> In article <1149177539.179547.250730[at]i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drg[at]leukoma.com> wrote:
> > I actually prefer the very expensive Hoya Summit ECP with Crizal Alize
> > coating in a set of Oliver Peoples frames that I wear over my Acuvue
> > Oasys contact lenses. Unfortunately, the one's I wear in the morning
> > without my contact lenses are at least 10 years old, when I was -4.50.
> > I am now -3.25.
> Oh my gods! You're using 33% STRONGER minus lens than what you "need''!
> Haven't you heard about "staircase myopia"?
> Wait..........you went UP the "down" staircase and became less
> nearsighted over ten years. Please, please tell us how you did it!

> PS: If you have a current prescription, I can help you get appropriate
> new spectacles.
Hey, I'm a typical contact lens wearer who doesn't want to invest

> otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
> > We are never going to know the full "story".
> > > It is very hard to suggest a "go slow" or "wait"
> > policy -- but I think that would have been
> > the better (second-opinion) idea in this case.
> > > I mean, what the hell was the rush???
> > > The kid could function with 20/60 vision. Hell
> > the state of Georgia and Florida have VA req.
> > of 20/60 and 20/70.
> > > There was no good reason to put the kid in
> > a -10 dioper lens.
> > > But I can see only one future for this kid -- her
> > eyes "adapt" to that -10 dioper lens -- same
> > as the primate -- with a strong "down" momvement
> > to -20 diopers or so.
> > > That is a profoundy tragic future for that 3 year-old
> > child.
> > > Just one man's opinion.
> > > Otis
> well hopefully she wont go "down" to -20 that would be very extreme and
> unusual. I know no one with eyes that bad and I have lots of friends
> who wear their wretched evil minus lens ALL THE TIME, even for reading!
> They are "only" about a -5 to -7. I think this 3 year old and her
> parents will realize something is wrong long before her eyes go "down"
> too far. Her 20/60 vision will quickly become 20/200 and they will
> realize the -10 are WAY too strong!

> We are never going to know the full "story".
> It is very hard to suggest a "go slow" or "wait"
> policy -- but I think that would have been
> the better (second-opinion) idea in this case.
> I mean, what the hell was the rush???
> The kid could function with 20/60 vision. Hell
> the state of Georgia and Florida have VA req.
> of 20/60 and 20/70.
> There was no good reason to put the kid in
> a -10 dioper lens.
> But I can see only one future for this kid -- her
> eyes "adapt" to that -10 dioper lens -- same
> as the primate -- with a strong "down" momvement
> to -20 diopers or so.
> That is a profoundy tragic future for that 3 year-old
> child.
> Just one man's opinion.
> Otis

> We are never going to know the full "story".
> It is very hard to suggest a "go slow" or "wait"
> policy -- but I think that would have been
> the better (second-opinion) idea in this case.
> I mean, what the hell was the rush???
> The kid could function with 20/60 vision. Hell
> the state of Georgia and Florida have VA req.
> of 20/60 and 20/70.
> There was no good reason to put the kid in
> a -10 dioper lens.

> otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
> > Dear Ace.
> > > It is indeed difficult to deal with parents on this subject.
> > > I suggested a "second-opinion", but the parent
> > followed the -10 diopter recommendation.
> > > Once a decision, or choice like that is made -- there
> > is no "reversing" it.
> > > It takes time to develop 20/20 vision -- and
> > as some ODs know -- younger children
> > do not have it. They will have 20/40 or maybe
> > 20/50. Typically this is ignored for
> > 3 year-old kids. I mean, why the hell would
> > a 3 year-old need 20/20 vision?? But, again,
> > that is a matter of the "second-opinion".
> > > Best,
> > > Otis
> Good point, maybe her brain just hasnt yet adapted to seeing. Although
> her optometrist said she was -10 something with a retinoscope and some
> specalists think she may have an abnormally shaped crystaline lens. We
> havent heard from her parents in many months and may never know the
> true story.

> Dear Ace.
> It is indeed difficult to deal with parents on this subject.
> I suggested a "second-opinion", but the parent
> followed the -10 diopter recommendation.
> Once a decision, or choice like that is made -- there
> is no "reversing" it.
> It takes time to develop 20/20 vision -- and
> as some ODs know -- younger children
> do not have it. They will have 20/40 or maybe
> 20/50. Typically this is ignored for
> 3 year-old kids. I mean, why the hell would
> a 3 year-old need 20/20 vision?? But, again,
> that is a matter of the "second-opinion".
> Best,
> Otis

> Dear Ace.
> It is indeed difficult to deal with parents on this subject.
> I suggested a "second-opinion", but the parent
> followed the -10 diopter recommendation.
> Once a decision, or choice like that is made -- there
> is no "reversing" it.
> It takes time to develop 20/20 vision -- and
> as some ODs know -- younger children
> do not have it. They will have 20/40 or maybe
> 20/50. Typically this is ignored for
> 3 year-old kids. I mean, why the hell would
> a 3 year-old need 20/20 vision?? But, again,
> that is a matter of the "second-opinion".
> Best,
> Otis