Children with a tendency for myopia wearing reading glasses propholactically

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by Reece, Jan 30, 2006.

  1. Reece

    Reece Guest

    I was talking to someone recently who opined: if kids who were in families
    where myopia was common as they grew older, and if those kids wore reading
    glasses when they were reading when they were young that that might somehow
    help their eyes avoid myopia, or at least lessen the severity of myopia.

    Somehow this thinking was based on the theory that extensive reading causes
    myopia in many cases.

    I was wondering, what affect would kids wearing reading glasses have, if
    they were not necessary? What of that guy's theory--is there any sense at
    all to it?

    Just curious,

    Reece
     
    Reece, Jan 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Reece

    TomMonger Guest

    When I was about 13, my parents took me to an opthamologist because of
    recurrent headaches. I remember wearing plus glasses and was told to
    wear them as often as possible, even for distance. I was also given a
    slant board and had to do all my homework on this "lap desk". I also
    had to perform eye exercises (following a dot on a stick, crossing my
    eyes, and other focusing techniques). This went on for about 2 years.
    Then from the ages of 15 to my early 20's, I required NO vision
    correction. I was 20/15 in both eyes. It wasn't until I was around 22
    that I started becoming a bit nearsighted. I remember my first pair of
    adult glasses, both lenses were -.25 power with a slight astigmatism.
    As the years went by, my right eye went to -.75 and my right eye -.50,
    but now I'm having trouble seeing close up (I am now 42).

    I now wonder if my myopia would've been any worse if I had *not* worn
    plus lenses and done those exercises for those 2 years when I was a
    teen? Both of my parents wear fairly strong minus lenses (I know my mom
    is -4.00 and dad around -3.50). Yet my two younger brothers are mildy
    nearsighted (they both wear glasses a bit stronger than mine).

    -Tom in Scranton, PA
     
    TomMonger, Jan 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Reece,

    Subject: Prevention with the plus -- and the difficulties.

    Prevention is indeed possible -- but difficult.

    If the person himself develops the opinion or judgement about using the
    plus -- for prevention -- and is successful (always passes the DMV)
    then
    he never requires the minus lens.

    But that REMOVES the subject from optometry.

    Further, one psycho, Neil Brooks, wishes to sue anyone who advocates
    PREVENTION with the plus. That will STOP ANY OD FROM HELPING YOU WITH
    PREVENTION.

    Thus, prevention-with-plus is possible, bot DO NOT EXPECT ANY OD TO PUT
    HIMSELF AT PROFESSIONAL RISK to help you with the concept and method.
    i.e., you have no choice
    but to figure out how to do it "youself".

    You might enjoy my "academic" site,

    www.myopiafree.com

    about these issues, as well as
    the prevention-minded ODs who will
    help you if you "wake up" to the
    necessity of using the plus FOR PREVENTION.

    As always, enjoy,

    Otis

    __________
     
    otisbrown, Jan 30, 2006
    #3
  4. Reece

    Quick Guest

    wrote:
    "youself".
    "academic"
    "wake up"

    Quote count: 3
    Post size: tiny
     
    Quick, Jan 30, 2006
    #4
  5. Reece

    acemanvx Guest

    being -.5 diopters is nothing, I dont even call this myopia. Dont see
    why you were pescribed distance glasses when you are pratically plano.
    My brother is -1.25 and has no problem seeing and only wears glasses
    for driving. Yes your plus glasses prevented your myopia but your minus
    glasses caused your eyes to become just shy of plano but itll help you
    see well from intermediate without reading glasses.
     
    acemanvx, Jan 30, 2006
    #5
  6. Reece

    Guest Guest

    First of all ace, try to quote correct.
    Not mentioning to WHOM you quote in a thread is confusing. (you are not
    responding to the OP)

    Having said this, it is not important weither or not ace call this
    myopia.(which it is)
    Still an adept of the "Otis therapy" seeing your nonsence in the last part
    of your story?

    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Jan 31, 2006
    #6
  7. Reece

    p.clarkii Guest

    there is no evidence that having very young children who are
    predisposed via family history to develop myopia would benefit from
    plus lenses, but there is not evidence that is won't help either.

    in other groups, older children and college students, plus lenses or
    bifocals (which accomplish a similar goal) have been proven to have no
    beneficial effect.

    of course we cannot be certain that wearing reading glasses in a young
    developing child who has not problems in the time might not also cause
    some adverse developmental effects-- e.g. development of hyperopia.

    sorry, but the jury is out. the best evidence gleaned from all the
    research basically indicates that "if myopia is going to develop, its
    going to develop anyway" no matter what kind of optical device you try
    to intervene with.

    who was the "someone" who recently "opined". are his initials OB?
     
    p.clarkii, Jan 31, 2006
    #7
  8. Reece

    Reece Guest

    Thanks for the info.

    That "someone" is someone who never heard of this group.

    Reece
     
    Reece, Jan 31, 2006
    #8
  9. Reece

    Reece Guest

    Thanks for your story, Tom.

    Reece
     
    Reece, Jan 31, 2006
    #9
  10. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Reece,

    Subject: The person's involvement -- in prevention.

    Do not misunderstand what I present.

    I personally remember doing some "dumb" things with my eyes
    as a young child. (Read my site with a picture of a child
    writing at -10 diopters, or 4 inches.) That is a very bad habit
    indeed.

    Studies of the primate eye prove that when you place
    population of primate eyes in this situation, the
    refractive state of the "test" group move in the
    direction and approximate magnitude of the
    "nearer" environment. This is a natural process -- not
    a "failure". This is also pure science -- and not
    medicinie -- if you understand the difference.

    But, if you read some of the "blasts" against the
    second opnion -- and stated by Neil Brooks, it
    is obvious that no optometrist will EVER be
    willing to help you with prevention -- or
    present the objective fact to YOU so
    you can understand the nature and need
    for prevention. I obviously can have no effect
    on you -- or anyone else -- until they begin
    to "wake up" to these issues.

    This is the thesis of Steve Leung OD, and
    prevention means far more than the "plus".

    It means we respect the facts themselves concerning
    the proven behavior of the primate eye -- and we
    work WITH these facts, rather than against them.

    In fact, the ODs should point to Neil Brooks and
    say that they can never offer true-prevention because
    they fear psychos like Brooks will post "charges" against
    them. And they know full-well the consequences of
    that action.

    This is of course using the power of the "State" to
    supress dissent.

    You can figure the consequences of that fact.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jan 31, 2006
    #10
  11. Reece

    Quick Guest

    wrote:
    "dumb"
    "test"
    "nearer"
    "failure
    "blasts"
    "wake up"
    "plus" <--- THE Plus [lens]
    "charges"
    "State"

    Quote count: 9
    Post size: medium/small

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Jan 31, 2006
    #11
  12. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Tom,

    Subject: Prevention with plus -- as you did
    it.

    Re: The results of NOT using the plus as
    you did it.

    I am pleased you made your report. To
    answer your implied question, the results
    of NOT using the "plus" as you did would
    have been that your "vision" would have
    gone down at a rate of about -1/2 diopter per year AVERAGE.

    Thus your avoided that "bullet". (Reference the excellent Oakley-Young
    study that proved that the minus-lens group when down at a steady -1/2
    diopter per year. The "plus" group did not go down. This was with
    250+ kids, over a period of four years.)

    Youd did it right indeed.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jan 31, 2006
    #12
  13. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Reece,

    Subject: No "preventive" studies being conducted at this time.

    Re: The reason is the "Neil Brooks" effect. They get sued
    if they attempt to help anyone with prevention. Not encouraging.



    Reece> So, it seems the jury is still out on this, according to
    another poster.

    Otis> In a sense, it comes down the the optometrist's judgment of the
    primate data science -- and how he applies this preventive science
    to his own children. The lord knows he can do NOTHING to
    help the general public -- because of the "Brooks" effect on
    "orgainized" optometry.


    Reece> I suppose such evidence would take a while to be acquired.

    Otis> The scientific evidence that the eye is dynamic -- is virtually
    certain on a scientific level. On the OD "level" -- well just read
    the "Brooks" psychosis on any intelligent change.

    Reece> Are there any
    studies being done in this area that you know of?

    Otis> With this incredible hostility towards intelligent use of
    the plus for prevention? Read Jan's statement to the
    effect that your right to an informed, competent second-opinion,
    "must be destroyed" and you will get the general idea.

    Reece> I briefly looked at your site, which has some interesting
    information in it.


    Otis> I always enjoy a pleasant analytical discussion about the
    preventive
    second-opinion and the crass reasons that prevent the implementation
    of it. It is not "easy", and that is the truth of it. Bit it is
    possible
    for the person on the threshold -- if he has the personal motivaiton
    and understanding of the necssity of it.

    Best,

    Otis

    Thanks.

    Reece
     
    otisbrown, Jan 31, 2006
    #13
  14. Reece

    Quick Guest

    wrote:
    "plus"
    "vision"
    "bullet"
    "plus"

    Quote count: 4
    Post size: tiny
     
    Quick, Jan 31, 2006
    #14
  15. Reece

    Quick Guest

    wrote:
    "preventive"
    "Neil Brooks"
    "Brooks"
    "orgainized"
    "level"
    "Brooks"
    "must be destroyed"
    "easy"

    Quote count: 8
    Post size: small

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Jan 31, 2006
    #15
  16. Reece

    acemanvx Guest

    No one has trouble seeing with a -.5 pescription and only pilots may
    need glasses for that to get them to 20/20 or better. Its still within
    emmetropia. Normal range is plus/minus half diopter. I know this guy in
    person who became -.5 diopters and his optometrist pescribed him
    glasses and his parents took him to get fitted in new glasses. The guy
    was like wha? I never asked for glasses and I can see fine without
    them! He wore them for a week then they "broke" and he threw them away.
    His parents realized they got ripped off by the optometrist who just
    wanted to profit on the sell of un-neccessary glasses. His UCVA was
    20/20 or just shy of 20/20 and glasses made a neglectable difference.
    Hes still -.5 to the day and while technically myopic, its clinicially
    insignificent and not tallyed into the percentage of people who are
    myopic. Low myopia starts at -.75 and goes to -2.75. Counting less than
    -.75 is like counting a crumb of bread as "food" I can show you posts
    in the past backing up what I said.

    Reece, its your eyes and if you actually enjoy wearing glasses for fun,
    go ahead. Your vision is great with or without glasses.
     
    acemanvx, Jan 31, 2006
    #16
  17. Reece

    Dom Guest

    Aceman your post contains a number of inaccuracies. Remember, a little
    knowledge is a dangerous thing... and you have a *little* knowledge.

    Yes some people do.

    and only pilots may
    That's not true.

    Its still within
    That's not true either.

    Normal range is plus/minus half diopter.
    According to which authority?

    I know this guy in
    By who, in which tally?

    Low myopia starts at -.75 and goes to -2.75.
    According to who?

    Counting less than
    Please do.
     
    Dom, Jan 31, 2006
    #17
  18. Reece

    Guest Guest

    And again Otis is misquoting, for your pleasure Otis, this is what I state
    until you beat a retread:

    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

    Yes and if you are not succesfull then blame yourself not Otis or the ''Otis
    therapy"
    Otis thinks he is not responsable for his (not working) advises this way.

    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Jan 31, 2006
    #18
  19. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Quck,

    Actually "must be destroyed" is Jan's statement:

    Further I NEVER use the word "therapy".

    ________________________

    Jan> In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be
    destroyed

    Otis> If you said "Otis-prevention", or the preventive second-opinion,
    (as per Steve Leung OD) you would do better.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jan 31, 2006
    #19
  20. Reece

    p.clarkii Guest

    perhaps you don't use the word, but you recommend that people wear
    glasses. glasses and contact lenses are classified by the FDA as
    medical devices. medical devices are to be used under the advise of a
    medical professional. last time i checked you weren't a medical
    professional (although you like to act like one).

    i suggest you have a discussion with your lawyer regarding a better
    argument than "i never use the word 'therapy'" when the Pennsylvania
    licensing authorities come calling.
     
    p.clarkii, Jan 31, 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.