Author Topic: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.  (Read 27776 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #45 on: September 08, 2012, 06:12:58 AM »
Hi Peter,

Let me explicitly respond to your implied questions.  Remember, and OD has a 'perfect minus lens solution in his office'. He is not "looking" to change what has been done, with no change, for the last 200 years.  So he is not going to "volunteer" the fact that 1) If you put the natural eye in a cage for 8 years - it becomes SERIOUSLY MYOPIC. 2) If you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye - after a year - it becomes seriously myopic.  3) But honest it takes a wise and 'forceful' person to realize the dangers of wearing the minus - and take personal responsibly to understand the need for the plus while they still read the 20/40 line. To further respond:

Peter> ... once a person understands fully what the price to pay is for using plus at near to prevent myopia, they can make a reasonable  decision. 

Otis> Agreed. But that assumes a very educated person - who has the motivation for prevention, while they can still read the 20/50 line. The Plus (bifocal) data of Frank Young (combined with the minus-lens primate data) is absolutely convincing to ME - as pure science. It probably is NOT CONVINCING to you - with all due respect.

Peter>  It is understanding what that price to pay is which is the trick.

Otis> I agree.  The "price to pay" is to be intelligent about this science and these facts, and begin wearing the plus when you see your Snellen going down to 20/30, 20/40 and 20/50 (about -1/2 to -1 diopters) and have education that convinces you to begin wearing the plus under YOUR CONTROL. That avoids conflict with an OD in and office - who is never in a position to help you with plus-prevention.

Peter> I don't have a good clarity on what the current risk probabilities are,

Otis> I do - by exhaustive research.

Peter> so how can I reasonably weigh the risk?

Otis>  But reading Frank Young's "Plus" study - and understanding it and the IMPLICATIONS OF IT.

Peter>  One will pay the price of tinkering with AC:A and AC:C if one can understand clearly the risk/reward scenario.

Otis> A person with NO INTEREST - should not be involved in "plus prevention" - because he will not be accurate, interested nor consistent.  A pilot at 20/40 WILL take what "risk" you might think exists - and wear the plus and SLOWLY get his 20/20 back.  That is how "calculated risks" are made.

Peter> Just like there is no shortage of people willing to risk it by having LASIK.

Otis> Or cataract surgery.  We all make that judgment.

Peter>  I would think with all the studies where plus was used and according to the medical establishment having shown to not be effective,

Otis> Peter - this is a false statement.  You should know that by now.

Peter>  then clearly those study investigators had to make some sort of preparations to mitigate the risk concern to the patients.

Otis> The "plus" has been in use for the last 50 years - with NO ADVERSE EFFECT.  Check yourself on this point.

 Peter>  If I can grasp that, and if that message is available to laymen (like myself),

Otis> I do NOT consider myself a "layman". I am an engineer, and a supporter of science and the second-opinion that prevention is possible - if the person makes himself an "expert" on the necessity of plus-prevention.  Choose your experts with wisdom.  Not all of them are "medical".

Peter> then I think you will be surprised by how many people have the strength to "help themselves". 

Otis> People are understandably TIMID.  They don't like their "routine" disturbed.  Unless there distant vision is VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM (at 20/40 to 20/50) they will not take the responsiblity to work there way out of it with a plus.

Peter - thanks for your review!

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #46 on: September 08, 2012, 11:51:45 AM »
Hi Peter,

I can "understand" the person who thinks everything in this world "must be medical" - and you or I as in intelligent person - can't do anything at all to PREVENT entry into "Myopia".   One person, "Zane", was on his way to getting to 20/40 - naked eye, when using the plus for prevention.  Then he developed a sudden "fear" of wearing a plus lens and quit totally. 

But the person who thinks it is "safe" to reject the plus (at 20/40), and "do nothing" - is likely to have this experience of a person who probably would have rejected "correct" wearing of a plus at the 20/50 level.  Whether Zane would have been successful, or not, we will never know.

No OD or MD - is ever going to help you with prevention - if you stand in STARK TERROR of wearing the plus when at -1.0 diopter.  I personally, don't make any claim beyond about -1.5 and 20/60 - for that reason alone.  I think the  person must be WISE ENOUGH to not to allow himself to get down to -5.0 diopters as stated by Chris who had 20/20 at age 17.  Who do you want to "to blame" for this mans terrible myopia?  If educated at 20/40 - to wear the plus - and rejects it - the HE IS COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE -5.0 DIOPTER HE KNOWS HE WILL DEVELOP. 

We know, thanks to the Frank Young study, that, on first entry (refractive state -1/2 diopter) that a child's status will go down at a rate of -1/2 diopters per year.  (I suggest making a personal study of that report.) Thus, at age 5, with -1/2 diopter, a child can expect to "go down" to -5.5 diopters after 10 years in school.  (Basic statistics and knowledge.)  This "limits" my argument for prevention - that the person realized what is going to happen - for certain - if he decides to do NOTHING ABOUT IT.  Or worse, judges the minus to be "perfectly safe".

Here are the remarks of Chris, who had "perfect vision" entering college.  But no own bothered to inform him of the consequences of rejecting the "wearing of the plus" when he first started "down" from long-term close work. Now he is looking for a "solution". I hope this helps your understanding of these issues.

Otis

+++++

New on here and wanted to write a quick backstory and my reasons for wanting to
get my vision back.

I entered the US Air Force Academy as Pilot-Qualified. I had 20/20 vision. In
my junior year, my vision began to deteriorate from all the studying (160+
academic hours in 4 years!). Mandatory physicals revealed my vision had gone
from 20/20 to 20/50. They prescribed minus lenses. I was being taught not to
question so I didn't question.

By the spring of my senior year, my vision had degraded to probably 20/100.
It's a longer story than you want to read, but I basically lost my PQ. This
changed the entire arc of my life and career. Instead of going to pilot
training, spending a career in the Air Force, and fulfilling a childhood dream,
I went into Satellite Engineering and US Space Command. Of course, this
required constant computer and near work which would continue to degrade my eyes
in my 20's.

I'm now 42. I'm at -5.0D in both eyes. I believe my myopia was functionally
induced because no eye doctor that I've seen between then and now recommended
that I simply not wear my minus lenses and instead use the plus lenses for close
work. I would get hints from time to time, but it was like they were telling me
illicit information.

Only because of the Internet have I found information that gives me hope. I got
here from an article on ISEE

Though I'm not going to fly for the Air Force (I separated since I wasn't a
pilot), I want to improve my vision in hopes of alleviating floaters that
developed in my 30's. My understanding is that they are a direct result of
progressive functional myopia.

I'm hoping to avoid the remainder of my life in glasses and dealing with
floaters in my vision. I also want to verify that preventative methods will
work for my young children who are already reading at 4 and 3 yrs old.

I'm hoping I can be disciplined and not lazy and see real improvements. I am
combining the exercises with much improved diet that I have been working on for
the past few years.

I look forward to keeping in touch and staying accountable. Any advice or
further information will be appreciated.

I'll close by saying that I'm always incredulous at most of my myopic friends
and family who can't even tell me their prescription. I'm appalled that they
don't care. Starting to wear glasses in college when I grew up an athlete
completely changed my life and opportunities. It's important to me and I don't
understand why it isn't important to more people.

Chris

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #47 on: September 08, 2012, 04:28:34 PM »
Hi Otis,

It seems you do not understand my question and furthermore you think that I fail to understand what you have repeated at least a hundred times about the Frank Young study.

I know you wrote in your book that you mentioned there is a price to be paid for wearing the plus at near during the discussion of converging at near and accomodating at far.  I have no idea what you actually meant in your book when you stated that.  If you in fact meant what you state below in this thread response, i.e. you are speaking about the risk of not preventing myopia by not using the plus at 20/40, then I truly am dumbfounded as for why you ever wrote about the price to be paid in your book at all.  It is as if you were talking about the possible side effect of taking aspirin daily when one does so to reduce the risk of heart attack via aspirin's known effectiveness at making blood platelets less stickier.  You can quite easily learn what the other risks of taking that aspirin is and what the likelihood is.  If I match your response to the plus question, you would then answer by saying the possible side-effects of aspirin are if you don't take them, you will increase your risk of a heart attack quoting some study which shows how aspirin prevented heart attacks in a large portion of the study.

Regretfully, I think you fail to understand that very many readers are not asking about what Frank Young's study says as they understand that data.  Similarly, I think you do not believe that they understand your point that a possible side effect of using the plus is that a person  with motivation and strong-will will slowly improve his snellon accuity from 20/40 to 20/20.  It would be better if you just came out and said I do not know of any other side effects of using the plus at near, other than that it can under certain conditions prevent myopia.

Peter


Peter> ... once a person understands fully what the price to pay is for using plus at near to prevent myopia, they can make a reasonable  decision. 

Otis> Agreed. But that assumes a very educated person - who has the motivation for prevention, while they can still read the 20/50 line. The Plus (bifocal) data of Frank Young (combined with the minus-lens primate data) is absolutely convincing to ME - as pure science. It probably is NOT CONVINCING to you - with all due respect.

>Peter>  One will pay the price of tinkering with AC:A and AC:C if one can understand clearly the risk/reward scenario.

Otis> A person with NO INTEREST - should not be involved in "plus prevention" - because he will not be accurate, interested nor consistent.  A pilot at 20/40 WILL take what "risk" you might think exists - and wear the plus and SLOWLY get his 20/20 back.  That is how "calculated risks" are made.

I guess I will remain forever ignorant then. Calculated risks

Peter> Just like there is no shortage of people willing to risk it by having LASIK.

Otis> Or cataract surgery.  We all make that judgment.

Peter>  I would think with all the studies where plus was used and according to the medical establishment having shown to not be effective,

Otis> Peter - this is a false statement.  You should know that by now.

Peter>  then clearly those study investigators had to make some sort of preparations to mitigate the risk concern to the patients.

Otis> The "plus" has been in use for the last 50 years - with NO ADVERSE EFFECT.  Check yourself on this point.

 Peter>  If I can grasp that, and if that message is available to laymen (like myself),

Otis> I do NOT consider myself a "layman". I am an engineer, and a supporter of science and the second-opinion that prevention is possible - if the person makes himself an "expert" on the necessity of plus-prevention.  Choose your experts with wisdom.  Not all of them are "medical".

Peter> then I think you will be surprised by how many people have the strength to "help themselves". 

Otis> People are understandably TIMID.  They don't like their "routine" disturbed.  Unless there distant vision is VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM (at 20/40 to 20/50) they will not take the responsiblity to work there way out of it with a plus.

Peter - thanks for your review!

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #48 on: September 08, 2012, 04:34:42 PM »
I am very surprised as that seems hardly like an intrusion given the influence you had on their lives in terms of myopia prevention.  And given the known passion they know you had/have for them.

Peter


Hi Peter,

That is indeed a good question!  I do not "intrude" myself into their lives. 

Hi Otis, can you tell me if your nephew and niece that you advocated for have had any children themselves now, and have they been working on prevention with their children.  Peter

I know full-well how difficult it is for a person (at 20/60) to truly "commit" himself to the use of the plus.  In fact it is so difficult, that I only make this advocacy with my sister's children. 

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #49 on: September 08, 2012, 05:17:24 PM »
Peter - I like to be told SCIENTIFIC truth.  That is the truth that I tell.  They had a right to know about it - one way or the other.  It was my judgment about Raphaelson that he was telling (intuitive) scientific truth about the natural eye's behavior.  I only sought scientific documentation for what he said about the proven effect of a minus on the natural eye.  I think the self-motivation (for prevention) is truly difficult - I never deny that truth. I also judge that prevention (as I suggest it) is never medical.

But I suggest the following (assuming I am a child).  If my father was successful in using the plus (to keep his vision clear for life), and *I* saw my vision "start down", I would be very upset to think that my father would not help me to protect my distant vision through the school years.  That is where I think true scientific responsibility must exist.

I am very sympathetic with the OD who tells me that public only wants to be "impressed" with a strong minus - and nothing else.  Because he is right for 99.9 percent of the public. After all, he is not conducting an "education symposium" in his office - and most people would be hostile to the doctor who states that prevention would be wise and possible.

How - exactly - should he suggest the use of the plus - when the child is at 20/40, and -3/4 diopters.  I think you know the exact answer.

Otis

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #50 on: September 09, 2012, 03:59:24 AM »
Peter - We all live with our "fears".  In fact, as you know, some MDs have figured out that prevention was possible, but only at the threshold.  They then attempted to help "the public", only to find that, like obesity-prevention, the "public" is hostile to the concept.  Let me summarize this success - and then  you can decide who is responsible preventing ENTRY into nearsightedness.

Otis> Medical people -- who have truly recognized the natural eye's behavior, and that, at least at the threshold -- IT IS PREVENTABLE. Here is the commentary by a profoundly insightful ophthalmologist. But, as Dr. Prentice states, plus prevention (at -1 diopter is tedious). But to say that "prevention will never happen" is a tragic statement -- because it prevents a preventive scientific study our effort -- that could be effective.

+++++

Prentice>  Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change 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. (-1.25 D is about 20/50 to 20/60 on a Snellen)

Prentice> After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. 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 vision.

Prentice> 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 truly the issue. It MUST be the person's wisdom, to accept the "tedious" use of a plus, and to do it with no let up, that would make prevention (at 20/50, -3/4 diopter) possible. THAT is the real and only issue.

++++

Peter - This was part of the scientific explanation I provided to my nephew - about the need to be personally RESPONSIBLE to monitor his distant vision, and to realize that the "public" totally reject prevention - when IT  MUST BE DONE.  This is why I consider successful prevention, whether conducted by Todd, or anyone else to be "not a medical problem".  The "problem" is with the person's long-term resolve and understanding of WHY plus prevention is vital.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #51 on: September 09, 2012, 04:30:26 AM »
Peter,

I hope you understand the "Prentice Report".  When I read it I realized that prevention COULD BE ADVISED by "medical people", but the issue is whether the person himself recognized that he was PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for prevention.  All of this is not "just about - exclusively - the Frank Young "plus" study.  It is about education, responsibility, and an "honest choice". Let me also add that ANY LENS PUT ON A PERSONS FACE - interferes with the AC-C ratio.  To say that ONLY the plus for near does that - ignores the obvious.

Peter> Regretfully, I think you fail to understand that very many readers are not asking about what Frank Young's study says as they understand that data.

Otis> You "issue", as I understand it, is the question is it "safe" to wear a plus for near. In Frank's study, children were massively wearing a "plus for near", with no adverse effect.  So you might still be in "fright" about wearing the plus - and that will probably stop you from helping your children - but that is your judgment call.

Peter>  Similarly, I think you do not believe that they understand your point that a possible side effect of using the plus is that a person  with motivation and strong-will will slowly improve his snellon accuity from 20/40 to 20/20.

Otis>  I don't know what "third parties" might believe.  I agree that anyone "medical" will not be involved with "plus prevention" - and I understand WHY they can't be involved.

Peter>  It would be better if you just came out and said I do not know of any other side effects of using the plus at near, other than that it can under certain conditions prevent myopia.

+++++

Peter - of course I am concerned with "adverse effects" of a lens. Why do you think I exhaustively studied the effect of a  -3 diopter intentionally placed on the natural eye??  For all practically purposes you can prove OBJECTIVELY, AS SCIENCE, THAT A MINUS CAN "CAUSE NEARSIGHTEDNESS".  Thus to suggest that a "plus" has an "adverse effect" while IGNORING THE PROVEN ADVERSE EFFECT OF A MINUS - is a rather biased point-of-view on this scientific subject.

I know you want a "totally safe world" where EXCLUSIVELY  medical people tell you "what to do" - but I suggest that scientific "world" but be greater than the "medical world".  Yes, a  child with "nose on book" induces (slowly) negative status in his natural eye.  If you and I "owned a shop" and a child comes in, we can IMPRESS THE CHILD with minus lens. 

I know that

You know that.

I don't argue about that issue.  But, I think that we must understand that a "deeper" understanding is required - if there is to be any scientific effort at prevention.

Otis



Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #52 on: September 09, 2012, 08:32:21 AM »
I don't really understand what you mean when you say the public is hostile to obesity-prevention.  I don't follow the comparison.

The only risk that I know of right now with the myopia prevention that I did (naked eye, pushing print) was that Dr. Judy would have expected me to have caused double-vision at near.  I am sure if a medical professional like herself stated that, then certainly some may have caused it to happen to themselves.  So, this is one risk I have heard of, but I can't quantify it as far as how likely an outcome it actually is. 

As you say, nothing like this happened in the Frank Young study.  I would like to understand how many test subjects have actually had it happen to them in other studies because they (OD community) claim those  otherstudies actually also test the effect of plus at near.  So therefore they must have concerned themselves about those same risk factors during those studies as would have Frank Young.  That is the only data I am looking for, not the actual results of their studies.  Just the risk planning and outcome percentages. 

As a rational individual, it is very reasonable, and not in any way an indication of fear which you seem to presume.  Furthermore, I am sure others coming after me will be very glad to understand this as well.

Peter

Peter - We all live with our "fears".  In fact, as you know, some MDs have figured out that prevention was possible, but only at the threshold.  They then attempted to help "the public", only to find that, like obesity-prevention, the "public" is hostile to the concept.  Let me summarize this success - and then  you can decide who is responsible preventing ENTRY into nearsightedness.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #53 on: September 09, 2012, 08:54:43 AM »
Peter - let me up-date the group about you (and myself).

Peter had contacted me through Don Rehm's site.  I think Peter has a "prescribed" -2.5 diopter -which he had been wearing for some time.  I said that I could never "cure" anything - but that prevention MIGHT be possible for him.  To give him greater "empowerment" I suggested that he 1) Down-load a Snellen chart, and confirm his personal visual acuity -  himself.  Then for a more complete understanding, buy, or "make" some trial-lenses to personally measure his refractive STATE - as I do it for myself.  I think Peter's vision is now about 20/30 to 20/25 (on a well-lit Snellen), so he will pass the STATE DMV test.  I think Peter wore a +2 for a few days - and then quit.  So Peter will be no longer a "layman" but can develop his own ideas.  For myself, I always put on a "plus for near" and recommended that my nephew do the same thing.  Since *I* knew about that "standard" -1/2 diopter per year our eyes GO DOWN - if I do not start the wearing of the plus at 20/40 on  my own Snellen.

Frank Young's data (that I reviewed by Statistics) convinced me that about the only possibility of true-prevention had to start before the person's visual acuity went below 20/50 to 20/60 (about -1 diopter).  A 14 year-old in that range - had better THINK about what is certain to happen - if he "blows off" the idea of systematic wearing of the plus - at that TIME IN HIS LIFE.  I can not make that choice for ANYONE HERE.  In fact, I did not make that choice for Keith. He, however, was wise enough to realize I was telling brutal SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.

It is true that I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT ANY OD OR MD CAN HELP ME WITH PREVENTION.  So I don't ask them for it.  The issue is "who is the professional"?
Is Todd Becker a professional. Yes, as an engineer - as  am I.  I think Peter is VERY INTELLIGENT about these issues - and we learn together for the benefit of all who read this.

The issue of "FEAR" is VERY REAL. On person, Zane, had started wearing a "plus", and had gone from -3.5 diopters to -1.5 diopters, in about one month.  Then he read that a "plus" CAUSES CATARACTS.   That stopped Zane from his wearing of the plus.

But, a point you always miss, if a "Plus" had been PRESCRIBED FOR ZANE, and he "got the idea that the plus caused cataract" he would have filed a major law-suit against the OD who PRESCRIBED that plus for him.

You know what - ZANE WOULD HAVE WON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

So you wonder why no OD will ever "prescribe" prevention.  That is the real answer.  Further - I do not blame them at all. But I just must be smart enough to figure this out for myself - and then do prevention myself - accepting full legal an personal responsibility for my efforts - to include NEVER developing stair-case myopia from wearing that wretched minus lens all the time.

That is how I judge why I must take care of my distant vision - MYSELF.

Best,

Otis




I don't really understand what you mean when you say the public is hostile to obesity-prevention.  I don't follow the comparison.

The only risk that I know of right now with the myopia prevention that I did (naked eye, pushing print) was that Dr. Judy would have expected me to have caused double-vision at near.  I am sure if a medical professional like herself stated that, then certainly some may have caused it to happen to themselves.  So, this is one risk I have heard of, but I can't quantify it as far as how likely an outcome it actually is. 

As you say, nothing like this happened in the Frank Young study.  I would like to understand how many test subjects have actually had it happen to them in other studies because they (OD community) claim those  otherstudies actually also test the effect of plus at near.  So therefore they must have concerned themselves about those same risk factors during those studies as would have Frank Young.  That is the only data I am looking for, not the actual results of their studies.  Just the risk planning and outcome percentages. 

As a rational individual, it is very reasonable, and not in any way an indication of fear which you seem to presume.  Furthermore, I am sure others coming after me will be very glad to understand this as well.

Peter

Peter - We all live with our "fears".  In fact, as you know, some MDs have figured out that prevention was possible, but only at the threshold.  They then attempted to help "the public", only to find that, like obesity-prevention, the "public" is hostile to the concept.  Let me summarize this success - and then  you can decide who is responsible preventing ENTRY into nearsightedness.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #54 on: September 10, 2012, 04:57:57 AM »
Subject: The serious risk of wearing an over-prescribed minus lens - all the time.

There has been a great deal of discussion of the ASSUMED risk of wearing a plus (for prevention) when at 20/50 (on your Snellen).  To my knowledge - there are not risks - other than the probability that you will not take prevention seriously at 20/50 - when it must be done.

What about the risks of wearing an excessive minus - (specifically over-prescribed by one or two diopters).  Some courageous ODs called the minus, "poison glasses for children.  So where it the proof that a minus has a tragic and adverse effect on all eyes.  Here is a 'summary' of the effect of a -3 diopter lens on the eye - as a visualization.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

I take this very seriously - as they state, a minus lens "INDUCES MYOPIA".  I prefer the more "neutral" words, that this proves that the eye is dynamic, and will change its refractive state - from positive to negative - with an imposed minus.  But as an engineer - I always insist that I personally examine the science and facts themselves.  Here is the study results.

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

Yes, AFTER you induce a slight negative status (i.e., 20/50 vision) it is VERY EASY to be impressed with a minus lens.  But the scientific reality is that the "first" negative status is self-induced.  But the parents and child are never informed of the science of the fundamental eye - and it is sooo easy to impress the child with that "first" minus lens.

This is the real and only issue that concerns scientific prevention.

Otis

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2012, 08:04:26 AM »
Summarizing what I have learned as far as risks of using plus therapy at near.  From an OD, what would be expected in my case is that I would only cause double vision at near while using the device, or the plus lenses.  Once I stop using the device, the double vision symptom would go away.  That does not seem to be too harsh of a risk situation.  The other risk is associated with using plus for far as well as near.  I think the idea is to give your eyes/brain breaks to allow them to accomodate and converge under naked eye conditions occasionally.  So I think that risk can be mitigated by taking daily breaks, and not doing 100% forceful plus therapy 24/7. 

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #56 on: October 03, 2012, 09:49:04 AM »
Hi Peter,
I greatly respect you for your "follow-through" on these subjects!!  I know how hard it is for a person to "convince himself" as to the necessity of always wearing a plus - for all close work.  What I posted above is what I consider "pure science", and convinces me that  it would be WISE to begin wearing the plus as soon as your Snellen gets "down to" 20/40, or about -1/2 to -1 diopters.  But each of us will have to decide WHAT convinces us to begin wearing the plus before our eyes "fail" the DMV test requirement.  As you know, most people simply can not inspire themselves to 1)  Monitor their Snellen, 2) Where the plus for ALL close work and 3) Keep on doing that, until they exceed 20/20 on their Snellen.  I do not consider any of these steps to be "medical" in any sense of the word, nor do I feel any need for an OD to be involved.  But BOTH of us have our own trial-lens kit, and make our own wise judgment accordingly.  Knowledge is indeed POWER - if you know what you want in your life.  I have NEVER held an OD or MD responsible for my own "bad habits" as a child. I hold myself exclusively responsible.
Otis



Summarizing what I have learned as far as risks of using plus therapy at near.  From an OD, what would be expected in my case is that I would only cause double vision at near while using the device, or the plus lenses.  Once I stop using the device, the double vision symptom would go away.  That does not seem to be too harsh of a risk situation.  The other risk is associated with using plus for far as well as near.  I think the idea is to give your eyes/brain breaks to allow them to accomodate and converge under naked eye conditions occasionally.  So I think that risk can be mitigated by taking daily breaks, and not doing 100% forceful plus therapy 24/7. 

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #57 on: October 03, 2012, 11:12:12 AM »
Given my son is 8 which is about when you started with eyeglasses and given the immense difficulty I have to even get him to be inspired or listen to my suggestions and self-improvement ideas, then it is clear that no adult (parent or doctor) can be blamed.   There are so many teaching difficulties with a child at that age.  You can teach them how to push print and the concept, but it can't be monitored by anyone but the person doing the therapy himself.  I have taught him some vision tricks, but regretfully I think it is not enough and is just a battle against time.  There are so many other important growing up items I have to help him with, and from a parenting perspective they take precedent.

I think part of the problem with nearsightedness is, the first perscription is "light" and the person functions pretty well without the glasses.  It is unfortunate, but I think with children and perhaps even teenagers, until the perscription increases and the child has been dealing with all the eye glasses inconveniences, only then is a certain amount of motivation and determination more likely to appear.

I have NEVER held an OD or MD responsible for my own "bad habits" as a child. I hold myself exclusively responsible.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #58 on: October 03, 2012, 12:45:27 PM »
Dear Peter,
I truly "woke up" about this issue as I departed from Dr. Raphaelson's home.  I realized that I did all this "damage" to myself - and I regret that truth.  I also resolve to ATTEMPT to help my sister's children -as best I could - but you have spelled out how truly difficult it is to do that - even for your own children.

I think a 13 year-old "kid" could understand - but you can't "nag" a kid to do it. It must be a "spark of genius" in the "kid" if prevention (at 20/30 to 20/40) is ever going to exist!

I am always honest about this issue - as you are!

Thanks,



Given my son is 8 which is about when you started with eyeglasses and given the immense difficulty I have to even get him to be inspired or listen to my suggestions and self-improvement ideas, then it is clear that no adult (parent or doctor) can be blamed.   There are so many teaching difficulties with a child at that age.  You can teach them how to push print and the concept, but it can't be monitored by anyone but the person doing the therapy himself.  I have taught him some vision tricks, but regretfully I think it is not enough and is just a battle against time.  There are so many other important growing up items I have to help him with, and from a parenting perspective they take precedent.

I think part of the problem with nearsightedness is, the first perscription is "light" and the person functions pretty well without the glasses.  It is unfortunate, but I think with children and perhaps even teenagers, until the perscription increases and the child has been dealing with all the eye glasses inconveniences, only then is a certain amount of motivation and determination more likely to appear.

I have NEVER held an OD or MD responsible for my own "bad habits" as a child. I hold myself exclusively responsible.


Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2012, 08:05:06 PM »
Hi Peter

First of all I thank you & Otis for good discussion on this topic.

The two side effects you discussed can have very low probability .

1) No one will wear plus always. This is because the moment we go out or take a break from near work we have to remove plus  lenses so that we see more clear .
2) If you follow eye exercises like rotation , convergence & divergence , stretching will make the muscles strong enough to remove the blur at close.

What is your view

Proh
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 08:09:24 PM by PROH »