 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2005What recommendations would you make for 2.5 year-old child?
To: Optometrists on sci.med.vision, Subject: A mother asks you about her son (at -6 diopters) and requests recommendations for prevention. Question for optometrists on sci.med.vision. Would you recommend that she reduce the amount of "reading" her son does -- at 4-5 inches? Would you recommend that she "restrict" the wearing of the -6 diopter lens, or would you recommend that her son wear the -6 diopters 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. (As per the "O'Leary Study"?) I will forward your recommendations (as you state them) to "Emma" as she is very concerned about her child's long-term visual welfare. Best, Otis ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Letter 1 from Emma about her 2.5 year old son at -6 diopters Subject: My myopic son Hi, My son is 2.5 years and is myopic (-6D and -4D). I am very concerned about this. As I read considerably about risks in minus lenses, I am not using them for my son. Instead, I ordered for a pair of pinhole glasses, which I intend to use. He is able to manage on his own and play well. He can see bright stars too in the sky. I am concerned that as myopia tends to increase till the age of say 16 years, I am really scared about how the progression will be. Can you please tell me if I am doing anything worng by not using the minus lenses prescribed? Will his myopia increase because of this? I read about eye exercises and as he is too small to really get them going, I am making him look at Snellen chart. He is able to identify alphabets of 4th row from the top from 10 ft or so. Can you please give me some directions as to how to go about with my son's myopia? Thanks and Regards, Emma ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Letter 2 from Emma about her 2.5 year old son at -6 diopters Subject: Re: myopic son Hi, Good Morning. Thank you very much for your replies. I will get back to my Snellen chart get back to you with the details. These are some of my observations on my son's vision: 1. He holds a books at a distance of ~4-6 inches. Sometimes I feel he is just used to it. Though he can see the same pictures from nearly a foot (as he will be able to identify the pictures when I move the book away), he just refuses when I tell him to do it. I slowly tried to tell him that his hands should be straight when he holds a book (as the length of his hand is just a little longer than a foot). But you know, he finds the book heavy and cannot manage. 2. He can identify an ant moving (small black ants .. small means really the tinest ants), from a distance of 1 feet, but once he identifies it moving, he stoops towards the ant to nearly 3 inches (I guess this is to get the detailed picture) to view it. 3. He can identify movements very well. He can identify a butterfly from more than 30 ft or even more. Once I was surprised that he could identify butterflies of bright yellow color which are more than 60 ft. He can identify a crow or a pigeon sitting on the 5th floor of the building. I heard that bird watcing is good for the eyes as the eye tends to move along with the bird. So I encourage that by taking him to parks etc. 4. The two points which made us go to the doctor are his close looking at books + not identification of faces that are at greater distance than 30 ft. Example, if we are say 30 or even 25 ft.from him, in a market or a park, he looks at strains to identify the face. 5. I carefully watched him climbing the stairs and getting down. He does that comfortably and at a good pace too. 6 He does not watch TV. We don't encourage that. As you mentioned, I will get back to the snellen chart and get the right numbers. I have one very big concern. As I mentioned, his myopia is -6D (L) and -4D (R). I guess he uses his right eye much more than left eye. He will not allow me to close his right eye as much as what he allows me to close his left eye to view something. But now maybe he got used to me closing his right eye. He allows it for a few seconds. I read about amblyopia which says that if the image to the brain from one eye is not strong, the brain tends to get images from the better eye and gradually the weaker eye tends to become weaker. Do you think the difference of -2D between the eyes can cause this? If yes, could you please provide some tips on how to handle this without using the minus lenses? Thanks for your time, again. So I will not try to use the minus lenses as his playhome for this year only uses blocks and some big picture books. I guess he can mange. I ordered for a pair on pinhole glasses and awaiting their arrival. I will try to use them. Best Regards, Emma Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: OD who love to "bash" the second opinion -- but when faced with honest and fair questions -- fade completely. So much for their "warnings". I will post the same back to this woman -- that some OD overprescirbed her son by probably -5 diopters, and the OD who did this will not be "around" when her kids retina floats off into the viterious. So much for abgniation of any responsibility. Best, Otis Pardon my language, but why the $$$$ is a 2.5 year old kid READING? > Pardon my language, but why the $$$$ is a 2.5 year old kid READING? Because it's fun? When you read, you're deciphering a secret code. Kids, even tiny ones, like that. The first time a kid sounds out S...T...OOOOOO...P! on the big red sign, he's hooked!  SignatureCheers, Bev ========================================================= "If you watch TV news, you know less about the world than if you just drank gin straight from the bottle." - Garrison Keillor >Because it's fun? When you read, you're >deciphering a secret code. Kids, >even tiny ones, like that. The first time a kid >sounds out >S...T...OOOOOO...P! on the big red sign, he's >hooked! Come on. Give me a break. Kids don't want to read. Their moms do. That's right, women are the cause of myopia. My mother, loves to tell me to, "shut up", whenever I even mention myopia.. Face it, women run off emotions, men run off logic. Let me give you an example. I say to my mom, "[mom's name], I finally feel that I can throw away things and clean up my room, because many of these objects will just make me more myopic." mom: "oh [my name], shut up". I guess it's really true that women do not care about others feelings, but rather how things make them feel. I guess women think that reading is "cute". Sick. Of the two genders I have had the most trouble with the subject of myopia, women are much harder to convince. They don't like the FEELING that the world has made them blind. Women are more emotionally orientated anyway. Since women can't seem to UNDERSTAND that the world has lied to them, I guess it makes sense that women have more myopia than men. God, women suck. Dear Mainland (CA) Chinese friend, That is EXACTLY my question. The mother should have been warned to NOT DO THIS. Or if she insisted, the use a "projector" so that the book would have been at a distance of 6 feet or greater. When you do this to young primate monkeys, the refractive state of there natural eyes move negative. 1. From a prolonged "near" enviroment or from 2. A strong minus lens. (This is a NATURAL process). At the minum this woman should have had this child's eye checked for refractive status (say zero), and visual acuity. As it stands now, we have no idea what is going on. >From communication with an optometrist, the recommendation seems to be that: 1. Reading at 4 inches (-10 diopters) has no effect -- and the child should continue doing so. 2. The -6 diopters should be worn ALL THE TIME. Frankly this approach and "understanding" scares the hell out of me -- and I would expect this child to be at -10 diopters by age seven. Just my opinion. Otis Frankly this approach and understanding scares the hell out of me -- and I would expect this child to be at -10 diopters by age seven. That's horrible. I became -10 diopters when i was 15, when a boy has his "golden years". I don't even remember anything in my life before 4, I don't think I read. Either this boy has pathological myopia, or he has a case of his extreme intelligence leading to myopia. Sickening... Dear Friend, I like to read also -- but not at age 2.5 years -- and not if I am going to rapidly lose my distant vision and wind up at -10 diopters. The real question is this: 1. Who has the responsibility The mother? The optomterist? 2. What should be done. How would YOU wish to be treated? 3. What is the SECOND opinion. 4. Would the monther follow the advice to "chill out" and stop her child from reading for 6 months. After all -- what is the rush. [I have sent these remarks to my sister's kids -- who have children of their own -- so they UNDERSTND this "second opinion".] When YOU have children -- they will have a "choice" you never had. Best, Otis if you don't understand, then don't post. if the kid is hyperopic, and esotropic, then thats a very good reason. slow down, and calm down, boy! OK, in case you don't understand by now, Otis craves attention. Negative, positive, it doesn't matter. Like a child who stopped growing about 3 decades ago, he won't shut up. Just ignore him as you would any 2 year-old who misbehaves. DrG Dear Chinese Male, In working with Francis Young, I eventually obtained most of his publications. When you teach a very young child to read, the tendancy for the child is to "pull" the work inward until his nose is almost on the page, i.e., reading at 5 and 4 inches (-10 diopters). The eye is made such that it can, for short duration do this. But what is the effect of "long" duration? Does the natural eye change its refraction in a negative direction consistent with this "nearer" environment -- as a natural process? It is virtually impossible to put a very young primate in this type of situation. The only think comparable is to get very young monkeys and put 1/2 in a visual box. Francis Young did this. The result, the young monkeys in the box had their refraction move in the direction and approximate magnitude of the "nearer" visual enviroment. The "enviroment" was not 4 inches (-10 diopters) however. The majority-opinion ODs on sci.med.vision deny this OBJECTIVE scientific data, saying that the monkey-primate is profoundly different that the human-primate. You are free to draw your own scientific (not medical) conclusion about the young eye placed in a more-convined visual enviroment. Best, Otis >It is virtually impossible to put a very young >primate in this >type of situation. Otis, I am disgusted by a world. I do not want to live in a world, where children's worst enemy are their parents. I do not want to live in a world where kids are encouraged to read, in a world where staring out windows is a "bad thing to do". I do not want to live in a world where children are PRAISED for reading a book, where glasses are seen as symbols of intellectual of status. I do not want to live in a society, where, you are ridiculed, if you CARE about your image. I do not want to live in a society where you are taught not to care about how you look, where you are taught that everyone is equal. This is a massive brainwashing, as, when we become teenagers, or, when we try to get jobs, we realize that looks matter very, very much, especially when we start to be called UGLY. My parents claimed that they thought I "knew" that too much close work caused myopia. I do not know where they got that idea. All they say is, "we thought you knew". I'm sure. Oh yeah, sure I knew. Just like how all the other kids in the world "know" that reading may cause myopia. I'm being sarcastic if you can't tell, because if everyone knew, no one would get myopia. Common now, common. Dear Chinese (16) My last contact with this woman was to the effect that the -6 diopters (if cycloplegic) was most likely correct. The only choice remaining for her is to: 1. Get a -6 diopter lens and have the 2.5 year-old child wear it all the time. (Seems to be recommended by the "majority opinion" ODs on sci.med.vision. Or, 2. Take the child to a behaviorial optopmetrists and see if anything can be done. I will not communication with thie woman further. I do think we are naieve to think that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between our visual enviroment and our refractive status. I just have seen a massive amount of direct experimental data that says it that way. I think parents should be wanred to NOT teach their children at age 2.5, in the belief that there no such relationship. That relationship is proven (except for the "majority-opinion") But most people (even with full knowledge of the scientific facts) will ignore the implicit warning and wonder "why" my kid is 6 diopters myopic. Best, Otis >I do think we are naieve to think that there is >NO RELATIONSHIP >between our visual enviroment and our >refractive status. I concur. It seems, from my point of view, doctors feel a vague sense of joy when they see their patients get astigmatism or myopia. It's like they're saying, "hey, look what I found out! I just discovered that your child has a horrible disease, and I, your doctor, have detected it!!! Are not you proud of me? You sure are lucky I caught it in time, or else it would have gotten worse!". Doctors do not seem remotely interested in preventing children from getting myopia, but rather, frankly, secretly hoping that the child gets myopia. Would it be SO HARD for a doctor to say, "well listen here, there has been some speculation that too much reading may cause myopia"? Apparently that is VERY HARD for them to do. But it's very EASY to blame the myopia on the parent's CRAPPY GENETICS, which, by the way, are usually chinese. Does anyone smell racism? This is the biggest case of racism ever. Disgusting. Eye doctors should burn themselves. Dear Prevention minded friends, Here is the recommendation I made to the mother with here incipient myopic son. Best, Otis _______________ Dear Emma, Subject: Your -6 diopter son -- the two opinions I posted your statement about your 2.5 years-old son who is (by OD measurement) at -6 diopters. There are two opinions: THE MAJORITY OPINION The majority opinion is that your son is at an "honest" -6 diopters, should wear the -6 diopter lens all the time. The majority opinion also states that teaching him to read at 2.5 years old, and reading at 4 to 5 inches (-10 diopters) has NOTHING to do with the fact that your son is -6 diopters myopic. There is no need to determine his "Snellen" reading since the prescription must be made on the basis of a "paralyized eye" measurement (cycloplegic). THE SECOND OPINION As an engineer -- I can not agree with the above opinion, and if this were my child I would support the judgment of Steve Leung OD, on www.chinamyopia.org The scientific data shows that the refractive state of the fundamental eye is senstive to its visual enviroment. While viewing "close" for 10 or 20 seconds has no effect, long-term close-viewing (for hours) has the effect that the natural eye's refractive status "moves negative", and the eye becomes nearsighed. If I were you, I would look for a "behaviorial" optometrist that would help you with this second-opinion, and preventive work. You should be able to find such an OD in your phone book. I believe this is a now-or-never type of decision for you and your child. You need the RIGHT type of professional help at this point, and should be aware of these contradictory opinions -- and the long-term effect they can have on your child's vision. While the -6 diotper might be "right" there also can be measurement errors if an "auto-refractor" is used. (Computer type machine.) A -6 diopter perscription would translate APPROXIMATELY to a Snellen reading of approximately 20/420. A -4 diopter person is considered to be legally blind -- with out his glasses. From the statement you made about "butterflys" and other indications I do not believe that your son's Snellen is 20/420. Before you continue I think it is essential that you do this check in room-illumination conditions. With that number, you should contact a behaviorial optometrist to see if he can help you. It is essential that you make understand the contradictory nature of these two opinions. Best, Otis Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: Prevention by Paul's parent. 20/20 and a SLIGHT positive refractive state will be the result. Paul Harris, O.D., F.C.O.V.D., F.A.C.B.O. Director, Baltimore Academy for Behavioral Optometry Re: I measured well up in +3.00 diopter range when my father (my optometrist then) was done with me. Paul Harris OD Since the time of Raphaelson, I was well-aware that a preventive "plus" could not a "prescribed" plus. Unless the person understands the real purpose of the plus -- he will "fight it" rather that use it correctly. But given the optometrist's understanding of the necessity, of using it -- his son can be successful in protecting his distant vision -- for life. Please be aware that the word "hyperopia" is a mistake. Just describe the natural eye (in the wild) as having a range of NORMAL refractive states from zero to plus 2 diopters. (Everyting being equal, these eyes are 20/20.) By systematic use of a plus (keeping the eye "in the distance") it is possible to keep the natural eye's refractive state in that normal positive range. Please remember that the goal of the plus is NOT to create a refractive state of +3 diopters. Anyone who is working to "clear" their eye chart is changing their refractive state from minus (say -2.75 diopters) to 20/20, must have a refractive state of very close to zero. If the use of the plus is maintained beyond the 20/20 level, the person will begin to see 20/15 (occassionally), and will be able to read 20/40 through a plus-one diopter lens. His refractive state will be zero or become SLIGHTLY postive -- but COMPLETELY NORMAL and valuable to him. I am of the opinion that this is the ONLY method that will work IN THE FUTURE for true-prevention. Here is the discussion by Paul: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >From sci.med.vision > negative accomodation - View Parsed (Erol Basturk) writes: Unknown> Also, is there such a thing as a progressive hyperope? Unknown> Yes. Erol> Well that's news to me. Every moderate to high hyperope (~ +2 D. and up) I ever ran into was about as stable as the Rock of Gibraltar. Erol> Progressive hyperopia??? Paul> Yes... This is the development of adverse hyperopia. The cause most often is as a secondary iatrogenic disease caused by the overzealous prescribing of plus. [Comment: This is use of the plus -- when the eye is already at greater-than +2 diopters. No slightly nearighed eye is at this level. OSB] Paul> I know you and others will say if a good cycloplegic were done.... and things like ....latent hyperopia..... Paul> I was a subject in a longitudinal study for 5 years as a child. All this plus, A-Scans, Purkinje images measures of radius of curvature of front cornea, rear cornea, front lens, rear lens, anthropomophic measures, IOP, wet and dry refractions, full 21 point analytical and more were done every 6 months for 5 years. I have the data on myself. At no point did I ever show hyperopia more than +1.00 to +1.25. Paul> After the study at age 15 I started wearing single vision plus to play chess and this was upped and upped. NOTE: I was measured with a 14 to 1 ACA ratio. 16 eso at near through whatever distance lens of the time and 2 eso with +1.00 add over that. The standard theory was "push plus". This was done and I ended up at one point wearing +2.25 OD/ +2.50 OS with a +1.50 add for 10 years. I measured well up in +3.00 range when my father (my optometrist then) was done with me. Paul> There was no latent hyperopia over the +1.00. The additional amounts were built up slowly over time in response to my optometric care. Paul> Once I did Vision Training 13 years ago I now wear just some plus for near and nothing for distance. My subjective now is +1.25 OU (both eyes) which I choose not to wear and do great. In fact I now see better than ever. Paul> I hope this explains a bit a very big subject which I am fully aware of there will be little agreement on from the "conventional eyecare establishment". Please give me some other alternative to understand the above findings over time. I also have basic optometric data on me from the age of 6 months. Paul Harris, O.D., F.C.O.V.D., F.A.C.B.O. Director, Baltimore Academy for Behavioral Optometry > A -4 diopter person is considered to be legally blind -- with >out his glasses. Good if it were so. We could all be declared legally blind and get all sorts of benefits to which we aren't at present entitled. You do talk rubbish Otis. At least if it's really true in one country you should state that country. It certainly isn't true in the UK. Tom Dear Tom, Obviously each country has its own definition of "legally blind" without glasses. Obviously you can "correct" a myopia with a -4, and make the eye 20/20 with a strong minus lens. The issue is really about how "bad" vision is naked eye at -4 diopters. But equally, you can continue to "correct" stair-case myopia until it hits -10 diopters or so -- and just keep continuing. The real point of this piece is that when you place the natural primate eye in a "box", (control-group, test group) the group in the "box" shows a negative change in refrefractive status relative to the control group -- thus indicating the the natural eye is CONTROLLING its refractive status to its average visual enviroment -- and a natural process. This suggests that teaching a 2.5 year old is a "risky business", and should not be attempted UNLESS the mother if fully award of the risks of having her child reading at -10 diopters for long periods of time. If clearly informed, and she still decides to teach her kid to read at age 2, then she should not regret the this proven effect that a more-minus enviroment has on the primate eye (human or monkey). Best, Otis > Obviously each country has its own definition > of "legally blind" without glasses. You might imagine so. But they usually conform to the World Health Organization standard. That's 20/200, best eye, best correction. > But equally, you can continue to "correct" stair-case > myopia until it hits -10 diopters or so -- and just > keep continuing. Is that why there are so many -10 myopes? -MT > Dear Tom, > > Obviously each country has its own definition > of "legally blind" without glasses. There is no definition of "legally blind without glasses". The definition of "legally blind" always includes the phrase "with best correction" ie, legal blindness is ONLY defined with glasses. Talking about "legally blind without glasses" is nonsense. Dr Judy You blurted this nonsense out: "But equally, you can continue to "correct" stair-case myopia until it hits -10 diopters or so -- and just keep continuing." this is totally baseless. please provide proof that this is true in humans. also prove plus lenses are beneficial. why does a recent well controlled scientific study show that slight overcorrection with minus lenses seems to slow myopia progression. you are a zealot and a sicko. To all listeners-- please disregard any comments from otisbrown. He ignors scientific facts and preaches his own biased agenda. >this is totally baseless. please provide proof >that this is true in >humans. also prove plus lenses are >beneficial. If Otis is wrong and you are right, then what do YOU think will happen to the kid. Otis claims that the kid's myopia will become -10 pretty soon if he is "fully corrected again". I do not know what's so shocking about it, I mean it happened to me didn't it? It probably happened to a lot of your own patients too. Glasses don't correct the long term problem, they just make things worse, and you know it, if that's not true, then prove me otherwise. > If Otis is wrong and you are right, then what do YOU think will happen > to the kid. Otis claims that the kid's myopia will become -10 pretty > soon if he is "fully corrected again". The higher the myopia, the more likely it is genetic. > long term problem, they just make things worse, and you know it, if > that's not true, then prove me otherwise. People wearing full correction do not get worse than those who wear partial or part-time correction. At least that's what I find when I look for answers in real journals. Otis hasn't shown us any real studies on real humans that prove his theory. You aren't really interested in proof, or you would have read the articles I cited for you. -MT go away trollboy Otis, the public is severely uninformed. I find it disturbing that so many lab rats are subjected to carcinogenic substances, and yet primates were subjected to close environments, and yet, which story do we hear on the news? And, which story has more significance in our lives? >But equally, you can continue to "correct" >stair-case >myopia until it hits -10 diopters or so -- and >just >keep continuing. It's like we're a bunch of lab rats. It's so obvious the eye doctors DO NOT CARE ABOUT US AT ALL AND ONLY CARE ABOUT THEIR JOB SECURITY. Emma, your son is a [beeping] loser. More loser than me, unless he is uglier than me. Does myopia this bad run in your family? If it does then why do you have kids? To sum it up, this is how the world works. You see, the optometrist conspiracy has created a term called "ADHD". It scares the kid, and the kid's parents. Any kid who stares out the window, will be labeled as ADHD. While the kid who can read, will be labeled as smart, good, healthy, normal, honest, you get the drift. All the while, the child knows, deep in his heart, that there is something very very wrong with his life, and the praising that he gets, because he's not doing anyone a favor, but rather slowly commiting eye-suicide. A sad day, another sad recognition. My Dear Chinese Friend, You are beginning to understand how "tough" this problem is. There are people who attack me when I report fact accuratly concerning the dynamic behavior of the eye. I regret that -- but I think I should continue to report these fact correctly. If you take a population of primates (young) and place them in a more-confined visual environment at test strictly on an "input" (environment in diopters) versus "output" then you find that the natural eye will change its refractive status (in diopters) in the direction of the more-confined environment. This is natural process -- and I have reported only "direct measurements". Pure-science does not get better than that. However the ODs insist that you totally ignore these objective facts because of their implications. But that is what makes this a tough problem to resolve. Best, Otis > You are beginning to understand how "tough" this problem is. > > There are people who attack me when I report fact accuratly > concerning the dynamic behavior of the eye. I regret that -- but > I think I should continue to report these fact correctly. Sincerely, and to the best of my knowledge and recollection, Otis has never posted any facts either accurately or correctly to this forum. DrG Dear Friend of intelligent prevention, Subject: Teaching a child to read at age 2.5 years and the risks involved in doing so. There are mothers who believe that they can teach their very young children to read at age 2.5 years -- with NO effect on the refractive status of their child's eyes. Why? Because no one will tell them otherwise. I have received a number of statement by parents who report their child to be seriously myopic at age 5 -- like from -1 to -6 diopters. (No one told them the facts -- as stated below. No one warns them that a very young child's eye are VERY adaptable to this "near" enviroment.) Francis Young's primate studies prove that when you place very young monkeys in a more-confined enviroment their refractive state moves in the direction of the "confined" enviroment -- to the approximate magnitude of the enforced confined environment. It it a pity that this mother was not informed of these objective facts, so she could have protected her child from his "habit" of reading at -10 diopters. Now it is simply too late for prevention. Very young children seem to "pull" the work in very close -- reading at 5 and 4 inches (-10 diopters). While they could do this for several days -- with no measureable effect, when they do this for a year -- their refractive status move significantly negative -- same as the "child" primates. This is the reason why I object to the sweeping statement that visual enviromnt (in diopters) has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of the natural eye. The scientific truth is profoundly different from the "classical" theory. At the minimum it reinforces Bates' observation that a man with 20/70 vision -- who wears a "full" minus prescription will find his vision goes "down" rapidly to 20/200. In this sense the experimental data CONFIMRS Bates EXACTLY. Best, Otis so your allies in this newsgroup are the fool Rishi and obnoxious pimple-faced "Chinesemale". quite a confederacy of idiots! have you noticed that no one takes you seriously Dear honored chinese friend, Your posts have been a "wake up" call for many. I have no desire to see my grand nephews and nieces follow in your foot steps. The story of "Emma" is a true example of how to enable a child to take is vision "down". So is send the information to my sister's kids. The real solultion starts a home -- by the parents who have learned the real errors of judgment of uding the minus lens (with out check or challenge) for the last 400 years. You can draw your own conclusions. Peace, Otis ________ Dear Nephews and Neice, Subject: Teaching a child to read at age 2.5 years and the risks involved in doing so. Re: You eight young children Re: Support from Steve Leung OD -- for prevention. Re: You must do your part. Re: The child becomes -6 diopters myopic rapidly -- and then nothing can be done. [In talking with Steve Leung OD, we here a number of reports where the child is brough in at -2 to -6 diopters. This simply does not happen with primate eyes. When you start asking the parents questions, it becomes clear that they have taught their child to "read" a age 3 or so. I suggest -- be careful.] There are mothers who believe that they can teach their very young children to read at age 2.5 years -- with NO effect on the refractive status of their child's eyes. Why? Because no one will tell them otherwise. I have received a number of statement by parents who report their child to be seriously myopic at age 5 -- like from -1 to -6 diopters. (No one told them the facts -- as stated below. No one warns them that a very young child's eye are VERY adaptable to this "near" enviroment.) Francis Young's primate studies prove that when you place very young monkeys in a more-confined enviroment their refractive state moves in the direction of the "confined" enviroment -- to the approximate magnitude of the enforced confined environment. It it a pity that this mother was not informed of these objective facts, so she could have protected her child from his "habit" of reading at -10 diopters. Now it is simply too late for prevention. Very young children seem to "pull" the work in very close -- reading at 5 and 4 inches (-10 diopters). While they could do this for several days -- with no measureable effect, when they do this for a year -- their refractive status move significantly negative -- same as the "child" primates. This is the reason why I object to the sweeping statement that visual enviromnt (in diopters) has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of the natural eye. The scientific truth is profoundly different from the "classical" theory. At the minimum it reinforces Bates' observation that a man with 20/70 vision -- who wears a "full" minus prescription will find his vision goes "down" rapidly to 20/200. In this sense the experimental data CONFIMRS the results this mother tragically experienced with her own child. But because the standard "theory" insists there is NO EFFECT -- she is told NOTHING, and no warnings are give. Only after it is too late does she (perhaps) find out. I have great pity for this child -- because learining to read at age 2.5 years -- is just not worth the loss of vision for life. I know I get a lot of "grief" from my advocacy, but I think someone should help with this situation. Best, Otis Otis "Engineer" is a zealot who advocates his "plus lens" prevention theory without good reason. There is no scientific data to prove what he proposes. He would ask that all myopes (=nearsighted persons) go around wearing plus reading glasses in hopes that it will eventually reverse their nearsightedness. Nevermind that the blurry distance vision that myopes complain about is made worse by plus lenses! Nevermind that there is no proof for what he claims. If you are interested in Otis' approach, I have some other links that you might also be interested in: GET RICH QUICK http://www.clickvolume.net http://www.meetmark.com HARD PENILE ERECTIONS USING NATURAL HERBS http://www.herbaalex.com/panadex.htm LOOK AND FEEL YOUNGER http://www.youngeryounger.com FIND A BEAUTIFUL RUSSIAN WIFE http://www.russianladies.com For information on killfilling (filtering out the posts of a troll or spammer like Otis) see the following link: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm For additional information on handling "trolls", refer to this link: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm =============================== > Dear honored chinese friend, > Otis "Engineer" is a zealot who advocates his "plus lens" > prevention theory without good reason. There is no [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >> Dear honored chinese friend, Dear Quick, While it is of course very easy to "quick fix" the eye with a strong minus, there is also a growing consensus that doing so creates a "secondary" problem. This has been acknowledged by high-placed medical persons. (I will NOT reveal their idenity, but I suggest all the "spleen" vented on me -- would be aimed their way if you knew who they were.) If you do not want "prevention" for your child, then no one will object to a strong minus lens on his eyes. After about 4 or 5 increases in minus-lens strength he might begin to "wonder" about what is going on -- but it will be too late. Think about it. www.chinamyopia.org Best, Otis > While it is of course very easy to "quick fix" the eye with > a strong minus, there is also a growing consensus that > doing so creates a "secondary" problem. This is frankly false. NOBODY has published human data showing that wearing corrective lenses makes myopia worse. The only "growing consensus" is among those fooled by your 400-year-old myth. Since this "growing consensus" doesn't exist, we must conclude you're lying. > This has been acknowledged by high-placed medical > persons. (I will NOT reveal their idenity, but I suggest > all the "spleen" vented on me -- would be aimed > their way if you knew who they were.) Where's the data? Where's the study showing humans wearing glasses get worse than those who don't? If you can't produce it, we must conclude you're lying. > After about 4 or 5 increases in minus-lens strength > he might begin to "wonder" about what is going > on -- but it will be too late. Since this also happens to people who _don't_ wear, we must conclude you're lying. -MT , > While it is of course very easy to "quick fix" the eye with > a strong minus, there is also a growing consensus that > doing so creates a "secondary" problem. > > This has been acknowledged by high-placed medical > persons. (I will NOT reveal their idenity, Ha Ha Ha > Dear Quick, > This has been acknowledged by high-placed medical > persons. (I will NOT reveal their idenity, but I suggest > all the "spleen" vented on me -- would be aimed > their way if you knew who they were.) Well, *I'm* not afraid to out this person. It's the world-famous pediatrician, Ima Kwack. :-) SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net |
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.