So I need glasses...

My prescription is

R
sph -0.5
cyl -0.25

L
sph -0.25
cyl -0.50

Together:
0.25

Not bad sight? I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while
back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could
tell me if I needed glasses. And well I do, so this is for future
reference.

Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I
want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true.

trab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> My prescription is
>
> R
> sph -0.5
> cyl -0.25
>
> L
> sph -0.25
> cyl -0.50
>
> Together:
> 0.25
>
> Not bad sight?

Not very bad. You could probably just wear glasses for driving, etc.
Everyday vision is good enough. This is an optional/part-time
prescription to wear just when you need an extra boost in your distance
vision.

> I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while
> back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could
> tell me if I needed glasses. And well I do, so this is for future
> reference.
>
> Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I
> want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true.

the only way you could know that is if you could duplicate or clone
yourself, and have one clone wear the glasses and have the other clone
not. even then n=1 so its not very statistically significant.

<(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:(E-Mail Removed) ps.com...
> My prescription is
>
> R
> sph -0.5
> cyl -0.25
>
> L
> sph -0.25
> cyl -0.50
>
> Together:
> 0.25

What's this 0.25 stands for Mr or Mrs X ?

>
> Not bad sight? I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while
> back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could
> tell me if I needed glasses.

You also mentioned your vision acuity uncorrected for the left eye being
nearly 20/20 remember?
What vision do you achieve when wearing spectacles for the right eye and
what vision acuity is achieved for the left ?

> And well I do, so this is for future
> reference.

At last you asked your proffessional as you should in first place?
This news group is not a replacement for real eyecare and giving personal
advise in these matters, eyecare proffessionals in this newsgroup only can
speak in general with such minimal data as provided from you.

>
> Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I
> want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true.

Ask Otis, he is very positive minded on this particular issue.

--
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)

Dear Trab,

There is no doubt that a minus lens is an easy
solution. Most prefer it. Some commentary:

Not bad sight?

That is a very mild prescription for 20/50 on
the eye chart.

I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while
back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could

tell me if I needed glasses.

Otis> At 20/50 you will need a minus
lens to pass the DMV.

And well I do, so this is for future
reference.


Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I
want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true.

Otis> THAT depends on how old you
are, and how much you wear that
minus lens. I would suggest you
ONLY wear it when you need it -- like
driving a car. If you do that, then
your refraction will stay at about
-1/2 diopter, and eye chart at 20/50.

Best,

Otis

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dear Trab,

> Otis> THAT depends on how old you
> are, and how much you wear that
> minus lens. I would suggest you
> ONLY wear it when you need it -- like
> driving a car. If you do that, then
> your refraction will stay at about
> -1/2 diopter, and eye chart at 20/50.
>

just pulled that out your butt didn't you Otis?
this is just your "second opinion"

Dear Clar,

Clar> just pulled that out your butt didn't you Otis?
this is just your "second opinion"

Otis> No, Clar, that was the result of the Oakley-Young
study that proved that when a young child is put into
a (single) minus his refractive state moves down
at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. The
plus (bifocal) group went down at
a rate of approximately zero.

Otis> You should actually READ some of
these scientific publications -- now and then.

Best,

Otis

On 7 Nov 2005 17:49:29 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Otis> You should actually READ some of
> these scientific publications -- now and then.

Lets see some MEDICAL publications Otis.

Bet you won't provide theM.

Until you provide MEDICAL proof, GO AWAY PLEASE!!!

Allen

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> My prescription is
>
> R
> sph -0.5
> cyl -0.25
>
> L
> sph -0.25
> cyl -0.50
>
> Together:
> 0.25
>
> Not bad sight? I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while
> back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could
> tell me if I needed glasses. And well I do, so this is for future
> reference.
>
> Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I
> want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true.
>

So if your eyes DO get worse, how will you know it was the glasses that
made them get worse? It could have been just a continuation of the same
thing that made them START to get worse - which couldn't have been
glasses since you don't wear them yet!

BTW, what's the 'Together' bit?? Was this the Add?

Dom

Dear Allen,

The Oakly-Young study was considered to
be a MEDICAL study -- for a number of reasons,
and specifically, Kenneth Oakley is a medical doctor.

Further standard protocols were followed (blind study, etc.)

However you can state that the "majority-opinion" REJECTS
the Oakley-Young study, because they DON'T LIKE the
implicatons of the study, and can not "reduce" accurate
knowledge of the natural eye's behavior to "medical practice".

That is the current consensus of the majority opinion.

The second opinion does not agree with this assessment
of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye.

Keep an open mind. Nature designed a very sophisticated
mechanism -- which you don't seem to understand.

Best,

Otis

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Dear Allen,
>
> The Oakly-Young study was considered to
> be a MEDICAL study -- for a number of reasons,
> and specifically, Kenneth Oakley is a medical doctor.
>
> Further standard protocols were followed (blind study, etc.)
>
> However you can state that the "majority-opinion" REJECTS
> the Oakley-Young study, because they DON'T LIKE the
> implicatons of the study, and can not "reduce" accurate
> knowledge of the natural eye's behavior to "medical practice".

Nobody rejects the Oakley-Young study, a study is a study and results are
results. What the "majority opinion" rejects is the hypothesis that
wearing plus at near can significantly slow the progression of myopia. That
rejection is based on the many, many, many studies done in the 30 years
since Oakley-Young was published that did not find similar results.

If you do 100 studies, three find plus helps, three find plus makes myopia
worse and the rest find no significant effect, what should your conclusion
be? That 3/100 were right and 97/100 were wrong? And if you think that
3/100 are right, which three do you pick?

Dr Judy


>
> That is the current consensus of the majority opinion.
>
> The second opinion does not agree with this assessment
> of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye.
>
> Keep an open mind. Nature designed a very sophisticated
> mechanism -- which you don't seem to understand.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>