 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / November 2005So I need glasses...
My prescription is R sph -0.5 cyl -0.25 L sph -0.25 cyl -0.50 Together: 0.25 Not bad sight? I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could tell me if I needed glasses. And well I do, so this is for future reference. Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true. trab...@hotmail.com wrote: > My prescription is > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not bad sight? Not very bad. You could probably just wear glasses for driving, etc. Everyday vision is good enough. This is an optional/part-time prescription to wear just when you need an extra boost in your distance vision. > I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while > back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I > want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true. the only way you could know that is if you could duplicate or clone yourself, and have one clone wear the glasses and have the other clone not. even then n=1 so its not very statistically significant. > My prescription is > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Together: > 0.25 What's this 0.25 stands for Mr or Mrs X ? > Not bad sight? I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while > back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could > tell me if I needed glasses. You also mentioned your vision acuity uncorrected for the left eye being nearly 20/20 remember? What vision do you achieve when wearing spectacles for the right eye and what vision acuity is achieved for the left ? > And well I do, so this is for future > reference. At last you asked your proffessional as you should in first place? This news group is not a replacement for real eyecare and giving personal advise in these matters, eyecare proffessionals in this newsgroup only can speak in general with such minimal data as provided from you. > Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I > want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true. Ask Otis, he is very positive minded on this particular issue.  SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Dear Trab, There is no doubt that a minus lens is an easy solution. Most prefer it. Some commentary: Not bad sight? That is a very mild prescription for 20/50 on the eye chart. I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could tell me if I needed glasses. Otis> At 20/50 you will need a minus lens to pass the DMV. And well I do, so this is for future reference. Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true. Otis> THAT depends on how old you are, and how much you wear that minus lens. I would suggest you ONLY wear it when you need it -- like driving a car. If you do that, then your refraction will stay at about -1/2 diopter, and eye chart at 20/50. Best, Otis > If you do that, then > your refraction will stay at about > -1/2 diopter, and eye chart at 20/50. Please tell me where you got your crystal ball. Mine's not as reliable as yours. -MT > Dear Trab, > Otis> THAT depends on how old you > are, and how much you wear that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your refraction will stay at about > -1/2 diopter, and eye chart at 20/50. just pulled that out your butt didn't you Otis? this is just your "second opinion" Dear Clar, Clar> just pulled that out your butt didn't you Otis? this is just your "second opinion" Otis> No, Clar, that was the result of the Oakley-Young study that proved that when a young child is put into a (single) minus his refractive state moves down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. The plus (bifocal) group went down at a rate of approximately zero. Otis> You should actually READ some of these scientific publications -- now and then. Best, Otis > Otis> You should actually READ some of > these scientific publications -- now and then. Lets see some MEDICAL publications Otis. Bet you won't provide theM. Until you provide MEDICAL proof, GO AWAY PLEASE!!! Allen Dear Allen, The Oakly-Young study was considered to be a MEDICAL study -- for a number of reasons, and specifically, Kenneth Oakley is a medical doctor. Further standard protocols were followed (blind study, etc.) However you can state that the "majority-opinion" REJECTS the Oakley-Young study, because they DON'T LIKE the implicatons of the study, and can not "reduce" accurate knowledge of the natural eye's behavior to "medical practice". That is the current consensus of the majority opinion. The second opinion does not agree with this assessment of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. Keep an open mind. Nature designed a very sophisticated mechanism -- which you don't seem to understand. Best, Otis > Dear Allen, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > implicatons of the study, and can not "reduce" accurate > knowledge of the natural eye's behavior to "medical practice". Nobody rejects the Oakley-Young study, a study is a study and results are results. What the "majority opinion" rejects is the hypothesis that wearing plus at near can significantly slow the progression of myopia. That rejection is based on the many, many, many studies done in the 30 years since Oakley-Young was published that did not find similar results. If you do 100 studies, three find plus helps, three find plus makes myopia worse and the rest find no significant effect, what should your conclusion be? That 3/100 were right and 97/100 were wrong? And if you think that 3/100 are right, which three do you pick? Dr Judy > That is the current consensus of the majority opinion. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Otis Dear Judy, Subject: Two "opinions" of the implications of the Oakley Young study. Re: I am pleased you agree that the Oakley-Young study was a medical study. We all know how difficult it is to run a blind study -- no doubt about it. But the results are very suggestive -- that the single-minus group went down at a consitent -1/2 diopter per year, while the plus groups (weak at that) went down at a rate of approximately zero diopters per year. This is suggestive of the concept that a plus strongly used by the person himself (who has the smarts for it) can clear his vision from 20/50 to 20/30 or so, and by consistent use -- keep his distant vision clear for life, if he has the will-power for it. This is of course the conclusion my nephew drew from the science of the natural eye's behavior. Otis> But lastly, as you spelled out very clearly, you can not "prescribe" anything like this for "legal reasons" -- and I totally agree with you on that point. If I spent 120K getting to my position, I would not want to put it at risk either. Our experience with "John" is case-in-point on that issue. Otis> True-prevention is possible -- it is just that the person himself must recognize that he must do it under his own control, if he has the interest and the self-dicipline to do the work correctly. Best, Otis > But the results are very suggestive -- that the > single-minus group went down at a consitent > -1/2 diopter per year, while the plus groups > (weak at that) went down at a rate of > approximately zero diopters per year. just answer her questions otis. if 100 studies are done and 3 show one result but 97 show a different result, which would you believe? you want to handpick the VERY FEW studies that support your theory and reject the majority of others that go against it. bifocals apparently do help children who are near point esophores. however this is not by any means a large group. this result, more than anything, supports the notion that humans with accommodative dysfunction are prone to developing myopia. that is to say, its possibly the inaccuracy of the focusing mechanism that seems to stimulate myopia progression. plus lenses can,in humans with otherwise intact accommodative systems, make focusing less accurate perhaps explaining the observation made by Chung (Vision Res. 2002) that undercorrection can stimulate myopia development. why are you so unyielding in your devotion to the simple-minded idea that plus lenses can prevent myopia? why won't you consider ALL the studies. why not follow the current research? not a very critical-thinker are you otis? i guess you are a man of faith rather than a man of science. this pescription is so minimal it shouldnt cost more than one line of vision. I had a higher pescription than yours, -1 20/50 corrected to 20/25. If your 20/50 with that pescription, youll probably be 20/40 with glasses. > Otis> No, Clar, that was the result of the Oakley-Young > study that proved that when a young child is put into > a (single) minus his refractive state moves down > at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. The > plus (bifocal) group went down at > a rate of approximately zero. Oh, I just love how Otis lies the truth. The truth is that both groups became more myopic. Even the group who wore the bifocal showed a statistically significant increase in myopia. "Approximately zero," indeed! It should be noted that a later study showed that the decrease in the rate of progression between the bifocal wearing group and the single-vision wearing group only lasted for the first year. After that, the rate of progression was exactly the same in the two groups. DrG Dear DrG, No, DrG YOU miss the point. These blind studies are difficult to run and you RELY on the kids to ACTUALLY WEAR THE PLUS. The SIGNIFICANT FACT is that a difference in refractive state developed between the plus group and the single-minus. THAT difference was about -1/2 diopter per year -- over three years. The AVERAGE of the plus group (using a weak +1.5 diopter lens) was a down rate of 0.025 diopters. I consider this to be very close to zero. Others can make their own judgment. But this does SUGGEST that more systematic use of the plus (at the threshold) could result in the person's refractive state moving in a "plus" direction, with the result that his eye chart would SLOWLY clear from 20/50 to 20/30 or better. But this is precisely a decision the person himself would have to make. Best, Otis > These blind studies are difficult to run and you RELY on the > kids to ACTUALLY WEAR THE PLUS. Would compliance be any better in real life? We need you following our kids around to make sure they use their glasses properly. -MT Dear Mike, Subject: A responsible person who UNDERSTANDS the implication of the Oakley-Young study. >From the statements by T. Gronsvenor and others, it is clear that prevention -- must be started before the minus lens is "started". This implies an "educated" mature person who is willing to "take control" and "do it himself". You general attitude and "leagal restrictions" (discussed by DrJudy and Retinula) leave the person no other choice. Provided the person has the motivation, and will monitor his own eye chart, then HIS USE of a strong plus, can result in his clearing of his chart to 20/40 or better. "Complience" is because he PERSONALLY wishes to clear his vision. Thus if he does not "comply" he does not clear his vision. But a stronger plus must be used, and this process must start before he gets in deeper than about 20/50. But since the only "tools" necessary are a Snellen, a plus lens (for $8) and maybe a simplified trial-lens kit, I doubt that you are interested in true-prevention. Furter the process is not easy -- and takes strong resolve in the person. And this you can never "prescribe". The issue is one far more of motivaiton, engineering and pure science than it is a "medical" issue. Best, Otis > The issue is one far more of motivaiton, > engineering and pure science than it > is a "medical" issue. Perhaps you need to find a newsgroup related to motivation, engineering, and pure science. -MT > > The issue is one far more of motivaiton, > > engineering and pure science than it > > is a "medical" issue. > > Perhaps you need to find a newsgroup related to motivation, engineering, and > pure science. Not a plan. The motivation groups would kill him. The engineering groups would kill him. The pure science (whatever *that* is) groups would kill him. Not literally, of course. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Otis The Young-Oakley study is nearly 30 years old, and the results have never been replicated. DrG I love it when people stick to one study result when many more since have found the opposite. Goss and Grosvenor found bifocals halve the rate of regression, yet many since found it not statistically significant. Young found 90&% reduction in myopic increase, yet recent studies found it not significant. Cho found Ortho-K to halve myopic increase and soon I expect a study to say otherwise. At this popint in time, the only treatment to work that I know of is atropine. btw, I use bifocals, RGP's and OK, I just have no proof they work other than personal results from patients. Scientific, no, but I can't help but try. grant > Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I > want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true. Understand that you're talking about a sample size where n=1. You need a group of subjects all using glasses the same way, compared to a comparison group of identically nearsighted people who wear them differently, or not at all. When you find studies like that, they say it makes little difference whether you wear them full-time, or part-time, or leave them in a drawer. If anything, wearing them may prevent changes better than not wearing them. You'll probably hear about how wearing plus lenses (making your distant vision blur even more) can stop you from getting worse, or even reverse the process. It's an appealing notion but we haven't been able to find believable proof that it actually works in humans your age. -MT > My prescription is > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I > want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true. So if your eyes DO get worse, how will you know it was the glasses that made them get worse? It could have been just a continuation of the same thing that made them START to get worse - which couldn't have been glasses since you don't wear them yet! BTW, what's the 'Together' bit?? Was this the Add? Dom |
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.