

     In fact the SCIENTIFIC data (rejected completely by you and
Judy on MEDICAL grounds) demonstartes that whenever the
fundamental eye is tested (on and "input" versus "output" basis),
the facts show that the refractive status of the eye will change
in the direction of the applied minus lens.  This is by pure
DIRECT measurements.  The data can not be clearer.  There is NO
interpertaton of this data.  You change the visual environment and
verify that the refractive status changes accordingly.

     I separate your dealings with the public as "medical", and
sharp preception of the eye as dynamic in the above context — as
the line that separates scientifc analysis and preception of
objective data, from the operations you conduct in your office.

     I deeply regret this "combat" — but when you insist that the
natural eye does not change it refractive status as described
above (on a SCIENTIFIC LEVEL) — and I find out otherwise, then I
am not going to believe as you believe.

     I check the facts myself — and make engineering-scientific
recommendations based on those facts — to other engineers
interested in keeping their distant vision clear through four year
of college.

     That is the way I see it.  Prevention is indeed difficult,
and I would would make no one attempt it unless he was fully
appriased of these profoundly different assessment of the behavior
of the natural eye — based on SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

     Obviously a decision as serious as using a plus for
prevention (clearing from 20/50) is not something you could
prescribe.

     It is an issue that only a highly motivated engineer could
make — AFTER he understands these issues to his own satisfaction.

     Issues of this nature can NEVER be reduced to a magic
"instant" solution to be delivered in 15 minutes.  You keep
insisting that that be done — and only YOU control it.

     I keep suggesting that the person himself should go through a
"tutorial" on ALL these issues — as a scientific effort.  This
would develop where the person himself will work on a scientific
level as part of a team where he personally vefifies he "vision
clearing" work.

     By this very definition this work could not be done as a
"blind" study, and that would be the FIRST requirement for a study
of the PREVENTION of nearsightedness.

     I have written up a scientific proposal of this nature — to
be conducted with and BY the engineers who will have had this kind
of tutorial.

     I believe that, like Shawn, they could achieve the same
result that he did — PROVIDED they start this process at the
20/50 level.

     If you would support it (but make no attempt to "control"
it,) then, on a scientific level, I believe that the pilots would
become successful — as Shawn has become successful.

     But I would have to talk to each man who was going to lead
the study.

     Now you say that return to 20/20 (from 20/50) would occur in
only 1 percent of these young man — because only a very few have
"accommodation" myopia, or any other "myopia".

     I would suggest that we run this study as I suggest.  That
way you could be happy.  It is clear that successful results could
not be reduced to a "quick-fix" to be applied to everyone that
walks in a office.  Even if we were completely successful, the
results would still not apply in a MEDICAL sense.

     The number of pilots who clear their vision from 20/50 to
20/20 would be established — and the results would be published
as SCIENTIFIC results consistent with the same results achieved in
scientific-animal studies thus far accomplished.

     Why not "relax" and help us — rahter that fight so hard to
hinder us?

     What SPECIFICALLY do you have against that approach?

     Best,

     Otis

____________________

     "Otis Brown" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote in message

     Dear RM,

     Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

     Remember I did not say that a minus lens "hurt" anyone.

     I stated that if you take a population of fundamental eyed —
and place a minus lens of -3 diopters or so, the refractive status
of the group wearing the minus lens will go "down" relative to the
control group.

     This is basic scientific truth.  If you choose not to believe
it — then that is YOUR PROBLEM, not mine.

     Enjoy,

     Otis Engineer

     cc:  Friends with an open mind about objective scientific
testing of the behavior of the natural eye.

     __________

     "RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message

     > I am certain he is pleased with the result he achieved, and
understands your opposition to his right to this second opinion.

     Get real.  No one opposes anyone’s "right to a second
opinion".  Don’t put

     Read the rest of this message…  (129 more lines)

     Post a follow-up to this message

     Message 6 in thread

     From:  RM (priv…@piracy.net)

     Subject:  Re:  20/20-Shawn Thanks You For Your Advice and
Assistance

     Date:  2004-11-10 20:40:13 PST

Otis > Remember I did not say that a minus lens "hurt" anyone.

Otis > I stated that if you take a population of fundamental eyed
      — and place a minus lens of -3 diopters or so, the
      refractive status of the group wearing the minus lens will
      go "down" relative to the control group.

Otis > This is basic scientific truth.       If you choose not to
      believe it — then that is YOUR PROBLEM, not mine.

DrG > Otis, I suppose you mean that if you overminus someone by
      3.00 diopters then when you refract them again after a
      period of adaptation to the stronger lens power you are
      likely to find that they appear more nearsighted.  Well
      that’s right!  When you overminus someone you induce their
      ciliary muscle to contract even when they are looking in the
      distance so as to counteract the effect of the excessive
      lens power.

DrG> After a prolonged period, that causes the ciliary resting
      muscle tone to be higher (provided that the person is not
      presbyopic or nearly so) and induces accommodative myopia.
      Got it!!

DrG> Yes, you can induce someone to become more myopic if you give
      them more minus than they need BUT WE TRY NOT TO DO THAT!
      That’s lesson number one when you learn to refract someone
      Otis.  It’s freshman class stuff Otis.  We’re way ahead of
      you pal.

DrG> Now when someone comes in and they are truly a myope due to
      anatomic reasons such as an elongated axial length, do you
      suggest that we "spare the minus lens" and tell them to wear
      plus lenses instead?

DrG> And just what good do you think that will do?

DrG> Explain to me in physiological or medical terms how exactly
      that will improve their myopia.  Or will you finally admit
      that in cases where true myopia exists that it’s OK to use
      just enough minus lens power to provide a good focus of the
      visual image on the retina.  When you are finally are ready
      to admit that Otis, then we are in total agreement and you
      can move your crusade onto some other more important
      "problem" in human health care.

DrG> The majority of myopes ARE NOT accommodative myopes Otis.

Otis>  And what crystal ball did you obtain that information
       from.  Since you can produce myopia in the natural
        eye (negative refractive state) in a large
       population of eyes from forced wearin of
       a minus lens — could that be "normal eye"
       nearsightedness — that could have been prevented.
       Or is this negative-lens induced nearsighedness
       all "accommodation myopia"?

Best,

Otis
Engineer

What makes an eyeball appear blue rather than brown?  Is one color of
eye better than another?  Can people with darker eyes see more of the
color spectrum with an understanding of how "optical light" works?

Are blue eyes prefered over brown???

PLEASE do not post comments and discussion under this
subject. PLEASE take your posts to other existing threads or
start one with a new subject line.

This notice is posted weekly on Monday (mostly!).

         WELCOME TO THE SCI.MED.VISION NEWSGROUP

The purpose of this newsgroup is to discuss issues related to
eye health and vision care from a scientific viewpoint.
Issues for discussion include (but are not limited to): how
the eye works, vision problems and how they may be corrected,
eye health concerns, how they happen and how they may be
remedied, as well as items related to new research and
associated findings.

This group is the place to learn about these issues and
readers are advised that opinions expressed here may come
from eye care professionals (optometrists, ophthalmologists,
opticians, ophthalmic researchers) as well as the general
public.

>From time to time we experience posters who espouse certain

viewpoints that are hoaxes, mythology, disproven theories and
outright scams. If someone is desperately trying to convince
you of something or uses demeaning and abusive language, you
might be correct in assuming that they have an agenda and
their views are not consistent with current science.  If it
sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The people trying
to promote the Bates Method are one such example of this
behavior.

When reading and gathering information, be aware of the
source and use good judgment. Do not base vital health care
decisions on information obtained in this forum without
consulting a practitioner who can clearly understand your
issues and examine the situation first hand, in person.

Please do not reply to posters in an effort to denounce,
ridicule, embarrass or otherwise engage in non-productive
discussion. That’s called "feeding the trolls" and wastes
space on hundreds of thousands of newsserver hard drives and
personal computers around the world.  If you are bothered by
the tone or content of a thread, don’t read it or learn how
to make the subject or author not appear in the list of
topics. This is called kill-filing or filtering.  For more
information on how to set up filters and kill-files, please
see the documentation for your newsreader application or go
to:

  <http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm>

For additional information, the official sci.med.vision FAQ
(last updated in 1997) can be found at:

  <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/vision-faq/>

Thank you for participating in our unmoderated open forum.

Dear Fran,

Yes, there are all kinds of visual disasters "out there".

Indeed, I do not deal with them.

The minus lens works "perfectly" in 15 minutes,
what should I object?

Certainly the ODs can always "win" the argument by
simple continuing the use of the minus lens — as
it has been done for the last 400 years.

But then I remember Jacob Raphaelson — and other
optometrsts who would wish to work for prevention.

Further, I also understand Dr. Colgate and his
advocacy for prevention.

But I certainly agree that it must be the
person himself who decices the issue — one
way or the other.

My concern (as you know) was my sister’s children,
and how they should be treated.  Given Raphaelson’s
staement about "The Printer’s Son", I realized that
"prevention" simply can not be offered as
a "medical" procedure.  It would be excessively
expensive — and the person himself would
not see the result.

That is why "Shawn" was successful — because
he had the courage to make the commitment to
use the plus with great force, and verify
results with is own eye chart.  He also
had support from his parents with this
effort.

But he is way above average.

You youself, cleared your presbyoia (by your
own accounting).  Are you to claim success,
while denying others their success with the plus?

I do agree, however, that once the person decides
the use the minus (wearing it all the time) then
nothing can be done to prevet the resultant
adaptation of the eye to the minus lens — as
proven in SCIENTIFIC experiments.

But we disagree about this issus.

Best,

Otis

In my right eye I have a light grayish line that runs half way around
my iris and a very light cloudy grayish spot at the bottom part of the
iris. My vision is fine in that eye but it just doest feel right, it
feels kinda sore and aggrivated alot of the time. Alot of times if
feels as if there is something in it like a peice of lint or
something, but i can never see anyhthing. I have heard that the line
running around the iris could mean cholesterol and i have heard that
the light cloudy spot on the bottom sounds like a cataract but im only
27 so im guessing thats probably not the case. About 5 years ago i had
a corneal abrasion, could it be possible that this could be a result
of that? Does this sound like anything in particular or serious?
Thanks in advance.

Worn lenses for 10 years+ and inititiall had issues with red eye caused by
wearing lenses during all waking hours. A change to Proclear a couple of
years ago seemed to overcome any issues (as I were told then they are the
most oxygen permable lens?)

During the last check up the optician noted that the proclear was moving a
lot but if it doesnt bother you it isnt a problem. I then mentioned about
extended wear and the Ciba lens was produced to try.

I did not realise previously that the proclear only comes in one size
(14.2/8.6) however the optician fitted a 13.8/8.4 in the Ciba lens. I have
read the ciba site that suggests that a 8.6 be fitted first and taken to 8.4
in the event of a poor fit. Is this normal or should I have been given a 8.6
lens instead? (having said that I have had 8.4 lenses before in
Surevue/Acuvue)

Upon fitting the new lenses were not noticible and (to me) seem to better
fit. If I slide the lens of the cornea (1/2 way) it will slide back into
place. The lens is more relucant to slide upwards as it is less flexible
than the old proclear and centers better. There is some small movement on
the lens that can be detected when blinking at night (as has always been the
case with contact lenes)

This morning it felt strange to wake up with vision. After all these years I
was told higher water content is better, and it was not allowed to sleep
even one night – now suddenly I am told that a 24% water contact lens is
good and you can sleep in it. Very strange!. The lenses were still in the
same state as the night before, if I had slept in the proclear they would
dry out and become imobile (i.e drops before to get them out). The right
lens was perfect, however the left lens felt slightly "dry" and less mobile.
A couple of drops in the eye and all seems fine again? Is this normal
experience?

The other thing I have noticed is that I have been precribed a higher power
lens for the Ciba compared to Proclear. With proclear I had a -5.75/-5.50
but with the ciba I have been given 2 -6.00. I did query this and was told
it was because of the design? Do ciba have a different method of calculating
power to everyone else?

Any comments or advice appreciated (as I havent got an appointment) again
untill next week.

Although the law requires 20/40 in only 1 eye, if each eye alone cannot get
20/40, you generally don’t pass at the DMV office, and a form needs to be
filled out by an optometrist or ophthalmologist explaining the situation.
Even if the eye is not correctable, you then generally pass and get the
license, since 1 eye at least has the 20/40.

So, if you were passed at the DMV with 1 eye that did not see 20/40, sounds
like someone wasn’t doing their job.

On 10/14/04 10:09 PM, in article 1097817042.719…@news-1.nethere.net, "MS"

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

<m…@nospam.com> wrote:
> I don’t understand that about them failing you for one eye. Following is my
> experience with my last driver’s license renewal at DMV, last year.

> I am also severely myopic, and at 52, also presbyopic. Currently I am
> wearing N&D lenses, monovision. The left eye is undercorrected by about a
> diopter or even I think 1.25 less of the minus diopter than it should be for
> full distance vision correction, in order to use it for reading.

> Of course my CA driver’s license has always stipulated corrective lenses,
> and I couldn’t drive without them. I was wearing my lenses for the test. I
> could go pretty far down on the chart with both eyes–not perfect, but
> passable. Ditto for the right eye. But when she covered my right eye, to
> read only with the left, I couldn’t even read the top line! I was afraid
> that this could cause a problem, but it didn’t, my license was renewed, etc.

> So, it seems that, although they put the patch over the eyes to check the
> eyes individually, they don’t really care if one eye by itself cannot read
> anything at all on the chart, as long as the eyes can read the chart OK
> together.

> Therefore, I’m surprised they told you that you failed. Do you have no
> driver’s license now, not renewed?

> "Dan Abel" <da…@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:dabel-1410041510330001@ssu-64en129.sonoma.edu…
>> I had a bad day yesterday.  First I went to the lab to have my blood
>> drawn.  I’ve never had a problem there, other than the wait.  So I did my
>> waiting, and I was called in to have the blood drawn.  I sat down in front
>> of a rather young woman.  She made many requests of me:  move my chair
>> closer, lean back, move my arm, move it again, turn my arm.  Then she
>> starts tapping my arm with her finger.  I’ve seen that before, but she
>> just kept going on and on.  In boredom, I read her nametag.  Underneath
>> her name, it said Phlebotomy Student.  That explained it all.  I had
>> visions of multiple punctures.  However, once she finally got the nerve to
>> stick it in, she got it right the first time.

>> And then on to the DMV.  For most of my life, I was severely myopic, and I
>> knew I needed glasses to drive.  So my driver’s license has that
>> restriction noted on it.  However, after my second cataract surgery, I
>> mostly haven’t been wearing any lense, for the last two years.
>> Unfortunately, either I had forgotten or they changed things, because I
>> thought they tested both eyes together.  I easily passed both eyes, and
>> the left eye alone, but I have astigmatism in the right eye, and I failed
>> the vision exam.  Now, my wife had gone through this, but her amblyopia is
>> not correctable.  She had to take a driving test to prove that she could
>> drive with one eye.  So, I need to decide if I want to get rid of the
>> restriction, or just get glasses and wear them to drive.

>> —
>> Dan Abel
>> Sonoma State University
>> AIS
>> da…@sonic.net