Ortho C: a permanent correction of myopia up to -1.50 D (up to -3.00 in some cases)

For adults, the correctable range is from -0.50 D to -1.50 D. For youths during development (from 4 to 15 years of age), the correctable range is up to -3.00 D. If the youth is hyperopic, the correctable range is up to +3.00 D.”

The lens could be a Boston EO one, you can just buy it on a usual lens store e. g. lens.com.
“The procedure to deal with nearsightedness neurologically is based on a plain “flexible” pair of contact lenses (without any prescription) which you only wear for about 5 minutes—and you do not have to wear them everyday. Neurology is involved instead of reshaping or physiotherapy due to the speed of the treatment. It is quicker than laser treatment and there is no need to allow time for recovery.”

It just should be 0.15 mm thick and have a base curve 0.25-1.00 D flatter than usual:
“You should give the client the specifications in case you would not be available to order a replacement lens. When ordering online, there is no slot to allow the patient to specify the lens’ thickness. The thickness must be 0.15 mm thick. The “comments” section, or equivalent, is probably the only spot to request that specification. Ordering from an eye care specialist ensures that the thickness is correct.” (Replacing an Ortho C lens)
(Info about base curve seemed to disapper since last visit, you’d need a book, chances this chapter is freely accessible)

The improvement is permanent - no reshaping, lasering, cutting etc:
“To maintain the improvement, the goal is to wear them once every 2 or 3 weeks for about 5 minutes–the time it takes to complete the drill. The lenses are for therapeutic purposes only—not a visual aid. The purpose of performing the drill regularly is to prevent progressive myopia which is just as important as treating the existing myopia.”

It does not alter corneal curvature:
“Unlike other intrusive methods for correcting nearsightedness on the market, the curvature of the cornea will not be altered. Do not confuse it with present day orthokeratology (which is Latin for correcting the cornea), or “ortho K”, as it is sometimes called in optical parlance. It attempts to correct your refractive error by “flattening” out the cornea with a very “flat” contact lens while you sleep without attending to the myopic shape of the lens of your eye or the eyeball. But ortho C does not “flatten” out the curvature of the cornea; its curvature does not change, and this can be verified by taking another K reading (or keratometer reading) after your vision improves.”

How do you think, what is responsible for doing so?
Is it really the process descibed at the main page?

For example, spinal asymmetry starts from muscles on one (let’s assume right) side being tighter than other (assuming it’s left).

Then, right side muscles push the spine out of alignment, causing it to curve to the right.

Next: bones, discs, soft tissue around vertebral column suffers to take such wrong position all time due to tight muscle on the right side. So, bones start to deform: vertebraes instead of rectangle shape gradually take trapezoid one to stay easy in this position. But, it’s a vicious cycle: the tight muscles becoming even tighter!

All starts again and again: tighter muscle -> further deformation -> even tighter muscle -> even more deformation.

@SilentNote Sherrington law applies to all muscles in the body: if right say erector spinae gets tigther by 5 imaginary units to tilt torso to the right, left should relax by the same 5 i. u. But, if both are tight, they extend (straighten) the spine. So, I came to conclusion that isotonic contraction of oblique muscles with simultaneous isometric contraction of rectus muscles does not go against Sherrington law.

I propose the same is with eye. As each muscle works in a muscle chain, the contraction of ciliary muscle also should go further to some muscle. I hypothesize these are oblique muscles. They should contract when ciliary muscle contracts.

If they are tight for long, the eye modifies itself to take the strain easy: as oblique muscles simultaneous action (when rectus muscles hold the eye so it can’t tract forward or backward) means elongation of the eye, eye remodels to become longer. If the eye is longer, oblique muscles should be tight all time, since there is constant strain on them.

So, vicious cycle begins: ciliary close up strain -> oblique muscles tight -> eye elongation -> even more tight oblique muscles -> even more eye elongation -> ciliary close up strain -> …

Muscles can hold things they are attached to very precisely: how they would hold the spine in 15 degrees curve (well, 3 degrees more or less during the day)? Imagine how precise they should be.

Some studies suggest 98% of population have rotatory slippage of atlas (C1) vertebrae from birth time. The cause is birth trauma (when they take out the child from mother’s body). Imagine how very small (1x1-2 cm I guess if not less) muscles hold it in such position for all our life.

EOM exercises are as unhelpful to balance them thus reverse myopia as symmetrical exercise alone in scoliosis (spinal sideways asymmetry more than 10 degrees) - tight muscles work twice, because brain prefers to work using muscles that are already too tight. So it leaves condition as is in better case, making it worse in worst case.

@halmadavid Yee’s opinion is -1.50 myopic eye muscles are not compromised. So, perhaps he means that eye shape is not compromised. Where is your opinion that emmetropic eye equals -1.50 myopic eye arises from?

@Ursa @NottNott you might want to take a look on this.

It has three bases:

  1. Jake’s experience that most people can start to go without glasses when they reach -1.50 full correction (so around -1.25 normalized)
  2. Something definitely different below -1.50. Until then the improvements goes a pretty steady for those who figured out what’s working for them. But after that it gets messy and takes a lot of time and maybe even habit changes to actually go back to 20/20
  3. My own experience, that it’s possible to clear around 1.25 - 1.50 diopter blur with active focus
1 Like

My problem with that is that there is no direct or fascial connection between the ciliary body and the oblique muscles. They have the sclera between them which may mediate some tension, but I doubt it.
If I remember correctly even Yee says that there is no connection between them, and the oblique tightness is caused by neural inputs, not mechanical.

Well, while being completely at zero when it comes to knowledge about fascias and direct muscle connection, I can’t say anything useful there…

Really, the chain of statements can’t follow on from here. Anyway, I came up with two arguments not directly addressing yours.

These are:

  • Yee argues ciliary body and medial rectus muscle interact using common 3rd cranial nerve to compensate for corneal astigmatism. Lens cancelling out corneal astigmatism is among facts accepted even by official ophthalmology. I haven’t find any other descriptions as detailed as Yee’s on this subject. Then, can’t ciliary muscle and inferior oblique muscle interoperate given the fact they are equal in innervation?
  • Some of Bates’ experiments on animals are experiments with ocular oblique muscles. He claimed if one of ocular oblique muscle was lacking, the eye couldn’t elongate further despite electrostimulation (ES) of remaining ocular oblique muscle. As well his experiments with both oblique muscles in place: ES then produced an elongation of eye. The problems of this argument are as follows: while it’s possible to elongate the eye using contraction of both ocular oblique muscles, it’s not necessarily a thing that happens when we deal with regular human myopia. Anyway, very much a practical confirmation of theory if there was no mistake at some stage of it (last but not least, my memory reproduced all it correctly :slight_smile:).

Modern studies rejected Yee’s view of myopic eye, because Yee claimed that myopic eyes are even shorter vertically than emmetropic eyes. However, studies shown that myopic eye is not only longer, but also bigger overall: their bigger size was seen firstly in axial length, following by width then height.

Well, we know that in all people convergence = accommodation.
Then there’s a some sort of connection between the ciliary and medial rectus muscle?

Anyway, I guess it’s not medial rectus muscle enforces ciliary muscle to contract since I often find this:

“We imaged the fixating eye; however, even with monocular fixation, the eye cyclotorts during accommodation”

As we know, cyclotorsion (axial rotation) of eye isn’t a usual function of medial rectus muscle (or its attachment should be misplaced), so maybe it’s medial rectus -> oblique muscles -> ciliary muscle. The opposite is also true: ciliary -> obliques -> medial rectus, since we can’t view something very close without at least slightly moving our eyes to each other.

I viewed an imaginary scenario how eye muscles could work: if eye is moving towards nose, medial rectus shortens, vertical rectus muscles fire and oblique muscles address contraction of ciliary muscle. If eye moves out (away from nose), lateral rectus shortens and oblique muscles fire to help abduct the eye. Then, vertical and medial rectus muscles help to relax ciliary muscle.

By the way, relaxation and contraction (firing) aren’t the most exact terms how muscles work.

They have also isometric mode of work (they contract without fiber shortening). As well as concentric and eccentric (isotonic) modes of work, in which they contract and shorten, and fail to contract and shorten due to force is too big so they contract and lengthen (!), respectively.

For visual explanation:

  • Isometric contraction (a.k.a. firing) - imagine you try to lift a very big weight and fail to do so - your biceps fires but you still hold your arm extended.
  • Isotonic concentric contraction (a.k.a. just “contraction” or “tight muscle”) - flex your arm and you will see your biceps shortens and appears bigger.
  • Isotonic eccentric contraction (perhaps the other name for it is “weakness from overtightness” as Western physicians or osteopaths call it) - tilt your torso to one side. Now touch the muscles near lumbar vertebral column on the other side - they are tight despite they are lengthened. A possible explanation for it that they need to hold your spine not to slip further to the side. Since their opposition is gravity, they can’t overcome it and just lengthen while still being tight or contracted.

Well, I have not figured out yet what “isokinetic” mode of work means.

Does it make some sense or not from your point of view?

Here’s a blog I found of someone who went through the process with him. https://thoughtsbypaula.blogspot.com/search?q=ortho
From the results, it makes me think that it is, at best, a quicker way of reducing ciliary spasm. Any progress beyond that is from the wearing of a reduced prescription.