 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007Minus lens for 20/40 child?
Just a couple of questions. Last winter, my 9 yr old was told to see an eye doctor after a visual screening test at school. The doc said he was about 20/40 and perscribed minus lens and told him and his mom he should wear them all the time. He began to develop serious headaches and I noticed that he was wearing his glasses and playing a handheld video game holding it about 8 inches from his eyes. My first reaction was forcing the eyes to focus that close with minus lenes was not a good thing and was probably causing his headache. We tested this and there was a direct correlation between him wearning the minus lens and focusing at 8" for hours was causing his headache. When I questioned the doctor about his recommendation of "full time use" he made up a couple of reasons I didn't see as valid. He said "so he doesn't lose them", "he will want to see clearly all the time", and "they make him look smarter". Based on our discussion, I dismissed him as a total quack, and told my son he didn't have to wear them at all. This summer he tried playing baseball once with the glasses and had a difficult time hitting the ball and catching the ball. He decided he was better off not wearing them and didn't wear them the entire summer. His vision has improved to 20/30 slighly over the summer, which I attribute to him using his eye for more distance, than close up work durning the warmer months. Given the facts: A. the AOA states "nearsightedness may be caused by the stress of too much close vision work" AND B. that minus lenses change the focal point of the eye, increasing the stress of close work Logic dictates full time close work using minus lenses would further promote nearsightedness. Have there been any studies to disprove this logic? Is it common for a optomologist to reccomend full time use for a case such as my son? > Just a couple of questions. Last winter, my 9 yr old was told to see an eye > doctor after a visual screening test at school. The doc said he was about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > him wearning the minus lens and focusing at 8" for hours was causing his > headache. What was the power? > When I questioned the doctor about his recommendation of "full time use" he > made up a couple of reasons I didn't see as valid. He said "so he doesn't > lose them", "he will want to see clearly all the time", and "they make him > look smarter". Based on our discussion, I dismissed him as a total > quack, and told my son he didn't have to wear them at all. There are some evidence-based reasons for NOT under-correcting a myope. > This summer he tried playing baseball once with the glasses and had a > difficult time hitting the ball and catching the ball. He decided he was > better off not wearing them and didn't wear them the entire summer. > His vision has improved to 20/30 slighly over the summer, which I > attribute to him using his eye for more distance, than close up work > durning the warmer months. Could be a number of reasons from binocular vision disorder to adaptation issues. Usually, hitting improves with improved acuity because the batter can pick-up the ball sooner. In fact, studies of baseball players indicates that their average visual acuity is better than the general population. > Given the facts: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > B. that minus lenses change the focal point of the eye, increasing the > stress of close work Disagree. A corrected myope accommodates more compared to an uncorrected myope, but that does not equal "stress." Is zero accommodation desirable, or is it the relationship between the accommodative stimulus and the response to the stimulus? > Logic dictates full time close work using minus lenses would further > promote nearsightedness. Not according to my logic. > Have there been any studies to disprove this logic? Yes. > Is it common for a optomologist to reccomend full time use for a > case such as my son? It varies, but the latest research indicates that full correction is preferrable to under-correction. Some may not yet subscribe to this view, but I do. But, your post is full of red herrings. The critical observation is that your son reads at 8 inches, which is undesirable for a couple of reasons. It decreases the field of view, thereby making reading less efficient, and also alters the accommodative response, which is not linear. More often than not, reading at 8 inches indicates a problem with fusion and binocularity which needs to be assessed and addressed. > > Just a couple of questions. Last winter, my 9 yr old was told to see an eye > > doctor after a visual screening test at school. The doc said he was about [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > linear. More often than not, reading at 8 inches indicates a problem > with fusion and binocularity which needs to be assessed and addressed Doctor, Please Child vision is 20/30 It is almost norm. It is no reason for wearing ALL THE TIME Lena > > > Just a couple of questions. Last winter, my 9 yr old was told to see an eye > > > doctor after a visual screening test at school. The doc said he was about [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Was it 20/30 or 20/40? At that acuity it is doubtful that the child will actually comply with full-time wear. I would tell the parent not to obsess over it. I would like to know if a cycloplegic refraction was performed. What was the prescription in diopters? Working at 8 inches is typically a sign of a binocular vision problem, also a source of headaches. The OP incorrectly concluded that wearing the minus lenses was the problem when the real issue was the working distance. Otherwise, in the absence of any additional findings, i.e. nearpoint esophoria, I am not inclined to withold a low minus correction. > > > > Just a couple of questions. Last winter, my 9 yr old was told to see an eye > > > > doctor after a visual screening test at school. The doc said he was about [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > It is no reason for wearing ALL THE TIME > > Lena- Hide quoted text - Dr G wrote: "Was it 20/30 or 20/40? At that acuity it is doubtful that the child will actually comply with full-time wear. I would tell the parent not to obsess over it." Thank you, doctor. Lena >Dr G wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Lena Yeah. Kind of amazing, isn't it. When you sit back, wisely and objectively, and pay attention to what EYE DOCTORS ACTUALLY DO AND SAY [rather than ignorantly pontificating about what you WISH THEY DID AND SAID], suddenly, you have to let go of some long-standing and closely held preconceptions, don't you. NOW tell that to (that f.cking idiot and pathological liar) Uncle Otie and watch the kind of progress that can unfold in venues like this one. Dear Me, Subject: The effect of a -3 diopter lens on the refractive STATE of the eye. Re: The natural eye will change its refractive STATE by about -2 diopters in six months when a -3 diopter lens is worn 16/7. Me> Logic dictates full time close work using minus lenses would further promote nearsightedness. Otis> Correct from this scientific experiment to confirm the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. Otis> The "minus" can be used as an emergency, but only at distance when you son might need it. Otis> The idea of avoiding the minus (with in reason) is the second-opinion. The majority-opinion person will tell you that a -3 dioper lens has no effect on the refractive STATE of the natural eye. You will have to draw your own conclusions. I prefer the scientific answer to this question. Otis> If you wish the second-opinion about avoiding the minus, I would suggest reading Professor David Guyton's (JHU) remarks on the subject. He personally avoids wearing the minus as much as possible. Second-opinion best, Otis > Just a couple of questions. Last winter, my 9 yr old was told to see an eye > doctor after a visual screening test at school. The doc said he was about [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Is it common for a optomologist to reccomend full time use for a > case such as my son? Take five minutes and review his posts, and the posts of all seemingly sane, lucid, and rational people in RESPONSE to his posts, and I think you'll agree: Pay attention to Otis Brown at your peril, and at the peril of your loved ones' eyes and vision. It's that serious. Take a look at questions that blow holes in Otis's theory -- questions that HE has -- in years -- still not answered: www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt If your son is a simple (no astigmatism/binocular dysfunction/accommodative dysfunction/other organic issues), low myope, then some people suggest he not wear his glasses for near work. That IS a trade-off against risk of losing them, etc., and there does NOT seem to be any compelling data that even THAT will slow myopic progression. Good visual hygiene (just google for it), and lots of fresh air, sunshine, exercise, good diet, etc., are all though helpful. That said, I am NOT an eye doctor.... Dear Me, Subject: Confirming your child's visual acuity. Sometimes some poor judgments are made about a child's visual acuity. The child will be "rushed", or will not be attentive ... reasons of this nature. For that reason, it would be a good idea to confirm his visual acuity yourself. Vision does vary, and perhaps one day he will have 20/40, and 20/30 to 20/25 and 20/20 on another day. For this reason, one measurement or "judgment" simply can not be accurate. Here is a Snellen you can use on your monitor. Just click here: http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html ... and then "Display". The chart is random, and each click on "display" will create a new set of characters. Reading 1/2 of the letters correctly passes the line. You can then confirm the accuracy of third-party measurements of you son's visual acuity. It never hurts to check. Best, Otis > Just a couple of questions. Last winter, my 9 yr old was told to see an eye > doctor after a visual screening test at school. The doc said he was about [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Is it common for a optomologist to reccomend full time use for a > case such as my son? > When I questioned the doctor about his recommendation of "full time use" he > made up a couple of reasons I didn't see as valid. He said "so he doesn't > lose them" Sounds like: "Just because you can forget to take your prescription pills 3 time per day , or lose them, please take them all at once in the morning" , "he will want to see clearly all the time", Not wearing can improve vision in some cases. 20/30 it is almost norm >and "they make him > look smarter". It is not a professional statement. It is a doctor , not beauty salon. > Based on our discussion, I dismissed him as a total > quack, and told my son he didn't have to wear them at all. I think you did the smart decision. . > This summer he tried playing baseball once with the glasses and had a > difficult time hitting the ball and catching the ball. He decided he was [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Have there been any studies to disprove this logic? Yes. Also it have been studies that wearing glasses all the time accelerates myopia progression. Petition of International Myopia Prevention Association to FDA: http://www.preventmyopia.org/fdapetition.html > Is it common for a optomologist to reccomend full time use for a > case such as my son? Yes it is very common ant it is a little bit wrong. Lena MS Physics >B. that minus lenses change the focal point of the eye, increasing the >stress of close work Just think of all those poor people without myopia who will start having to wear glasses because they have to accomodate just as much as a properly corrected myope. A person with normal vision who stares at a video game 8 inches away for hours will get just as bad a headache as a myope wearing glasses doing the same. Assuming your post isn't a blatant troll (which I'm not quite willing to do), your real problem is that the kid is playing a video game 8 inches away from his face for hours at a time.  Signature- Mike Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail. > Given the facts: > > A. the AOA states "nearsightedness may be caused by the stress of > too much close vision work" AND true > B. that minus lenses change the focal point of the eye, increasing the > stress of close work true > Logic dictates full time close work using minus lenses would further > promote nearsightedness. > > Have there been any studies to disprove this logic? it has been shown that, for myopes, reading with with or without your glasses makes no difference on myopia progression. yes, that IS counterintuitive but nevertheless it has been proven by scientific study. likewise it has been shown that doing nearwork using plus readers, or using bifocals, does not reduce the rate of myopia progression. again, it seems counterintuitive given that there definitely is a correlation between near work and myopia progression but it is the truth. you cannot deny the data (but Otis does-- he claims the experiments must not be valid if they don't come out the way he believes they should. > Is it common for a optomologist to reccomend full time use for a > case such as my son? that recommendation depends on a variety of factors. BTW, a critical piece of information that you left out of your story is your son's prescription. when you say he is 20/30, that doesn't tell us why he is 20/30. a persons VA can be reduced by farsightedness, astigmatism, cataracts and a host of other eye conditions. another person who posts in this forum, and who is an absolute idiot, also believes that Snellen acuity readings are readily convertible to eyeglass prescriptions. His name is Otis Brown. His view is overly simplistic and simply wrong. if you are taking your ideas from him then you are following an idiot. Hi, Case like this is enough to make one sick at heart. Poor child, poor poor child... The doctor should be arrested and punished for his treachery. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The doctor should be arrested and punished for his treachery. Thus spake Rishi. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The doctor should be arrested and punished for his treachery. no. there would be no basis for an arrest. there is a basis for you to be arrested since you are a quack and attempt to give medical advise without any training or understanding of the basic science of human vision. just because you read an old book by an old ophthalmologist that was wrong in many things that he thought does not mean that what your propose is correct. poor, poor person who ever takes advise from a fool like you. Dear Me, Subject: The second-opinion by Dr. David Guyton Dr. Guyton states that he avoids the use of the minus lens (for himself) whenever possible. Here are his reasons for making that choice for himself: http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/GUY.TXT You are going to hear both opinions on sci.med.vision. No one has the "right" answer for you. So just keep an open mind on the subject. My opinion is identical to Dr. David Guyton's opinion. So when an optometrist tells you that your child must "... wear that minus ALL THE TIME", just remember that the statement is an opinion, and the second-opinion is to avoid the minus -- except of course when necessary. Best, Otis > Just a couple of questions. Last winter, my 9 yr old was told to see an eye > doctor after a visual screening test at school. The doc said he was about [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Is it common for a optomologist to reccomend full time use for a > case such as my son? On Sep 15, 7:06 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > You are going to hear both opinions on sci.med.vision. You are going to hear the opinions of vision professionals who actively treat patients and who are actively keeping up with the current trends in myopia treatment and research. You are also going to hear from a retired engineer who hasn't read a research paper (or, read one with an open mind) for about the past 30 years, or so. Please keep an open mind. >Dear Me, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >keep an open mind on the subject. My opinion is identical to >Dr. David Guyton's opinion. That's an absolute lie. You push plus lenses on borderline myopic adolescents whose visual processing mechanisms are still deveoping. As a consequence of this, you cause double vision in many of them. Guyton, IN NO WAY supports this notion, OR your rationale FOR it. Guyton, rather, says what I have long said: if you're a simple low myope, you may take off your glasses for near work. If Guyton really agreed with you, then why are you (and why is he) still a myope? God, you ARE metaphysically incapable of NOT LYING, Otis. >So when an optometrist tells you that your child >must "... wear that minus ALL THE TIME", just >remember that the statement is an opinion, and the >second-opinion is to avoid the minus -- except of course >when necessary. No. Actually, that's NOT "the second opinion." Even THAT is a blatant lie. Anybody who takes a moment for a cursory review of your website, or reads your posts here, will readily know that. Something to be said for consistency, at least. Nothing GOOD, in your case, but ... something. Hi, It is not Otis who is preventing the progress from unfolding in this venue. It is the idiots who know not the use of KF, but continue to feed the old conversations which they themselves despise, restoring to it a new lease of life and lending to it a merit which they themselves believe should not be given. However if the fools were to ignore the poster they so despise of, the progress may well unfold. Until then, they will continue to blame the others (Otis, Zetsu, Lena, Andrew) for their own failures and inability to take resonsibility for their own stupidities. Blather away, but you will serve only as a barrier to your own egotistic cause. >Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >stupidities. Blather away, but you will serve only as a barrier to your own >egotistic cause. Still not what I see from here. If you look back through years of this group, you see brooks engaged in productive and thoughtful dialogue about peoples eyes, vision, eyesight, and all the stuff that it appears this group is supposed to be about. I totally agree with the people who recently characterized you and brown as the real death of this newsgroup. You seem to add tons of noise without adding anything of value. Everything brown says seems to leave out all the relevant caveats (didn't work in his experiments, only works on chimps, doesn't work if you're over four years old, etc). Everything you and this Gatti guy say (he's old here, too) can and should be boiled down to two words "Bates Method" and then have no more said about it. There isnt any proof behind bates and there's no real reason why nobody's looked. There's no eye doc conspiracy (now you got the Mad Russian in on that one). The more y'all (you gatti and brown) PUSH the worse your case looks). Right now you got a pretty good crop of eye docs, some of who are taking the time to try to straighten out what really look like flaws in your thinking. Why don't you and your pals sit back for a while and see what happens. Perosnlly, I dont get why brooks keeps trying but I do get a chuckle out of the guy and I'm glad there are some in this world who actually are on the side of the angels and don't give up! Also count me in with the group thats damned sure that zetsu, kamikaze, and the rest are just gatti and some dumb kid from the uk with nothing better to do with his time. Dear Kaze, Subject: The PREVENTIVE second-opinion. The poster asked about the effect of a strong minus lens worn all the time. Dr. David Guyton provided his second-opinion. I agree with David Guyton. Because I agree I get endless attacks by people like Neil Brooks -- who is a self-apointed" "protector" of you. I personally do not need people like layman Brooks attempting to "protect" me from David Guyton's second-opinion. Rather, I would like to hear BOTH scientific stories. I would then sort out which PREVENTIVE method I would use -- before my Snellen goes below 20/60. As I stated, you can LOVE that minus, wear it all the time, and watch your vision go down, down, down. But if you choose that "route", do not complain at some later date about your 20/500 vision and -8 diopter eyes. I would pay more attention to a full professor of ophthamology than the "joker" Brooks. He has no qualifications at all. Why would you listen to him over Dr. Guyton?? Otis > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200709/1 >Dear Kaze, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Dr. David Guyton provided his second-opinion. No. David Guyton provide an opinion. You're trying to label it to create the illusion that Guyton agrees with you. Guyton most assuredly does not. >I agree with David Guyton. And ... for about the 10th time: Guyton agrees with me. You've provided absolutely no evidence that Guyton agrees with you. Also, as a man in -- what -- his seventh decade -- Guyton's personal behavior has absolutely no bearing on your theories whatsoever. >Because I agree I get endless attacks by people >like Neil Brooks -- who is a self-apointed" >"protector" of you. No. Of course, you're wrong again. I protect you from the unwary who may lack the critical thinking skills, knowledge, or experience to see what a pathological liar and a f.cking idiot you are. >I personally do not need people like layman >Brooks attempting to "protect" me from >David Guyton's second-opinion. Guyton's opinion is -- by definition -- his "majority opinion." It in no way bolsters your arguments. And ... as always ... you f.cking idiot ... nobody is trying to protect YOU from anything, nor to protect anybody from Guyton's advice, which -- in part -- mirrors my own. You have this absolutely insane habit of posting studies that refute and contradict your position, and then claiming they support it, and -- as in this case -- claiming that Guyton agrees with you, when that's just factually absurd. You're just a f.cking idiot and a pathological liar. Sums it up quite nicely. >Rather, I would like to hear BOTH scientific >stories. I would then sort out which >PREVENTIVE method I would use -- before >my Snellen goes below 20/60. One is science. What you want to hear (the "other") IS just stories. Please take your bullshit to a story site and jabber away. >As I stated, you can LOVE that minus, wear >it all the time, and watch your vision go >down, down, down. Do you have any proof that a minus lens, worn for distance vision, causes or accelerates myopic progression in humans? >But if you choose that "route", do not complain >at some later date about your 20/500 vision >and -8 diopter eyes. Still bitter about not being a commercial pilot, Uncle Otie? If your fundamental eye is dynamic, then why are you still a high myope? >I would pay more attention to a full professor >of ophthamology than the "joker" Brooks. >He has no qualifications at all. Why would >you listen to him over Dr. Guyton?? a) Right is right. It stands on its own merits. I'm right. You're wrong; b) Guyton agrees with me, you f.cking idiot -- not with you. >Otis is a f.cking idiot and a pathological liar. >No. Of course, you're wrong again. I protect you from the unwary who >may lack the critical thinking skills, knowledge, or experience to see >what a pathological liar and a f.cking idiot you are. Strike that. I protect the unwary, described above, FROM the pathological liar and f.cking idiot, Otis Brown. Hi, >Right now you got a pretty good crop of eye docs, some of who are taking the >time to try to straighten out what really look like flaws in your thinking. I know, I am very much appreciate the time and patience they take with me. And Mike Tyner explains me lots of things. > I know, I am very much appreciate the time and patience they take with > me. And Mike Tyner explains me lots of things. Not that you listen. Telling dad that playing with big sister will make nystagmus go away, that's just cruel and it insults his intelligence. Giving frivolous advice is cruel, even without the "easy-peasy" references. To an adult, it looks like you're being cruel on purpose, because each time you chime in, you apply the same mystical, outdated approach when you know accepted science will contradict you. Is there something malicious in you? Do you want to make people suffer because their doctor won't recommend your "easy-peasy" solutions? Strain and central fixation and rest methods are undefined. If you can't express them in terms that ARE defined (physical units, populations, procedures, statistics) then they don't exist in any measurable way. Science isn't done without measurements. Bates never got the hang of measuring things. He counted fine, counting "success after success" but he was much too liberal in what he called "success." Today vision scientists consider him a charlatan, not so much because he fooled people, but because he fooled himself. You could do that, too, easy-peasy. -MT PS - Before you tell us how you cure nystagmus, please wait until you've done it a few times. Hi Mr Mike, Actually as a matter of fact I listen to everything you say and also some things I dont understand so then I ask. But sometimes no one tell me, so then I gets confused. However I said to the father that playing with the sister will make the eyesight good, because elder siblings are a valuable influence on their youngers, because the younger mimicks the big sister's actions, I mean how she uses her eyes and how she is generally in a state without tension. Whereas it may be that the parents or surrounding family, that they are less relaxed and because they are less relaxed their tension may infect to the little child. So if the little sister plays with her little brother the little brother will be benefited greatly, because the child will imitate the little sister and they will both have very good eyesight, it could be. By the way, I have a friend who knows how to produce nystagmus at will. It is important that you should understand: when a person is able to produce a defect at will, the defect can be cured with greatest of ease. However, since the child is very young and cannot talk you cannot say to him 'produce nystagmus' because he might not understand. So you have to find other ways of curing the child; for example: swing the youngling in your lap; or others with perfect and normal eyes should play with him; thereby giving the child a chance to imitate their actions. Little children learns much by imitation, in fact. My advice however may sound frivolous and strange to you; but that is because you are a very deep into your ignorance and do not like to think that the simple rest treatments can ever possibly do anything at all. You do not even like simple methods, at all. Perhaps you enjoy placing glasses upon the beautiful eyes and making them look ugly and lifeless, and also making the person who wears them very uncomfortable and bitter with his condition, inside. Although he will not admit it, of course. But underlying the happiness there remains a resistance from the mind, which resists the stupid glasses; it knows it will ruin itself with this unfamiliar artificial thing which is confusing it. It wants to take them off, smash them, never put them on again, in the subconcious. Bates was never liberal in what he called 'success'. The only fact is, Bates had so many success, nearly all of his patients who came to visit Harlem Hospital were cured, and for this reason it sounds like he was being 'liberal', where quite the contrary is the case. Bates was VERY consistent and only treated something as a success if the improvement had been very great, or that the glasses could be discarded entirely whereas before going without the glasses was near impossible, or that perfect sight had indeed been attained, or in rare cases a level greater than what is considered perfect. That is to be comprehended as an acknoledgement of the fact that; spasm of accomodation could not have accounted for such a level of refractive error. Tell me Mr Mike, what are the limits to which spasm of accomodation can account for? Can it account for 20 dioptres? I doubt that, yet it has been found that many patients were able to discard their glasses and acquire the ability to read 20/10 on the snellen chart. Surely this would be impossible with your thesis? (That pseudomyopia, or functional myopia had only been eliminated, and that the true myopia had remained?) What's more, the only fools are those found in your false profession, who are fooling themselves. Bates cured thousands; you cure zero. You are the one fooling yourself, dear friend. > However I said to the father that playing with the sister will make > the eyesight good, because elder siblings are a valuable influence on > their youngers, because the younger mimicks the big sister's actions, > I mean how she uses her eyes and how she is generally in a state > without tension. Hm. My elder brother -- with whom I was raised -- is now almost 50 and has 20/12 vision. He's starting to enter presbyopia, finally, but ... has always had incredible vision. If it is "contagious," then .... Oh, never mind. You're an irrational, simplistic idiot who's trying to sell books. Hi, >Is there something malicious in you? Actually as a matter of facts the only malice within me will be unleashed upon the ignorant doctors who recommend the highest level of stupid treatment, that is spectacles. >Today vision scientists consider him a charlatan, not so much because he Dr.Bates was not a charlatan, but many of his self-named followers, 'disciples' and 'teachers' were. For example, Margaret Corbett; a very bad and silly person who corrupted the Original System. But this is to be expected; after the death of the real intelligence; the fakes will come in their horders and corrupt the real discoveries from Bates. >To an adult, it looks like you're being cruel on purpose, But I'm not being cruel! >Giving frivolous advice is cruel The advice is only frivolous to your foolish mind. To me, your advice which have not cured a single person in the whole wide world, well, that to me seems frivolous. The reading of fine print every day preserves the perfect near-vision of a person, for the whole of their lifetime. Those who are unable to believe this, should try it for themself. > The advice is only frivolous to your foolish mind. To me, your advice > which have not cured a single person in the whole wide world, well, > that to me seems frivolous. Again, you're wrong AND you're an idiot (yes, both). Look: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1420&page=33 It seems that something the eye doctors are doing MUST be working. Otherwise, how would 7.1% of the myops in the study POSSIBLY have shifted toward emmetropia in only 2.5 years? Thanks. Hi Mr Brooks, > Again, you're wrong AND you're an idiot (yes, both). I'm not wrong and I'm not a idiot, you are! > Look: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Otherwise, how would 7.1% of the myops in the study POSSIBLY have > shifted toward emmetropia in only 2.5 years? The eye doctors are doing nothing. The myopes in the study would have shifted to emmetropia anyway, with or without the intervention of the doctor (as in whatever was given from the doctor to the patient). They are playing no part. You say 'only 2.5 years', like it is quite a short time, or something. It seems to me that 2.5 years is a VERY HUGE time! It is just a random shift that the eye doctors did not cause, which took place over time. Perhaps some myopes wore glasses less frequently, and the sight improvement might have speeded up like this. But this is very pathetic, if you are calling that 'shift to emmetropia', a cure to imperfect sight. The real cure is the rest methods, where each 'shift' is a matter of minutes; a matter of resting the mind. On Sep 18, 8:05 am, Atchoo (Gesundheit!) wrote: > But this is very pathetic, if you are calling that 'shift to > emmetropia', a cure to imperfect sight. The real cure is the rest > methods, where each 'shift' is a matter of minutes; a matter of > resting the mind. Doing nothing seems to work just fine for some people. Those are the ones that people like you claim to "cure." But, of course, you didn't do anything at all. It's just as though you were taking credit for the sun coming up tomorrow. No more. Hi, >Doing nothing seems to work just fine for some people. Doing nothing, how do you know they haven't done anything? No one monitored every second of their life, did they? They might have rested, in their mind. But anyway, for something to take place over 2.5 years, it is too long time. You cannot call that good 'cure', it is stupid to say that. Hi, >Those are the ones that people like you claim to "cure." >But, of course, you didn't do anything at all. Oh okay, I guess it just must be VERY RANDOM COINCIDENCE!! -- that people who practice with dillegence, the rest methods of cure, are CURED! What an amazing coincidence that is. I am sure it would have happened anyway, yes? In a matter of minutes, the shift to emmetropia and back to ammetropia again? And many more shifts to follow? I think you are a dumbo. > You say 'only 2.5 years', like it is quite a short time, or something. > > It seems to me that 2.5 years is a VERY HUGE time! For small children, one minute is a long time. For adults, 2.5 years isn't all that long. And you've morphed again. Time for another killfile entry. What do you mean 'Unwary'? Do you mean like a 5 year old child, or what? If I have the intelligence (and I am not even that intelligent) to know that medical advice online might be dodgy, then so should everyone else! On Sep 15, 3:05 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > As I stated, you can LOVE that minus, wear > it all the time, and watch your vision go > down, down, down. Or, you can hate that minus, embrace that plus, obsess about your vision 24/7, and watch your vision still go down, down, down. On Sep 15, 4:05 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Kaze, > > Subject: The PREVENTIVE second-opinion. there is no "second-opinion". it's just Otis' opinion. Otis, if your method works then how come it didn't when it was tested in a clinical study? And why aren't other studies published that demonstrate that it works? Regardless of what you say, there would be a HUGE interest in the eye care world in an effective method for preventing myopia. In Singapore alone they are pouring millions of dollars into studies looking for an effective method. Do you really think that everyone is so stupid that they have overlooked using dime store readers? No --- it just simply doesn't work. How can you deny reality? You would stand on railroad tracks and deny that a train was coming until it smashed you flat! Have you ever considered seeing a psychoanalyst? you are irrational at best and quite likely mentally ill. On Sep 18, 12:08 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 15, 4:05 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > there is no "second-opinion". it's just Otis' opinion. No it is not Just Otis opinion. It is my opinion too. It is opinion of many-many people on the earth. It is opinion of the nature itself. Dear Lena, Subject: Preventing ENTRY into a negative refractive STATE. This must be a judgment of the person himself. I would agree that 99 percent of the population has no interest in taking control, and using a strong plus "correctly". This issue is the person's intellectual judgment of scientific facts, respecting the fundamental eye as dynamic -- in the first place. Thus, if the person sees his Snellen at 20/60, after inducing A NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE STATE in his eyes, there is only one of two choices. 1. The minus works INSTANTLY -- and impresses everyone. It requires NO UNDERSTANDING of the person using it. It is a "no-brainer". 2. I do not support the concept that PREVENTION is medical. Futher, I do not support the concept that a "plus" is a medical device. That would be like suggeting that a toothbrush is a medical device, since the intention is to PREVENT tooth decay and gum disease. Thus PREVENTION is simply choice the person himself will HAVE TO MAKE -- based on HIS assessment of the scientific facts. Then you must ask -- what are scientific facts -- and how do they relate to the person. Let me give an example. In engineering and science, we know about the law of conservation. We know that if you reduce calories INTO a person to 300 per day -- that person is going to lose weight. That is SCIENCE -- not medicine. But what about obese children??? Does that fact disprove science, that you can become obese -- while eating less than 300 calories per day? There are people who would insist that obesity PREVENTION is IMPOSSIBLE. True obesity PREVENTION depends not on SCIENCE, but on the person's recognition of facts, and his own rejection of self-control for himself. That is the difference between science and "medicine" -- to put a fine point on it. The difficulties of PREVENTING an entry into a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye are IDENTICAL to a parent attempting to PREVENT a child's entry into obesity. Real responsibility rests with the parent and child -- to ACCEPT the necessity of prevention -- in both cases. Just one man's opinion. Otis > On Sep 18, 12:08 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It is opinion of the nature itself. > I would agree that 99 percent of the population has > no interest in taking control, and using a strong > plus "correctly". 99% of the population does not have myopia. When the real population is tested, plus does not work. > 2. I do not support the concept that PREVENTION > is medical. Futher, I do not support the concept > that a "plus" is a medical device. That would > be like suggeting that a toothbrush is a medical > device, I believe toothbrushes are classified by the US FDA as Class B medical devices. > Just one man's opinion. Exactly. And worth every penny. -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Your scientific statement. Mike Tyner OD> 99% of the population does not have myopia. That is interesting. Would you care to reference a scientific publication that supports your statement? Thanks, > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -MT Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are trolls who haunt s.m.v. Rishi has published, and is trying to sell worthless books. Otis is pathologically dishonest and actually hurts people. Following his advice can induce double vision in those not working closely with an eye doctor. Lena102938 uses anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for ANY actual information. It seems she now has to wear glasses and has developed a pathological (and ILLOGICAL) resentment toward the industry that "foisted these glasses upon her." You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site. > That is interesting. Would you care to reference a > scientific publication that supports your statement? Yes. Here's what I read from some guy on a newsgroup. > I would agree that 99 percent of the population has > no interest in taking control, and using a strong > plus "correctly". 99 percent of the population does not have myopia. It's 26% here. It depends on where you live but you have to go to medical schools in Singapore to find 98-99%. Of those 26%, how many have benefitted from your sophistry? >> > Just one man's opinion. And worth every penny. -MT --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote: > Subject: I trust people who are honest about > scientific facts. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Judge this for yourself. This is what > MyopiaFree is all about. As always, Otis, you're a f.cking idiot and a pathological liar. One of two things is true, in evaluating Mike's Statement: ....Either 99% of the world DOES HAVE MYOPIA, OR .... 99% of the world DOES NOT HAVE MYOPIA. Since it's a number FAR LESS THAN 99%, then Mike is -- of course -- correct. And ... as always ... YOU are a f.cking idiot and a pathological liar. If only you could read, Otis. You'd be more dangerous still, but ... I digress. It just never ceases to amaze, astound, and sicken me what a f.cking idiot and a pathological liar you are, Otis. It never does. You owe Mike an apology for defaming him on your little website. You owe him an apology AND a retraction. But what you owe to the WORLD is something different: you should just shut the f.ck up and stop posting your errors, lies, and irrational trash on the Internet. PClar was right: go play shuffleboard, you demented old fool. > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I believe toothbrushes are classified by the US FDA as Class B medical > devices. Mike , class 1 medical devise. But Otis is still right compare one with another. Frames and spectacle lenses is also class 1 >> I believe toothbrushes are classified by the US FDA as Class B medical >> devices. > > Mike , class 1 medical devise. > But Otis is still right compare one with another. Compare what? I need something measurable to compare. When we measure humans, Otis turns deaf. Comparisons do not change his opinion. -MT > >> I believe toothbrushes are classified by the US FDA as Class B medical > >> devices. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -MT You can not compare humans You can not randomize ( thechnically you can only on something like antibiotics, still you should know, as you know, gramm-negative or gramm-positive microorganism) Even in organic chemistry , for example of heterogeneous catalicis reactions the result will depend on the plant where catalysator been made. Under chemical organic synthesis the result ( before it becomes technology) depends on Who make synthesis. If person has a "feeling" how to make it. It is the way. > You can not compare humans You can not randomize > ( thechnically you can only on something like antibiotics, > still you should know, as you know, gramm-negative or gramm-positive > microorganism) OK you win. It's impossible to compare humans getting treatment with humans who don't. > Even in organic chemistry , for example of heterogeneous > catalicis reactions the result will depend on the plant where > catalysator been made. We call this a non-sequitur. > Under chemical organic synthesis the result ( before it becomes > technology) > depends on Who make synthesis. If person has a "feeling" how to make > it. > It is the way. I can't measure feelings. I can measure presbyopia, myopia, and some other stuff. You have intense feelings because you suddenly got farsighted and you got a bad pair of progressives. You felt cheated by the doctor who made you buy them and told you to wear them all the time. You believe that made you worse. We get it. I'm sorry. Some doctors are a.sholes. Others aren't. Can we move on? -MT Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are trolls who haunt s.m.v. Otis is pathologically dishonest and actually hurts people. Following his advice can induce double vision in those not working with an eye doctor. Lena102938 uses anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for any actual information. It seems she now has to wear glasses and has developed a pathological (and ILLOGICAL) resentment toward the industry that "foisted these glasses upon her." You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site. > On Sep 18, 12:08 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It is opinion of the nature itself. really? who are these people? it is not the opinion of people who conduct experiments and analyze data. those people have the proof that this treatment scheme is ineffective. you can believe what you like, and this "second opinion" notion sounds like some kind of tonic that gypsies would sell. perhaps you know something about that. didn't you study the scientific method while you were earning your MS in physics? do you oftentimes believe unsupported theories which are actually contradicted by scientific research? are you basically an angry person who is suspicious of things you do not understand? Thanks to everyone for all the information. One thing I do not understand is how a doctor can prescribe a lens based on one measurement at one point in time. When I was measured for lasik, I was instructed not to wear my glasses on the days of the evaluations and to avoid any up-close work such as reading for 24 hours prior, as it would give a more accurate reading of the precise correction that was needed. The measurements were repeated 3 times on three different days. One good example, with my vision after lasik, I am slightly nearsighted after reading for a while. When I walk outside at lunch after sitting at a computer terminal for 4 hours, my vision is about 20/40. After being outside, using my eyes for distance I can see 20/15. If I use a +1.25 lens while using the computer, my vision is crystal clear for distance immediately after removing the lenses. My vision also tends to vary based on time of day. I'm not claiming the plus lens are preventing me for becoming myopic again, only that it prevents temporary myopia caused by prolonged upclose work. Also it seems if measured for a perscription it would cause a variance based on how I was using my eyes immediately prior. From my observation, my child is the same way. If measured for a immediately after playing a video game close up, it is difficult for him to read the 20/40 line. After being outside playing ball, he can read 20/30 line without difficulty. It makes sense that sitting in the waiting room for the eye doctor he usually plays his video games, just might cause his myopia to appear worse than it really is. He has proven (such as hitting a baseball ) his "real world" vision is better without glasses than with. Thanks to everyone for all the information. One thing I do not understand is how a doctor can prescribe a lens based on one measurement at one point in time. When I was measured for lasik, I was instructed not to wear my glasses on the days of the evaluations and to avoid any up-close work such as reading for 24 hours prior, as it would give a more accurate reading of the precise correction that was needed. The measurements were repeated 3 times on three different days. One good example, with my vision after lasik, I am slightly nearsighted after reading for a while. When I walk outside at lunch after sitting at a computer terminal for 4 hours, my vision is about 20/40. After being outside, using my eyes for distance I can see 20/15. If I use a +1.25 lens while using the computer, my vision is crystal clear for distance immediately after removing the lenses. My vision also tends to vary based on time of day. I'm not claiming the plus lens are preventing me for becoming myopic again, only that it prevents temporary myopia caused by prolonged upclose work. Also it seems if measured for a perscription it would cause a variance based on how I was using my eyes immediately prior. From my observation, my child is the same way. If measured for a immediately after playing a video game close up, it is difficult for him to read the 20/40 line. After being outside playing ball, he can read 20/30 line without difficulty. It makes sense that sitting in the waiting room for the eye doctor he usually plays his video games, just might cause his myopia to appear worse than it really is. He has proven (such as hitting a baseball ) his "real world" vision is better without glasses than with. > Is it common for a optomologist to reccomend full time use for a > case such as my son? Yes, so he doesn't lose them. Your son should not be reading at 8 inches with strong minus lenses. He will get a headache. What kind of an idiot keeps his glasses on just so that he won't lose them? What a stupid reason! Humans were given a nice little function called memory, in case you all forgot! Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are trolls who haunt s.m.v. Otis is pathologically dishonest and actually hurts people. Following his advice can induce double vision in those not working with an eye doctor. Lena102938 uses anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for any actual information. It seems she now has to wear glasses and has developed a pathological (and ILLOGICAL) resentment toward the industry that "foisted these glasses upon her." You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site. |
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.