Author Topic: The Gobeldegook language of optometry.  (Read 1175 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
The Gobeldegook language of optometry.
« on: March 22, 2015, 03:57:35 PM »
In simple language, the natural eye has positive and negative refractive STATES - self-measured with
a Snellen, and your own "test lenses".

The language of science is clear. The eye is proven to be dynamic, on an objective level.

BOTH, 1) Long-term near, and/or 2) A minus lens create "negative status for the totally normal eye.

This both reasonable, and completely predictable.  It is also fully confirmed by objective, scientific testing,
that does not involve the "convoluted" and confusing language of optometry.

Here is one study - that represents this "confusion", for your interest.

If you use the words, "emmetropia" (refractive state of exactly zero), ametropia (any refractive
state that is not exactly zero),  hyperopia, (all positive refractive states that are positive, and 20/20)
nearsightedness, or myopia, (all negative refractive states, with poor ability to read the 20/40 line),
it would make understanding this convoluted language easier to understand (I would hope).

All these words are ASSUMPTIONS, that the eye is a proven box-camera.  That was never true,
but you will never get though the "Gobedegook" of the OD.  His professional position DEPENDS
on this dis-proven concept.


Posted by Alex Eulenberg, of I-SEE.  (About 30 years of experience with this subject.)

Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 3:26 AM

1. 2014 study shows plus lenses prevent myopic shift
    Posted by: i_see_owner

Yang, Hee Kyung et al. "Changes in Refractive Errors Related to Spectacle
Correction of Hyperopia." Ed. Zoi Kapoula. PLoS ONE 9.11 (2014)

PLoS One. 2014 Nov 5;9(11):e110663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110663.
eCollection 2014.



Hyperopic undercorrection is a common clinical practice. However, less is
known of its effect on the change in refractive errors and emmetropization
throughout the later years of childhood.


To evaluate the effect of spectacle correction on the change in refractive
errors in hyperopic children less than 12 years of age with or without


A retrospective cohort study was performed by a computer based search of the
hospital database of patients with hyperopia, accommodative esotropia or
exotropia. A total of 150 hyperopic children under 12 years of age were
included. Patients were classified into four groups:

1) accommodative esotropia with full correction of hyperopia,

2) exotropia with undercorrection of hyperopia,

3) orthotropia with full correction of hyperopia,

4) orthotropia with undercorrection of hyperopia.

The 4 groups were matched by initial age on examination and spherical equivalent
refractive errors (SER). The main outcome measure was the change in SER
(Diopter/year) in both eyes after two years of follow-up.


An overall negative shift in SER was noted during the follow-up period in
all groups, except for the group with esotropia and full correction. The
mean negative shift of hyperopia was more rapid in groups receiving
undercorrection of hyperopia with or without strabismus.

The amount of undercorrection of hyperopia was positively correlated to the magnitude of
decrease in hyperopia in all patients (r = 0.289, P<0.001) and in the
subgroup of patients with orthotropia (r = 0.304, P = 0.011).

The amount of undercorrection of hyperopia was the only factor associated with a more
negative shift in SER (OR, 2.414; 95% CI, 1.202-4.849; P = 0.013).


The amount of undercorrection is significantly correlated to the change in
hyperopic refractive errors. Full correction of hyperopia may inhibit
emmetropization during early and late childhood.

Link to article including full text here:


Simplified language:

1) A plus was worn when the person's refraction was slightly positive.

2) The plus, prevented the natural eye from "going down", i.e., becoming negative, or nearsighted

3) Objective science (the primate eye) shows that this conclusion is reasonable, and consistent with objective science.

That was clear - but no OD wants to say it that way.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2015, 07:11:38 PM by OtisBrown »