And once again, a note here from Sara with lots more details:
11 months ago, I had just received my differential prescription of -3/-3. At the time, I could see anywhere from 55 to 62 cm clearly with them (I was testing the eyes separately).
Now, that same prescription has given me greater than 90 cm of clarity in the mornings (testing the eyes together). It’s actually getting kind of hard to measure, because my arm isn’t long enough to hold my tape measure for the full length. (Any tricks there?)
Another differential prescription of -2.5/-2.5 that I got a while back is allowing me to see 67-70 cm clearly in the mornings. That’s greater than my original differential prescription (-3/-3) let me see 11 months ago.
And this morning I had a cm measurement of 31.5 sitting at my computer.
My original prescription was -5 (OS)/-5.50 (OD). I’ve been using a normalized prescription of -4.5/-4.75 up until a few days ago, though it had been getting quite easy to see the 20/20 line.
A couple days ago I started wearing my new -4 (OS)/-4.25 (OD) normalized prescription. I definitely do notice more blur, especially at work, where I am in a dark room with lots of text at greater distances (I work in a Science Gallery at the local museum), though in the morning I can clear up the lines on the Snellen more or less down to 20/20, though it’s not a strong 20/20, and the blur starts at 20/50 or 20/40.
I will probably post another topic asking about the difference between strain and focus pulling, as there is so very much blurry text in my work environment, given how cavernous the room is.
But I thought I’d post a progress update. Those numbers, especially involving the differential prescriptions, don’t lie. Some of what I’ve experienced could be classified as wishful thinking to some extent, but 62 to 90 cm (with the -3 glasses) is an obvious, definite difference.
The original forum thread is here. I really should organize a clinical study framework, and recruit some of our excellent participants to provide their results.
Of course it would be swallowed by the politics of peer review science journals, but at least we would have something, published, related to this site and the method, to point to as reference. Why haven’t I done it, you might as?
In the end, it would just be an ego trip on my part. The mainstream doesn’t care, the scholars just want something to have a theoretical argument over, and meanwhile everybody else is just stuck with glasses. My limited time is better spent helping you with progress, and possibly even looking into some promoting of this site. Sadly, I have to say, since it would be such fun!
I hope you enjoyed this article.
Also, I would so much appreciate your help! I am also looking for participants willing to send a photo along with a quick improvement summary (just a few words would do). Or even more amazingly, a video testimonial.
We have years of participants here, and I would like to help new visitors with a bit of inspiration. We are social creatures, and having a face to go with the stories would be fantastic.
Send me a quick e-mail if you might consider giving me a hand with this.
