 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2005Pseudomyopia - Why wasn't I told?
From reading sci.med.vision, I have recently learned of a conditio called pseudomyopia, aka accommodative myopia, which apparently i common in young myopes and can be reduced or eliminated by a variet of methods. As a young myope, why wasn't I ever informed of this? Did I merely get bad eye doctors, or is it standard practice t neglect any mention of this concept Why do you think you are a pseudomyope? ================ > From reading sci.med.vision, I have recently learned of a condition > called pseudomyopia, aka accommodative myopia, which apparently is > common in young myopes and can be reduced or eliminated by a variety > of methods. As a young myope, why wasn't I ever informed of this? > Did I merely get bad eye doctors, or is it standard practice to > neglect any mention of this concept? Dear Daniel, The standard practice is to produce the a very strong minus lens -- giving you 20/10, if possible. There are some ODs that will discuss prevention of nearsighedness -- but that is very rare. One OD is Steve Leung at: www.chinamyopia.org The sad truth is that most of the public are profoundly hostile to true-prevention at the threshold -- and will ONLY accept the strong minus -- regardless of the long-term consequences. But that is the "second opinion" concerning the situtation of "threshold" nearsightedness in my opinion. Best, Otis >The standard practice is to produce the >a very strong minus lens -- giving you >20/10, if possible." wrong! Otis, is your standard practice to plant someone to ask questions that enable you to slip into your tired old diatribe about plus lenses? or is "Daniel" an alias for Otis the engineer? Obviously a plant piece to "edumicate" unsuspecting people about a bogus "medical approach" to myopia. Gee, one would think that if it worked, everyone would be doing it, aye? > From reading sci.med.vision, I have recently learned of a condition > called pseudomyopia, aka accommodative myopia, which apparently is > common in young myopes and can be reduced or eliminated by a variety > of methods. As a young myope, why wasn't I ever informed of this? > Did I merely get bad eye doctors, or is it standard practice to > neglect any mention of this concept? Pseudomyopia, as the sole cause of myopia, is not common. A very small percentage of your total refraction may be due to a bit of accommodative over action -- this is equivalent to the small amount of accommodation that all similarly aged hyperopes have in play at all times. During the subjective refraction, the eye doctors use various techniques to control pseudomyopia and patients seldom end up with overminused final refraction. If you are wondering if you have pseudomyopia, asked your eye doctor to do a cycloplegic refraction the next time you are in. The difference, if any, between your regular refraction and the cycloplegic refraction is the amount of pseudomyopia present. The amount, if present at all, is likely to be about 0.50D. BTW, you don't need to use any special exercises or methods to get rid of your pseudomyopia, if you have the usual very small amount. Simply ask the doctor to prescribe the cycloplegic refraction for your next pair of glasses and wear them for a few days. Dr Judy Dear Daniel, In the intial phase, (before you begin wearing a minus lens) quite a few have a negative refractive state of about -1.0 diopters (pseudo-myopia). If the concept developed by the scientist Dr. Francis Young are correct (The Pullman Study), then is should be possible to "clear" vision in this initial phase. Some young men have done it -- but it is not easy. I will post a spcific instance where a young man "Jon" cleared his vision from -1.5 diopters to approximately zero diopters (20/20) in about 11 months. After he was successful, he was told that he had "pseudo-myopia". Best, Otis > In the intial phase, (before you begin > wearing a minus lens) quite > a few have a negative refractive > state of about -1.0 diopters > (pseudo-myopia). That's right. They all lie to us when they tell us -0.75 is blurry. > If the concept developed by > the scientist Dr. Francis Young > are correct (The Pullman Study), > then is should be possible > to "clear" vision in this initial > phase. IF it were correct, it SHOULD be possible. So why doesn't it work? > After he was successful, he > was told that he had "pseudo-myopia". Instead, you think his axial length decreased. Nice trick. Bzzzzt. Thank you for playing. -MT
|
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.