Squinting when not wearing glassee

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by nicoleh76, Nov 4, 2005.

  1. nicoleh76

    nicoleh76 Guest

    I'm myopic and astigmatic, about -2.75 myopia and -1.75 astigmatism in
    my right eye and -1.25 in my left. When I don't wear my glasses, my
    right eye strays off and I get headaches. I'm trying not to become too
    dependent on my glasses so fr closework I try to survive without my
    glasses. What can I do to prevent my sight from worsening?
     
    nicoleh76, Nov 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. nicoleh76

    Dick Adams Guest

    What glasses? Under what conditions? How well controlled?

    Yeah, yeah, I know, you tried the plus lens trick and it did not
    work. I tried too -- good for burning ants on the sidewalk when
    you are a kid.
    Everything fades away pretty quick when you are over 95. So what?
    Can it be made into a pill? Pills, and any medicines, I guess, which you
    keep taking forever, are highly regarded by the pharmaceutical companies.
    Bifocal contacts?

    Has anybody responsibly tried reading glasses for myopia candidates. At
    the age where that might be effective, it is doubtful the subjects could manage
    contacts of any kind.

    Bifocal contacts do not make any sense at all to me, for anybody, much less
    kids.
     
    Dick Adams, Nov 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. nicoleh76

    Dick Adams Guest

    Well, I am still betting on fragility of the cartilaginous elements which support
    the "crystalline" lens. (It is hardly crystalline, you know!)
    Well, maybe. But it is a medication, to be taken over a long period of
    time. Bias may be suspected if such agents are promoted by their
    manufacturers. Likewise, professional lethargy may contribute to
    the overprescription (and inappropriate prescription) of medications.
    Studies seem gimmicky. Why, for instance, are the COMET trials based on
    progressive addition lenses? Wouldn't single-vision reading glasses, under
    carefully controlled conditions, be more appropriate? (Remember, I am calling
    for a convergence adjustment as well as for plus and for and astigmatism correction).
    And, in this vein, I doubt if bifocal contacts, whatever in blazes they may be, can
    make any sense at all.
    Some things clearly do not make sense. Like lumping a lot of stuff in an experimental
    therapy. If something works, you might never know what, and if it doesn't work, you
    would not know if some single element alone would have been effective.
    I would not want that done on any child of mine.
    Fuckin' "A"!!! And for any one who is subsidized or entertained by a
    manufacturer.

    --
    Dicky

    P.S. It is all pretty academic with me, since I see now through silicone, and
    my severely myopic "one-eyed" child is supported by a husband. But this may
    be of interest: After my implants, my wife read about accommodating implants.
    Well, I had not been told about that possibility. Good thing, too, because I
    might have been dumb enough to try it.

    -d
    (seeing my screen very clearly through +1.25 Walgreens readers)
     
    Dick Adams, Nov 5, 2005
    #3
  4. nicoleh76

    Dick Adams Guest

    I do not know exactly how the tension is maintained on the lens
    when the circular (ciliary) muscle is relaxed. Frankly, I do not feel too
    bad about not knowing that, because I do not think I am alone in that
    respect.
    I never suggested +1.25D. That seems a bit weak. Also I figured on correcting
    vision at infinity then applying the "add" and whatever amount of base out prism
    is consistent with the "add" chosen. To fool the eyes into thinking they are seeing
    the book, or work, at infinity.
    No blur. Sharp focus at infinity with distance glasses (or naked eyes if correction
    is not needed), and (same) sharp focus at working distance with reading glasses.

    Kids needing some correction for distance might not want to wear eyeglasses
    in public, but for reading and close working, which are solitary things, it should
    be easier to persuade them.
    I am not thinking about reversing myopia, but keeping it from getting worse.
    Maybe preventing it in some cases where it can be reasonably expected to
    develop.

    (I suspect that once the condition is reached where the images of distant objects
    come to focus short of the retina, there is no going back.)
    OK. It concluded "It seems that myopic progression is connected with much
    use of the eyes in reading and close work and with short reading distance but
    that progression cannot be reduced by diminishing accommodation with bifocals
    or by reading without spectacles."

    Considering that close work is pretty definitely causative for myopia, it is
    very enigmatic that fooling the eyes into thinking they are seeing at infinity
    does not or would not prevent the progression or development of myopia.
    Perhaps the effort of fooling those eyes was not stringent enough.
    Fooling they eyes into thinking they are seeing at infinity. How is that mixed?
    OK. Which group was that?
    Probably eyes know better how to focus if they get some triangulation
    information. Do you remember close-up attachments for rangefinder
    cameras for decades ago? Such an attachment would put a prism over
    one of the rangefinder ports so that the rangefinder could be used close up.

    I think the range-finder camera model is more generally useful. Consider the
    difficulty involved in superimposing two images, as would be necessary to
    obtain distance information, if one image could not be sharply focused.
    For eyes, then, one best starts with corrected, balanced, vision. That is
    to say, each eye, relaxed, sees the same sharply focused image at infinity.

    I can imagine there would be a lot of eyeball consternation if the eyes needed
    to bring together two images which could not be superimposed. Even, I would
    guess that such continual crisis could lead to myopia and other evil conditions.
    Several of those words are not in my dictionary. Doubtful if I could diagram
    the sentence even if I knew the meanings of the words.

    Hey, why don't we start on "blur"? What exactly does that mean?
    The idea of using one eye as a control on the other upset me. Keeping eyes
    balanced, if there is an option, would seem a kinder goal.
     
    Dick Adams, Nov 6, 2005
    #4
  5. nicoleh76

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dick,

    Subject: The second opinion about the eye's behavior

    Mike is very selective in reporting "his" studies.

    The truth is that these studies consistently "conflict" -- and no
    one has resolved them as yet. It does depend on the
    type of question you learn to ask.

    Otis> A very biased study. The "second opinion" study
    run by Dr. Francis Young showed that children fitted
    with a "high plus", (who were expected to look THROUGH
    the plus), had the following rates (approximately).

    The single-minus went "down" at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year.

    The "plus" bi-focal stopped going "down".

    I am not a "fan" of the bi-focal, but with this suggests
    is that more agressive use of the plus BEFORE the person
    is in deeper than -1/2 to -3/4 diopters could be effective
    in prevention. To date, no such preventive study
    has been conducted.

    Otis> MIke is right about this point -- based on the Oakley-Young
    study,
    if you wish to keep your distant vision clear, you are going
    to have to teach youself how to consistently use the plus
    for all close work. This suggests that the person
    should be informed in a manner that would encourage
    him to use the plus in this manner. Further, it
    would appear to be a wise choice of the person
    himself -- more so than a "medical" decision.

    Otis> This is the standard "drop" in your eyes for "exams" Very
    unpleasant stuff -- if you ever had it. Also called a cycloplegic.
    I would think that a low-cost plus would make more sense
    on a scientific level.
    Otis> Rather expensive -- if you check. The
    over-the-counter plus sells for about $8.

    Otis> To a certain extent -- but the person must "get the idea" and
    must understand the results of the "primate" studies, which
    the ODs on sci.med.vision think are a big joke.

    At
    Otis> The plus (for prevention) has never been systematically
    tested on a scientific basis. (i.e., undertand the meaning
    of the primate studies. Thus the preventive approach
    would require an "educated mind" before anything
    is attempted. That fact alone would prevent
    a "blind" study, and make the effort scientific
    rather than "medical" -- if you know what I mean.

    Otis> Dick, I agree with you -- they seem to make "sense" to only ODs.


    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Nov 6, 2005
    #5
  6. nicoleh76

    Dick Adams Guest

    Seems there's more than two.
    And on the words used!
    Exactly how high would "high plus" be? Plus what? (Units??!!)
    Look through "the plus" (??) at what?
    Could one say that Young's studies showed that children who
    useed single-vision reading glasses with some certain positive sperical
    correction (in diopters, what?) experienced myopic progression of
    about a half diopter per year? Does that represent an improvement over
    some worse expected rate, or what?
    You seem to be saying that Young found that bifocal eyeglasses did
    not change, in the sense of becoming more concave, during the
    study. (Certainly not an allusion to "muff diving".) (Well, most
    people take off their eye glasses first.)
    I guess I can figure out what you mean by that. Could I assume
    that, if eyes were out of balance by some fraction of a diopter, and
    that, if there were any astigmatism, appropriate optical corrections
    were made before the "add" was applied for reading glasses
    or panes?

    I would think such corrections would be appropriate, as well
    as base out prism for convergence correction.
    "Plus" is a hopeless word in this context. If I could replace it with
    "reading glasses" (as discussed above), perhaps we could be in agreement.
    Maybe Mike even could agree?
    Good luck to anyone who would like to try atropine analogs to
    help their Magoo vision. Anybody who has tried to see the road
    on a sunny day on the homeward drive from a visit with a
    cycloplegoid eye doctor will not rush towards the experience.
    They sell OTC reading glasses with specific values of correction,
    stated in terms like +1.25D, +1.50D, etc. I got a pair for $3.98 on
    sale. No base-out prisms, however, and they do not correct residual
    astigmatism. But, no matter. My silicone eyes are not going to change
    much anymore, and stuff at reading distance is not too hard to see
    anyway, even if a bit out-of-focus on one axis or another.
    I think we could take the primate studies off the plate. A kid probably
    doesn't even know what a primate is, or that he is, in fact, one.
    Guess we better get started pretty quick, while there are still some
    of those left.
    If you mean that the buggers seem to be all wound up in their jargon,
    I might know. But who isn't?
    Well, Otis, we have to remember that the eye guys are in business to sell
    eyeglasses and stuff, and thus they are different from us, and have problems
    we cannot understand, or even suspect, in some cases.
     
    Dick Adams, Nov 6, 2005
    #6
  7. nicoleh76

    Dan Abel Guest

    I tend not to tell people how things work when I don't have a clue.
     
    Dan Abel, Nov 6, 2005
    #7
  8. nicoleh76

    Dan Abel Guest

    You seem to be saying that Young found that bifocal eyeglasses did
    not change, in the sense of becoming more concave, during the
    study. (Certainly not an allusion to "muff diving".) (Well, most
    people take off their eye glasses first.)[/QUOTE]


    That makes no sense. How are you going to see what you are doing if you
    take your glasses off?


    :)

    Back when I was severely myopic, I very seldom removed my glasses. I
    certainly wore them for swimming and sex.
     
    Dan Abel, Nov 6, 2005
    #8
    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.