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

Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

another follow up for 20/60 but -10.00

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
concerned parent - 06 Dec 2006 11:58 GMT
Just to keep the people who have helped me informed. My daughter is doing
very well. She wears her glasses all the time and likes them. With her last
appt. her vision has not gotten any worse(last year in one year it doubled)
and the acuity (with glasses)is a little better(20/50). She still sees much
better without her glasses than her perscription suggests but definately
prefers to wear them.
otisbrown@pa.net - 07 Dec 2006 20:31 GMT
Dear Friend,

Thanks for the update.

Some questions:

> Just to keep the people who have helped me informed. My daughter is doing
> very well. She wears her glasses all the time and likes them.

With her last
> appt. her vision has not gotten any worse(last year in one year it doubled)
> and the acuity (with glasses)is a little better(20/50).

Otis>  What do you mean "doubled".  I hope the prescription
of -8 diopter did not double.

She still sees much
> better without her glasses than her perscription

Otis>  If she sees much better without her glasses -- the
why is she wearing them?

Otis>  What is the current prescription?  -10 diopters?

suggests but definately
> prefers to wear them.

> --
> Message posted via MedKB.com
> http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200612/1
concerned parent - 08 Dec 2006 20:23 GMT
About a year before I started posting on this site she was about a -5.00 and -
6.00. A year later when I started posting on this site she was about -10.00.
She definately sees better with her glasses than without. What I meant is
that she still sees better than you think she would without her glasses.
Sometimes when she does not have her glasses on she'll point out things that
I believe should be hard to see. At this pont my main concern is that her
acuity gets down to 20/30, which is what she should be seeing with glasses.
But the other day I showed her letters that are about 3 inches in height and
she saw them from about 17 feet away. A friend of mine (adult) is also -10.00
and could not see the letters from 5 feet.

>Dear Friend,
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>> Message posted via MedKB.com
>> http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200612/1
otisbrown@pa.net - 09 Dec 2006 03:50 GMT
Dear Friend,

Otis> Your experience is of interest to me.

Otis> Previously you stated your child's naked eye vision was 20/60,
or the ability to read 1 inch letters at 20 feet.

Parent> I believe should be hard to see. At this pont my main concern
is that her
acuity gets down to 20/30, which is what she should be seeing with
glasses.

Parent> But the other day I showed her letters that are about 3 inches
in height and
she saw them from about 17 feet away.

Otis> The big "E" is 3.25 inches.  Your daughter is now about  20/180
-- approximately.

Parent> A friend of mine (adult) is also -10.00
and could not see the letters from 5 feet.

Otis>  That is a "true"  -10 diopter myope -- in my opinion.

Otis> Clear vision for a -10 diopter myope would be at
4 inches or less.

Best,

Otis

> About a year before I started posting on this site she was about a -5.00 and -
> 6.00. A year later when I started posting on this site she was about -10.00.
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> Message posted via MedKB.com
> http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200612/1
A Lieberma - 09 Dec 2006 04:29 GMT
> Dear Friend,

Dear Concerned Parent,

Please disregard Otis's postings.  He is not in the medical profession nor
in the position to give medical advice.

Thanks!

Allen
Mike Tyner - 09 Dec 2006 17:47 GMT
> Otis>  That is a "true"  -10 diopter myope -- in my opinion.

What's your opinion of index gradients and asphericity?

They are fundamental to the natural eye, no?

-MT
otisbrown@pa.net - 09 Dec 2006 18:22 GMT
Dear Mike,

It is your opinion that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT
on the refractive STATE of the natural eye?  See:

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html

Do you agree with this proven result?

I would be concerned about putting a 3 year-old child
into a strong minus -- as is the case here.

Why are you not concerned?

Best,

Otis

> > Otis>  That is a "true"  -10 diopter myope -- in my opinion.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> -MT
otisbrown@pa.net - 09 Dec 2006 18:36 GMT
Perhaps a animation graphics of the effect
of a minus lens on the natural eye will help.

See the (blue-tinted) eye provided by Christine at:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Yes, the natural eye is indeed dynanic when you place
a + or - 3 diopter lens on it.

Best,

Otis

> Dear Mike,
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> >
> > -MT
Neil Brooks - 09 Dec 2006 19:48 GMT
> Perhaps a animation graphics of the effect
> of a minus lens on the natural eye will help.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> >
> > Otis

[yawn]
William Stacy, O.D. - 09 Dec 2006 22:14 GMT
> [yawn]

now, now.  that is a pretty good site.  i especially liked their
conclusions, which pretty much wipe out otis' favorite theories.
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Dec 2006 03:47 GMT
The animation graphics, that the natural eye is dynamic
and "follows" the applied minus lens are correct.  The
basic facts confirm it.

Depending on how you look at it.

That is why there is a second-opinion on plus-prevention.

See:

www.chinamyopia.org

Best,

Otis

> > [yawn]
>
> now, now.  that is a pretty good site.  i especially liked their
> conclusions, which pretty much wipe out otis' favorite theories.
Neil Brooks - 10 Dec 2006 05:48 GMT
> The animation graphics, that the natural eye is dynamic
> and "follows" the applied minus lens are correct.  The
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> That is why there is a second-opinion on plus-prevention.

Care to take a stab at fully, honestly, and completely answering these
questions ... yet?

http://tinyurl.com/ymk3wa

No?  Okay.  Thought not.

Thus ... [yawn]
Dr Judy - 11 Dec 2006 22:50 GMT
> The animation graphics, that the natural eye is dynamic
> and "follows" the applied minus lens are correct.  The
> basic facts confirm it.

The animation is about emmetropization and the minus lens was used to
simulate hyperopia.  It has no relevance to using minus to correct
existing myopia.  In fact, the emmetropization evidence supports the
idea that correcting existing myopia with a minus lens will not lead to
further progression.

Here are some other quotes from the same site as the animation:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

"In normal development, emmetropization eliminates pre-existing
refractive errors. However, experimentally imposed focusing errors
(refractive errors) also trigger emmetropization: for example, with
hyperopia imposed with negative defocusing lenses, the eye elongates
and with imposed myopia (with positive defocusing lenses), eye growth
is inhibited. In both cases, the end result in young animals is
emmetropia with the lenses in place."

"What are the cues to defocus for emmetropization?
However, attempts to track down the cues that might be used have so far
not been successful. We, among others, have shown that neither
chromatic aberration alone or combined with accommodation is essential
to this response. Monochromatic aberrations have become a more recent
focus of research, partly driven by reports that human myopes are more
aberrated than normal."

"Does near work cause myopia and why?
.... One theory argues that printed text, as most commonly encountered
in near work activities, acts as a form deprivation stimulus for all
but the central retina. On the other hand that human myopia could be a
response to hyperopic defocus is consistent with observations of
increased lags of accommodation in developing and progressing myopes.
However, the picture is by no means clear-cut in terms of causality.
Also, that eyes may progress at different rates leading to significant
anisometropia is not easily covered by this hypothesis. Currently in
this area, there are more questions than answers."

"Myopia control treatments
The most promising results to-date have come from pharmacological
treatments"

Dr Judy
Neil Brooks - 12 Dec 2006 00:25 GMT
> > The animation graphics, that the natural eye is dynamic
> > and "follows" the applied minus lens are correct.  The
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Here are some other quotes from the same site as the animation:

[snip]

Thus my yawn.  It was nothing more than ANOTHER glaring example of Otis
posting information from a CREDIBLE source that CONTRADICTS his
ill-considered position.

This is but one of myriad reasons why I believe his ... uh ...
competence is in question.
 
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.