Myopia is an epidemic! More and more people are ruining their eyes! Most people are myopic now!

http://www.optvissci.com/pt/re/ovs/...MDqydCTxfAY8UJ!-1213525936!-949856144!9001!-1


bilateral myopia was present in 37% of the children.
Hyperopia was present in 6.0% of the total population(this includes
everyone, period)

Ace says: I was right, myopia is far more prevelent than hyperopia and
90% of the hyperopes are old people who can no longer accomodate plus
their eyes become slightly hyperopic from old age.
Otis says: The wrenched evil minus lense!


"...in countries where the prevalence of myopia has rapidly increased
to 80 to 90 per cent in young adults, it is clearly not simple genetic
determination that leads to myopia. The prevalence is changing so fast
that many young Asians are now myopic without any family history of
myopia."

Ace and Otis says: The wrenched evil minus lense!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"Myopia progressed more rapidly during the school year than during
summer vacation."


Ace says: Near work makes your eyes move in a nearsighted direction and
if the evil minus lense is worn, you get stair-case myopia! I have seen
people get into the teens(diopters) because of that! One lady wore
contacts from the time she woke to the time she went to bed and did
lots of near work and studying with them so now her eyes are ruined to
the tune of -10.5 and they will keep progressing! I told her how she
can stop them from getting any worse but she doesnt care. Ah well
retina detachments wont be fun


""Progressive lenses, which can permit a focused retinal image at
distance, intermediate, and near, without accommodation, may slow the
development of myopia....Progressive lenses significantly retarded the
progression of the myopia in these children."


Ace says: I wish I was told this when I was 12 and only a -1! more than
years later than -4 diopters worse, NOW I know as I look thru strong
minus lenses


"Correcting a child's myopia with negative lenses may result in
compensatory aberrant eye growth and the development of myopia".

"Use of negative lenses for the correction of myopia leads to
progression."


Heres the proof!

http://www.agape1.com/myopia.htm


Comparisons between 1984 and 1996 examinations showed a considerable
increase in the incidence of myopia among those 7 years of age or
older, and changes in mean refractive errors also demonstrated a
greater shift toward myopia, especially in students older than 10 years


In this 13-year period, the prevalence of myopia increased from 49.3%
to 65.6% in 17-year-old students.


Methods. Vision screening was carried out in local and international
schools for students 13 to 15 years old. Types of refractive error were
identified by visual acuity measurement, the presence of spectacles, a
simple refraction, and the use of plus and minus ophthalmic lenses.

Results. Three local schools and six international schools participated
in the study. Two hundred eighty-nine students were from the local
schools, and 789 students were from the international schools.
Prevalence of myopia at the local schools ranged from 85 to 88%,
whereas it ranged from 60 to 66% in the international schools. Students
in the international schools were subdivided into Chinese origin,
white, mixed Chinese, and Asian. Prevalence of myopia was highest in
the Chinese group (82.8%) and lowest in the white group (40.5%). There
was no age or gender difference in the prevalence of myopia.



In general, in the adult, emmetropia is the most common condition
found, although this depends on the population studied. Almost 100% of
medical students in Taiwan are myopic and the figure is very nearly as
high in Japan.


Ace says: There you have it! Myopia is an epidemic and some say 90-100%
of people could be myopic in a few generations! Imagine walking in a
park and seeing bespectacled person after bespectacled person(unless
they are wearing contacts or got refractive surgury)
Its sad we have to resort to risky lasik surgury to correct(some say
"cure") myopia(other than glasses and contacts) that should have been
prevented or slowed down in childhood with the plus lense and more
importantly, avoiding the minus lense!

 

Go study statistics so you will have a clue. The abstract says 6% had
over 1 D. of hyperopia. Ok, if 37% were myopic, guess what that means.

C'mon, guess.

OK never mind, I'll tell you. 55 percent were hyperopic below 1.0 D.,
or were emmetropic, or a total of 61% hyperopic or emmetropic.

Still think you were right?

(oh, and I examined 10 people yesterday and guess what, all 10 were
correctible to 20/20, 6 got 20/15 BVA, and 1 was even 20/10.)

And those are people coming to an optometrist, concerned about their
vision.

w.stacy, o.d.

 

"OK never mind, I'll tell you. 55 percent were hyperopic below 1.0 D.,

or were emmetropic, or a total of 61% hyperopic or emmetropic."


I can believe you but unless your presbyopia, emmetropia or even very
low hyperopia requires NO action. NO glasses are needed. Its perfectly
normal for many people, especially children to be slightly hyperopic
but its myopia thats the issue at hand. And like I said, in countries
like Japan, 80% are myopic of more than -.5 diopters.


"Still think you were right?"


If your talking about significent hyperopia that needs glasses right
now then no. If your talking very minimal hyperopia that doesnt need
glasses before 35-40 then your right.


"(oh, and I examined 10 people yesterday and guess what, all 10 were
correctible to 20/20, 6 got 20/15 BVA, and 1 was even 20/10.)"


I have the following concerns. This does not add up(unless its purely
coincidental) because 20/20 is the standard for normal vision and 20/15
exceeds it. Also at least 25% of people arent corrected to 20/20(ive
shown you proof of this, kind sir) yet not only do you get everyone to
20/20 you get 7 out of 10 better than this!


1. Ok what kind of eyechart do you use, kind sir? Tradational snellen?
Vision tester?(the kind popular for driving eye tests) projector
snellen?(specify type too, theres one with mirrors, theres one onto a
big white sheet of paper or plastic, theres a computerized one)

2. Are the subjects at the proper distance? If your eyechart properly
calibrated? I can also see the 20/20 line with glasses from 15 feet
with effort and definatly from 13 feet without much of a problem. I
have heard of subjects leaning or walking closer. One guy was bragging
about his 20/15 vision but it turns out he was standing 15-16 feet
away! Hey I can "improve" lines by standing just a few feet closer!

3. Do they all "happen" to be high hyperopes? The magnification effect
can easily "add" another line. I know of high hyperopes who dont wear
contacts for the sole reason they cant see 20/15 with them but they can
with their plus glasses which magnifiy! Hey I could do the same by
overcorrecting myself with minus contacts then "get" 20/20 with plus
glasses!

4. What is your rules and explanations? How many of each line is on
your eyechart, how many different letters does it have(5? 7? 10?) and
whats your policy for guessing? If someone obviously shows trouble
seeing the line(gets it wrong then corrects himself) or pauses then
resumes with a delay but gets some or most right, even if they all were
lucky guesses, does this still "count"? What percentage must be
correct? The official standard is actually 4 out of 5 from what I read.
Others will give the "pass" if you see more than 2/3 of the line while
others are "generous" and "pass" you even if your seeing half or less!

5. Was the lighting used bright or did the subjects squint? Under
either condition, I can make out 20/25 by reading an eyechart outside
on a sunny day or peeping in a pinhole. It is not uncommon for people
to improve an additional line using those means due to high order
aberrations being minimized with a small retinal image.

6. Were they all children? Its true that people in that age are more
likley to see 20/20 or better than middle age people or old people.

7. Wavefront anything or RGP contacts. Both of them are known to
correct some high order aberrations and give exceptionally crisp
vision. I would not be supprised in the least to be seeing 20/20 with
RGP contacts(they also dont minify) and only a little supprised(but
more amazed) to see 20/15!

8. I almost forgot to add this one, but were your patients recalling
from memory? If they have gotten an eye exam before or seen this chart
before, they can use selective memory and recall from that. I am
careful to make sure I actually see the letters and not just recall
them from my memory even though they look nothing more than dots(or
blobs) to me.


Thanks for your time. I am still trying to understand why and how you
are "getting" your patients/subjects to better vision than most other
optometrists. The reasons are because of one or more of the 7 above. I
will repeat four experiences below and also comment.


1. My sister was reported(by her optometrist) at 20/20 in one eye,
20/15 in the other. However using BOTH eyes at the same time(which is a
tiny bit better than each seperately), she was 20/20-2(6 out of 8) on
my snellen chart. On the same eyechart, I can resolve 20/30 without
much trouble.

2. My sister's friend was reported to have 20/10 vision but in fact she
could see NONE of the 20/10 line and only 6 out of 8 of the 20/13 line.
She is closer to 20/15, a little better than that but NOT 20/10 like
her optometrist says! From 40 feet I believe she was seeing the 20/40
line, although she probably should see the 20/30 line, if not shes not
even 20/15 for the matter! and was just recalling the dots from memory!


3. My brother was declared "20/20" and recalled all of the 20/20 line
on my snellen chart. I told him hes going by memory and that I did not
feel he could actually see 20/20. Turns out I was right. At the
optometrist's office, he could not "really" make out the 20/20 line but
was guessing over and over till he got them right. He used different
lenses to keep testing him on the 20/20 line and giving him several
chances to get them right and he got some right after enough guessing.
The same scinerio was used on me for 20/25. When he moved down to the
20/25 line, I hesisited for 10 seconds then told him I cant see it so
he basically said "try" anyway and I told him im guessing at this point
and got some lucky guesses and he was satisfied and proclaimed me
20/25. I could believe im perhaps 20/28 if there was a such line and my
brother perhaps 20/22 but theres no such line so we go to the next
denominator.

4. Some of my friends were bragging about their 20/20 vision but some
of them failed to deliver, falling anywhere from 20/20 minus to 20/30.
Yes I actually saw better than a few of the "20/20" friends. Some had
glasses and tilting them did nothing so their eyes havent gotten worse
so quickly, they just never were 20/20.



comments: If 75% of people are not correctable to 20/20 and you test 10
people, there is a 5.6% chance all 10 people will be 20/20 with a fair,
proper eye test. Its normal for many 20/20 people to see/guess a couple
of the 20/15 line(look it up on the internet) but this does not make
them 20/15. Hey im 20/30 but I can see/guess a couple of the 20/25! My
20/25 bro likewise can see/guess a couple of the 20/20! I bet the 20/10
guy you tested is closer to 20/15, perhaps a bit better like my
sister's friend. I bet most or all of your 20/15 guys arent true 20/15
in respect to one or more of my 8 rules. I have no arguements about
20/20 as its not really unusual but better than that is!


The eyechart used at home was a standard, official one exactly like the
one pictured below:


http://uuhsc.utah.edu/healthinfo/spanish/Eye/images/eyechart-150.jpg

 

LOL are you 12 or something "doctor" Grant? I had a good laugh!

 

Dear Ace,

Subject: You are absolutly correct.

Yes, it is true that you can avoid getting into
nearsighedness (a negative refractive state
of the natural eye) -- but it does take
strong personal fortitude to do it.

Given the "reaction" of these ODs, you have
no choice but to teach youself how to do it -- before
you develop stair-case myopia from that over-prescribed
minus.

Here are some more statistics to "make your case".

Just remeber -- even the ODs are "waking up"
to the need for the plus -- has have their
own children in that plus as soon as
their refractive state moves from slight
plut -- to minus. They know the consequences
of NOT using the plus for preveniton. See:

www.chinamyopia.org

It is time we allign ouselves with Steve Leung ODs
leadership on this issue.

Here are the statistics and discussion.

Best,

Otis

++++++++++


MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT
FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS


Re: Changes in ocular refraction and its components
among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year
period.

******************


1) In Singapore, the vision of 421,116 males between the ages of
15 and 25 was examined. In 1974-84, 26.3% were myopic; in
1987-91, 43.3% were myopic. Both the prevalence and severity
of myopia were higher as the level of education increased.
The prevalence rate was 15.4% in males with no formal
education and increased steadily through the education levels
to reach 65.1% among the university graduates in 1987-91. The
authors state that their findings confirm indications from
other sources that the association between the prevalence and
severity of myopia and education attainment is real (M.T.
Tay, K.G. Au Eong, C.Y. Ng and M.K. Lim, "Myopia and
Educational Attainment in 421,116 Young Singaporean Males,"
Ann Acad Med Singapore, 1992, Nov;21(6):785-91).

2) Regarding the prevalence of myopia in Asian countries, Lam and
Goh (Lam, C.S. and Goh, W.S., "The incidence of refractive
errors among schoolchildren in Hong Kong in relationship with
the optical components", Clin. Exp. Optom., 74:97-103, 1991)
found that in 383 school children from ages 6 to 17 years, the
prevalence of myopia increased from 30% at ages 6-7 years, to
70% at ages 16-17 years.

3) Lam and Yap (Lam, C.S. and Yap, M. "Ocular dimensions and
refraction in Chinese Orientals", Proc. Int. Soc. Eye Res.,
6:121, 1990) found that in a group of optometry students at
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the prevalence of myopia
was 75% in females and 69% in males.

4) Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S. and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive
trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39
years," Ophthal. Physiol. Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that
in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong,
the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%.

5) Lin et al (Lin, L.-K, Chen, C.J., Hung, P.T., and Ko, L.S.,
"National- wide survey of myopia among schoolchildren in
Taiwan, Acta Ophthalmol.", 185:29-33, 1988) found that in a
national survey of children in Taiwan, the prevalence of
myopia was over 70%.

6) Lin et al (Lin, L.K., Shih, Y.F., Lee, Y.C., Hung, P.T., and
Hou, P.K., " Changes in ocular refraction and its components
among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year
period.

7) A recent study in Hong Kong showed what other studies have
shown - wearing less than a full correction will slow the
progress of the myopia. Children selected for the study were
between the ages of 9 and 12. All were nearsighted, with 1.00
to 5.00 D of myopia. The children were separated into three
groups. Each group was given a different type of eyeglasses
to wear for the two-year period of the study. The first group
wore single vision lenses with a full correction; the second
group wore progressive lenses with a +1.50 add; the third
group wore progressive lenses with a +2.00 add. All children
were examined at 6-month intervals to check the progression of
their myopia. Sixty-eight children completed the study. As
expected, more undercorrection meant slower myopia
progression.

Minus vision lenses: - 1.23 D increase (2 years)
Progressive lenses with +1.50 add: - 0.76 D increase (2 years)
Progressive lenses with +2.00 add: - 0.66 D increase (2 years)

Source: Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong
Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive
lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76:346, 354. Published 10/07/00.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

December 6, 2000

By Liu Shao-hua
Staff reporter
Taipei Times

Subject: Myopia Increases Among Children

One of every five children in the first grade in Taiwan's
elementary schools is myopic (nearsighted). The proportion of
myopics in this group has increased from 12.1 percent in 1995 to
20.4 percent this year, according to the results of a survey
released by the Department of Health yesterday.

The results also show that 60.7 percent of sixth graders in
elementary schools, 80.7 percent of third graders in junior high
schools, and 84.2 percent of third graders in senior high schools
suffer from myopia. In addition, the number of seriously myopic
children is also on the rise. The proportion of seriously myopic
children among sixth graders in elementary schools has increased
from 2 percent five years ago to 2.4 percent this year.

Serious myopia is defined as exceeding 600 degrees (6
diopters). Anything over 25 degrees (0.25 diopters) is myopia.
Normal eyesight is zero degrees.

"We appeal for reductions to children's work load in schools
and the amelioration of visual environments in daily life," said
Chen Tzay-jinn, director-general of the health promotion bureau,
under the health department.

The survey was conducted by the department, in cooperation
with National Taiwan University and its hospital, and involved a
sample of 12,000 students from four million students between the
ages of 7 and 18 nationwide. Myopia has been on the increase in
Taiwan ever since the first myopia survey in 1983. The department
manages the survey every four or five years.

The growth of nearsightedness among young children is thought
to result from learning to read very young and using computers
very young, Chen pointed out.

Last year, the department and the Ministry of Education
delivered official documents to kindergartens nationwide demanding
that children not be taught to read or use computers too early.
"But many teachers and parents protested against this appeal,"
said the department officials. "They questioned exactly what they
were permitted to teach if reading was not allowed."

"We do hope that parents and teachers can heighten their
awareness of myopia and understand that early learning does not
guarantee students' performance in the future, but it does bear a
strong correlation to defects in vision," Chen said. The
department also appealed for children under the age of 10 not to
be taught how to use computers.

Senior high school students suffer the highest rates of
nearsightedness, at over 84 percent. "It reached a plateau five
years ago and has not changed this year. But their myopia has
become more serious," Chen said. According to the survey, 20
percent of third graders in senior high schools are seriously
nearsighted.

Many people thought operations could cure myopia. "But the
superficial improvement of vision does not better the health of
the eye. More importantly, it might reduce people's awareness of
other problems associated with nearsightedness, apart from visual
ones," said Lin Lung-kuang, ophthalmology professor at National
Taiwan University. "Myopia cannot be cured. We have to prevent
children from becoming nearsighted. Don't let them use their
vision too early," Lin urged.

Because of the public's lack of awareness of myopia, the
department estimated its prevalence would continue to grow.
"Singapore resembles Taiwan in many respects and the extent of its
myopia problem might serve as a warning for us," Chen said.

 

If we were to follow Steve Leung's leadership, we would all be going
round in circles, since he links to the website of Otis, who trumpets
the discredited and disproven ideas of the past.

DrG

 

Your post didn't specify needing glasses or not. You just flat claimed
that there are more myopes than hyperopes in the world, something that
your own study contradicts (along with just about every one in the
universe).

20/20 is the standard for normal vision and 20/15

Actually, among healthy adults, 20/15 should be the standard, because
20/15 is what most people get. If I recall, your "proof" on this was to
quote an obvious layperson from Yahoo. How about a real study for proof?

I have two remote controlled projectors each with several different
20/20 and 20/15 lines, both of which can also present single letters,
numbers, tumbling Es, Landolt rings, and pictures in any order I chose.
I also have a paper Snellen for a backup. And yes, all calibrated
properly for the test distances.

 

Uncle Otie: please don't forget that there is approximately ONE
optometrist that seems to agree with you, and he is under
investigation from the local governing board.

Whenever YOU type a sentence like that, you should put the word
'statistics' in quotes. What you quote is anything but statistically
valid.

[additional claptrap snipped]

 

He has been dealt with and got off with a warning.
As far as I know, Steve Leung does not have an OD degree. His is a
professional diploma in optometry.

Roland J. Izaac

 

Thank you, Roland. Good to know.

 

Dear Roland,

Please define the difference between
an "OD Degree" and a "Professional Diploma in Optometry".

Are some qualified to do somethings -- if so described
the functional difference.

It any of this described to the patient?

Best,

Otis

 

"You just flat claimed
that there are more myopes than hyperopes in the world, something that
your own study contradicts"


well its true almost everyone starts out as a hyperope but truth is,
myopia is an epidemic and I see much, much more nearsighted than
farsighted people wearing glasses.


"Actually, among healthy adults, 20/15 should be the standard, because
20/15 is what most people get."


Only when they get examed by you. Ill probably get 20/20 if you exam
me. Re-read the 8 questions, you only answered one. I do not believe
for a minute 20/15 is the standard, period.


"I have two remote controlled projectors..............."


My other concerns still remain. scroll back up to see my previous post.
If you read it all, youll know exactly why I dont believe this. I will
repeat the fact different optometrists have considered me 20/20, 20/25,
20/30 depending which one I go to. Theres a difference of one line,
sometimes even two given all the factors I listed. Ive also said in the
above post I had friends who bragged about being 20/20 yet I could see
from as far as they could and im closer to 20/30!

 

Of course not, and we are all waiting. Don't misunderstand me, I am not
putting Steve down, I'm just correcting Otis. Degrees are different in
different countries. I myself am not an OD. I just have a masters in
clinical optometry.

Roland Izaac

 

I'm glad that you have such good vision. I wish mine was nearly that
good. My vision is good enough that I can tell whether somebody is
wearing glasses. I can't tell if they are nearsighted or farsighted,
not unless I get *way* too close.

Some people wear contacts. I know because they tell me. If they don't
tell me, I don't know. I know whether they are nearsighted or
farsighted, if they tell me. It doesn't matter how close I get, I can't
tell by inspection. I envy you your vision.

 

you can easily tell someone's vision by the shape and power glasses
they are wearing. If their glasses make their eyes really big and the
lenses are bluging outwards like convex, they are high hyperopes. On
the other hand glasses that look concave and make their eyes smaller
are minus glasses. You can tell by the power rings how strong the minus
glasses are. Thickness isnt a good indicator, minification and power
rings are. Of course it helps things if the person lets you inspect the
glasses and hold them to your eyes and see how blurry things are(or
clear if you have his pescription)

With contacts, you sometimes can see a thin plastic disk on their eyes
but you wont have a clue what pescription, just that he has one. I
talked to a lady and I saw she had contacts so I asked what
pescription. She doesnt know exactly and also seems embarressed since
its so bad. She just said my eyes are really bad. Im gonna guess shes a
high myope.

 

you are really getting on my last nerve. you obviously don't
understand much about vision. the questions is why do you keep posting
stupid comments that display your ignorance in this newsgroup.

the answer is, until your are middle aged or older, hyperops don't need
glasses.

go away troll. who cares what you believe. go post in a skateboard
forum.

 

my, you are rude! Maybe you and "doctor" Grant can be buddies, cursing
up a storm and terrorizing little children LOL

 

Not in Folsom CA. Being a myope myself I assumed my kids would get it.

Not one of the 3 did. (2 are low hyperopes, one is a hyperopic astigmat)

But one of my 5 grandkids so far did. (ages 5 to 12, the myope is 8)

What a pandemic!

w.stacy, o.d.

 

wrote:

I see much, much more nearsighted than

What a great scientific sample that was.

And I said 20/15 SHOULD be the standard, every one knows that 20/20 IS
the standard, a completely arbitrary one establishe long before I was
around, when optometric skills were quite low. Now we can get most
healthy eyes to 20/15, and anyone who can't is either sloppy or not
trying hard enough.

And no, I'm not going to answer ALL your questions. I get paid to fill
out such surveys. Send me $50 honorarium and I'll do your survey.

w.stacy, o.d.

 

Do you mean to say there are no myopes?

Next you'll say the Holocaust never happened.