 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2006If we dont take Otis and "second opinion" optometrists seriously, we all will be myopic! Near work=myopia!
In the U.S., the prevalence of myopia is about 25 percent of the population, but in Asian countries such as China or Japan it may exceed 70 percent, and it approximates 90 percent in selected populations, such as Chinese university students. Short-sightedness is common in many areas, but it is enormous in such countries as Singapore. By 18 years of age, 80 per cent of local people have short-sightedness, 30 years ago there were only 25% of such people. The police has lack of people with normal eye-sight, in addition, too many people have too high short-sightedness, they can become blind because of it. According to another research, 80 percent of 14-18 year-old male students in Israel high school majoring in religion, suffer from myopia. Meanwhile, in the state schools, only 30 percent of young Israelis have myopia. So, the lifestyle should be blamed for this disease spreading. As lifestyle changes, myopia is growing. Currently, half of 12-year-old Swedish schoolchildren suffer from short-sightedness. When they turn 18, there may be 70% short-sighted among them, NTR.ru reports. http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/19-07-2004/6234-myopia-0 Dear Ace, Yes, this is the truth. If there is to EVER be change here, then we must accept the results of science that show that the forced wearing of a -3 diopter lens on a population of NATURAL EYES, will result in the refractive STATE of the -3 diopter group CHANGING by at least -2 diopters in one year. Learning to accept that fact that the natural (or fundamental) eye is proven to be a dyanmic SYSTEM -- is the first step in instituting PREVENTIVE change for this difficult situation. That type of change will require the judgment of the parents and child. But further, it is indeed and "either or" choice to be made BEFORE a minus is applied. People who "wake up" to his issue, and are prepared to consider the preventive method CAN BE SUPPORTED by a prevention-minded OD, like Steve Leung: www.chinamyopia.org But the decision must be made by an informed parent. But that is indeed the preventive second-opinion. The "change" must be more in the person himself, rather than in any "OD". It is time we understand this issue. Best, Otis > In the U.S., the prevalence of myopia is about 25 percent of the > population, but in Asian countries such as China or Japan it may exceed [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/19-07-2004/6234-myopia-0 >From Feather: Ace> "Already more than 50% of people in some countries are myopic! " Feather> hmm, that is an interesting figure. what countries are we talking about? are they located here on good old earth, or far, far away in a galaxy we haven't visited yet? Feather> anyway, mean jokes aside, i would really like to know which countries you are talking about. seriously, what countries, pray tell??? feathered one. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Feathered One, 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CRITICAL TRUTH: 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%. Enjoy, Otis ******************* > Dear Ace, > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > > > http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/19-07-2004/6234-myopia-0 Thank you for the information, that is exactly what I was looking for. feathered one > >From Feather: > [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > > > > > > http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/19-07-2004/6234-myopia-0 Anyone who takes Cletis seriously needs counselling. Cletis is a scare monger, a liar and a twister of facts. He has no proof of his recommended therapy, invents stories to be believed as "truth" and has this army of "second opinion" doctors, who funnily enough don't exist. It is time to go back to offering boiled lollies to kiddies on the corner Cletis, the hit rate is so much better. CatMan of the majority opinion tells you that the minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of all eyes. He tells you to ignore all scientific evidence (as stated in this thread.) Yes, the minus is easy and "works" in 5 minutes. And plus-prevention is difficult, and takes strong motivation to use it correctly -- and successfuly. But their are indeed optometrists (second-opinion) who do not sweep 85 percent myopia under the rug the way that CatMan wants you to. I would suggest keeping an open-mind about the preventive second-opinion and understand it by reading: www.chinamyopia.org It can be the difference between successful prevention, or stair-case myopia from the minus. Best, Otis > Anyone who takes Cletis seriously needs counselling. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is time to go back to offering boiled lollies to kiddies on the > corner Cletis, the hit rate is so much better. > CatMan of the majority opinion tells you that the minus lens > has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of all eyes. In your vernacular Cletis, I am the second opinion optometrist. I am the person people are referred to for control of myopia issues, reduction, preverntion and stasis. This is why I know you are a fraud, because all the people you name are fictitious. They do not exist, you simply make them up. > He tells you to ignore all scientific evidence (as stated > in this thread.) There is no scientific evidence. You do not know the difference between hearsay and evidence. Your citations are not credible. > Yes, the minus is easy and "works" in 5 minutes. And > plus-prevention is difficult, and takes strong motivation > to use it correctly -- and successfuly. This is of course if it will work in the first place. You do not understand the variance in presenting symptoms, visual status etc. WHen you do, it may be of worth discussing the issue with you, but as you are an ignoramous, I shan't bother. > But their are indeed optometrists (second-opinion) who > do not sweep 85 percent myopia under the rug > the way that CatMan wants you to. I don't sweep anyone under the carpet. I do know how to resolve my patient's problems for the best results. > I would suggest keeping an open-mind about > the preventive second-opinion and understand > it by reading: > > www.chinamyopia.org This is of course if you want to hear from the fictional Steven Leung who is not considered of an expert in his native Hong Kong. Funny how Cletis makes him an expert when his peers think of him as a nutter. > It can be the difference between successful > prevention, or stair-case myopia from the minus. Or it can be months of time wasting. I know the difference Cletis, do you? How do you know which people will respond to your hocus-pocus? > Best, > > Cletis > Yes, this is the truth. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > result in the refractive STATE of the -3 diopter group > CHANGING by at least -2 diopters in one year. This is complete and utter garbage. In my profession of many years, I have indeed encountered instances of prescriptions being written in excess of the refractive error. In none of the cases was the myopia increased. None. DrG > > Yes, this is the truth. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > DrG Surely you don't mean this? Unless there are very few cases, I'd expect _some_ people would have gotten more myopic, even if the over-minus prescription had nothing to do with it. The point of comparison would be a normal population in which some people stay the same, some people go plus and some people go minus. Right? -- > Surely you don't mean this? Unless there are very few cases, I'd > expect _some_ people would have gotten more myopic, even if the > over-minus prescription had nothing to do with it. The point of > comparison would be a normal population in which some people stay the > same, some people go plus and some people go minus. Right? Of course, it is rare that an optometrist or ophthalmologist would prescribe an amount of minus that was 3 diopters in excess of the patient's refractive error. In fact, the only time I have seen it happen was with one of my patients who had gone to another office, and received a prescription generated from an autorefractor. The prescription was about three diopters in excess of her last know refraction. After one year, the patient's prescription hadn't increased AS A RESULT OF WEARING GLASSES THAT WERE TOO STRONG FOR HER. I have seen many cases of patients whose myopic prescriptions had decreased since their last visit, meaning that their habitual RX was over-minused. According to the theory of Otis, none of these cases are possible. According to Otis, the eye should track the minus lens. In reality, of course, the minus lens tracks the patient's myopia, and not the other way around. In the mind of Otis, it all goes one way...up the staircase. DrG > > Surely you don't mean this? Unless there are very few cases, I'd > > expect some people would have gotten more myopic, even if the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > DrG Not to mention that farsightedness would be impossible... unless caught early and purposely maintained with plus lenses. -- |
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.