 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2007Difficulty convincing 13 year old to wear glasses
My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses for all activities and he is reluctant to do that. The prescription, his first, is OS -.50 OD -1.25 -0.5 x 135 He says he can see okay and doesn’t need to wear them. Can anyone advise why he was recommended to wear for all activities and what the risks are if he doesn’t? Many thanks He can see fine and is happy without them. He is a boy and reluctant to wear glasses , that is normal. He can do most things without the glasses, so there is no urgency to wear them. At this point there is little improvement over no glasses, so he will opt for nothing. He will begin to wear them when he has need. dr grant > My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses for all > activities and he is reluctant to do that. The prescription, his first, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > he was recommended to wear for all activities and what the risks are if he > doesn't? Many thanks As long as it does not adversely affect his school work, I would not worry about it. Maybe he can wear them when he does homework (in private). Start saving for contacts when he gets a few years older. Dear Mark, Mark> As long as it does not adversely affect his school work, I would not worry about it. Maybe he can wear them when he does homework (in private). Otis> These are minus lenses. His DISTANT vision has blur. His NEAR vision is good. The one time when he should NOT wear the minus lens -- is when he is doing "close work". Even the ODs agree in this point. Just one man's opinion, Otis > > My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses for all > > activities and he is reluctant to do that. The prescription, his first, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Start saving for contacts when he gets a few years older. On Oct 21, 11:36 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> These are minus lenses. His DISTANT vision has blur. > His NEAR vision is good. The one time when he should NOT > wear the minus lens -- is when he is doing "close work". > Even the ODs agree in this point. why do you think you can offer advice here? what experience or training do you have? all you have are misconceptions and beliefs in things that are not true. the glasses would help the child see a little better at distance so if he is having trouble then he could wear them. the glasses have no effect on how the child sees at near since he is nearsighted. they do not help him with near work, and they do not hurt him for near work. your false stupid remark that "The one time when he should NOT wear the minus lens -- is when he is doing "close work" is wrong. And the ODs DO NOT agree with you on that point. YOU believe it because you have your false misconceptions that minus lenses hurt people. It has been proven time and time again that myopes who don't wear their glasses at all, or don't wear them when they do near work, has NO EFFECT on development of further refractive error. go away Otis! you continue to give people improper advice and you don't even care. You are a health hazard to anyone who reads your posts and takes you seriously. On Oct 21, 12:00 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > why do you think you can offer advice here? what experience or > training do you have? all you have are misconceptions and beliefs in > things that are not true. [sarcasm] Why, this is Otis Brown, world famous retired engineer. Don't you know? He has annointed himself to speak for myopes everywhere. He is the champion of myopes. Myopes are created by ODs and MDs who prescribe the nefarious "minus lens" and other criminal acts. Why, he himself is a high myope who, unfortunately, knew nothing of the magical "plus lens therapy" before he fell into the clutches of his OD, who myoped him for life, ruined his budding career as a pilot, and forced him into a life-sentence of engineering drudgery.[/sarcasm] On Oct 21, 11:36 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Mark, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wear the minus lens -- is when he is doing "close work". > Even the ODs agree in this point. He has a 0.75 difference between the eyes and astigmatism in the left, so he may, in fact, have better comfort at near with the glasses. However, if he doesn't notice a difference and if his school work doesn't suffer due to discomfort at near or blur at far, then it will do no harm to leave them off. Judy How is mesothelioma treated? Treatment for mesothelioma depends on the location of the cancer, the stage of the disease, and the patient's age and general health. Standard treatment options include surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. Sometimes, these treatments are combined. Surgery is a common treatment for mesothelioma. The doctor may remove part of the lining of the chest or abdomen and some of the tissue around it. For cancer of the pleura (pleural mesothelioma), a lung may be removed in an operation called a pneumonectomy. Sometimes part of the diaphragm, the muscle below the lungs that helps with breathing, is also removed. Radiation therapy, also called radiotherapy, involves the use of high- energy rays to kill cancer cells and shrink tumors. Radiation therapy affects the cancer cells only in the treated area. The radiation may come from a machine (external radiation) or from putting materials that produce radiation through thin plastic tubes into the area where the cancer cells are found (internal radiation therapy). Chemotherapy is the use of anticancer drugs to kill cancer cells throughout the body. Most drugs used to treat mesothelioma are given by injection into a vein (intravenous, or IV). Doctors are also studying the effectiveness of putting chemotherapy directly into the chest or abdomen (intracavitary chemotherapy). To relieve symptoms and control pain, the doctor may use a needle or a thin tube to drain fluid that has built up in the chest or abdomen. The procedure for removing fluid from the chest is called thoracentesis. Removal of fluid from the abdomen is called paracentesis. Drugs may be given through a tube in the chest to prevent more fluid from accumulating. Radiation therapy and surgery may also be helpful in relieving symptoms. Posted by hari at 1:53 AM 0 comments Links to this post Are new treatments for mesothelioma being studied? Yes. Because mesothelioma is very hard to control, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is sponsoring clinical trials (research studies with people) that are designed to find new treatments and better ways to use current treatments. Before any new treatment can be recommended for general use, doctors conduct clinical trials to find out whether the treatment is safe for patients and effective against the disease. Participation in clinical trials is an important treatment option for many patients with mesothelioma. People interested in taking part in a clinical trial should talk with their doctor. Information about clinical trials is available from the Cancer Information Service (CIS) (see below) at 1-800-4-CANCER. Information specialists at the CIS use PDQ®, NCI's cancer information database, to identify and provide detailed information about specific ongoing clinical trials. Patients also have the option of searching for clinical trials on their own. The clinical trials page on the NCI's on the Internet, provides general information about clinical trials and links to PDQ. People considering clinical trials may be interested in the NCI booklet Taking Part in Clinical Trials: What Cancer Patients Need To Know. This booklet describes how research studies are carried out and explains their possible benefits and risks. The booklet is available by calling the CIS, or from the NCI Publications Locator http://mesothelioma-cancer-mesothelial.blogspot.com/ > He says he can see okay and doesn't need to wear them. Can anyone advise > why > he was recommended to wear for all activities and what the risks are if he > doesn't? Many thanks There's no reason to insist on full-time wear. They would help him see a blackboard, or catch a fly ball. They don't help at all for reading or close work. The only risk in part-time wear is he's more likely to lose them. By the time he starts driving, he might be nearsighted enough for a driving restriction. But wearing glasses, or not wearing glasses, isn't likely to affect the progress of his nearsightedness. -MT, OD >But wearing glasses, or not wearing glasses, isn't likely to affect the >progress of his nearsightedness. It might not affect his nearsightedness, but it will affect his LIFE. I am 15 and this boy is 1 year my junior, I know what it must feel like for him to be told to wear these weird alien glasses nonsense stupidity. He doesn't even NEED them jeez. You people talk about giving him glasses like it's a good thing and that 'not to worry, when he is older his disease will get worse so then he can use the glasses', you say it like it's bound to happen and inevitable, and that it's a nice pleasant thing to go thought. You are all CRAZY, C-R- A-Z-Y! >My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses Tell you son to come and talk to me online MSN. I will show him how to get cured quick. Just whatever you do DON'T TELL HIM TO WEAR GLASSES, otherwise things get harder and the cure takes longer. Tell him to come on msn, my email adress is absolutelyinvincible at hotmail dot com. Anyway you should at least be happy for your son that he is intelligent and refuses to wear the crutches which are objects that are full of stupidity. >He will begin to wear them when he has need. He won't ever need to wear at all in his life them if he cures himself quick without delay via the rest method of recalibration of the eyemind. 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. PLEASE, save him from a life of misery and hassle. > Tell you son to come and talk to me online MSN. I will show him how to > get cured quick. Just whatever you do DON'T TELL HIM TO WEAR GLASSES, > otherwise things get harder and the cure takes longer. Tell him to > come on msn, my email adress is absolutelyinvincible at hotmail dot > com. Oh right! This mother is going to tell her son to chat with some freako kid on the internet and take advice from him instead of his doctor. Get real you moron. You are just what you described-- a kid who is just one year older than the boy that this lady is describing and you somehow believe you are wiser than the boys doctor and know more than everyone else on this topic. You are warped. You need to get off your computer and go out and socialize with some kids your own age. If they say you are alien-looking and a weirdo, I suspect its not just because of your glasses. Start acting like what you are-- a kid. You have a lot to learn and you don't know everything like you think you do. Get into the real world and start to develop a normal personality. How is mesothelioma treated? Treatment for mesothelioma depends on the location of the cancer, the stage of the disease, and the patient's age and general health. Standard treatment options include surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. Sometimes, these treatments are combined. Surgery is a common treatment for mesothelioma. The doctor may remove part of the lining of the chest or abdomen and some of the tissue around it. For cancer of the pleura (pleural mesothelioma), a lung may be removed in an operation called a pneumonectomy. Sometimes part of the diaphragm, the muscle below the lungs that helps with breathing, is also removed. Radiation therapy, also called radiotherapy, involves the use of high- energy rays to kill cancer cells and shrink tumors. Radiation therapy affects the cancer cells only in the treated area. The radiation may come from a machine (external radiation) or from putting materials that produce radiation through thin plastic tubes into the area where the cancer cells are found (internal radiation therapy). Chemotherapy is the use of anticancer drugs to kill cancer cells throughout the body. Most drugs used to treat mesothelioma are given by injection into a vein (intravenous, or IV). Doctors are also studying the effectiveness of putting chemotherapy directly into the chest or abdomen (intracavitary chemotherapy). To relieve symptoms and control pain, the doctor may use a needle or a thin tube to drain fluid that has built up in the chest or abdomen. The procedure for removing fluid from the chest is called thoracentesis. Removal of fluid from the abdomen is called paracentesis. Drugs may be given through a tube in the chest to prevent more fluid from accumulating. Radiation therapy and surgery may also be helpful in relieving symptoms. Posted by hari at 1:53 AM 0 comments Links to this post Are new treatments for mesothelioma being studied? Yes. Because mesothelioma is very hard to control, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is sponsoring clinical trials (research studies with people) that are designed to find new treatments and better ways to use current treatments. Before any new treatment can be recommended for general use, doctors conduct clinical trials to find out whether the treatment is safe for patients and effective against the disease. Participation in clinical trials is an important treatment option for many patients with mesothelioma. People interested in taking part in a clinical trial should talk with their doctor. Information about clinical trials is available from the Cancer Information Service (CIS) (see below) at 1-800-4-CANCER. Information specialists at the CIS use PDQ®, NCI's cancer information database, to identify and provide detailed information about specific ongoing clinical trials. Patients also have the option of searching for clinical trials on their own. The clinical trials page on the NCI's on the Internet, provides general information about clinical trials and links to PDQ. People considering clinical trials may be interested in the NCI booklet Taking Part in Clinical Trials: What Cancer Patients Need To Know. This booklet describes how research studies are carried out and explains their possible benefits and risks. The booklet is available by calling the CIS, or from the NCI Publications Locator http://mesothelioma-cancer-mesothelial.blogspot.com/ Dear Gwen, Your son might be "smarter" than you are on this subject. There is a second-opinion. One ophthamologist, Dr. David Guyton, recommends avoiding using the minus lens -- unless absolutlely necessary. Look around -- listen -- learn. There are ODs who put their own children into a strong minus -- and think it "perfectly safe". Others, recognize that it has the "obvious effect", but help their OWN children with several preventive methods. To verify this second-opinion please read: www.chinamyopia.org What ever your choice -- it should be "informed" to the best of your (and your son's) ability. Just my second-opinion, Otis > My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses for all > activities and he is reluctant to do that. The prescription, his first, is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1 On Oct 21, 11:31 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Gwen, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > -- > > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1 Dear Gwen, This fellow named Otis Brown is what is known as an internet troll. He holds to a theory of visual development that was considered plausible about 25 years ago but has since been disproven. Do not believe what he says. Do a search in this newsgroup on his name and read how the other eye doctors in this forum react to him and you'll find the truth. He is a retired engineer, and has no training in vision, ophthalmology, optometry, or medicine. Yet for some reason he thinks he is qualified to offer people advice. Be wary! Wow! thanks for all the varying responses. I'm glad to hear that its not essential to wear them, I think I would have a hard time convincing him. He just keeps saying he wants to be like his friends and none of them wear glasses. I can understand that. He's into sport and glasses could be inconvenient or dangerous. I was a little concerned at the difference between the eyes and wondered if that could do damage. You also say he'll wear them when he needs them and others say don't wear them, is it inevitable that he will eventually need a stronger pair? Dear Gwen, It is a sad but true effect -- that our "schooling" results in our refractive STATE going down by -1/2 diopter per year. Thus, if no PREVENTIVE actions are taken, you can expect his eye's to do DOWN at that rate -- suggested by the optometrists posting on sci.med.vision. But for now, the second-opinion is that he should only put on that "minus" for distance. This is your son's future -- and he has a right to make an informed choice in this matter. You (and he) might enjoy reading the second-opinion site: www.myopiafree.com about these intellectual issues of science. Best, Otis > Wow! thanks for all the varying responses. I'm glad to hear that its not > essential to wear them, I think I would have a hard time convincing him. He [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Message posted viahttp://www.medkb.com On Oct 21, 11:27 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Gwen, > > It is a sad but true effect -- that our "schooling" results > in our refractive STATE going down by -1/2 diopter per > year. That's also a lie, Gwen. What Otis is trying to say here is that -- if the average family has 2.3 children, then your child -- without fail -- will also have 2.3 children. He's lying by use of averages. He really is quite dangerous. You really would do well to ignore him. On Oct 21, 2:27 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Gwen, > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > -- > > Message posted viahttp://www.medkb.com Otis, we are all tiring of hearing your monotonous spewing of misinformation. your figure of -0.5D change in prescription is the average value of school children who already wear eyeglasses-- not the average of all school children. you should take the time to clarify your claims, that is if accuracy and validity is an objective of yours at all-- and I doubt it! Do we need to quote for you AGAIN the scientific research studies that PROVE that myopes who wear their glasses full time, compared to those that take them off to read, actually progress at identical rates? It's been tested and proven already Otis and you know it. Why do you persist in handing out misinformation (= lies) to people who come to this forum for information? Why do you persist in being a dishonest person? And of course everybody has a right to all the information they want about any subject. But its quite clear that the information YOU give is out-and-out WRONG and simply ignors topics that have been researched and clarified years ago. Why do you not care about the truth Otis? You are a sham and a con-man. How are your book sales going Otis? How are the legal actions in the State of Pennsylvania that have been file against you coming along? > Wow! thanks for all the varying responses. I'm glad to hear that its not > essential to wear them, I think I would have a hard time convincing him. He [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Message posted viahttp://www.medkb.com its quite common that people have different prescriptions between their two eyes. its not a problem. if he appreciates clear vision, and would like to be able to see clearly without having to wear glasses (because his friends say they're "gross", or because he doesn't like his appearance, or because they slip off his face during sports, etc.), then he would be a good candidate for contact lenses. I personally feel that kids are "ready" to wear contacts as soon as they seem responsible enough to care for them properly. I've fit kids as young as 8 years old without problems. You would be the best judge of whether he is ready or not. I actually think that starting young adolescents or children in contacts is a good idea because you can train them and they will develop healthy habits before they hit the "know-it-all" teenage years. since you say he is active and glasses are inconvenient (rarely dangerous though-- don't know why you said that), soft disposable contacts are great for sports. they provide excellent vision, they are quite comfortable, they don't fall out or fog-up, and they are less expensive than glasses also. regardless-- he has to want to get them rather than have you push him to do it because in the beginning it will be a little cumbersome and awkward for a few days while he learns to put them in and take them out. unless they are motivated to learn how to put them in and take them out, they will sometimes quit after 1 or 2 days because they don't have the patience to learn. learning to handle contacts is a bit like roller skating-- it seems hard at first but after you do it a few times it works great. sorry about the diversion into discussing contacts but when you said he likes sports, then you should know that contacts are a very good option. also, with contacts on, he will see clearly and the stigma of having glasses isn't a factor any more. sorry, but its impossible to predict whether his prescription will change or not. at his age it is certainly common to have slight increases in prescription strength every year. higher eyeglass prescriptions are usually related to increased eye growth, and at his age he is indeed growing. > > Wow! thanks for all the varying responses. I'm glad to hear that its not > > essential to wear them, I think I would have a hard time convincing him. He [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > others say don't wear them, is it inevitable that he will eventually need a > > stronger pair? > its quite common that people have different prescriptions between > their two eyes. its not a problem. Sometimes it's a problem, but not at his prescription. > sorry about the diversion into discussing contacts but when you said > he likes sports, then you should know that contacts are a very good > option. also, with contacts on, he will see clearly and the stigma of > having glasses isn't a factor any more. Contacts are a good option for some people. They don't work for some people, and others just aren't interested enough. In my limited experience, the main factor for success in contacts is motivation. If people are motivated, they can make them work. If not, they won't work. Don't try to push too hard, in my experience. Find out if his friends wear contacts. It's pretty hard to tell, so some investigation may be in order. > glasses. I can understand that. He's into sport and glasses could be > inconvenient or dangerous. Some sports it's safer to have glasses on. Tennis is one. In other sports it can really improve performance, like playing outfield in a night game. That would be obvious to him, so like broccoli, you might insist he try it just once. The further things are, and the dimmer the light, the more they help. Driving at night, he'll want them. > I was a little concerned at the difference between the eyes and wondered > if > that could do damage. Once the eyes have developed normally, blurry vision can't "damage" the eyes. > You also say he'll wear them when he needs them and > others say don't wear them, is it inevitable that he will eventually need > a > stronger pair? Not inevitable, but typical. As you've seen, some very vocal lay people and lunatics gravitate to this newsgroup insisting glasses should have warning labels. But the _vast_ majority of practicing doctors and vision researchers agree it makes little difference whether he wears them full-time, part-time, or not at all. Insisting on full-time-wear (in simple myopia) benefits nobody except it's maybe easier to keep up with the glasses. -MT, OD > > glasses. I can understand that. He's into sport and glasses could be > > inconvenient or dangerous. > > Some sports it's safer to have glasses on. Tennis is one. Tennis is safer ? Yes, I fill myself very unsafe without glasses. It is simply dangerous just to live without. > In other sports it can really improve performance, like playing outfield in > a night game. That would be obvious to him, so like broccoli, you might > insist he try it just once. Insist ? Mike? > The further things are, and the dimmer the light, the more they help. > Driving at night, he'll want them. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Not inevitable, but typical. Not typical > As you've seen, some very vocal lay people and lunatics gravitate to this > newsgroup insisting glasses should have warning labels. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Insisting on full-time-wear (in simple myopia) benefits nobody except it's > maybe easier to keep up with the glasses. easier to keep up with the glasses.? All the time? > -MT, OD 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. "otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in news:1192980711.996041.88840 @v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com: > One ophthamologist, Dr. David Guyton, recommends avoiding > using the minus lens -- unless absolutlely necessary. And, he defines "absolutely necessary" as having myopia and wanting to see.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Thanks for all your explanations. Having read the professionals’ point of view I don’t feel I should force him to wear the glasses all the time, he says he can see okay without them (how true that is I don’t really know). At a basic minimum should I ask the school to make sure he wears them to see the board or can he really see okay without them? I was surprised about the comments about contacts as the previous comments made me believe his sight wasn’t too bad. Your comments have prepared me to expect that it might get worse. Should I insist that he wears them for school or just let him find his own way, how much can he see? > Thanks for all your explanations. Having read the professionals' point of > view I don't feel I should force him to wear the glasses all the time, he [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1 if he sits near the front of class he can see the board OK. If his grades suffer you might be more insistent about him wearing them. Wearing contacts in no way implies that his prescription is bad or that it might get worse. Its simply that he might not be wearing his glasses because he thinks they look "dorky" on him, or he doesnt want to deal with these things hanging off his nose and falling off when he plays sports. Contacts give excellent vision and do not affect his appearance so you might simply educate him about them and then let him decide whether he's interested or not. Its just an option that might seem more acceptable to him than glasses and actually they are more affordable too and offers little risk of getting lost or broken. Its just a thought. > My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses for all > activities and he is reluctant to do that. The prescription, his first, is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1 The asymmetrical distribution of the myopia between the two eyes, called anisometropia, creates a situation that is conducive to monovision, i.e. preferentially using one eye to read and the other eye to see far. In this scenario, I would be more likely to recommend wearing the glasses full-time. With the glasses, he will have better stereopsis and better binocular vision under all circumstances, not to mention balancing the load between the two eyes. > > My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses for all > > activities and he is reluctant to do that. The prescription, his first, is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > stereopsis and better binocular vision under all circumstances, not to > mention balancing the load between the two eyes. You prescribe the monovision contacts for presbiopia, aren't you ? Why you want push guy into glasses if he does not want ? > > > My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses for all > > > activities and he is reluctant to do that. The prescription, his first, is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You prescribe the monovision contacts for presbiopia, aren't you ? > Why you want push guy into glasses if he does not want ? ==================================================== Gwen, Please disregard posts by Lena, Otis, and Zetsu. Dr. G (Leukoma) is EXACTLY right: the visual system considerations for a 14 year old are critically different from the considerations of a presbyope (that Lena refers to in her post) who is, typically, >40 years old. Primarily Lena and Otis are living examples of how a little knowledge is an exceptionally dangerous thing. ==================================================== > > > My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses for all > > > activities and he is reluctant to do that. The prescription, his first, is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Please re-read my post. This young man has ample accommodation for reading without monovision. He may actually appreciate the good, clear, single binocular vision at some point in his life. > > > > My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses for all > > > > activities and he is reluctant to do that. The prescription, his first, is [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > reading without monovision. He may actually appreciate the good, > clear, single binocular vision at some point in his life. Please, you know , that in real life there is almost no person with two eyes the same. There almost all the time difference like 0.25 D 0.75 is not a that big of a difference I have all my live one eye -0.75 another 20/20 I never ever had any problems with that. > I have all my live one eye -0.75 another 20/20 I never ever had any > problems with that. So, if it doesn't bother YOU, it must not bother anyone else. > To write software for that device - couple of weeks it will be done. > It will do the job even better then OD, it can work slower then some > women in the rush for grossery shoping > How do you like that perspective? Just fine. I'll keep treating disease, finding retinal detachments and fitting contacts. I already quit selling glasses. But it'll still be a long time before a machine refracts better than I do. Better get started if you want to see it in your lifetime. Dentists push fillings and braces. Surgeons push surgery. Mechanics push auto repair. Many plumbers make more than optometrists. Find a better target. > Then OD brainwash that brain like in case of that post about >13 old kid who are pushed into glasses with OD who wants more clients. The ODs here said full-time wear wasn't necessary. Who are you complaining about? The kid has no right to wear glasses? -MT > > I have all my live one eye -0.75 another 20/20 I never ever had any > > problems with that. > > So, if it doesn't bother YOU, it must not bother anyone else. Please forgive Lena, Mike. Statements like that make it abundantly clear that she is some combination of: illogical, ridiculous, a person of faith rather than science, agenda driven, or ... simply an idiot. > Dentists push fillings and braces. Surgeons push surgery. Mechanics push > auto repair. Many plumbers make more than optometrists. Whoops! There's that "Hi, I'm Lena. I HATE optometrists almost as much as Otis does. But ... sadly ... I don't have ANY accurate information, so I simply disparage them at every opportunity" thing again. Lena? WTF are you doing here? > > I have all my live one eye -0.75 another 20/20 I never ever had any > > problems with that. > > So, if it doesn't bother YOU, it must not bother anyone else. It should not > > To write software for that device - couple of weeks it will be done. > > It will do the job even better then OD, it can work slower then some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just fine. I'll keep treating disease, finding retinal detachments and > fitting contacts. I did not mention all of that. Contacts mashine will fit. Better that or that ? Would you like to speak with customer service representative ? I already quit selling glasses. > But it'll still be a long time before a machine refracts better than I do. > Better get started if you want to see it in your lifetime. > Dentists push fillings and braces. Dentists it is different story. They (not all) trying too extract tooth if it needs a lot of job instead of saving it. The twist is that they do not bother to sent to the surgeon for procedure. >Surgeons push surgery. >Mechanics push > auto repair. Many plumbers make more than optometrists. > > Find a better target. Ah! I do not want any target, Mike I even do not dream about that all OD and other representatives of medicine had some amount of brains, I do not mean you, I meat others like that OD. Just people should be more educated, probably. > > Then OD brainwash that brain like in case of that post about > >13 old kid who are pushed into glasses with OD who wants more clients. > > The ODs here said full-time wear wasn't necessary. Who are you complaining > about? About the others, Mike. Not all like you. > The kid has no right to wear glasses? Kid does not wont to. Could we respect the kid, pleace? > -MT Dear Lena, Subject: Remarkable inconsistency. At one point the OD will tell you that a difference of 1/2 diopter between the eyes is TERRIBLE -- and that you should "fix it" pronto. Then they will tell a person that "monovision", (i.e., forcing a difference between the eyes of 2 diopters) -- is WONDERFUL. You are correct. A difference in refractive STATE between the eyes of 1/2 diopter is normal. But, further, if one eye is at zero diopters (20/20), and the other eye is a -1/2 diopter (20/40), the person, with both eyes open, reading the Snellen, will have 20/20. This also meets the requirment of the DMV, which requires better-than 20/40 in the better eye. The statement by this 13 year-old is correct. With both eye open, he would probably pass the 20/25 line. Just one man's opinion, Otis > > > My 14 year old son has been recommended to wear his glasses for all > > > activities and he is reluctant to do that. The prescription, his first, is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Oct 23, 10:02 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Lena, Perhaps e-mail would be a better venue for the two of you? > Subject: Remarkable inconsistency. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You are correct. And you are an absolute idiot. It SCARES me that you don't draw distinctions between adolescents and adults. It SHOULD scare parents, too. The rest of your post is just you blathering on about that which you know NOTHING about ... which is why you HARM people ... primarily children and adolescents. I had thought that there would be a unanimous view so the differing opinions is quite confusing. I hear what you say about his ability to see the board in class but don't believe I can make him wear glasses when he says he can see fine them. Today I have spoken to his teacher to explain the situation as I think the best thing I can do is not to force the issue but make sure that his behaviour in class is observed. If the teacher thinks that he is struggling to see the board she will call me. Then I will tackle the issue. Someone said that he will wear them when he thinks he needs to and I think that is the only way. Gwen, I think you are right. My son was diagnosed for glasses when he was 15 and refused to wear them. This summer I saw he was squinting to see the television and took him back for an appointment. His new script is -2 both eyes and he is willingly wearing them more and more. I'm not sure whether he is wearing them too much really but at least now I know he is choosing to see. I think he would have rebelled if I had tried to force him to wear them. Time will tell and you will know when he decides the time is right. Dear Gwen, Subject: It always helps -- to check yourself. I your son does not like "glasses" and thinks his vision is good -- then have him read this official Snellen. Just click here, and then on "Display". http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html Vision does vary, and with his "prescription" (-1/2 diopter), I would suspect he could read the 20/30 line. (The DMV requires the reading of the 20/40 line.) This should be educational for your son -- and fun to learn how to do it. Your OD should be supportive of this independent checking by you and your son. Second-opinion best, Otis > I had thought that there would be a unanimous view so the differing opinions > is quite confusing. I hear what you say about his ability to see the board in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1 On Oct 23, 6:05 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Gwen, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > -- > > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1 Dear Gwen, Please disregard this idiot, Otis Brown. He is a layperson without any knowledge or experience in vision. He is a quack with an axe to grind, as you can see when you visit his website. He is also selling a book he will be happy to take your money for. The apparent inconsistency in answers that you are getting here is because there are basically two groups of people replying to your thread. The doctors and knowledgable laypersons, and the internet trolls and freaks. Among the former group there is Dan, myself, Neil, Mike Tyner, Dr. Leukoma, Catman, Mark A, etc. Among the latter is Otis Brown, lena, and Zetsu. For nearsighted people like your son, in MOST cases, wearing glasses only helps him to see better when they are on. If he chooses not to wear them it does not hurt his vision nor does it help it either. Studies show that the glasses have no impact on the future development of his eyes-- they just help him see better when they are on. Its that simple. Like Pauline says, if he become more myopic and it becomes even more difficult for him to see in the distance he will probably start to wear them more, like her child. Just disregard the wackos who claim that glasses cause your eyes to get worse, and that glasses are an attempt to "hook" people so they have to continue to buy them, etc. etc. There are LOTS of crazy folk out there and we have our share in this forum! OD, PhD Dear Gwen, Subject: The arrogance and ignorance of the majority-opinion. PClar has a right to his OPINION, that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of the natural eye. Tragically, his belief-system if false. PClar likes to TRASH every professional and some layman who DISAGREE WITH HIM. Disagreement in medicine and science is NORMAL -- and we should be prepared to learn from these disagreements about the natural eye's dynamic behavior. But that is indeed science -- and not medicine. You will find optometrists who support the preventive plus (and avoid the minus) for their own children. The fact that they will commit their own children to these preventive methods is a major vote-of-confidence for fundamental change. See: www.chinamyopia.org No own should EVER tell you that their is a "perfect" solution -- because there is none. You should be aware that there are second-opinion ODs who refer to that minus (your son is prescribed) as, "...poision glasses for children". I would suggest taking PClar's arrogance with a grain of salt -- and keep an open mind on these subjects. You can find my book for on: www.i-see.org Just one man's second-opinion, Otis Please disregard this idiot, Otis Brown. He is a layperson without any knowledge or experience in vision. He is a quack with an axe to grind, as you can see when you visit his website. He is also selling a book he will be happy to take your money for. On Oct 24, 12:57 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 23, 6:05 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Oct 24, 10:13 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: The arrogance and ignorance of the majority-opinion. > > PClar has a right to his OPINION, that a -3 diopter lens > has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of the > natural eye. Tragically, his belief-system if false. Gwen: IF, for some reason, you're STILL reading this thread, you'll notice that NOBODY ever said that which Otis refers to above. This is but one of the myriad ways in which he lies. Very unfortunate. [the rest is garbage and was snipped] On Oct 24, 1:13 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > PClar has a right to his OPINION, that a -3 diopter lens > has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of the > natural eye. Tragically, his belief-system if false. err-- Otis, Gwen's son does not have a -3.00D prescription. Furthermore, the study that we know you are referring to is an old old study from >20 years ago on MONKEYS. The study has been done on humans, and it clearly shows that what I said is correct and that you are wrong. Everytime bring up those studies and the conclusions and ask you to comment you just shut up and go away for awhile until some innocent person like Gwen asks a question and then you swoop down with your bullshit again. > PClar likes to TRASH every professional and some layman > who DISAGREE WITH HIM. well, I AM a professional with years of research and clinical training in vision and years of experience seeing patients. And you are..... an unemployed former engineer, or so you say. Let Gwen or anyone else decide for themselves who to believe. > You will find optometrists who support the preventive plus > (and avoid the minus) for their own children. The fact that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > www.chinamyopia.org No, you will NOT find optometrists who behave like you say very often at all. You had to look all over to find some wacko guy who lives in China to finally support your point of view. And when you do claim some well known person supports you, and we happen to talk to that person at a meeting, it all turns out to be lies! Otis-- you are an internet wacko that will probably be appearing in an MSNBC Dateline episode regarding cyber-molesting very soon. Otis we are tired of you. You have no logical or scientific leg to stand on. You have no current research studies to support you and when faced with the overwhelming truth you just fold and go silent rather than reply. Why not do that again right now-- GO SILENT AGAIN please. P.S. How is that legal action by the State of Pennsylvania going against you? On Oct 24, 8:05 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > P.S. How is that legal action by the State of Pennsylvania going > against you? Actually, the thing that most surprises me is that -- after Dave Granet validated everything that I claimed .... and ... by doing so ... INvalidated everything that Otis claimed -- that this SOB still has the stones to post around here. That -- as much as anything else -- is why I genuinely believe the guy's simply insane. On Oct 24, 11:57 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > For nearsighted people like your son, in MOST cases, wearing glasses > only helps him to see better when they are on. If he chooses not to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > becomes even more difficult for him to see in the distance he will > probably start to wear them more, like her child. Well, I think maybe there is something to the idea that the development of myopia is the response of the eye to defocus, especially hyperopic defocus, but maybe myopic defocus as well to some extent. This young man is developing anisometropia, and is essentially functioning with monovision, i.e. 1 eye for reading and the other for distance. It will be great when he reaches presbyopia, but for now it offers him no advantages, and actually deprives him of good stereo-acuity. Can you make him wear glasses? No, of course not. But, at 15 years/ old, why not offer contacts? Dear Gwen, Subject: A BALANCED choice for your son -- at this time. The majority-opinion is rather biased as presented on sci.med.vision. If you son (and you) are interested in preventive methods -- you might enjoy reading the following. http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/truthsee.html Enjoy, Otis > I had thought that there would be a unanimous view so the differing opinions > is quite confusing. I hear what you say about his ability to see the board in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1 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. On Oct 24, 12:19 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/truthsee.html Heh, heh. That website tells an interesting little story that just happens to be untruthful. Otis and his ilk are living in the past, talking about failed methods as if they actually work. Yes, there are two camps: reality and fantasy. DrG On Oct 23, 12:02 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Lena, > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - Precisely , Otis >He has a 0.75 difference between the eyes and astigmatism in the left, >so he may, in fact, have better comfort at near with the glasses. >Judy >The asymmetrical distribution of the myopia between the two eyes, >called anisometropia, creates a situation that is conducive to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >stereopsis and better binocular vision under all circumstances, not to >mention balancing the load between the two eyes. Good points. I would add that it's important to see the doctor again no later than 12 months from the original exam date, sooner if the doctor recommends it. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa, Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman Thanks to everyone who commented here. It's been quite a rollercoaster ride but I will rely on his teacher to watch and report back to me if she sees him struggling at school. He shows no signs yet of wanting or needing to wear the glasses for tv, although he doesn't watch it much so I'm probably not best placed to observe. Thanks again. |
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
|
©2009 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.