Author Topic: Recommendation of plus-prevention (for child who can still read 20/30).  (Read 3368 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Subject: THE HISTORICAL OPINION OF THE USE OF A NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE LENS FOR NEARSIGHTEDNESS

Over the past eighty years, eye doctors have become increasingly suspicious of negative-lens use for nearsightedness. While the immediate effect is instant clarity of vision, the long-term effect has been recognized to be bad. For instance Dr. Samuel Drucker said:

The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave lenses themselves. From many articles that have appeared in the past on the subject of 'Optical Poison', a familiar term a decade (1930) ago, many other optometrists appear to have the same idea.

These are strong opinions by individuals who have had direct and prolonged experience with the use of a negative lens and the effect that this lens has on the normal eye.

Doctors, some time ago, have correctly deduced the nature of the problem and suggested the correct solution. For example, Chalmers Prentice, wrote the following:

Prentice> In the nomad, who is reared out of doors, and who follows such pursuits that his vision is mostly used at twenty feet and greater distances, the nerve-impulses to the ciliary (lens) muscle become established so that the easiest vision is for the far point, and in many years of such use, these impulses become more or less fixed; while the child of a higher civilization spends his life within doors, amuses himself with toys, picture books, kindergarten amusements and learning to read.

Prentice>  We will assume that such a child generally holds his book or toy 10 inches (4 diopters) from his eyes, in which case the crystalline lens requires a much greater convexity, or higher state of refraction to bring about perfect vision; and this is brought about by an increase in the ciliary nerve-impulse which changes the shape of the ciliary lens. Through long continued use, this impulse becomes comparatively fixed, and in some instances refuses to suspend itself sufficiently to bring about distant vision again, and so myopia has set in. The regular work of the student and those other pursuits which require the use of the eye at the near point, tend to perpetuate this condition and make it progressive.

Prentice>  ...Again, the important question, 'How are the advantages of a high civilization to be attained without the foregoing disadvantages?' If the eyes are to be used at a distance of ten inches, aid them artificially by a ten inch magnifying glass; then the nerve-impulses to the ciliary muscle will be no more than if the patient were leading an outdoor life and viewing objects at twenty feet or more.

+++++

From my heart-to-heart discussions with optometrists, IN THEIR HOME, with no pressure, that they insist their own children, "commit" to wearing
a strong plus for all close work.

That is because they are indeed expert of the subject, and know for certain what will happen - if their child does not "keep up" with his
personal wearing of a plus.

Dr. Prentice is totally correct (as science) on this issue.

But just try to "convince" a parent of the necessity of the child intentionally wearing the plus - before they child goes below 20/30.

It that the responsibility of a parent?


« Last Edit: July 09, 2015, 08:58:53 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766

Dr. Prentice is correct as science.  He is a man not compelled by "making money".  But the rest of the ODs,
will NEVER mention intelligent wearing of a plus, while you can still read the 20/30 line.

I consider this a "scam".  Here selling a contract, or ortho-K, or pushing atropine drops, is FAR MORE IMPORTANT
than you taking the bold, and intelligent step of wearing a plus for near.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVjfmXhny-0

I will let you judge.  Mercenary, or saint - the doctors?   Does anyone care anymore.

We all know how difficult prevention is - I have no argument on that point.  But I do feel that
you are being "sucker punched" if you even start wearing a minus lens (if you are still reading the 20/40 line).

ALL DOCTORS KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO GO DOWN - BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT?

Or perhaps, you do not want to know that?

Choose wisely my friends.  I know I have.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766

Even worse, is an optometrist, who is "pushing", Ortho-K, as a means to avoid nearsightedness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNNQY2_bTlo

The BIG PROBLEM?  He is wearing glasses.  If Ortho-K is that great - then why is he NOT 20/20??

This truly is about money, isn't it. 

I wear a plus for "near", to save my distant vision.  You see my videos, and I READ the 20/20 line objectively.

Un-like Anderson, I do not need, nor want your money.  Neither did Dr. Prentice.  It all depends on you. 

There is nothing "easy" about prevention.  I never said it was.  Anyone who says that - is cheating you.

 Try to think about it.

Offline strongmama

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
So what is the best plus level for a child? I have read in "The Myopia Myth" (a book available free on myopia.org) that you should do home monitoring until the child reaches +.5 and then it's time to do +3 lenses for reading and close work. Do you agree with this? I suspect a +3 would be hard to wear because of the large magnification distortion. Can you start with something weaker and increase if the eyes deteriorate?

I would love to hear from anyone who has tried this with young children. My oldest is 3 and measured +.75 at the age 3 check-up. I see personality-wise, we are headed for myopia, lots of interest in near tasks, but we are prepared to take positive action. Mommy and Daddy now model wearing the plus for close work, so it should seem natural, I'm just wondering when and how we will start. Certainly we will train appropriate plus use as part of learning to read (we'll homeschool), but I would love to hear more account of how others have used this technique.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Hi Strong...

Subject: Children are very difficult - for many reasons.

Here is a broad summary of the concept of starting the plus with a child -  who will accept it.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/truthsee.html

What is truly "deadly" is a child's habit of "leaning forward" when reading.  ( I have no idea why they do it - but it truly does create that first negative status.)
As a parent, watch for the child to start doing this - the  stop them.   ALWAYS, eyes no closer than 13 inches (-3 diopters stress).  This will save their vision to age 12 or so.  Virtually no OD will tell you  this.  That is the real tragedy.  Prevention starts with this knowledge.   When the child is older, then talk to the child about this issue.

+3/4 diopter is good for a child.  Totally normal an necessary.  (This is NOT "farsightedness". ) 

When your child starts to read, her refractive STATE will start down.  When it hits -1/4 diopters, about 20/30, now you must decide.    At that level,
she can wear a full strength plus - as protective.  Now SHE must understand the necessity of it.

The "plus strength" is determined by her desired habitual reading distance. If she reads at -3 diopters (13 inches) then the choice must be
a +3 diopter - that exactly removes the effect of near reading.

If she can "sit up" and read at 20 inches, (-2 diopters stress) then the choice must be a +2 diopter lens.  The is why no "prescription" can
ever be made.  It depends on the child's wisdom and knowledge.

At both these distance (with the right plus) all reading will be very clear (with no blur). Her distant vision, will remain good - and she
and you should check yourself.

You could start with slightly weaker. But with 20/30 vision - it simply is not necessary.

It was indeed *me* who started this with my sister's 3 chlidren.  The got the idea in various ways.  The KNEW they had to
pass the DMV requirement - always.  The KNEW that they had to avoid the minus.

Then KNEW no OD could ever help them - so they had to help themselves.

But success - totally depended on THEM, and no one else.

Best,



So what is the best plus level for a child? I have read in "The Myopia Myth" (a book available free on myopia.org) that you should do home monitoring until the child reaches +.5 and then it's time to do +3 lenses for reading and close work. Do you agree with this? I suspect a +3 would be hard to wear because of the large magnification distortion. Can you start with something weaker and increase if the eyes deteriorate?

I would love to hear from anyone who has tried this with young children. My oldest is 3 and measured +.75 at the age 3 check-up. I see personality-wise, we are headed for myopia, lots of interest in near tasks, but we are prepared to take positive action. Mommy and Daddy now model wearing the plus for close work, so it should seem natural, I'm just wondering when and how we will start. Certainly we will train appropriate plus use as part of learning to read (we'll homeschool), but I would love to hear more account of how others have used this technique.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2015, 06:05:49 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline strongmama

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Thanks, Otis!

Yes, I have already made comments about "No nose on the paper, sit up straight and tall!" Time will tell if we're effective or not, but at least now we have the knowledge of what to do. I'm thankful for this forum!

Offline Tom

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • The Sustainabilitist
Wrote a post for parents a while ago which could be entertaining. I think that this is as conversational as it gets!
The Sustainabilitist
Stretching Further the Concepts of Sustainability and Resilience
Facebook   Twitter   Google+

Offline strongmama

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Thanks, Tom, that's great! Controversial, yes, but a topic that really needs to be discussed. I have friends with kids in glasses before kindergarten. I think we're going to see a lot of that from parents who hand their kids iphones. I was so sad to see a little one in the stroller at the mall one day absorbed in a too close phone and not looking around to observe the real world. We are media-free. I only use the computer at naptime and bedtime. Even so, I see a big interest in fine motor tasks and predict we would be headed for myopia if we didn't take preventative measures.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Hi Strongmama,

My purpose was to confirm completely - as pure science - that Dr. Prentice was correct.

I see children doing this - endlessly.  Then the OD will tell you that, '... it is safe to do this, and you can do this forever,  and their is no proof
that long-term near creates negative state for the  natural eye..."

That is their "business model" speaking.  It is not their compassion or interest in your long-term vision that is speaking.

As an engineer, I believe in telling myself the truth.  I also know that if I want a job done right, then I must do it myself (before
I go below 20/40).  Here is a picture of what these children are doing - and the long-term consequence of their doing it.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/SaveEye.html

I know how hard it is to "convince yourself" to discard a strong minus, when you still pass the 20/40 line - but that is
always a personal choice. 

I wear a plus as I type this, and I objectively read the 20/20 line, on my own Snellen.  There is no OD who will ever
prescribe this, so stop asking for that type of help.  My work costs me no money.  That is the best part
of wearing the plus, and doing all of this under my control.

The ODs will prescribe a strong lens for a "kid" in a stroller.  That  lens will kill the prospect for success (permanently).
I cringe when I think of all the damage done by these ODs, but there is nothing I can do about it.


Thanks, Tom, that's great! Controversial, yes, but a topic that really needs to be discussed. I have friends with kids in glasses before kindergarten. I think we're going to see a lot of that from parents who hand their kids iphones. I was so sad to see a little one in the stroller at the mall one day absorbed in a too close phone and not looking around to observe the real world. We are media-free. I only use the computer at naptime and bedtime. Even so, I see a big interest in fine motor tasks and predict we would be headed for myopia if we didn't take preventative measures.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2015, 07:30:25 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Dr. Prentice was correct, in stating that prevention is possible.  But the person must understand it - and not have "fear" about
wearing a strong plus.  If he does, the prevention will never be successful for him.  What I object to, is that this
scientific concept - is denied publication in medical journals.

I do not care if you reject the concept, as a one-time presentation.  But if you choose that rejection, you have no one to blame but yourself
for  the concept of that rejection.  You can "laugh this off" if  you wish.

Here is the concept - that is always denied publication. The results - are justified and confirmed by "hard science" at this time. Prentice correctly "deduced" the nature of the problem (of threshold prevention), and worked WITH the person to prevent entry into nearsightedness. This WORKS, but with this understanding.

++++++

By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.

---------+ | Chapter IX | +--------

The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia
which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at
the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to
reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more. In most
cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and
patience; but a few experiments after the following example will
suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is
possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by
repression at the near point.
This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes
an open question.

EXAMPLE CASES

Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
-1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no cchange for the space of
two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.
After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
just perceptibly less.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;
...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Otis> This is the crucial issue. How much true intelligence is in the person himself. How strong is his desire to get a change of +3/4 diopters, to go from 20/50 to 20/25, and then, continue to wear the plus, and get to "positive status", for +1/2 diopter, and then excellent 20/20 vision. This obviously requires and educated person - and Maurice - you can supply that education. Thanks to Dr. Young's plus study, we know that Dr. Prentice is completely correct. I know if I were at 20/40, and received this scientific education, I would certainly have worn the plus correctly, and returned my visual acuity to normal.
Otis> The "shame" is in the man in his office, who refuses this second-opinion, by denying it. But it does exist.