 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2007Entry into Stair Case Myopia -- Defined
Subject: Entry into stair-case myopia defined. This accurately defines stair-case myopia, (the natural eye's adaptation to change in its AVERAGE visual enviroment) See: http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/ It would be wise to find an OD, who supports the second-opinion, if you wish to help your child avoid entry into serious myopia. Check: www.chinamyopia.org For optometrist who will discuss the possibility of plus-prevention for your child -- provided you will HELP your child with this issue. Otis Subject: Six clinical studies DEFINE stair-case myopia. DwnRate4.txt Dear Vision-protection friends, Subject: Facing tough facts -- making a choice. Re: The reasons and need for plus-prevention. I know that we can not over simplify science and the facts. Yet an effort must be made. To me, the Eskimo data truly tells the 'story" of the natural eye's behavior: http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html In our "modern" society, where we are forced to spend 12 to 16 years in this "reading" environment, our eyes simply go DOWN at -1/2 diopter per year. I know that it is hard to understand this issue, and harder to take effective action against it. I am pleased that some people have the "smarts" to use the preventive-plus correctly. Here is the data for six separate studies -- so there can be no doubt about it. The facts are that from age six to sixteen, our eyes go "down" in this manner. I always like to present the facts themselves concerning the natural eye's dynamic behavior. That way you can look at them and personally decide what you wish to do about them. Here are six studies, and the results of the control group. They ALL show the same thing. If exclusively one study showed that -1/2 diopter per year, and all the other studies showed zero diopters, or a positive change, then I would question the concept of prevention. But when all of them show -1/2 diopter per year DOWN, you MIGHT take preventive measures more seriously. Whatever you do -- I would keep these results in mind, if you think that plus-prevention is a "joke". ___________________________ Study #1, Oakley-Young, 200+ children, four years. Control group went DOWN by -2 diopters in four years. The plus group did not go down. - 0.02 diopters per year, thus -0.08 diopters in four years. Versus -0.52 diopters per year (over four years) single minus lens, or -2.08 diopters in four years for the control group. Francis Young Primate Research Center Washington State University Pullman, Washington ___________________________ Study #2 In the COMET study (children) the 3 year data is: Single vision: -0.49 D/yr over five years. ___________________________ Study #3 Single vision, two myopic parents: -0.51 D/yr one myopic parent: -0.40 D/yr ___________________________ Study #4 Fulk et al, Single vision minus: -0.49 D/yr ___________________________ Study #5 Parssinen (age 9 to 11) 3 yrs Single-Vision Dist only, SV: -0.48 D/yr ___________________________ Study #6 the Leung JT, Brown B. Study: Single minus vision lens: -0.625 Diopters per year ___________________________ I know that most people have no concern about their distant vision at the threshold stage, and that the minus is very simple, easy an quick. There has never been a "pure-plus" preventive study, but the Oakley-Young study intimates that plus-prevention could be successful if the use of the plus were consistently used, and the PARENTS understood the implications of these six studies. These are the issues a parent (and child) must consider if he wishes to work with a second-opinion professional -- with the goal of keeping the child's distant vision clear (a positive refractive STATE) through 12 years in school. In my opinion, these issues must be presented to the parent (in an honest discussion) with the parents ultimately making this either/or choice. This was the real "issue" of Dr. Raphaelson's story of the "Printer's Son". For me this is stark evidence that only prevention is possible - and must be started before the minus. Visual standards must be met, but for a child, 20/60 to 20/40 is a very reasonable standard to maintain. Yet, I know Of children with 20/60 who have a prescribed -2.75 diopter lens. I believe that this is necessarily part of the review-process with a parent, and difficult to understand - at first. But I think that the parents should take the time to understand it. Best, Otis ++++++++++++ On May 3, 9:43 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: Entry into stair-case myopia defined. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Otis >I know that we can not over simplify science and the facts. But excuse me while I do just that. OOPS! My argument seems to be oddly lacking in both science AND facts. A mere oversight, to be sure. Nonetheless... >I am pleased that some people have the "smarts" to use the >preventive-plus correctly. It is equally disturbing to me, though, that my myopic niece, Joy, though an accomplished "woman" in her own right, DID NOT HAVE the "smarts" to use the preventive-plus correctly. She is the black sheep of our family. We speak ill of her at Easter. Less so at other holidays. >Here is the data for six separate studies -- so there can be >no doubt about it. > >The facts are that from age six to sixteen, our eyes go >"down" in this manner. Let me rephrase: Some myopes get more myopic. Some myopes stay stable. Some myopes get less myopic. Nothing I do seems to change that. So why am I here? That's epistimology. I would rather you read John Paul Sartre for this kind of "opinion." >I always like to present the facts themselves concerning the >natural eye's dynamic behavior. I WOULD like to. Perhaps, one day I will. Meanwhile, have I told you how much I enjoy chimps? Let me retract the rest of my "original" post. I seem to be backsliding into dishonesty and misrepresentation again. For the longest time, I used anti-perspirants based on aluminum chloride. Several macaque studies indicate irreperalbl neurologic damage is the long-term result. Always after me Lucky Charms. Best, Odis On May 3, 9:43 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: Entry into stair-case myopia defined. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/ What a great site, it declares that increasing myopia leads to blindness! Yet no one has ever gone blind due to refractive error. It also states that wearing plus at near will reverse myopia, with -1.00 changing to +0.50. Where is the proof of that last sentence; all the studies show, at best, a slowing of progression by about +0.50 in the first year of wear only. The best one could expect, based on the evidence, is that, after 2year, a -1.00 becomes a -2.00 without plus and a -1.50 with plus. If "stair case myopia" exists, why does it stop progressing just about the time growth stops? Why don't 30 year old myopes have it? If it is due to wearing glasses, how does myopia develop in the first place? Why do uncorrected myopes, myopes not wearing glasses, also progress? Why don't exotropes, treated with minus to force convergence (minus unneeded for refractive purposes) develop it? I won't be holding my breath waiting for answers. Dr Judy > It would be wise to find an OD, who > supports the second-opinion, if [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Otis > On May 3, 9:43 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > > Otis My eyes might be a case in point, maybe someone would like to study them. My eyes were uncorrected until my late teens and yet myopia progressed in my right eye. I use both of my eyes for distance and intermediate and my right eye for reading. Maybe we shouldn't let children read or do other close work until their eyes are fully grown. On 5/4/07 9:51 AM, in article 1178297488.736243.71050@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, > My eyes might be a case in point, maybe someone would like to study > them. My eyes were uncorrected until my late teens and yet myopia > progressed in my right eye. I use both of my eyes for distance and > intermediate and my right eye for reading. Maybe we shouldn't let > children read or do other close work until their eyes are fully grown. I don't know why. I do remember my cousin, about my age, reading comic books as he was becoming more myopic. Hew would take his glasses off and hold the book about four inches away from his eyes. Does that not require a combined myopia and accommodation of 10D? What is to stop someone too poor to get glasses from doing the same? Bill -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go. Hello. This is my first post and I am not an eye practitioner. > If "stair case myopia" exists, why does it stop progressing just about > the time growth stops? Why don't 30 year old myopes have it? Actually this is not true in my case. I am 33 years old and still progressing in what seems to be a similar reproduction of that graph. I can guarantee that within 2-3 months of a new prescription I notice my vision is poorer. The change feels sudden then my vision seems to stay there, until another 3 months goes by when I notice another drop. At this point I can tell that my vision is just as bad as it was before I started wearing the new glasses. In fact my progression seems to have accelerated in the last few years. I got my first pair of glasses aged 19 and gradually got worse since then, but didn't need to wear glasses full time until I was about 23. Then the progression slowed down a bit for about 4-5 years (I have always thought that I have done excessive near work all the way through, but it is possible that the amount of near work was slightly less during these the first 3 of these 4-5 years). Since then I feel like I could do with a new prescription after 6 months of a new prescription. Wearing the minus lens doesn't seem to have made any difference in my case. During the 4-5 slow years I wore them continuously even during mammoth 4 hour sessions at the computer. Now I tend to remove my glasses at the computer. I think the problem is the amount of near work. I saw a figure quoted on this newsgroup a while back saying something like 50% of your time should be away from near work in order to prevent myopia progression. I would be interested to learn more about this. I also read that myopia is supposed to stop after a 3 year window (obviously not true in my case but let's consider the cases that do) and this is despite continued near work. I would like to know if this is really true or if the near work was in fact less. Later onset is also supposed to help but clearly there is no strict rule. On the other hand, how come my uncorrected vision is better in the morning after a night's sleep? My uncorrected vision also becomes noticeably better if I remove my glasses for 10 minutes or so. Atropine drops or RGP contact lenses slowing down myopia - that's incredible and would surely point to a muscular tension problem being relieved? > If it is due to wearing glasses, how does myopia develop in the first > place? Could it be that a normal eye is still straining to see close up? Why do uncorrected myopes, myopes not wearing glasses, also > progress? Could it be that the slight myopia is not sufficient to elimiate the strain? It seems to me that we are not going to find a 'one size fits all' solution. Perhaps the plus lens does work in a minority of cases? Would scientists throw out this data as outliers? I personally know a few people who had low prescriptions (perhaps -1.00D ish) who wore their glasses full time all through university, and who no longer need them even for driving. Going back to the soicansee web page, it says that "without the use of the prescription glasses (minus lens), myopia seldom progresses beyond -3.00D. It will normally stay below -2.00D ..." but the supplied data shows that *all* subjects remained at -2.00D or less. So the data is suspect there. You are always going to find some people with a low prescription as you will find people requiring no prescription at all. Thanks Richard a06...@gmail.com wrote: > > If "stair case myopia" exists, why does it stop progressing just about > > the time growth stops? Why don't 30 year old myopes have it? > > Actually this is not true in my case. > Richard Hi--I too, have continued to progress throughout my adult life-- nearsightedness even worsening after presbyopia set in. I have always wondered WHY--as you do. As many have pointed out, the reasons are likely many, and complicated. I'm not doing much at present to try to prevent my own progression. I have tried natural vision improvement techiques which actually did improve my vision slightly (this was about 8 years ago)--this was great, but the down side was that most of the time I was wearing weak glasses or no glasses---a very blurry world! When I did put on my full strength glasses for driving, I saw perfectly, and this did not diminish---as long as I did not wear them full time. If I wear "almost full correction" (contacts or glasses), my vision tends to gradually worsen-----very frustrating! One must function in the world! C66 On 8 May, 17:36, callimic...@yahoo.com wrote: > Hi--I too, have continued to progress throughout my adult life-- > nearsightedness even worsening after presbyopia set in. That is interesting. I read that presbyopia was the final thing to stop myopia progressing. So again we find that we can't generalise. I agree that the reasons for myopia are very complicated and poorly understood but it feels like our knowledge on the subject is not improving. At least Opticians accept that near work is a risk factor these days - I remember when they argued that it was impossible to strain the eyes. It must be even harder to attempt to explain astigmatism (mine has increased along with the myopia) or even that one eye will progress quicker than the other and end up at different prescriptions. It is encouraging to hear that you were able to halt the progression. I sometimes wonder if we are just destined or programmed to be myopic to a certain degree; that our eyes naturally will arrive at a certain point in the same way as a normal eye will become less hyperopic through childhood and then stop when it knows the time is right. In other words, perhaps our eyes see the normal point as being slightly myopic for some reason and the corrective lenses just make the eye want to get back to that position. On May 9, 7:39 am, a06...@gmail.com wrote: > improving. At least Opticians accept that near work is a risk factor > these days - I remember when they argued that it was impossible to > strain the eyes. The concept of "eye strain" is rather archaic. The operative phrase now is "retinal defocus." Rather than looking for red herrings that produce mechanical "strain," scientists are now looking at the optical system and retinal image quality. DrG It would be really interesting to find a post by Cletis that wasn't manufactured. Cletis is the guy behind penis lengthening exercises and tablets. They didn't work either. |
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.