And you wonder why so many children ruin their eyes and become highly myopic?

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by acemanvx, Jul 21, 2006.

  1. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    acemanvx, Jul 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear AceMan,

    That is nothing -- compared to a recent report of a 3 year-old with
    20/50 vision.

    The child was "judged" to be -10 diopters MYOPIC.

    So rather that allowing the child time to develop -- they
    PRESCRIBED a -10 diotper lens -- and insisted that
    the child START WEARING IT ALL THE TIME.
    that the eye's refractive STATE will "follow" an
    applied -3 diopter lens. (i.e., the refractive STATE
    of the -3 diopter group will change by -2 diopters -- if
    the -3 diopter is worn 16/7.

    It is hard to see why a child (at 20/50) would be
    put into a -10 diopter lens -- with no concern
    with the secondary risk of that action.

    I think the parent should have been informed of
    this issue -- and given a choice or option.

    But that never happened.

    Just one man's opinion.

    Best,

    Otis

    +++++++
     
    otisbrown, Jul 21, 2006
    #3
  4. acemanvx

    Salmon Egg Guest

    I have yet to be convinced that acemanvx's view is indeed rubbish. I have
    seen the propaganda but not the evidence.

    DrB (not MD, OD etc)
    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Jul 21, 2006
    #4
  5. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Salmon,

    DrL expresses his OPINION -- that anyone who disagrees with his
    OPINION -- is rubbish.

    This includes all second-opinion people, scientists, medical doctors,
    other optometrists, engineers, pilots -- and anyone who
    questions putting a 3 year-old child with 20/50 -- into
    a -10 diopter minus lens.

    I suggest that we take time to UNDERSTAND the
    second-opinion, and the SCIENTIFIC reasons for it.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jul 21, 2006
    #5
  6. acemanvx

    Quick Guest

    Drugs, socially disfunctional, no self esteem, craving
    attention and recognition, ... etc.

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Jul 21, 2006
    #6
  7. acemanvx

    Salmon Egg Guest

    There certainly is some experimental evidence with chickens and primates
    that indicate negative lenses induce myopia. While there may be no smoking
    gun with regard to negative lenses and human myopia, the implication has not
    been disproven either. I do not know how an ethical experiment using humans
    could be implemented.
    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Jul 22, 2006
    #7
  8. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    acemanvx, Jul 22, 2006
    #8
  9. acemanvx

    retinula Guest

    Perhaps you are unfamiliar with otis-troll and his minion aceman-troll.
    this topic is old and tired and has been discussed more in this forum
    than it is worth.

    the facts are CLEAR. there is CONSIDERABLE scientific evidence in
    HUMANS that myopia is not induced by minus lenses and that wearing
    glasses does not have any influence on the progression of refractive
    error. below I have posted a few for your reading. please look at
    these references-- its certain that Otis and Aceman won't. they don't
    care about evidence, their minds are made up and facts won't change
    them.

    BTW, myopia research has proven that animal models of myopia
    development are much different than the human system. this is a well
    known fact. you should look for a current review of the state of
    research on myopia development to get the facts you are looking for.

    ==

    Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic
    progression.
    Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6703013&query_hl=3

    Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages from 7.38
    to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over the power
    required to correct their myopia exactly. These 36 experimental
    subjects were matched by control subjects selected at random from the
    files of the Indiana University Optometry Clinics. The criteria used in
    matching were sex, beginning age, beginning refractive error, and
    duration of time covered by the record. The mean rate of change of
    refractive error for the experimental group was (minus indicating
    increase of myopia) -0.49 D/year (range, +0.37 to -1.95 D/year) on
    retinoscopy and -0.52 D/year (range, +0.21 to -1.32 D/year) on
    subjective refraction. The mean rate of change for the control group
    was -0.47 D/year (range, +0.06 to -2.03 D/year) on retinoscopy and
    -0.47 D/year (range, +0.28 to -1.72 D/year) on subjective refraction.
    Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly
    different. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that
    an overcorrected myope has a lower rate of increase of myopia than a
    myope wearing a conventional spectacle correction.

    ==========================

    Kushner BJ.(1999) Arch Ophthalmol. May 117(5):638-42.
    Does overcorrecting minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia
    cause myopia?

    http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/5/638

    RESULTS: At the time of initial examination, the mean (+/-SD)
    refractive error was 0.00 +/- 1.40 diopters (D) in the control
    group, 0.00 +/- 1.50 D in the study group, and -0.10 +/- 1.50 D in
    the 5-year study group, all of which were essentially identical.
    Five years after initial examination, the mean change in refractive
    error was -1.40 +/- 2.80 D in the control group, -1.52 +/- 1.80 D in
    the 6-month treatment group, and -1.54 +/- 1.80 D in the 5-year
    treatment group. These differences in the change in refractive error
    (myopic shift) were not statistically significant (t test), and the
    differences are clinically unimportant. CONCLUSION: Overcorrecting
    minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia does not appear to
    cause myopia.

    =======================

    Ong E, Grice K, Held R, Thorn F, Gwiazda J.(1999) Optom Vis Sci.
    76(6):363-9.
    Effects of spectacle intervention on the progression of myopia in
    children.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10416930&dopt=Abstract

    (snip)

    Based on their wearing patterns, subjects were divided into four
    categories: (1) full-time wearers; (2) myopes who switched from
    distance to full-time wear; (3) distance wearers; and (4)
    nonwearers. Exponential functions were fit to the individual
    refraction data. The age of onset of myopia, the mean myopia at
    onset of spectacle wear, and the refractive shift over a period of
    at least 3 years were derived from these fits. Results show that the
    3-year refractive shifts are not significantly different among the
    four groups.
     
    retinula, Jul 22, 2006
    #9
  10. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest


    And you choose to believe the propaganda?

    If you have a Ph.D., then you had to demonstrate your ability to do
    independent research, as well as a command of the literature. I
    suggest you use your abilities, get outside this group, and delve into
    the many published studies, and then you will more than likely come to
    the same conclusions that many of us share.

    Right, "doctor"?

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 22, 2006
    #10
  11. acemanvx

    Salmon Egg Guest

    Although I older than I would like to admit, my brain is not yet fully
    converted into mush. The quoted stuff below is virtually impossible to
    understand because of its obfuscating style of writing, The technical
    content is not the problem. See my comments in the appropriate spot

    Why should they be? While there may be true developmental differences,
    explaining such differences would be of great scientific interest.
    It is not clear to me whether overcorrecting means more negative or more
    positive power introduced into the eye's optical system. My inclination is
    that overcorrecting means algebraically smaller total power.

    Could it be that there is a limit to how fast an eye structure can change in
    response to a change in the refractive environment? That rate may be what is
    being measured.
    More gobbledegook. It looks like this jargon was written for optometry
    geeks. At first I though SD stood for left and right. Then I thought
    standard deviation. In the end, there was too much ambiguity what was said.
    I worked in optics for many years and have advanced degrees in engineering.
    More gobbledegook. Maybe the full papers are more useful than the abstracts,
    but that is all I have to go with.

    Bill
    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Jul 22, 2006
    #11
  12. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Try the optometry/ophthalmology/ARVO/visual sciences knowledge base.
    Nope. Not to my knowledge. But, those aren't peer-reviewed, and they
    borrow their ideas from other sources -- namely the peer-reviewed
    literature.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 22, 2006
    #12
  13. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    But DrL insists that your read ONLY the majority-opinion literature.

    There is a second-opinion that, the fundamental eye is a dynamic
    sytem, and will change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters if
    you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye -- and
    keep it there 16/7 for one year.

    So make certain you read all the literature, and define the
    nature of the PREVENTIVE second-opinion.

    Just one man's opinion.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jul 22, 2006
    #13
  14. acemanvx

    retinula Guest

    it is clear from your remarks that you indeed do not understand what
    the articles are saying. of course there is nomenclature that you
    would be unfamiliar with. maybe it appears like gobbledegook to you
    but not to us. and "SD" is standard deviation in just about anyones
    terminology.

    so just take it from people who DO understand the research, minus
    lenses or eyeglasses DO NOT cause further worsening of vision. its
    been tested and statistically evaluated and found not to be true.

    somehow Otis thinks he is smarter than the entire worldwide community
    of optometrists, ophthalmologists, and vision researchers. he
    steadfastly holds that minus lenses cause staircase myopia even though
    he cannot produce even one centilla of scientific proof that it does.
    recently he has told me that his evidence comes from "thought
    experiments". that ought to tell you the kind of guy that we're
    dealing with!


    =======
     
    retinula, Jul 22, 2006
    #14
  15. acemanvx

    retinula Guest

    oh my god!
    perhaps you also give credence to Otis' conspiracy theories!
    do you produce your own data via "thought experiments" like Otis does?

    ----------
     
    retinula, Jul 22, 2006
    #15
  16. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Says Otis.

    By the way, when is the "minority opinion" going to issue its own
    journals and scientific body of knowledge?

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 22, 2006
    #16
  17. acemanvx

    Salmon Egg Guest

    It is very difficult to get published in some of those listed. Often they
    publish invited papers. Nature may not require extensive peer review. But
    from my own knowledge, Nature published the first announcement of successful
    laser operation when the very peer reviewed Physical Review refused to
    accept a paper from Ted Maiman et al.

    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Jul 22, 2006
    #17
  18. acemanvx

    Salmon Egg Guest

    Thinking optometry and noticing numbers that probably indicated diopters, I
    thought sinister and dextro which made little sense. I would have spelled
    out standard deviation at least once. I might have used "rms error" as a
    term.
    I am not a defender of Otis, but I am not his enemy either. In a recent post
    seemed to think that peer review was key. As a retail consumer of science
    outside my purview, an invited review paper in Scientific American, American
    Scientist, or Physics Today is much more likely to change my thinking than
    obtuse papers in journals of the peers, by the peers, and for the peers. How
    many of those papers are used to publish instead of perish?

    Bill
    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Jul 22, 2006
    #18
  19. acemanvx

    Charles Guest

    Thing is, they probably wouldn't bother including such an article
    unless it said that prescription glasses did, in fact, lead to more
    nearsightedness (staircase myopia, etc.). If this were not the case,
    the article wouldn't be all that interesting.



    --
     
    Charles, Jul 22, 2006
    #19
  20. In <C0E7A66D.340EF%>,
    There has been a study, summarised at
    <http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/short_sightedness.asp>. It appeared to show
    that the eyesight of children with undercorrecting glasses deteriorated
    more rapidly than in those with the correct prescription.
     
    Tony Houghton, Jul 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

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.