From Otis's personal soapbox -- it is fun to watch the mental squirrel
run away with acorns, talking ABOUT people, rather than TO them:

[QUOTE]
A mother's child received a prescription at -10 diopters.

When the mother checked the child's vision it was
20/20 THROUGH a -6 diopter lens.

Here is a discussion of that issue by
Brainy (layman) amd majority-opinion PClar
for your interest:

Brainy> I haven't read the mother-and-child story (don't have time to
examine
all the anecdotal fairy tales), but the question is: Can an over-
prescription provide higher acuity? Mt logic suggests that if the
answer is "yes", then it's not over-prescription. My experience is
that over-rx provides lesser acuity, not better, and the OD will not
prescribe it. Without knowing the details of the case, I would doubt
the credibility of the mother's claim.

Statement by PClar:

you are basically correct with regard to the effects of
overprescription in patients middle-aged or older ( approx. >45).
excessive minus lens power usually results in reduced acuity along
with eye strain, headaches, and possible double vision.

in younger patients however, excessive minus lens power can still
result in good acuity although patients still will sometimes complain
of headaches, eyestrain, diplopia, etc. Furthermore, young people
who
are overminused sometimes actually prefer their vision this way
because the combination of excessive minus lens power, along with
excessive plus lens power which is reflexly added by accommodation
within the eye in order to maintain good acuity, gives their visual
world a darker, higher-contrast appearance. "young people" refers to
those less than ~40 years of age who can still recruit some
accommodation to help them see clearly through excessive minus lens
power.

and you are right also about eye doctors being careful not to
overminus their patients. Otis simple-mindedly believes that eye
doctors just crank up the minus lens power on patients excessively.
In practice, minus lenses are used primarily in nearsighted patients
whose retinal image is not clear because either their eyeball is
slightly too long, or their corneal curvature is too steep. Just
enough minus lens power is given so that the patient can see clearly.

interestingly, studies have shown that when excessive minus lens
power
is used in humans, it DOES NOT stimulate further development of
myopia
as Otis continually claims it does. he knows about these studies yet
he will not comment on them and they do not cause him to question his
own beliefs whatsoever as they would a truly rational person. Otis
is
truly an objective thinker, huh? he makes up his mind and then just
ignors facts that contradict them.

I have provided the citations and abstracts for those studies below.
The studies were undertaken to see if overprescribing minus lenses
would be beneficial in the treatment of other disorders aside from
investigating whether they induce staircase myopia as Otis claims,
yet
the data is still relevant and bears directly upon the claims of Otis
Brown, Engineer. If Otis were a real man he would comment, but he
won't!

--------------

Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic
progression.
Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&...

Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages from
7.38 to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over the
power required to correct their myopia exactly. These 36 experimental
subjects were matched by control subjects selected at random from the
files of the Indiana University Optometry Clinics. The criteria used
in matching were sex, beginning age, beginning refractive error, and
duration of time covered by the record. The mean rate of change of
refractive error for the experimental group was (minus indicating
increase of myopia) -0.49 D/year (range, +0.37 to -1.95 D/year) on
retinoscopy and -0.52 D/year (range, +0.21 to -1.32 D/year) on
subjective refraction. The mean rate of change for the control group
was -0.47 D/year (range, +0.06 to -2.03 D/year) on retinoscopy and
-0.47 D/year (range, +0.28 to -1.72 D/year) on subjective refraction.
Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly
different. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis
that an overcorrected myope has a lower rate of increase of myopia
than a myope wearing a conventional spectacle correction.

==========================

Arch Ophthalmol. 1999 May;117(5):638-42.
Does overcorrecting minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia
cause myopia?

Kushner BJ. Pediatric Eye and Adult Strabismus Clinic, Department of
Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
USA. bkushner@...

http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/5/638

RESULTS: At the time of initial examination, the mean (+/-SD)
refractive error was 0.00 +/- 1.40 diopters (D) in the control
group, 0.00 +/- 1.50 D in the study group, and -0.10 +/- 1.50 D in
the 5-year study group, all of which were essentially identical.
Five years after initial examination, the mean change in refractive
error was -1.40 +/- 2.80 D in the control group, -1.52 +/- 1.80 D in
the 6-month treatment group, and -1.54 +/- 1.80 D in the 5-year
treatment group. These differences in the change in refractive error
(myopic shift) were not statistically significant (t test), and the
differences are clinically unimportant. CONCLUSION: Overcorrecting
minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia does not appear to
cause myopia.

====================

These majority-opinion studies simply can not
be trusted.

The real test is to simply take a population of
fundamental eyes, place a -3 diopter lens on
1/2 of them and watch the -3 diopter
group go DOWN by -2 diopters in less
that six months.

THAT is a scientific study, wich PClar will
avoid confronting.