 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2006Children with a tendency for myopia wearing reading glasses propholactically
I was talking to someone recently who opined: if kids who were in families where myopia was common as they grew older, and if those kids wore reading glasses when they were reading when they were young that that might somehow help their eyes avoid myopia, or at least lessen the severity of myopia. Somehow this thinking was based on the theory that extensive reading causes myopia in many cases. I was wondering, what affect would kids wearing reading glasses have, if they were not necessary? What of that guy's theory--is there any sense at all to it? Just curious, Reece When I was about 13, my parents took me to an opthamologist because of recurrent headaches. I remember wearing plus glasses and was told to wear them as often as possible, even for distance. I was also given a slant board and had to do all my homework on this "lap desk". I also had to perform eye exercises (following a dot on a stick, crossing my eyes, and other focusing techniques). This went on for about 2 years. Then from the ages of 15 to my early 20's, I required NO vision correction. I was 20/15 in both eyes. It wasn't until I was around 22 that I started becoming a bit nearsighted. I remember my first pair of adult glasses, both lenses were -.25 power with a slight astigmatism. As the years went by, my right eye went to -.75 and my right eye -.50, but now I'm having trouble seeing close up (I am now 42). I now wonder if my myopia would've been any worse if I had *not* worn plus lenses and done those exercises for those 2 years when I was a teen? Both of my parents wear fairly strong minus lenses (I know my mom is -4.00 and dad around -3.50). Yet my two younger brothers are mildy nearsighted (they both wear glasses a bit stronger than mine). -Tom in Scranton, PA Thanks for your story, Tom. Reece > When I was about 13, my parents took me to an opthamologist because of > recurrent headaches. I remember wearing plus glasses and was told to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -Tom in Scranton, PA Dear Tom, Subject: Prevention with plus -- as you did it. Re: The results of NOT using the plus as you did it. I am pleased you made your report. To answer your implied question, the results of NOT using the "plus" as you did would have been that your "vision" would have gone down at a rate of about -1/2 diopter per year AVERAGE. Thus your avoided that "bullet". (Reference the excellent Oakley-Young study that proved that the minus-lens group when down at a steady -1/2 diopter per year. The "plus" group did not go down. This was with 250+ kids, over a period of four years.) Youd did it right indeed. Best, Otis "plus" "vision" "bullet" "plus" Quote count: 4 Post size: tiny > I am pleased you made your report. To > answer your implied question, the results > of NOT using the "plus" as you did would > have been that your "vision" would have > gone down at a rate of about -1/2 diopter per year AVERAGE. Dear Tom, Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the position to give medical advice as he is not in the medical profession. Thank you! Allen > Dear Tom, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Allen Thanks, Allen. I'm taking it all with a "grain of salt". >From my particular experience, I can say this: 1.) Overall, I see better WITH correction (-.50 left -.75 right) at a distance than without. 2.) I often wear NO correction, especially on weekends. But when I'm driving, the difference between my eyes (especially at night) is enough to be quite troublesome. My eyes seem to do a "reverse monovision", where my left eye sees pretty good at a distance, but poorly closeup. My right eye sees poorly at a distance, but closeup, I can see well. Anything a few feet in front of my face is fine without correction. 3.) Given a choice between monovision contacts, progrssive bifocals or no correction, my BEST *computer* vision is from the monovision contacts. This would be followed by NO correction and then LEAST best with the progressive bifocals. Apparently, the mid-zone of my progressives isn't that great for computer work. When I'm wearing my glasses, I simply remove them for computer work. According to my current optometrist, I am "very mildly myopic" in my left eye, and "mildy myopic" in my right eye. As for presbyopia, I have it "very mildly" in my right eye and "mildly" in my left eye. I am in the beginning phases, apparently. When I posted earlier about wearing plus lenses as a kid, I was curious if this really helped keep my eyes close to emmetropic. Or did it simply cause me 2 years of grief with too-powerful plus lenses? Thanks, -Tom in Scranton, PA Dear Tom, Subject: Two opinions. Tom> When I posted earlier about wearing plus lenses as a kid, I was curious if this really helped keep my eyes close to emmetropic. Otis> I obviously support the concept that a child on the threshold should begin wearing the plus at from zero to -1/2 diopters. The optometrists who support tihs concept have their own children wearing the plus -- for all reading. And also, a mild plus for use all the time when the refractive status is between zero to +1/4 diopters. There is NO WAY THIS ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED. I PERSONALLY wish that I had been offered this second-opinion when I was on the "threshold" as I describe above. Tom> Or did it simply cause me 2 years of grief with too-powerful plus lenses? Otis> After an exhaustive review of the primate eye -- I support the second-opinion. In fact I did "push" my nephew on this issue. In his case he personally verified his vision by reading the Snellen, and would "clear" his vision when ever it was necessary to do so. Currentl he reads 20/20 -- no problem. Otis> It is always wise to understand both sides of this issue. And certainly prevention-with-plus is a difficult issue indeed. Best, Otis Thanks, -Tom in Scranton, PA <snip> > When I posted earlier about wearing plus lenses as a kid, I was curious > if this really helped keep my eyes close to emmetropic. Or did it > simply cause me 2 years of grief with too-powerful plus lenses? > > Thanks, > -Tom in Scranton, PA I think the simple answer to your question is that no-one can say for certain either way... as you can't go back in time and 're-do the experiment' without the plus lenses. Dom Dear Tom and Dom, And I personally WISH I had the support of a "second-opinion" OD who would have put be into a strong plus (at 20/40 to 20/50) had my parents KEEP ME IN THAT PLUS, until my refractive state got up to about +1/2 diopter. There or two profoundly "opposite" opinions on this issue, and no resolution in sight. This should not cause anger (but it does). It think a greater effort should be made to explain this issue BEFORE that first minus is applied. But the sad reality, is as Dom describes it -- the public only "understands" very-sharp vision with the minus -- and that tends to be "it". Quite frankly in THEIR POSITION I would probably do the same thing -- because I WOULD FEAR A PERSON LIKE NEIL BROOKS -- and his psychotic charges against the second-opinion, and "change" of this "preventive" nature. If you have the name of the OD who put you into a "plus" you should thank him for his efforts. I reget that these second-opinion ODs are not more articulate in this subject -- but that is the way it is. Best, Otis ______________ > Dear Tom and Dom, > > And I personally WISH I had the support of a "second-opinion" > OD who would have put be into a strong plus (at 20/40 to 20/50) > had my parents KEEP ME IN THAT PLUS, until my refractive > state got up to about +1/2 diopter. In your wildest fantasies. DrG Dear DrG, Yes, DrG, that is why you are part of the problem -- and not part of the solution. My nephew was well-advised to "take control" and do it himself -- given your rather "hostile" attitude towards preventing a negative refractive state for the eye. The concept of over-prescribing the minus lens and creating stair-case myopia must be examined carefully -- from the second-opinion perspective. Best, Otis > Dear DrG, > > Yes, DrG, that is why you are part > of the problem -- and not part > of the solution. You've got some nerve. If you think that you are part of any solution, then you are hallucinating. In fact, if anything you are part of the problem consisting of promoting outdated, disproven theories and treatments which may actually prevent real people from getting the real help they need to see and live well. DrG > Dear DrG, > > Yes, DrG, that is why you are part > of the problem -- and not part > of the solution. Otis, You are the problem by giving out medical advice. You are not in the medical profession and not in the position to give medical advice. Allen > Quite frankly in THEIR POSITION I would probably do the same > thing -- because I WOULD FEAR A PERSON LIKE NEIL BROOKS -- and > his psychotic charges against the second-opinion, and "change" of > this "preventive" nature. What do you have to fear Otis?????? Only reason I see you having to fear is that you are giving out medical advice. Hmmm.... just exactly what do you have to fear??? Don't give out medical advice and guess what Otis. You don't have to fear anything. Allen Dear Reece, Subject: Prevention with the plus -- and the difficulties. Prevention is indeed possible -- but difficult. If the person himself develops the opinion or judgement about using the plus -- for prevention -- and is successful (always passes the DMV) then he never requires the minus lens. But that REMOVES the subject from optometry. Further, one psycho, Neil Brooks, wishes to sue anyone who advocates PREVENTION with the plus. That will STOP ANY OD FROM HELPING YOU WITH PREVENTION. Thus, prevention-with-plus is possible, bot DO NOT EXPECT ANY OD TO PUT HIMSELF AT PROFESSIONAL RISK to help you with the concept and method. i.e., you have no choice but to figure out how to do it "youself". You might enjoy my "academic" site, www.myopiafree.com about these issues, as well as the prevention-minded ODs who will help you if you "wake up" to the necessity of using the plus FOR PREVENTION. As always, enjoy, Otis __________ "youself". "academic" "wake up" Quote count: 3 Post size: tiny > You might enjoy my "academic" site, Which "academic" instotution is offiliated with your site? -MT being -.5 diopters is nothing, I dont even call this myopia. Dont see why you were pescribed distance glasses when you are pratically plano. My brother is -1.25 and has no problem seeing and only wears glasses for driving. Yes your plus glasses prevented your myopia but your minus glasses caused your eyes to become just shy of plano but itll help you see well from intermediate without reading glasses. > being -.5 diopters is nothing, I dont even call this myopia. Dont see > why you were pescribed distance glasses when you are pratically plano. > My brother is -1.25 and has no problem seeing and only wears glasses > for driving. Yes your plus glasses prevented your myopia but your minus > glasses caused your eyes to become just shy of plano but itll help you > see well from intermediate without reading glasses. First of all ace, try to quote correct. Not mentioning to WHOM you quote in a thread is confusing. (you are not responding to the OP) Having said this, it is not important weither or not ace call this myopia.(which it is) Still an adept of the "Otis therapy" seeing your nonsence in the last part of your story?  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) If we can sift through the name calling and accusations, I think the fundamental thing Otis is trying to espouse is the prevention of myopia. I think it is safe to say that most myopes would prefer not to be myopic and not rely on visual aids to see better. Otis' point, his suggestions aside, is that the industry needs to make a paradigm shift in it's standard of care and the industry owes it to the public to offer alternatives if a child is begining to show signs of myopia. I know most of you feel Otis' theories are incorrect and feel he is dispensing medical advice without having a license to do so, but if there are proven alternatives or treatments that are available to stave off, minimize, and even reverse myopia, the public has a right ot informed consent about these. If the eye industry is holding back for any reason, then shame on the eye industry. Again, this is a lot of if's. Both sides of the arguement have lots of good and stimulating points that make one want to research further. It's a shame it has to digress into a pissing match. Dear Bass, Subject: Understanding the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. I regret the "personal" attacks I receive on sci.med.vision. As I suggested, I would have LIKED TO RECEIVE information concerning the PREVENTIVE alternative. (At the threshold -- when it could be effective.) This would be stated as the second-opinion, and I would then PERSONALLY go research the proven behavior of the primate eye ON A SCIENTIFIC LEVEL. I know that a person who is highly motivated to use the "plus" can clear his vision -- and keep it clear through the college years. It is in no sense easy, but it is possible. I would GLADLY PAY A TRUE-PROFESSIONAL FOR THIS ADVICE. That would be Steve Leung OD. If I turn it down at the 20/50 level (-1.25 diopters) and wear that minus all the time, I will expect my refractive state to move negative from that day forward at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. That is a very serious issue, and should be spelled out to the individual. That "first use" of the minus therefore has life-time consequences. These majority-opinion ODs can and SHOULD point to the fact that any psycho-idiot can prefer "charges" against them (for no good reason) and put them OUT OF BUSINESS -- with out any proof and with no good reason. But that is to say that "practice" is determined by the lowest common denominator among us -- and NOT by scientific preception of the natural eye as a dynamic system. Think about it. "Practice" is not based on science, or scientific fact, but meery what "works" on the general public walking in off the street -- and what works in a "legal-protective" mode, or "protection" against any false charge leveled by a person like "Brooks". If the preson understands the nature of "practice" he will have a pretty good idea as to why this traditional "minus lens theory" and method continues with out ANY CHALLENGE for the last 400 years. It is a shame that we must have these "pissing" contests. Rather, let us understrand the "limits" of a group of people dealing with a mass of people walking in off the street. You can NEVER supply the "educatiion" to such people in 15 minutes in a "office". But that is indeed the "limit" that is imposed on an OD --even those who will support the first step towards fundamental chage -- which is what I advocate. Thus I do not "prescribe" anything -- except for "informed choice" at the threshold. It becomes a matter of the person himself if he wishes to be supported in "prevention" with the plus. Best, Otis > I regret the "personal" attacks I receive on sci.med.vision. > > As I suggested, I would have LIKED TO RECEIVE information concerning > the PREVENTIVE alternative. (At the threshold -- when it could be > effective.) Otis, I dislike your personal attacks on the eye care professions and the Ph.D.'s and scientists who have published valuable research in the field. On the other hand, you have contributed nothing but smoke and mirrors. Indeed, there exists no true "preventive alternative" of the kind you suggest. DrG Dear DrG, Subject: Respecting a person's right to an informed, second-opinion. DrG> Otis, I dislike your personal attacks on the eye care professions Otis> Bull S___. Use the word "refractive state", were the natural, living eye can have both positive and negative refractive states -- and their is no "attack". It is all in your mind. DrG> and the Ph.D.'s and scientists Otis> And again, more intellectually blind Bull S___. I have friends in all walks of life. And I do not deal with a great mass of people walking in off the street. That is why I expect the person to go throuhg a "learning process" if he is to PERSONALLY use the plus correctly -- and successfully. DrG> who have published valuable research in the field. Otis> Good -- and I am personal friends with such researchers. We have a FRIENDLY discussion about the pardigm used to represent the living eye as a sophisticated system. Something you totally ignore and do not understand at all. Try reading "Structure of scientific revolutions." On the other hand, you have contributed nothing but smoke and mirrors. Indeed, there exists no true "preventive alternative" of the kind you suggest. Otis> More Bull. I asked for help with prevention -- and you told me to get stuffed. So much for your "majority opinion". Otis DrG > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > refractive states -- and their is no "attack". It is > all in your mind. I use the jargon everyone understands, including the scientists who publish in the field. You prefer to invent your own terms. > DrG> and > the Ph.D.'s and scientists [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if he is to PERSONALLY use the plus correctly -- and > successfully. I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean you don't have time to read the research, which means that you are advising people without having an understanding of what you are advising? What learning process will you have the layperson go through, if you aren't capable of learning anything yourself? > DrG> who have published valuable research in the > field. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Something you totally ignore and do not understand at all. > Try reading "Structure of scientific revolutions." Name the researchers and their papers in the peer-reviewed literature within the past 15 years. > On the other hand, you have contributed nothing but smoke and mirrors. > Indeed, there exists no true "preventive alternative" of the kind you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you told me to get stuffed. So much for your > "majority opinion". You've not asked for anything insofar as I can tell. You are basically dictating what it is that we are supposed to offer you, which basically amounts to self-help and not a scientific discussion. I'm sure you can find an appropriate forum for that, but it isn't here. DrG > If we can sift through the name calling and accusations, > I think the fundamental thing Otis is trying to espouse [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > these. If the eye industry is holding back for any > reason, then shame on the eye industry. You're kidding right? Promoting fhe curative practice of bleeding would fit very well with what you say above. -Quick > You're kidding right? Promoting fhe curative practice of > bleeding would fit very well with what you say above. Not that I'm endorsing anything or anyone, but bloodletting has been making a comeback. In fact it's FDA approved, which is much more than can be said for Otisology. FDA approves leeches as medical devices - More Health News - MSNBC.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5319129/ Signature~RT > dispensing medical advice without having a license to do so, but if > there are proven alternatives or treatments that are available to stave > off, minimize, and even reverse myopia, the public has a right ot > informed consent about these. We all agree on that. It's too bad that the PhDs and the academic centers don't share Otis's standards for "proof." -MT So, it seems the jury is still out on this, according to another poster. I suppose such evidence would take a while to be acquired. Are there any studies being done in this area that you know of? I briefly looked at your site, which has some interesting information in it. Thanks. Reece > Dear Reece, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > __________ Dear Reece, Subject: The person's involvement -- in prevention. Do not misunderstand what I present. I personally remember doing some "dumb" things with my eyes as a young child. (Read my site with a picture of a child writing at -10 diopters, or 4 inches.) That is a very bad habit indeed. Studies of the primate eye prove that when you place population of primate eyes in this situation, the refractive state of the "test" group move in the direction and approximate magnitude of the "nearer" environment. This is a natural process -- not a "failure". This is also pure science -- and not medicinie -- if you understand the difference. But, if you read some of the "blasts" against the second opnion -- and stated by Neil Brooks, it is obvious that no optometrist will EVER be willing to help you with prevention -- or present the objective fact to YOU so you can understand the nature and need for prevention. I obviously can have no effect on you -- or anyone else -- until they begin to "wake up" to these issues. This is the thesis of Steve Leung OD, and prevention means far more than the "plus". It means we respect the facts themselves concerning the proven behavior of the primate eye -- and we work WITH these facts, rather than against them. In fact, the ODs should point to Neil Brooks and say that they can never offer true-prevention because they fear psychos like Brooks will post "charges" against them. And they know full-well the consequences of that action. This is of course using the power of the "State" to supress dissent. You can figure the consequences of that fact. Best, Otis "dumb" "test" "nearer" "failure "blasts" "wake up" "plus" <--- THE Plus [lens] "charges" "State" Quote count: 9 Post size: medium/small -Quick > So, it seems the jury is still out on this, according to another poster. > I suppose such evidence would take a while to be acquired. Are there any > studies being done in this area that you know of? Most recently, the COMET study showed a mildly retardent effect with progressive bifocals, but "The small magnitude of the effect does not warrant a change in clinical practice." I got a notice a couple of months ago that a second COMET study was soliciting subjects. A good study from Finland was published in BJO 1989, where 300 myopic children ages 9-13 were divided into 3 groups. One third wore full-time distance correction, one third wore progressive bifocals, and one third wore correction for distance only, removing them for all close work. The three groups all got nearsighted at essentially the same rate. I'm not aware of any study that used "propholactic" plus lenses on children who did not have myopia. The animal studies Otis so fondly cites show that there is a "plastic" period where lenses can cause significant changes in refractive state. But the effect doesn't persist after some age, and the age varies with species. Torsten Wiesel said that all the species of monkey he had worked with reached some age where lenses no longer made any difference. Presumably in humans this is before age 8 or 9, when myopia begins to emerge, because no dramatic effects have been consistently demonstrated in humans at that age or after. -MT Dear Reece, Subject: No "preventive" studies being conducted at this time. Re: The reason is the "Neil Brooks" effect. They get sued if they attempt to help anyone with prevention. Not encouraging. Reece> So, it seems the jury is still out on this, according to another poster. Otis> In a sense, it comes down the the optometrist's judgment of the primate data science -- and how he applies this preventive science to his own children. The lord knows he can do NOTHING to help the general public -- because of the "Brooks" effect on "orgainized" optometry. Reece> I suppose such evidence would take a while to be acquired. Otis> The scientific evidence that the eye is dynamic -- is virtually certain on a scientific level. On the OD "level" -- well just read the "Brooks" psychosis on any intelligent change. Reece> Are there any studies being done in this area that you know of? Otis> With this incredible hostility towards intelligent use of the plus for prevention? Read Jan's statement to the effect that your right to an informed, competent second-opinion, "must be destroyed" and you will get the general idea. Reece> I briefly looked at your site, which has some interesting information in it. Otis> I always enjoy a pleasant analytical discussion about the preventive second-opinion and the crass reasons that prevent the implementation of it. It is not "easy", and that is the truth of it. Bit it is possible for the person on the threshold -- if he has the personal motivaiton and understanding of the necssity of it. Best, Otis Thanks. Reece "preventive" "Neil Brooks" "Brooks" "orgainized" "level" "Brooks" "must be destroyed" "easy" Quote count: 8 Post size: small -Quick No one has trouble seeing with a -.5 pescription and only pilots may need glasses for that to get them to 20/20 or better. Its still within emmetropia. Normal range is plus/minus half diopter. I know this guy in person who became -.5 diopters and his optometrist pescribed him glasses and his parents took him to get fitted in new glasses. The guy was like wha? I never asked for glasses and I can see fine without them! He wore them for a week then they "broke" and he threw them away. His parents realized they got ripped off by the optometrist who just wanted to profit on the sell of un-neccessary glasses. His UCVA was 20/20 or just shy of 20/20 and glasses made a neglectable difference. Hes still -.5 to the day and while technically myopic, its clinicially insignificent and not tallyed into the percentage of people who are myopic. Low myopia starts at -.75 and goes to -2.75. Counting less than -.75 is like counting a crumb of bread as "food" I can show you posts in the past backing up what I said. Reece, its your eyes and if you actually enjoy wearing glasses for fun, go ahead. Your vision is great with or without glasses. Aceman your post contains a number of inaccuracies. Remember, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... and you have a *little* knowledge. > No one has trouble seeing with a -.5 pescription Yes some people do. and only pilots may > need glasses for that to get them to 20/20 or better. That's not true. Its still within > emmetropia. That's not true either. Normal range is plus/minus half diopter. According to which authority? I know this guy in > person who became -.5 diopters and his optometrist pescribed him > glasses and his parents took him to get fitted in new glasses. The guy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wanted to profit on the sell of un-neccessary glasses. His UCVA was > 20/20 or just shy of 20/20 and glasses made a neglectable difference. "Neglectable"??! > Hes still -.5 to the day and while technically myopic, its clinicially > insignificent and not tallyed into the percentage of people who are > myopic. By who, in which tally? Low myopia starts at -.75 and goes to -2.75. According to who? Counting less than > -.75 is like counting a crumb of bread as "food" I can show you posts > in the past backing up what I said. Please do. > Reece, its your eyes and if you actually enjoy wearing glasses for fun, > go ahead. Your vision is great with or without glasses. You have much to learn. "A normal eye falls within the diopter range of - 0.50 to +0.50." http://health.howstuffworks.com/lasik5.htm Sorry but anything within - 0.50 to +0.50 is considered emmetropia and normal. Its not even factored in the tally of percentages of people with "defective vision" I can show you an example by another optometrist who posted here. William Stacy Dec 3 1998, 3:00 am show options Newsgroups: sci.med.vision From: William Stacy <wst...@obase.net> - Find messages by this author Date: 1998/12/03 Subject: Re: Visual Correction and Personality Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse STL137 wrote: > By the way, -6 is nothing. Erm, -22 is a tad extreme. -10.25 is high. You're getting close. -6 IS something, -22 is VERY extreme, and -10.25 is high. I'd say, roughly, shooting from the hip, that: trace myopia is between -.12 and -.50 low or mild myopia is from -.75 to -3.00 moderate myopia is between -3.00 and -7.00 high myopia is between -7.00 and -12.00 pathologic (or extreme) myopia is above (approximately) -12.00 In trace myopia, you never see organic/structural changes related to the myopia, and it is often not really myopia at all, but ciliary tonus. I agree with William! Like I said, up to -.5 is not really myopia at all! Low myopia starts at -.75 ""Neglectable"??!" At his -.5 pescription, it didnt really make a difference with or without glasses. I dont care what you say, seeing just shy of 20/20 is not considered having trouble seeing. I would not even consider 20/40 trouble seeing except in extreme situations like if I wanted to be a pilot, join the army, be a spy or anything that requires 20/20. I consider trouble seeing starting at 20/70 to 20/100. My brother is 20/60 and he can see just fine. I have pointed out things in the distance and hes able to see almost anything he wants. He only wears glasses for driving and occasionally to see lectures in college classes. By the way, I know of no one(in person) less than -1 who wears glasses. Less than -1 sometimes is referred as "fractional myopia" or as William put it, not really myopia but ciliary tonus. My sister actually got her first pescription at -.75 and she tried the glasses once and remarked she couldnt really see a difference and hasnt worn glasses since. Her eyes got worse because of all the near work she did then when they got bad enough she really did need glasses but soon switched to contacts. > You have much to learn. Say's who.................. > "A normal eye falls within the diopter range of - 0.50 to +0.50." So do many other eyes out or just in the middle of that range, i.e emmetropic- myopic- hyperopic- astigmatic- presbyopic-eyes. > Sorry but anything within - 0.50 to +0.50 is considered emmetropia and > normal. It could be a normal functioning eye nothing more nothing less. An refraction error (when not accommodating) in the optical system of the eye of S+0,50 dpt is called myopia ,period. An refraction error (when not accommodating) in the optical system of the eye of S-0,50 dpt is called hyperopia ,period. Just for your learning process ace: An astigmatic eye which needs a correction of S plano= C- 0,50 is in one direction emmetropic and in the other direction called myopic. An astigmatic eye which needs a correction of S -0,50= C- 0,50 is in one direction myopic and in the other direction also called myopic. An astigmatic eye which needs a correction of S +0,50= C- 0,50 is in one direction hyperopic and in the other direction called emmetropic. An astigmatic eye which needs a correction of S+1,00= C- 0,50 is in one direction hypermetropic and in the other direction also called hyperopic. The following is to please Otis (your teacher ace?) 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) > You have much to learn. That's funny coming from you, Luke. > "A normal eye falls within the diopter range of - 0.50 to +0.50." > > http://health.howstuffworks.com/lasik5.htm You have lifted this quote from an internet page discussing LASIK eye surgery. The range of -050 to +050 refers to ametropia so mild that many surgeons would be unwilling to perform refractive surgery (since the benefit/risk ratio would not be in their favour). However -050, -025 or even -012 technically is still myopia. Only 0.00 is emmetropia. But we digress - your orginal statement was that "No one has trouble seeing with a -.5 pescription". Sure there may be plenty of people with a -050 refraction who are happy to go without glasses and that's fine, but there are also plenty of others at -050 who aren't happy with this vision and like to wear glasses, even if only part time, to correct it. You have ignored all of these people with your blanket statement. > Sorry but anything within - 0.50 to +0.50 is considered emmetropia and > normal. Its not even factored in the tally of percentages of people > with "defective vision" I can show you an example by another > optometrist who posted here. While -050 to +050 may be considered an insignificant refraction by a refractive surgeon, and by many patients, it is not considered emmetropia. Only 0.00 is truly emmetropia. -050 (as per your original post) is mild myopia. Very mild if you prefer. Either way, it is myopia. > William Stacy > Dec 3 1998, 3:00 am show options [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I agree with William! Like I said, up to -.5 is not really myopia at > all! Low myopia starts at -.75 You had to go back to a comment from 1998, prefaced as "roughly, shooting from the hip" as your authoritative proof that no one has trouble seeing with a -050 prescription?? William never stated that a -050 myope could see perfectly, he was merely comparing those very mild myopes to higher myopes up to -1200 and beyond. The only person who has claimed that 'No one has trouble seeing with a -.5 prescription' is you. > ""Neglectable"??!" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > glasses for driving and occasionally to see lectures in college > classes. I picked you up on 'neglectable' because AFAIK there's no such word. Maybe you meant negligible. Call me a pedant! > By the way, I know of no one(in person) less than -1 who wears glasses. > Less than -1 sometimes is referred as "fractional myopia" or as William [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > eyes got worse because of all the near work she did then when they got > bad enough she really did need glasses but soon switched to contacts. I have met quite a few people less than -1 who wear glasses and they can definitely see better with them than without. I have never heard of "fractional myopia". Perhaps you are getting mixed up with factional myopia which is an expression that has nothing to do with optics. Remember Aceman, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you have a LITTLE knowledge. Dom Dear Dom and Ace, Subject: Defining "emmetropia" EXACTLY Dom > You have lifted this quote from an internet page discussing LASIK eye surgery. The range of -050 to +050 refers to ametropia so mild that many surgeons would be unwilling to perform refractive surgery (since the benefit/risk ratio would not be in their favour). However -050, -025 or even -012 technically is still myopia. Only 0.00 is emmetropia Otis> This is a logical falure. Emmetropia is defined as the "Normal eye". Emmetropia is defined as "exactly zero" were non-zero is "ametropia". How many people have "normal eyes", i.e., refractive states of exactly zero or normal? Otis> I would suggest about 1 or 2 percent have "normal eyes". The word "emmetropia" is a falure. I suggest just using the numerical term "refractive state" and avoid this "absolute" languatege that is an "idealization" of a box camera. Best, Otis "emmetropia" "Normal eye" "exactly zero" "ametropia "normal eyes", "normal eyes". "emmetropia" "refractive state" "absolute" "idealization" Quote count: 10 Post size: tiny Danger! quote density critical TomMonger has said he often goes without correction, especially on the weekend. Nothing wrong with him wearing glasses for driving at night and for his presbyopia. I still stand correct that he sees fine without glasses and is why he goes without them much of the time, especially on the weekend. His optometrist even said he has VERY, VERY mild myopia. He is still within the normal +0.5 to -0.5 diopters, at least in one eye. The vast majority of people are asymptomic with -.5 diopters and never even think about glasses much less go out and get glasses. There are a good number of people seeing 20/20 or 20/25 at -.5 and they think nothing about their vision, as its perfect. Heck, I see worse with my BCVA glasses than most people see uncorrected at -.5 diopters. I have simulated what -.5 diopters is with my older glasses which are -.5 diopters too weak. I can barely tell the difference. Everything has a very, very slight blur and loss of contrast but is still nice and clear and I have no trouble seeing anything. Of course there are some super, super picky people who are perfectionists and wear glasses for the miniscule -.5 diopter "myopia" they have. For just about anyone else, it simply isnt worth spending money and time and the hassles of dealing with glasses Dear Quck, Actually "must be destroyed" is Jan's statement: Further I NEVER use the word "therapy". ________________________ Jan> In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Otis> If you said "Otis-prevention", or the preventive second-opinion, (as per Steve Leung OD) you would do better. Otis perhaps you don't use the word, but you recommend that people wear glasses. glasses and contact lenses are classified by the FDA as medical devices. medical devices are to be used under the advise of a medical professional. last time i checked you weren't a medical professional (although you like to act like one). i suggest you have a discussion with your lawyer regarding a better argument than "i never use the word 'therapy'" when the Pennsylvania licensing authorities come calling. Dear P.clar, Subject: The right of choice -- the right to control your own life. Re: The right to choose your own destiny -- if you have the "smarts" for it. The plus lens is in the store -- almost anywhere. You consistently tell us that a lens (plus or minus) has absolutly NO EFFECT ON THE EYE. Therefore how can you argue that a lens is "dangerous" and REQUIRES a "medical" person???? If a person reads my site, I make a legal statement about it. Since both of us know that SOME optometrits have their own children wearing a "plus" (with a refractive state of zero) then that makes the method the "second-opinion". On a scientific level, if you should understand that the primate eye is dynamic -- in the sense of its average-visual enviroment (You find this out from pure scientific testing -- a sugject that you totally ignore.) A person has the right to understand your ignorance of the natural eye's behavior, and realized that you are of no help to him, and will create stair-case myopia in his kid -- if they let you do it to him. So do not get on your "high horse" on this subject. The concept of prevention is good -- but the person must make this "choice" before he starts wearing an over-prescribed minus -- all the time. But just ues the word, "refractive state" and respect the natural eye as a dynamic system, and perhaps you will begin to understand the "paradigm shift" that is necessary to prevet a negative refractive state in the primate eye. (Yes, the both behave the same way.) Best, Otis just be prepared to explain your promotion of a disproven method using a medical device. even an eye doctor who would promote such a method for which there is so much evidence against it would have serious difficulties when confronting a licensing board. just ask your hero steve leung. why do you expect someone like yourself, who is totally unqualified and unlicensed, would fair any better? but perhaps you would fair better when confronted by the licensing authorities. they might conclude that you are simply a senile old fool and shrug off your foolishness without stiff penalties. perhaps ignorance is bliss after all. you should hope that it might work out that way. or perhaps they won't take you seriously because they might conclude that anyone who accepts advise from an idiot on the internet is a fool themselves. i think thats it otis-- when the licensing board starts asking questions just play the role of the "fanatic zealot old man who spends all day on the internet believing they are helping someone". don't try any scientific arguments, your dumb raphaelson story, or your web links to chinamyopia or steve leung. if the debate ever comes down to what the scientific evidence is you'll be shot down quickly. just act dumb and they'll probably blow you off with just a stern reprimand. you should be able to pull it off easily! > Jan> In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be > destroyed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Otis Like it or not Otis, your method is to be called a therapy, a useless therapy but still a therapy. 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 Jan, Subject: Semantics! I do not "dishoner" the natural eye's behavior by refereing to refractive STATES as ERRORS or DEFECTS. That is your distoring language -- not mine. The natural eye (entire population) is a DYNAMC, LIVING SYSTEM. It is not the Donders-Helmholtz "picture" that you so love. This living system -- when OBJECTIVELY tested, changes its REFRACTIVE state (as a proven control-system) when: 1. Placed in a more negative (in diopters) visual environment, and 2. When a minld (-3 diopter) lens is placed on it. This expected change proves the living eye to be a dynamic system. Use the correct words (refractive state) and a scientist will get it "right". Use the wrong words (emmetropia, ametropia) and you will just confuse yourself. The issue is semantics, and respect for the designed-in behavior of all natural eyes. This means that (with reasonable limits) the natural eye can have a positive refractive state, or a negative refractive state -- as per the primate eyes. (But you totally ignore scientific truth of this nature which you obviously wish to destroy.) Best, Otis > Otis> With this incredible hostility towards intelligent use of > the plus for prevention? Read Jan's statement to the > effect that your right to an informed, competent second-opinion, > "must be destroyed" and you will get the general idea. And again Otis is misquoting, for your pleasure Otis, this is what I state until you beat a retread: 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) > Otis> I always enjoy a pleasant analytical discussion about the > preventive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for the person on the threshold -- if he has the personal motivaiton > and understanding of the necssity of it. Yes and if you are not succesfull then blame yourself not Otis or the ''Otis therapy" Otis thinks he is not responsable for his (not working) advises this way. 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) there is no evidence that having very young children who are predisposed via family history to develop myopia would benefit from plus lenses, but there is not evidence that is won't help either. in other groups, older children and college students, plus lenses or bifocals (which accomplish a similar goal) have been proven to have no beneficial effect. of course we cannot be certain that wearing reading glasses in a young developing child who has not problems in the time might not also cause some adverse developmental effects-- e.g. development of hyperopia. sorry, but the jury is out. the best evidence gleaned from all the research basically indicates that "if myopia is going to develop, its going to develop anyway" no matter what kind of optical device you try to intervene with. who was the "someone" who recently "opined". are his initials OB? Thanks for the info. That "someone" is someone who never heard of this group. Reece > there is no evidence that having very young children who are > predisposed via family history to develop myopia would benefit from [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > who was the "someone" who recently "opined". are his initials OB? |
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
|
©2010 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.