Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Second-opinion on the minus lens.
#1
This is an alternative to the minus lens. The main goal (in my opinion) is that the
child be supported by ALL these PREVENTIVE methods, with the parent
monitoring the child's Snellen. Here is an interesting animation
on this approach.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.preventmyopia.org/animation.html">http://www.preventmyopia.org/animation.html</a><!-- m -->

I know that each of us has his own opinion on these subjects. But it is
always good to keep an open mind -- to help the child RELAX his eyes
at near.

This is not "standard", as Bates is not "standard". But no truly
new methods have ever been easy or accepted -- when first presented. Smile

Otis
Reply
#2
Hmmm. Wouldn't this introduce to children the concept that seeing is something your eyes aren't capable of without your intervention? If even having a teacher with glasses increases the incidence of refractive error, wouldn't telling children they must wear glasses every time they do close work, to make it easier for them to see, have a similar effect? I imagine this making most people more likely to lose faith in their eyes.

Also, wouldn't it effectively stop children from practising much close work at all, as close objects appear further away? The idea seems to be to trick developing vision into never focusing in the way required for unaided close work. I don't think that ending up dependent on glasses for close work is really better than needing them for the distance.

The more direct way to prevent reading from causing myopia (and there are places in the world where there is not the correlation between close reading and myopia found elsewhere) would in my opinion be to stop having children read books with such ludicrously large text. What's made for children is worse, but I find it slow and cumbersome to read adult textbooks with enough movement for central fixation, because each letter is like traversing a canyon. A theory of mine is that most people assume that if they need to strain a little to read things that are close, they must have to strain even more when looking to things in the distance; hence, mypopia is more common than hyperopia, and myopes don't have perfect nearsight either.

I used to read books the way other children ate chocolate. I'd happily do nothing else for days at a time, and even stopping for food was a chore. Sometimes, to get through them faster, I'd try to process several words or a whole line at once. That temptation much greater with books with larger prints. Thankfully I realised that this was impossible without causing discomfort and blurring, in time to avoid the kind of damage to my nearsight like that later done to my farsight.

However, if this did contribute to my myopia, I expect it did so only because 1) I often read at the expense of getting any sunlight, which could have been remedied by letting direct rays fall on the page and 2) the print was often so large that I had to reduce central fixation to read it with the speed I wanted.

Personally, I won't support this idea without convincing evidence that it does more good than harm.
Reply
#3
Dear Opti,

Subject: The PREVENTIVE second-opinion.

As we all know, the Bates method is very popular. If you use it and clear your Snellen from
20/60 to normal -- then that is absolutly the RIGHT method for you. You now have
complete control of that process.

The judgment in this video is that the "plus" would be wise, in conjunction with Bates
methods -- IF THE PERSON wishes to use this method.
Wink


Quote:Also, wouldn't it effectively stop children from practising much close work at all, as close objects appear further away? The idea seems to be to trick developing vision into never focusing in the way required for unaided close work. I don't think that ending up dependent on glasses for close work is really better than needing them for the distance.

These are fair questions. If you don't like the concept, simply do not use the plus for the purpose of prevention.

Again I support ANY and ALL methods that allow you to clear your Snellen.

We are here to exchange opinions.

This is one of them.
^-^

Best,

Otis
Reply
#4
otis Wrote:These are fair questions. If you don't like the concept, simply do not use the plus for the purpose of prevention.

Again I support ANY and ALL methods that allow you to clear your Snellen.

We are here to exchange opinions.

This is one of them.
^-^
Of course. I just think it's important to share counter-opinions and musings as well, especially about methods that would be enforced for minors. For one thing, the forum would be quite dead if we didn't.

I'd happily be proven wrong, and if it works for people that's great, but the suggestion on that website appears to be that all children should be given reading glasses as soon as myopia becomes apparent, and even, if I'm correctly reading between the lines, before it is.

These children do not have the ability to make an informed decision about whether they want this treatment or not. Given that fact it is especially important to know the long-term effects before having the FDA promote it as this organisation proposes. As far as I can tell, the site doesn't cite evidence that it has no negative effects on nearsight or tendency to strain.

Plus, it costs nothing to find out how to do close work in a way that benefits distance vision. With plus lenses we'd still have children lumbered with glasses and families with bills, which would be fine if the parents decide it's worth it, but the misinformation about the Bates method by that organisation gives the impression that there's no other way at all. I have to wonder if they're opticians worried about the threat that free treatments pose to their income.

I suppose that in circumstances like having to quickly read things with excessively large text, it may be the best way to prevent strain, and I will consider getting plus lenses for that purpose.

But yes, of course, thanks for sharing. Smile I'm sure it's beneficial for us each to consider every option, and do what seems reasonable to us.
Reply
#5
Dear Optifog,

It is NEVER my intention that anyone be forced to:

1. Use Bates

2. Use plus for prevention.

That becomes a matter of personal choice and judgment -- as you are making the choice yourself.

You are NOT under medical "control" when you use Bates, and likewise you are not under
medical control when you work to clear your vision (from 20/60) to normal when you
CHOOSE to use the plus.

i.e., you can never PRESCRIBE Bates OR the plus -- for exactly the same reason.

Good or bad, win or lose. >Big Grin

Best,

Otis
Reply

TEST YOUR VISION AT HOME!
- Free Eye Chart PDFs

  • 20 ft, 10 ft, and Near Vision Charts
  • Letters Calibrated to Correct Printed Size
Download Now