Popular misconception? On whose part? You put a primate in a cage for sever years, and the primate becomes myopic. (Large population.) You let a kit put his nose on a page (and do nothing), and the kid's, refractive state BECOMES NEGATIVE. (A natural process.) But there is NEVER any discussion about this issue of self-induced negative status. For the OD or MD in his office, there is little option but to use a minus -- after-the-fact. (But WHO is responsible for prevention??)
Does it get better or worse with time? Answer -- it gets worse with time. The rate it gets worse (control group) is about -1/2 diopter per year (grade scool to college). This is the composite result of about 5 bifocal studies. The interpertation here it that its "just genetics", so don't "worry". Naturally we don't want the parents to become concerned.
In pure science, you can make the eye longer -- just by forcing the eye to wear a -3 diopter lens. (See results of Dr. E. Smith's study of the natural primate eye.) The natural eye adapts to 1) Long-term near by becoming longer (child's bad habits), but when the child is at -3/4 D (and 20/40) it is truly hard to explain this to a parent. In that sense, a doctor is simply reacting to a self-induced situation. I think that is more realistic science.
Does the natural eye become more negative over time. The answer is yes. But there is a tendency to believe that a minus has no effect on the eye. A great deal of scientific information suggests that, while well-intended, the minus has a secondary effect. I know that there is a dislike of a discussion of this issue -- but it is well to call it the second-opinion and accept the concept. Then let the chips fall where they may.
@nowisthetimetochange It is very difficult to do anything with a child AFTER he induces a negative status in his natural eyes -- by his "habits". (The habit of a young child who puts his nose on the page when reading, (i.e., reading at 10 to 4 inches, -4 to -10 diopters "stress") This issue has been pointed out in publications for the last 50 years -- but has been totally ignored. This is tragically a self-induced problem. Check primate data for verification.
Actually, starting with a refraction of -1/2 diopter at age 5, you can expect the eye to go down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year (average) through to high school. Thus in 10 years you can expect that child to be -5 diopters myopic at age 15. (Ref: Large number of bi-focal studies -- the control group).
Popular misconception? On whose part? You put a primate in a cage for sever years, and the primate becomes myopic. (Large population.) You let a kit put his nose on a page (and do nothing), and the kid's, refractive state BECOMES NEGATIVE. (A natural process.) But there is NEVER any discussion about this issue of self-induced negative status. For the OD or MD in his office, there is little option but to use a minus -- after-the-fact. (But WHO is responsible for prevention??)
otissumnerbrown 2 months ago
Does it get better or worse with time? Answer -- it gets worse with time. The rate it gets worse (control group) is about -1/2 diopter per year (grade scool to college). This is the composite result of about 5 bifocal studies. The interpertation here it that its "just genetics", so don't "worry". Naturally we don't want the parents to become concerned.
otissumnerbrown 2 months ago
In pure science, you can make the eye longer -- just by forcing the eye to wear a -3 diopter lens. (See results of Dr. E. Smith's study of the natural primate eye.) The natural eye adapts to 1) Long-term near by becoming longer (child's bad habits), but when the child is at -3/4 D (and 20/40) it is truly hard to explain this to a parent. In that sense, a doctor is simply reacting to a self-induced situation. I think that is more realistic science.
otissumnerbrown 3 months ago
Does the natural eye become more negative over time. The answer is yes. But there is a tendency to believe that a minus has no effect on the eye. A great deal of scientific information suggests that, while well-intended, the minus has a secondary effect. I know that there is a dislike of a discussion of this issue -- but it is well to call it the second-opinion and accept the concept. Then let the chips fall where they may.
otissumnerbrown 3 months ago
Comment removed
otissumnerbrown 4 months ago
Popular misconception? Sorry back all you just said up plz? And it's hard to listen to you when all I'm thinking is tosser
nowisthetimetochange 4 months ago
@nowisthetimetochange It is very difficult to do anything with a child AFTER he induces a negative status in his natural eyes -- by his "habits". (The habit of a young child who puts his nose on the page when reading, (i.e., reading at 10 to 4 inches, -4 to -10 diopters "stress") This issue has been pointed out in publications for the last 50 years -- but has been totally ignored. This is tragically a self-induced problem. Check primate data for verification.
otissumnerbrown 3 months ago
Actually, starting with a refraction of -1/2 diopter at age 5, you can expect the eye to go down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year (average) through to high school. Thus in 10 years you can expect that child to be -5 diopters myopic at age 15. (Ref: Large number of bi-focal studies -- the control group).
otissumnerbrown 5 months ago