 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2006Hard lenses for teenage girl
My daughter vision got much worst for less than 2 years - from -5 to -8. Her doctor told me that hard lenses may help her to slowdown this process. Does anybody else have this experience that wearing hard lenses may help 14 year girl to slow down process of making her vision worst? > My daughter vision got much worst for less than 2 years - from -5 to > -8. Her doctor told me that hard lenses may help her to slowdown this > process. Does anybody else have this experience that wearing hard > lenses may help 14 year girl to slow down process of making her vision > worst? Not with a teenage girl, but I spoke to an adult man whose myopia stopped progressing while wearing hard contacts and continued getting worse when he switched to soft. Just one data point. I havent seen any evidence pointing to this. However good vision habits and natural vision improvement may slow or stop her rapid progression of myopia. How close does she bury her face in books? Have her hold books further away from her face. Also have her take breaks after prolonged reading and near work. If possible, have her read with her old -5 glasses The fitting of progressive myopes with rigid contacts has been a universally accepted practice for about as long as contacts have been around. Soft lenses have no theraputic effect, they simply sit on your eye and help you see. Rigid contacts act much like a retainer works on your teeth. That being said, I can argue both sides. The argument FOR rigid lenses is that they can be rinsed in water, the quality of vision is simply stunning, and a single pair of lenses usually lasts about 2 years. The negative side is that they can be difficult to get used to, and a Very ACTIVE teenager might blink them out during soccer or gymnastics, etc. The argument FOR soft lenses is that are comfortable, allow unrestricted physical activity, and are simple and cheap to replace. Once your daughter is so profoundly myopic that she is wearing a -8.00, we can get a little bit philosophical about this. She will ALWAYS need some type of corrective lens (or surgery) to drive or pretty much do ANYTHING. So, once your vision has dropped below 20/200...as hers already has...who cares how myopic she gets from here? Her "naked eye" vision is toast, and will always be toast, so why worry about continuing to burn the toast? > Rigid contacts act much like a retainer works on > your teeth. But it doesn't stop the progression, correct? Once the "retainer" is off the eye will continue on its path, no?  Signature~RT That can depend on the age of the patient and the amount of near work, etc. There is an old truism that states that "when you are in your 30s you are too old to grow, but too young to shrink." There is some science to that, as the "growing" of the axial length of the eye often mimics our actual growth spurts. So, a good "rule of thumb" is that if a rigid lens wearer continues to hold a reasonably stable refraction at age 30, they are pretty much done getting myopic. When they are 40ish and presbyopia sets in, the hardening of the chrystalline lens and stiffening of the eyeball (like your joints) starts the process of natural myopia reduction, AKA "the big shrink". ;( > The fitting of progressive myopes with rigid contacts has been a > universally accepted practice for about as long as contacts have been > around. Are you suggesting, worldwide , fitting soft lenses is not done in these cases? Soft lenses have no theraputic effect, they simply sit on your > eye and help you see. Rigid contacts act much like a retainer works on > your teeth. To my believe each normal RGP lens has to be fitted without disturbing the physiology and the shape of the cornea as much as possible. > That being said, I can argue both sides. The argument FOR rigid lenses > is that they can be rinsed in water, the quality of vision is simply > stunning, and a single pair of lenses usually lasts about 2 years. Are you still recommending water? SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) hard lenses do not slow the rate of myopia progression. it is an old idea that, when tested, was shown to be ineffective. so choose whatever type of contact you want for your daughter but don't think that RGPs are going to lessen any increase in myopia progression she might have. Well, now...haven't we opened a new can of worms. Send me one study that says rigid lenses do not halt myopic progression, I'll find 3 that says they do. More importantly, soft lenses, when overworn (or slept in) can actually accellerate myopic progression from the thickening of the cornea in its periphery from apoxia. Pardon the little boast here, but I'm in my 25th year of practice, and I average 25 patients a day and 65 contact lens fits per week. Rigid lens wearers, in general, have whiter eyes, more stable refractions and better acuity. The development and marketing of soft lenses is all about the immediate gratification of not feeling your lenses from Day #1. The "science" behind soft lenses is driven by comfort alone. If you were a sculptor, and gave you two different mediums to work with, would you create your best work in granite or snot? i am an optometrist with similar experience to yours. the issue i am speaking to has nothing to do with the refractive efficacy of RGPs or their impact on the health of the eye. i am commenting on their ability to slow myopia progression. my understanding of the data, which was summarized by a myopia researcher at a conference i attended recently, says that longitudinal studies show that RGPs have no effect on axial elongation of the eye when RGP-wearers are compared to SCL or spectacle wearers. rather, their effect on myopia reduction is due to flattening of the corneal curvature which is well-known and temporary. once the RGP is removed and the eye is allowed to return to its native state, any "myopia reducing effect" that was noted by wearing them for years rapidly goes away. > i am an optometrist with similar experience to yours. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > reducing effect" that was noted by wearing them for years rapidly goes > away. Thanks for all this information. This what my doctor told: it is nothing wrong with her eyes, they are healthy. The only question is for how long myopia can progress before it is actually will start hurting an eye? So the idea is to wear hard lenses till age of 18 trying to reduce it till the surgery will be able to correct. Of course, it is not clear if she will be able to get used to hard lenses when most of her friends with myopia have soft. She is not actually really active at sport at this time, mostly books and computer, so it may work. She also thinks that her eyes are getting worst when she is switching to more strong glasses. She still was wearing -5 all the time and I made her switched to what doctor prescribed, -8, for about 2 weeks ago. Now she is telling me that she cant see in her old glasses any more that she thinks that her vision dropped again it is worrying me a lot again. Could it be the true that switching to more strong glasses will increase myopia right away? For how long myopia may increase till it start physically hurt eyes 15, -20? She does not have new hard lenses yet, this appointment is on March first. After reading all emails I also understood that the main bad habit is to read or work on computer in strong glasses I will see if she can to this type of work without glasses or in old -5 glasses. Any more good habits advises? > Thanks for all this information. This what my doctor told: it is > nothing wrong with her eyes, they are healthy. The only question is for > how long myopia can progress before it is actually will start hurting > an eye? It isn't so simple. Myopia stretches the retina, making it more likely to develop small holes and breaks around the edge. These can enlarge and allow fluid to seep under the retina, leading to retinal detachment. Whether or not rigid contacts "slow myopia" isn't important because *if* they do, it happens at the cornea and doesn't alter the growth and stretching. The same is true for myopia surgery. The risks of retinal problems are the same after surgery. > Could it be the true that switching to more strong glasses > will increase myopia right away? No. Instead, they quickly get fond of seeing and don't realize how poor the vision was before switching glasses. > After reading all emails I also understood that the main bad habit is > to read or work on computer in strong glasses - I will see if she can > to this type of work without glasses or in old -5 glasses. Any more > good habits advises? Most doctors don't believe it matters which glasses she wears. Working very close, without breaks, seems to contribute a little to the progress of myopia. That's all we can say for sure. Yearly eye examinations are recommended, with dilation to inspect the far edges of the retina. -MT, OD > Any more > good habits advises? i am not sure where you are getting your advise. the truth is there is no treatment (RGPs, removing glasses for near work, etc) that has been shown in statistical studies to slow myopia progression. about all that anyone can recommend is that your daughter take some breaks from her near work-- perhaps go outside and play, etc. there are some studies underway that show some chemical eye drops may reduce myopia, but thats still in the research phase. First, I am not a doctor!!! I think, If there will be any problem with near work with -8 lenses, you should consider bi\tri\multi-focal glasses. It will require a proper eye chacking, but it is working with many people. (Statistics only). My girlfriend uses glasses with reduced prescriction for close work, the doctor recomend her because she has problems with reading without glasses (and I believe that your doughter too). Also I think that Palming exercise from Bates' method can be usefull for reducing the strain and the presure on her eyes. I am not sure if it will help prventing the progress of myopia. I know some people who wear hard contacts, they don't have any problems with close work (but man with the highest myopia has only -6). I just told you all I know. Best wishes, Eli. > i am an optometrist with similar experience to yours. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > reducing effect" that was noted by wearing them for years rapidly goes > away. I gotta agree with your assessment. My own 2 cents (and I have 20+ yrs as an O.D. as well) is that I have found a few younsters,pre-teens, and teens over the years that had mild/no progression of their myopia after being fit with gas perms but just as many (if not more) still progress at the same rate as other preteens/teens in scl's or spectacle correction. And of those who showed little to no myopic progression I wonder which of those would have been stable anyway with what ever correction they used. So I always caution parents that stopping or slowing down the myopia is not guarenteed but that there MAY be a benefit with gas perm lenses. I have to think that if this question is posed to 10 different optometrists that there will be 10 different responses. frank Thanks again for information. I am trying to understand now if myopia progressing is dangerous at all - it seems to be that risk in -5, -8 and -12 is same. Is it correct? We just were really worried that if it went from -5 to -8 for less than 2 years, how bad it could go abd how bad it is. We asked doctor if we can help to slow down, and he recommended hard lenses. If we wouldn't tell that we were worried, I think he would not be mentioning those lenses and just prescribe soft. I also want to have right strategy here - we will try hard lenses. If it will work - great, if not, we will just switch to soft lenses. Also, I will try encouraging my daughter to wear old glasses or no glasses at all when reading books or work on computer. Am I correct here? "Hi, My name is Yan, and I have a daughter who was prescribed -4 glasses at age 5. We have been doing vision therapy since then. It has been three years her myopia does not increase but decreased steadily. You can email me directly, off this group, if you want to know more. Good wishes to you and your daughter." Otis would be proud to read this! She prevented and reduced her myopia at the treshold! I guess lots of people now owe Otis an apology! I dont understand why optometrists want nothing to do with slowing down and even preventing myopia, especially in little children before they use the evil minus lens and get stuck in a negetive refractive state. alexgo, the more myopia, the worse. Its a great idea to have her read in -5 glasses. For the computer, depending how far she sits away, get the approperate glasses. She may need -6.5 or -7. She can also wear those older glasses around the house. This is exactly what I do. I am about a -4 and I almost always take my glasses off for reading. For the computer and around the house I undercorrect myself a little. Strong glasses makes NO difference but just results in eyestrain. RGP contacts wont slow myopia(but give very sharp BCVA) its good vision habits that will slow myopia. My eyes stopped getting worse at 21 and have improved a diopter since. My pescription at 23 is now the same as it was when I was 17 at -4! > "Hi, My name is Yan, and I have a daughter who was > prescribed -4 glasses at age 5. We have been doing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > before they use the evil minus lens and get stuck in a > negetive refractive state. Heh, Ace. The exact opposite happened to my son. I guess since my report is the latest one it's the truth now and Otis should be ashamed. No one needs to appologize (except Otis) and the state can continue with it's investigation. -Quick > Heh, Ace. The exact opposite happened to my son. >I guess since my report is the latest one it's the truth > now and Otis should be ashamed. No one needs > to appologize (except Otis) and the state can continue > with it's investigation. I am not sure that I understand what does it mean... >> Heh, Ace. The exact opposite happened to my son. >> I guess since my report is the latest one it's the truth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I am not sure that I understand what does it mean... It means that if Ace hears or reads anything (even a single post by someone on the internet) that coincides with his current fixation that it instantly becomes incontrovertible, affirmation. -Quick >Heh, Ace. The exact opposite happened to my son. >I guess since my report is the latest one it's the truth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >-Quick Hi Quick, I am sorry about your son, I want to know more about Otis' methods from critics too. Maybe his methods do work in some cases, we should let him do sintific work. I agree that he is not a sintist and probobly he did illegal things, but we should give his methods a try. Best wishes, Eli feel free to give his methods a try. go on over to his forum at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/ or contact him directly at his e-mail address. he is always reachable because he spends all day posting messages and sending e-mails on his computer. lets leave the discussion on this newsgroup to topics relating to science, medicine, and vision (hence the name sci.med.vision). Where I can find information about Otis's method? Also, why -12 is more dangerous than -8 for example? Also, could it be -18 or -20? How far it may go? otis just made up his method based upon studies that were done 30 years ago. newer studies show that there is no treatment or preventative method to control myopia. just try to avoid excessive near work without breaks. that's all that anyone can recommend. otis however recommends things that don't work and he isn't bothered at all that scientific studies prove they don't work. just go to his forum, or e-mail him, if you want to try what he proposes. it won't hurt, but it also won't help. Dear Eli, Subject: The second-opinion group on i-see. Given the profound hostility towards the dynamic-eye concept, I will agree with PClar, that you should go to www.i-see.org for a more complete discussion of the preventive alternative. These majority opinion ODs truly believe in their mis-conceptions, but just remember, that "change" develops in the ODs themselves -- when they deal with their own children. The second-opnion ODs start their kids in the plus at the zero-diopter level. But it takes an "informed" consent of the parent to use this preventive method correctly. I support the idea that a parent sign such a contract, so he understands the issues we are discussing. Best, Otis Dear Ace, Subject: PREVENTION at the threshold -- only. What I advocate is that you be offered a choice of prevention-with-plus. In may be difficult to "understand", but it would be up to you personally to work on that issue. Provided that the person will sign a "contract" with a prevention-minded OD, then I believe that process could work. I do agree that once you start wearing that minus lens, you refractive state becomes a "lost cause" -- and I will not argue the issue beyond that point. This data comes directly from the Oakley-Young study, aind is compelling (as the second-opnion). Ultimately it is up to the parents and child if they wish to use this preventive method. However this advocacy falls on deaf ears -- and so we shall continue to shoot ourselves in the foot over this preventive method. I am pleased that Yan has assisted her daugther -- because a child at age 5 at -4 diopters will have very serious problems, unless the situation is not stopped. But equally, and honestly, there is RT who has no interest in prevention at all, and that is absolutly fine with me. This is indeed a matter of informed choice, or a second-opinion, and I totally believe that the OD should identify BOTH METHODS and explain the advantages and disadvantages of each method -- with the parents evaluating, thinking, and choosing the course of action that best suits the interests of the child. But some people are so pig-headed that they do not even understand the need for change of this nature. But Yan does -- and that makes all the difference. Best, Otis ========= Hi, My name is Yan, and I have a daughter who was prescribed -4 glasses at age 5. We have been doing vision therapy since then. It has been three years her myopia does not increase but decreased steadily. You can email me directly, off this group, if you want to know more. Good wishes to you and your daughter." Ace > Otis would be proud to read this! Otis> Yes I am! It is about time! She prevented and reduced her myopia at the treshold! Otis> That is my goal -- to send people to second-opinon professionals who will help them with this issue -- if they ACTIVELY CHOOSE IT. If not, no harm done. Ace > I guess lots of people now owe Otis an apology! I dont understand why optometrists want nothing to do with slowing down and even preventing myopia, especially in little children before they use the evil minus lens and get stuck in a negetive refractive state. Otis> I don't use the word "evil" but I do strongly suggest that a person go through a "learning" process. It is the people who PREVENT this learning process that I object to. Otis> Learning these two concepts hurts no one! But as you can see there is tremendous hostility towards even that basic step. Otis> A great deal of this comes from the "public" as you can see from the postings here. Otis> When will they ever learn? Best, Otis What I dont understand is why optometrists call it a "scam" or dismiss it. What is the harm in trying to prevent your myopia? If it works, great! If not, no harm done, just move on to glasses. I also believe in Bates and myopia reduction > What I dont understand is why optometrists call it a "scam" or dismiss > it. What is the harm in trying to prevent your myopia? If it works, > great! If not, no harm done, just move on to glasses. > I also believe in Bates and myopia reduction What about Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? SignatureRegards, Nicolaas. Pricelessware 2006 CD now available. E-Mail for details: raptor740.gmail@com (swap "." and "@") ... If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill himself, is it considered a hostage situation? > > What I dont understand is why optometrists call it a "scam" or dismiss > > it. What is the harm in trying to prevent your myopia? If it works, > > great! If not, no harm done, just move on to glasses. > > I also believe in Bates and myopia reduction > > What about Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? I believe in them all. What's the harm? Now, where is my next meal coming from? Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy? SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA >>> What I dont understand is why optometrists call it a "scam" or dismiss >>> it. What is the harm in trying to prevent your myopia? If it works, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I believe in them all. I'm sure you do. > What's the harm? The jury's still out on that. > Now, where is my next meal coming from? Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny > or the Tooth Fairy? The Great Pumpkin sounds like a safer bet. SignatureNicolaas > What I dont understand is why optometrists call it a > "scam" or dismiss it. What is the harm in trying to > prevent your myopia? If it works, great! If not, no harm > done, just move on to glasses. > I also believe in Bates and myopia reduction The harm is in leading people to believe they are helping their children when in fact they are not. While they are doing this they could have their child's vision corrected. -Quick Dear Ace, Subject: Thanks for your commentary. Ace> What I dont understand is why optometrists call it a "scam" or dismiss it. Otis> They should NOT do that. I evaluate the behavior of the primate eye as a dyanamic device. I test it for the fundamental characteristic. (If you do not like this kind of testing -- that is fine with me.) But that testing proves that all fundamental eyes change their refractive state (with atropine and retinoscopy) and this is truly an exact test. Mind you -- this is charactistic behavior for an entire population of fundamental eye. Otis> The implication of this (if you pay attention to it) is that a negative refractive state of the primate eye is preventable at the threshold. This is the second-opinion. I sugget that you be made aware of this opinion BEFORE your eye-chart goes below 20/40. I would pay for this information and PAY for support. It would require a "deeper" understanding ON MY PART to use this method correctly, and therefore successfully. NO ONE would use this method UNLESS he actively choose to do so. But once rejected, there is no furter reason to use it. Otis> I only advocate that you be INFORMED in a pleasant manner about this PREVENTIVE possibility. The rest would be up to you. Ace> What is the harm in trying to prevent your myopia? Otis> Remeber PREVENT a negative refractive state in the natural eye. Perhaps the majority-opinion ODs will address that issue. I will start by stating that a poorly informed person will most likely not understand the reasons for it -- and will reject it. Buit a person with more insight might understand it, and support it with their child and Yan is doing. It does become a personal choice for the parent. Ace> If it works, great! If not, no harm done, just move on to glasses. Otis> Agreed! But there are subtle issues -- and the parents must understand them. Ace> I also believe in Bates and myopia reduction Otis> I believe that Bates was correct about the effect that a minus has on an eye at 20/70 -- going rapidly to 20/200. I also do not support "myopia reduction". What I DO support is myopia PREVENTION, so there is never a need for myopia "reduction". I think that issue must be completely clear in our discussions. Otis> It is critical decision to be made before the eye-chart goes much below 20/40 or 20/50. Best, Otis > Otis> They should NOT do that. I evaluate the behavior of the > primate eye as a dyanamic device. I test it for the fundamental > characteristic. (If you do not like this kind of testing -- that > is fine with me.) But that testing proves that all fundamental eyes > change their refractive state (with atropine and retinoscopy) and > this is truly an exact test. What dosage of atropine do you use? What sort of retinoscope? -MT Dear Mike, The work was accomplished by Francis Young. Oh I get it -- you don't read scientific publications -- or if you do you don't beleive them. But further, you insisted that all scientific data be thrown out the window anyway. That seems to be YOUR "scientific" approach. Best, Otis otis, why do you disregard the HUMAN data? why does Goss' study show that overminusing children did NOT cause an increase in their myopia? what does that say about your staircase myopia theory? why did Shotwells study show that plus lenses and bifocals had NO EFFECT on reducing myopia? why did Chung's study show that undercorrecting myopes causes an increase in myopia progression? What do these studies say about your foolish theory and why will you not even acknowledge their existence? why do you cling to decades-old studies and research performed on monkeys and chickens while you DISREGARD the human data? what is your reply otis? don't dodge the subject, AGAIN! go away you embarrasing old man. showing your a.s again in this newsgroup-- its pathetic. > The work was accomplished by Francis Young. I'll see your Francis Young and raise you a Linus Pauling. -MT > But equally, and honestly, there is RT who has no interest > in prevention at all, and that is absolutly fine with me. You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. You, yourself say: > Subject: PREVENTION at the threshold -- only. With my son, we're talking about someone who has been in glasses for five years and is -7. What exactly is your definition of threshold? Why do you keep bringing me up? In fact contrary to what many advocate on this list, his OD is practicing "prevention" by undercorrecting him and putting him in trifocals. I personally believe that this isn't going to hurt him, and if it helps that's great. But high myopia and retinal detachment runs in our family, so he has a good chance of both no matter what we do. Do you really think that prevention isn't the first thought of every parent the moment they realize their child is myopic? In fact, LONG before I had ever heard of you I was consulting DOCTORS about prevention. In fact there is a DOCTOR who has pediatric patients on this list with whom I corresponded before I ever read this NG. Despite our penchant for engaging in debate, I respect his medical opinion and experience and truly appreciate his medical advice. I wonder if you read what I write. You and Aceman have the same reading comprehension problems. No wonder you get along. Signature~RT Dear RT, Subject: Both of us are have strong opinions. Re: I see myself has having your son's "habit" Re: No "criticism" is intended -- just a desire to learn how to "accept" preventive measures". Re: Others, like Yan, are willing to accept support from second-opinion preventive minded ODs. Some more commentary: Do you really think that prevention isn't the first thought of every parent the moment they realize their child is myopic? In fact, LONG before I had ever heard of you I was consulting DOCTORS about prevention. In fact there is a DOCTOR who has pediatric patients on this list with whom I corresponded before I ever read this NG. Despite our penchant for engaging in debate, I respect his medical opinion and experience and truly appreciate his medical advice. Otis> And I do also. I also appreciate that kids do not want "interference" like having their nose PRYED off that book. (I WILL PLEAD GUILTY TO THAT SIN PERSONALLY. Some one should have kicked me very hard on that issue. That is very critical. Tragically, there is this "assumption" that there is no relationship beween "environment" and refractive state of all natural eye. It is a "failed" assumption.) I KNOW how difficult it is to get a child to MODIFY his behavior in this manner. We are having an HONEST DISCUSSION of this issue -- and we BOTH feel strongly about it. It does not make either of us "wrong" to hold these contratdictory judgments. I wonder if you read what I write. Otis> I do! I had your child's "bad" habit. In my opinion (based on the primate studies) I induced a slight negative refractive state in my natural eyes. I should have had my a.s kicked, or my head swatted EVERYTIME I PULLED MY EYES CLOSER THAN 20 inches. As an engineer, with exhaustive review of the proven behavior of all natural primate eyes -- I do reach that conclusion. That is indeed the second opinion, but is becomes a parents choice to implement the preventive methods. I know "kids" and how stubborn they are about this. And I hold NO ONE responsible for the consequences. Otis> But I do believe these issues must be understood before that first minus is appled. But that is just one man's (second) opinion. RT> You and Aceman have the same reading comprehension problems. Otis> Aceman can speak for himself. I pay assidious attention to the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- as a matter of engineering analysis. Otis> I have no problem with a person who chucks all primate data out the window, and chooses the minus lens. He just should NEVER complain about the expected consequences. When the do, my comment will be that you made your "bed", now lie in it. I attempted to help you undrstand the second-opinion (as expressed by Steve Leung OD) and you rejected it. Now do not complain about the consequences. RT> No wonder you get along. Otis> Ace, and your child had the right of "informed choice" at the threshold. This could be stated for what it is -- the second-opinion. Even as you "trash" what I present, I still say you have that right. Best, Otis Signature~RT > Subject: Both of us are have strong opinions. "All your eyes are us!"... -Quick > my understanding of the data, which was summarized by a myopia > researcher at a conference i attended recently, says that longitudinal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reducing effect" that was noted by wearing them for years rapidly goes > away. I have the same experience in my 31 years fitting of contactlenses. (started with PMMA lenses) SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) Hi, My name is Yan, and I have a daughter who was prescribed -4 glasses at age 5. We have been doing vision therapy since then. It has been three years her myopia does not increase but decreased steadily. You can email me directly, off this group, if you want to know more. Good wishes to you and your daughter. Yan Dear Yan, When I suggest "protective" or "preventive" steps be taken (as a wise second-opinion) I receive all these "warnings" and attacks. I hope that you do not get "Warrning YAN" posted against you for stating your desire for a preventive method for your daughters. Best, Otis > Dear Yan, > > When I suggest "protective" or "preventive" > steps be taken (as a wise second-opinion) > I receive all these "warnings" and attacks. Dear Yan, Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in any position as to give medical advise as described above. Thank you! Allen Why -12 is more dangerous than -8 for example? Also, could it be -18 or -20? How far it may go if it is -8 in age of 14? > Why -12 is more > dangerous than -8 for example? Also, could it be -18 or -20? How far it > > may go if it is -8 in age of 14? I don't understand "danger"? Danger of tripping? Danger of doing poorly in school because of inadequate followup? SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Danger that person may go blind or don't see well even with glasses or lenses or something else dangerous for the person's health. > Danger that person may go blind or don't see well even with glasses or > lenses or something else dangerous for the person's health. As a layperson and parent, I don't think so. Severe myopia makes it harder to correct vision. I found that with -12D, glasses didn't work well. Contacts worked fine. With severe myopia, when one wakes up in the middle of night with no correction, it is hard to get around. Losing your glasses is a major crisis, if that is your only correction. With contacts that work, severe myopia is just not a problem. There is a correlation between severe myopia and retinal detachments. I personally don't believe that myopia causes retinal detachments, but that abnormally shaped eyes cause both. I have had detachments in both eyes, and it isn't fun. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > > Danger that person may go blind or don't see well even with glasses or > > lenses or something else dangerous for the person's health. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that abnormally shaped eyes cause both. I have had detachments in both > eyes, and it isn't fun. I used to think that having severe myopia (-8 and -9) was merely inconvenient, since as you say, I could see perfectly well with contact lenses. However, with age the risk of both retinal detchments and glaucoma seems to rise. I'm not sure that myopia itself raises the risk of glaucoma but it does make it harder to detect. When I was 18, of course, neither retinal detachments nor future risk of glaucoma meant anything to me. Back then I was fitted with hard contact lenses (not RGPs) for the same reason, to halt progression of myopia. I can't say whether it really worked but my prescription did cease to change--although maybe it wouldn't have gotten any worse anyway. Years later I was switched to rigid gas permeable lenses and I recall that the optometrist said my prescription would change due to the eye getting more oxygen. It did, and I thought at the time it got better, but maybe I'm misremembering. I suppose the point is moot now because I don't think anyone wears the old-fashioned hard contact lenses anymore. About ten years ago I switched to soft contact lenses from gas permeable and my myopia did not get any worse, but by then I was almost 40. On the other hand, my mother's prescription is about the same as mine and she only wore contact lenses for a few years ca. 1950, so I have a suspicion the degree of myopia one develops is mainly genetic and has little to do with whether you wear hard or RGP lenses. -Gudrun Dear Allen, Don't worry. The majority opinion ODs tell us this woman's vision is "toast" anyway. Why should I care about it? You certainly do not -- nor does anyone else on sci.med.vision apparently. So post your warnings yet again. I know, for you it is: "Don't worry -- be happy"! Did it ever occur to you that I do care? Best, Otis > Dear Allen, > > Did it ever occur to you that I do care? I don't think anyone doubts that you care Otis (your motive for caring is debatable). It's just that you seem to be "misguided". Jones cared when he had them all drink the fatal kool-aid. -Quick > Did it ever occur to you that I do care? Caring doesn't justify blaming parents and the doctors for something that happens regardless of intervention. It doesn't justify your belief in "staircase myopia" when all the relevant studies show it doesn't happen and none of them show it does. It doesn't mean there is a world-wide conspiracy among PhDs, MDs, ODs and opticians to suppress your miraculous cure for myopia. It doesn't mean we don't care. And it doesn't mean you'll listen to what anyone else has to say. -MT you poor misguided old fool. may the attorney general of the state of pennsylvania take mercy on your soul. > Dear Allen, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Otis What offensive drivel. How dare you presume/ assume that the optometrists here do not care (and you play the matyr role quite well- must have had a lot of practice). You just don't get the obvious do you?? frank
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.