Children with a tendency for myopia wearing reading glasses propholactically

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

  1. Reece

    Guest Guest

    Like it or not Otis, your method is to be called a therapy, a useless
    therapy but still a therapy.

    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
    1. Advertisements

  2. Reece

    acemanvx Guest

    You have much to learn.

    "A normal eye falls within the diopter range of - 0.50 to +0.50."

    Sorry but anything within - 0.50 to +0.50 is considered emmetropia and
    normal. Its not even factored in the tally of percentages of people
    with "defective vision" I can show you an example by another
    optometrist who posted here.

    William Stacy
    Dec 3 1998, 3:00 am show options

    From: William Stacy <> - Find messages by this author
    Date: 1998/12/03
    Subject: Re: Visual Correction and Personality
    Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
    | Report Abuse

    You're getting close. -6 IS something, -22 is VERY extreme, and -10.25

    is high.

    I'd say, roughly, shooting from the hip, that:

    trace myopia is between -.12 and -.50
    low or mild myopia is from -.75 to -3.00
    moderate myopia is between -3.00 and -7.00
    high myopia is between -7.00 and -12.00
    pathologic (or extreme) myopia is above (approximately) -12.00

    In trace myopia, you never see organic/structural changes related to
    myopia, and it is often not really myopia at all, but ciliary tonus.

    I agree with William! Like I said, up to -.5 is not really myopia at
    all! Low myopia starts at -.75


    At his -.5 pescription, it didnt really make a difference with or
    without glasses. I dont care what you say, seeing just shy of 20/20 is
    not considered having trouble seeing. I would not even consider 20/40
    trouble seeing except in extreme situations like if I wanted to be a
    pilot, join the army, be a spy or anything that requires 20/20. I
    consider trouble seeing starting at 20/70 to 20/100. My brother is
    20/60 and he can see just fine. I have pointed out things in the
    distance and hes able to see almost anything he wants. He only wears
    glasses for driving and occasionally to see lectures in college

    By the way, I know of no one(in person) less than -1 who wears glasses.
    Less than -1 sometimes is referred as "fractional myopia" or as William
    put it, not really myopia but ciliary tonus. My sister actually got her
    first pescription at -.75 and she tried the glasses once and remarked
    she couldnt really see a difference and hasnt worn glasses since. Her
    eyes got worse because of all the near work she did then when they got
    bad enough she really did need glasses but soon switched to contacts.
    acemanvx, Jan 31, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Reece

    Guest Guest

    Say's who..................
    So do many other eyes out or just in the middle of that range, i.e
    emmetropic- myopic- hyperopic- astigmatic- presbyopic-eyes.
    It could be a normal functioning eye nothing more nothing less.
    An refraction error (when not accommodating) in the optical system of the
    eye of S+0,50 dpt is called myopia ,period.
    An refraction error (when not accommodating) in the optical system of the
    eye of S-0,50 dpt is called hyperopia ,period.

    Just for your learning process ace:

    An astigmatic eye which needs a correction of S plano= C- 0,50 is in one
    direction emmetropic and in the other direction called myopic.
    An astigmatic eye which needs a correction of S -0,50= C- 0,50 is in one
    direction myopic and in the other direction also called myopic.
    An astigmatic eye which needs a correction of S +0,50= C- 0,50 is in one
    direction hyperopic and in the other direction called emmetropic.
    An astigmatic eye which needs a correction of S+1,00= C- 0,50 is in one
    direction hypermetropic and in the other direction also called hyperopic.

    The following is to please Otis (your teacher ace?)

    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
  4. Reece

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Tom,

    Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the position to give
    medical advice as he is not in the medical profession.

    Thank you!

    A Lieberman, Feb 1, 2006
  5. Reece

    Dom Guest

    That's funny coming from you, Luke.
    You have lifted this quote from an internet page discussing LASIK eye
    surgery. The range of -050 to +050 refers to ametropia so mild that many
    surgeons would be unwilling to perform refractive surgery (since the
    benefit/risk ratio would not be in their favour). However -050, -025 or
    even -012 technically is still myopia. Only 0.00 is emmetropia.

    But we digress - your orginal statement was that "No one has trouble
    seeing with a -.5 pescription". Sure there may be plenty of people with
    a -050 refraction who are happy to go without glasses and that's fine,
    but there are also plenty of others at -050 who aren't happy with this
    vision and like to wear glasses, even if only part time, to correct it.
    You have ignored all of these people with your blanket statement.
    While -050 to +050 may be considered an insignificant refraction by a
    refractive surgeon, and by many patients, it is not considered
    emmetropia. Only 0.00 is truly emmetropia. -050 (as per your original
    post) is mild myopia. Very mild if you prefer. Either way, it is myopia.
    You had to go back to a comment from 1998, prefaced as "roughly,
    shooting from the hip" as your authoritative proof that no one has
    trouble seeing with a -050 prescription?? William never stated that a
    -050 myope could see perfectly, he was merely comparing those very mild
    myopes to higher myopes up to -1200 and beyond. The only person who has
    claimed that 'No one has trouble seeing with a -.5 prescription' is you.

    I picked you up on 'neglectable' because AFAIK there's no such word.
    Maybe you meant negligible. Call me a pedant!

    I have met quite a few people less than -1 who wear glasses and they can
    definitely see better with them than without.

    I have never heard of "fractional myopia". Perhaps you are getting mixed
    up with factional myopia which is an expression that has nothing to do
    with optics.

    Remember Aceman, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you have a
    LITTLE knowledge.

    Dom, Feb 1, 2006
  6. Reece

    TomMonger Guest

    Thanks, Allen. I'm taking it all with a "grain of salt".
    1.) Overall, I see better WITH correction (-.50 left -.75 right) at a
    distance than without.
    2.) I often wear NO correction, especially on weekends. But when I'm
    driving, the difference between my eyes (especially at night) is enough
    to be quite troublesome. My eyes seem to do a "reverse monovision",
    where my left eye sees pretty good at a distance, but poorly closeup.
    My right eye sees poorly at a distance, but closeup, I can see well.
    Anything a few feet in front of my face is fine without correction.
    3.) Given a choice between monovision contacts, progrssive bifocals or
    no correction, my BEST *computer* vision is from the monovision
    contacts. This would be followed by NO correction and then LEAST best
    with the progressive bifocals. Apparently, the mid-zone of my
    progressives isn't that great for computer work. When I'm wearing my
    glasses, I simply remove them for computer work.

    According to my current optometrist, I am "very mildly myopic" in my
    left eye, and "mildy myopic" in my right eye. As for presbyopia, I have
    it "very mildly" in my right eye and "mildly" in my left eye. I am in
    the beginning phases, apparently.

    When I posted earlier about wearing plus lenses as a kid, I was curious
    if this really helped keep my eyes close to emmetropic. Or did it
    simply cause me 2 years of grief with too-powerful plus lenses?

    -Tom in Scranton, PA
    TomMonger, Feb 1, 2006
  7. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Tom,

    Subject: Two opinions.

    Tom> When I posted earlier about wearing plus lenses as a kid, I was
    if this really helped keep my eyes close to emmetropic.

    Otis> I obviously support the concept that a child on the threshold
    should begin wearing the plus at from zero to -1/2 diopters. The
    optometrists who support tihs concept have their own children
    wearing the plus -- for all reading. And also, a mild plus for
    use all the time when the refractive status is between zero
    to +1/4 diopters. There is NO WAY THIS ISSUE CAN
    BE RESOLVED. I PERSONALLY wish that I had
    been offered this second-opinion when I was
    on the "threshold" as I describe above.

    Tom> Or did it
    simply cause me 2 years of grief with too-powerful plus lenses?

    Otis> After an exhaustive review of the primate eye -- I support
    the second-opinion. In fact I did "push" my nephew on this
    issue. In his case he personally verified his vision by
    reading the Snellen, and would "clear" his vision
    when ever it was necessary to do so. Currentl
    he reads 20/20 -- no problem.

    Otis> It is always wise to understand both sides of this
    issue. And certainly prevention-with-plus is a
    difficult issue indeed.



    -Tom in Scranton, PA
    otisbrown, Feb 1, 2006
  8. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dom and Ace,

    Subject: Defining "emmetropia" EXACTLY

    Dom > You have lifted this quote from an internet page discussing LASIK
    surgery. The range of -050 to +050 refers to ametropia so mild that
    surgeons would be unwilling to perform refractive surgery (since the
    benefit/risk ratio would not be in their favour). However -050, -025 or

    even -012 technically is still myopia. Only 0.00 is emmetropia

    Otis> This is a logical falure. Emmetropia is defined as the
    "Normal eye". Emmetropia is defined as "exactly zero" were
    non-zero is "ametropia". How many people have "normal eyes",
    i.e., refractive states of exactly zero or normal?

    Otis> I would suggest about 1 or 2 percent have "normal eyes".

    The word "emmetropia" is a falure. I suggest just using the
    numerical term "refractive state" and avoid this "absolute"
    languatege that is an "idealization" of a box camera.


    otisbrown, Feb 1, 2006
  9. Reece

    Quick Guest

    "Normal eye"
    "exactly zero"
    "normal eyes",
    "normal eyes".
    "refractive state"

    Quote count: 10
    Post size: tiny
    Danger! quote density critical
    Quick, Feb 1, 2006
  10. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear P.clar,

    Subject: The right of choice -- the right to control your
    own life.

    Re: The right to choose your own destiny -- if you have
    the "smarts" for it.

    The plus lens is in the store -- almost anywhere.

    You consistently tell us that a lens (plus or minus) has
    absolutly NO EFFECT ON THE EYE. Therefore
    how can you argue that a lens is "dangerous" and
    REQUIRES a "medical" person????

    If a person reads my site, I make a legal statement about it.

    Since both of us know that SOME optometrits have their
    own children wearing a "plus" (with a refractive state of zero)
    then that makes the method the "second-opinion".

    On a scientific level, if you should understand that
    the primate eye is dynamic -- in the sense of its
    average-visual enviroment (You find this out from
    pure scientific testing -- a sugject that you
    totally ignore.)

    A person has the right to understand your ignorance
    of the natural eye's behavior, and realized that
    you are of no help to him, and will create
    stair-case myopia in his kid -- if they let you
    do it to him.

    So do not get on your "high horse" on this subject.

    The concept of prevention is good -- but the person
    must make this "choice" before he starts wearing
    an over-prescribed minus -- all the time.

    But just ues the word, "refractive state"
    and respect the natural eye as a dynamic system,
    and perhaps you will begin to understand the
    "paradigm shift" that is necessary to prevet
    a negative refractive state in the primate eye.
    (Yes, the both behave the same way.)


    otisbrown, Feb 1, 2006
  11. Reece

    acemanvx Guest

    TomMonger has said he often goes without correction, especially on the
    weekend. Nothing wrong with him wearing glasses for driving at night
    and for his presbyopia. I still stand correct that he sees fine without
    glasses and is why he goes without them much of the time, especially on
    the weekend. His optometrist even said he has VERY, VERY mild myopia.
    He is still within the normal +0.5 to -0.5 diopters, at least in one
    eye. The vast majority of people are asymptomic with -.5 diopters and
    never even think about glasses much less go out and get glasses. There
    are a good number of people seeing 20/20 or 20/25 at -.5 and they think
    nothing about their vision, as its perfect. Heck, I see worse with my
    BCVA glasses than most people see uncorrected at -.5 diopters. I have
    simulated what -.5 diopters is with my older glasses which are -.5
    diopters too weak. I can barely tell the difference. Everything has a
    very, very slight blur and loss of contrast but is still nice and clear
    and I have no trouble seeing anything. Of course there are some super,
    super picky people who are perfectionists and wear glasses for the
    miniscule -.5 diopter "myopia" they have. For just about anyone else,
    it simply isnt worth spending money and time and the hassles of dealing
    with glasses
    acemanvx, Feb 1, 2006
  12. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Jan,

    Subject: Semantics!

    I do not "dishoner" the natural eye's behavior by refereing to
    refractive STATES as ERRORS or DEFECTS. That is your
    distoring language -- not mine.

    The natural eye (entire population) is a DYNAMC, LIVING SYSTEM.

    It is not the Donders-Helmholtz "picture" that you so love.

    This living system -- when OBJECTIVELY tested, changes its
    REFRACTIVE state (as a proven control-system) when:

    1. Placed in a more negative (in diopters) visual environment, and

    2. When a minld (-3 diopter) lens is placed on it.

    This expected change proves the living eye to be a dynamic system.
    Use the correct words (refractive state) and a scientist will
    get it "right". Use the wrong words (emmetropia, ametropia)
    and you will just confuse yourself.

    The issue is semantics, and respect for the designed-in behavior
    of all natural eyes.

    This means that (with reasonable limits) the natural eye
    can have a positive refractive state, or a negative refractive
    state -- as per the primate eyes. (But you totally ignore
    scientific truth of this nature which you obviously wish
    to destroy.)


    otisbrown, Feb 1, 2006
  13. Reece

    Dom Guest

    TomMonger wrote:

    I think the simple answer to your question is that no-one can say for
    certain either way... as you can't go back in time and 're-do the
    experiment' without the plus lenses.

    Dom, Feb 2, 2006
  14. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Tom and Dom,

    And I personally WISH I had the support of a "second-opinion"
    OD who would have put be into a strong plus (at 20/40 to 20/50)
    had my parents KEEP ME IN THAT PLUS, until my refractive
    state got up to about +1/2 diopter.

    There or two profoundly "opposite" opinions on this issue, and
    no resolution in sight. This should not cause anger (but it does).

    It think a greater effort should be made to explain this issue
    BEFORE that first minus is applied.

    But the sad reality, is as Dom describes it -- the public only
    "understands" very-sharp vision with the minus -- and that
    tends to be "it".

    Quite frankly in THEIR POSITION I would probably do the same
    thing -- because I WOULD FEAR A PERSON LIKE NEIL BROOKS -- and
    his psychotic charges against the second-opinion, and "change" of
    this "preventive" nature.

    If you have the name of the OD who put you into a "plus" you should
    thank him for his efforts. I reget that these second-opinion ODs
    are not more articulate in this subject -- but that is the way it is.



    otisbrown, Feb 2, 2006
  15. Reece

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    In your wildest fantasies.

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 2, 2006
  16. Reece

    A Lieberman Guest

    What do you have to fear Otis??????

    Only reason I see you having to fear is that you are giving out medical

    Hmmm.... just exactly what do you have to fear???

    Don't give out medical advice and guess what Otis. You don't have to fear

    A Lieberman, Feb 2, 2006
  17. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear DrG,

    Yes, DrG, that is why you are part
    of the problem -- and not part
    of the solution.

    My nephew was well-advised to
    "take control" and do it himself -- given
    your rather "hostile" attitude towards
    preventing a negative refractive
    state for the eye.

    The concept of over-prescribing the minus
    lens and creating stair-case myopia
    must be examined carefully -- from
    the second-opinion perspective.


    otisbrown, Feb 3, 2006
  18. Reece

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    You've got some nerve.

    If you think that you are part of any solution, then you are
    hallucinating. In fact, if anything you are part of the problem
    consisting of promoting outdated, disproven theories and treatments
    which may actually prevent real people from getting the real help they
    need to see and live well.

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 3, 2006
  19. Reece

    A Lieberman Guest


    You are the problem by giving out medical advice.

    You are not in the medical profession and not in the position to give
    medical advice.

    A Lieberman, Feb 3, 2006
  20. Reece

    p.clarkii Guest

    just be prepared to explain your promotion of a disproven method using
    a medical device. even an eye doctor who would promote such a method
    for which there is so much evidence against it would have serious
    difficulties when confronting a licensing board. just ask your hero
    steve leung. why do you expect someone like yourself, who is totally
    unqualified and unlicensed, would fair any better?

    but perhaps you would fair better when confronted by the licensing
    authorities. they might conclude that you are simply a senile old fool
    and shrug off your foolishness without stiff penalties. perhaps
    ignorance is bliss after all. you should hope that it might work out
    that way. or perhaps they won't take you seriously because they might
    conclude that anyone who accepts advise from an idiot on the internet
    is a fool themselves.

    i think thats it otis-- when the licensing board starts asking
    questions just play the role of the "fanatic zealot old man who spends
    all day on the internet believing they are helping someone". don't try
    any scientific arguments, your dumb raphaelson story, or your web links
    to chinamyopia or steve leung. if the debate ever comes down to what
    the scientific evidence is you'll be shot down quickly. just act dumb
    and they'll probably blow you off with just a stern reprimand. you
    should be able to pull it off easily!
    p.clarkii, Feb 3, 2006
    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.