Discussion:
Environment/Hereditry myopia - Where's the data???
(too old to reply)
Simpleminded66
2004-06-19 21:08:18 UTC
Permalink
This debate is like a comedy show with 'where is the data' being the punch
line. I thought I would drop in and add a bit to the humor.

I am research lawyer. My job is to provide enough evidence to convince a
jury, which does not always need hard evidence. My job requires me to think
out of the box and contradict mainstream thought. Without "fringe" scientists
and theories, the medical world would be at a standstill.

After reading the debate in this group, I decided to make up a sample case on
this topic based on the arguments in this group, just for my own amusement.

===================================================

CASE 329487209 - "Environment" VS. "Genetics" in the development of myopia

Case summary:
"Environment" proposes that we ( the environment the eyes are used in ) are
largely responsible for myopia. This group contests that myopia can be reduced
or corrected using means other than minus lenses. We also claim the use of
minus lenses that change the environment may accelerate myopia development. It
is acknowledged that the rate of progression my have a genetic influence, but
environmental factors are present in the majority of myopia cases.

"Genetics" claim that they are the major factor in myopia development and
environment has little or no impact on the development of myopia. We also
state that "minus lenses" is the only correct treatment form myopia. We
further contest any method that goes against this, is as valid as
witchcraft. These witchcraft methods includes vision therapy, bates, plus
lenses, changes in reading habits, and myopia correction training. We also
contest that animal experiments are not valid evidence because animal eyes may
adapt, and human eyes cannot.


Then Environment presents their case:
------------------------------------

Exhibit 1: Data on developing countries and myopia

Look at the country of Korea. Myopia has increased over 500% since a high
priority has been placed on education and reading. Myopia and retnial
detachments were extremely rare in rural Korea. All of a sudden, there is a
tremendous the rise in both. Has the genetics of rural Korea suddenly changed?
Not likely.
Has the way the Korean culture uses their eyes changed? Definitely. The most
convincing myopia studies are not done by scientists or researchers, but are
done on societies.


Exhibit 2: "so called" scientific studies.

A recent study, published in Optometry and Vision Science does seem to support
the fact that minus lenses does not increase myopia in children.

Dig a bit deeper, and it is not all it seems. The following is a quote from
one of the researchers on this study:

"a larger study is needed before we can conclude that eyeglass wear does not
affect myopia progression...this is in contradiction to our previous studies
that have shown eyeglass lenses interfering with vision development"

I am especially leery when results can have a monetary impact on the funder.
Maybe am overly cynical because I have been involved with other areas of
medicine where the right results get published, and the wrong results get the
shredder. Please see the following link, it illustrates exactly what I am
talking about:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_us&refer=news_index&sid=a7u
6uKK19dFc


Exhibit 3: Myself

I was dependant on minus lenses since age 5, with no history of myopia in my
family tree. I was led down the road to -7.5D, by an OD that pushed glasses
on children that could see 20/30. This was until; I started to see a dark
screen covering the right side of my left eye. My long time OD immediately
sent me to a retinal specialist. It was a retina tear. He said it was
common due to the elongated shape of my eye.

He said my eyes were literally tearing themselves apart BEACUSE of the many
years I wore glasses. He told me in the future to make sure my lenses were
less power than I need to see clearly and only use them when I absolutely had
to. He said MANY peoples' eyes will migrate to 20/30 or even 20/40 when
corrected to 20/20 with lenses. He stated that correcting my vision to 20/20
using lenses could further induce myopia and put me at risk for more retina
tears, especially if I wore them for close up work such as reading. He also
suggested that I have vision therapy to learn to control my myopia.

Today, I do not wear glasses, contacts nor have had refractive surgery. I
would like to demonstrate to the jury, control of semi-involuntary eye muscles.
I have trained my eyes to do some very unusual things. The mind control of
the eyes goes far beyond what most people realize.

The eye is like a camera with two lenses and separate auto focus on each. You
have to shut off the auto focus and learn to focus manually. It is very
possible to use the eye separately and focus separately. Most people never
explore this. This can be taught very easily to some, and very difficult for
others.

I would demonstrate to the jury, my ability to stare directly at the sun with
no ill effects ( I would also warn anyone not to try this without being 100%
confident in their ability to defocus their eyes )

I can focus one eye at 8 inches and have the other eye focused on an object
20ft in the opposite direction. I can read a book with my left eye and watch
TV with
the right. It is possible to have complete independent control of both eye
movement and focus. I can look at an object and pull it in and out of focus
with either eye or together. Its all in teaching your mind that it is OK not
to use them together. You have to learn that each eye is an independent input
to the brain.

I can diverge or converge my eyes and see images clearly at any distance.
When I do this, I see two complete and separate images both with perfect
clarity. I can see 20/15 unaided. The last time I was tested, I was -7.5 in
both eyes.

I can center my eye on a target and pick out details in the far corners of the
image. I can read using peripheral vision. I can stare you in the eyes and
read a book lying on the table without eye movement.

I can bulge my eyes forward 3cm and retract them at will. AM I A CIRCUS FREAK?
Am I genetically different that most people?

No, it's all about control of the mind and eye muscles. Much of vision is how
the mind perceives what is given from its eyes. These techniques can be taught.
The mind can be taught to filter out the affects of non-perfect vision.
Vision is as much mental as it is physical.

I would then present a large chart and teach them how to converge and diverge
their distance vision. Let them see first hand, watching things move in and
out of focus while converging and diverging to different levels. I would
then show them I can read at least 20/20 with ANY minus lenses that the jury
has on them.

I would then let the jury try pinhole glasses and let them be the judge if it
immediately allows them to see better.


Exhibit 4: Animals and CASE Studies

A case study is the ideal method for contradicting mainstream thoughts in the
medical world. If the mainstream thought is the human eye CANNOT accommodate,
all it takes is ONE case to prove mainstream wrong.

Before any medicine or medical procedure reaches a study group, animal studies
and human case studies are performed to see if it even warrants additional
research.

Alot of "true" scientific research has been done on myopia. There are case
studies of individuals that have proven the eye is able to adapt to its
environment. There have been animal experiments that support this. Some of
this evidence is from well over 50 years ago, before financial influence became
the ruler of scientific research. Much more is more recent.

A monkey's eyes have the ability to accommodate, and the human eye cannot?
Could nature be that stupid? I have not yet seen any proof that human eyes are
different from animal eyes, in terms of the ability to accommodate to their
environment.


Exhibit 5: AOA guidelines


Even the AOA published guidelines for myopia treatment do recognize "induced
myopia".

The AOA published treatment options for myopia include elimination of inducing
agent, vision theory, patient education, myopia control, and optical correction
( not in that order).

Another interesting AOA statement:
Risks for correction via lenses: "NOT STATED". I would expect this say "NONE"
if there was no risk of increased myopia induced by negative lenses.

Here is the AOA position on what can be effectively treated with visual
therapy: treatable conditions include focusing deficiencies, eye muscle
imbalances, motor fusion deficiencies and refractive errors

I know of two insurance plans that now cover vision therapy and patient
education for myopia. This is an expanding trend.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS::
My recommendation based on the evidence shown to this jury:

Any medical advice even from a medical professional should be researched
thoroughly. Everyone is different. It is up to the patient to self monitor
any treatment plan prescribed by a doctor. Many medicines and treatments
prescribed by a doctor have over 40% complication rates. From the literature
provided by drug companies, these side affects are often downplayed,
misleading or even falsified. I have seen people lose legs, arms, feet and
even DIE from a very common drug used to treat high blood pressure. The
original research showed this as a possible side effect, but that study never
made it to the rest of the medical world. MY ADVICE, take any medical advice
from even doctors with a grain of salt. Research it yourself and if you find
contradictions or see your condition worsening, let your doctor know
immediately.

I have been through the standard process for treating myopia (minus lenses) and
almost lost my vision because of it. Here is my recommendation:

<USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, AS I AM NOT A DOCTOR AND I CONSIDER MYSELF UNQUALIFIED
TO GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE>

For a person showing early signs of myopia: Change eye usage. Things like
teaching them to hold reading material further distance from the eye. There
are documented cases studies where this alone has proven a dramatic difference
in a matter of months. If it is impossible to change eye usage, plus lenses
may be used to artificially change the environment. This in conjunction with
eye training/exercise may eliminate or prevent myopia from progressing.

As a last resort, if you progresses to worse than 20/50 using the above
treatment, I would use minus lenses to correct to about 20/40, and never use
them while doing up close work. Never allow yourself to become dependant on
lenses for normal day-to-day tasks.

If my interpretation of the AOA guidelines is correct, there is nothing in my
recommendation that contradicts AOA guidelines.
Francine
2004-06-20 00:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Dear Simple Mind,
Post by Simpleminded66
Today, I do not wear glasses, contacts nor have had refractive surgery. I
would like to demonstrate to the jury, control of semi-involuntary eye muscles.
I have trained my eyes to do some very unusual things. The mind control of
the eyes goes far beyond what most people realize.
This is indeed possible through Vision Therapy; I am a VT success story,
myself.
Post by Simpleminded66
The eye is like a camera with two lenses and separate auto focus on each. You
have to shut off the auto focus and learn to focus manually. It is very
possible to use the eye separately and focus separately. Most people never
explore this. This can be taught very easily to some, and very difficult for
others.
I can focus one eye at 8 inches and have the other eye focused on an object
20ft in the opposite direction. I can read a book with my left eye and watch
TV with
the right. It is possible to have complete independent control of both eye
movement and focus.
I can look at an object and pull it in and out of focus
with either eye or together. Its all in teaching your mind that it is OK not
to use them together. You have to learn that each eye is an independent input
to the brain.
I can diverge or converge my eyes and see images clearly at any distance.
When I do this, I see two complete and separate images both with perfect
clarity. I can see 20/15 unaided. The last time I was tested, I was -7.5 in
both eyes.
As you are a human being, and not a lizard, I do not believe this is
physiologically possible. If you can do this, it is indeed a breakthrough
and would almost inevitably be reported on the COVD and OEP web sites, which
it is not. It would also be on the nightly news, LOL. I would like the name
of the VTOD who trained you to find out how he accomplishes such things in
his patients. VT can accomplish a great deal, much more than many people
realize, but if it enables a person to do what you say you can, there must
be some literature on the subject. This is another situation where showing
the data is necessary. Otherwise you aren't presenting a very good case
here. It might as well be fiction.
Post by Simpleminded66
I can center my eye on a target and pick out details in the far corners of the
image. I can read using peripheral vision. I can stare you in the eyes and
read a book lying on the table without eye movement.
This also is not possible. The eye is not physiologically capable of
focussing at two different distances at precisely the same instant.
Post by Simpleminded66
I can bulge my eyes forward 3cm and retract them at will. AM I A CIRCUS FREAK?
Am I genetically different that most people?
Some people have this capacity; there was even a news program about a weight
lifter who could do this. It is a well-know syndrome, which Mike Tyner
commented about some months ago. It is not known if genetics plays a part in
a person's ability to bulge their eyes out, and you probably know this.
Post by Simpleminded66
No, it's all about control of the mind and eye muscles. Much of vision is how
the mind perceives what is given from its eyes. These techniques can be taught.
The mind can be taught to filter out the affects of non-perfect vision.
Vision is as much mental as it is physical.
I would then present a large chart and teach them how to converge and diverge
their distance vision. Let them see first hand, watching things move in and
out of focus while converging and diverging to different levels.
I can do these things too, as a result of my Vision Training. And many
people can learn to "filter out the affects of non-perfect vision." This is
called "blur interpretation," and is done by the brain. Dr Howard Howland
has published some papers about the subject recently. So have others, in the
Journal of Vision Science. This is not new information.
Post by Simpleminded66
I would
then show them I can read at least 20/20 with ANY minus lenses that the jury
has on them.
Everyone can benefit from VT, even an emmetrope with no prior history of
refractive errors or binocular vision problems. But there are limits to
everything, and doubt that you could see clearly through any lens put in
front of you. Even post-VT, and emmetropic, with the accommodative system of
a 5-year-old, you could probably not see clearly at 8 inches through -10
lenses. If so, let your OD show us studies of other people who have done so,
or let's hear from him what a superior specimen you are. In truth, what you
are describing is so incredible tht any OD or vision researcher would LOVE
to publish or speak publicly about it if he had witnessed such a case.
Post by Simpleminded66
I would then let the jury try pinhole glasses and let them be the judge if it
immediately allows them to see better.
Pinhole glasses? How is this relevant to the discussion?


Vision Therapy can do a lot of things. It can reduce or eliminate amblyopia
and strabismus, and other binocular vision problems. It can improve
focussing of a faulty accommodative system, even to the extent that
presbyopia can be reduced or held in abeyance. I personally experienced
this, but as I have not come to the end of my life, I don't know how long
the effect will hold. VT can stop the progression of myopia and reduce it by
several diopters in many cases. This is not possible in everyone.

I myself was told by my ODs that I had "very unusual eyes and a very unusual
attitude." Compared to your stated improvements, my own are quite modest
although most people here are dubious about them, at best. I have furnished
the names of my VTODs, for anyone who wants to check me out. Now you must do
the same, or there is no reason for any of us to believe your assertions.
Post by Simpleminded66
Without "fringe" scientists
and theories, the medical world would be at a standstill.
I couldn't agree more, but you still have yet to prove the veracity of your
statements. If they are true, I will help to spread the news about your
accomplishments myself.
Post by Simpleminded66
This debate is like a comedy show with 'where is the data' being the punch
line. I thought I would drop in and add a bit to the humor.
Data is necessary, especially if it is to prove long-held ideas false. This
has been always been true. Speaking about medicine, if new, irrefutable data
had never been presented, we would still be holding fast to Galen's flawed
medical orthodoxy. Let your new data be presented, so we can throw out the
old. And If you are a freak of nature, who has developed heretefore unknown
visual powers, your OD will be happy to affirm this.



Best regards,
Francine
XMotorXRacer
2004-06-20 18:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Since I read this, I have been playing with my old glasses. I recently had
lasik to correct -3.25 myopia.

When I first put my old glasses on, I can't see much. If I converge on a
close object, the distance comes into into clear view.

When I cover each eye (with my old glasses), I can see clearly at distance.
Both eyes together, and its all blurry again without converging.

I'm sure with a bit of practice at converging with my old perscription, I will
be able to see 20/20 using either no correction and -3.25 lenses. ( close up
with the lenses is not working to well at all )

I have never tried reading while looking away, but I can easily read the
speedometer, gas guage, etc while looking directly forward while driving.

Reading with one eye and watching TV with the other, I can't do that one....
yet :-)

This will definately give me some new goals to shoot for.
Mike Tyner
2004-06-20 19:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
Since I read this, I have been playing with my old glasses. I recently had
lasik to correct -3.25 myopia.
...This will definately give me some new goals to shoot for.
Otis claims if you keep these glasses on, you will become -2.00 myopic after
100 days.

-MT
XMotorXRacer
2004-06-20 21:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tyner
Otis claims if you keep these glasses on, you will become -2.00 myopic after
100 days.

I assure you, any experiements I do with minus will be short term.


Since I had lasik, I have been using plus lenses while reading and countless
other eye exercises. Hopefully this will prevention the regression that
occurs in 30% of lasik patients. At 2 months I'm still seeing 20/15, so far so
good.

I have no data to prove this would help, but I doubt it will do any harm.
Mike Tyner
2004-06-21 01:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
I assure you, any experiements I do with minus will be short term.
Feels pretty rough, doesn't it? It's the "visual environment" that +325
hyperopes endure constantly, if they don't have glasses.

Doesn't it makes you wonder why +325 hyperopes don't get myopic?

Engineers think it only takes three or four months for hyperopia to cure
itself. They know because they have a formula. :)

-MT
Mike Tyner
2004-06-21 01:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Hopefully this will prevention the regression that occurs
in 30% of lasik patients.
I'm pretty sure the regression is corneal. Axial length doesn't increase, as
it did in the original condition.

If plus worked for axial myopia, it'd still be irrelevant post-lasik
regression.

-MT
XMotorXRacer
2004-06-22 02:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tyner
I'm pretty sure the regression is corneal. Axial length doesn't increase, as
it did in the original condition.
If plus worked for axial myopia, it'd still be irrelevant post-lasik
regression.
I agree, any regression post lasik is corneal. Plus lenes *should* reduce my
original axial myopia to offset the corneal regression. So the theory goes...

Based on my experince with trying to reduce my myopia before lasik:

I improved ~1.0 in two years, prior to giving up and opting for lasik. The
first .25 went quickly. Each .25 after that took longer. Based on this, it
would have taken me at 10+ years (if ever) to have reasonable vision without
glasses.

Lasik took 15 minutes + 2 months healing to become damn near perfect.
Dr. Leukoma
2004-06-22 02:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
Post by Mike Tyner
I'm pretty sure the regression is corneal. Axial length doesn't
increase, as it did in the original condition.
If plus worked for axial myopia, it'd still be irrelevant post-lasik
regression.
I agree, any regression post lasik is corneal. Plus lenes *should*
reduce my original axial myopia to offset the corneal regression. So
the theory goes...
I improved ~1.0 in two years, prior to giving up and opting for lasik.
The first .25 went quickly. Each .25 after that took longer. Based
on this, it would have taken me at 10+ years (if ever) to have
reasonable vision without glasses.
Lasik took 15 minutes + 2 months healing to become damn near perfect.
Odd, because one of the requirements of having LASIK is that your
prescription be stable. If you have shown myopic "regression" instead of
"progression" over that past two years, then it was most likely due to the
normal and expected regression of accommodative myopia. Those changes are
non-linear, by the way. Plus lenses are of no use to you now.

DrG
Mike Tyner
2004-06-22 03:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
I agree, any regression post lasik is corneal. Plus lenes *should* reduce my
original axial myopia to offset the corneal regression. So the theory goes...
There are honking big holes in the theory.

As Dr. L pointed out, plus works on the accommodative part of your myopia -
it trains your ciliary muscle to relax. That part of myopia tends to relax
all on its own in the twenties and thirties - many (most?) myopes experience
some improvement at that age, when the entire population gets less myopic
(more hyperopic).

If plus worked by reducing axial length (shrinking the eyeball) you'd have
thousands of doctors waving ultrasound tracings in the street, yelling
"Eureka!" and I haven't seen that happen.

If it did work, you'd risk hyperopia, something you would curse about at age
45. If I had "perfect" LASIK in my thirties, I'd want a little regression so
I could read better without glasses after 40.

Moral is, save your trouble and enjoy your results. If you regress a little,
there is a benefit later on.

-MT
XMotorXRacer
2004-06-23 00:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tyner
If it did work, you'd risk hyperopia, something you would curse about at age
45.
Hopefully hyperopia as we age IS based on genetic background.

My father didn't need reading glasses until close to retirement (65). My
mother never needed them, before passing at 72.

=====================
On a genetic side note, based on the rest of the medical field:

Would it be possible that not all people respond the same to minus lenses at
the onset of myopia?

For almost ALL medical procedures or medicines, there are always a certain
percentage of people that will have adverse reactions to a treatment.

Logic would follow that a certain % would not have the same reaction to
negative lenses as the general population.

What I don't understand, is why do ODs automatically assume that correcting to
20/20 is the best treatment for everyone ( especially children when the eyes
are developing ).

Wouldn't it make senes to do more like the rest of the medical world and
closely monitor the impact of a treatment on an indivdual basis? If myopia is
increasing faster with lenses for a particular patient, it could be an adverse
reaction.

I have 3 children, the younger two are slighly myopic. My oldest child could
see 20/40 at age 7. He did not wear lenses or correction, he seemed to outgrow
it by the time he was 10. He is 11 now and is seeing better than 20/20.

My younger two are at 20/40 (age 6) and 20/30 (age 9) now. Based on experience
with my older son, nothing could convince me to put lenses on a kid that can
see 20/40.

I'll let nature handle it for now, only time will tell if I am right.
Dr. Leukoma
2004-06-23 01:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
Post by Mike Tyner
If it did work, you'd risk hyperopia, something you would curse about
at age 45.
Hopefully hyperopia as we age IS based on genetic background.
My father didn't need reading glasses until close to retirement (65).
My mother never needed them, before passing at 72.
=====================
Would it be possible that not all people respond the same to minus
lenses at the onset of myopia?
Indeed, why is it that some people get myopic and others don't, and why do
some get more myopic and others don't?
Post by XMotorXRacer
For almost ALL medical procedures or medicines, there are always a
certain percentage of people that will have adverse reactions to a
treatment.
Logic would follow that a certain % would not have the same reaction
to negative lenses as the general population.
This is a non-sequitur. If you are agreeing with Otis, you are in effect
saying that minus lenses make myopia worse than a placebo lens. Any
medication that would make the condition for which it was prescribed worse,
would not be approved by the FDA.
Post by XMotorXRacer
What I don't understand, is why do ODs automatically assume that
correcting to 20/20 is the best treatment for everyone ( especially
children when the eyes are developing ).
The first reason is because that is the limit of resolution. The second
reason has something to do with the reason that *ALL* children express
pleasure and delight at being able to see clearly, as do most adults.
Perhaps we are all addicted to maximizing our visual potential.
Post by XMotorXRacer
Wouldn't it make senes to do more like the rest of the medical world
and closely monitor the impact of a treatment on an indivdual basis?
If myopia is increasing faster with lenses for a particular patient,
it could be an adverse reaction.
I just examined an 8 year/old patient today. Her visual acuity was 20/100,
and she refracted at -1.50 in both eyes, manifestly and cycloplegically.
She was previously examined last November, and her refraction was -0.50.
She has not worn minus lenses. I would be willing to wager that she will
progress no faster, nor slower with or without minus lenses.
Post by XMotorXRacer
I have 3 children, the younger two are slighly myopic. My oldest
child could see 20/40 at age 7. He did not wear lenses or correction,
he seemed to outgrow it by the time he was 10. He is 11 now and is
seeing better than 20/20.
In that case, I would seriously question the validity of the 20/40
findings. I see quite a few children who will read 20/40, only to refract
plano...its called malingering.
Post by XMotorXRacer
My younger two are at 20/40 (age 6) and 20/30 (age 9) now. Based on
experience with my older son, nothing could convince me to put lenses
on a kid that can see 20/40.
That is your right as a parent. Most of us do not push lenses at the
threshold of myopia for a young child. That is a myth promoted by some
people for the sake of argument. It is called a "straw man."


DrG
XMotorXRacer
2004-06-23 06:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Leukoma
Any
medication that would make the condition for which it was prescribed worse,
would not be approved by the FDA
Even if an adverse reaction is present in a small percentage of patients, MANY
drugs still get FDA approval.

I could give you a long list of many FDA approved medications (and treatments)
that make the specific condition they are treating worse, in a certain
percentage of patients.

An excellent example is Warfarin. In the patient literature: "Your Warfarin
dosage will need close monitoring with regular blood tests"

Why? Because in up to 1% of the people it makes blood thicker, not thinner.
The drug company knows this. The REAL scary part, many physicians do not.
They hand this drug out to people with blood clots and don't even know about
the possibility of an adverse reaction.

Some physicians even increase dosage after taking blood tests and seeing the
opposite effect. They are not even aware an adverse reaction has taken place
until major damage has been done to every vital part of the body.

I re-state my orignal point>

Everyone is different and the same FDA approved treatment is NOT always the
best treatment for everyone.

Can you prove that minus lenses are the correct treatment for everyone with
myopia? Is there is a 0% chance that an adverse reaction will not occur a
certain percentage of cases?

Eyes are not my profession, but NOTHING in the medical world is that clear cut.
Dr. Leukoma
2004-06-23 12:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
Post by Dr. Leukoma
Any
medication that would make the condition for which it was prescribed
worse, would not be approved by the FDA
Even if an adverse reaction is present in a small percentage of
patients, MANY drugs still get FDA approval.
I could give you a long list of many FDA approved medications (and
treatments) that make the specific condition they are treating worse,
in a certain percentage of patients.
An excellent example is Warfarin. In the patient literature: "Your
Warfarin dosage will need close monitoring with regular blood tests"
Why? Because in up to 1% of the people it makes blood thicker, not
thinner. The drug company knows this. The REAL scary part, many
physicians do not. They hand this drug out to people with blood clots
and don't even know about the possibility of an adverse reaction.
As long as you are not trying to argue that minus lenses *systematically*
make myopia worse - i.e. "staircase myopia" - I agree. Some side-effects
of minus lenses are minification that makes objects appear smaller,
pincushion distortion that makes objects appear to be bowed, and chromatic
aberration.
Post by XMotorXRacer
Some physicians even increase dosage after taking blood tests and
seeing the opposite effect. They are not even aware an adverse
reaction has taken place until major damage has been done to every
vital part of the body.
I re-state my orignal point>
Everyone is different and the same FDA approved treatment is NOT
always the best treatment for everyone.
Can you prove that minus lenses are the correct treatment for everyone
with myopia? Is there is a 0% chance that an adverse reaction will
not occur a certain percentage of cases?
Except for the use of atropine, pirenzepine, or other selective muscarinic
receptor blocker, there is no proven treatment for axial myopia. However,
the universal treatment for the chief symptom of myopia, i.e. blurred
distance vision, is indeed the minus lens. Of course, not everybody
responds to minus lenses with 20/20 vision, due to physiology, higher order
aberrations, or some type of pathology.
Post by XMotorXRacer
Eyes are not my profession, but NOTHING in the medical world is that clear cut.
Optics is about the closest thing to being "clear cut" in the medical
world.

DrG
Otis Brown
2004-06-23 14:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Dear XMotor,

Thanks for this clear description of "medical tests"
and how "secondary effects" are often ignored.

They are know by the durg companies, but are ignored
when a drug is prescribed.

A reasonable person (MD) will discuss (or at least
send you to a web-site, to discuss the potential
"side effects" BEFORE he prescribes anything.

Then "nomral". Nothing is discussed.

However you might feel about the minus lens,
there is a good deal of DIRECT experimental
(not "derived" not "conjectured") that demonstrates
that when you place a minus lens on the natural
eye -- the refractive status will move negative
proportional to the strength of the applied minus lens.

Did you OD discuss the above scientific facts
with you before he put that FIRST minus lens
on your face. Or did he consider you to
be to ignorant, or to low-motivated to
understand these facts?

I wonder.

Best,

Otis
Post by XMotorXRacer
Post by Dr. Leukoma
Any
medication that would make the condition for which it was prescribed worse,
would not be approved by the FDA
Even if an adverse reaction is present in a small percentage of patients, MANY
drugs still get FDA approval.
I could give you a long list of many FDA approved medications (and treatments)
that make the specific condition they are treating worse, in a certain
percentage of patients.
An excellent example is Warfarin. In the patient literature: "Your Warfarin
dosage will need close monitoring with regular blood tests"
Why? Because in up to 1% of the people it makes blood thicker, not thinner.
The drug company knows this. The REAL scary part, many physicians do not.
They hand this drug out to people with blood clots and don't even know about
the possibility of an adverse reaction.
Some physicians even increase dosage after taking blood tests and seeing the
opposite effect. They are not even aware an adverse reaction has taken place
until major damage has been done to every vital part of the body.
I re-state my orignal point>
Everyone is different and the same FDA approved treatment is NOT always the
best treatment for everyone.
Can you prove that minus lenses are the correct treatment for everyone with
myopia? Is there is a 0% chance that an adverse reaction will not occur a
certain percentage of cases?
Eyes are not my profession, but NOTHING in the medical world is that clear cut.
Mike Tyner
2004-06-23 14:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Otis Brown
A reasonable person (MD) will discuss (or at least
send you to a web-site, to discuss the potential
"side effects" BEFORE he prescribes anything.
Is this your experience with MDs? Not mine. Not one peep when they put me on
Rezulin, until my skin turned yellow.
Post by Otis Brown
However you might feel about the minus lens,
there is a good deal of DIRECT experimental
(not "derived" not "conjectured") that demonstrates
that when you place a minus lens on the natural
eye -- the refractive status will move negative
proportional to the strength of the applied minus lens.
If you can't produce this evidence, we must conclude you are lying about it.
We can't find it.

-MT
Otis Brown
2004-06-23 20:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
A reasonable person (MD) will discuss (or at least
send you to a web-site, to discuss the potential
"side effects" BEFORE he prescribes anything.
Is this your experience with MDs? Not mine. Not one peep when they put me on
Rezulin, until my skin turned yellow.
That seems to be a sad but typical truth. I had similary
actions and reactions to certain MDs. But that
is a separate story.
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
However you might feel about the minus lens,
there is a good deal of DIRECT experimental
(not "derived" not "conjectured") that demonstrates
that when you place a minus lens on the natural
eye -- the refractive status will move negative
proportional to the strength of the applied minus lens.
If you can't produce this evidence, we must conclude you are lying about it.
We can't find it.
Mike -- you are getting very "dense" about this subject.

But let me repeat.

1. I can measure the refrative status of
a population of primates.

2. I want to know if the natural eye will "move negative"
(entire population of eyes).

3. I put a -3 diopter lens on 1/2 the population
of native primate eyes.

4. I measure the refractive status of the test
group relative to the control group.

PLEASE -- THIS IS PURE SCIENCE -- NOT MEDICINE.

I DO NOT 'INTERPERT' A FOCAL STATE -- I JUST MEASURE IT.

HOW MUCH MORE SIMPLE CAN IT GET??????????????

5. No what is the result.

For reasons of you own intense bias, you insist
that a difference in refractive status WILL NEVER
DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.

As an engineer, respecting the natural eye as a
very sophisticated mechanism, I EXPECT THAT
A DIFFERENCE WILL DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST
GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.

I you can not preceive this most objective and
factual of scientific measurements and CONCEPTS,
the it is true -- you are beyond help
insulated in your "GOD LIKE" position.

I gave you a simple quiz on this subject -- but
of course you evaded the obious questions.

And last, you state "trust me", a minus lens
has NO EFFECT, and further ENVIRONMENT has
NO EFFECT.

No, I do not trust you anymore when the subject
matter is resolved by direct experimtal results.

Trust you -- or trust scientific results
concerning the dynamic behavior of the fundamental
eye.

I trust science and objective reproduceable facts,
and not you.

I suggested that my nephew pay attention to
scientific fact, and "work" this issue under
his own control

There are fortunately some ODs who advocate
prevention as I do. But REAL responsibility
and REAl control must be transferred to
the person himself.

Does this "bypass" optometry (as you define it)?

I guess there is no choice.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

*******
Post by Mike Tyner
-MT
Mike Tyner
2004-06-23 21:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Otis Brown
1. I can measure the refrative status of
a population of primates.
But we're really only concerned with what happens to humans.
Post by Otis Brown
3. I put a -3 diopter lens on 1/2 the population
of native primate eyes.
We don't do that. We put minus lenses on myopic eyes.
Post by Otis Brown
4. I measure the refractive status of the test
group relative to the control group.
If you vastly over-minus some animals, at some age, they get myopia. Fine.
Post by Otis Brown
For reasons of you own intense bias, you insist
that a difference in refractive status WILL NEVER
DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.
In your groups, maybe. Putting minus lenses on "natural" (emmetropic) eyes
isn't what we're doing.
Post by Otis Brown
As an engineer, respecting the natural eye as a
very sophisticated mechanism, I EXPECT THAT
A DIFFERENCE WILL DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST
GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.
Or you could measure the myopia in kids who wear glasses and kids who don't.
Why not do that?

It's been done several times, but you seem to be blind to those studies.

Why do you disagree with the studies that show no difference between actual
kids who wear actual glasses and actual kids who don't?

-MT
Otis Brown
2004-06-24 04:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear Mike,

I come from a profession that works with
abstract ideas. Indeed, a large percentage
of electrical engineering is done by mathematical
analysis, and engineering simulation.

I recognize true-prevention to be honestly very
difficult -- and completely dependent on the
motivation and insight of the person (or pilot)
who is intellectually and physically willing
to make that type of commitment.

That means an (almost) mature adult entering
a four year collge -- with a strong interest
in preserving his distant vision.

That suggest transfer of control to this
responsible adult who can and will
verify the refractive status of his
eye with a Snellen chart and a simple
trial lens kit.

This is what I suggest for the Embry Riddle
effort.

This is not "child's play", and I expect
a good response from the pilot or engineer
concerned with keeping his distant vision
clear through four years of college.

I simply do not see this "effort" as
a "medical" effort in any sense of the word.

But we differ on that point.
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
1. I can measure the refrative status of
a population of primates.
But we're really only concerned with what happens to humans.
We differ on that point. Before I worry about "humans" I want
to know how all eyes behave -- by very basic testing -- as
previously discussed. It think that this
type of "intellectual" exploration of a concept is
essential for science (but not for medicine -- obviously).
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
3. I put a -3 diopter lens on 1/2 the population
of native primate eyes.
We don't do that. We put minus lenses on myopic eyes.
For this test I only wish to establish if the completely
natural eye behaves as a control system. You obviously
totally miss the point. But I can not resolve that
specific issue -- and the reviewer will simply have
to make is own mind up about this issue.
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
4. I measure the refractive status of the test
group relative to the control group.
If you vastly over-minus some animals, at some age, they get myopia. Fine.
And if I did this to a human (with out your knowledge) and sent
him to your office? You would measure his serious negative
refractive status and declare that he had "bad heredity",
and "no one knows the cause of nearsightedness", when
in fact it is just the natural eye with an "induced"
negative refractive state.

Is it possible that you could make that kind of mistake?
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
For reasons of you own intense bias, you insist
that a difference in refractive status WILL NEVER
DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.
In your groups, maybe. Putting minus lenses on "natural" (emmetropic) eyes
isn't what we're doing.
If you want to find out how the natural eye (refractive status 0.0)
will behave that is EXACTLY what you are going to do.
(To the primate eye. The human primate eye will behave
the same way.) QED
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
As an engineer, respecting the natural eye as a
very sophisticated mechanism, I EXPECT THAT
A DIFFERENCE WILL DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST
GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.
Or you could measure the myopia in kids who wear glasses and kids who don't.
Why not do that?
I am not clear at to your question or point here.
Post by Mike Tyner
It's been done several times, but you seem to be blind to those studies.
You prefer the studies where the foxes are in charge of
the chicken coop. Yes, I understand these studies.
Why not let some engineers run the studies of the
natural eye's behavior. The results could well
be profoundly different.
Post by Mike Tyner
Why do you disagree with the studies that show no difference between actual
kids who wear actual glasses and actual kids who don't?
Because I have no intention to deal with "kids".

But an intelligent, motivated pilot, who understands
college statistics, and is willing to be
in intellectual an physical control -- well
I think we would achieve the desired result -- of
effective prevention.

The is where we disagree.

Best,

Otis
Engineer
Post by Mike Tyner
-MT
Mike Tyner
2004-06-24 13:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Otis Brown
I come from a profession that works with
abstract ideas. Indeed, a large percentage
of electrical engineering is done by mathematical
analysis, and engineering simulation.
I recognize true-prevention to be honestly very
difficult -- and completely dependent on the
motivation and insight of the person (or pilot)
who is intellectually and physically willing
to make that type of commitment.
That means an (almost) mature adult entering
a four year collge -- with a strong interest
in preserving his distant vision.
That suggest transfer of control to this
responsible adult who can and will
verify the refractive status of his
eye with a Snellen chart and a simple
trial lens kit.
This is what I suggest for the Embry Riddle
effort.
This is not "child's play", and I expect
a good response from the pilot or engineer
concerned with keeping his distant vision
clear through four years of college.
I simply do not see this "effort" as
a "medical" effort in any sense of the word.
But we differ on that point.
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
1. I can measure the refrative status of
a population of primates.
But we're really only concerned with what happens to humans.
We differ on that point. Before I worry about "humans" I want
to know how all eyes behave -- by very basic testing -- as
previously discussed. It think that this
type of "intellectual" exploration of a concept is
essential for science (but not for medicine -- obviously).
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
3. I put a -3 diopter lens on 1/2 the population
of native primate eyes.
We don't do that. We put minus lenses on myopic eyes.
For this test I only wish to establish if the completely
natural eye behaves as a control system. You obviously
totally miss the point. But I can not resolve that
specific issue -- and the reviewer will simply have
to make is own mind up about this issue.
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
4. I measure the refractive status of the test
group relative to the control group.
If you vastly over-minus some animals, at some age, they get myopia. Fine.
And if I did this to a human (with out your knowledge) and sent
him to your office? You would measure his serious negative
refractive status and declare that he had "bad heredity",
and "no one knows the cause of nearsightedness", when
in fact it is just the natural eye with an "induced"
negative refractive state.
Is it possible that you could make that kind of mistake?
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
For reasons of you own intense bias, you insist
that a difference in refractive status WILL NEVER
DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.
In your groups, maybe. Putting minus lenses on "natural" (emmetropic) eyes
isn't what we're doing.
If you want to find out how the natural eye (refractive status 0.0)
will behave that is EXACTLY what you are going to do.
(To the primate eye. The human primate eye will behave
the same way.) QED
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
As an engineer, respecting the natural eye as a
very sophisticated mechanism, I EXPECT THAT
A DIFFERENCE WILL DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST
GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.
Or you could measure the myopia in kids who wear glasses and kids who don't.
Why not do that?
I am not clear at to your question or point here.
Post by Mike Tyner
It's been done several times, but you seem to be blind to those studies.
You prefer the studies where the foxes are in charge of
the chicken coop. Yes, I understand these studies.
Why not let some engineers run the studies of the
natural eye's behavior. The results could well
be profoundly different.
Post by Mike Tyner
Why do you disagree with the studies that show no difference between actual
kids who wear actual glasses and actual kids who don't?
Because I have no intention to deal with "kids".
But an intelligent, motivated pilot, who understands
college statistics, and is willing to be
in intellectual an physical control -- well
I think we would achieve the desired result -- of
effective prevention.
The is where we disagree.
Best,
Otis
Engineer
Post by Mike Tyner
-MT
Mike Tyner
2004-06-24 14:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Otis Brown
I recognize true-prevention to be honestly very
difficult -- and completely dependent on the
motivation and insight of the person (or pilot)
who is intellectually and physically willing
to make that type of commitment.
Compliance isn't efficacy. If I put calamine lotion on poison ivy, every
day, religiously, it doesn't make calamine lotion work any better, because
it doesn't work in the first place.
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
But we're really only concerned with what happens to humans.
We differ on that point. Before I worry about "humans" I want
to know how all eyes behave -- by very basic testing -- as
previously discussed. It think that this
type of "intellectual" exploration of a concept is
essential for science (but not for medicine -- obviously).
Intellectual and theoretical discussion is irrelevant if it doesn't apply to
the target population. We aren't trying to prevent myopia in immature
animals.
Post by Otis Brown
For this test I only wish to establish if the completely
natural eye behaves as a control system. You obviously
totally miss the point. But I can not resolve that
specific issue -- and the reviewer will simply have
to make is own mind up about this issue.
You have the luxury of not being responsible for your outcomes. We don't.
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
If you vastly over-minus some animals, at some age, they get myopia. Fine.
And if I did this to a human (with out your knowledge) and sent
him to your office? You would measure his serious negative
refractive status and declare that he had "bad heredity",
and "no one knows the cause of nearsightedness", when
in fact it is just the natural eye with an "induced"
negative refractive state.
So when a child comes to his first eye exam with -8.00 myopia, I should
assume that someone put -800 lenses on him as an infant?
Post by Otis Brown
Is it possible that you could make that kind of mistake?
Axial myopia would be the same whether induced or "natural".
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
For reasons of you own intense bias, you insist
that a difference in refractive status WILL NEVER
DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.
No, bias occurs when conclusions precede data. If you bother to look at the
existing data, you find that humans who wear neutralizing minus lenses do
not get more nearsighted than humans who don't. This tells us your
"staircase myopia" is a myth.
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
In your groups, maybe. Putting minus lenses on "natural" (emmetropic) eyes
isn't what we're doing.
If you want to find out how the natural eye (refractive status 0.0)
will behave that is EXACTLY what you are going to do.
(To the primate eye. The human primate eye will behave
the same way.) QED
I don't care what happens when you put minus lenses on emmetropic eyes. I
don't do that. I only care what happens when minus lenses are used to
neutralize myopia. You claim that neutralizing with minus lenses makes
myopia accellerate, and the evidence says otherwise.
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
As an engineer, respecting the natural eye as a
very sophisticated mechanism, I EXPECT THAT
A DIFFERENCE WILL DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST
GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.
Or you could measure the myopia in kids who wear glasses and kids who don't.
Why not do that?
I am not clear at to your question or point here.
The point is that your "staircase myopia" is a myth. To disprove it you only
need to compare the rate of myopia between a "test" group wearing glasses
and a "control" group who don't. You've never cited any study where H1 was
proven. Instead, the published studies find that human myopes wearing
glasses get no more nearsighted than those who don't.
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
It's been done several times, but you seem to be blind to those studies.
You prefer the studies where the foxes are in charge of
the chicken coop. Yes, I understand these studies.
I see - Br J Ophth isn't reliable. You prefer - what? Opinions from the Web?
Post by Otis Brown
Why not let some engineers run the studies of the
natural eye's behavior. The results could well
be profoundly different.
I have no objection. When it happens, and when it passes review and gets
published, I'll take them seriously.
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
Why do you disagree with the studies that show no difference between actual
kids who wear actual glasses and actual kids who don't?
Because I have no intention to deal with "kids".
If you want to prevent myopia, it seems you'd want to work with the
population that gets myopia. If it works for your pilots, it should work for
other emerging myopes. The majority of them are kids age 9 to 11. Why would
your technique not work for them?

-MT
Dan Abel
2004-06-24 19:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Otis Brown
I come from a profession that works with
abstract ideas. Indeed, a large percentage
of electrical engineering is done by mathematical
analysis, and engineering simulation.
My brother-in-law used to be an electronics tech for the department of
Oceanography at the University of Washington. He built sophisticated
custom test equipment to measure things in the deeps of the ocean. This
equipment was custom designed by engineers, but he was the one who
actually had to make it work. He told me that the specs he got were often
wrong, sometimes completely wrong, and he would have to change them
considerably so that the equipment would actually work.

My point? That after you figure out how things *ought* to work, then you
have to figure out how they *actually* work.
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
1. I can measure the refrative status of
a population of primates.
But we're really only concerned with what happens to humans.
We differ on that point. Before I worry about "humans" I want
to know how all eyes behave -- by very basic testing -- as
previously discussed. It think that this
type of "intellectual" exploration of a concept is
essential for science (but not for medicine -- obviously).
The first part sounds reasonable. However, since medicine is based on
science, I disagree with the second part.
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
As an engineer, respecting the natural eye as a
very sophisticated mechanism, I EXPECT THAT
A DIFFERENCE WILL DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST
GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.
Or you could measure the myopia in kids who wear glasses and kids who don't.
Why not do that?
I am not clear at to your question or point here.
The point is that after you find out how things work in general, you need
to find out how things work in the specific case of humans.
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
Why do you disagree with the studies that show no difference between actual
kids who wear actual glasses and actual kids who don't?
Because I have no intention to deal with "kids".
I see. You want to base your treatment on what happens to young
non-humans, but you have no interest in how the treatment works on young
humans? Odd.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
***@sonic.net
Otis Brown
2004-06-25 03:11:45 UTC
Permalink
***@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote in message news:<dabel-***@ssu-64en129.sonoma.edu>...

Dear Dan,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I maintain that there is a profound difference between
"pure" science, and medicine -- with respect to
people is the different professions.

The general public sees medicine and science
as being identical -- and I do not.

Most of this "evaluation" developed from
my understanding of Dr. Raphaelson's success
with the plus -- only to have the child
REJECT the use of the plus -- with anger
on the part of the parents.

[Read "The Printer's Son" to understand this
issue -- Chapter 3, on my site, MyopiaFree.]

But of course the issue is that using the plus
as my sister's kids did is indeed difficult, and
the person must:

1. Have long-term motivation

2. Some sense that he is doing the "right approach".

3. Understand the fact that all eyes go "down" when
you place a minus lens on them (primate eyes -- since
you will not let me test human-primate eyes.)

4. But the real issue was how they would react
to the "arm twisting" I did on this subject.

I am glad they took their own intelligence seriously,
and understood the consequences of NOT using
the plus with persistance.

Their success takes the issue our of "medical hands".

It is very difficult to give that kind of
recommendation to a stranger because they
distrust your motives. With a family member
the issue is profoundly different.

The issue is self-control of the situation,
rather than transfer of control to some
third-party.
Post by Dan Abel
Post by Otis Brown
I come from a profession that works with
abstract ideas. Indeed, a large percentage
of electrical engineering is done by mathematical
analysis, and engineering simulation.
My brother-in-law used to be an electronics tech for the department of
Oceanography at the University of Washington. He built sophisticated
custom test equipment to measure things in the deeps of the ocean. This
equipment was custom designed by engineers, but he was the one who
actually had to make it work. He told me that the specs he got were often
wrong, sometimes completely wrong, and he would have to change them
considerably so that the equipment would actually work.
My point? That after you figure out how things *ought* to work, then you
have to figure out how they *actually* work.
That is my point also. I was told many things (with great
honesty, I am sure) but their were profound contradictions.

When you work to built a "working" accommodation system,
you gain a better understanding of it. Maybe it
is just my "curiosity" to figure out issues of this
nature for myself -- and build a working model
of a sophisticated auto-focused camera.

If others can learn from that process, then
I believe that we can have a better future -- for
the pilots who will accept the necessity of
prevention with a plus lens -- obviously under
their direct control.
Post by Dan Abel
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
1. I can measure the refrative status of
a population of primates.
But we're really only concerned with what happens to humans.
We differ on that point. Before I worry about "humans" I want
to know how all eyes behave -- by very basic testing -- as
previously discussed. It think that this
type of "intellectual" exploration of a concept is
essential for science (but not for medicine -- obviously).
The first part sounds reasonable. However, since medicine is based on
science, I disagree with the second part.
I disagree. Very often medicine is a matter of what
works with the general, ill-infomed public that
walks in the door.

I can not work that way. I must talk extensively with
the person -- before ANYTHING is done, and I would
expect that he will gain the necessary technical
education BEFORE any step is taken.

This suggests, again, a pilot who is willing to
take command of the process of prevention.
Post by Dan Abel
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
As an engineer, respecting the natural eye as a
very sophisticated mechanism, I EXPECT THAT
A DIFFERENCE WILL DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST
GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.
Or you could measure the myopia in kids who wear glasses and kids who don't.
Why not do that?
I the above statement I did not even mention the word
"myopia". You have jumped to a conclusion -- that
is an error of the words you are using to describe
the behavior of the natural eye.

The mistake is in the bias of the words you are uising.
Post by Dan Abel
Post by Otis Brown
I am not clear at to your question or point here.
The point is that after you find out how things work in general, you need
to find out how things work in the specific case of humans.
In the case of pilots -- they can use what the learn
about PURE objective facts as I stated them.
The can also take AN PASS the quiz I provided
(with you did not take -- which suggests the
level of YOUR MOTIVATION.)
Post by Dan Abel
Post by Otis Brown
Post by Mike Tyner
Why do you disagree with the studies that show no difference between actual
kids who wear actual glasses and actual kids who don't?
Because I have no intention to deal with "kids".
Yes, I told a "fib". I was deeply concerned
with my blood-relative kids -- because I thought
they should have a "fighting chance" at prevention.
Post by Dan Abel
I see. You want to base your treatment on what happens to young
non-humans,
That is how you determine the exact behavior of the
natural eye as a sophisticated control system.

[Yes, there is conflict between this statment,
and the habit of calling all refractive states
"refractive errors".]


but you have no interest in how the treatment works on young
Post by Dan Abel
humans?
Only my blood-relatives. I can not do anything
with the general public that has little or no
interest in these proceedings. Indeed, as
both of us know, the general public is profoundly
hostile to the use of the plus for prevention.

Odd.

Your opinion of course. The intensity of commitment
in using the plus (as Dr. Colgate did) probably excludes
the use of the plus as a "medical" device. As a
scientific (objective fact) based approach -- the
story is profoundly different.

Best,

Otis
Dan Abel
2004-06-23 20:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
A reasonable person (MD) will discuss (or at least
send you to a web-site, to discuss the potential
"side effects" BEFORE he prescribes anything.
Is this your experience with MDs? Not mine. Not one peep when they put me on
Rezulin, until my skin turned yellow.
Another anecdotal example of why my HMO is better than fee-for-service.
Actually, it might not be financially prudent for an MD to discuss
potential side effects before prescribing. For my diabetes medicines, I
went to a couple of classes where possible medications and their side
effects were discussed. When I pick up a new prescription in person,
there is a required consult with the pharmacist. Usually I receive a
detailed handout with different things, including possible side effects,
from the HMO pharmacy.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
***@sonic.net
Dr. Leukoma
2004-06-24 02:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Abel
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Otis Brown
A reasonable person (MD) will discuss (or at least
send you to a web-site, to discuss the potential
"side effects" BEFORE he prescribes anything.
Is this your experience with MDs? Not mine. Not one peep when they
put me on Rezulin, until my skin turned yellow.
Another anecdotal example of why my HMO is better than
fee-for-service. Actually, it might not be financially prudent for an
MD to discuss potential side effects before prescribing. For my
diabetes medicines, I went to a couple of classes where possible
medications and their side effects were discussed. When I pick up a
new prescription in person, there is a required consult with the
pharmacist. Usually I receive a detailed handout with different
things, including possible side effects, from the HMO pharmacy.
Another example of the devil you know being better than the one you don't
know.

DrG
Dan Abel
2004-06-24 19:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Leukoma
Post by Dan Abel
Another anecdotal example of why my HMO is better than
fee-for-service.
Another example of the devil you know being better than the one you don't
know.
I can't deny the truth in that. I signed up for Kaiser in 1972 and have
been with them ever since. I certainly can't say that Kaiser is *always*
better or even *usually* better, just that there are examples where it is
better.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
***@sonic.net
Mike Tyner
2004-06-23 19:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Otis Brown
However you might feel about the minus lens,
there is a good deal of DIRECT experimental
(not "derived" not "conjectured") that demonstrates
that when you place a minus lens on the natural
eye -- the refractive status will move negative
proportional to the strength of the applied minus lens.
Another point, besides your fictitious evidence:

We don't put minus lenses on "natural" eyes. We put them on myopic eyes, to
restore the same "natural" environment enjoyed by non-myopes.

-MT
Dr. Leukoma
2004-06-23 01:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
Post by Mike Tyner
If it did work, you'd risk hyperopia, something you would curse about
at age 45.
Hopefully hyperopia as we age IS based on genetic background.
My father didn't need reading glasses until close to retirement (65).
My mother never needed them, before passing at 72.
=====================
Would it be possible that not all people respond the same to minus
lenses at the onset of myopia?
Indeed, why is it that some people get myopic and others don't, and why do
some get more myopic and others don't?
Post by XMotorXRacer
For almost ALL medical procedures or medicines, there are always a
certain percentage of people that will have adverse reactions to a
treatment.
Logic would follow that a certain % would not have the same reaction
to negative lenses as the general population.
This is a non-sequitur. If you are agreeing with Otis, you are in effect
saying that minus lenses make myopia worse than a placebo lens. Any
medication that would make the condition for which it was prescribed worse,
would not be approved by the FDA.
Post by XMotorXRacer
What I don't understand, is why do ODs automatically assume that
correcting to 20/20 is the best treatment for everyone ( especially
children when the eyes are developing ).
The first reason is because that is the limit of resolution. The second
reason has something to do with the reason that *ALL* children express
pleasure and delight at being able to see clearly, as do most adults.
Perhaps we are all addicted to maximizing our visual potential.
Post by XMotorXRacer
Wouldn't it make senes to do more like the rest of the medical world
and closely monitor the impact of a treatment on an indivdual basis?
If myopia is increasing faster with lenses for a particular patient,
it could be an adverse reaction.
I just examined an 8 year/old patient today. Her visual acuity was 20/100,
and she refracted at -1.50 in both eyes, manifestly and cycloplegically.
She was previously examined last November, and her refraction was -0.50.
She has not worn minus lenses. I would be willing to wager that she will
progress no faster, nor slower with or without minus lenses.
Post by XMotorXRacer
I have 3 children, the younger two are slighly myopic. My oldest
child could see 20/40 at age 7. He did not wear lenses or correction,
he seemed to outgrow it by the time he was 10. He is 11 now and is
seeing better than 20/20.
In that case, I would seriously question the validity of the 20/40
findings. I see quite a few children who will read 20/40, only to refract
plano...its called malingering.
Post by XMotorXRacer
My younger two are at 20/40 (age 6) and 20/30 (age 9) now. Based on
experience with my older son, nothing could convince me to put lenses
on a kid that can see 20/40.
That is your right as a parent. Most of us do not push lenses at the
threshold of myopia for a young child. That is a myth promoted by some
people for the sake of argument. It is called a "straw man."


DrG
Mike Tyner
2004-06-23 04:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
Hopefully hyperopia as we age IS based on genetic background.
Yes, it is. If you have genes and live past 40 or so, you get presbyopia.

I don't mean to sound dogmatic but we had to learn a silly little table in
optometry school to predict how much presbyopia to expect at different ages.
We thought it was stupid because "nobody's _that_ predictable". Turns out
that stupid little table is a pretty reliable way to predict age between 40
and 50.

Presbyopia is "hidden" by a number of conditions but it's still present. A
little myopia, or astigmatism, can alleviate the symptoms but we still get
pretty close to the predicted result once the distance vision is corrected.
Post by XMotorXRacer
My father didn't need reading glasses until close to retirement (65). My
mother never needed them, before passing at 72.
And as Rishi was so fond of saying... the Pope doesn't need reading glasses
either. I presume he's nearsighted because I've seen him read and he doesn't
squint. My mother at 74 doesn't want glasses either. Her prescription is
pl-250x090. She sees vertical lines in the phonebook and horizontal lines on
roadsigns, and she functions just fine. Old people get smaller pupils and
that vastly increases depth-of-field. All of these conditions ameliorate the
symptoms of presbyopia. Squinting does too.
Post by XMotorXRacer
Would it be possible that not all people respond the same to minus lenses at
the onset of myopia?
Of course. Variation is the norm, not the exception. But remember that minus
lenses aren't normally used in the fashion Otis is so fond of describing -
we never overcorrect intentionally. Minus lenses are only used to restore
the same "visual environment" experienced by non-nearsighted people.
Post by XMotorXRacer
For almost ALL medical procedures or medicines, there are always a certain
percentage of people that will have adverse reactions to a treatment.
Logic would follow that a certain % would not have the same reaction to
negative lenses as the general population.
Yes, but the plasticity demonstrated in animals during "emmetropization" is
gone by the time most kids start developing myopia.
Post by XMotorXRacer
What I don't understand, is why do ODs automatically assume that correcting to
20/20 is the best treatment for everyone ( especially children when the eyes
are developing ).
Because seeing less than 20/20 is considered a disability, and because the
risks of aggravating myopia by restoring normal vision are demonstrated to
be small or nonexistent. ("Demonstrated", not "assumed".)
Post by XMotorXRacer
Wouldn't it make senes to do more like the rest of the medical world and
closely monitor the impact of a treatment on an indivdual basis? If myopia is
increasing faster with lenses for a particular patient, it could be an adverse
reaction.
See Parssinen, 1989 Br J Ophth. Kids who remove their glasses, and kids who
wear bifocals, get just as nearsighted as kids who wear myopic correction
full-time. In fact, kids who removed their glasses to read got a little
_worse_.
Post by XMotorXRacer
I have 3 children, the younger two are slighly myopic. My oldest child could
see 20/40 at age 7. He did not wear lenses or correction, he seemed to outgrow
it by the time he was 10. He is 11 now and is seeing better than 20/20.
Accommodative myopia is almost universal in the young. Axial (anatomical)
myopia is something else.
Post by XMotorXRacer
My younger two are at 20/40 (age 6) and 20/30 (age 9) now. Based on experience
with my older son, nothing could convince me to put lenses on a kid that can
see 20/40.
Even poor grades and a lousy batting average?
Post by XMotorXRacer
I'll let nature handle it for now, only time will tell if I am right.
Kids are resilient and they have several ways of coping with myopia, so do
as you please. Be sure the teachers know to move the kid to the front of the
room.

-MT
XMotorXRacer
2004-07-03 19:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francine
Post by XMotorXRacer
My younger two are at 20/40 (age 6) and 20/30 (age 9) now. Based on
experience
Post by XMotorXRacer
with my older son, nothing could convince me to put lenses on a kid that
can
Post by XMotorXRacer
see 20/40.
Even poor grades and a lousy batting average?
Post by XMotorXRacer
I'll let nature handle it for now, only time will tell if I am right.
Kids are resilient and they have several ways of coping with myopia, so do
as you please. Be sure the teachers know to move the kid to the front of the
room.
-MT
I don't buy that a child that can see 20/40 will do worse in school. You make
20/40 sound like a disability. I know quite a few adults that live with 20/40,
just because it is "good enough" and they don't want to deal with the hassle of
eye correction.

My eldest child has better vision (20/15) and worse grades than the younger
two. I don't see the correlation between 20/40 and bad grades. I do
howerver, see a correlation between hours of close up work and worse distance
vision.

My six year old hits a baseball quite well for his age. At this age you
don't need to see the seams on the ball. 20/40 is plenty good for players of
little league status.

This morning my youngest read the 20/30 line for the first time.( just a couple
mistakes). Since he has been on summer break, he spends 80% of his day
outside using distance vision. I think that using his distance vision more
and no use of handheld games is really helping him.

I wonder if I would have put negative lenses on him, and continued letting him
use his game boy at 4" from his face, if he would be able to read any of the
20/30 line today?

Even my vision even fluctuates from 20/15 to 20/25 in the course of a day,
especially after alot of comuter use. I can definately see distance better
with -.25 lenses after 8 hours on the computer. In the morning the added
correction makes no difference. Fluctution of the eyes is normal to a certain
degree.

For a 6 year old, a childs eyes are developing, I really don't see 20/40 as
a problem that needs correction. At this age, and 20/40, I feel it is more
important to teach proper usage of his eyes and avoid hours upon hours of very
closup work.

If he falls to 20/70 ( or worse), I would be a bit more concerned and consider
correction for him.
Dr. Leukoma
2004-07-03 19:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
Post by Francine
Post by XMotorXRacer
My younger two are at 20/40 (age 6) and 20/30 (age 9) now. Based on
experience
Post by XMotorXRacer
with my older son, nothing could convince me to put lenses on a kid that
can
Post by XMotorXRacer
see 20/40.
Even poor grades and a lousy batting average?
Post by XMotorXRacer
I'll let nature handle it for now, only time will tell if I am right.
Kids are resilient and they have several ways of coping with myopia,
so do as you please. Be sure the teachers know to move the kid to the
front of the room.
-MT
I don't buy that a child that can see 20/40 will do worse in school.
You make 20/40 sound like a disability. I know quite a few adults that
live with 20/40, just because it is "good enough" and they don't want
to deal with the hassle of eye correction.
My eldest child has better vision (20/15) and worse grades than the
younger two. I don't see the correlation between 20/40 and bad
grades. I do howerver, see a correlation between hours of close up
work and worse distance vision.
My six year old hits a baseball quite well for his age. At this age
you don't need to see the seams on the ball. 20/40 is plenty good for
players of little league status.
This morning my youngest read the 20/30 line for the first time.( just
a couple mistakes). Since he has been on summer break, he spends 80%
of his day outside using distance vision. I think that using his
distance vision more and no use of handheld games is really helping
him.
I wonder if I would have put negative lenses on him, and continued letting him
use his game boy at 4" from his face, if he would be able to read any
of the 20/30 line today?
Even my vision even fluctuates from 20/15 to 20/25 in the course of a
day, especially after alot of comuter use. I can definately see
distance better with -.25 lenses after 8 hours on the computer. In the
morning the added correction makes no difference. Fluctution of the
eyes is normal to a certain degree.
For a 6 year old, a childs eyes are developing, I really don't see 20/40 as
a problem that needs correction. At this age, and 20/40, I feel it
is more important to teach proper usage of his eyes and avoid hours
upon hours of very closup work.
If he falls to 20/70 ( or worse), I would be a bit more concerned and
consider correction for him.
I agree with you, and so do a host of researchers. In fact, the
correlation between myopia, I.Q., and academic performance are well
established. I never force eyeglasses on any young child who is 20/40.
However, as children get older, they have the same "right" to see clearly
as an adult, and are therefore given the "option." I generally find that
most people want to see clearly, when given the choice.

DrG
Joseph
2004-07-05 21:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Leukoma
I agree with you, and so do a host of researchers. In fact, the
correlation between myopia, I.Q., and academic performance are well
established. I never force eyeglasses on any young child who is 20/40.
However, as children get older, they have the same "right" to see clearly
as an adult, and are therefore given the "option." I generally find that
most people want to see clearly, when given the choice.
This is because IQ and academic performance are functions of how much time
one spends doing close work => myopia.
Joseph
2004-07-05 21:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
This is because IQ and academic performance are functions of how much time
one spends doing close work => myopia.
It should be said that there is more to it than this. For instance, genes
are modelled by the environment, and if those before you have been raised
around close work, you are more likely to be myopic than they were,
especially if those before them were not raised around close work.
Dr. Leukoma
2004-07-05 22:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph
Post by Dr. Leukoma
I agree with you, and so do a host of researchers. In fact, the
correlation between myopia, I.Q., and academic performance are well
established. I never force eyeglasses on any young child who is
20/40. However, as children get older, they have the same "right" to
see clearly as an adult, and are therefore given the "option." I
generally find that most people want to see clearly, when given the
choice.
This is because IQ and academic performance are functions of how much
time one spends doing close work => myopia.
Uh, ya think?

The POINT of my post was that a myopic child is not academically DIS-
advantaged.

DrG

Mike Tyner
2004-07-03 20:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
For a 6 year old, a childs eyes are developing, I really don't see 20/40 as
a problem that needs correction. At this age, and 20/40, I feel it is more
important to teach proper usage of his eyes and avoid hours upon hours of very
closup work.
I agree with all that. And in the most positive light, learning to cope with
20/40 stimulates creativity and teaches social skills.

My only concern is your suspicion that correcting it makes it worse, so it's
something to avoid.

I like the look on kids' faces when they re-discover that trees have leaves,
and when the outfielders discover they can track a fly ball at night.

-MT
Dan Abel
2004-06-21 19:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by XMotorXRacer
I have never tried reading while looking away, but I can easily read the
speedometer, gas guage, etc while looking directly forward while driving.
Reading with one eye and watching TV with the other, I can't do that one....
yet :-)
I have this mental image of a guy who spent enormous time and energy
learning how to run with one leg while walking with the other, only to
find out that since the legs are joined at the hip, it is really pretty
useless.


:-)


Then again, I've seen my daughter in front of the computer, with four
separate Instant Messenger windows, meaning that she was communicating
with four people at the same time, while talking to a fifth on the phone!
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
***@sonic.net
Dr. Leukoma
2004-06-20 02:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Here's a bit more humor: "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." Now,
how is that for a bit of "fringe" science.

I'll make you a challenge: Come visit me for a comprehensive eye
examination, and I will report my findings back to this group. I am loathe
to call anybody a "freak" without objective scientific evidence.

Another challenge to you and Otis: Feel free to open a "Myopia Prevention
Shop" across the street from my office.

DrG
Post by Simpleminded66
This debate is like a comedy show with 'where is the data' being the
punch line. I thought I would drop in and add a bit to the humor.
I am research lawyer. My job is to provide enough evidence to
convince a jury, which does not always need hard evidence. My job
requires me to think out of the box and contradict mainstream thought.
Without "fringe" scientists and theories, the medical world would be
at a standstill.
After reading the debate in this group, I decided to make up a sample
case on this topic based on the arguments in this group, just for my
own amusement.
===================================================
CASE 329487209 - "Environment" VS. "Genetics" in the development of myopia
"Environment" proposes that we ( the environment the eyes are used in
) are largely responsible for myopia. This group contests that myopia
can be reduced or corrected using means other than minus lenses. We
also claim the use of minus lenses that change the environment may
accelerate myopia development. It is acknowledged that the rate of
progression my have a genetic influence, but environmental factors are
present in the majority of myopia cases.
"Genetics" claim that they are the major factor in myopia development
and environment has little or no impact on the development of myopia.
We also state that "minus lenses" is the only correct treatment form
myopia. We further contest any method that goes against this, is as
valid as witchcraft. These witchcraft methods includes vision
therapy, bates, plus lenses, changes in reading habits, and myopia
correction training. We also contest that animal experiments are not
valid evidence because animal eyes may adapt, and human eyes cannot.
------------------------------------
Exhibit 1: Data on developing countries and myopia
Look at the country of Korea. Myopia has increased over 500% since a
high priority has been placed on education and reading. Myopia and
retnial detachments were extremely rare in rural Korea. All of a
sudden, there is a tremendous the rise in both. Has the genetics of
rural Korea suddenly changed?
Not likely.
Has the way the Korean culture uses their eyes changed? Definitely.
The most
convincing myopia studies are not done by scientists or researchers,
but are done on societies.
Exhibit 2: "so called" scientific studies.
A recent study, published in Optometry and Vision Science does seem to
support the fact that minus lenses does not increase myopia in
children.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is not all it seems. The following is a
"a larger study is needed before we can conclude that eyeglass wear
does not affect myopia progression...this is in contradiction to our
previous studies that have shown eyeglass lenses interfering with
vision development"
I am especially leery when results can have a monetary impact on the
funder. Maybe am overly cynical because I have been involved with
other areas of medicine where the right results get published, and the
wrong results get the shredder. Please see the following link, it
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_us&refer=news_index&sid=
a7u 6uKK19dFc
Exhibit 3: Myself
I was dependant on minus lenses since age 5, with no history of myopia
in my family tree. I was led down the road to -7.5D, by an OD that
pushed glasses on children that could see 20/30. This was until; I
started to see a dark screen covering the right side of my left eye.
My long time OD immediately sent me to a retinal specialist. It was
a retina tear. He said it was common due to the elongated shape of
my eye.
He said my eyes were literally tearing themselves apart BEACUSE of the
many years I wore glasses. He told me in the future to make sure my
lenses were less power than I need to see clearly and only use them
when I absolutely had to. He said MANY peoples' eyes will migrate to
20/30 or even 20/40 when corrected to 20/20 with lenses. He stated
that correcting my vision to 20/20 using lenses could further induce
myopia and put me at risk for more retina tears, especially if I wore
them for close up work such as reading. He also suggested that I have
vision therapy to learn to control my myopia.
Today, I do not wear glasses, contacts nor have had refractive
surgery. I would like to demonstrate to the jury, control of
semi-involuntary eye muscles.
I have trained my eyes to do some very unusual things. The mind control of
the eyes goes far beyond what most people realize.
The eye is like a camera with two lenses and separate auto focus on
each. You have to shut off the auto focus and learn to focus
manually. It is very possible to use the eye separately and focus
separately. Most people never explore this. This can be taught very
easily to some, and very difficult for others.
I would demonstrate to the jury, my ability to stare directly at the
sun with no ill effects ( I would also warn anyone not to try this
without being 100% confident in their ability to defocus their eyes )
I can focus one eye at 8 inches and have the other eye focused on an
object 20ft in the opposite direction. I can read a book with my left
eye and watch TV with
the right. It is possible to have complete independent control of
both eye movement and focus. I can look at an object and pull it in
and out of focus with either eye or together. Its all in teaching
your mind that it is OK not to use them together. You have to learn
that each eye is an independent input to the brain.
I can diverge or converge my eyes and see images clearly at any
distance. When I do this, I see two complete and separate images
both with perfect clarity. I can see 20/15 unaided. The last time
I was tested, I was -7.5 in both eyes.
I can center my eye on a target and pick out details in the far
corners of the image. I can read using peripheral vision. I can stare
you in the eyes and read a book lying on the table without eye
movement.
I can bulge my eyes forward 3cm and retract them at will. AM I A CIRCUS FREAK?
Am I genetically different that most people?
No, it's all about control of the mind and eye muscles. Much of
vision is how the mind perceives what is given from its eyes. These
techniques can be taught.
The mind can be taught to filter out the affects of non-perfect vision.
Vision is as much mental as it is physical.
I would then present a large chart and teach them how to converge and
diverge their distance vision. Let them see first hand, watching
things move in and out of focus while converging and diverging to
different levels. I would then show them I can read at least 20/20
with ANY minus lenses that the jury has on them.
I would then let the jury try pinhole glasses and let them be the
judge if it immediately allows them to see better.
Exhibit 4: Animals and CASE Studies
A case study is the ideal method for contradicting mainstream thoughts
in the medical world. If the mainstream thought is the human eye
CANNOT accommodate, all it takes is ONE case to prove mainstream
wrong.
Before any medicine or medical procedure reaches a study group, animal
studies and human case studies are performed to see if it even
warrants additional research.
Alot of "true" scientific research has been done on myopia. There are
case studies of individuals that have proven the eye is able to adapt
to its environment. There have been animal experiments that support
this. Some of this evidence is from well over 50 years ago, before
financial influence became the ruler of scientific research. Much
more is more recent.
A monkey's eyes have the ability to accommodate, and the human eye
cannot? Could nature be that stupid? I have not yet seen any proof
that human eyes are different from animal eyes, in terms of the
ability to accommodate to their environment.
Exhibit 5: AOA guidelines
Even the AOA published guidelines for myopia treatment do recognize
"induced myopia".
The AOA published treatment options for myopia include elimination of
inducing agent, vision theory, patient education, myopia control, and
optical correction ( not in that order).
Risks for correction via lenses: "NOT STATED". I would expect this
say "NONE" if there was no risk of increased myopia induced by
negative lenses.
Here is the AOA position on what can be effectively treated with
visual therapy: treatable conditions include focusing deficiencies,
eye muscle imbalances, motor fusion deficiencies and refractive errors
I know of two insurance plans that now cover vision therapy and
patient education for myopia. This is an expanding trend.
Any medical advice even from a medical professional should be
researched thoroughly. Everyone is different. It is up to the
patient to self monitor any treatment plan prescribed by a doctor.
Many medicines and treatments prescribed by a doctor have over 40%
complication rates. From the literature provided by drug companies,
these side affects are often downplayed, misleading or even falsified.
I have seen people lose legs, arms, feet and even DIE from a very
common drug used to treat high blood pressure. The original research
showed this as a possible side effect, but that study never made it to
the rest of the medical world. MY ADVICE, take any medical advice
from even doctors with a grain of salt. Research it yourself and if
you find contradictions or see your condition worsening, let your
doctor know immediately.
I have been through the standard process for treating myopia (minus
lenses) and almost lost my vision because of it. Here is my
<USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, AS I AM NOT A DOCTOR AND I CONSIDER MYSELF
UNQUALIFIED TO GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE>
For a person showing early signs of myopia: Change eye usage. Things
like teaching them to hold reading material further distance from the
eye. There are documented cases studies where this alone has proven a
dramatic difference in a matter of months. If it is impossible to
change eye usage, plus lenses may be used to artificially change the
environment. This in conjunction with eye training/exercise may
eliminate or prevent myopia from progressing.
As a last resort, if you progresses to worse than 20/50 using the
above treatment, I would use minus lenses to correct to about 20/40,
and never use them while doing up close work. Never allow yourself to
become dependant on lenses for normal day-to-day tasks.
If my interpretation of the AOA guidelines is correct, there is
nothing in my recommendation that contradicts AOA guidelines.
nipidoc
2004-06-20 02:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simpleminded66
This debate is like a comedy show with 'where is the data' being the punch
line. I thought I would drop in and add a bit to the humor.
I am research lawyer. My job is to provide enough evidence to convince a
jury, which does not always need hard evidence. My job requires me to think
out of the box and contradict mainstream thought. Without "fringe" scientists
and theories, the medical world would be at a standstill.
That's fair enough. But once the "fringe" treatment is shown to be
ineffective by properly controlled studies, ethical doctors are supposed to
not continue to use the "fringe" treatment.
Post by Simpleminded66
Exhibit 4: Animals and CASE Studies
A case study is the ideal method for contradicting mainstream thoughts in the
medical world. If the mainstream thought is the human eye CANNOT accommodate,
all it takes is ONE case to prove mainstream wrong.
One case does not prove the mainstream wrong at all. Every once in a while,
a patient will be cured of cancer by going to a witch doctor. Should we
send all cancer patients to witch doctors. Since one case proves the
mainstream wrong, and the witchdoctors right, I guess we should.
Post by Simpleminded66
Alot of "true" scientific research has been done on myopia. There are case
studies of individuals that have proven the eye is able to adapt to its
environment. There have been animal experiments that support this. Some of
this evidence is from well over 50 years ago, before financial influence became
the ruler of scientific research. Much more is more recent.
A monkey's eyes have the ability to accommodate, and the human eye cannot?
Could nature be that stupid? I have not yet seen any proof that human eyes are
different from animal eyes, in terms of the ability to accommodate to their
environment.
I don't know of any doctor that says human eyes can not accommodate. There
is also a difference between emmetropization of neonatal monkies, and the
onset of myopia of humans. And doctors do not deny a role of environment in
the onset of myopia. What we deny is the efficacy of using plus lenses as
prevention, or the notion that using minus lenses somehow accelerates it.
If eyes adapted to their environment, there would be no such thing as
hyperopia. If eyes adapted to their environment, early presbyopes would on
average become MORE myopic, not less as is often the case.
Post by Simpleminded66
Exhibit 5: AOA guidelines
Even the AOA published guidelines for myopia treatment do recognize "induced
myopia".
The AOA published treatment options for myopia include elimination of inducing
agent, vision theory, patient education, myopia control, and optical correction
( not in that order).
Risks for correction via lenses: "NOT STATED". I would expect this say "NONE"
if there was no risk of increased myopia induced by negative lenses.
Here is the AOA position on what can be effectively treated with visual
therapy: treatable conditions include focusing deficiencies, eye muscle
imbalances, motor fusion deficiencies and refractive errors
I know of two insurance plans that now cover vision therapy and patient
education for myopia. This is an expanding trend.
Any medical advice even from a medical professional should be researched
thoroughly. Everyone is different. It is up to the patient to self monitor
any treatment plan prescribed by a doctor. Many medicines and treatments
prescribed by a doctor have over 40% complication rates. From the literature
provided by drug companies, these side affects are often downplayed,
misleading or even falsified. I have seen people lose legs, arms, feet and
even DIE from a very common drug used to treat high blood pressure. The
original research showed this as a possible side effect, but that study never
made it to the rest of the medical world. MY ADVICE, take any medical advice
from even doctors with a grain of salt. Research it yourself and if you find
contradictions or see your condition worsening, let your doctor know
immediately.
I have been through the standard process for treating myopia (minus lenses) and
<USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, AS I AM NOT A DOCTOR AND I CONSIDER MYSELF UNQUALIFIED
TO GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE>
For a person showing early signs of myopia: Change eye usage. Things like
teaching them to hold reading material further distance from the eye.
There
Post by Simpleminded66
are documented cases studies where this alone has proven a dramatic difference
in a matter of months. If it is impossible to change eye usage, plus lenses
may be used to artificially change the environment. This in conjunction with
eye training/exercise may eliminate or prevent myopia from progressing.
This is the part where we differ. Again, why is anyone hyperopic? Why did
the 35 year old patent lawyer that I saw today have the same presciption
(plano) that he has had for years? He does not use glasses for either
distance or near. Contrary to that, why did the truck driver that I saw two
weeks ago increase in myopia? What is in his "average visual environment"
that would cause this?
Post by Simpleminded66
As a last resort, if you progresses to worse than 20/50 using the above
treatment, I would use minus lenses to correct to about 20/40, and never use
them while doing up close work. Never allow yourself to become dependant on
lenses for normal day-to-day tasks.
This has been tried for years, and there are no studies that show it's
effectiveness. In fact, some studies have shown that this may ACCELERATE
myopic progression.

nipidoc
Otis Brown
2004-06-20 04:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear Simpleminded,

My own research was aimed to change the "context" of
the argument -- to remove any "threat" to the OD
who argues about the "defective eye".

This is indeed an "intellectual's argument".

Some engineers turn-on to it, others turn-off.

It tends to be and either-or situation.

In any event, I like your style. It is not
my purpose to "fix blame", but rather, to
look to the future, and work to a "better"
solution for those highly motivated pilots
and engineers who have REAL INTEREST in
both the science of prevention as well
as the motivation.

A critical LEGAL issues, it the person himself.

If I give "advice", the it is clearly "engineering"
not "medical". If I advocate change (i.e, use
of the plus for prevention) then I basically
say -- I wish I was on the threshold -- and
could use the "preventive" method under MY OWN CONTROL.

The legal and ethical issue is of great importance
to us (who wish to make the second-opinion effective).

We do need a lawyer to assess our logical arguments
about a preventive effort we are proposing at
Embry-Riddle. The site is:

www.myopiafree.com

and the page will be found by clicking on "Areonautical College".

Everyone (the general public) wants to be told,
nearsightedness, is "easy, simple and quick".

In fact it can never be that way.

Prevention requires motivation and self-intellegence,
and respect for all the difficulties. I look forward
to the day when people who have the motivation are
offered the chance to use the preventive method
(under their OWN CONTROL) properly -- for their
own long-term visual welfare.

I will review your legal arguments offline.

Best,

Otis
Engineer
Post by Simpleminded66
This debate is like a comedy show with 'where is the data' being the punch
line. I thought I would drop in and add a bit to the humor.
I am research lawyer. My job is to provide enough evidence to convince a
jury, which does not always need hard evidence. My job requires me to think
out of the box and contradict mainstream thought. Without "fringe" scientists
and theories, the medical world would be at a standstill.
After reading the debate in this group, I decided to make up a sample case on
this topic based on the arguments in this group, just for my own amusement.
===================================================
CASE 329487209 - "Environment" VS. "Genetics" in the development of myopia
"Environment" proposes that we ( the environment the eyes are used in ) are
largely responsible for myopia. This group contests that myopia can be reduced
or corrected using means other than minus lenses. We also claim the use of
minus lenses that change the environment may accelerate myopia development. It
is acknowledged that the rate of progression my have a genetic influence, but
environmental factors are present in the majority of myopia cases.
"Genetics" claim that they are the major factor in myopia development and
environment has little or no impact on the development of myopia. We also
state that "minus lenses" is the only correct treatment form myopia. We
further contest any method that goes against this, is as valid as
witchcraft. These witchcraft methods includes vision therapy, bates, plus
lenses, changes in reading habits, and myopia correction training. We also
contest that animal experiments are not valid evidence because animal eyes may
adapt, and human eyes cannot.
------------------------------------
Exhibit 1: Data on developing countries and myopia
Look at the country of Korea. Myopia has increased over 500% since a high
priority has been placed on education and reading. Myopia and retnial
detachments were extremely rare in rural Korea. All of a sudden, there is a
tremendous the rise in both. Has the genetics of rural Korea suddenly changed?
Not likely.
Has the way the Korean culture uses their eyes changed? Definitely. The most
convincing myopia studies are not done by scientists or researchers, but are
done on societies.
Exhibit 2: "so called" scientific studies.
A recent study, published in Optometry and Vision Science does seem to support
the fact that minus lenses does not increase myopia in children.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is not all it seems. The following is a quote from
"a larger study is needed before we can conclude that eyeglass wear does not
affect myopia progression...this is in contradiction to our previous studies
that have shown eyeglass lenses interfering with vision development"
I am especially leery when results can have a monetary impact on the funder.
Maybe am overly cynical because I have been involved with other areas of
medicine where the right results get published, and the wrong results get the
shredder. Please see the following link, it illustrates exactly what I am
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_us&refer=news_index&sid=a7u
6uKK19dFc
Exhibit 3: Myself
I was dependant on minus lenses since age 5, with no history of myopia in my
family tree. I was led down the road to -7.5D, by an OD that pushed glasses
on children that could see 20/30. This was until; I started to see a dark
screen covering the right side of my left eye. My long time OD immediately
sent me to a retinal specialist. It was a retina tear. He said it was
common due to the elongated shape of my eye.
He said my eyes were literally tearing themselves apart BEACUSE of the many
years I wore glasses. He told me in the future to make sure my lenses were
less power than I need to see clearly and only use them when I absolutely had
to. He said MANY peoples' eyes will migrate to 20/30 or even 20/40 when
corrected to 20/20 with lenses. He stated that correcting my vision to 20/20
using lenses could further induce myopia and put me at risk for more retina
tears, especially if I wore them for close up work such as reading. He also
suggested that I have vision therapy to learn to control my myopia.
Today, I do not wear glasses, contacts nor have had refractive surgery. I
would like to demonstrate to the jury, control of semi-involuntary eye muscles.
I have trained my eyes to do some very unusual things. The mind control of
the eyes goes far beyond what most people realize.
The eye is like a camera with two lenses and separate auto focus on each. You
have to shut off the auto focus and learn to focus manually. It is very
possible to use the eye separately and focus separately. Most people never
explore this. This can be taught very easily to some, and very difficult for
others.
I would demonstrate to the jury, my ability to stare directly at the sun with
no ill effects ( I would also warn anyone not to try this without being 100%
confident in their ability to defocus their eyes )
I can focus one eye at 8 inches and have the other eye focused on an object
20ft in the opposite direction. I can read a book with my left eye and watch
TV with
the right. It is possible to have complete independent control of both eye
movement and focus. I can look at an object and pull it in and out of focus
with either eye or together. Its all in teaching your mind that it is OK not
to use them together. You have to learn that each eye is an independent input
to the brain.
I can diverge or converge my eyes and see images clearly at any distance.
When I do this, I see two complete and separate images both with perfect
clarity. I can see 20/15 unaided. The last time I was tested, I was -7.5 in
both eyes.
I can center my eye on a target and pick out details in the far corners of the
image. I can read using peripheral vision. I can stare you in the eyes and
read a book lying on the table without eye movement.
I can bulge my eyes forward 3cm and retract them at will. AM I A CIRCUS FREAK?
Am I genetically different that most people?
No, it's all about control of the mind and eye muscles. Much of vision is how
the mind perceives what is given from its eyes. These techniques can be taught.
The mind can be taught to filter out the affects of non-perfect vision.
Vision is as much mental as it is physical.
I would then present a large chart and teach them how to converge and diverge
their distance vision. Let them see first hand, watching things move in and
out of focus while converging and diverging to different levels. I would
then show them I can read at least 20/20 with ANY minus lenses that the jury
has on them.
I would then let the jury try pinhole glasses and let them be the judge if it
immediately allows them to see better.
Exhibit 4: Animals and CASE Studies
A case study is the ideal method for contradicting mainstream thoughts in the
medical world. If the mainstream thought is the human eye CANNOT accommodate,
all it takes is ONE case to prove mainstream wrong.
Before any medicine or medical procedure reaches a study group, animal studies
and human case studies are performed to see if it even warrants additional
research.
Alot of "true" scientific research has been done on myopia. There are case
studies of individuals that have proven the eye is able to adapt to its
environment. There have been animal experiments that support this. Some of
this evidence is from well over 50 years ago, before financial influence became
the ruler of scientific research. Much more is more recent.
A monkey's eyes have the ability to accommodate, and the human eye cannot?
Could nature be that stupid? I have not yet seen any proof that human eyes are
different from animal eyes, in terms of the ability to accommodate to their
environment.
Exhibit 5: AOA guidelines
Even the AOA published guidelines for myopia treatment do recognize "induced
myopia".
The AOA published treatment options for myopia include elimination of inducing
agent, vision theory, patient education, myopia control, and optical correction
( not in that order).
Risks for correction via lenses: "NOT STATED". I would expect this say "NONE"
if there was no risk of increased myopia induced by negative lenses.
Here is the AOA position on what can be effectively treated with visual
therapy: treatable conditions include focusing deficiencies, eye muscle
imbalances, motor fusion deficiencies and refractive errors
I know of two insurance plans that now cover vision therapy and patient
education for myopia. This is an expanding trend.
Any medical advice even from a medical professional should be researched
thoroughly. Everyone is different. It is up to the patient to self monitor
any treatment plan prescribed by a doctor. Many medicines and treatments
prescribed by a doctor have over 40% complication rates. From the literature
provided by drug companies, these side affects are often downplayed,
misleading or even falsified. I have seen people lose legs, arms, feet and
even DIE from a very common drug used to treat high blood pressure. The
original research showed this as a possible side effect, but that study never
made it to the rest of the medical world. MY ADVICE, take any medical advice
from even doctors with a grain of salt. Research it yourself and if you find
contradictions or see your condition worsening, let your doctor know
immediately.
I have been through the standard process for treating myopia (minus lenses) and
<USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, AS I AM NOT A DOCTOR AND I CONSIDER MYSELF UNQUALIFIED
TO GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE>
For a person showing early signs of myopia: Change eye usage. Things like
teaching them to hold reading material further distance from the eye. There
are documented cases studies where this alone has proven a dramatic difference
in a matter of months. If it is impossible to change eye usage, plus lenses
may be used to artificially change the environment. This in conjunction with
eye training/exercise may eliminate or prevent myopia from progressing.
As a last resort, if you progresses to worse than 20/50 using the above
treatment, I would use minus lenses to correct to about 20/40, and never use
them while doing up close work. Never allow yourself to become dependant on
lenses for normal day-to-day tasks.
If my interpretation of the AOA guidelines is correct, there is nothing in my
recommendation that contradicts AOA guidelines.
Loading...