Advice for 9-year old newly in glasses.

When my son was 2, he had an eye exam with a pediatric opthamologist
(we thought he had crossed eyes). She said his eyes and vision were
perfectly fine, and that his cross-eyed appearance was due to the way
the eyelids were shaped.

Now my son is 9. For the past 3 years, he's spent an awful lot of
time in front of a computer and his Gameboy, and he spends a lot of
time reading and doing closeup work. I was concerned that he might be
straining his vision, and since it had been 7 years since his last
vision workup, my wife and I scheduled an appointment with an
opthamologist (his new opthamologist is his old opthamologist's
brother).

The doctor performed a bunch of tests, including a "Worth 4 dot" test.
I asked the doc what this tested, and he said it was to determine how
his eyes worked together. I don't recall what my son saw, but it
wasn't the standard, and the doc said "but that's OK, it's not a
problem".

All in all, the doc originally said my son was myopic and would
"probably" require -1.50 lenses. But he decided to dilate his eyes "to
be sure". Once dilated, he changed his recommendation to -1.00 in each
eye, with no astigmatic correction. He had my son try on the test
lenses and my son said he could see at a distance just fine.

The doc said for my son to wear his glasses all the time in the
classroom and at home when watching TV, or riding his bike and other
outdoor activities. He also told me that he could keep them on for
closeup work, but wasn't necessary. He said my son's eyes would focus
accomodate just fine with or without the minus lenses.

I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing
closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit
harder to "counteract" the effects of a minus lens? Or should he
leave them on all the time, which would make him accustomed to wearing
them (and lessen the chance of losing them). The doc never made this
clear.

Thanks,
Ed

"Ed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
news:626e1f7f-8600-44fd-bbb3-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Now my son is 9. For the past 3 years, he's spent an awful lot of
> time in front of a computer and his Gameboy, and he spends a lot of
> time reading and doing closeup work. I was concerned that he might be
> straining his vision,

When doing close up work one must use muscles TO DEFORM the eye balls. So
they can be permanently deformed.

>and since it had been 7 years since his last
> vision workup, my wife and I scheduled an appointment with an
> opthamologist (his new opthamologist is his old opthamologist's
> brother).

Is the brother also short-seeing?
>
>
> The doc said for my son to wear his glasses all the time in the
> classroom and at home when watching TV, or riding his bike and other
> outdoor activities.

In other words when it is necessary.

> He also told me that he could keep them on for
> closeup work, but wasn't necessary. He said my son's eyes would focus
> accomodate just fine with or without the minus lenses.

With the minus lenses one must use the muscles stronger and in the result
the permanet deformation may be enlarged.
>
> I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing
> closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit
> harder to "counteract" the effects of a minus lens? Or should he
> leave them on all the time, which would make him accustomed to wearing
> them (and lessen the chance of losing them). The doc never made this
> clear.

Neil Brooks wrote: "You DO know -- don't you, Otis -- that in the USAF
studies,

- Some myopes got more myopic over time;

- Some got LESS myopic over time;

- Some stayed the same.

You DO know that, don't you, Otis??"

Such small myopia can be probably repaired with Bates method.
S*

Dear Ed,

Subject: The ease of the minus lens.

Re; But consider the preventive alternative.

There are some people who believe (because of their profession)
that a minus lens HAS NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE
STATE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE. This is science,
not medicine.

When someone tells you that a "minus" is "perfectly safe", I would
suggest reviewing the second-opinion -- that it is not.

You might read this site by a famous optometrist -- who
is pioneering the concept of prevention at the threshold:

www.chinamyopia.org

In general, if you wish to PREVENT you child from developing
stair-case myopia -- then now is the time to review the
alternative.

Once your son starts wearing that minus -- there is no
possibility of "recovery". The effect (of "near" compounded
by a minus) lasts for the rest of his life.

Second-opinion best,

Otis



On Jan 28, 1:37*am, Ed <edutital...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When my son was 2, he had an eye exam with a pediatric opthamologist
> (we thought he had crossed eyes). *She said his eyes and vision were
> perfectly fine, and that his cross-eyed appearance was due to the way
> the eyelids were shaped.
>
> Now my son is 9. *For the past 3 years, he's spent an awful lot of
> time in front of a computer and his Gameboy, and he spends a lot of
> time reading and doing closeup work. I was concerned that he might be
> straining his vision, and since it had been 7 years since his last
> vision workup, my wife and I scheduled an appointment with an
> opthamologist (his new opthamologist is his old opthamologist's
> brother).
>
> The doctor performed a bunch of tests, including a "Worth 4 dot" test.
> I asked the doc what this tested, and he said it was to determine how
> his eyes worked together. I don't recall what my son saw, but it
> wasn't the standard, and the doc said "but that's OK, it's not a
> problem".
>
> All in all, the doc originally said my son was myopic and would
> "probably" require -1.50 lenses. But he decided to dilate his eyes "to
> be sure". Once dilated, he changed his recommendation to -1.00 in each
> eye, with no astigmatic correction. He had my son try on the test
> lenses and my son said he could see at a distance just fine.
>
> The doc said for my son to wear his glasses all the time in the
> classroom and at home when watching TV, or riding his bike and other
> outdoor activities. He also told me that he could keep them on for
> closeup work, but wasn't necessary. *He said my son's eyes would focus
> accomodate just fine with or without the minus lenses.
>
> I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing
> closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit
> harder to "counteract" the effects of a minus lens? *Or should he
> leave them on all the time, which would make him accustomed to wearing
> them (and lessen the chance of losing them). *The doc never made this
> clear.
>
> Thanks,
> Ed

On Jan 28, 12:23*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> When doing close up work one must use muscles TO DEFORM the eye balls. So
> they can be permanently deformed.


This is a ridiculous conclusion. It just doesn't happen.




>
> With the minus lenses one must use the muscles stronger and in the result
> the permanet deformation may be enlarged.


Ridiculous statement number two.





Whatever you do, please disregard the statements of the above
poster and that of Otis Brown. What they suggest will only do harm.

On Jan 28, 1:57 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
>
> >When someone tells you that a "minus" is "perfectly safe", I would
> >suggest reviewing the second-opinion -- that it is not.
>
> Well, we can believe your opinion, or we can believe the studies that
> compare real people wearing glasses with people who don't.
>
> Until you find such a comparison that supports your opinion, one that
> CONTRADICTS those that HAVE been published, you're simply lying to yourself.
> Science is what you measure and observe, not simply what you believe to be
> true.
>
> If accommodation caused myopia, NOBODY WOULD BE FARSIGHTED. Instead,
> hyperopes outnumber myopes. WHY IS THAT?
>
> Now don't answer. Instead, tell us about the other three or four nitwits
> you've found that agree with you. Glorify your lunatic-fringe science by
> calling it a "second opinion." Don't ask the surgeons. Don't ask the
> optometrists. Don't ask the pediatricians. Don't look in the textbooks.
> Don't believe the PhDs who actually research this stuff. Hold fast. There's
> a reward at the end for those who stubbornly maintain their misconceptions.
> After all, only an engineer can really measure anything.
>
> So tell us how to measure myopia with a Snellen chart. Tell us how to
> determine clinical significance. Tell us how you're the only one here who
> knows how to design a study and how all those articles and all those
> physiologists are just WRONG. Tell us we're CLOSE-MINDED and ARROGANT
> because we believe our textbooks instead of you. Tell us we're HIDING this
> valuable information from the public, perpetrating FRAUD just so we can sell
> glasses. Tell us how all our patients would VANISH if we could cure myopia.
>
> We've heard all this from you before, but we really need to hear it again.
>
> -MT

Ed (The OP):

Mike's much kinder and more eloquent than I am. I'll simply tell you
that Otis is borderline insane and a pathological liar.

If you have any inclination to listen to anything he posts, ask
yourself why he's never answered these questions:

http://www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Otis hurts people, including well-meaning parents.

Heed him at your peril.

Dear Ed,

You will get diametrically OPPOSED opinions on preventing
nearsighedness.

I just report the fact that second-opinion PROFESSIONAL optometrists
have successfuly CLEARED THEIR OWN VISION (change of refractive STATE)
as they report here.

http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html

So take the majority-opinion with a grain of salt. A word
to the wise.




On Jan 28, 1:37*am, Ed <edutital...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When my son was 2, he had an eye exam with a pediatric opthamologist
> (we thought he had crossed eyes). *She said his eyes and vision were
> perfectly fine, and that his cross-eyed appearance was due to the way
> the eyelids were shaped.
>
> Now my son is 9. *For the past 3 years, he's spent an awful lot of
> time in front of a computer and his Gameboy, and he spends a lot of
> time reading and doing closeup work. I was concerned that he might be
> straining his vision, and since it had been 7 years since his last
> vision workup, my wife and I scheduled an appointment with an
> opthamologist (his new opthamologist is his old opthamologist's
> brother).
>
> The doctor performed a bunch of tests, including a "Worth 4 dot" test.
> I asked the doc what this tested, and he said it was to determine how
> his eyes worked together. I don't recall what my son saw, but it
> wasn't the standard, and the doc said "but that's OK, it's not a
> problem".
>
> All in all, the doc originally said my son was myopic and would
> "probably" require -1.50 lenses. But he decided to dilate his eyes "to
> be sure". Once dilated, he changed his recommendation to -1.00 in each
> eye, with no astigmatic correction. He had my son try on the test
> lenses and my son said he could see at a distance just fine.
>
> The doc said for my son to wear his glasses all the time in the
> classroom and at home when watching TV, or riding his bike and other
> outdoor activities. He also told me that he could keep them on for
> closeup work, but wasn't necessary. *He said my son's eyes would focus
> accomodate just fine with or without the minus lenses.
>
> I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing
> closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit
> harder to "counteract" the effects of a minus lens? *Or should he
> leave them on all the time, which would make him accustomed to wearing
> them (and lessen the chance of losing them). *The doc never made this
> clear.
>
> Thanks,
> Ed

On Jan 28, 10:45*pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Dear Ed,
>
> You will get diametrically OPPOSED opinions on preventing
> nearsighedness.
>
> I just report the fact that second-opinion PROFESSIONAL optometrists
> have successfuly CLEARED THEIR OWN VISION (change of refractive STATE)
> as they report here.
>
> http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html
>
> So take the majority-opinion with a grain of salt. *A word
> to the wise.
>
> On Jan 28, 1:37*am, Ed <edutital...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > When my son was 2, he had an eye exam with a pediatric opthamologist
> > (we thought he had crossed eyes). *She said his eyes and vision were
> > perfectly fine, and that his cross-eyed appearance was due to the way
> > the eyelids were shaped.
>
> > Now my son is 9. *For the past 3 years, he's spent an awful lot of
> > time in front of a computer and his Gameboy, and he spends a lot of
> > time reading and doing closeup work. I was concerned that he might be
> > straining his vision, and since it had been 7 years since his last
> > vision workup, my wife and I scheduled an appointment with an
> > opthamologist (his new opthamologist is his old opthamologist's
> > brother).
>
> > The doctor performed a bunch of tests, including a "Worth 4 dot" test.
> > I asked the doc what this tested, and he said it was to determine how
> > his eyes worked together. I don't recall what my son saw, but it
> > wasn't the standard, and the doc said "but that's OK, it's not a
> > problem".
>
> > All in all, the doc originally said my son was myopic and would
> > "probably" require -1.50 lenses. But he decided to dilate his eyes "to
> > be sure". Once dilated, he changed his recommendation to -1.00 in each
> > eye, with no astigmatic correction. He had my son try on the test
> > lenses and my son said he could see at a distance just fine.
>
> > The doc said for my son to wear his glasses all the time in the
> > classroom and at home when watching TV, or riding his bike and other
> > outdoor activities. He also told me that he could keep them on for
> > closeup work, but wasn't necessary. *He said my son's eyes would focus
> > accomodate just fine with or without the minus lenses.
>
> > I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing
> > closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit
> > harder to "counteract" the effects of a minus lens? *Or should he
> > leave them on all the time, which would make him accustomed to wearing
> > them (and lessen the chance of losing them). *The doc never made this
> > clear.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Ed- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mythology.

On Jan 28, 8:45 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Dear Ed,
>
> You will get diametrically OPPOSED opinions on preventing
> nearsighedness.
>
> I just report the fact that second-opinion PROFESSIONAL optometrists
> have successfuly CLEARED THEIR OWN VISION (change of refractive STATE)
> as they report here.
>
> http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html
>
> So take the majority-opinion with a grain of salt. A word
> to the wise.

Well, Otis. YOU are neither smart nor reasonable, so I'll just pose
this to Ed.

Correlation does not equal causation.

In studies

- some myopes get more myopic over time
- some myopes get LESS myopic over time
- some myopes stay the same over time

This is with NO conscious interventions

Knowing that ... and knowing that no controlled, randomized test has
ever shown any statistically significant influence to either your, or
any other refractive intervention, what smart, rational, logical,
scientific, or NON agenda-driven person would attribute cause and
effect to an individual's claim??

In other words, I'm a high hyperope. I also loved cucumbers in my
early childhood.

Is it reasonable for me to attribute cucumber intake to high
hyperopia??

Now let's say that they fed 500 young children mountains of cucumbers,
and another 500 young children no cucumbers.

And let's say that none of them became hyperopic to any greater degree
than the other.

YOU would still say that cucumbers caused hyperopia (and would try to
sell a book explaining that theory).

But ... that's because you're an idiot.

Right?

Right.

You see how that works??

Is it REALLY reasonable to

On Jan 28, 8:45 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Dear Ed,
>
> You will get diametrically OPPOSED opinions on preventing
> nearsighedness.
>
> I just report the fact that second-opinion PROFESSIONAL optometrists
> have successfuly CLEARED THEIR OWN VISION (change of refractive STATE)
> as they report here.
>
> http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html
>
> So take the majority-opinion with a grain of salt. A word
> to the wise.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Unless you're Otis.

In studies,

- some myopes get more myopic over time
- some myopes get LESS myopic over time
- some myopes stay the same over time

This is with NO conscious interventions

Knowing that ... and knowing that no controlled, randomized test has
ever shown any statistically significant influence to either your, or
any other refractive intervention, what smart, rational, logical,
scientific, or NON agenda-driven person would attribute cause and
effect to an individual's claim??

In other words, I'm a high hyperope. I also loved cucumbers in my
early childhood.

Is it reasonable for me to attribute cucumber intake to high
hyperopia??

Uh ... not really ... no.

Now let's say that they fed 500 young children mountains of cucumbers,
and another 500 young children no cucumbers.

And let's say that none of them became hyperopic to any greater degree
than the other.

YOU would still say that cucumbers caused hyperopia (and would try to
sell a book explaining that theory).

But ... that's because you're an idiot.

Right?

Right.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike Tyner
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>"Ed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> I was wondering if we should tell him to take them off when doing
>> closeup work because that would mean he would need to focus a bit
>> harder to "counteract" the effects of a minus lens? Or should he
>> leave them on all the time, which would make him accustomed to wearing
>> them (and lessen the chance of losing them). The doc never made this
>> clear.
>
>There is no evidence that wearing them causes any problem.
>
>Focusing "a bit harder" means "just like everybody else."
>
>There are many outside the eye professions, and even a few degreed
>professionals, who believe that the extra focusing effort stimulates more
>nearsightedness. But in 100 years no one has been able to publish a study
>showing a group wearing glasses got more nearsighted than a group who
>didn't. Instead, the published comparisons show no difference between those
>who wear glasses full-time and those who remove them for near work.
>
>-MT, OD
>
References would be interesting. Table 2 of "Epidemiology of Myopia" by
Saw, Katz, Schein, Chew, and Chang, (Epidemiologic Reviews (c) 1996 Vol
18 No. 2) is a dismal list of statistically botched studies that cannot
be considered as conclusive evidence for anything very much because of
these failings. The fact that studies done so far are not statistically
reliable is not proof that there is nothing out there, just proof that
we do not know what is out there.

There is no shortage of evidence for some sort of environmental factor
in myopia. One striking example is Fig 12 in "Homeostasis of Eye Growth
and the Question of Myopia", by Wallman and Winawer (Neuron, Vol. 43,
447-468, August 19, 2004), with caption

Figure 12. Near-Work and Myopia
Frequency distribution of refractive errors in
four populations of Israeli students. Boys in
religious schools, who do much sustained
near-work, have a much higher prevalence of
myopia than do girls in religious schools or
than either girls or boys in secular schools
(replotted from Zylbermann et al., 1993.)

The text suggests that all populations have similar nutrition and
background, leaving environment as a major factor.

From the point of view of somebody seeking advice for a single case, I
agree with Mike Tyner - nobody knows enough to give the advice you are
looking for so you might as well just behave as comes naturally. From
the point of view of a society that is working very hard to encourage
most of its members to seek out education that typically involves large
amounts of near work, I think that we should be running large scale
scientifically rigorous studies to find out more about the development
and progression of myopia. I do not think that we should be ignoring the
topic just because in the past (and unfortunately in the present, in
small numbers) people have talked rubbish about it.
--
A.G.McDowell