About wearing glasses all the time

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.

 

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.

 

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:

www.chinamyopia.org

Best,

Otis

 

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

www.chinamyopia.com

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
that THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

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

www.chinamyopia.org

for enjoyment about this
intellectual stuggle.

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

Seems, we never change.

Enjoy,

Otis

Engineer

*****

 

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.

Best,

Otis
Engineer


******

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
nearsightedness.

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.


*****

 

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.

AT NO POINT DOES HE SAY THAT MINUS LENSES CAUSE MYOPIA!

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.

 

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

 

(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

 

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.

 

(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.
DrG

 

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

 

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.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

(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.

Friends,

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.

DrG

 

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
has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATUS OF THE EYE.

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
offered A DISCUSSION of THE POSSIBILITY
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.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

*****

 

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,

--LB

 

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
instantly.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

(Otis Brown) wrote in

Your claims ring hollow.

DrG

 

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.