Author Topic: Kids inducing negative-status in their natural eyes.  (Read 2037 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Kids inducing negative-status in their natural eyes.
« on: November 10, 2014, 06:24:04 AM »
Subject: How a child induces, negative-status, in his natural eyes.

Item: What to do about it?  Get a excessively strong minus - and wear  it all the time - and continue to read at -6 diotpers (6 inches).
If you analyze the eye – as it always has been – a dynamic system, then it is clear that the child’s habits always induce a SLOW change in refractive STATE – in a negative direction.
But just try to tell the parents that objective fact and truth.
Just try to get them to consider wearing a plus when the child can still read the 20/30 to 20/40 line.
I will forward this to people who think for a living
For a man in an office, and intelligent conversation is almost impossible.   (With a patient – who is supposed to be ignorant with no understanding and motivation.)
When the person gets “out of the office”, is it possible to show WHY wearing the plus (as it gets “blurry out  there”) is necessary – and must be continued through the school years.
Here is a plus (bifocal study) that shows this with a p value of < 0.000001, for every year for 10 years.
In a brief way,  the child had a PLUS FOR NEAR, but to get the child to wear the plus, the child had to be given a minus lens.  (Because you can not explain the REASON WHY, wearing a plus
can prevent.) But the science is very accurate.
A mature adult could understand it – or the consequences of NOT wearing the plus.  (Read that –1/2 diopter per year statement – it is true as science.)
But UNDERSTANDING the need for the plus when your Snellen is 20/40 (about –1 diotper) is almost impossible for our “average citizen”.
But that lack of understanding kills the eye – in the long run.
But it takes courage for an ophthalmologist to speak “scientific truth”.
I just need to be told scientific truth, so I can protect my distant vision with a plus for near.
The fault, my friend, is not in the ophthalmologist, it is in ourselves.

« Last Edit: November 11, 2014, 08:17:01 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Kids inducing negative-status in their natural eyes.
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2014, 05:39:11 AM »
Subject:  I agree that dealing with a child is very difficult.

By Todd Becker:


I haven’t written anything specifically directed towards myopia prevention in children. However, this is a very important topic. Quite a few contributors to the Discussion Forum for this blog have posted their experiences as parents, working with their children to practice good visual hygiene. With the advent of smart phones, iPads, computers and electronic game consoles, there is doubtless much more opportunity and inclination for even very small children to spend excessive time in close engagement with screens. It’s important to limit this near work, and equally to encourage activities involving distance focusing, such as sports and other outdoor activities. As a precaution, kids should wear plus lenses when spending time at the computer or other close up devices. Or even old fashioned book reading. (Does that still exist?).

The problem is how to enforce these good habits with small children. It’s difficult, given short attention spans, weak motivation, and limited understanding. But clever parents always figure out how to make these activities into games. For example, ask your child to wear plus lenses for a while then take them off and see if the room looks “sharper”. Engage their observational skills and point out that the plus lenses will give them “super vision” and prevent them from seeing blurry.

As with other habits like brushing teeth or tidying up, good visual hygiene can be taught even to children.



I would add the following -- that the general teaching in optometry, is that you can do anything you want (i.e., nose on book, for hours, and it will have NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of all normal eyes.)  So the parents will not take early-stage myopic inducement seriously.

But I would think that a serious effort by a parent, (who wore the plus and got out of it), with his "older" child, could have the intended effect --which is prevention before the child's refraction goes below 20/40 to 20/50.

This is more educational, than it is medicine.  I know of ODs who "got after" their own children, who would, when the sat down, would put on the plus lens, and read though it.

That works, but only for the child of an optometrist - who understands and cares.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2014, 08:25:50 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Kids inducing negative-status in their natural eyes.
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2014, 06:41:19 AM »
Subject: The fundamental eye is dynamic.  That is perhaps a scientific abstraction - but it is also scientific truth.

Item: But it nearly impossible to "reduce" objective scientific truth -- into a preventive program for a child.  I make this statement, in sadness, and not in anger.  I just regret the consequences.

Item: It is possible for a mature adult (age 14) to understand the need to make a committment to making a "habit" of putting on a plus - when you must read.  (For all reading).  It is impossible to get a child to do that.  Plus prevention is for the long-term -- yes, for years.

Here is a statement and request by Dr. Nate's son.  I do not know what to say about it.  Part of the solution must be a "conversation" between the father and son - about the need for long-term wear of a plus lens (in my opinion).  This is indeed a "family" solution, not a medical solution.

The plus was started for one month.  But the reality is that it must be used for years -- exactly.

From Dr. Alex


By Dr. Nate,

I need some help with my 9 year old son. He has been complaining about not being able to see the chalkboard in school for about 6 months. I initially had him tested, and he tested at -1 diopter. I tried to teach him about taking breaks, good distance when reading, good habits, etc - I think he did some of them. I also tried to teach him to “pull focus” in the distance. For the last month, I’ve had him use plus lenses, and we read together and “push focus” every day for about 30 mins.

Recently the teacher told us he is squinting a lot in class. He tells me he can read the chalkboard about 3/4ths of the time, and the other 1/4th he can’t.

I had him tested at the optometrist today-his prescription is: -1.0 od, -1.25 os.

I think he needs some glasses help to perform in school.

But what prescription should I get him for a “normalized prescription”.

How strong should I make his “differential prescription”.

I’ve been through the child myopia program very carefully. I just need a little help with the prescriptions.

Thank you very much.


« Last Edit: November 12, 2014, 06:43:09 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Kids inducing negative-status in their natural eyes.
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2014, 04:52:22 PM »

Subject: When the kid, "gets the idea" with strong teacher/parent support, PREVENTION is possible.

Item: More commentary from Dr. Nate


I guess that was one of my questions. I was using a +2 lens, but it didn’t seem quite strong enough. We increased it to +2.75. The distance he holds a book at where the letters “just barely start to blur” seems about right and comfortable. I have told him to do his homework with them

Is +2.75 too strong? Should I cut back to +2?

I also spoke with his teachers yesterday. They’re going to move him to the front of the class. His main teacher told me she would encourage him to use the reading glasses when appropriate.

I should add that he is a great kid, not rebellious at all. He really wants to do this. He is also doing quite well with his grades, so his difficulty reading the chalkboard is not hurting him.

Thanks so much for all your help.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Kids inducing negative-status in their natural eyes.
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2014, 03:49:43 AM »
When a parent, who is a doctor, choose to help his own child, by insisting the child wear a plus for all close work.

This is why true-prevention is so damn difficult.  Yet we know that if the child does not wear the plus, his vision just keeps on going down
at -1/2 diopter per year.

I know there are people who ask Todd Becker for "objective success".  But you have to ask, who verifies your own visual acuity, and refractive state?  If it is science, then YOU DO.  If it is medicine, then you are assumed to have no capability to measure what is important.

Here is a very short history of how we got into the disaster with the minus lens.

It was an optometrist, who truly "woke up" to the problem of long-term near for his own child - that made all the difference for me.  I just try to explain WHY the plus is necessary, while you can still read the 20/40 line.

For Dr. Nate and his child - I hope he continues having his child wear the plus.  It is that -1/2 diopter per year, that truly is the problem.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2014, 01:30:23 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Kids inducing negative-status in their natural eyes.
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2014, 04:40:53 PM »
Subject: The real "killer" of a child's long-term vision.

Issue: Gross OVER-prescription.  Seven year old child, with 20/70, gets a -4.25 diopter prescription.

Item: You can still function with 20/70 vision.  It is not great, but you can get out of it.  This child needs to START with the plus now -- or all is lost.

Item: -4 diopters, means you can't read anything beyond 10 inches.

This is why I recommend a person get is own test lenses - as he works to clear his own Snellen.

If this is not prevented now, the child will become a -12 diopter myope - when he gets out of college.

I regret it - but the person must take some responsibility for prevention, before he starts wearing a -4 diopter, when prevention is still possible.

We need an education and a choice, in a decision that will certainly affect you for the rest of your life.

It should not be a strong minus, in an office that, "... you will get used to it".

It should be support to begin wearing a "plus for near", with the warning that this is an either-or choice.

But who is going to tell you that?  The optometrist?

The fact is, that one courageous optometrist hat the temerity to speak the truth.  He called the minus, "... poison glasses for a child..."

But the parent would hear NONE OF IT.  Other OD will tell you  that if the child does not wear the plus - he will go down - like permanently.
Or they will say, you want to think that prevention is possible - when I the expert OD tell you that, "... it will never happen"?

I know how difficult it is for a parent to understand that his child should not wear a minus lens, when he can still read the 20/40 line, and instead, with intelligence and long-term motivation, wear a +2.5 for all close work.

I just do not think that an optometrist can help you - but instead, with your intelligence and education, you should check  your refractive state yourself.

No one can guarantee success - because you never know what any given person might do.  I certainly do not know.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2014, 11:02:04 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Kids inducing negative-status in their natural eyes.
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2014, 04:48:04 AM »
Subject: How one billion of us develop negative-status for our natural eyes.

Item: Why do we get "dead silence" in an OD's office about "just prevention" when we are still reading the 20/40 line?

Item: I know that few people want to understand the science and reason for wearing the plus at 20/40, but then that is indeed the choice.

This is from Dr. Alex, who has the right idea.

But just try to get a person at 20/40 to 20/60 to recognize that long-term wearing of a plus is necessary - for nine months.

I do not talk about success.  It is up to the person himself to do his own objective checking, on his own Snellen.


By Veronika, at age 26 years.

Hi there :-)

Introducing myself: I am 26 years old now. As a child I liked to read a lot. When I was in the 3rd grade primary school, I got a gameboy. They surely had these warnings in the manuals about not using them excessively, but as a nine-year-old, do you rather read strange complicated texts in a foreign language or do you rather start to play?
In addition to reading, using my gameboy was too much for my eyes. When I returned to school after the two months of holidays I found I couldn’t see the blackboard sharply anymore.

At first, I was really annoyed with my glasses and just didn’t wear them whenever I could avoid it. But that didn’t help. My eyesight got worse. I then kept them on but had the sense not to wear them while reading. However I think I kept them on while working on the computer. And I had a lot of computer time in my teens. Plus school time – that kept me focusing on near objects nearly all of the time, often looking at them intently. Of course I knew the feeling of eyestrain. I hardly ever took breaks when I plunged into schoolwork or other projects. I actually felt a little hero-like when I then realized my body got exhausted. Eyes, hands, all. I didn’t seriously believe there could be the long-term effects.
My eyes got worse continually, me being unaware of the reason, until I decided to get RGP-lenses at about the age of 16 (I believe). That was supposed to have a stabilizing effect and it worked. Finally, this strange disorder seemed to be stopped!
I abandoned the lenses some years later because of the hassle you get each time small dust particles get into your eyes and under the lenses. However, that didn’t do any harm because at that time, I didn’t have to stare intently at close objects.

Well, I thought, obviously I’m grown now and my eyes won’t get worse anymore. Or maybe they just finally stabilized (for whatever reason).
Still in that assumption I plunged myself into a three-years’-study. Again, a considerable amount of time in front of the computer screen, deadlines to meet, no time to take breaks (I thought), sitting in front of my notebook till 10, 11, 12 pm, sometimes regularly – or else looking at fellow students close by, teachers at the end of middle-sized rooms or the inside of public transport vehicles.

After these years I happened to stop by at the optician’s. I wanted some contacts and he wanted to test my eyes before he ordered them. He then concluded my eyes had gotten half a diopter worse than 9 years ago. “That’s not too bad, that’s not much”, he said. But I was appalled. Not too bad? It was bad! I had thought my eyes would not grow worse anymore and if they did, where was this to end? I don’t want to be blind by the age of 50!

This really started me off thinking. Why did my eyes get worse again? Why did I actually get myopia at all? Could I do anything against it?

I remembered what a relative of mine had once told me. He had had low myopia. But when it would have cost him something, he spent a few days not looking at anything in near distance. After that, his eyes were alright again.
I figured if it worked for him, it would work for me. I figured that if my eyes could still change, they’d be able to change in the other direction as well. I figured that if my God made human eyes sophisticated enough for them to adapt to continuous close-up focus, they must be able to adapt to the opposite as well. I made some sketches. Human, horizon, sight range with glasses, without glasses. Suddenly, it all dawned on me. Putting on glasses just simulates the initial position again. If you don’t change your habits, your “corrected eyes” will get myopic again which in reality means your real eyes will have the firstly aquired myopia plus new, additional myopia. I had used my eyes in the wrong way for years and years.

I realized I needed extra glasses for computer work. (Started using them some months ago.) Further online research confirmed my theory to me. I was delighted! People who wrote their myopia got better! The wild bird watcher sticks to my mind. :) That new job surely helped him! ;-)
I had found this website some time ago. Now I took a closer look at the course options. And registered. ;-)

See you!