Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Myopia is an epidemic! More and more people are ruining their eyes! Most people are myopic now!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 23 Dec 2005 08:08 GMT
http://www.optvissci.com/pt/re/ovs/abstract.00006324-200305000-00011.htm;jsessio
nid=DrjlkbswqMDIQdYQko2USF2wfUpRZ89qeM1ccZMDqydCTxfAY8UJ!-1213525936!-949856144!
9001!-1


bilateral myopia was present in 37% of the children.
Hyperopia was present in 6.0% of the total population(this includes
everyone, period)

Ace says: I was right, myopia is far more prevelent than hyperopia and
90% of the hyperopes are old people who can no longer accomodate plus
their eyes become slightly hyperopic from old age.
Otis says: The wrenched evil minus lense!

"...in countries where the prevalence of myopia has rapidly increased
to 80 to 90 per cent in young adults, it is clearly not simple genetic
determination that leads to myopia. The prevalence is changing so fast
that many young Asians are now myopic without any family history of
myopia."

Ace and Otis says: The wrenched evil minus lense!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Myopia progressed more rapidly during the school year than during
summer vacation."

Ace says: Near work makes your eyes move in a nearsighted direction and
if the evil minus lense is worn, you get stair-case myopia! I have seen
people get into the teens(diopters) because of that! One lady wore
contacts from the time she woke to the time she went to bed and did
lots of near work and studying with them so now her eyes are ruined to
the tune of -10.5 and they will keep progressing! I told her how she
can stop them from getting any worse but she doesnt care. Ah well
retina detachments wont be fun :(

""Progressive lenses, which can permit a focused retinal image at
distance, intermediate, and near, without accommodation, may slow the
development of myopia....Progressive lenses significantly retarded the
progression of the myopia in these children."

Ace says: I wish I was told this when I was 12 and only a -1! more than
years later than -4 diopters worse, NOW I know as I look thru strong
minus lenses :(

"Correcting a child's myopia with negative lenses may result in
compensatory aberrant eye growth and the development of myopia".

"Use of negative lenses for the correction of myopia leads to
progression."

Heres the proof!

http://www.agape1.com/myopia.htm

Comparisons between 1984 and 1996 examinations showed a considerable
increase in the incidence of myopia among those 7 years of age or
older, and changes in mean refractive errors also demonstrated a
greater shift toward myopia, especially in students older than 10 years

In this 13-year period, the prevalence of myopia increased from 49.3%
to 65.6% in 17-year-old students.

Methods. Vision screening was carried out in local and international
schools for students 13 to 15 years old. Types of refractive error were
identified by visual acuity measurement, the presence of spectacles, a
simple refraction, and the use of plus and minus ophthalmic lenses.

Results. Three local schools and six international schools participated
in the study. Two hundred eighty-nine students were from the local
schools, and 789 students were from the international schools.
Prevalence of myopia at the local schools ranged from 85 to 88%,
whereas it ranged from 60 to 66% in the international schools. Students
in the international schools were subdivided into Chinese origin,
white, mixed Chinese, and Asian. Prevalence of myopia was highest in
the Chinese group (82.8%) and lowest in the white group (40.5%). There
was no age or gender difference in the prevalence of myopia.

In general, in the adult, emmetropia is the most common condition
found, although this depends on the population studied. Almost 100% of
medical students in Taiwan are myopic and the figure is very nearly as
high in Japan.

Ace says: There you have it! Myopia is an epidemic and some say 90-100%
of people could be myopic in a few generations! Imagine walking in a
park and seeing bespectacled person after bespectacled person(unless
they are wearing contacts or got refractive surgury)
Its sad we have to resort to risky lasik surgury to correct(some say
"cure") myopia(other than glasses and contacts) that should have been
prevented or slowed down in childhood with the plus lense and more
importantly, avoiding the minus lense!
William Stacy - 23 Dec 2005 08:25 GMT
> http://www.optvissci.com/pt/re/ovs/abstract.00006324-200305000-00011.htm;jsessio
nid=DrjlkbswqMDIQdYQko2USF2wfUpRZ89qeM1ccZMDqydCTxfAY8UJ!-1213525936!-949856144!
9001!-1

>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Ace says: I was right, myopia is far more prevelent than hyperopia

Go study statistics so you will have a clue.  The abstract says 6% had
over 1 D. of hyperopia.  Ok, if 37% were myopic, guess what that means.

C'mon, guess.

OK never mind, I'll tell you.  55 percent were hyperopic below 1.0 D.,
or were emmetropic, or a total of 61% hyperopic or emmetropic.

Still think you were right?

(oh, and I examined 10 people yesterday and guess what, all 10 were
correctible to 20/20, 6 got 20/15 BVA, and 1 was even 20/10.)

And those are people coming to an optometrist, concerned about their
vision.

w.stacy, o.d.
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 23 Dec 2005 10:21 GMT
"OK never mind, I'll tell you.  55 percent were hyperopic below 1.0 D.,

or were emmetropic, or a total of 61% hyperopic or emmetropic."

I can believe you but unless your presbyopia, emmetropia or even very
low hyperopia requires NO action. NO glasses are needed. Its perfectly
normal for many people, especially children to be slightly hyperopic
but its myopia thats the issue at hand. And like I said, in countries
like Japan, 80% are myopic of more than -.5 diopters.

"Still think you were right?"

If your talking about significent hyperopia that needs glasses right
now then no. If your talking very minimal hyperopia that doesnt need
glasses before 35-40 then your right.

"(oh, and I examined 10 people yesterday and guess what, all 10 were
correctible to 20/20, 6 got 20/15 BVA, and 1 was even 20/10.)"

I have the following concerns. This does not add up(unless its purely
coincidental) because 20/20 is the standard for normal vision and 20/15
exceeds it. Also at least 25% of people arent corrected to 20/20(ive
shown you proof of this, kind sir) yet not only do you get everyone to
20/20 you get 7 out of 10 better than this!

1. Ok what kind of eyechart do you use, kind sir? Tradational snellen?
Vision tester?(the kind popular for driving eye tests) projector
snellen?(specify type too, theres one with mirrors, theres one onto a
big white sheet of paper or plastic, theres a computerized one)

2. Are the subjects at the proper distance? If your eyechart properly
calibrated? I can also see the 20/20 line with glasses from 15 feet
with effort and definatly from 13 feet without much of a problem. I
have heard of subjects leaning or walking closer. One guy was bragging
about his 20/15 vision but it turns out he was standing 15-16 feet
away! Hey I can "improve" lines by standing just a few feet closer!

3. Do they all "happen" to be high hyperopes? The magnification effect
can easily "add" another line. I know of high hyperopes who dont wear
contacts for the sole reason they cant see 20/15 with them but they can
with their plus glasses which magnifiy! Hey I could do the same by
overcorrecting myself with minus contacts then "get" 20/20 with plus
glasses!

4. What is your rules and explanations? How many of each line is on
your eyechart, how many different letters does it have(5? 7? 10?) and
whats your policy for guessing? If someone obviously shows trouble
seeing the line(gets it wrong then corrects himself) or pauses then
resumes with a delay but gets some or most right, even if they all were
lucky guesses, does this still "count"? What percentage must be
correct? The official standard is actually 4 out of 5 from what I read.
Others will give the "pass" if you see more than 2/3 of the line while
others are "generous" and "pass" you even if your seeing half or less!

5. Was the lighting used bright or did the subjects squint? Under
either condition, I can make out 20/25 by reading an eyechart outside
on a sunny day or peeping in a pinhole. It is not uncommon for people
to improve an additional line using those means due to high order
aberrations being minimized with a small retinal image.

6. Were they all children? Its true that people in that age are more
likley to see 20/20 or better than middle age people or old people.

7. Wavefront anything or RGP contacts. Both of them are known to
correct some high order aberrations and give exceptionally crisp
vision. I would not be supprised in the least to be seeing 20/20 with
RGP contacts(they also dont minify) and only a little supprised(but
more amazed) to see 20/15!

8. I almost forgot to add this one, but were your patients recalling
from memory? If they have gotten an eye exam before or seen this chart
before, they can use selective memory and recall from that. I am
careful to make sure I actually see the letters and not just recall
them from my memory even though they look nothing more than dots(or
blobs) to me.

Thanks for your time. I am still trying to understand why and how you
are "getting" your patients/subjects to better vision than most other
optometrists. The reasons are because of one or more of the 7 above. I
will repeat four experiences below and also comment.

1. My sister was reported(by her optometrist) at 20/20 in one eye,
20/15 in the other. However using BOTH eyes at the same time(which is a
tiny bit better than each seperately), she was 20/20-2(6 out of 8) on
my snellen chart. On the same eyechart, I can resolve 20/30 without
much trouble.

2. My sister's friend was reported to have 20/10 vision but in fact she
could see NONE of the 20/10 line and only 6 out of 8 of the 20/13 line.
She is closer to 20/15, a little better than that but NOT 20/10 like
her optometrist says! From 40 feet I believe she was seeing the 20/40
line, although she probably should see the 20/30 line, if not shes not
even 20/15 for the matter! and was just recalling the dots from memory!

3. My brother was declared "20/20" and recalled all of the 20/20 line
on my snellen chart. I told him hes going by memory and that I did not
feel he could actually see 20/20. Turns out I was right. At the
optometrist's office, he could not "really" make out the 20/20 line but
was guessing over and over till he got them right. He used different
lenses to keep testing him on the 20/20 line and giving him several
chances to get them right and he got some right after enough guessing.
The same scinerio was used on me for 20/25. When he moved down to the
20/25 line, I hesisited for 10 seconds then told him I cant see it so
he basically said "try" anyway and I told him im guessing at this point
and got some lucky guesses and he was satisfied and proclaimed me
20/25. I could believe im perhaps 20/28 if there was a such line and my
brother perhaps 20/22 but theres no such line so we go to the next
denominator.

4. Some of my friends were bragging about their 20/20 vision but some
of them failed to deliver, falling anywhere from 20/20 minus to 20/30.
Yes I actually saw better than a few of the "20/20" friends. Some had
glasses and tilting them did nothing so their eyes havent gotten worse
so quickly, they just never were 20/20.

comments: If 75% of people are not correctable to 20/20 and you test 10
people, there is a 5.6% chance all 10 people will be 20/20 with a fair,
proper eye test. Its normal for many 20/20 people to see/guess a couple
of the 20/15 line(look it up on the internet) but this does not make
them 20/15. Hey im 20/30 but I can see/guess a couple of the 20/25! My
20/25 bro likewise can see/guess a couple of the 20/20! I bet the 20/10
guy you tested is closer to 20/15, perhaps a bit better like my
sister's friend. I bet most or all of your 20/15 guys arent true 20/15
in respect to one or more of my 8 rules. I have no arguements about
20/20 as its not really unusual but better than that is!

The eyechart used at home was a standard, official one exactly like the
one pictured below:

http://uuhsc.utah.edu/healthinfo/spanish/Eye/images/eyechart-150.jpg
CatmanX - 23 Dec 2005 10:55 GMT
Forget the reams of bullshit space ace, you are still a total w.nker.

Your mummy and daddy think you are a w.nker too as they won't take you
for an eye test because they don't believe a word you say (pretty smart
they must be).

Why don't you start a thread titled "am I myopic because I play too
much with my penis?"

Or what about "am I a pseudomyope because my penis is so small that I
can only think about playing with it?"

You should have listened to your mother when you were younger.

dr grant
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 23 Dec 2005 12:42 GMT
LOL are you 12 or something "doctor" Grant? I had a good laugh! :)
otisbrown@pa.net - 23 Dec 2005 16:08 GMT
Dear Ace,

Subject: You are absolutly correct.

Yes, it is true that you can avoid getting into
nearsighedness (a negative refractive state
of the natural eye) -- but it does take
strong personal fortitude to do it.

Given the "reaction" of these ODs, you have
no choice but to teach youself how to do it -- before
you develop stair-case myopia from that over-prescribed
minus.

Here are some more statistics to "make your case".

Just remeber -- even the ODs are "waking up"
to the need for the plus -- has have their
own children in that plus as soon as
their refractive state moves from slight
plut -- to minus.  They know the consequences
of NOT using the plus for preveniton.  See:

www.chinamyopia.org

It is time we allign ouselves with Steve Leung ODs
leadership on this issue.

Here are the statistics and discussion.

Best,

Otis

++++++++++

          MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT
                    FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS

Re: Changes in ocular refraction and its components
   among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
   Vis.  Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
   National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
   prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%!  over the five year
   period.

                      ******************

1)  In Singapore, the vision of 421,116 males between the ages of
   15 and 25 was examined.  In 1974-84, 26.3% were myopic; in
   1987-91, 43.3% were myopic.  Both the prevalence and severity
   of myopia were higher as the level of education increased.
   The prevalence rate was 15.4% in males with no formal
   education and increased steadily through the education levels
   to reach 65.1% among the university graduates in 1987-91.  The
   authors state that their findings confirm indications from
   other sources that the association between the prevalence and
   severity of myopia and education attainment is real (M.T.
   Tay, K.G.  Au Eong, C.Y.  Ng and M.K.  Lim, "Myopia and
   Educational Attainment in 421,116 Young Singaporean Males,"
   Ann Acad Med Singapore, 1992, Nov;21(6):785-91).

2)  Regarding the prevalence of myopia in Asian countries, Lam and
   Goh (Lam, C.S.  and Goh, W.S., "The incidence of refractive
   errors among schoolchildren in Hong Kong in relationship with
   the optical components", Clin.  Exp.  Optom., 74:97-103, 1991)
   found that in 383 school children from ages 6 to 17 years, the
   prevalence of myopia increased from 30% at ages 6-7 years, to
   70% at ages 16-17 years.

3)  Lam and Yap (Lam, C.S.  and Yap, M.  "Ocular dimensions and
   refraction in Chinese Orientals", Proc.  Int.  Soc.  Eye Res.,
   6:121, 1990) found that in a group of optometry students at
   The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the prevalence of myopia
   was 75% in females and 69% in males.

4)  Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S.  and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive
   trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39
   years," Ophthal.  Physiol.  Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that
   in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong,
   the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%.

5)  Lin et al (Lin, L.-K, Chen, C.J., Hung, P.T., and Ko, L.S.,
   "National- wide survey of myopia among schoolchildren in
   Taiwan, Acta Ophthalmol.", 185:29-33, 1988) found that in a
   national survey of children in Taiwan, the prevalence of
   myopia was over 70%.

6)  Lin et al (Lin, L.K., Shih, Y.F., Lee, Y.C., Hung, P.T., and
   Hou, P.K., " Changes in ocular refraction and its components
   among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
   Vis.  Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
   National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
   prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%!  over the five year
   period.

7)  A recent study in Hong Kong showed what other studies have
   shown - wearing less than a full correction will slow the
   progress of the myopia.  Children selected for the study were
   between the ages of 9 and 12.  All were nearsighted, with 1.00
   to 5.00 D of myopia.  The children were separated into three
   groups.  Each group was given a different type of eyeglasses
   to wear for the two-year period of the study.  The first group
   wore single vision lenses with a full correction; the second
   group wore progressive lenses with a +1.50 add; the third
   group wore progressive lenses with a +2.00 add.  All children
   were examined at 6-month intervals to check the progression of
   their myopia.  Sixty-eight children completed the study.  As
   expected, more undercorrection meant slower myopia
   progression.

Minus vision lenses:                - 1.23 D increase (2 years)
Progressive lenses with +1.50 add:  - 0.76 D increase (2 years)
Progressive lenses with +2.00 add:  - 0.66 D increase (2 years)

Source:  Leung JT, Brown B.  Progression of myopia in Hong Kong
Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive
lenses.  Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76:346, 354.  Published 10/07/00.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

                                    December 6, 2000

By Liu Shao-hua
Staff reporter
Taipei Times

Subject:   Myopia Increases Among Children

    One of every five children in the first grade in Taiwan's
elementary schools is myopic (nearsighted).  The proportion of
myopics in this group has increased from 12.1 percent in 1995 to
20.4 percent this year, according to the results of a survey
released by the Department of Health yesterday.

    The results also show that 60.7 percent of sixth graders in
elementary schools, 80.7 percent of third graders in junior high
schools, and 84.2 percent of third graders in senior high schools
suffer from myopia.  In addition, the number of seriously myopic
children is also on the rise.  The proportion of seriously myopic
children among sixth graders in elementary schools has increased
from 2 percent five years ago to 2.4 percent this year.

    Serious myopia is defined as exceeding 600 degrees (6
diopters).  Anything over 25 degrees (0.25 diopters) is myopia.
Normal eyesight is zero degrees.

    "We appeal for reductions to children's work load in schools
and the amelioration of visual environments in daily life," said
Chen Tzay-jinn, director-general of the health promotion bureau,
under the health department.

    The survey was conducted by the department, in cooperation
with National Taiwan University and its hospital, and involved a
sample of 12,000 students from four million students between the
ages of 7 and 18 nationwide.  Myopia has been on the increase in
Taiwan ever since the first myopia survey in 1983.  The department
manages the survey every four or five years.

    The growth of nearsightedness among young children is thought
to result from learning to read very young and using computers
very young, Chen pointed out.

    Last year, the department and the Ministry of Education
delivered official documents to kindergartens nationwide demanding
that children not be taught to read or use computers too early.
"But many teachers and parents protested against this appeal,"
said the department officials.    "They questioned exactly what they
were permitted to teach if reading was not allowed."

    "We do hope that parents and teachers can heighten their
awareness of myopia and understand that early learning does not
guarantee students' performance in the future, but it does bear a
strong correlation to defects in vision," Chen said.  The
department also appealed for children under the age of 10 not to
be taught how to use computers.

    Senior high school students suffer the highest rates of
nearsightedness, at over 84 percent.  "It reached a plateau five
years ago and has not changed this year.  But their myopia has
become more serious," Chen said.  According to the survey, 20
percent of third graders in senior high schools are seriously
nearsighted.

    Many people thought operations could cure myopia.    "But the
superficial improvement of vision does not better the health of
the eye.  More importantly, it might reduce people's awareness of
other problems associated with nearsightedness, apart from visual
ones," said Lin Lung-kuang, ophthalmology professor at National
Taiwan University.  "Myopia cannot be cured.  We have to prevent
children from becoming nearsighted.  Don't let them use their
vision too early," Lin urged.

    Because of the public's lack of awareness of myopia, the
department estimated its prevalence would continue to grow.
"Singapore resembles Taiwan in many respects and the extent of its
myopia problem might serve as a warning for us," Chen said.
Dr. Leukoma - 23 Dec 2005 16:30 GMT
> It is time we allign ouselves with Steve Leung ODs
> leadership on this issue.

If we were to follow Steve Leung's leadership, we would all be going
round in circles, since he links to the website of Otis, who trumpets
the discredited and disproven ideas of the past.

DrG
Neil Brooks - 23 Dec 2005 17:02 GMT
>Dear Ace,
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>you develop stair-case myopia from that over-prescribed
>minus.

Uncle Otie: please don't forget that there is approximately ONE
optometrist that seems to agree with you, and he is under
investigation from the local governing board.

>Here are some more statistics to "make your case".

Whenever YOU type a sentence like that, you should put the word
'statistics' in quotes.  What you quote is anything but statistically
valid.

[additional claptrap snipped]
Signature

Live simply so that others may simply live

Philip D Izaac - 24 Dec 2005 04:49 GMT
> Uncle Otie: please don't forget that there is approximately ONE
> optometrist that seems to agree with you, and he is under
> investigation from the local governing board.

He has been dealt with and got off with a warning.
As far as I know,  Steve Leung does not have an OD degree. His is a
professional diploma in optometry.

Roland J. Izaac
Neil Brooks - 24 Dec 2005 05:38 GMT
>> Uncle Otie: please don't forget that there is approximately ONE
>> optometrist that seems to agree with you, and he is under
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Roland J. Izaac

Thank you, Roland.  Good to know.
Signature

Live simply so that others may simply live

Mike Tyner - 24 Dec 2005 05:51 GMT
> He has been dealt with and got off with a warning.
> As far as I know,  Steve Leung does not have an OD degree. His is a
> professional diploma in optometry.

If he put together a valid statistical comparison between treated subjects
and matched controls, would it matter?

Meanwhile I have my retinoscope ready, waiting for the huddled masses of new
myopes... where are they?

-MT
Philip D Izaac - 24 Dec 2005 11:06 GMT
> > He has been dealt with and got off with a warning.
> > As far as I know,  Steve Leung does not have an OD degree. His is a
> > professional diploma in optometry.
>
> If he put together a valid statistical comparison between treated subjects
> and matched controls, would it matter?

Of course not, and we are all waiting. Don't misunderstand me, I am not
putting Steve down, I'm just correcting Otis. Degrees are different in
different countries. I myself am not an OD. I just have a masters in
clinical optometry.

Roland Izaac

> Meanwhile I have my retinoscope ready, waiting for the huddled masses of new
> myopes... where are they?
>
> -MT
William Stacy - 24 Dec 2005 17:56 GMT
> Meanwhile I have my retinoscope ready, waiting for the huddled masses of new
> myopes... where are they?

Not in Folsom CA.  Being a myope myself I assumed my kids would get it.

Not one of the 3 did. (2 are low hyperopes, one is a hyperopic astigmat)

But one of my 5 grandkids so far did. (ages 5 to 12, the myope is 8)

What a pandemic!

w.stacy, o.d.
Dick Adams - 24 Dec 2005 20:43 GMT
> Meanwhile I have my retinoscope ready, waiting for the huddled masses of new
> myopes... where are they?

Do you mean to say there are no myopes?

Next you'll say the Holocaust never happened.

---
Dicky
Neil Brooks - 24 Dec 2005 21:09 GMT
>> Meanwhile I have my retinoscope ready, waiting for the huddled masses of new
>> myopes... where are they?
>
>Do you mean to say there are no myopes?
>
>Next you'll say the Holocaust never happened.

Nice job, Dick.  As the year draws to a close, I'll nominate that for
the Jackass Post of the Year Award.

Do I hear a second?

Signature

Live simply so that others may simply live

William Stacy - 24 Dec 2005 21:48 GMT
> Next you'll say the Holocaust never happened.

Now, now.  Let's not get carried away.  I think we all agree that there
has been a large increase in myopia that started probably back in the
industrial revolution, got worse with the more or less universal
literacy of the 20th century, and has even gotten worse in the
electronic age of computers and electronic games.  It could be labled an
epidemic, but only if you consider myopia to be a disease.  Many think
of it as a natural adaptation.  Whatever it is, o.d.s see the results of
it every day, and we have a pretty good handle on how many myopes there
are compared to how many hyperopes and emmetropes (although our
practices tend to be skewed toward seeing MORE myopes than in the
general public, because the myopes tend to seek our care frequently).

But the sky-is-falling kind of posts that fly around here are naturally
going to get met with a certain amount of cynical rhetoric, especially
when they come in rapid-fire succession from 2 or 3 individuals who are
unschooled in the subject. Cynical rhetoric is a far cry from the blind
sort of denial described by your statement, which unfortunately does
apply to some fundamentalist islamists and (even more unfortunately, in
my mind) some intellectually stunted christians.

BTW I checked my office database, and found that in this year, I've
prescribed about 50% plus and 50% minus spectacle lenses. Does this mean
half the people in the world are myopic?  Hardly.  I also checked my
contact lens prescriptions, and guess what: about 90% of them are minus.
 To a person who is clueless about statistics and
optometry/ophthalmology, this might mean to them that 90% of the
population might be myopic!  No, it's obviously a complex combination of
lens availability, ease of fitting, personal lifestyles, and many other
factors that combine to skew the numbers that way.  Yes, the incidence
of myopia has increased.  No, it is not approaching even 50%, except
maybe in a few ethnic/geographic locations.

Are most of the people on the street wearing Rx glasses myopic? Probably
yes. But at least as many (in my office population at least) are wearing
their plus glasses at least part of the time.  The vast majority of the
world's general population under the age of 40 do not wear glasses or
contacts at all, and by far most of them are very near emmetropia.

So epidemic (or pandemic) is probably an overstatement of the situation.

w.stacy, o.d.
Mike Tyner - 24 Dec 2005 21:50 GMT
"Dick Adams" <bad.addr@nonexist.com>

> Do you mean to say there are no myopes?

No. I'm poking fun at the idiotic subject line.

-MT
otisbrown@pa.net - 24 Dec 2005 06:01 GMT
Dear Roland,

Please define the difference between
an "OD Degree" and a "Professional Diploma in Optometry".

Are some qualified to do somethings -- if so described
the functional difference.

It any of this described to the patient?

Best,

Otis
Philip D Izaac - 25 Dec 2005 04:57 GMT
> Dear Roland,
>
> Please define the difference between
> an "OD Degree" and a "Professional Diploma in Optometry".

The "OD Degree" has not been standardized, for example, Philipino
Universities offer the OD degree, but the standard cannot be compared to
that of the United States, which is much higher. I believe the standard of
the professional Diploma in optometry from the Hong Kong
Polytechnic-University is of  a high standard, much higher then that of the
OD degree offered in the Philipines.

> Are some qualified to do somethings -- if so described
> the functional difference.

American OD's have therapeutic privileges. Others Don't. I believe some
states in Australia are begining to work towards it. Functions also depends
on the country of practice. For Example, although I have been trained to use
diagnostic drugs, I am unable to do so. This is because Optometry is
unlicenced in Singapore. (Licencing of optometry is scheduled for January
2007) Please note though that licences have been issued for Contact Lens
Practice since 1996.

I believe Hong Kong optometrist are well trained, I was not putting Steve
down, I was just correcting you.

> It any of this described to the patient?

What?

Best,

Roland Izaac
> Best,
>
> Otis
Dan Abel - 25 Dec 2005 08:17 GMT
> American OD's have therapeutic privileges. Others Don't.

Sometimes people in the US just assume that things are the same
everywhere.  A lady at church was talking about how she was a doctor.  
She had a BA.  She wasn't happy about her job.  Most of her patients
were suffering from malnutrition.  She only treated black people.  I
don't know if the educational requirements were different if you treated
white people.  I wouldn't be surprised.  She and her husband decided
that South Africa, at least at that time, wasn't a fit place to raise
children, so they moved to the US.  They now have four children, and mom
hasn't worked for some time.  They talk funny.  The oldest child used to
have an accent, but has now lost it.

Signature

Dan Abel
dabel@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

William Stacy - 23 Dec 2005 16:53 GMT
> If your talking about significent hyperopia that needs glasses right
> now then no. If your talking very minimal hyperopia that doesnt need
> glasses before 35-40 then your right.

Your post didn't specify needing glasses or not.  You just flat claimed
that there are more myopes than hyperopes in the world, something that
your own study contradicts (along with just about every one in the
universe).

20/20 is the standard for normal vision and 20/15
> exceeds it. Also at least 25% of people arent corrected to 20/20(ive
> shown you proof of this, kind sir) yet not only do you get everyone to
> 20/20 you get 7 out of 10 better than this!

Actually, among healthy adults, 20/15 should be the standard, because
20/15 is what most people get. If I recall, your "proof" on this was to
quote an obvious layperson from Yahoo.  How about a real study for proof?

> 1. Ok what kind of eyechart do you use, kind sir? Tradational snellen?
> Vision tester?(the kind popular for driving eye tests) projector
> snellen?

I have two remote controlled projectors each with several different
20/20 and 20/15 lines, both of which can also present single letters,
numbers, tumbling Es, Landolt rings, and pictures in any order I chose.
I also have a paper Snellen for a backup. And yes, all calibrated
properly for the test distances.
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 24 Dec 2005 07:42 GMT
"You just flat claimed
that there are more myopes than hyperopes in the world, something that
your own study contradicts"

well its true almost everyone starts out as a hyperope but truth is,
myopia is an epidemic and I see much, much more nearsighted than
farsighted people wearing glasses.

"Actually, among healthy adults, 20/15 should be the standard, because
20/15 is what most people get."

Only when they get examed by you. Ill probably get 20/20 if you exam
me. Re-read the 8 questions, you only answered one. I do not believe
for a minute 20/15 is the standard, period.

"I have two remote controlled projectors..............."

My other concerns still remain. scroll back up to see my previous post.
If you read it all, youll know exactly why I dont believe this. I will
repeat the fact different optometrists have considered me 20/20, 20/25,
20/30 depending which one I go to. Theres a difference of one line,
sometimes even two given all the factors I listed. Ive also said in the
above post I had friends who bragged about being 20/20 yet I could see
from as far as they could and im closer to 20/30!
Dan Abel - 24 Dec 2005 12:21 GMT
> well its true almost everyone starts out as a hyperope but truth is,
> myopia is an epidemic and I see much, much more nearsighted than
> farsighted people wearing glasses.

I'm glad that you have such good vision.  I wish mine was nearly that
good.  My vision is good enough that I can tell whether somebody is
wearing glasses.  I can't tell if they are nearsighted or farsighted,
not unless I get *way* too close.

Some people wear contacts.  I know because they tell me.  If they don't
tell me, I don't know.  I know whether they are nearsighted or
farsighted, if they tell me.  It doesn't matter how close I get, I can't
tell by inspection.  I envy you your vision.

Signature

Dan Abel
dabel@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

acemanvx@yahoo.com - 24 Dec 2005 12:36 GMT
you can easily tell someone's vision by the shape and power glasses
they are wearing. If their glasses make their eyes really big and the
lenses are bluging outwards like convex, they are high hyperopes. On
the other hand glasses that look concave and make their eyes smaller
are minus glasses. You can tell by the power rings how strong the minus
glasses are. Thickness isnt a good indicator, minification and power
rings are. Of course it helps things if the person lets you inspect the
glasses and hold them to your eyes and see how blurry things are(or
clear if you have his pescription)

With contacts, you sometimes can see a thin plastic disk on their eyes
but you wont have a clue what pescription, just that he has one. I
talked to a lady and I saw she had contacts so I asked what
pescription. She doesnt know exactly and also seems embarressed since
its so bad. She just said my eyes are really bad. Im gonna guess shes a
high myope.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 24 Dec 2005 14:26 GMT
> well its true almost everyone starts out as a hyperope but truth is,
> myopia is an epidemic and I see much, much more nearsighted than
> farsighted people wearing glasses.

you are really getting on my last nerve.  you obviously don't
understand much about vision.  the questions is why do you keep posting
stupid comments that display your ignorance in this newsgroup.

the answer is, until your are middle aged or older, hyperops don't need
glasses.

> "Actually, among healthy adults, 20/15 should be the standard, because
> 20/15 is what most people get."
>
> Only when they get examed by you. Ill probably get 20/20 if you exam
> me. Re-read the 8 questions, you only answered one. I do not believe
> for a minute 20/15 is the standard, period.

go away troll.  who cares what you believe.  go post in a skateboard
forum.
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 24 Dec 2005 15:35 GMT
my, you are rude! Maybe you and "doctor" Grant can be buddies, cursing
up a storm and terrorizing little children LOL
William Stacy - 24 Dec 2005 18:10 GMT
I see much, much more nearsighted than
> farsighted people wearing glasses.

What a great scientific sample that was.

And I said 20/15 SHOULD be the standard, every one knows that 20/20 IS
the standard, a completely arbitrary one establishe long before I was
around, when optometric skills were quite low. Now we can get most
healthy eyes to 20/15, and anyone who can't is either sloppy or not
trying hard enough.

And no, I'm not going to answer ALL your questions. I get paid to fill
out such surveys. Send me $50 honorarium and I'll do your survey.

w.stacy, o.d.
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 25 Dec 2005 00:11 GMT
"And I said 20/15 SHOULD be the standard"

Too bad the majority wont meet that standard. More than 25% dont
achieve 20/20 with glasses nor contacts.

"every one knows that 20/20 IS
the standard, a completely arbitrary one establishe long before I was
around, when optometric skills were quite low."

It doesnt take much skill to use a phororaptor and let the subject
choose the lenses "is one or is two better" This still is the same
today.

"Now we can get most
healthy eyes to 20/15, and anyone who can't is either sloppy or not
trying hard enough."

I dont think its as simple as blaming the optometrist. I have seen many
so have my friends. Your eye is capable of what it is. No skill is
going to get an eye that cant do it. You seem to make it sound that if
you dont get 20/15 your eyes arent healthy. This isnt always the case.
High order aberrations are a main reason for the limitation in vision.
You can be 20/15 or 20/40 best corrected and have healthy eyes free of
pathalogy of the retina and lense. Many higher myopes also have trouble
with 20/20 due to minification of glasses, but put them in contacts(RGP
especially) and they are much more likley to be 20/20. Heck I bet I
could also get 20/20 with RGP contacts, this will then rule out the
fact my eyes have any pathalogies. I can believe 20/20, even 20/15
being common with RGP contacts and when technology matures, wavefront
glasses. My regular glasses can not correct my higher order
aberrations.

"And no, I'm not going to answer ALL your questions. I get paid to fill

out such surveys. Send me $50 honorarium and I'll do your survey."

Understood. Your time is valuable. I would much rather visit you if I
ever go your way on vacation. I got nothing against you and probably
can learn alot from you as well. You got me curious on alot of things.
How much are eye exams in your office? What would be your comment if I
get at least 20/20 with RGP contacts but only 20/30 with glasses?
Mike Tyner - 25 Dec 2005 00:34 GMT
> Too bad the majority wont meet that standard. More than 25% dont
> achieve 20/20 with glasses nor contacts.

Which planet are you from?

> It doesnt take much skill to use a phororaptor and let the subject
> choose the lenses "is one or is two better" This still is the same
> today.

Apparently it takes more skill to spell it than to use it. It has nothing to
do with prehistoric reptiles.

> so have my friends. Your eye is capable of what it is. No skill is
> going to get an eye that cant do it. You seem to make it sound that if
> you dont get 20/15 your eyes arent healthy.

It's a good rule to follow when you are actually in the business of finding
pathology, especially if one eye does better than the other. Most of the
problems you're thinking about are bilateral and congenital.

> This isnt always the case.

Not always, but you have no idea how common it actually is.

> What would be your comment if I
> get at least 20/20 with RGP contacts but only 20/30 with glasses?

You've told us that you see 20/25 through a pinhole. That's a pretty good
indication that your eyes are neurologically intact.

-MT
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 25 Dec 2005 14:02 GMT
"Which planet are you from?"

I have seen sources on the internet that state at least 25% of people
dont achieve 20/20 with standard glasses(things will change with
wavefront) and soft contacts(rgp is much better)

"Apparently it takes more skill to spell it than to use it."

LOL just goes to show how easy its to use one!

"It's a good rule to follow when you are actually in the business of
finding
pathology, especially if one eye does better than the other. Most of
the
problems you're thinking about are bilateral and congenital."

I would have the patient get a topography and aberrometry to rule out a
greater than normal amount of aberrations being the cause. Lots of
healthy, pathalogy free eyes dont get 20/20. If the subject is a high
myope, you must account for the fact theres minification with vertex
distance. If hes still seeing 20/20 then he will be better than 20/20
with contacts, especially RGP.

"Not always, but you have no idea how common it actually is."

more than half of the subjects get 20/20 so you stand correct on this.

"You've told us that you see 20/25 through a pinhole. That's a pretty
good
indication that your eyes are neurologically intact."

You could also do a pinhole test on anyone not getting 20/20 to test
for this :)
Mike Tyner - 25 Dec 2005 15:44 GMT
> I have seen sources on the internet that state at least 25% of people
> dont achieve 20/20 with standard glasses(things will change with
> wavefront) and soft contacts(rgp is much better)

You don't choose your sources very carefully.

> I would have the patient get a topography and aberrometry to rule out a
> greater than normal amount of aberrations being the cause. Lots of
> healthy, pathalogy free eyes dont get 20/20.

If you imagine so, it must be true.

> "Not always, but you have no idea how common it actually is."
>
> more than half of the subjects get 20/20 so you stand correct on this.

My records show considerably more than 90%. They sneak in and memorize the
chart before their exam? That's your explanation?

> You could also do a pinhole test on anyone not getting 20/20 to test
> for this :)

Considerably cheaper than topography and aberrometry.

-MT
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 26 Dec 2005 19:01 GMT
"You don't choose your sources very carefully."

Truth be told, people argue all the time what % have what vision.
However I can tell you I know many people who cant be corrected fully
to 20/20, some are in my family.

"My records show considerably more than 90%. They sneak in and memorize
the
chart before their exam? That's your explanation?"

not usually unless they want to cheat and pass the 20/20 requirement
for specific occupations. Most likley the optometrist is very, very
linent and gives you a few tries to guess the letters then proclaims
you 20/20 if you get a couple right. I know this, ive been proclaimed
20/20 a few times before and 20/25 many times. If you do things right,
youll find that im really a 20/30

"Considerably cheaper than topography and aberrometry."

Its like looking at the clouds and predicting if ill rain vs.
computerized weather stations giving you the chance of rain. Pinholes
dont tell the full story, but they do tell if your eyes are capable of
better. If im getting 20/25 with pinholes held in front of my glasses,
I possibily could get 20/20 with contacts(and pinhole) or RGP which
dont minify unlike my glasses.

"If I knew that my OD talked about me and my
long-term visual future -- I would run, not
walk away from him."

If it has to do with myopia, just dont take his word. If he says you
have a pathalogy, seek treatment! Myopia isnt a disease but other
things are!

"Dr" Grant involved.  He is going
to over-prescribe the public, and
blame the stair-cace myopia that
developes from that "practice" on
YOUR BAD HEREDITY."

I know families where everyone but one person was nearsighed. The
single person who wasnt had been using plus lenses.

"You can do VT, readers, bifocals, multifocals, you name it, once the
VT
stops, ciliary tone increases, the pseudo myopia returns and the myopia

eventually increases."

You have to keep your good vision habits for the rest of your life to
keep myopia out of your life.
Mike Tyner - 27 Dec 2005 00:29 GMT
> not usually unless they want to cheat and pass the 20/20 requirement
> for specific occupations. Most likley the optometrist is very, very
> linent and gives you a few tries to guess the letters then proclaims
> you 20/20 if you get a couple right. I know this, ive been proclaimed
> 20/20 a few times before and 20/25 many times. If you do things right,
> youll find that im really a 20/30

Yes, we need you telling us how to "do it right."

> better. If im getting 20/25 with pinholes held in front of my glasses,
> I possibily could get 20/20 with contacts(and pinhole) or RGP which
> dont minify unlike my glasses.

Why would you hold a pinhole in front of your glasses?

-MT
Dan Abel - 27 Dec 2005 08:27 GMT
> > not usually unless they want to cheat and pass the 20/20 requirement
> > for specific occupations. Most likley the optometrist is very, very
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Yes, we need you telling us how to "do it right."

I'll tell you how to "do it right".  Just keep using the elephant
repellant.

:-)

This post did make me think, though.  I had two different eye exams,
about three days apart.  They were way different.  My OD, who did the
second one, said that was normal.  He forgot to explain why.  It has
bothered me ever since.  Upon reading this post, perhaps I understand.  
I was on heavy duty drugs for the first one, and my OMD said I could
stop.  I was on different drugs for the days before the OD exam.  Duh!

Signature

Dan Abel
dabel@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

CatmanX - 25 Dec 2005 06:38 GMT
You are still afucking idiot. There is no standard as there is no such
thing as the standard eye. In an eye test we aim for the best acuity
possible for the individual.

Cocks like you with 6/9 acuity have this because you have crappy
optics, for which you can thank your parents, who are smart because
they hate you enough to let you not get an eye test.

dr grant
otisbrown@pa.net - 25 Dec 2005 17:42 GMT
Dear Ace,

If I knew that my OD talked about me and my
long-term visual future -- I would run, not
walk away from him.

Just remember, that the second-opinion is
prevention with the plus.

That is your choice -- but not with the
likes of "Dr" Grant involved.  He is going
to over-prescribe the public, and
blame the stair-cace myopia that
developes from that "practice" on
YOUR BAD HEREDITY.

It is true, however that prevention with
plus has its own "difficulties".  But when
I suggest you have no choice but to
"do it yourself" under your own control,
by reading your own eye chart -- the
this Dr Grant "attitude" is a major
reason for it.

Just keep on asking the questions -- and
expect continued "insult" to your
intelligence.

Begin thining on a scientific (not medical) leverl
and you will get a better answer.

Best,

Otis
CatmanX - 25 Dec 2005 19:23 GMT
If you actually read anything on the subject, you would understand that
bad heredity is exactly what causes myopia. Environment impacts aw
well, but the impact is on the existing genetic substrate.

Not that I expect you to listen, you have an agenda and no amount of
logic will sway you from your objective to scare people into your bogus
methods.

dr grant
Neil Brooks - 25 Dec 2005 22:03 GMT
>Not that I expect you to listen, you have an agenda and no amount of
>logic will sway you from your objective to scare people into your bogus
>methods.

Dr. Grant-

Maybe a little insight into the pathology of our resident laughing
stock is in order.  To wit:

"When Otis S.  Brown was a young boy, he dreamed of someday
becoming an airline pilot.  In fact, everything he did throughout
those early days in grade school was aimed at achieving that goal.

Then, disaster struck, and Otis Brown's dreams of becoming a
pilot faded as he was fitted with increasingly stronger minus
glasses to correct a worsening case of myopia, or nearsightedness,
a condition which causes distant objects to appear blurred."

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/PREV73.TXT

(Otis's website)

Sad, really.  But that doesn't make his "contributions" here any more
worthwhile--just easier to understand the etiology of his pathology.
Signature

Live simply so that others may simply live

CatmanX - 26 Dec 2005 04:50 GMT
This is really interesting, Bill Ludlum is a myope and hasn't cured
himself!!! How's that work out??

What Otis fails to understand is that there is a difference between
accommodative spasm and myopia. One IS myopia and one just looks like
it to the untrained eye.

I think Otis should read his own history and understand the difference.

For what it is worth, and all the Optoms here who have tried to fix
accommodative spasm will attest to this, is there is a mindset in this
group of people and plus just doesn't work.

You can do VT, readers, bifocals, multifocals, you name it, once the VT
stops, ciliary tone increases, the pseudo myopia returns and the myopia
eventually increases.

You can't change the intrinsic nature of the individual, well not at
the moment anyway.

dr grant
otisbrown@pa.net - 26 Dec 2005 14:56 GMT
Dear Dr. Grant,

Grant> This is really interesting, Bill Ludlum is a myope and hasn't
cured
himself!!! How's that work out??

Otis>  I am not certain that you are making a correct statement.

When I met him in NYC, he was not wearing a minus lens, and
I have no informoation beyond that point.  Do you, or
do you consult your crystal ball -- as usual.

Further, he stated he cleared one person's vision from about
-3 diopters to pass the DMV (20/40).  Do you doubt that?

And lastly, it was through Dr. Ludlam that I got
in contact with Dr. Raphaelson.

Best,

Otis
Dr. Leukoma - 26 Dec 2005 13:45 GMT
> Sad, really.  But that doesn't make his "contributions" here any more
> worthwhile--just easier to understand the etiology of his pathology.

The fact is that high myopia has a genetic basis.  Some people are
unable to accept a genetic basis in themselves, consider it a flaw, and
seek to externalize the responsibility for their situation, blaming the
parents, the establishment, etc.  This explains the continued use of
weak science in a vendetta against the eye care professions.  The
unwillingness/inability to discuss and explore more recent and more
plausible theories is very striking.  As a result, this group continues
to be dragged back into the garbage heap of outdated and discarded
theories by a few cranks who are only interested in tweaking the noses
of the optoms who post here just in order to provoke a response.

DrG
www.leukoma.com
Neil Brooks - 26 Dec 2005 14:08 GMT
>As a result, this group continues
>to be dragged back into the garbage heap of outdated and discarded
>theories by a few cranks who are only interested in tweaking the noses
>of the optoms who post here just in order to provoke a response.

I always wondered why you guys posted here ...

[Is that what they call a "misplaced modifier?"]  <G>
Signature

Live simply so that others may simply live

Dr. Leukoma - 26 Dec 2005 15:54 GMT
> >As a result, this group continues
> >to be dragged back into the garbage heap of outdated and discarded
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> --
> Live simply so that others may simply live

Gee thanks, Neil.

Was my spelling OK?

DrG
Neil Brooks - 26 Dec 2005 16:08 GMT
>> >As a result, this group continues
>> >to be dragged back into the garbage heap of outdated and discarded
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>DrG

I didn't mean it to be critical.  Apologies if the grin "<G>" didn't
make that clear....
Signature

Live simply so that others may simply live

 
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.