Advice for 9-year old newly in glasses.

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by Ed, Jan 28, 2008.

  1. Ed

    Ed Guest

    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, Jan 28, 2008
    #1
  2. When doing close up work one must use muscles TO DEFORM the eye balls. So
    they can be permanently deformed.
    Is the brother also short-seeing?
    In other words when it is necessary.
    With the minus lenses one must use the muscles stronger and in the result
    the permanet deformation may be enlarged.
    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*
     
    Szczepan Bialek, Jan 28, 2008
    #2
  3. Ed

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, Jan 28, 2008
    #3
  4. Ed

    Guest Guest


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




    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.
     
    Guest, Jan 29, 2008
    #4
  5. Ed

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jan 29, 2008
    #5
  6. Ed

    otisbrown Guest

    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.
     
    otisbrown, Jan 29, 2008
    #6
  7. Ed

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Mythology.
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jan 29, 2008
    #7
  8. Ed

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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
     
    Neil Brooks, Jan 29, 2008
    #8
  9. Ed

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jan 29, 2008
    #9
  10. Ed

    A.G.McDowell Guest

    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, Jan 29, 2008
    #10
  11. When the ciliary muscles contract (to deform the lens for near seeing) the
    eye balls must deform too. It is the general phisics law.
    "they do not get "permanet deformation."". Are you sure that the near works
    conserve hyperopes?
    It is easy to check. If one with -1.0 will be wearing glasses all day long
    when in a short period of time he will need stronger glassses. Next he may
    try use the glasses only when it is necessary and practise Eyerobics.
    S*
     
    Szczepan Bia³ek, Jan 29, 2008
    #11
  12. Could you tell as why?

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

    Are you absolute sure that wearing -1.0 glasses to near work is not harm?
    S*
     
    Szczepan Bialek, Jan 29, 2008
    #12
  13. Ed

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    As well, there is no shortage of studies indicating a high degree of
    familial aggregation or heredity of refractive error.

    A short trip to the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National
    Institutes of Health databases will turn up many studies just recently
    published. Therefore, there is little evidence to support that
    research in myopia is languishing. The sad thing about this group is
    that it is populated by a vocal minority of people who are stuck in a
    time warp.
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jan 29, 2008
    #13
  14. When the ring-shaped muscle contracts its lenght (circumference) becames
    shorter. It should deform the front part of the eye.
    Some people who wear glasses all the time often use the two. The new one to
    the theatre and the old to near work. Do you know that?
    S*
     
    Szczepan Bia³ek, Jan 29, 2008
    #14
  15. It do not need "substantially". The human eye has 60 dioptres. It lenghtens
    a little.
    "He said my son's eyes would focus accomodate just fine with or without the
    minus lenses."
    So everybody can check. One week with removing, one without.
    S*
     
    Szczepan Bia³ek, Jan 29, 2008
    #15
  16. Permanent deformations are time dependent. Farsighted people do not read a
    lot and must take a rest after a few lines.. For this reason taking a rest
    for an Eyerobics is recomended for nearsighted (during reading).
    One reason is the weak accommodation. Reading is simply impossible with the
    strongest. But at -1.0 are the two possibilities and the both may be
    checked.
    S*
     
    Szczepan Bia³ek, Jan 30, 2008
    #16
  17. Ed

    Dr. Leukoma Guest


    Please cite the research that supports this claim without reference to
    Bates or his followers.
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jan 30, 2008
    #17
  18. Ed

    Mike Ruskai Guest

    First, ignore anything written by Otis. Actually, read what he
    writes, and discount any advice that seems to fit in with what he
    says. He's a quack.

    When wearing glasses, your son has normal vision. The need to
    accomodate for closer objects will be exactly the same as for people
    who have normal vision without glasses.
     
    Mike Ruskai, Jan 30, 2008
    #18
  19. "Mike Tyner"
    Almost all research in all science were made mainly in Western. Such also
    had been done. For this reason rich were using monocle (only when
    necessary). Reading through monocle do not have sense. Like reading with the
    strongest lenses.

    I agree with like this: "Q. IS THERE A SECOND BEST WAY FOR ALREADY ADVANCED
    CASES OF MYOPIA TO HELP THEM TO KEEP THEIR EYES THE SAME, OR FROM GOING
    WORSE?

    A. Yes. First have minimum - or less - prescription glasses for emergency
    use only, such as driving, or for whatever might be important. Then wear the
    glasses as little as possible otherwise. Stop all unnecessary close work.
    What close work one thinks he has to do, should be done without glasses if
    possible, under good incandescent light, looking up and away often. If the
    ease is so severe that one cannot do close work without glasses, he should
    have special half-power glasses for close work, or bifocals. From then on,
    do not change the glasses, unless the power of the lenses can be reduced. Be
    checked for that every one or two years. "

    It is from: http://www.i-see.org/eyeglasses_harmful/chap6.html

    S*
     
    Szczepan Bia³ek, Jan 30, 2008
    #19
  20. Ed

    A.G.McDowell Guest

    (Stuff here trimmed - Mike adheres to the consensus view, which IMHO is
    at least consistent with what is known from studies on real people).
    This is an example of a gap in our knowledge that I would like research
    to address. There is epidemiological evidence of some sort of link
    between reading and myopia. If we knew more about that link we might be
    able to find circumstances in which reading would not produce myopia, or
    produce only lesser amounts. Brighter lighting? greater distance to
    text? background pattern to break the monotony of lines of black text on
    a white background? white on black? All of these are now possible if the
    text is on a computer, as is (with more effort) projecting that text on
    a screen several feet away from the viewer.
     
    A.G.McDowell, Jan 30, 2008
    #20
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.