Children with a tendency for myopia wearing reading glasses propholactically

I was talking to someone recently who opined: if kids who were in families
where myopia was common as they grew older, and if those kids wore reading
glasses when they were reading when they were young that that might somehow
help their eyes avoid myopia, or at least lessen the severity of myopia.

Somehow this thinking was based on the theory that extensive reading causes
myopia in many cases.

I was wondering, what affect would kids wearing reading glasses have, if
they were not necessary? What of that guy's theory--is there any sense at
all to it?

Just curious,

Reece

When I was about 13, my parents took me to an opthamologist because of
recurrent headaches. I remember wearing plus glasses and was told to
wear them as often as possible, even for distance. I was also given a
slant board and had to do all my homework on this "lap desk". I also
had to perform eye exercises (following a dot on a stick, crossing my
eyes, and other focusing techniques). This went on for about 2 years.
Then from the ages of 15 to my early 20's, I required NO vision
correction. I was 20/15 in both eyes. It wasn't until I was around 22
that I started becoming a bit nearsighted. I remember my first pair of
adult glasses, both lenses were -.25 power with a slight astigmatism.
As the years went by, my right eye went to -.75 and my right eye -.50,
but now I'm having trouble seeing close up (I am now 42).

I now wonder if my myopia would've been any worse if I had *not* worn
plus lenses and done those exercises for those 2 years when I was a
teen? Both of my parents wear fairly strong minus lenses (I know my mom
is -4.00 and dad around -3.50). Yet my two younger brothers are mildy
nearsighted (they both wear glasses a bit stronger than mine).

-Tom in Scranton, PA

Dear Reece,

Subject: Prevention with the plus -- and the difficulties.

Prevention is indeed possible -- but difficult.

If the person himself develops the opinion or judgement about using the
plus -- for prevention -- and is successful (always passes the DMV)
then
he never requires the minus lens.

But that REMOVES the subject from optometry.

Further, one psycho, Neil Brooks, wishes to sue anyone who advocates
PREVENTION with the plus. That will STOP ANY OD FROM HELPING YOU WITH
PREVENTION.

Thus, prevention-with-plus is possible, bot DO NOT EXPECT ANY OD TO PUT
HIMSELF AT PROFESSIONAL RISK to help you with the concept and method.
i.e., you have no choice
but to figure out how to do it "youself".

You might enjoy my "academic" site,

www.myopiafree.com

about these issues, as well as
the prevention-minded ODs who will
help you if you "wake up" to the
necessity of using the plus FOR PREVENTION.

As always, enjoy,

Otis

__________

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
"youself".
"academic"
"wake up"

Quote count: 3
Post size: tiny

being -.5 diopters is nothing, I dont even call this myopia. Dont see
why you were pescribed distance glasses when you are pratically plano.
My brother is -1.25 and has no problem seeing and only wears glasses
for driving. Yes your plus glasses prevented your myopia but your minus
glasses caused your eyes to become just shy of plano but itll help you
see well from intermediate without reading glasses.

<(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> being -.5 diopters is nothing, I dont even call this myopia. Dont see
> why you were pescribed distance glasses when you are pratically plano.
> My brother is -1.25 and has no problem seeing and only wears glasses
> for driving. Yes your plus glasses prevented your myopia but your minus
> glasses caused your eyes to become just shy of plano but itll help you
> see well from intermediate without reading glasses.

First of all ace, try to quote correct.
Not mentioning to WHOM you quote in a thread is confusing. (you are not
responding to the OP)

Having said this, it is not important weither or not ace call this
myopia.(which it is)
Still an adept of the "Otis therapy" seeing your nonsence in the last part
of your story?

--
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

there is no evidence that having very young children who are
predisposed via family history to develop myopia would benefit from
plus lenses, but there is not evidence that is won't help either.

in other groups, older children and college students, plus lenses or
bifocals (which accomplish a similar goal) have been proven to have no
beneficial effect.

of course we cannot be certain that wearing reading glasses in a young
developing child who has not problems in the time might not also cause
some adverse developmental effects-- e.g. development of hyperopia.

sorry, but the jury is out. the best evidence gleaned from all the
research basically indicates that "if myopia is going to develop, its
going to develop anyway" no matter what kind of optical device you try
to intervene with.

who was the "someone" who recently "opined". are his initials OB?

Thanks for the info.

That "someone" is someone who never heard of this group.

Reece

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> there is no evidence that having very young children who are
> predisposed via family history to develop myopia would benefit from
> plus lenses, but there is not evidence that is won't help either.
>
> in other groups, older children and college students, plus lenses or
> bifocals (which accomplish a similar goal) have been proven to have no
> beneficial effect.
>
> of course we cannot be certain that wearing reading glasses in a young
> developing child who has not problems in the time might not also cause
> some adverse developmental effects-- e.g. development of hyperopia.
>
> sorry, but the jury is out. the best evidence gleaned from all the
> research basically indicates that "if myopia is going to develop, its
> going to develop anyway" no matter what kind of optical device you try
> to intervene with.
>
> who was the "someone" who recently "opined". are his initials OB?
>

Thanks for your story, Tom.

Reece

"TomMonger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> When I was about 13, my parents took me to an opthamologist because of
> recurrent headaches. I remember wearing plus glasses and was told to
> wear them as often as possible, even for distance. I was also given a
> slant board and had to do all my homework on this "lap desk". I also
> had to perform eye exercises (following a dot on a stick, crossing my
> eyes, and other focusing techniques). This went on for about 2 years.
> Then from the ages of 15 to my early 20's, I required NO vision
> correction. I was 20/15 in both eyes. It wasn't until I was around 22
> that I started becoming a bit nearsighted. I remember my first pair of
> adult glasses, both lenses were -.25 power with a slight astigmatism.
> As the years went by, my right eye went to -.75 and my right eye -.50,
> but now I'm having trouble seeing close up (I am now 42).
>
> I now wonder if my myopia would've been any worse if I had *not* worn
> plus lenses and done those exercises for those 2 years when I was a
> teen? Both of my parents wear fairly strong minus lenses (I know my mom
> is -4.00 and dad around -3.50). Yet my two younger brothers are mildy
> nearsighted (they both wear glasses a bit stronger than mine).
>
> -Tom in Scranton, PA
>

Dear Reece,

Subject: The person's involvement -- in prevention.

Do not misunderstand what I present.

I personally remember doing some "dumb" things with my eyes
as a young child. (Read my site with a picture of a child
writing at -10 diopters, or 4 inches.) That is a very bad habit
indeed.

Studies of the primate eye prove that when you place
population of primate eyes in this situation, the
refractive state of the "test" group move in the
direction and approximate magnitude of the
"nearer" environment. This is a natural process -- not
a "failure". This is also pure science -- and not
medicinie -- if you understand the difference.

But, if you read some of the "blasts" against the
second opnion -- and stated by Neil Brooks, it
is obvious that no optometrist will EVER be
willing to help you with prevention -- or
present the objective fact to YOU so
you can understand the nature and need
for prevention. I obviously can have no effect
on you -- or anyone else -- until they begin
to "wake up" to these issues.

This is the thesis of Steve Leung OD, and
prevention means far more than the "plus".

It means we respect the facts themselves concerning
the proven behavior of the primate eye -- and we
work WITH these facts, rather than against them.

In fact, the ODs should point to Neil Brooks and
say that they can never offer true-prevention because
they fear psychos like Brooks will post "charges" against
them. And they know full-well the consequences of
that action.

This is of course using the power of the "State" to
supress dissent.

You can figure the consequences of that fact.

Best,

Otis