Advice for 9-year old newly in glasses.

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

 

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*

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Mythology.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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*

 

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*

 

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.

 

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*

 

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*

 

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*

 

Please cite the research that supports this claim without reference to
Bates or his followers.

 

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 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*

 

(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.