Advice for 9-year old newly in glasses.

I believe that research has/is attempting to address these issues.
The exact mechanism has yet to be determined, although the lines of
enquiry have become somewhat more defined.

Wildsoet has recently published an interesting article on children,
accommodation, and bifocal contact lenses. I think we are not too far
from arriving at a consensus on at least a partial mechanism.

 

Dear Szczepan,

OD> Of course. They do it for several reasons. Preventing myopia isn't
a good
reason.

Otis> The goal of science is to prevent entry into a negative
refractive STATE.
That was Bates' goal, and always the second-opinion.

Otis> I would agree that wearing a strong minus lens is not the
way you prevent entry into myopia.

Second-opinion best,

Otis

 

Ah, Otis?

You appear to be interested in engaging ... again.

Have a go at these questions, then, would you??

www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Thanks, Otis. I know that ... as a self-professed "scientist ..."
you'll WANT to address these questions (not having Alex Eulenberg
answer them FOR you might help....)

 

There is a lot of discussion on this group about correlation versus
causation. There is a correlation between myopia and close work.
Studies have been done showing that use of glasses does not affect the
progression of myopia. My personal belief is that myopia causes
reading. When I was a kid, my myopia was not corrected until fourth
grade. I could not see distance very well. In fact, it was downright
bad. When I played ball with my friends, I got very little satisfaction
from it. I couldn't see the damn ball. I couldn't catch it or hit it.
If I went inside and read a book, that was satisfying. I could see the
book. I read faster and better than most kids my age. It worked.

 

You are talking about mainstreem science. They neglected Copernicus theory
for 250 years.

I have my own observations and conclusions. In Web sites I check if my
conclusions have support in western research. My main conclusion is that
myopia is caused by the lower salt consuption. Of course in Web is the
support:
"Myopia, iodine deficiency and rickets are on the rise among Australian
children. Judy Skatssoon reports.
Eastman believes the re-emergence of iodine deficiency is linked to diet,
with people using less salt, and a reduction in the availability of iodised
salt."

It is from:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Health/A-modern-dilemma/2005/01/27/1106415699086.html

I have accepted textbooks and there are that healtthy people should eat 15g
salt per day plus 3g per each litre of sweat. It should be salt similar to
that in the ocean water. Tell as why todays doctors recommend a few grams?

Not all reading is necessary.

In textbooks knowledge is presented. Reader can conclude own conclusions. We
must wait for explanation of "myopia epidemy".

Here is a third group. Which who do not use at all. An experiment is not the
best way . Investigation should work better. I am sure that such was done
many times.

Each eye doctor should have his own deductions.

S*.

 

Dear Ed,

Subject: The nature of the second-opinion -- in science.


Majority-opinion> First, ignore anything written by Otis. Actually,
read what he
writes, and discount any advice that seems to fit in with what he
says.

Ed, the optometic second-opinion says that great care should
be taken with the minus. To prove this read:

www.chinamyopia.org

Mike has his belief-system. It is on shakey ground at this point.
If he wishes to believe that the fundamental eye is
not dynamic (science) and tells you that the a strong
minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of
all eyes -- then go ahead and enter his belief-system.

But it is always wise to review the fact that the minus lens
is considered a "risk factor" for inducing an even more
negative refractive STATE in the normal eye.

Do your own review of this second-opinion.

Enjoy,

 

Science?

Science would seek to answer these questions:

www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

It is? Why?

Presuming anybody knows what you're talking about -- for argument's
sake -- nobody around here EVER says that an eye is not dynamic.

So you're just lying.

It's a belief system based on numerous clinical trials.

What's yours based on?

Considered? Where's the evidence.

People seem to experience runaway hair growth after their first
haircut. Some people see their feet getting larger after wearing
their first pair of shoes.

Where's your evidence of causality??

 

"Ed"

To considering:
http://www.chinamyopia.org/hanbossino/myfamilystoryenglish.htm
S*

 

Dear S*,

Subject: Prevention is WISE at the threshold.

If you study the statistics of the "mondern" eye in a
long-term "near" environmet, you will find that
it goes "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year -- consistently.
With more intensive study (by the young student) the
rate can increase to -8/10 dipoter per year -- Singapore report by
experts.)

Since we know this rate (or you or the parent should know it) it
would be WISE to institute the PREVENTIVE methods
at the -3/4 diopter level (about 20/30 to 20/40 on the Snellen).

So my commentary is this:


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.

Otis> Agreed. The "minus" should only be used when necessary, and
NOT USED for any close work. It DOES make a difference.

S*>I agree with like this:

S*> "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?

Otis> Since we KNOW that a child at -1 diopter will go DOWN (say from
age 10 years) is
they start with the minus -- then it would be wise to start with the
plus at that
point, to avoid that steady -1/2 dipoter per year, and "advance cases
of myopia".
The person who does not STOP is at -1/2 diopter, will be at -5
diopters (advanced
case) if he does not stop it at 10 years old. And that first minus is
indeed
a "problems".


S*> 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.

Otis> Some people have recognized this problem -- and resolved
it under THEIR control. You know the two methods, Bates and/or the
plus.

Otis> If they are willing to monitor their Snellen, and work with the
plus, and number of people have been able to clear
their Snellens from 20/70 back to normal -- but never
under majority-opinion control.


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. "

Otis> I strongly advocate prevention as a choice at the -1 diopter
level.
I you do not stop it then, your distant does indeed become a
permanet situation.

Just my second-opinion.

 

Since you've been shown to be factually incorrect on this one, many
times, you're simply lying again.

Myopes in the US Air Force Academy were studied.

- some got more myopic
- some got less myopic
- some stayed the same

With no interventions at all. Some simply got better. Maybe it's
genetic?

To your way of thinking, an emmetrope would become

- a -6.00d myope (like you!) after a K-12 education
- an 8.00d myope after a four-year degree
- 9.00d myope after a Master's, and
- a 10.00d myope after a PhD

Is that what happens, Uncle Otie?

So ... what you're doing is lying by false use of average. You could
AVERAGE the birth rate across all Americans, but I highly doubt any
man is going to get pregnant.

I knew a man who slept with his feet in the oven and his head in the
freezer. "On average," he remarked, "it's quite comfortable."

It's only one of the MANY ways that you lie, but it's still a lie.

Why do you do that? Why do you feel the need to lie constantly??

 

That's not science, man. If you want to discuss alternative medicine,
I recommend an alternative medicine site.

 

But his parents (heredity) MAY have made him stupid.

 

Wow! What an amazing (and spirited) response to my question!

To the novices on board, thank you for your advice and info. But I've
decided to take the advice of the experts here and allow my son to
wear his glasses all the time. He likes them and is doing well in
school since he's been wearing them (as per one of his teachers). I
am hoping my son's myopia doesn't progress much. My wife and I are
mild myopics (she's about -1.75 and I'm a -1.00), but neither of us
required vision correction until adulthood. So, I'm hoping my son's
vision changes for the better as he matures.

Thanks,
-Ed

 

.... it's not so much the issue. It's just Otis.

Absent Otis (and his occasional dilettantes) -- as I always say --
there's a chance that the other participants on this forum COULD,
somehow, move this issue forward.

Nah. It's Otis.

Good luck, Ed. Hope all turns out well.

 

Dear Ed,

Subject: A reasonable judgment.

Prevention is indeed difficult -- no doubt about it.

The minus works instantly and is very impressive and we
all know.

It is indeed easy.

I hope everything turns out fine for your son.

 

Yet another one of your many, and profound, problems.

You think failure means a lack of intelligence/effort on the part of
the subject.

Yet .... time and time again .... I've shown you that:

- some myopes stay stable
- some get better
- some get worse

over time.

What you've never demonstrated is that you have ANY method that has
ANY impact whatsoever on this distribution.

What it ALMOST CERTAINLY means is that:

- where you see success, it was a normal age-based reduction in
myopia
- where you see failure, it was a normal age-based increase in myopia

That's one of the myriad reasons that you're an idiot and a charlatan.

 

not if the connective tissue in the sclera is rigid enough, and the
actual amount of tension generated by the ciliary muscle is relatively
small.

your whole train of thought that the shape of the eye is affected by
accommodation has been experimentally-tested in real-time ultrasound
experiments and found to be invalid.

 

Your childhood was in time when " (Decades ago), all foods seemed heavily
salted. Then, a link between sodium intake and high blood pressure was
discovered. Suddenly, "sodium - free" or "low sodium" products began
flooding the consumer market. Certainly, to a degree, this is justified.
Many diseases are worsened by excess sodium intake, and millions of
Americans must closely watch the amount of sodium in their diet.
However, sodium is a required element for normal body functions. It is lost
in sweat and urine and is replaced in the diet. The body has a remarkable
ability to maintain sodium and water balance throughout a variety of
conditions, thus ensuring our survival. Ultraendurance events challenge this
survival mechanism."

It is from: http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/salt.html

Children like outdoors and indors activities. Low salt diet can cause "low
salt syndrome" which cause the muscle weakness and lack of interest for the
activities . Such children are only able to contract the small ciliary
muscles and read, read, read (Dan Abel wrote: "My personal belief is that
myopia causes reading").

Could you tell us about the salt consumption inYour family?
S*

 

Yes, I see that. I read this newsgroup often. I have a high interest
in vision care.

Actually, I did (briefly) wear correction when I was 14. My eye
doctor made me wear plus lenses for about 2 years, even though I could
see well without them. I suspect he was a believer in the Bates
method. I rarely wore those glasses because... I couldn't SEE
anything more than 2 feet from my face with them! I was only able to
see up-close... really close! When my parents took me to a different
eye doc when I was 16, I was told my vision was perfect. It remained
that way until I was 24, and that's when I began wearing -.25 in both
eyes. Now, aged 44, I wear a -1.00 in my right eye and a -.50 in my
left (and +1.25 add for that lovely presbyopia). Even though I have
bifocals, I rarely wear my glasses, except for very close work and
night driving, where my right eye is just too blurry to see well in
the dark.

LOL

 

Obviously, your eyes haven't been fully informed of Otis's "down
rate."

;-)