Glasses for 5 year-old twins

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by Patrick Coghlan, Oct 18, 2006.

  1. Patrick Coghlan

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Pat,

    If an OD explains WHY he thinks a child with a refractive STATE of
    +2 diopters (no symptoms of anything -- visual acuity normal), and
    you BELIEVE him, then you should be requested to
    sign a statement to the effect that the "plus" in this
    instance is not "standard" and you understand that issue.

    But let me be clear about this issue.

    There is SCIENTIFIC evidence that a +2 -- worn all the time
    as was the OD's intention -- will result in:

    1. The child's refractive STATE remaining at +2 diopters,

    2. The child's refractive STATE moving more positive, perhaps
    to +2.5, 3.0 (and if the strength is increased to +3 diopters,
    then on to +4 diopters.)

    3. When this scientific experiment is done as pure science,
    then indeed the natural eye's refractive STATE will
    "follow" the +2 diopter lens in this manner. This
    is intuitively with the ophthamologist understands (I hope),
    and the reason that is it stated that a +2 diopter lens
    will "interfere" with "emmetropization".

    This is why I also suggest you be cautioned about
    using the "plus" in this manner -- so you
    understand the risks of it.


    otisbrown, Oct 20, 2006
  2. Patrick Coghlan

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Pat may be interested in this article:

    British Journal of Ophthalmology 2005;89:542
    © 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd



    Long sight reduces learning in young schoolchildren
    Children are failing educationally because long sight is not seen as a
    problem, say doctors in South Wales who have studied more than a
    thousand schoolchildren.
    Scores for national tests-proficiency in reading and writing English
    and progress in the national curriculum in English, mathematics, and
    science-were significantly lower for the children who had been
    referred to an optometrist and were the most long sighted (>+3D for
    both eyes or 1.25 for best eye) than for those who were less affected
    (+3D) and for those who had not been referred. Thirteen per cent of the
    total cohort had been referred to an optometrist after failing a test
    for long sight, and half of them needed glasses or a referral to an
    educational psychologist, or both. Many of those referred to the
    psychologist scored poorly in the tests.

    The local community paediatric service screened almost 1300 children
    aged 8 years with a standard vision screening protocol changed to
    include a fogging test for long sight. Children failing this test or
    others were referred to an optometrist for treatment and possible
    further referral to an educational psychologist. Educational test
    results were obtained for consenting children.
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 20, 2006
  3. Patrick Coghlan

    LarryDoc Guest

    Prove it. Provide one single citation of peer-reviewed research that
    supports your ridiculous claim. Go ahead. Or get the hell out of here.

    LarryDoc, Oct 21, 2006
  4. Patrick Coghlan

    otisbrown Guest

    Pat may be interested in this article:

    British Journal of Ophthalmology 2005;89:542
    © 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd

    So what you are telling Pat, is that his 5 year old kids with
    a normal refracitve STATE of +1.5 diopters have:

    1. Reading problem.

    2. Psychological problem or

    3. Both,

    And that justifies putting the child into a +1.5 diopter
    lens with NO DISCUSSION of any of these "issues"
    the OD "assumed" were true because
    of the normal refractive STATE of +1.5 diopters.

    Seems to me that the OD should have discussed
    these issues BEFORE a +1.5 diopter lens was prescribed.

    Or perhaps, the OD does not understand the right of
    a person to an informed choice in this matter.
    +1.5 diopter for the kid, and sent Pat out
    to the "desk" to order the +1.5 -- to be
    worn 16/7.


    otisbrown, Oct 23, 2006
  5. Patrick Coghlan

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Is this the conclusion you drew from the article?
    That's for sure! LOL!

    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 23, 2006
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.