 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2005Nearsightedness progression and coping
I'm 17 and I've had perfect vision until a year ago when I got glasses for (-1.5/-1.75). I rarely wore glasses and was able to manage without them using the (i guess) usual tricks nearsighed people use.. squinting.. reading instead of watching television.. sitting close to the front of a room. A few months ago I was at a party and by chance discovered how bad my vision had become. Many of my friends are nearsighted too, and we experimented with how far we could see. It soon became apparent that girls seemed to be far more nearsighted than guys. I'm one of the least nearsighted, while some of my girlfriends are into the (-9.0) range. Most of the girls are (-6 to -9). The guys were generally (-1 to -3) with most just mildly nearsighted. Many more had perfect vision compared to girls. They were totally shocked when we used a video camera and misfocused it to show how bad *our* vision is.When I pulled out my glasses however, I was surprised to discovered that I couldn't even focus half as far as a normal person. When I went to the optometrist a couple days later, I was told my prescription was now (-3.5./-3.75). It had changed that much in less than a year. What scared me is seeing the difference between my vision and (-9) vision. The girl with (-9) has told me that she is virtually blind at night without lenses, and tends to panic a bit if her glasses fall off the nightstand and she has to feel around for them. It has been been almost half a year since then, while those new lenses worked for a while I have already noticed that I cannot focus to the front of the class and television text like on CNN is totally unreadable unless I am within 6 feet or so depending on how I squint. I am starting to get headaches, and based on trying on the glasses of my friends, I suspect I will now be in the in the (-4) range. I am completely dependent on my glasses now and wouldn't dream of doing anything without them. Even now at night I get extremely disoriented if I have to do something complicated without glasses, and I really hate that feeling and resent not being able to see properly. Is it true that as a girl I can likely expect to be nearsighted to a high number? I can't imagine not being able to function without putting in contact lenses or wearing glasses. Why does nearsightedness seem worse at night? At what age can I get eye surgery? Thanks, Samantha Please, discard the glasses imemdiately and start the real treatment. The books and charts are available. Visit http://TheCentralFixation.com The learned men whom you have visited and that will answer you here, have nothing to say but putting stronger and stronger lenses upon you, with the idea in mind to have you so completely mistreated and numbed that you won't have neither the nerve to protest and regret. Your illness is totally mental. you stare your gaze in the effort or attempt to clarify the point in sight. This is wrong. Unless you learn to move your gaze continually, easily and sfortly, again and again, your vision won't improve. Unless you believe in eyeglasses, you are doomed to fail. I appreciate your scientific approach. Now please show to me that you are truly smart and elegant. >I'm 17 and I've had perfect vision until a year ago when I got glasses for >(-1.5/-1.75). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >without glasses, and I really hate that feeling and resent not being able to >see properly. I'm not an eye doctor so I can't answer all your questions, but I have been wearing glasses since age 10. My prescription is about -4 so I'm not much different from you. Wearing glasses is something you can get used to. I put mine on in the morning, and I just go through the day with them and mostly I totally forget that I even have them on. So don't be resentful of your need for glasses. There are much, much worse things that could happen to you. Now I just want to warn you, there are a couple of quacks that post to this newsgroup who will try to sell you on their magical technique that is supposed to "clear" your vision so you won't ever need glasses. I'm not going to mention names but you will know who they are. They don't have one shred of scientific proof for anything they say, so pay no attention to them. Don't just read one or two of these people's posts; search back a few months and see what kind of things they say and you will be able to form your own opinion. One of these people regularly tells people to "learn how to look at the Sun"! Incredible. I often wonder how many people have permanently damaged their eyesight by listening to things like that. Dear Samantha, You are going to get 3 items of advice: 1. The traditional answer -- nearsighedness is caused by heredity -- and there is nothing you can do about it. 2. The "Bates" advocates: Get rid of that minus lens. (But by now -- it is too late.) 3. The advice of some optometrists and scientists that PREVENTION is possible at the threshold. This group maintains that prevention is possible if a strong plus is used at the threshold. What is known about your future vision is as follows: The ODs report that the eye goes "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. In college the "down" rate is about -1/3 diopter per year. Therefore you can expect this downward rate (which you have alread confirmed) to continue, so that 4 years from now, you can expect your eyes to go further negative by -1.3 diopters (on the average). As far at Lasik is concerned -- that must be your decision. Given that -1.3 diopter per year (in college) it would be wise to wait until your eyes "stabilize" after college. If you did it now, you could expect that your vision would still go "down" by -1.3 diopters whilst in college. Be prepared for an "explosion" of OD opinion on this site about these issues. That is just a normal reaction. Best, Otis Engineer > 2. The "Bates" advocates: Get rid of that minus lens. > (But by now -- it is too late.) It's not a question neither of advocacy of Bates nor of "too late". It's never too late. He has not any other alternative except the right treatmente without glasses. > 1. The traditional answer -- nearsighedness is caused by > heredity -- and there is nothing you can do about it. Sorry, but myopia is more complex that just being due to genetics. > The ODs report that the eye goes "down" at > a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. In college [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you can expect your eyes to go further > negative by -1.3 diopters (on the average). Where is this result documented. This OD would not tell any patient what you just said. Everything is just black or white for you Otis. For example, you think ALL eyes will go down by an average amount, or that ALL pilot-engineers who attend a 4-year college and are intelligent can reverse their myopia. It is only so simple to someone who doesn't have any experience. To the layperson, Otis is not a trained eyecare expert. He has a bias toward a particular theory of myopia prevention that has limited merit. See an eye doctor and follow his advise. > vision. The girl with (-9) has told me that she is virtually blind at night > without lenses, and tends to panic a bit if her glasses fall off the > nightstand and she has to feel around for them. She's probably blind during the day also, but is wearing her glasses. I well remember the feeling of panic when I couldn't find my glasses in the morning. If they weren't right in one place, I was sunk, since I couldn't find my glasses without my glasses on. > It has been been almost half a year since then, while those new lenses > worked for a while I have already noticed that I cannot focus to the front > of the class and television text like on CNN is totally unreadable unless I > am within 6 feet or so depending on how I squint. I am starting to get Sounds like you need to get your eyes checked again. > number? I can't imagine not being able to function without putting in > contact lenses or wearing glasses. It's not fun, but many of us have been through this. One thing that helped me, was to think about all the people whose vision *wasn't* correctable. These people don't have the option of wearing glasses or contacts. > Why does nearsightedness seem worse at > night? It's called "depth of field". As your pupil constricts, you can focus over a greater range. At night, your pupils are wide open and your depth of field is reduced. > At what age can I get eye surgery? You don't want to have this surgery until your eyes have stopped changing.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >> vision. The girl with (-9) has told me that she is virtually blind at night >> without lenses, and tends to panic a bit if her glasses fall off the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >morning. If they weren't right in one place, I was sunk, since I couldn't >find my glasses without my glasses on. For anyone in this predicament, I would suggest that they get a spare pair of glasses, and put them safely away in a top drawer where they can find them without wearing any glasses. That way you can always use the spare pair to find your primary glasses. Having at least one spare pair of glasses is necessary anyway for someone who is virtually blind without them. What would a -9 do if they broke their glasses and didn't have a spare? > Having at least one spare pair of glasses is necessary anyway for > someone who is virtually blind without them. What would a -9 do if > they broke their glasses and didn't have a spare? Speaking from experience, tape them together until you can get new frames. :-( When I became an adult and my eyesight starting changing, the old glasses worked well enough to find the new ones, even if the prescription wasn't quite right. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >> Having at least one spare pair of glasses is necessary anyway for >> someone who is virtually blind without them. What would a -9 do if >> they broke their glasses and didn't have a spare? > >Speaking from experience, tape them together until you can get new frames. LOL.. that's just what I was going to say.. tape works wonders. Ann Do you read a lot or study full time? Is either of your parents highly short-sighted? 'Yes' to either of these puts you at a higher risk of becoming more short sighted yourself. There is a link between long hours of close focussing (ie. reading, studying, hobbies involving small detail) and myopia. Try not to read for too long at once (take frequent breaks), use a good light and good posture when you read, and don't hold the book too close. Dom > I'm 17 and I've had perfect vision until a year ago when I got glasses for > (-1.5/-1.75). [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Samantha Dear Julia, It is funny that with all this advice about being very careful with the "near" environment -- they are so hostile to another "relief" method of the "plus lens". If you are going to be systematic in that type of advice, then the "plus" is just a logical extension of that line-of-thought. Indeed this is the EXACT suggestion of professor T. Grosvenor. Best, Otis Engineer <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in message > It is funny that with all this advice about being very > careful with the "near" environment -- they are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of advice, then the "plus" is just a logical > extension of that line-of-thought. It's so logical that it just HAS to work. Otis says so. But who has actually made it work? The relationship between close work and myopia appears over and over in myopia studies. But where are the results showing that plus prevents myopia? You never quite say. > Indeed this is the EXACT suggestion > of professor T. Grosvenor. Never mind the studies that Professor Grosvenor actually published? Did he ever get it to work? If he couldn't, then I probably won't either. No thank you. -MT Now let's think different. Imagine that the eye elongates to focus properly to the near point (in myopes it is so). What if we teach the eye to go back in normal emmetropic shape when looking in the distance? With this "imagination" or "illusion" in mind, the myopia gets corrected very soon temporarily, and with some time and effort permanently. Those who are interested in this kind of "illusions", please visit http://TheCentralFixation.com Subject: Response to Mike T and RM Re: PREVENTION with the plus. MikeT> It's so logical that it just HAS to work. Otis says so. But who has actually made it work? Otis> In fact it is the individual pilot or highly motivated person who "makes it work". I NEVER said it was easy, and I NEVER said it was possible ONCE YOU BEGIN WEARING A MINUS LENS. Otis> This becomes an issue the person must decide for himself. You can never make that decision for him, and I can only advocate that the individual PERSONALLY look at the objective facts concerning 1. The dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- under direct experimental control. (I know you are NEVER going to do that.) 2. The fact that RM will never tell anyone about the standard -1.3 dipoter / year movement in a four year college. I think that information is critical -- so that the person knows what is going to happen to his vision -- if he chooses to do NOTHING ABOUT IT. Lastly, some highly motivated person have "cleared" their vision to "standard" by there own personal efforts -- because THEY pay attesntion to engineering-scientific concepts -- and you do not. The relationship between close work and myopia appears over and over in myopia studies. But where are the results showing that plus prevents myopia? You never quite say. Otis> I have posted experimental studies concerning primates -- which you TOTALLY IGNORE. Otis> Francis Young's study shows the perventive effect -- and you also choose to IGNORE that study also. Otis> I present this analysis and studies to the pilots I talk to. We ALL agree that prevention is difficult -- and must be started BEFORE that minus lens is used. Otis> Further, we agree that the individual must personally verify results -- with his eye chart, and a trial-lens kit -- if he has one. > Indeed this is the EXACT suggestion > of professor T. Grosvenor. Never mind the studies that Professor Grosvenor actually published? Otis> Francis Young published the ACCURATE studies. Professor Grosvenor stated his judgment. Other ODs, respecting this "second opinion" are now using the plus on their own children. We all acknowledge that it is difficult situation. Did he ever get it to work? Otis> Individual engineers, pilots and scientists have "got it to work" if you mean that the personally verify that they pass all legal requirements for vision that apply to them. Otis> Having done this under their own control -- they ralize that they don't need your minus lens. If he couldn't, then I probably won't either. Otis> I KNOW for a dead certainity that you never will. But then that means that these people have no choice but to figure out how to do it themselves -- under their own control Best, Otis No thank you. Otis> That is your choice. These people who wish to protect their distant vision are makeing their choice. I send this to them so that they understand your "thinking" and attitude on this matter. Best, Otis -MT > Otis> This becomes an issue the person must decide > for himself. You can never make that decision for him, Well, if you'll provide some convincing evidence, I'll offer your treatment to the thousand or so new myopes I see every year, before they start wearing "the minus". But until you provide your evidence, I'll have to rely on the textbooks and journal articles that actually exist. Treatment standards aren't based on your opinion or the assumption that all species respond the same at all ages. > 1. The dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- under > direct experimental control. (I know you are NEVER > going to do that.) And I know you are NEVER going to provide reasonable evidence that it works in humans. > 2. The fact that RM will never tell anyone > about the standard -1.3 dipoter / year movement > in a four year college. I think that information > is critical -- so that the person knows > what is going to happen to his vision -- if he > chooses to do NOTHING ABOUT IT. When you say every college student gets -5.2 diopters nearsighted, WE CAN'T BELIEVE YOU. > Lastly, some highly motivated person have > "cleared" their vision to "standard" by > there own personal efforts -- because > THEY pay attesntion to engineering-scientific > concepts -- and you do not. THEY learn to relax accommodation. YOU believe their eyes get shorter. > Otis> I have posted experimental studies concerning primates -- which > you TOTALLY IGNORE. And you TOTALLY IGNORE that similar experiments in humans MOSTLY DON'T WORK. > Otis> Francis Young's study shows the perventive effect -- and > you also choose to IGNORE that study also. I don't recall Francis Young preventing myopia. I do recall Thorsten Wiesel saying all monkeys don't respond the same. > Otis> I present this analysis and studies to the pilots > I talk to. We ALL agree that prevention is difficult -- and > must be started BEFORE that minus lens is used. You're saying humans who are at risk of myopia should wear lenses that make them myopic in order to avoid myopia. I'm saying FINE. We'll recommend it too, as soon as you show us a study where those who have done so achieved better results than a demographically similar group who didn't. Dr. Grosvenor's human study found it DID NOT WORK. Almost all the human studies using plus show IT IS NOT WORTHWHILE. All the metastudies, where the best professional vision scientists make it their business to collate and draw summary conclusions on prominent papers in their own field, say *IF* it works, the effect is so subtle as to be useless. Medical opthalmology textbooks have been saying so for thirty years. BEFORE THAT it was common practice. WHY DID DOCTORS QUIT TRYING? > Otis> Francis Young published the ACCURATE studies. Francis Young wasn't putting plus on humans to control developmental myopia. > Professor Grosvenor stated his judgment. He also published a study where Naval Academy students tried it and IT DIDN'T WORK. > ODs, respecting this "second opinion" are now > using the plus on their own children. We > all acknowledge that it is difficult situation. There are a few ODs who still believe it. You'll find ODs, especially academic ODs practicing all sorts of stuff on their children. Your "second opinion" isn't the weirdest thing they try, though it may be the oldest. > Did he ever get it to work? > > Otis> Individual engineers, pilots and scientists have > "got it to work" if you mean that the personally > verify that they pass all legal requirements for > vision that apply to them. Yes, you can teach engineers, pilots and scientists to control their accommodation. If we look for any other physical change as a result of your treatment, it just isn't there. (Now you'll change the subject and tell us why you never use the word "treatment", instead of telling me where your results are documented.) > Otis> Having done this under their own > control -- they ralize that they don't need > your minus lens. Heroic, but misguided. You think we WANT to sell minus lenses. Don't you think I'd have more business if I could sell a working, nonsurgical remedy instead? PLEASE PLEASE show me evidence your procedure works. If it works, I can advertise it and people will flock to my door. Unlike you, if it doesn't work, I get a flock of regulators and lawyers with their papers and court dates and fines and stuff. You've prolly never had that, but I'm pretty sure it would elevate your standards. > If he couldn't, then I probably won't either. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > how to do it themselves -- under their > own control Then teach them to control their accommodation. But don't tell them you're preventing myopia. > Otis> That is your choice. These people who wish to > protect their distant vision are makeing their choice. > I send this to them so that they understand > your "thinking" and attitude on this matter. Tattletail. I doubt they'll read it. I doubt you'll really read it either. In fact I don't think ANYBODY's reading it. -MT > Otis> In fact it is the individual pilot or highly motivated person who > "makes it work". I NEVER said it was easy, and I NEVER said > it was possible ONCE YOU BEGIN WEARING A MINUS LENS. Once you take one whiff of that addictive minus lens you are hooked forever! Better than the best narcotic I guess. > 2. The fact that RM will never tell anyone > about the standard -1.3 dipoter / year movement > in a four year college. I think that information > is critical -- so that the person knows > what is going to happen to his vision -- if he > chooses to do NOTHING ABOUT IT. I will never tell anybody that their myopia will increase -1.3D / year because it's not true! There is no evidence to support that claim. My god, your ridiculous exaggerations stagger me! Do you truly believe this stuff? Where is the data to support your claims? Or is this derived from a group of monkeys that were overcorrected by -6.00 diopters? The occasional college student may progress at that rate but its not many. Otis, your postings in this newsgroup are a threat to the ocular health of anybody that reads them. You better stay anonymous and not give that kind of advice to anyone in front of an eyecare professional or you who will be explaining yourself to the authorities. > Lastly, some highly motivated person have > "cleared" their vision to "standard" by > there own personal efforts -- because > THEY pay attesntion to engineering-scientific > concepts -- and you do not. Your incredible. > Otis> I have posted experimental studies concerning primates -- which > you TOTALLY IGNORE. You have mentioned a single primate study as I recall. And all of your suppositions seem to spring from this one study. All of your equations and all of your generalizations that you claim apply to "the entire population of adolescent natural (human) eyes". Why don't the studies on human subjects agree with your suppositions? Shouldn't human studies apply more directly to human vision than primate studies? Theories in the absence of supporting data are nothing more than bias Otis. Since you proclaim your theory over and over again despite it's shortfalls and weakness, it is clear that you are incapable of being objective. > Otis> I present this analysis and studies to the pilots > I talk to. We ALL agree that prevention is difficult -- and > must be started BEFORE that minus lens is used. In other words, once someone places a biconcave lens 13mm in front of the eye, it's permanently damaged I suppose. That wretched minus! > Otis> Further, we agree that the individual must > personally verify results -- with his eye chart, > and a trial-lens kit -- if he has one. I'd include a cycloplegic refraction by an unbiased eyecare professional. > Otis> Having done this under their own > control -- they ralize that they don't need > your minus lens. That wretched minus! > I will never tell anybody that their myopia will increase -1.3D / year > because it's not true! There is no evidence to support that claim. My god, > your ridiculous exaggerations stagger me! Do you truly believe this stuff? In fairness to Otis, his fingers don't always do what his brain tells them to. He has claimed 1/3 diopter per year several times (although he has also claimed 1/2). Since the "slash" key and the "period" key are adjacent on most keyboards, and his fingers very often miss the correct key, I suspect that this is a typo rather than a real (and very incredible) claim. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > Otis> Francis Young published the ACCURATE studies. > Professor Grosvenor stated his judgment. Otis, Why don't you provide web based links to these "studies" so that others in this group can make their own evaluation about accuracy of their studies? Or is it because Francis Young and Professor Grosvenor are not real people? Allen I see, so you are saying that they eye shortens? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.