 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2005Segue
What do all y'all think of Transitions lenses - useful addition, or should Otis push them along with his plus lenses? Robert The sheep died in the wool. Dear Robert, What I "push" is a discussion of the preventive alternative -- as advocated by the "second-opinion" ODs -- like Steve Leung. The understanding and "choice" are important -- as well as the "transfer of control" to the person. The "plus lens" is simply a tool to move the "near" enviroment out to infinity for children at the 20/40 to 20/50 level. This would be a "new" method of "practice" which I would TOTALLY SUPPORT. But the parents would have to be completely informed as to the reasons why this is necessary. A review of the Oakley-Young scientific study would be the first step, as well as the 6 or so studies in Asia where 85 percent of the high school seniors are myopic. Maybe that would wake thiem up -- and maybe not. But if they then choose a strong minus and wear it all the time -- the simply can't complain about the -1/2 diopter per year myopia that develops for their children. Some people can learn of new methods and scientific fact. Others can not. Best, Otis > This would be a "new" method of "practice" which I would TOTALLY > SUPPORT. Ah... so you think this is new? What about all those ODs who QUIT doing it? -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Prevention -- under the person's control >From the Oakley-Young study it was clear to me that the "preventive" effort could not be prescribed. In fact, "prescribing" a minus lens (as part of the plus) is what you attempted. The MINUS part of the prescription PREVENTS recovery. I have seen "over-prescription" where the person has 20/40 (DMV testing standard) vision. An he is prescribed a -2.0 diopter lens. Call it an error, call it "standard practice" -- but that person should not be wearing a minus lens ALL THE TIME. (I have yet to hear a OD suggest to the parent that the child AVOID wearing the minus -- unless absolutly necessary.) The agressive use of the plus is most likely have to be under the "control" of the person himself. While difficult, it beats wearing the minus. But then it becomes clear that the person himself must take the responsibilty to check his own eye chart -- and make certain that he passes all legal requirements that apply to him. In fact the "prescription" of a bi-focal for my sister's kids was a valuable experience. That convinced her that the plus was the "second opinion". It also convinced the "kids" that they would have to take the responsibility to use the plus strongly, as recommended by Dr. Colgate. So they kept their vison clear -- while the minus lens people (as per the Oakley-Young study) see THEIR vision going down by -1/2 dipoter per year. THEY learned from the "Young" study -- and you do not. But I do agree that if I were in YOUR position -- I could not "help" the public with this. In fact that situation was clear from my discussions with Dr. Raphaelson. The person himself will have to make this decision -- before it gets "out of hand". Best, Otis +++++++++++++++++++++ > > This would be a "new" method of "practice" which I would TOTALLY > > SUPPORT. > > Ah... so you think this is new? What about all those ODs who QUIT doing it? > > -MT > is what you attempted. The MINUS part of the prescription > PREVENTS recovery. How do you know that? > I have seen "over-prescription" where the person has > 20/40 (DMV testing standard) vision. An he is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > yet to hear a OD suggest to the parent that the child > AVOID wearing the minus -- unless absolutly necessary.) 36 people wore excess minus for a year. None of them got more nearsighted than their peers. Show us a larger, more valid study. > The agressive use of the plus is most likely have to > be under the "control" of the person himself. While > difficult, it beats wearing the minus. Magical thinking. > But then > it becomes clear that the person himself must > take the responsibilty to check his own eye chart -- > and make certain that he passes all legal requirements > that apply to him. Emotional appeal. > In fact the "prescription" of a bi-focal for my sister's > kids was a valuable experience. That convinced her that > the plus was the "second opinion". It also convinced > the "kids" that they would have to take the responsibility > to use the plus strongly, as recommended by Dr. Colgate. And Dr. Colgate has published his successes where? > So they kept their vison clear -- while the minus lens > people (as per the Oakley-Young study) see THEIR vision > going down by -1/2 dipoter per year. THEY learned > from the "Young" study -- and you do not. My kids avoided nearsightedness. I believe it was the totem I placed in our front yard. > But I do agree that if I were in YOUR position -- I > could not "help" the public with this. Yes.. that nagging demand for efficacy... > In fact that situation was clear from my > discussions with Dr. Raphaelson. The person > himself will have to make this decision -- before > it gets "out of hand". You didn't say anything about all those OD's who quit recommending plus.. That was my question... -MT >My kids avoided nearsightedness. I believe it was the totem I placed in our >front yard. Ah, they must have used it agressively, and at the threshhold. > Some people can learn of new methods and scientific fact. Others can > not. You really are a moron, Otis. It IS NOT a new method. It is IN FACT an old method embraced by thousands of ODs in the 70's and then discarded because SCIENCE PROVED it didn't work as hoped. Yes, hoped. We hoped, we tried, we tested, we learned to give it up because it didn't work. It's not a conspiracy, crazy person. If we could stop or reverse myopia and make money doing it, don't you think............. And if someone told me they had a way to fix my eyes and those of my friends and family forever, but I'd have to find a new line of work, watch how long it would take me to change jobs. Now why don't you face the reality or if not, just go away and live in your own delusion and stop trying to propagate lies. Get it? You've already convinced everyone around here you are nuts, so take it elsewhere already. Bye now. LB Seriously-what is the experts opinion of Transition lenses? R Punning was fecund nature to Shakespeare. > What do all y'all think of Transitions lenses - useful addition, or > should Otis push them along with his plus lenses? > > Robert > > The sheep died in the wool. they work fine if you are in direct sunlight. they do not change tint well behind windshields or windows since they filter out significant quantities of UV light themselves and UV is what causes the change in tint. I have several pairs. > What do all y'all think of Transitions lenses - useful addition, or should > Otis push them along with his plus lenses? > > Robert > > The sheep died in the wool. Overall, they're pretty good. Obviously they don't go as dark on an overcast day, but that's probably just what you want. Interestingly they go darker on cold days than on hot days. Arguably their biggest drawback is the time taken to fade from tinted to clear when you come inside - but this is improving with every new version released (every few years or so). Dom re: the transition lenses - which is better - the gray or brown tint? is there a difference? Grey, by definition, supresses all colors equally. Brown, or any other color, does not. So, if you are sitting in bright sunlight looking at a gardan salad with grey lenses, it is easier to see the browns and greens in the salad through grey lenses than brown ones. Gray, by definition, supresses all colors equally. Brown, or any other color, does not. When you are sitting in bright sunlight and eating a garden salad, you can see the greens and browns of the salad much better through the grey lenses than brown. > What do all y'all think of Transitions lenses - useful addition, or should > Otis push them along with his plus lenses? I bought some (plastic) maybe 4 years ago. Worthless. Not enough UV in the car to make them turn, and driving is what I really wanted them for. I should have demanded my money back because nobody warmed me, but I didn't. I had glass photogray lenses for a long time and was very happy with them. Perhaps the plastic ones are better now.  SignatureCheers, Bev --------------------------------------------------- Don't you just KNOW that there is more than one Sierra Club member who is absolutely sure that the dinosaurs died out because of something humans did? |
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.