About wearing glasses all the time

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by Rick, Jun 30, 2004.

  1. Rick

    Rick Guest

    I just got glasses and am a bit hesitant to wear them because they
    start ruining your eyesight if you wear them all the time and make you
    dependent on them. I was wondering if contact lenses do this to your
    eyes too. I used to wear contact lenses and I don't remember this ever
    happening. I used to wear them all day long. Of course my prescription
    nowadays is much stronger than it was back then, so I don't know if
    that has something to do with it.
    Rick, Jun 30, 2004
  2. Rick

    Mark A Guest

    As you get older, your Rx gets stronger because the eye muscles can no long
    reshape the eye as easily as before to correct the irregularities which
    cause near or farsightedness, astigmatism, etc. This can also happen to
    younger people whose eye muscles are fatigued or if they have health
    conditions that can affect the eye muscles ability to compensate.

    If you have a prescription that is stronger (but still theoretically
    accurate assuming that your eye muscles are not used to reshape the eye),
    the eye muscles weaken from under use, and they are no longer able to
    correct the shape of you eye as easily. Apparently, this is what you refer
    to as "ruining your eyesight."

    If the optometrist put drops in your eye to relax the muscles before the
    exam, this would also cause an Rx that is too strong for your present
    condition, even though it may accurately represent your terminal Rx when you
    get older.

    Find out about the changes in your Rx and ask your OD whether you live with
    less correction, if you so desire.
    Mark A, Jun 30, 2004
  3. Rick

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Rick,

    While the "majority opinion" is indeed that a minus
    lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of your
    eyes, the "second opinion", is profoundly different.

    You might enjoy reading about that opinion on:



    Otis Brown, Jul 1, 2004
  4. Rick

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Oh, so the "second opinion" as stated by
    a highly qualified optometrist is a
    "crack-pot" opinion.

    Yes, you come through loud and clear.

    That is why I believe in runing
    the experiment (pure scientific - not
    medical) my self -- and reaching my
    own conclusions.

    The man asked for a judgment by
    "highly qualified optometrists".

    He can read the web site


    himself and recognized the
    INTENSE BIAS on this subject matter.

    I will put up a "standing wager",
    that when you take a population of
    natural primate eyes, and place
    a -3 diopter lens on them, the
    refractive status of the -3 diopter
    will move negative relative to the
    control group.

    From your "minority opinion" you insist

    This is a matter of you insisting in
    being "expert" in an area where you have
    no expertise. You just do not what this
    guy to understand factual (objective) truth
    concerning the dyanamic behavior of the
    natural or native eye.

    If he has the interest, he
    should carfully read the site


    for enjoyment about this
    intellectual stuggle.

    A long time ago, they use to "bleed" people
    to "solve medical problems".

    Seems, we never change.




    Otis Brown, Jul 1, 2004
  5. Rick

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Rick,

    It seems to be a habit, that when a "second opinion",
    is expressed HONESTLY by an highly qualified
    ophthalmologist, his opinion is called a "quack's" opinion,
    and anything else the optometrist (not a medical doctor)
    can dredge up.

    Here Dr. David Guyton, pediatric ophthalmologist
    expresses HIS opinion about the effect the
    minus lens has on the natural eye.

    I post this only so that you get a "balanced"
    about the true nature of medical opinions.

    Smean campagins mounted agains good men like
    Dr. Steve Leung and Dr. David Guyton reflect
    more on the person who is doing the smearing, than
    on these fine gentlemen.

    People who can not tollerate the statment of
    an honest "second opinion" have a very closed
    mind indeed.




    The Physician's Perspective -- David L. Guyton, MD

    According to old-wives' tales, wearing glasses makes the eyes
    worse. Generations of ophthalmologists and optometrists have told
    their patients just the opposite, that the eye's development is
    predetermined by genetics and cannot be affected by glasses. A
    growing body of animal and human research, however, suggests that
    the old wives were right after all.

    The ability of young rhesus monkeys' eyes to gradually change
    shape in response to what they see comes as no surprise to vision
    scientists. Over the past two decades, their studies have
    demonstrated that the eyes of young birds, tree shrews, guinea
    pigs, and marmosets react to unfocused images by altering their
    growth to correct the problem.

    It is highly likely that the eyes of infants and young
    children also adapt to what they see. This adaptation occurs by a
    relative change in eye length that works something like this: As
    the front of the eye grows and becomes less curved, images focus
    deeper and deeper within the eye. If the lengthwise growth
    perfectly matches the change in the eye's other dimensions, then
    images continue to focus on the retina. If there is a mismatch
    and the focus is off by even the thickness of this paper, then
    vision will be blurred. Remarkably, the eye apparently senses
    where images focus and compensates when needed. If light focuses
    in front of the retina, the eye will stop lengthening until the
    images catch up. If the focus is behind the retina, the eye grows
    in length at an accelerated rate until the retina is "pushed back"
    to the correct spot relative to the eye's other dimensions.

    Thanks to this feedback mechanism, the eyes generally
    maintain clearly focused images throughout early life despite
    dramatic changes in size.

    In addition to eye size and shape, the distance between the
    eye and the objects it is viewing also determines where images
    focus. Near objects come to focus behind the retina, but the lens
    changes shape and pulls the images forward until they are clear
    enough to recognize. However, they often remain slightly behind
    the retina. This slight mismatch may be the mechanism by which
    prolonged close work such as reading can signal the eye to grow
    longer. If such a signal occurs frequently and strongly enough in
    early life, the human eye may gradually lengthen and become
    permanently focused for near objects. This produces

    Most of the adaptive changes in eye length occur during
    infancy and youth, while the eye is still growing in its socket.
    When the front of the eye stops growing, around age nine or ten,
    any further adaptive change can occur only in the myopic direction
    -Ä the eye can grow longer, but not shhorter. Activities such as
    prolonged reading at close distances may cause the eyes to
    continue lengthening well into one's 20s.

    If this cycle of incomplete focus and eye lengthening is the
    primary cause of myopia, how can we intervene in this process?
    Some practitioners believe that limiting the amount of close-up
    reading or television watching a child or young adult does each
    day may prevent myopia. These days that is a difficult task. So
    I advise parents to encourage children to hold objects and reading
    materials as far away from their faces as comfortable, and to sit
    at least three feet away from the television screen. (Those who
    insist on holding books close to their eyes, or sitting a foot
    from the television or computer, may already have developed
    significant myopia or some other problem that warrants a
    professional eye examination.)

    For my young patients with simple myopia, I suggest they
    leave their distance glasses off while reading, something I have
    always done myself. A child who cannot see the board at school,
    for example, should wear glasses to see the board, but remove them
    when reading a book or writing.

    Prolonged reading without glasses shouldn't stimulate the eye
    to lengthen any farther than what is needed to comfortably focus
    the eye at rest at the customary reading distance. By comparison,
    when one reads through glasses or contact lenses designed to bring
    the distant world into sharp focus, the page is focused behind the
    retina. This may prompt another round of eye lengthening with
    worsening of the myopia.

    Otis Brown, Jul 1, 2004
  6. Rick

    Dr Judy Guest

    If you actually read Dr Guyton's opinion, you will find that he does not
    claim that minus lenses cause myopia to increase. What he says is that
    prolonged reading MAY be a factor in myopia development. He then
    encourages children to avoid prolonged reading, to hold reading material
    further away and says young myopes should consider taking their glasses off
    to read. Taking the glasses off to read is the optical equivalent of using
    plus at near or of holding material further away.


    By the way, what was the date of Dr Guyton's writing? I wonder if he wrote
    before the latest studies were published which showed plus at near to have
    little to no effect on slowing myopia.
    Dr Judy, Jul 1, 2004
  7. Rick

    Dr Judy Guest

    There is no truth to the idea that wearing glasses ruins your eyesight.

    However, if it were true, then contact lenses would have the same effect.

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Jul 1, 2004
  8. (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Perhaps you should be preaching your recommendations to infants and young
    children who happen to be highly motivated pilots, then.

    Scott Seidman, Jul 1, 2004
  9. Rick

    Rick Guest

    Well, what I really mean is not that it will ruin your eyesight but
    for example I put on my new glasses for 10 minutes and when I take
    them off my eyes are EXTREMELY blurry, way more than I started off
    with. Of course they go back to normal in a few minutes after taking
    the glasses off, but it seems like if I start wearing them on an
    ongoing basis that blurriness will be much worse and will stick around
    for a much onger time. Again, when I wore contact lenses I only had a
    bit of myopia and when I took them off at night I didn't experience
    any of this worse bluriness, but I'd like to know if it would be
    different now that my prescription is much higher or not because I'd
    like to start wearing contact lenses again.
    Rick, Jul 2, 2004
  10. Rick

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in

    Then look in the mirror. Nobody here is conducting a "smear" campaign
    except you, Otis. You are conducting a smear campaign against optometrists
    and the use of minus lenses without any proof whatsoever.
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 2, 2004
  11. Rick

    Cathy Hopson Guest

    For clarification, the muscle tone component is notorious for varying to and
    fro with wearing or not wearing glasses? Are you saying there's a muscle
    tone side effect to wearing glasses that gets the same treatment as
    anatomical myopia, i.e. minus lenses? Some of my prescription is for myopia
    and some is for muscle tone? Are we talking about the ciliary muscle
    (affecting the shape of the lens) or the external muscles (affecting the
    shape of the eyeball itself)? Or both? Or don't we know? Or doesn't it
    matter that we don't know? Do I need a higher minus because of my better
    muscle tone? How might one weaken muscle tone? I'd like to be able to
    function with weaker glasses in order to reduce the negative visual side
    effects of simply wearing the glasses, including the blurriness mentioned by
    Rick and most others I know that wear them.

    Aren't the human myope studies also done on the young, and for only a few
    years? Aren't the "vastly inappropriate glasses" worn by the young animals
    used only to exaggerate the eyes' response so the study doesn't have to take
    30 years? While the glasses they use are inappropriate for neutralizing
    refraction errors, aren't they appropriate for observing how eyes respond to
    lenses? Why the positive effect (movement toward less hyperopia by
    lengthening the eyeball) when wearing minus lenses? What is artificial about
    the hyperopia during their developmental period? I glean from your previous
    paragraph that we don't yet have the final word on this. The anatomical part
    of myopia is "considered" genetic, not "is" genetic. "It's pretty hard to
    influence", acknowledges the possibility or probability of non-genetic
    changes. And the potential influence is "stimulated somewhat by close work".
    That might be a clue. How do we un-stimulate the anatomical part of myopia?
    How do we influence it in the other direction?

    Aren't the new demands on accommodation placed there by wearing glasses?
    Preprogrammed? By the influence of close work? (cf. your 3rd paragraph: The
    anatomical part ... genetic ... hard to influence ... stimulated somewhat by
    close work.) If preprogrammed by genes, anatomical myopia shouldn't respond
    to outside influences, should it? Instead, it should overrule influences.
    .... when it becomes harder ... and we accommodate for the new demands ...
    and experience symptoms ... and the cycle continues. Yes, we're spoiled, but
    not in the fashion you mean it.

    Can you elaborate on the muscle tone part? Maybe that's where explanation of
    the anatomical part is squishy.

    Cathy Hopson, Jul 2, 2004
  12. Rick

    Otis Brown Guest

    Actually, the suggestion to the parents of children is
    that the refractive status be reported to the
    parents when the child's refractive status is close
    to zero.

    At that point, the possiblity of using the plus
    "correctly" MIGHT be considered.

    The problem? As reported here by some ODs who put
    a child into a +2.0 dioter lens -- the next ophthalmologist
    recommended to the parent that the child NOT wear the
    plus lens.

    This argument cuts both-ways, as we all know.

    What one OD thinks SHOULD BE DONE, then next
    OD will recommend SHOULD NOT BE DONE.

    The parents mostly get jerked around by this
    argument among experts.

    Go figure.


    Otis Brown, Jul 3, 2004
  13. Rick

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    I think we can agree that whatever the intervention, it should be used
    during the period when the eye is undergoing change and development. This
    would exclude adult pilots.


    Please take not of how Otis has very subtly changed his reporting of the
    facts. He has gone from presenting the "minority opinion," to implying
    that his opinion represents 50% of all eye doctors. This is not the case.
    and Otis still represents a small minority of advocates.

    We have figured, which is why the vast majority of eye doctors do not
    recommend that myopia be treated with plus lenses.

    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 3, 2004
  14. Rick

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    As you might recall, I asked you explicit questions
    concerning the effecti the minus lens had
    on the refractive status of all primate eyes.

    You refused to answer -- and invented excuses
    for not answering.

    You then insist in telling me that a minus lens

    I rather doubt that you are and expert of the
    behavior of the natural eye -- and the above
    intellectual blindness, and refusal to
    answer intelligent questions about the behavior
    of the natural eye is proof of that.

    It is true that it is impossible to deal with
    a mass of the population what walks in off
    the street and DEMANDS a quick-fix in
    15 minutes. If you do not respond
    to this then the public regards you
    as incompetent.

    It is hardly suprising that most 99 percent,
    don't bother discussing prevention with
    the plus -- since it takes a wise motivated
    pilot to do this work correctly and successfully.

    It is true that only a small percentage of
    ODs "wake up" to this situation. And that
    is the position of Dr. Steve Leung -- who
    does recommend that the parents be
    of using the plus for prevention.

    If the parents turn Dr. Leung down -- then
    the subsequent application of the minus lens
    and resultant stair-case myopia must rightly
    be assigned to the parent and child.

    This is how I believe that the "second opinion" should
    be applied. But only a small percentage of
    ODs offer that type of discussion.

    It is also very difficult to induce this type of
    "change" from the perspective of medicine, and
    I think that the person who wishes to use
    the plus must figure out how to do it based
    on HIS OWN intelligent understanding of
    the relative importance of clear distant
    vision for life.

    I certainly acknowledge that neither one
    of us can even attempt to "control" that
    type of life-time choice.

    But of course, I advocated that my blood-relatives
    consider the use of the plus -- and were successful.



    Otis Brown, Jul 3, 2004
  15. Rick

    LarryDoc Guest

    Here he goes again, folks. Otis the liar. Otis the inventor of terms.
    YOU, Otis, have never once answered anything. You just make up terms,
    definitions, invent arguments based on nothing scientific. You certainly
    have not once answered with a straight, clearly definable point.
    Statistics, percentages, numbers of all sorts. And not a single one
    based on science.

    But you've got fairy dust to back them up.

    You're a one-concept man, Otis. A man desperately looking to validate
    his self-worth.

    Well, Otis, it aint going to happen if you base it on made-up theory
    which uses made-up terms without any basis in provable science.

    I'm not suggesting you don't have any self-worth, BTW. But if you focus
    on your single, non-substantiatable issue, you look awfully ignorant and
    self-serving without worth.

    I'd suggest you move on. And out of here.

    Best of luck in your future endeavors,

    LarryDoc, Jul 3, 2004
  16. Rick

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear DrL,

    Since pilots, have cleared their distant vision
    from 20/40 to 20/20, have already accomplished
    that task, your statement, that it can not
    be done rings hollow.

    The pilots have learned to avoid you and
    your obviouly "blind" opinion.

    Equally, prevention requires that the person
    himself decide on the relative importance
    of maintaining clear distant vision for life.

    I suggest that it can be done, but it can not
    be done by a "third party" who has scant
    interest in your long-term visual welfare.

    Since if you put a person is a plus lens
    (say at 20/40), and his vision does clear
    to 20/20, and an ophthalmologist examines
    the child at 20/20, he will say you
    are a "Quack" since the child NOW has
    20/20 -- produced by assiduous use of
    the plus lens.

    This is exactly what happened to Dr. Jacob Raphaelson,
    which explains why an optometrist can not offer
    the plus for prevention.

    The individual will have to figure it out for himself -- if
    he has the motivation for it.

    This suggest the need for a tutorial on the issue BEFORE
    any lens is used.

    This would be an "open" learning process, more than
    anything else.

    Until we have an opportunitiy to present the
    concept that the natural eye is dynamic and
    obeys "control" laws, we will just have
    to continue with the minus lens -- put
    in use 400 years ago because it worked


    Otis Brown, Jul 3, 2004
  17. Rick

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in

    Your claims ring hollow.

    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 3, 2004
  18. Rick

    Roland Izaac Guest

    I supose the initial exam was conducted by a professional and the
    pilot was under cyclo.
    Yes, avoiding us keeps the truth away from the pilots. Good strategy.
    So pray tell, what can this "third party" be interested in then.

    1) selling minus lenses to a relatively small number of myopes (USA)
    2) Sell plus lenses to everyone for prevention and minus lenses for
    those who need to pass the DMV test and drive with their minus lenses
    because the licence says they have to. Sell alot of plus lenses to
    hyperopes and presbyopes. Sorry, no time for contact lenses, I make
    more selling glasses. Oh yes your vision is at 20/40 no point
    refracting your eyes, (Why waste time, I have 300 people waiting in my
    waiting room) here have a pair of plus 2's. That will be
    $200.00---Next please.
    An ophthalmologist should examin the child under cyclo at 20/40 first
    and rule out any pathology that may be presently afecting the childs
    V.A. how else can he determine that vision has improved
    An optometrist must follow the established standard of care. If it is
    proven that a plus lens, used correctly, will keep the child from
    developing "stair case myopia" then we will be very happy to to offer
    plus lens prevention. Just think of it, everyone gets glasses. Greed
    however, stands in the way of good eye care. Good eyecare are
    practiced by responsible practitioners. Responsible practitioners do
    not provide unproven methods of myopic prevention. We will leave it
    instead to the charletons who after decades of providing prevention
    methods, have not been able to prove their methods work.

    I have seen these people work up the crowd with their "Throw away your
    glasses forever-----I did, its easy" ads in the newspaper. When they
    were asked to allow their subjects to undergo a cyclo eye exam before
    working their miracles, they flately refused. I wonder why? A chance
    to prove their methods have been lost. To be proven wrong, would put
    an end to a lucrative trade.
    Roland Izaac, Jul 4, 2004
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.