My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia!

I caught my sister wearing her -2.5 glasses for near work! She was
making some crafts and her -3 eyes should be in perfect focus at 13
inches. Yet she was wearing glasses and looking at her craft from 10-12
inches! She did occasionally look at the sewing machine which stood
about 26 inches away, but that was irrevelent as dad was doing the
sewing. She also left her glasses on when eating! I was supprised since
she really hates glasses and did NOT wear them when we went shopping,
she would rather go in a 20/250 blur and be vain! Why would she then
wear glasses for close work when she can see perfectly fine without
them and not wear the glasses she hates?

They are worse than useless for near work because when someone is
myopic, they see especially well from near as they eyes are adapted to
be in focus from near. Wearing minus for near causes excessive
accomodation and in response, the dynamic eyeball will enlongate to
increase axial myopia in an adaptive response to allievate the stress
of near work. She became myopic in the first place because of all the
near work she did. Now shes inducing more myopia and when I pointed
this out, my sister became rude and didnt care that shes making her
eyes worse.

Guess she will need stronger contacts and glasses pretty soon! Shes 19
so hopefully her eyes arent going to go "down" rapidly into stair-case
myopia. They can still inch down gradually, a quarter diopter here and
there then stronger correction to repeat the cycle. I bought her -2.5
glasses which was the right power last year. I also let her try my
-3.25 computer glasses and she said they were too strong. Guess what?
Her -2.5 glasses are a little weak(but still corrects well) and she
said my -3.25 glasses were great! Several months ago she was measured
with a spherical equivalent of -3(-2.5 -.75 and -2.75 -.75 to be exact)
I read that the human eye easily gets worse in childhood and early
teens. It tends to slow down at age 18 to 21 but can still worsen some.
In your 20s, your eye should be fairly stable but can worsen with the
stress of near work, espeically if you leave your minus lens on to
induce more myopia. Its common for college students to become half to
one diopter more myopic in their four year term. My sister could make
herself a -4 to -4.5 thruout her college years with bad vision habits.

My brother became a little myopic then it stopped worsening because he
never wears glasses except to drive or on other rare occasions. He does
lots of near work which is why he became myopic but without the
wretched evil minus lens to keep the cycle, he has stabalized at -1.25
in the better eye, -1.75 in the worse. This is not bad enough to need
glasses except for driving due to legal restrictions. I was not told
about the evil minus lens and vision improvement so I went down till I
was a high myope at -6 when I was 21. My vision held steady and has
improved in the last year and a half and is now -4.75 or -5 in the
worse eye and a bit better in the other, thanks to natural vision
improvement. I think I can ultimately get to about -3.5 or whatever
amount of my myopia is axial. When epithelial thinning gets discovered,
ill get it to reduce to -2 and this will nearly end my dependancy on
glasses! Even if there is nothing that can be done(lasik is too risky
to be an option) ill just live at -3.5 and be content in the fact I
dont need readers ever. -3.5 will be a huge improvement from -6. My
sister was warned and she doesnt care, probably because shes a contact
wearer so the problems are downplayed. She will be in trouble once she
loses tolerance to contacts and be faced with strong glasses(about -4),
going with 20/400 uncorrected vision or getting lasik or whatever
surgury is out by then.


http://www.chinamyopia.org/stopmyopiaenglish.htm


If you have been wearing glasses for several years and over
-3.00 D, you probably have a case of axial-length myopia. It is
impossible to shorten the elongated eyeball with the fogging-method
(plus lens) to reverse this myopia. However, the lens is significant
to prevent further myopic development as well as to reduce some part of
your myopia over a period of time.

Acquired myopia appears in school children of 7 to 9 and
progresses with age. Almost every myope has gone through the agony of
changing minus-lens glasses yearly during the course of elementary and
secondary school.

The reason behind this threshold-myopia is that the eye at
this young age is still developing. The layers of eyeball coating
are relatively fragile compared with adult eye. Minus-lens glasses are
given to children on the threshold of nearsighted and they are
encouraged to wear them all the time.

Near point stress is significantly increased when the minus
lens are worn at near work -- causing rapid vision deterioration,
that is then followed by eyeball elongation.

Generally, myopia stabilizes after reaching maturity by age
20.

In order to avoid getting into high myopia (over -6.00 D),
myopes should adopt preventative measures (how to prevent
nearsightedness) designed to relieve near point stress.

Myopia is a natural (physiological) process that the eye uses to
adapt to the excessive near focal environment. It develops because of
the way you use your eyes, and is much more prominent in young people.

The simplest way to avoid near focal environment is to give
up all reading or any close work. This is impracticable in our
modern world requiring literate and educated citizens.

Fogging with plus lens is an alternate method that allows the
near focal environment to be moved "into the distance". This
process "relaxes" the and removes the stress of prolonged close work.
The method is simple, easy and economic.
Method should be implemented with incipient Myopes below -3.00 D.
These children should take off their (minus-lens) glasses for any near
work.


Why? The glasses are provided for use at distance 20 feet
and greater. You can figure out how tired the eye becomes if you use
the minus-lens glasses at any distance shorter than 20 feet
--especially at 1 to 2 feet when doing near work. It is the major
reason accounting for your you vision shows rapid vision
deterioration when wearing these glasses. This is especially true in
young children.

Myopes over -3.00 D should consider two pairs of glasses. One for
far and the other for near. The full power one is for emergency or
driving. The other one should be reduced by 1 to 2 diopter for
comfortable near work. You will not experience too
much tiredness and fatigue with the use of the reduced prescription
glasses -- after your whole-day work in front of a
computer.

It is simpler for contact lens wearers to put on a pair of
plus-lens (+1.00 to +2.00 depends on situation) glasses any time you
are doing near-work. Such glasses have a magnifying effect and you
will see will everything larger. The stress caused by the intensive
near-work is greatly reduced by the use of the plus in this manner.

 

wrote:
<snipped huge rambling post>

My God aceman you really do have verbal diarrhoea don't you! No wonder
your poor, long-suffering sister "became rude" when you started
preaching to her.

You are a young man with your whole adult life ahead of you and there's
a world out there to explore - why do you waste so much of your time
babbling through your computer keyboard - get out and do something
constructive with your life! Set yourself a goal! Do a course! Get a
job! Take up a sport! Travel overseas! Anything!

I know you mean well but really your posts are worse than useless and
only serve to frustrate the genuine optometrists, doctors and 'patients'
(for want of a better term) who contribute this group. You will gain
much more respect if you better yourself in other areas of your life.

Dom

 

Wearing minus for near causes excessive
accomodation and in response, the dynamic eyeball will enlongate to
increase axial myopia in an adaptive response to allievate the stress
of near work.

When you say excessive, what exactly do you mean Ace, do you mean a greater
accomodative effort when compared to an emetropic eye


Roland Izaac

 

If you call preaching me being worried about her eyes. I still shake my
head thinking about it, but there is nothing more I can do. My sister
has made the choice to ruin her eyes and doesnt care. She gets instant
gratification from contacts so she doesnt understand whats so bad if
her myopia gets worse. She will regret her very bad eyesight in the
future and wished she had listened, if she did her eyes would be so
much better and she may not even need correction. I wish someone had
told me about the evil minus lens. As Otis has said numerous times and
as proof has been presented, near work and the minus lens causes
nearsightness. I did alot of near work and overused the minus lens so
my eyes have paid the price. Save yourselves!

Excessive compared to no correction. Take a -3 myope like my sister for
example. At 13 inches she will see perfect without glasses. A -3 lens
wont make her see any better, just make her accomodate +3 diopters at
13 inches. Her eyes are working hard for nothing and because our family
has the myopia gene, we are very suspectable to myopia and the
environment pulls the trigger. I have tried to explain this to my
sister but she is too rude and mature to understand, being your typical
bratty teen. Her eyes are getting worse because of this. My brother on
the other hand does NOT wear glasses except to drive and his eyes have
NOT gotten worse. Neither have mine because I undercorrect myself with
weak glasses or take them off. I rarely use full power and only for
distance of 20 feet to infinity. In fact my eyes are improving!

 

Dear Ace,

Dr. David Guyton (previously published) stated that he ALWAYS
TAKES THE MINUS OFF unless absolutly necessary.

I thiink your sister is shooting herself in the foot -- with
all due respect.

A lot of people have this "bad habit" -- and there is nothing
you can do about it.

But at least you "got the idea".

That is a start -- for the preventive second-opinion.

When you place a -3 diopter lens on a population of
natural primates, the refractive STATE will "follow" the
applied minus.

To wit, the refractive state of the -3 diopter will
chanbe by greter-than -2 diopters in 12 months.

This is a natural or fundamental process -- not
a "defective" process.

Who among us is going to insist that the natural
eye is not a dynamic system -- and the
above WILL NOT HAPPEN?

Best,

Otis

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that your sister has caught YOU doing far
worse.

 

You mean ... monkeys who don't need glasses, don't you? Any reason
you feel comfortable in assuming the same thing happens when a lens is
PRESCRIBED to correct refractive error?

Who among us is going to answer my question?

 

Who among us is going to insist that the natural

Who among is is going to "stop" using "quotes" for "emphasis"???

All together now: "Dooooo-FUS. Dooooo-FUS. Dooooo-FUS."

 

*WHAP*!!

Looks like we'll need two lanes these days, hm?

 

Dear Ace,

The REAL REASON why no second-opinion OD can help
you or your sister with true-prevention:

Ace> They are worse than useless for near work because when someone is
myopic, they see especially well from near as they eyes are adapted to
be in focus from near. Wearing minus for near causes excessive
accomodation and in response, the dynamic eyeball will enlongate to
increase axial myopia in an adaptive response to allievate the stress
of near work. She became myopic in the first place because of all the
near work she did. Now shes inducing more myopia and when I pointed
this out, my sister became rude and didnt care that shes making her
eyes worse.

Otis> Clearly NO ONE CAN HELP YOU -- UNTIL YOU
ARE WLLING TO HELP YOURSELF. And your sister
has no interest in true-prevention.

Otis> But take from this the fact that IN THE FUTURE, when
you have your child read the Snellen, and is VA is 20/50 (and
a -1 will clear the 20/20 line) that YOU PERSONALLY
UNDERSTAND THE SECOND OPINION, and can
help your child begin the use of a plus, systematically,
to clear the 20/40 line or better.

Otis> Since there are ODs who will SUPPORT YOU
IN THIS WORK -- then you know your child will have
the choice -- that you never had. Read:

www.chinamyopia.org

to confirm this need for FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE -- in
us -- that we learn the preventive self-dicipline.


As to the issues of the dynamic behavior of all fundamental
eyes (as dynamic systems) I suggest that you
obtain the book:

"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by
Thomas S. Kuhn

Since this is a SCIENTIFIC SITE, then discussing
scientific paradigms (i.e., box-camera passive eye paradigm,
-- Donders-Helmholtz, or Dynamic-eye concept -- paradigm
by Colgate and Young would be wise.

This is an excellent way to learn basic science and
the development of new concepts in science.

Best,

Otis

 

Dear AceMan,

I enjoyed your accurate write-up.

You got a lot of things "right". It is just a
matter respecting the fundamental eye as
"dynamic" to get the more complete
SCIENTIFIC truth of the behavior
of all natural eye.

Takes time and effort to do it -- though, and
the effort is profoundly NOT MEDICAL.

Best,

Otis

 

Dear AceMan,

Subject: Asking questions.

In pure-science -- you learn to ask the RIGHT QUESTIONS.


Otis>When you place a -3 diopter lens on a population of

Neil> You mean ... monkeys who don't need glasses, don't you? Any
reason
you feel comfortable in assuming the same thing happens when a lens is
PRESCRIBED to correct refractive error?

Otis> I asked a question that has an answer in MEASURED
REFRACTIVE STATE.

I absolutly said NOTHING about

1. "error" or anything of that nature. Others can
make that false assumption -- and that is too bad.
As far as ASSUMPTIONS are concern, you are
ASSUMING that the natural eye is NOT A SOPHISTIACTED
SYSTEM, and therefore MUST NOT CHANGE ITS
REFRACTIVE STATE -- and the visual enviroment
is changed in a negative direction. FALSE ASSUMPTION,
but let use see.

Who among us is going to answer my question?

Otis> I think AceMan should make his
judgment as to whether the fundamental eye
will change its REFRACTIVE STATE by
-2 diopters in 12 months (when wearing
a -3 diopter lens) versus your concept
that the naturel eye is not DYNAMIC,
and WILL NOT CHANGE IN THIS
MANNER.

Otis> This, again, is a scientific question.
And Brooks, it is clear that you do not have a "clue"
about any of this.

Best,

Otis

 

No (you moron). I'm asking a very direct and important question:

*If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so,
how?*

But you won't answer it directly ... probably because you're a fraud
and an idiot.

So ... YOU WILL NOT answer my questions. Got it.

Then ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS and, perhaps, I'll DERIVE a clue:

1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in
saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly … in ANY regard?
2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
minus lens, the myopia was prevented?
3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?
4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this
claim?
5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
"proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It
doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your
position.
6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you
aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
convergence disorder?
7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm
states:

Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?
8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success
story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins
is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and
that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?
9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?
10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is,
I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If
so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy
was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
received any money for this book.
11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you
have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?
12. Presuming that you understand the difference between
accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you
please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES
axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES
axial-length myopia
13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
please provide it?
14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have
any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think
it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that
he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his
website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as
inducements to sell both your and his book?
15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though
your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she
is, at this time, a myope?
16. I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of
the myopia progression studies that you lie about
[http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/62.html]. Why do you
tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the
four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL? Please
explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate
studies.

 

www.chinamyopia.org

Otis: Please martyr yourself. You'll inspire millions with your
dedication to your cause, and you'll stop babbling at the same time.
Everyone will be happy.

 

Plllllleeassse!

1. Otis said it thousands, not numerous times. Saying something over
and over again does not make it true. It only proves that you're a stuck
in a corner and either afraid or too scared to come out and face reality.

2. Absolutely NO proof has been presented. In fact, quite the contrary.
Science has proved this to be incorrect.

The only thing evil here is you, on the off chance that someone might
actually believe your crap.

 

Dear AceMan,

The fact of successful prevention (of a negative refractive state
of the natural eye) has already been established.

But the tragic fact is that the great mass of the population
PREFERS the instant minus "quick-fix", rather than the
honestly hard-work of prevention-with-plus.

Here is a discussion of what it is going to take just
to AVOID ENTRY INTO A NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE STATE.

Long after these converstations are gone -- you will be
faced with this choice when your kids begin to see
20/40, 20/50, and 20/60.

In that sense, only YOU MATTER -- and your good
judgment of these second-opinion discussions.

Best,

Otis

______________

Subject: Success clearing from 20/70 to 20/40 or better.

Why it is so darned difficult. Why a person
will "reject" it.

Chalmer Prentice, M.D. may have not got everything right (no
one ever does) but he got this part right.

The difficulty is not the statement of what is necessary. It
is in helping the person develop the knowledge and
force-of-character to successfully implement this advice.

Today a great mass of explict DIRECT factual data spells out
the true effect that both a "confined environment" AND a minus
lens ultimately has on the refractive status of the eye.

What happens when you try to help a person use the plus as
described by Chalmer at the 20/50 level? The person states -- I
don't understand why I must use the plus -- my eye's are OK. Take
your plus lens and shove it.

This should explain why, even the ODs who "wake up" to the
necessity of using the plus -- never volunteer information about
it.

When I encounterd this information (after a long search)
I was pissed. Why not just TELL ME ABOUT THIS?

If I have the fortitude, and am 20/70, then I should
know this -- and DO IT MYSELF. While indeed
difficult, what is wrong with that?


Best,

Otis


----------------


The Eye in its Relation to Health

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

By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.

Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004


Chapter IX


....The following are some very interesting experiments in
myopia which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
near point.

[In the case of 20/50 myopia, "repression" means using a
strong plus that completely ellimates the "near" environment.
This means that the person finds the "blur point" at near, and
pulls the book in SLIGHTLY. This is to insure that the "plus" has
the maximum possible effect. OSB]


In either class of cases, repression must be made at the near
point.

In various lengths of time, we shall be able to reduce the
myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more.

[I would suggest that the person himself (at -1 diopters) IF
HE HAS THE MOTIVATION can clear his distant vision to pass the
required 20/40 line on his own eye chart. OSB]

In most cases satisfactory results will require considerable
time and patience; but a few experiments after the following
example will suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of
myopia, it is possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward
course by repression at the near point.

[This just suggests that much greater emphasis should be
placed on PREVENTION with the plus -- when the person himself can
take the responsibility to do this work completely under his own
control. OSB]

This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes
an open question.

[From the Oakley-Young study, it is clear that a slighly
myopic eye will pick up a rate of -1/2 diopter per year (average)
if a minus is worn all the time. The issue now is far more than
an "open
question". It is a proven reality. OSB]


AGE 43 NEARSIGHTEDNESS

Part 2

Re: Chalmer -- why vision-clearing is difficult



AGE 43 NEARSIGHTEDNESS

....Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right
eye -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space
of two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths (20/20 OSB)
of vision, while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the
acuity was just perceptibly less.

[Since then, the DMV standard around the world has become
approximately 20/40. Almost the only people legally REQUIRED to
have 20/20 are professional pilots. Be clear in your mind about
this issue. OSB]

During this time the general health had improved somewhat,
including considerable gain in the nervous condition.

Similar results have been attained in thirty-four like cases;


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

EMPHASIS:

"...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial."


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Anyone who is considering "prevention" at the -1.5 diopter
level (20/60) must realize that the process is tedious. That
seems to be the real "objection" to prevention. This really
becomes a "personal" issue for you to resolve. It is easy to
"talk" about vision-clearing with the plus. Sounds simple until
you realize that you must make the use of a strong-plus a "habit"
for from 8 to 15 months. Just remember, it takes about 15 months
to develop -3/4 diopters of myopia -- and it is likley to take the
same amount of time to clear back to 20/40 (to pass the DMV) and
then to 20/25 and 20/20. If you are looking for an "easy" or
"quick" method -- there is none. OSB]

_____________________________________________


Otis> This suggest that a "tutorial", or an "education" review
must be supplied to the person BEFORE that minus lens is
used. Clearing vision from 20/70 to 20/40 (-1.0 diopters to
-1/4 diopter) is possible and reasonable -- provided the
issue is handled HONESTLY. I suggest the term "second
opinion" should be used as part of an offer of
true-prevention.

Otis> If the person can not accept this requirement, and gets
"stair-case" myopia because of an over-prescribed minus lens
then he would have only himself to blame -- in my opinion.

Otis> I would GLADLY PAY a professional for his time to describe
the above to me. I would have nothing to lose. I think it
is time that we learn to take this issue more seriously.

Otis> Today, we can state that there is almost absolute proof for
this dynamic-eye concept -- provided we keep the subject on
a pure-scientific level.

 

I would LOVE to see all the common posters of this group in a room
together - with the doors locked from the outside.

Otis, the ambassador from the Land of the Perpetually Baffled, wouldn't
stand a chance.

It's a lot tougher to ignore someone when you're staring them
eye-to-eye.

Neil will at least "discuss" what he says. You, on the other hand,
consistently ignore questions from your detractors. You are an
arrogant, cowardly old fool.

You want this abuse to stop, then answer the questions you are asked.
Otherwise, this trail of abuse will follow your in your Usenet career
for the rest of your natural life... or until you pack up and go
somewhere where the average IQ is lower than yours...

Think about your legacy, man. Think of all the future generations of
Usenet users, who are looking for the cause of their vision problems,
and read the posts which follow yours... Think of how much of a jackass
you're being - on a forum which is archived for _years_, no less.

Boggles the mind how you'd allow it continue.

BD

 

Excessive compared to no correction. Take a -3 myope like my sister for

She will not see perfectly because she has astigmatism.

 

Dear AceMan,

Subject: The majority-opinion -- justification.

All these M.O. ODs have to do is point to your
sister's reaction and say -- there is no way
in hell that we can get a person to use
a plus for prevention.

And you know what -- they are right.

I would suggest reading Prentice's report -- on the
use of this plus.

The statement was that the person must be
VERY CLEAR ON THE NECESSITY OF IT.

And I totally agree on that truth.

So, as I previously suggested, the responsibility
must be understood by the person who wishes
to avoid ENTRY into a negative refractive state -- or
the "cause" is indeed lost.

But, 15 years from now, when your child begins
to develop a negative refractive state -- you can
decide which of these two methods
best suits his visual future.

Take him to an over-prescribing M.O. OD?

Or take him to a prevention-minded S.O. like
Steve Leung -- and follow HIS ADVICE.

Just plan to do this before the kids visual-acuity goes
below 20/50 -- or the his eyes will be a "lost cause".

Have fun,

Otis

+++++++++

 

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

why don't you spend some of the time you take writing such long droning
posts to review some of the research thats been done. studies have
compared groups of myopes who take their glasses off to do near work
versus those who leave them on. the results show no difference in
myopia progression. thus your suggestion to your sister is without
merit. but you can believe whatever you want.

for someone with such a huge IQ you aren't too bright.