 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005Uncorrected nearsightedness question?
I went through childhood (probabaly 11 yrs old on) without having my nearsightedness corrected. I finally got contacts at about age 18. Think the prescription was around -1.25 but quickly required stronger prescriptions. I'm -3.00 now at age 40. I was wondering if going through childhood uncorrected caused any long-lasting negative effects compared to getting corrected early?? Also.. I've noticed that getting fully corrected with contacts in my left eye to the level the doc says really screws with that eye. Its sharper vision but not always. And my near vision really hates full correction in that eye. So I've backed off a 1/2 diop in that eye. Road signs are blurrier for the most part. Wonder if not getting corrected early contributed to this effect. >I went through childhood (probabaly 11 yrs old on) without having my >nearsightedness corrected. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >long-lasting negative effects compared >to getting corrected early?? Oh-oh. I think I sense a storm brewing... ;-) >Also.. I've noticed that getting fully corrected with contacts in my >left eye to the level the doc says really >screws with that eye. Its sharper vision but not always. What do you mean by "screws with" and "not always"? Is it something other than the "near vision" you describe below? >And my near vision really hates full correction in >that eye. That's most likely "presbyopia", i.e. far-sightedness that comes with age. Welcome to the over-40 crowd. >So I've backed off a 1/2 diop in that eye. Road signs are >blurrier for the most part. The way to treat presbyopia is with bifocals or progressive lenses. You might be able to get away with a weaker lens for now but as you get older the condition gets worse, and this will no longer work. >Wonder if not getting corrected early contributed to this effect. Here it comes, I can already hear the wind blowing... :) >The way to treat presbyopia is with bifocals or progressive lenses. I think i would prefer the words 'cope with' rather than 'treat' Presbyopia seems to come to us all (I am 49) but so far i have not got to the stage of much younger friends. It seems once you begin the plus lens 'treatment' you quickly lose the remaining elasticity of the lens and become utterly dependant upon the lenses. Last year i met a world renowned italian genetic scientist who must have been 60 or so. We talked about his vision since he was reading without glasses. He did not require reading glasses and had demonstrably good vision in both eyes and had never worn or needed glasses. Why so? Has the phenonmena ever been studied? Seems that this mans ability is 'scietifically impossible'. What was striking about him was that although he was some 11 years or so older than me, he was flexibly minded, young and joyful of heart and not obviously prone to the kind of narrow minded rigid thinking that is common for some older people. Another friend of mine of similar flexible and boyish nature did not require glasses for any purpose until he was in his late 50's Andrew > the stage of much younger friends. It seems once you begin the plus lens > 'treatment' you quickly lose the remaining elasticity of the lens and > become utterly dependant upon the lenses. It does seem that way, until you actually measure accommodation. > Last year i met a world renowned italian genetic scientist who must have > been 60 or so. We talked about his vision since he was reading without [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why so? Has the phenonmena ever been studied? Seems that this mans > ability is 'scietifically impossible'. The "phenomenon" has been studied extensively. I'm 51 and I can read without glasses. Your friend's distance prescription could be like mine: pl-125x090. My mother never wore glasses her entire life. Her Rx was pl-250x090. -MT > It seems once you begin the plus lens > 'treatment' you quickly lose the remaining elasticity of the lens and > become utterly dependant upon the lenses. That wretched plus. We should make it illegal. > Last year i met a world renowned italian genetic scientist who must have > been 60 or so. We talked about his vision since he was reading without [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Another friend of mine of similar flexible and boyish nature did not > require glasses for any purpose until he was in his late 50's I am also 51 and probably don't have a boyish nature. I can see good at distance and near without glasses. My prescription is OD= -0.50, OS= -2.00. Do you begin to see some ways that this can happen now? >I went through childhood (probabaly 11 yrs old on) without having my >nearsightedness corrected How do you know you were actually nearsighted then? > I finally got contacts at about age 18. Think the prescription was > around -1.25 but quickly required [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > long-lasting negative effects compared > to getting corrected early?? No-- there is no "damage" done by not correcting your eyes earlier if they needed it. > Also.. I've noticed that getting fully corrected with contacts in my left > eye to the level the doc says really [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > blurrier for the most part. > Wonder if not getting corrected early contributed to this effect. No. More likely there is some slight astigmatism, or some other refractive problem, that remains even with your contacts on. Possibly you are overminused in that eye which is why your near vision is affected by the contacts. I would discuss the effect you are noticing in your left eye with your eyedoc. > No. More likely there is some slight astigmatism, or some other refractive > problem, that remains even with your contacts on. Possibly you are > overminused in that eye which is why your near vision is affected by the > contacts. I would discuss the effect you are noticing in your left eye with > your eyedoc. He says his vision changes continuously. Haven't yoou read what he says? Why you dismiss important parts of the messages? The ones that do not fit with your flawed theory... Every case is individual and cannot be subjected to counter-proof. What is clear, is again and again that the conventional treatment is bogus, and does not solve the problem. And still you trust these people! In my opinion, your being no-prescribed till 18 years was a great fortune for you. But there is no proof of the contrary. > I went through childhood (probabaly 11 yrs old on) without having my > nearsightedness corrected. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > left eye to the level the doc says really > screws with that eye. Its sharper vision but not always. And my near > vision really hates full correction in > that eye. So I've backed off a 1/2 diop in that eye. Road signs are > blurrier for the most part. > Wonder if not getting corrected early contributed to this effect.
|
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.