 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007Re: Minus lens for 20/40 child?
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. Dear Me, Subject: Two Answers to your question. The majority-opinion is this. Your child should wear the minus lens prescribed 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that will have NO EFFECT ON HIS REFRACTIVE STATE. The second-opinion is this. With 20/40, (one-point measurement) your child should avoid using the minus lens -- as SUGGESTED by professor David Guyton of JHU. It is up to you to choose between these "opposite" opinions. www.myopiafree.com Best, Otis > 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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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. > The majority-opinion is this. Your child should wear > the minus lens prescribed 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, That's false. > and that will have NO EFFECT ON HIS REFRACTIVE STATE. That's true. -MT Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu) and Otis Brown are long-time 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 aspires to troll status based primarily upon her constant use of anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for any actual information. You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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. I'm willing to bet that you are a lot closer to presbyopia than your son. But, as you admitted, he likes to play his video games and reads at 8 inches. I submit that THIS is the real problem and not the fact that some optometrist prescribed eyeglasses for myopia. I'm sure that if you pay for 2 more second opinions, you will have 3 refractions you can average. In fact, Otis will give you one for free. Subject: My agreement with Dr. L. L> I'm willing to bet that you are a lot closer to presbyopia than your son. L> But, as you admitted, he likes to play his video games and reads at 8 inches. Otis> "L" is truly correct about this issue. In fact, getting the child to ALWAYS READ at greater-than 13 inches (-3 diopters), is essential -- rather than reading at 8 inches (-5 diopters). Otis> In fact, (if you were interested in the plus) you would have to FIRST get him to read at G-T -3 diopters. At that point, he would wear a +2.5 diopter lens, which would place the near work at close-to infinity. But the frist step is for him to get his nose off the book. This point was strongly made by Dr. Raphaelson in his study of the reading "habits" of children. L> I submit that THIS is the real problem and not the fact that some optometrist prescribed eyeglasses for myopia. Otis> You can understand that optometry is a "reaction" to a situation that a child INDUCES in himself from this reading habit. I am pleased that both "L" and myself agree on that point. In fact, "L" can only "react" to the situation induced by the person. If he would understand THAT issue -- we could do a better job of instituting true PREVENTION. Otis> In this case a great deal of responsibilty must rest with BOTH the parent and child to understand and address this issue of prevention. Second-opinion best, Otis > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Otis> In this case a great deal of responsibilty must > rest with BOTH the parent and child to understand > and address this issue of prevention. First by verifying that it works. -MT Subject: By the parent confirming both visual acuity and refractive STATE. Yes, with a simple trial-lens kit, the parent could measure both refractive STATE and visual acuity. All he needs is a low-cost trial lens kit, and the understanding of how to use it. That way the parent could confirm BOTH Snellen clearing as well as confirm that his refractive STATE changed from (-3/4 diopters) to normal. With some technical skill -- there should be no problem doing it. Please remember -- this is not a medical issue, and there is no "law" about measuring your child's refractive STATE -- if you choose to do so. Otis > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -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 17, 9:34 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> "L" is truly correct about this issue. In fact, getting > the child to ALWAYS READ at greater-than 13 inches (-3 diopters), > is essential -- rather than reading at 8 inches (-5 diopters). This situation suggests that the child may have a binocular vision issue leading to a loss of binocularity. Otis believes that the additional accommodation causes myopia. I believe that the increase in accommodative lag leads to the myopia. Therein lies a fundamental but very critical difference in opinion. > In fact, "L" > can only "react" to the situation induced by the > person. If he would understand THAT issue -- we > could do a better job of instituting true PREVENTION. In fact, Otis can only "react" to what I say. Due to a fundamental misunderstanding about the science, he can never do anything about prevention. > On Sep 17, 9:34 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This situation suggests that the child may have a binocular vision > issue leading to a loss of binocularity. DrG, I agree loss of binocularity. is not a really good thing. Their is discrepancy : Why they prescribe contacts monovision correction for adults then ?? It is weird. They even do MONOVISION correction Lasik. It is a little bit wrong. And they even argue, scientifically, that PILOTS can wear monovision correction. It is mmmmm..... Lena. > > On Sep 17, 9:34 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Lena. Some things don't make sense. They just "are." You'll drive yourself mad trying to conform the world to your personal sense of reason. I cannot stand to wear monovision myself. Hi Mr Brooks, It is good that your elder brother has had very good eyesight, throughout his lifetime. Then it means he was a good influence for the people surrounding him. That is what I am getting at, here. Bates found, and other have found also, that when the teacher of a school class was present, and the teacher was wearing glasses, and the child was asked to read the snellen chart with the teacher standing (looking sternly) next to him, that the child might be unable to read to the normal standard. What was very peculiar was, that when the teacher left the room the child immediately read at 20/10. This is a fine demonstration to the influence of those who surround us, and their behaviour, in how it impacts our vision. Many other similar cases were observed, in fact. In fact Dr.Bates almost always found that in the classes where the teacher had perfect sight and did not wear glasses, that the sight of the children was also mostly perfect, and in the glasses where the many children had imperfect sight the teacher also had imperfect sight and wore glasses. But it is a shame that your brother is entering presbyopia. I wish you would tell him: begin the rest methods. Then he can see for himself what amazing things it will do for him. Tell him to read fine print and diamond print in the candlelight, frequently, and, when his near vision has been restored to a very high degree, then tell him to begin practice with the photographically reduced-size print. This print is a benefit to the sight even when it cannot be read with the current level of vision; and when it can be read without strain the near vision is always perfect. Mr. Brooks, you should not take my word for this, but you should demonstrate that it is true yourself by taking a sheet on which there has been printed photographically-reduced size type; you will find your near vision is improved even just by looking, or glancing at it for a fraction of a second. Then you can begin the rest methods yourself, and cure the hypermetropia defect that you are troubled by. The troubles will all soon disappear; just begin the rest methods and see. But imperfect sight may or may not be contagious for a person; it can depend on his succeptibility to strain. In cases where some members of the family have perfect sight, where other have not (well, you were born with hyperopia werent you?) it can reflect this. However, this fact that you were born with the condition does not minus the truth that you are curable, nevertheless. People is getting cured with defects they had from birth, lots and lots of people. Its just a matter of central fixation, in the end. However it must be said that I do not attempt to sell any books. In fact, actually I am not even allowed to sell things on the internet, my parents dont let me have a credit card, haha. They said: 'when you're 18!'. So you should not say that I am trying to sell anything; I is only telling people how they can get cured, nice and easy peasy. > It is good that your elder brother has had very good eyesight, > throughout his lifetime. Then it means he was a good influence for the > people surrounding him. That is what I am getting at, here. Nice selective snip. HE has excellent eyesight, yet all of those around him wound up wearing glasses or contact lenses. I am NOT supporting your ridiculous assertion. I am citing an example that clearly contradicts it. You seem only as honest as Otis Brown. That should cause you shame. Hi Mr.Brooks, >Nice selective snip. >HE has excellent eyesight, yet all of those around him wound up >wearing glasses or contact lenses. There was no 'selective snip', you silly old boy! I understood very well what you said. Yet you contradict yourself with the second statement, and raise it as though it is an example which contradicts my example, when the truth is au contraire. So if 'ALL (my emphasis) of those around him wound up wearing glasses or contact lenses', then it is more likely that one of the people in the group of glasses wearers had already been imperfectly sighted, and the next person was influenced by this person, and the next, and the next, in a chain. It does not mean he wasnt a good influence, but just that his influence would not have prevented the people from wearing glasses: because think about it Brooks: if they surrounded him; that means they also surround each other. Thus in support of 'imperfect sight is contagious'. > > > On Sep 17, 9:34 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > mad trying to conform the world to your personal sense of reason. I > cannot stand to wear monovision myself. DrG Thank you for the answer. Lena > Their is discrepancy : > Why they prescribe contacts monovision correction for adults then ?? Because binocularity is only fragile during development. After age 12 or so, it's hardwired, and monovision doesn't destroy neurological pathways and reflexes that are fully formed. > And they even argue, scientifically, that PILOTS can wear monovision > correction. It's possible to pilot with monovision but the US FAA and NTSC do not allow it for commercial licenses. I believe monovision has been blamed for one or two crashes. I'm not convinced, but no other causes were found. -MT Howcomes monovision is bad? Is it becoz you lose your depth perception, slightly? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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. One caveat. Although I would have a difficult time believing that your son would comply with full time wear at the 20/30 - 20/40 level, I would not make him stop wearing them if he chose to do so. Also, you didn't provide the answers to some of my questions, specifically about the exact prescription. Snellen is a rather crude measure of the magnitude of a refractive error. |
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.