So I need glasses...

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by trabony, Nov 7, 2005.

  1. trabony

    trabony Guest

    My prescription is

    R
    sph -0.5
    cyl -0.25

    L
    sph -0.25
    cyl -0.50

    Together:
    0.25

    Not bad sight? I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while
    back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could
    tell me if I needed glasses. And well I do, so this is for future
    reference.

    Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I
    want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true.
     
    trabony, Nov 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. trabony

    p.clarkii Guest

    Not very bad. You could probably just wear glasses for driving, etc.
    Everyday vision is good enough. This is an optional/part-time
    prescription to wear just when you need an extra boost in your distance
    vision.
    the only way you could know that is if you could duplicate or clone
    yourself, and have one clone wear the glasses and have the other clone
    not. even then n=1 so its not very statistically significant.
     
    p.clarkii, Nov 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. trabony

    Guest Guest

    What's this 0.25 stands for Mr or Mrs X ?
    You also mentioned your vision acuity uncorrected for the left eye being
    nearly 20/20 remember?
    What vision do you achieve when wearing spectacles for the right eye and
    what vision acuity is achieved for the left ?
    At last you asked your proffessional as you should in first place?
    This news group is not a replacement for real eyecare and giving personal
    advise in these matters, eyecare proffessionals in this newsgroup only can
    speak in general with such minimal data as provided from you.
    Ask Otis, he is very positive minded on this particular issue.

    --
    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, Nov 7, 2005
    #3
  4. trabony

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Trab,

    There is no doubt that a minus lens is an easy
    solution. Most prefer it. Some commentary:

    Not bad sight?

    That is a very mild prescription for 20/50 on
    the eye chart.

    I kinda need it for 3 things. I posted a topic a while
    back saying my eyesight was 20/50 and I had eyestrain, and nobody could

    tell me if I needed glasses.

    Otis> At 20/50 you will need a minus
    lens to pass the DMV.

    And well I do, so this is for future
    reference.


    Also I was thinking of keeping record of my sight, if it gets worse. I
    want to see if the myth about glasses making sight worse is true.

    Otis> THAT depends on how old you
    are, and how much you wear that
    minus lens. I would suggest you
    ONLY wear it when you need it -- like
    driving a car. If you do that, then
    your refraction will stay at about
    -1/2 diopter, and eye chart at 20/50.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Nov 7, 2005
    #4
  5. trabony

    p.clarkii Guest

    just pulled that out your butt didn't you Otis?
    this is just your "second opinion"
     
    p.clarkii, Nov 7, 2005
    #5
  6. trabony

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Clar,

    Clar> just pulled that out your butt didn't you Otis?
    this is just your "second opinion"

    Otis> No, Clar, that was the result of the Oakley-Young
    study that proved that when a young child is put into
    a (single) minus his refractive state moves down
    at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. The
    plus (bifocal) group went down at
    a rate of approximately zero.

    Otis> You should actually READ some of
    these scientific publications -- now and then.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Nov 8, 2005
    #6
  7. trabony

    A Lieberman Guest

    Lets see some MEDICAL publications Otis.

    Bet you won't provide theM.

    Until you provide MEDICAL proof, GO AWAY PLEASE!!!

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Nov 8, 2005
    #7
  8. trabony

    Dom Guest

    So if your eyes DO get worse, how will you know it was the glasses that
    made them get worse? It could have been just a continuation of the same
    thing that made them START to get worse - which couldn't have been
    glasses since you don't wear them yet!

    BTW, what's the 'Together' bit?? Was this the Add?

    Dom
     
    Dom, Nov 12, 2005
    #8
  9. trabony

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    The Oakly-Young study was considered to
    be a MEDICAL study -- for a number of reasons,
    and specifically, Kenneth Oakley is a medical doctor.

    Further standard protocols were followed (blind study, etc.)

    However you can state that the "majority-opinion" REJECTS
    the Oakley-Young study, because they DON'T LIKE the
    implicatons of the study, and can not "reduce" accurate
    knowledge of the natural eye's behavior to "medical practice".

    That is the current consensus of the majority opinion.

    The second opinion does not agree with this assessment
    of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye.

    Keep an open mind. Nature designed a very sophisticated
    mechanism -- which you don't seem to understand.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Nov 13, 2005
    #9
  10. trabony

    Dr Judy Guest

    Nobody rejects the Oakley-Young study, a study is a study and results are
    results. What the "majority opinion" rejects is the hypothesis that
    wearing plus at near can significantly slow the progression of myopia. That
    rejection is based on the many, many, many studies done in the 30 years
    since Oakley-Young was published that did not find similar results.

    If you do 100 studies, three find plus helps, three find plus makes myopia
    worse and the rest find no significant effect, what should your conclusion
    be? That 3/100 were right and 97/100 were wrong? And if you think that
    3/100 are right, which three do you pick?

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Nov 13, 2005
    #10
  11. trabony

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Judy,

    Subject: Two "opinions" of the implications of the
    Oakley Young study.

    Re: I am pleased you agree that the Oakley-Young
    study was a medical study.

    We all know how difficult it is to run a blind study -- no
    doubt about it.

    But the results are very suggestive -- that the
    single-minus group went down at a consitent
    -1/2 diopter per year, while the plus groups
    (weak at that) went down at a rate of
    approximately zero diopters per year.

    This is suggestive of the concept that a
    plus strongly used by the person himself
    (who has the smarts for it) can clear
    his vision from 20/50 to 20/30 or so, and
    by consistent use -- keep his distant
    vision clear for life, if he has the
    will-power for it. This is of course
    the conclusion my nephew drew
    from the science of the natural eye's
    behavior.

    Otis> But lastly, as you spelled out very
    clearly, you can not "prescribe" anything
    like this for "legal reasons" -- and I
    totally agree with you on that point. If
    I spent 120K getting to my position, I would not
    want to put it at risk either. Our experience
    with "John" is case-in-point on that issue.

    Otis> True-prevention is possible -- it is
    just that the person himself must recognize
    that he must do it under his own control,
    if he has the interest and the self-dicipline
    to do the work correctly.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Nov 13, 2005
    #11
  12. trabony

    retinula Guest

    just answer her questions otis. if 100 studies are done and 3 show one
    result but 97 show a different result, which would you believe? you
    want to handpick the VERY FEW studies that support your theory and
    reject the majority of others that go against it.

    bifocals apparently do help children who are near point esophores.
    however this is not by any means a large group. this result, more than
    anything, supports the notion that humans with accommodative
    dysfunction are prone to developing myopia. that is to say, its
    possibly the inaccuracy of the focusing mechanism that seems to
    stimulate myopia progression. plus lenses can,in humans with otherwise
    intact accommodative systems, make focusing less accurate perhaps
    explaining the observation made by Chung (Vision Res. 2002) that
    undercorrection can stimulate myopia development.

    why are you so unyielding in your devotion to the simple-minded idea
    that plus lenses can prevent myopia? why won't you consider ALL the
    studies. why not follow the current research? not a very
    critical-thinker are you otis? i guess you are a man of faith rather
    than a man of science.
     
    retinula, Nov 14, 2005
    #12
  13. trabony

    acemanvx Guest

    this pescription is so minimal it shouldnt cost more than one line of
    vision. I had a higher pescription than yours, -1 20/50 corrected to
    20/25. If your 20/50 with that pescription, youll probably be 20/40
    with glasses.
     
    acemanvx, Nov 15, 2005
    #13
  14. trabony

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Oh, I just love how Otis lies the truth. The truth is that both groups
    became more myopic. Even the group who wore the bifocal showed a
    statistically significant increase in myopia. "Approximately zero,"
    indeed!

    It should be noted that a later study showed that the decrease in the
    rate of progression between the bifocal wearing group and the
    single-vision wearing group only lasted for the first year. After
    that, the rate of progression was exactly the same in the two groups.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 15, 2005
    #14
  15. trabony

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear DrG,

    No, DrG YOU miss the point.

    These blind studies are difficult to run and you RELY on the
    kids to ACTUALLY WEAR THE PLUS.

    The SIGNIFICANT FACT is that a difference in refractive
    state developed between the plus group and the single-minus.

    THAT difference was about -1/2 diopter per year -- over
    three years.

    The AVERAGE of the plus group (using a weak +1.5 diopter lens)
    was a down rate of 0.025 diopters. I consider this to
    be very close to zero. Others can make their own judgment.

    But this does SUGGEST that more systematic use of the
    plus (at the threshold) could result in the person's refractive
    state moving in a "plus" direction, with the result that
    his eye chart would SLOWLY clear from 20/50 to 20/30 or
    better. But this is precisely a decision the person himself
    would have to make.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Nov 15, 2005
    #15
  16. trabony

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Subject: A responsible person who UNDERSTANDS the
    implication of the Oakley-Young study.
    clear that prevention -- must be started before
    the minus lens is "started".

    This implies an "educated" mature person who is willing
    to "take control" and "do it himself". You general
    attitude and "leagal restrictions" (discussed by
    DrJudy and Retinula) leave the person no other choice.

    Provided the person has the motivation, and will monitor
    his own eye chart, then HIS USE of a strong plus, can
    result in his clearing of his chart to 20/40 or better.

    "Complience" is because he PERSONALLY wishes
    to clear his vision. Thus if he does not
    "comply" he does not clear his vision.

    But a stronger plus must be used, and this
    process must start before he gets in
    deeper than about 20/50.

    But since the only "tools" necessary are
    a Snellen, a plus lens (for $8) and maybe
    a simplified trial-lens kit, I doubt that
    you are interested in true-prevention.

    Furter the process is not easy -- and takes
    strong resolve in the person. And this
    you can never "prescribe".

    The issue is one far more of motivaiton,
    engineering and pure science than it
    is a "medical" issue.



    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Nov 15, 2005
    #16
  17. trabony

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    The Young-Oakley study is nearly 30 years old, and the results have
    never been replicated.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 15, 2005
    #17
  18. trabony

    Dan Abel Guest

    Not a plan. The motivation groups would kill him. The engineering
    groups would kill him. The pure science (whatever *that* is) groups
    would kill him.

    Not literally, of course.
     
    Dan Abel, Nov 16, 2005
    #18
  19. trabony

    CatmanX Guest

    I love it when people stick to one study result when many more since
    have found the opposite. Goss and Grosvenor found bifocals halve the
    rate of regression, yet many since found it not statistically
    significant. Young found 90&% reduction in myopic increase, yet recent
    studies found it not significant. Cho found Ortho-K to halve myopic
    increase and soon I expect a study to say otherwise.

    At this popint in time, the only treatment to work that I know of is
    atropine.

    btw, I use bifocals, RGP's and OK, I just have no proof they work other
    than personal results from patients. Scientific, no, but I can't help
    but try.

    grant
     
    CatmanX, Nov 18, 2005
    #19
    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.