Discussion:
Could all my myopia be pseudomyopia? See accomodative amplitude
(too old to reply)
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-04 08:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Age Amplitude of Accommodation


5 16.00 diopters
10 14.00 diopters
15 12.00 diopters
20 10.00 diopters
25 8.50 diopters
30 7.00 diopters
35 5.50 diopters
40 4.50 diopters
45 3.50 diopters
50 2.50 diopters
55 1.75 diopters
60 1.00 diopter
65 0.50 diopter
70 0.25 diopter
75 0.12 diopter


I am almost 25 yet I have only 2.5 diopters of accomodation! This would
mean I have 5.5 diopters of pseudomyopia, making me a mild latent
hyperope! Of course I doubt I have anywhere near this much
pseudomyopia. Myopia is in our family genes and if pseudomyopia were
suspect, my mom wouldnt be a -8. Could even a small amount of
pseudomyopia cause accomodative dysfunction due to cilinical muscle
spasms?

I remember I got my first -1 glasses when I was 12, it kept getting
worse till im now a -5! I suspect I have an easy one diopter
pseudomyopia and wouldnt be supprised if its considerabily more. When I
wear strong glasses(my full pescription) things become more blurry when
I take them off or go to weaker glasses. After a few hours things clear
a little.

My parents and optometrist dont believe in eye exercises, but its been
working for me. I have achieved at least a half diopter improvement
since I started several months ago. I may have a long way yet to go. I
was just thinking something disturbing: what if someone gets lasik and
he has any pseudomyopia and ends up plano? He will be a hyperope as he
gets older and presbyopia sets in! I sure hope they give everyone
cycoplegic refractions before refractive surgury!
RM
2005-12-04 14:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Could even a small amount of
pseudomyopia cause accomodative dysfunction due to cilinical muscle
spasms?
Have you had a cycloplegic exam? What was your cycloplegic refraction and
how much did it differ from your manifest refraction? It seems reasonable
to me to suspect that you are overminused but the cycloplegic results would
be definitive.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
was just thinking something disturbing: what if someone gets lasik and
he has any pseudomyopia and ends up plano? He will be a hyperope as he
gets older and presbyopia sets in! I sure hope they give everyone
cycoplegic refractions before refractive surgury!
Yes. LASIK patients get a cycloplegic exam before surgery.
Neil Brooks
2005-12-04 15:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by RM
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Could even a small amount of
pseudomyopia cause accomodative dysfunction due to cilinical muscle
spasms?
Have you had a cycloplegic exam? What was your cycloplegic refraction and
how much did it differ from your manifest refraction? It seems reasonable
to me to suspect that you are overminused but the cycloplegic results would
be definitive.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
was just thinking something disturbing: what if someone gets lasik and
he has any pseudomyopia and ends up plano? He will be a hyperope as he
gets older and presbyopia sets in! I sure hope they give everyone
cycoplegic refractions before refractive surgury!
Yes. LASIK patients get a cycloplegic exam before surgery.
As a *patient* who has severe accommodative spasms (pseudomyopia is a
part of this), here's my $0.02:

If you think you're dealing with this, it's my opinion that a strong
cycloplegic (Cyclogyl/Homatropine/Atropine) is the only way to go. I
had roughly 3d (or more) of accommodative amplitudes "locked" up in
spasm for years (causing pain, nausea, dizziness, and fatigue).

Cycloplegic refractions with the usual drugs (Midriacyl, Epinephrine,
Cyclomidryl) showed the same Rx as a dry refraction, causing doctors
to conclude that I "simply" had ZERO accommodative amplitudes.

Only a four-day regimen of Atropine truly "unlocked" it.

Before that Atropine regimen, though, I had a strabismus surgery to
correct crossing eyes. Eye alignment and accommodation are linked.
We overcorrected, via the surgery, because we hadn't uncovered all of
the hyperopia. Now, my eyes turn substantially *out*, forcing my
(dysfunctional) accommodative system to turn them in, and driving
accommodation that (causes nasty symptoms and that) I'm ill-equipped
to sustain.

To your point: Had we used the Atropine prior to the surgery (who
knew?), we'd have arrived at different numbers and done the surgery to
a lesser degree.

Good luck!
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-05 06:41:34 UTC
Permalink
I remember having one when I was a little boy. Maybe they thought any
myopia I had was pseudo? I do remember everything nearby being very
blurry and when they let me choose a toy out of the box I couldnt
properly see it even at arms length!


"Yes. LASIK patients get a cycloplegic exam before surgery."

I sure hope every one of them do!


"If you think you're dealing with this, it's my opinion that a strong
cycloplegic (Cyclogyl/Homatropine/Atropine) is the only way to go"


Is this dangerous in any way? should I assume most optometrists have
some of that cycloplegic agent in their office to administer? How long
do/did the effects last? if im gonna get a cycloplegic refraction, my
best bet is to go with one of those to really rule out pseudomyopia.

"Only a four-day regimen of Atropine truly "unlocked" it."


you got it everyday for 4 days?


"Several different possibilities
exist other than presbyopia, which is purely age-related."


I still see many people say they developed presbyopia early, some in
their teens!
Neil Brooks
2005-12-05 15:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by a***@yahoo.com
"If you think you're dealing with this, it's my opinion that a strong
cycloplegic (Cyclogyl/Homatropine/Atropine) is the only way to go"
Is this dangerous in any way? should I assume most optometrists have
some of that cycloplegic agent in their office to administer? How long
do/did the effects last? if im gonna get a cycloplegic refraction, my
best bet is to go with one of those to really rule out pseudomyopia.
Not that I'm aware of. The problems with cycloplegics -- nearly all
cycloplegics -- comes with LONG-term use, and comes from the
preservative, Benzalkonium Chloride. Controlled use, in an eye
doctor's office, has never caused any real issues, to my knowledge.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by a***@yahoo.com
"Only a four-day regimen of Atropine truly "unlocked" it."
you got it everyday for 4 days?
Yeah. Actually, it gets worse. Because the accommodative spasm
returned when I went back to work, I eventually wound up using
Atropine twice a day, every day. Long story. Not particularly
cheery, either....

At your age, and in your case, if strong cycloplegia indicates you
have accommodative spasm, I'd recommend finding a good vision
therapist to increase your accommodative amplitudes and facility.

You also may benefit from either bifocals or from (you're MYopic,
right) not wearing your glasses when reading (forgive me if you know
this or if it was covered already on s.m.v).

Good luck!
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
Dr. Leukoma
2005-12-04 15:49:15 UTC
Permalink
I am delighted to see that Neil has just addressed this.

In my experience, the pseudomyopic component of myopia is typically no
more than one or two diopters. As Neil said, accommodation is often
recruited by the convergence system in cases of convergence
insufficiency. In fact, some binocular vision texts specifically state
that over-minusing can help patients with CI.

Then, there are patients who just have a low accommodative amplitude,
and others who have a high AC/A ratio. Several different possibilities
exist other than presbyopia, which is purely age-related.

DrG
William Stacy
2005-12-05 07:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Age Amplitude of Accommodation
5 16.00 diopters
10 14.00 diopters
15 12.00 diopters
20 10.00 diopters
25 8.50 diopters
30 7.00 diopters
35 5.50 diopters
40 4.50 diopters
45 3.50 diopters
50 2.50 diopters
55 1.75 diopters
60 1.00 diopter
65 0.50 diopter
70 0.25 diopter
75 0.12 diopter
Not sure about that table. I think it's too generous between ages 40
and 60. At least from my practice experience. Some of it may be depth
of focus, maybe something to do with the way it was measured.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
I am almost 25 yet I have only 2.5 diopters of accomodation!
This is pretty unusual. Again, I'm thinking there might be a problem
with the way it's being measured. You might also be a good candidate for
some vision therapy, as you may just not have "learned" the ability to
focus way up close. How was your 2.5 D. measured? And was it
monocularly or binocularly?

This would
Post by a***@yahoo.com
mean I have 5.5 diopters of pseudomyopia, making me a mild latent
hyperope! Of course I doubt I have anywhere near this much
pseudomyopia.
Not a chance.

Myopia is in our family genes and if pseudomyopia were
Post by a***@yahoo.com
suspect, my mom wouldnt be a -8. Could even a small amount of
pseudomyopia cause accomodative dysfunction due to cilinical muscle
spasms?
I don't think so. Ciliary muscle spasms would cause MORE accommodation,
not less.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
I remember I got my first -1 glasses when I was 12, it kept getting
worse till im now a -5! I suspect I have an easy one diopter
pseudomyopia and wouldnt be supprised if its considerabily more. When I
wear strong glasses(my full pescription) things become more blurry when
I take them off or go to weaker glasses. After a few hours things clear
a little.
That's normal.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
My parents and optometrist dont believe in eye exercises, but its been
working for me. I have achieved at least a half diopter improvement
since I started several months ago. I may have a long way yet to go.
What kind of exercises?

I
Post by a***@yahoo.com
was just thinking something disturbing: what if someone gets lasik and
he has any pseudomyopia and ends up plano? He will be a hyperope as he
gets older and presbyopia sets in! I sure hope they give everyone
cycoplegic refractions before refractive surgury!
Of course they do. And ending up plano is usually the goal, except for
those over age 40 who want a bit of monovision (myopia in one eye to
help with the presbyopia, which surely will set in, if the patient lives
long enough.

w.stacy, o.d.
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-05 21:19:19 UTC
Permalink
I agree. Way too generous especially for the higher ages. I think that
table is too generous, period. I can focus up close fine without
glasses. I am more interested in resolving my probable pseudomyopia
than having super accomodation. I measured my accomodation by the
difference between minimum and maximum points. For example, my -5 left
eye has a nearpoint of 20cm but I can zoom in down to 13cm. This means
im using 2.5 diopters of accomodation. With my -5.5 glasses I got
several months ago, the 16" nearpoint snellen is a little blurry. To
read anything with strong glasses on, they have to be removed or peek
under.


so ciliary muscle spasms and pseudomyopia are two different things?
pseudomyopia locks in some of your accomodation so less is available.
as for eye exercises, theres many kinds. Palming is very popular. Plus
lense is another popular one. T-glasses has been mentioned in my book.
This means you undercorrect yourself on purpose at all times which is
what im doing. For the computer and house I wear -3.25 glasses and I
see perfectly well near and intermediate. When I go out of the house I
wear -4.25s which only slightly undercorrect me. Dont worry, I dont
drive and if I do, I would wear the power that gives me my 20/30 BCVA.
I am slowly resolving my pseudomyopia by undercorrecting myself.

monovision isnt for everyone and I still would see blurry in one eye at
all times which is very annoying! I much prefer both eyes to be equal
even if both are undercorrected.


"Atropine twice a day, every day. Long story. Not particularly
cheery, either...."

ouch what happened?


"You also may benefit from either bifocals or from (you're MYopic,
right) not wearing your glasses when reading (forgive me if you know
this or if it was covered already on s.m.v)."


I already take my glasses off to read, its clearer that way. I use a
method to attempt to improve my vision, read at the point of slight
blur which should relax your eyes.

"By the way, if you have increased you accommodation by 1/2D in several

months, you can't be spending much time on it."

I improved my vision by 1/2d by reducing my pseudomyopia. This means my
distance vision is a little less blurry now. I have been bugging my
parents to take me for an eye exam and ill ask the optometrist for a
cycoplegic refraction too. Problem is I need to convince them theres
something wrong with my eyes!
CatmanX
2005-12-06 07:24:31 UTC
Permalink
you're 23 bozo, make an appointment yourself. Or are you a 13yo
pretending???
Dick Adams
2005-12-06 18:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by CatmanX
you're 23 bozo, make an appointment yourself. Or are you a 13yo
pretending???
Catman, you are not seeming to be very supportive. I hope you are
not mistreating your cat(s). Do you actually have a cat, or some cats?
Can you post a picture?

My cat, Muffin Man, is here: http://home.att.net/~muffkat/

--
dicky
CatmanX
2005-12-06 19:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Sorry Dick.

This twit is posting total nonsense over at alt.lasik.eyes about how he
is going to have 5 procedures to get Lasik, how he has high order
aberrations, no accommodation, how he determines his script by how far
away from his face he can see and converting to dioptres etc.

He keeps saying his mum and dad won't let him get an eye test and won't
let him do eye exercises because they don't believe in it.

I have been telling him for weeks to get his eyes tested and we can
discuss the facts, but he doesn't do this and continues to talk total
drivel on subjects he knows nothing of.

I would have some sympathy, and solutions if this clown actually did
something proactive and not sat in front of a computer waffling about
his prescription, which he doesn't know, by the way.

So no, I am not very sympathetic, and given the way he talks, he sounds
more like a 13 yo as any self-respecting 23yo as Ace says he is could
make an appointment to get an eye test, drive to the optometrist and
find out what is going on with his eyes.

dr grant
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-06 23:37:33 UTC
Permalink
"about how he is going to have 5 procedures to get Lasik"


Its hypothethical and its two, not five. Get a small amount of
correction in one eye and if it works well correct the other eye and if
it works well, enhance the first eye that got the small correction. If
lasik doesnt work for you, better to stop after one eye and since you
got a small correction, anisometropia wont be an issue.


"how he has high order aberrations"


everyone does. I just have it worse and can only be corrected to 20/30
read this
http://www.grendahl.com/wavefront/wavefront_system.html


"no accommodation"


wrong! I can accomodate, just not as well. My dad spoke to the
optometrist when he took grandma there and he just says im too young
for presbyopia but he doesnt know why my accomodation isnt very good.
He also says he can give me a cycoplegic refraction but it wont resolve
anything except give me info. Well I want to know how much pseudomyopia
I have so I can do something about it.

"how he determines his script by how far
away from his face he can see and converting to dioptres etc."

Loading Image...

a +2, +3, +5 whatever lense is in focus at 1/2, 1/3, 1/5, whatever
meters. If my eye has +5 diopters too much focusing power, light is
converged to 20cm focal point. By measuring the exact point where text
becomes perfectly clear, I can tell my pescription. My left eye is
getting 20cm which means its -5 and my right eye is seeing a little
further at 22cm so it must be -4.5!


"He keeps saying his mum and dad won't let him get an eye test and
won't
let him do eye exercises because they don't believe in it."


I do eye exercises anyway, they cant stop me. My eyes are my own
business. I can talk dad into getting me an eye exam.

"like a 13 yo as any self-respecting 23yo as Ace says he is could
make an appointment to get an eye test, drive to the optometrist and
find out what is going on with his eyes."


well I dont drive, not interested in driving. Im trying to get in shape
so I can bike for transportation but right now im not in shape to bike
far.
William Stacy
2005-12-07 02:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
"about how he is going to have 5 procedures to get Lasik"
Its hypothethical and its two, not five. Get a small amount of
correction in one eye and if it works well correct the other eye and if
it works well, enhance the first eye that got the small correction. If
lasik doesnt work for you, better to stop after one eye and since you
got a small correction, anisometropia wont be an issue.
That's a novel approach. We are talking surgery here, real surgery both
times. Almost like saying ok put in an artificial knee, but use a cheap
model so if I like it but want better, I can have it redone. Or if I
don't like it I can leave the turkey in there.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
"how he has high order aberrations"
everyone does. I just have it worse and can only be corrected to 20/30
read this
http://www.grendahl.com/wavefront/wavefront_system.html
That web site is very nice razzmatazz, but the truth is, you don't know
how much of your problem is higher order and how much is lower order.
And the surgeons I work with are backing off wave front as we speak.
Its promises are not being realized in most patients, and the larger
ablations are riskier.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
"no accommodation"
wrong! I can accomodate, just not as well. My dad spoke to the
optometrist when he took grandma there and he just says im too young
for presbyopia but he doesnt know why my accomodation isnt very good.
He also says he can give me a cycoplegic refraction but it wont resolve
anything except give me info. Well I want to know how much pseudomyopia
I have so I can do something about it.
Get the info. and have the cyclo. Maybe not by this guy who thinks it
won't resolve anything. It might resolve a LOT but you'll never know
unless you have it.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
"how he determines his script by how far
away from his face he can see and converting to dioptres etc."
http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/images/healthycomputing/graph8.gif
a +2, +3, +5 whatever lense is in focus at 1/2, 1/3, 1/5, whatever
meters. If my eye has +5 diopters too much focusing power, light is
converged to 20cm focal point. By measuring the exact point where text
becomes perfectly clear, I can tell my pescription. My left eye is
getting 20cm which means its -5 and my right eye is seeing a little
further at 22cm so it must be -4.5!
You'r neglecting the all important OTHER LOWER ORDER ABERRATION,
astigmatism, completely!!!!
Your method only works if you are totally free of astigmatism. How do
you know you are stigmatic?

w.stacy, o.d.
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-07 03:46:01 UTC
Permalink
"That's a novel approach. We are talking surgery here, real surgery
both
times. Almost like saying ok put in an artificial knee, but use a cheap

model so if I like it but want better, I can have it redone. Or if I
don't like it I can leave the turkey in there."


Bad analogy. Lasik is permaent, knee surgury isnt. It doesnt matter
what you put, if you dont like it, out it goes. With lasik you can
simply get enhanced(redo) but not undo it. I guess someone people dont
believe the having one eye done at a time approach. I dont feel like
lecturing this, next topic.


"That web site is very nice razzmatazz, but the truth is, you don't
know
how much of your problem is higher order and how much is lower order.

And the surgeons I work with are backing off wave front as we speak.
Its promises are not being realized in most patients, and the larger
ablations are riskier."


I have been to many optometrists and gotten many eye exams. None could
get me to see a single letter on the 20/20 line and the 20/25 was iffy
with guessing and errors. All my refractive error was already corrected
for. I see some halos and starbursts at night. Your saying they no
longer do wavefront? regular lasik will induce even more aberrations.
If larger ablations are risky then those with big pupils probably
shouldnt get lasik at all.


"Get the info. and have the cyclo. Maybe not by this guy who thinks it

won't resolve anything. It might resolve a LOT but you'll never know
unless you have it."


see my thread specifically on this "Ok dad will take me to an
optometrist or ophthamologist for an exam IF...."


"You'r neglecting the all important OTHER LOWER ORDER ABERRATION,
astigmatism, completely!!!!
Your method only works if you are totally free of astigmatism. How do
you know you are stigmatic?"



http://library.thinkquest.org/26313/ast.htm
Loading Image...
William Stacy
2005-12-07 17:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
All my refractive error was already corrected
for. I see some halos and starbursts at night. Your saying they no
longer do wavefront? regular lasik will induce even more aberrations.
If larger ablations are risky then those with big pupils probably
shouldnt get lasik at all.
I'm saying they are backing off; doing less of it, because it's not
delivering exactly as advertised. Some are still being done. I saw one
this week who had wave front done last week. One eye was pretty good,
the other was not as good as most ordinary lasik delivers. I rest my
case, but you're right, big pupils spell trouble.

I still say if you haven't had topography, you don't know the extent of
any higher order abs you might or might not have.

Re o.d.s prescribing drops and other meds, I submit we do it all the
time and are arguably more up to date than most o.m.d.s on it because we
are required to take much more continuing education on the subject every
year than they do, at least in California where I practice. No question
they are more up to date on surgery, which is what they do best,
although in LASIK optometrists are far more likely to be conservative
and careful in guiding patients than are LASIK surgeons themselves.
There's that little financial incentive that keeps getting in the way of
good judgement...
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-07 23:35:41 UTC
Permalink
"I'm saying they are backing off; doing less of it, because it's not
delivering exactly as advertised. Some are still being done. I saw one
this week who had wave front done last week. One eye was pretty good,
the other was not as good as most ordinary lasik delivers. I rest my
case, but you're right, big pupils spell trouble."


So surgeons are going back to classic lasik? I still think wavefront is
a better bet, it has better odds for a good result. Think of it as
rolling 3 dice(wavefront) or 2 dice(classic) with wavefront your
numbers will be higher most of the time than classic. Of course you can
roll a low number with wavefront or a high number with classic. The
bottom line is have relistic expectations before getting lasik or other
RS. I find that many people fall a little below their BCVA and give up
some quality of vision, especially at night. You may end 20/20 shortly
after lasik but come back in 3 years and many wont be 20/20 anymore. A
good relistic expectation is improved UCVA and reduced dependancy on
glasses. This is percisely what lasik surgeons are saying. They even
put in writing all over. Let me quote:

What can I expect from LASIK?
Laser vision correction surgery has been proven to be very successful
for helping individuals reduce their dependence on glasses and contact
lenses. However, the degree of improvement will vary among individuals.


You, as are all individuals seeking vision correction, are concerned
with reaching a satisfactory outcome. Although Emory Laser Vision
cannot promise patients 20/20 vision, most with mild to moderate
prescriptions do reach this or are close to 20/20 vision. While visual
acuity is a common test for vision, it is not the only measurement
used. Patients should not focus on achieving a 20/20 vision as a
“perfect” vision, the realistic expectation is to reduce
dependency on glasses or contact lenses.


see? They even tell you this! If anyone promises 20/20 vision, they are
setting you for disapointment. The only thing promised(to a high
degree) is youll end up closer to plano for moderate and especially
severe myopes. Low myopes dont even always end close to plano because
their pescription is so slight, they may still end up the same, be
overcorrected and have induced astigmastim. For this reason, I tell
people NOT to bother with lasik if they have less than -2 diopters
myopia. Thier UCVA is already fairly good and they have little more to
gain. On the other hand a -8 is functionally blind so even if he ends
20/40 he will be thrilled! For him, this means no more thick glasses,
no more being "blind" without glasses.


"I still say if you haven't had topography, you don't know the extent
of
any higher order abs you might or might not have."

Loading Image...

I have gotten comments about the orange. Feel free to add your own. I
see better in the left eye than the right.


"although in LASIK optometrists are far more likely to be conservative
and careful in guiding patients than are LASIK surgeons themselves.
There's that little financial incentive that keeps getting in the way
of
good judgement..."

also ask lasik patients themselves and post questions online before
getting lasik. I have asked tons of questions and learned so much about
it. Lasik isnt for me due to various reasons plus id still need
glasses.
William Stacy
2005-12-08 00:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
I still think wavefront is
a better bet, it has better odds for a good result. Think of it as
rolling 3 dice(wavefront) or 2 dice(classic) with wavefront your
numbers will be higher most of the time than classic. Of course you can
roll a low number with wavefront or a high number with classic.
To me it's significant that the ablations are much larger and deeper
with wave front than with classic, so you're further weakening the
cornea, with less remaining material to work with on re-treatments.
Theoretically, you're right, but practically, you may be wrong, and the
surgeons I work with seem to favor more caution with wave front at this
time.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
The
bottom line is have relistic expectations before getting lasik or other
RS. I find that many people fall a little below their BCVA and give up
some quality of vision, especially at night. You may end 20/20 shortly
after lasik but come back in 3 years and many wont be 20/20 anymore. A
good relistic expectation is improved UCVA and reduced dependancy on
glasses.
I'll go along with that, although I have plenty of patients who remain
20/20 UCVA years afterwards.
I've also got a good number who need glasses (weak ones, of course) to
get 20/20 and don't want to bother with retreatment, because retreatment
is another REAL surgery, and healing goes back to day 1 post op again.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
If anyone promises 20/20 vision, they are
setting you for disapointment.
Promising an outcome is always risky business.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Low myopes dont even always end close to plano because
their pescription is so slight, they may still end up the same, be
overcorrected and have induced astigmastim.
They could, but the vast majority of low myopes end up very near plano,
which is what they want. Overcorrection is of course to be avoided like
the plague. The ablations are very minor, and PRK is enjoying a
resurgence esp. with low myopes, because the risks are so low and the
outcomes so good.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
For this reason, I tell
people NOT to bother with lasik if they have less than -2 diopters
myopia. Thier UCVA is already fairly good and they have little more to
gain. On the other hand a -8 is functionally blind so even if he ends
20/40 he will be thrilled! For him, this means no more thick glasses,
no more being "blind" without glasses.
I've never run into anyone who was thrilled with 20/40. That's an awful
outcome, assuming he/she was 20/20 best corrected before LASIK. Funny,
but I often give the opposite advice, except for really low myopes. The
more myopia above -6.00, the more cautious I get. I don't recommend
LASIK for anyone over -10.00. Between -1 and -2.00 AND under 30 years
old, it's pretty much a sure thing, at least as much a sure thing
refractive surgery ever can be.

w.stacy, o.d.
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-10 03:57:40 UTC
Permalink
"To me it's significant that the ablations are much larger and deeper
with wave front than with classic, so you're further weakening the
cornea, with less remaining material to work with on re-treatments.
Theoretically, you're right, but practically, you may be wrong, and the

surgeons I work with seem to favor more caution with wave front at this

time."


For low myopes, wavefront works very well. Wavefront isnt reccomended
if you are more than -5 or -6 or if you have thin corneas. I know
someone who was given the choice of wavefront or regular lasik with the
catch if he gets wavefront, there wont be enough cornea for an
enhancement and if he gets the regular kind, he can get one
enhancement. He took the regular kind and not only did he not need an
enhancement, he ended 20/20 with only a small loss in night vision. For
high myopes, they probably are better off getting phakic IOLs anyway as
compared to removing large amounts of cornea with low chance of 20/20
or plano.


"I've also got a good number who need glasses (weak ones, of course) to

get 20/20 and don't want to bother with retreatment, because
retreatment
is another REAL surgery, and healing goes back to day 1 post op again."


This is why lasik is advertize to reduce(key word here!) dependancy on
glasses. To promise perfect vision and to never need glasses is an
unrealistic claim and would led to disapointment. But to just say
reduced dependancy means you cant be dissapointed if you still need
glasses because they specifically said "reduced" Many people dont
bother getting an enhancement, especially not years down the road if
they regress a bit or their eyes get a little worse. They may only need
glasses occasionally so hence not worth the risk.


"They could, but the vast majority of low myopes end up very near
plano,
which is what they want. Overcorrection is of course to be avoided like

the plague. The ablations are very minor, and PRK is enjoying a
resurgence esp. with low myopes, because the risks are so low and the
outcomes so good."


low myopes are near plano to begin with so to spend $5000 and take a
risk with their eyes seems silly to me when their dependancy on glasses
is slight to begin with. My brother is 20/60 uncorrected and rarely
even wears glasses. Of course if he got surgury he could compare his
20/60 UCVA to his new UCVA but if he gets overcorrected or induced
astigmastim or any other complication, he may still not have clear
vision, not even with glasses. I know a number of people with 20/40 to
20/70 vision who only wear glasses for driving or movies. They dont
feel that surgury is worth the expense and risks for such little
improvement when they already dont really need glasses to begin with.


"I've never run into anyone who was thrilled with 20/40. That's an
awful
outcome, assuming he/she was 20/20 best corrected before LASIK."


The snellen chart does not tell the whole story. Heck Ive seen lots of
people who ended up even with 20/20 who werent happy with the vision
quality wise. 20/40 is quite good vision if the quality is good. I see
20/40 with -4.25 glasses and everything is quite sharp. of course I
cant be corrected much better so I dont have much to compare. People
think whatever they saw was normal and what everyone else saw till
their get glasses for the first them then are totally amazed at the
difference. Ive been there. I didnt even think I had a vision problem
but I begin to suspect something was up when my father and my friends
could see at least twice as far as me. Things also looked a little
clearer when I squinted.

Reguardless, if the 20/40 they end up is of good quality, they would
only need glasses to drive and maybe watch movies. They can keep their
near vision and stay out of reading glasses for some time. Many
surgeons are reluctant to even give an enhancement if your seeing well
enough to legally drive due to taking another risk with enhancement and
possibily ending up worse. I know many sad stories like that. The
origional surgury went well but the enhancement didnt. If they still
insist to enhance, only do one eye at a time, anisometropia isnt an
issue.

"The
more myopia above -6.00, the more cautious I get."

You may want to discuss IOLs. Those have become popular for higher
myopes and im seeing lots of -10s, -8s, some even -6s get that instead.
Also high myopes often regress and many dont have enough cornea or dont
want to risk enhancement. Trading their thick full time glasses for
thin partime glasses is a probable and relistic expectation. Some say
no way, others are delighted for *any* improvement. Hey if I was a high
myope and had no other contrindictions, I would be really happy instead
of waking up to one big blur, things are only a smidgen blurry and
instead of cokebottles full time, I can get paper thin glasses when I
go out of the house. I will also be glad I can put off reading glasses!


"Between -1 and -2.00 AND under 30 years
old, it's pretty much a sure thing"


till presbyopia sets in then they traded their distance glasses for
reading glasses. Sadly most people arent aware of this that a little
myopia will be your friend and you wont need glasses except for
distance like driving, sports, movies, etc. I do NOT reccomend RS if
they are less than -2. Some who are active in sports and outdoors of
course have more reason for RS
William Stacy
2005-12-10 06:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
You may want to discuss IOLs. Those have become popular for higher
myopes and im seeing lots of -10s, -8s, some even -6s get that instead.
I've been pushing iols for presbyopic hyperopes and pre-presbyopic high
hyperopes, but am wary of doing so for myopes, due to the risk of
retinal detachment. Phakic iols are promising, but carry their own
risks, and I consider them to be "experimental" at this point.

w.stacy, o.d.
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-10 08:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Its true theres a risk of retina detachment, but for high myopes, lasik
may not be a possibility and even if it is, its probably just as risky
anyway. If the suction cup is used, this can detach the retina. If PRK
is used, you can develop haze. Many of the complications are from high
myopes. High hyperopes and high astigmatics also are at increased risk
of lasik. Do you believe in a partial lasik(or better yet, surface
ablation) correction for high myopes? This means someone whos like -10
to -12 can end up as a low myope, generally -1 to -3 diopters.
William Stacy
2005-12-10 16:33:58 UTC
Permalink
No. As I said earlier, the higher the myopia (above 6 D.) the more
cautious I get. Obviously corneal thickness and pupil size are crucial.
e.g. I'm ok with -8, 600 mu corneas, and 4 mm pupils, and wouldn't dream
of it if the cornea was 500 mu and the pupils are 7 mm. I can't see much
benefit from half corrections, and 90% ones make even less sense to me.

I'm telling a lot of people to wait for a couple of years until we get
more numbers on phakic iols.

w.stacy, o.d.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Its true theres a risk of retina detachment, but for high myopes, lasik
may not be a possibility and even if it is, its probably just as risky
anyway. If the suction cup is used, this can detach the retina. If PRK
is used, you can develop haze. Many of the complications are from high
myopes. High hyperopes and high astigmatics also are at increased risk
of lasik. Do you believe in a partial lasik(or better yet, surface
ablation) correction for high myopes? This means someone whos like -10
to -12 can end up as a low myope, generally -1 to -3 diopters.
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-10 23:58:02 UTC
Permalink
I still see many high myopes with thin corneas and large pupils get
lasik or prk. Unfortunately large pupils are contrindicted in phakic
IOLs as well. Those large pupil people are probably out of luck and
must deal with glasses and/or contacts. Better than losing some vision
after refractive surgury anyway or ending up undercorrected and still
needing glasses anyway with worse vision. I remember in the past some
surgeons were doing lasik on myopes around -15 diopters! Of course all
of them had ruined vision. Its been found out the hard way that -10 is
the pratical limit but in many cases, -6 to -8 is all that can be done
or itll become too risky. I know a woman who was a -9 and her surgeon
told her shes too nearsighted for a full correction so she will still
need thin glasses. Needless to say she was like forget lasik if I still
need glasses!
Others dont care for a partial correction, especially if they do alot
of near work. Reducing their dependancy on glasses is great and not
needing reading glasses. I for one would not mind a partial correction.
I dont think lasik is for me but ive got interest in ortho-k which if
it doesnt work out, I simply stop wearing those nightly contacts and in
a few weeks ill revert back to the way things were. No surgury done,
nothing permaent either. Ill probably go for an undercorrection of -1
to -1.5 diopters so I dont need reading glasses much. That and ortho-k
cant fully correct me anyway.
Dan Abel
2005-12-11 07:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
I still see many high myopes with thin corneas and large pupils get
lasik or prk.
Yeah, I see tens of thousands every day. Well, maybe just a few
hundred. OK, a dozen. Maybe just one. So, it's just aunt Susie,
what's the big deal? Maybe I don't know how to measure corneal
thickness, I still know how to make stuff up, don't I?
--
Dan Abel
***@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA
Dan Abel
2005-12-09 10:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Bad analogy. Lasik is permaent, knee surgury isnt. It doesnt matter
what you put, if you dont like it, out it goes. With lasik you can
simply get enhanced(redo) but not undo it. I guess someone people dont
believe the having one eye done at a time approach. I dont feel like
lecturing this, next topic.
I take it that you haven't had a lot of knee surgeries.

Or Lasik.

One eye at a time sounds like a plan to me. There is debate about that
here, though. Two surgeries on the same eye just doesn't seem like a
good idea. YMMV.
--
Dan Abel
***@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA
William Stacy
2005-12-09 16:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Abel
One eye at a time sounds like a plan to me. There is debate about that
here, though. Two surgeries on the same eye just doesn't seem like a
good idea. YMMV.
In the early days of LASIK, one eye at at time was done, but there were
so few operative complications that the big complication of having
extreme anisometropia during the intraoperative period was the
determining factor in everyone going to bilateral procedures as the
method of choice. Still, there are times when monocular procedures are
preferred. One such case would be the original poster of this thread.
I would recommend he go one eye at a time, although I'm not much in
favor of the major undercorrection he proposed except for people over 35
years old (in anticipation of monovision correction).

w.stacy, o.d.
Dan Abel
2005-12-07 02:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
"about how he is going to have 5 procedures to get Lasik"
Its hypothethical and its two, not five. Get a small amount of
correction in one eye and if it works well correct the other eye and if
it works well, enhance the first eye that got the small correction. If
lasik doesnt work for you, better to stop after one eye and since you
got a small correction, anisometropia wont be an issue.
I heard a worse idea once. I don't remember what it is, though. Maybe
I'll remember later. If I'm lucky, I won't.

:-(
--
Dan Abel
***@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA
CatmanX
2005-12-05 20:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Did you ever hear the old saying: "a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing."????

You have little knowledge!!!!!

Stop boring us with your concerns for things that don't exist and get
your eyes tested properly. It is really simple.

By the way, if you have increased you accommodation by 1/2D in several
months, you can't be spending much time on it. I can get that in about
2 minutes with any patient, including 85 year olds. After several
months, you should be able to do anything you want.

Like I said, get your eyes tested proerly, get a diagnosis and get
treatment.

dr grant
o***@pa.net
2005-12-11 03:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Dear Acema,

Could all my myopia be pseudomyopia?

In its initial phase, your all your myopia
(say -1.0 diopters) could have been
pseudo-myopia -- which converts
to "real myopia" once you begin
wearing a minus lens all the time.

www.myopiafree.com

Just one man's opinion.

Best,

Otis
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-11 04:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Thats what I thought and that seems to be where most people start off
and if they do things wrong, their eyes grow longer as an adaption
mechanism to make near work easier. The worst thing you can do is use a
minus lense for near work. If you wear contact lenses, use reading
glasses over them. People dont use their eyes right so they get ruined.
I am trying to undo as much damage as I can. Lets say its found out I
have -1.5 diopters in pseudomyopia, can I improve a little beyond that?
I dont think much can be done about axial myopia
William Stacy
2005-12-11 04:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Thats what I thought and that seems to be where most people start off
and if they do things wrong, their eyes grow longer as an adaption
mechanism to make near work easier. The worst thing you can do is use a
minus lense for near work. If you wear contact lenses, use reading
glasses over them. People dont use their eyes right so they get ruined.
I am trying to undo as much damage as I can. Lets say its found out I
have -1.5 diopters in pseudomyopia, can I improve a little beyond that?
I dont think much can be done about axial myopia
That's an attractive misconception that does not explain the people who
get -1.50s and NEVER get worse, even though they wear "the full minus"
full time, nor does it explain the -6 and higher people who never wore
glasses or contacts (I even ran into a -9.00 18 year old who had never
worn glasses or contacts). The fact that all myopia progresses for a
time, then stops progressing regardless of the amount of spectacle wear
also contradicts it. It's convenient to blame the glasses for this, but
it's a classic case of the logical fallacy of post hoc propter hoc. The
fact is that your recommended regimen rarely seems to work in practice.
If you have 1.5 pseudo, you don't have to do anything. It will correct
itself, since it's not really there by definition. And you are right,
structural myopia cannot be improved by not wearing glases, or by
wearing them less, or by not wearing them at all. This has been proven.
There is a psychological adaptation that myopes can make by going
without their spec for a few days that makes them feel their eyes have
improved, but every time you put them in the chair they still have the
same unaided acuity and the same refraction. This adaptation has given
rise to much quackery over the years, some of which has actually harmed
people, which is why people like me tend to spend time trying to expose it.


w.stacy, o.d.
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-11 07:01:39 UTC
Permalink
"That's an attractive misconception that does not explain the people
who
get -1.50s and NEVER get worse, even though they wear "the full minus"
full time"


You are perfectly correct, but then the majority do get worse. Besides
if someone was only a -1.5, glasses would make no difference and just
result in eyestrain for close work even if the eyes dont get worse.
There are some low myopes who for some reason wear glasses even for the
computer, eating, reading and thats a bad thing, results in eyestrain
and in most cases, worsening of eyes due to pseudomyopia and/or axial
myopia.

"nor does it explain the -6 and higher people who never wore
glasses or contacts (I even ran into a -9.00 18 year old who had never
worn glasses or contacts)."

How do they function like that? They wont see a thing more than mare
inches from their eyes. They wont be able to see the board in school,
drive or do most things. The only explanation is maybe they didnt even
know they had a vision problem and got by fine being at home all their
lives, almost never going out, doing lots of reading for entertainment
and knowlege.


"The fact that all myopia progresses for a
time, then stops progressing, It's convenient to blame the glasses for
this"

Well, its been said that glasses will help your myopia progress faster
and longer. Of course one may need glasses for some functions but what
one can do is undercorrect himself whenever possible or wear bifocals.
Ive seen bifocals prescribed to children to slow or stop their
galloping myopia. If you are a low myope and can function without
glasses, do so then. I find it strange that my friends who dont wear
glasses never developed much myopia while those who did rapidly got
worse. Alot of my friends are around a -1 and from 20/25 to 20/70 UCVA.
Some only wear glasses to drive but for nothing else. One of the guys
told me his optometrist pescribed him glasses even though he wasnt even
considered myopic because he probably gets a comission or he owns the
place and pescribes glasses to anyone not 20/20 or plano. Needless to
say he didnt even bother wearing glasses, it didnt seem to make a
difference, he was only a -.5 and 20/25 instead of 20/20 so of course
he found glasses a silly thing. They "broke" oneday and his parents
tossed them out and agreed that the glasses was a complete waste of
money.


"If you have 1.5 pseudo, you don't have to do anything. It will
correct
itself"

stop doing close work or use a plus lense for close work. You need to
give your eyes a chance to rest so they can relax their pseudomyopia.


"And you are right,
structural myopia cannot be improved by not wearing glases, or by
wearing them less, or by not wearing them at all. This has been
proven."

Even some natural vision improvement books indirectly hint this, they
say stuff like different people achieve different levels of
improvement. Its agreed that almost everyone has at least half diopter
pseudomyopia and a fair number have a diopter to a diopter and a half.
I have read into this and cycoplegic refractions and the reports show
most people being a little less cycoplegic than manifast. I guess this
is how they get the 90% figure for vision improvement. I read the diary
of one lady who improved by 1.25 diopters and said her friends all
improved by at least half diopter too. One thing is for certain, you
can slow or stop your eyes from getting worse by using them right.


"There is a psychological adaptation that myopes can make by going
without their spec for a few days that makes them feel their eyes have
improved, but every time you put them in the chair they still have the
same unaided acuity and the same refraction."


My brothers vision improved by half diopter in each eye over the last 3
years. I wouldnt be supprised if he improves more once he finishes
college and stops doing so much close work. He only wears glasses to
drive. He may even be 100% pseudomyopia due to close work. Either way,
his vision now is 20/60 and probably wont be getting any worse.


"some of which has actually harmed people"


maybe because they went without their glasses when they should be
wearing them. Like for driving, you MUST wear full power glasses. For
crossing the street, if you have more than a little myopia, you should
wear glasses strong enough to give you at least 20/100 vision to see
well enough to get about. My vision improvement book talks about
T-glasses where the optometrist will correct you only to 20/40 so you
have room to improve your vision. The patients then come a few months
later with 20/20 or 20/25 vision and get stepped down again in their
pescription!


"It seems that Steve was nearsighted from age 13. He
was "down" to -2.75 diopters (about 20/200), and
now is passing the 20/40 line. I think that Steve was
very lucky, and clearing from that level is very difficult.
It took him about four months to do it."


How much of my -4.5 and -5 pescription can I clear? I already dont use
glasses to read and I undercorrect myself with -3.25 glasses around the
house and -4.25(T-glasses) when I go out which give me 20/40 vision(my
BCVA is only one line better)


"there is at least one contributor on this s.m.v. who
really believes in and promotes the concept of avoiding the "evil
minus"


It cant hurt. Its best to start when you first start getting myopic.
Dont touch the minus and use plus whenever doing close work. If the
eyes still get worse, then work on slowing down the progression of
myopia.


" don't drive (or ride your bike)
without your minus lenses..."

If one is a low myope, he can do most things without glasses. If one
meets the DMVD(?) by being 20/40 UCVA, he has no obligations for
glasses in 99% of the cases(except to pilot a plane) Others can
undercorrect themselves to resolve pseudomyopia. A useful way is get a
cycoplegic refraction using a strong cycoplegia agent then wear glasses
based on your cycoplegic numbers because thats your REAL myopia. If you
cant see 20/40 with your cycoplegic power glasses, then wear full power
only for stuff like driving or watching movies and stick to your
cycoplegic pescription power glasses.
William Stacy
2005-12-11 16:10:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
if someone was only a -1.5, glasses would make no difference and just
result in eyestrain for close work even if the eyes dont get worse.
Where did you hear that -1.5 causes eyestrain at near? While it is
possible, it is certainly not true in all cases, not even in MOST cases.
Most 1.50 wearers have no eyestrain when reading with -1.50, in fact a
lot of exophorics actually get eyestrain if they DON'T wear them.

The only explanation is maybe they didnt even
Post by a***@yahoo.com
know they had a vision problem
exactly correct, although some of them didn't get glasses because of
quack advice to avoid the minus.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Well, its been said that glasses will help your myopia progress faster
and longer.
It's also been said that rubbing a penny on a wart and burying it on a
full moon will cure the wart...

I find it strange that my friends who dont wear
Post by a***@yahoo.com
glasses never developed much myopia while those who did rapidly got
worse.
Here we go agin with post hoc propter hoc. It isn't strange at all to
me that your friends who never developed much myopia didn't need glasses
as much as those who rapidly did so. What could be more obvious???
Post by a***@yahoo.com
"some of which has actually harmed people"
maybe because they went without their glasses when they should be
wearing them. Like for driving, you MUST wear full power glasses.
Exactly correct. Unfortunately some charlatans believe you should drive
with only the minimum legal required vision. There's where some of the
harm comes. The other is from causing amblyopia in some children.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
If one is a low myope, he can do most things without glasses. If one
meets the DMVD(?) by being 20/40 UCVA, he has no obligations for
glasses in 99% of the cases
Oops. Here I gave you credit for being smart enough to see through that
idiotic fallacy. Oh well, another mistake in judgement...

w.stacy, o.d.
o***@pa.net
2005-12-11 18:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Dear Acema,

You will have to strike a "balance" on some of these OD statements.

Stacy> "some of which has actually harmed people"

William will make this statement, while
totally ignoring the stair-case myopia
that develops when you begin wearing an
over-prescribed minus -- all the time, and
pseudo-myopia is converted into
"regular myopia" by that process.

You can see the same thing in the
proven behavior of the primate eye when
you:

1. Place a minus lens on it, or
2. Place the test group in a
more-confined visual environment.

I am certain that William will come
up with some "logic" to deny this
proven behavior of a population
of natural eyes.

At some point -- you should run
these experiments yourself -- and
draw your own conclusion.

But equally, I do acknowledge that
true-prevention is difficult, and
like Steve or Dr. Colgate, you
are left with no choice but
to choose to do it yourself -- if
that is your scientific judgment
in this matter.

I do restrict my statement to
ONLY the prevention of pseud-myopia,
i.e., eye-chart between 20/40 to 20/70,
(before you convert it into "regular"
myopia.) In fact I agree with
William, that once you cross that
threshold by wearing that wretched
minus lens all the time, there
is no real prospect of getting
out of it. (Or William's famous
"axial" myopia.)

As always, enjoy our pleasant
discussions on how to avoid
converting your pseud-myopia
into stair-case myopia.

Best,

Otis
Neil Brooks
2005-12-11 18:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@pa.net
At some point -- you should run
these experiments yourself -- and
draw your own conclusion.
Otis Brown doubles as a macaque for this sort of testing.
Post by o***@pa.net
But equally, I do acknowledge that
true-prevention is difficult,
... and has proved ineffective in numerous studies...
Post by o***@pa.net
and
like Steve or Dr. Colgate, you
are left with no choice but
to choose to do it yourself -- if
that is your scientific judgment
in this matter.
I do restrict my statement to
ONLY the prevention of pseud-myopia,
The piper may be slowly changing his tune here, folks!
Post by o***@pa.net
i.e., eye-chart between 20/40 to 20/70,
(before you convert it into "regular"
myopia.)
Ooops. Relapse. No proof that this occurs, Otis ... and you should
know this by now.
Post by o***@pa.net
In fact I agree with
William, that once you cross that
threshold by wearing that wretched
minus
Oh, that damnable minus lens. The scourge of humanity. If only we'd
found the stockpiles of minus lenses when we invaded Iraq. That would
have shown 'em.
Post by o***@pa.net
lens all the time, there
is no real prospect of getting
out of it. (Or William's famous
"axial" myopia.)
As always, enjoy our pleasant
discussions on how to avoid
converting your pseud-myopia
into stair-case myopia.
The only proven way is ignoring Otis.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
Mike Tyner
2005-12-11 22:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@pa.net
totally ignoring the stair-case myopia
that develops when you begin wearing an
over-prescribed minus -- all the time, and
pseudo-myopia is converted into
"regular myopia" by that process.
You must disregard all the human research to believe this.

Why do you propagate misinformation?

-MT
o***@pa.net
2005-12-11 05:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Dear Acema,
From long conversations with prevention-minded ODs, I found
out that the second-opinion is PREVENTION with a
strong plus -- used on the threshold -- and used
by the person himself.

A great many people lack the fortitud to do this -- and
if offered it -- they will turn it down cold. But then
they must "suffer" the consequences.

Just recently, Steve worked his way out of nearsighedness.
(I am only wlling to "claim" from 20/70 to 20/40 or better.)

You will find his commentary on my site (left hand page)
as Steve to 20/30. Makes an "interesting" read.

www.myopiafree.com

It seems that Steve was nearsighted from age 13. He
was "down" to -2.75 diopters (about 20/200), and
now is passing the 20/40 line. I think that Steve was
very lucky, and clearing from that level is very difficult.
It took him about four months to do it.

As always, enjoy our pleasant analytical discussion
about the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye.

Best,

Otis
William Stacy
2005-12-11 06:15:58 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com wrote:

(questions)

As you can see, there is at least one contributor on this s.m.v. who
really believes in and promotes the concept of avoiding the "evil
minus". He has caused harm on occasion, but you are smart enough to not
be harmed by it, so caveat emptor and don't drive (or ride your bike)
without your minus lenses...

w.stacy, o.d.
Mike Tyner
2005-12-11 13:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@pa.net
In its initial phase, your all your myopia
(say -1.0 diopters) could have been
pseudo-myopia -- which converts
to "real myopia" once you begin
wearing a minus lens all the time.
Just one man's opinion.
Of course, if it were true, all hyperopes would become myopes.

I haven't seen that happen. Perhaps you have.

-MT
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-12 01:49:28 UTC
Permalink
"Of course, if it were true, all hyperopes would become myopes."


http://www.i-see.org/allen_hyp.html

very good article on emmetropization. Its normal for babies and young
children to be hyperopic. If they have high hyperopia, give them the
minimum needed for clear distance vision and let them accomodate the
rest and go thru emmetropization. Keep bumping down their pescription
to encourage emmetropization. If enough of their hyperopia has been
emmetropized, they no longer need correction till they start getting
presbyopia.


"how does pseudomyopia convert to "real" myopia? does the eyeball get
longer? does the cornea change its curvature? does the index of
refraction of the ocular media change? does the lens change its
curvature within the eye (without the action of the ciliary muscle
which would then be classified as pseudomyopia)? do you understand
physiological optics?"

most often from axial myopia. This means the eyeball grows longer when
overstimulated with close work then it undergoes a response of
enlongating to faciliate near seeing.

"Where did you hear that -1.5 causes eyestrain at near?"

when wearing minus glasses when you shouldnt, dont need to. If someone
is only a -1.5 he only needs glasses for distance seeing, NOT near!


"exactly correct, although some of them didn't get glasses because of
quack advice to avoid the minus."


as long as they can see and function fine without glasses, then theres
no need. Its common for low myopes to forgo glasses like my brother.
Many dont even believe in avoiding the minus for the sake of improving
their eyes, they avoid it because glasses are an inconvinence. The
lense gets smeared and dusty alot, glasses are a presence and weight on
the face and some people dont like the way they look with glasses.


"Here we go agin with post hoc propter hoc. It isn't strange at all to

me that your friends who never developed much myopia didn't need
glasses
as much as those who rapidly did so. What could be more obvious???"


But if those people who wore glasses developed more myopia, it explains
it. Most everyone starts out with slight myopia. Some chose not to
bother with glasses, others do and need stronger and stronger glasses.
Coincidence or what?


"Exactly correct. Unfortunately some charlatans believe you should
drive
with only the minimum legal required vision. There's where some of the

harm comes. The other is from causing amblyopia in some children."

If driving with the minimum 20/40 vision was harmful then the
requirement should be 20/25 or something. This of course would leave
more people out from driving but it would support your statement that
20/40 is not good enough to safely drive. By your statement, I probably
shouldnt drive because my BCVA isnt good enough, especially not at
night. I dont drive but I have other excuses besides my vision. As for
amblyopia, this is often caused by anisometropia, one eye being much
more dormant than the other, seeing much better than the other. Use the
patch to exercise the weaker eye!

"the stair-case myopia
that develops when you begin wearing an
over-prescribed minus -- all the time, and
pseudo-myopia is converted into
"regular myopia" by that process."


This seems to explain perfectly how me and my friends became more and
more myopic and each time our glasses got bumped up, our eyes would
rapidly get worse then slow down due to the now too weak glasses. One
time I put off getting new glasses for 2 years and my vision didnt get
any worse than it did after one year then as soon as I got the new
glasses in 3 months it got another half diopter worse then stopped.


"You can see the same thing in the
proven behavior of the primate eye when
you:


1. Place a minus lens on it, or
2. Place the test group in a
more-confined visual environment."

exactly! read this on the net, its been proven!


"Oh, that damnable minus lens. The scourge of humanity. If only we'd
found the stockpiles of minus lenses when we invaded Iraq. That would
have shown 'em."

LOL! In its defense, the minus lense can be used for stuff like
driving, watching movies, reading the chalkboard from back of class or
basically using it for distance seeing. DO however go without glasses
for near seeing and if your a low myope, forgo wearing glasses around
the house and in familiar surroundings.
Mike Tyner
2005-12-12 02:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
most often from axial myopia. This means the eyeball grows longer when
overstimulated with close work then it undergoes a response of
enlongating to faciliate near seeing.
It may be so. But what human study shows we can manipulate it by wearing or
not wearing lenses after the age of 10?
Post by a***@yahoo.com
when wearing minus glasses when you shouldnt, dont need to. If someone
is only a -1.5 he only needs glasses for distance seeing, NOT near!
Maybe, maybe not. Some have convergence issues and are more comfortable with
them than without. Less "eyestrain," they say, whatever that is.

Accommodating is not a "strain" for normal young people. They have an
overabundance of it.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
But if those people who wore glasses developed more myopia, it explains
it. Most everyone starts out with slight myopia. Some chose not to
bother with glasses, others do and need stronger and stronger glasses.
Coincidence or what?
How do you know those with glasses got more myopic? In controlled studies,
the two groups don't really differ. If you find a study that says otherwise,
please clue us in.
Post by a***@yahoo.com
This seems to explain perfectly how me and my friends became more and
more myopic and each time our glasses got bumped up, our eyes would
rapidly get worse then slow down due to the now too weak glasses.
Yes but I'm not so sure you used sound sampling principles when choosing
your experimental and control groups.

I've seen studies where the participants were chosen much more carefully and
those studies say it doesn't make much difference whether you wear glasses
or not. Some of them even indicate it's better to leave them on full time,
but not enough to make any rigid recommendations.

-MT
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-12 09:15:08 UTC
Permalink
"It may be so. But what human study shows we can manipulate it by
wearing or
not wearing lenses after the age of 10?"

http://www.i-see.org/eyeglasses_harmful/chap2.html

http://members.aol.com/myopiaprev/

http://members.aol.com/myopiaprev/prv1.htm

"Maybe, maybe not. Some have convergence issues and are more
comfortable with
them than without. Less "eyestrain," they say, whatever that is.
Accommodating is not a "strain" for normal young people. They have an
overabundance of it."


Do not wear full-strength prescription minus-lens glasses (the type
given to nearsighted people) when doing near work. These glasses make
close things appear even closer -- wearing them for close work is the
worst thing you can do. Normal and mildly nearsighted people can read
fine without glasses. Need glasses to read? Use weaker lenses for
nearwork
If you are already quite nearsighted and need glasses to read, then
those glasses you use for reading should be 1.50 to 2.00 diopters
weaker than your full distance prescription. Why? Your full-strength
glasses are made for distance vision, not for close work! The goal for
a weaker prescription is the same as with reading glasses: things at
your normal reading distance should be slightly blurry. Example: If
your distance prescription is -4.50 diopters, you'd want about -2.50 to
-3.00 D for reading.

****This is what I do! My real pescription is -4.5 to -5 but I wear
-3.25 glasses. My undercorrection is about -1.5 diopters which reduces
me from 20/30 to 20/80 but its great for near and intermediate. I often
just read without glasses alltogether at a distance slightly blurry to
me to relax my ciliary muscles****


"I've seen studies where the participants were chosen much more
carefully and
those studies say it doesn't make much difference whether you wear
glasses
or not."

and ive seen the opposite. Besides theres no harm using the plus lense
as ive said. If it doesnt work then youll be more myopic. Not using the
plus lense will make you more myopic anyway, might as well try!


"The 20/40 rule is there because they have to draw the line somewhere,
just like the 1/8" rule. It is NOT a suggestion! I'm pretty sure you
are smart enough to understand what I'm saying."


I understand but the thing is most people will not care either way.
Theres millions of people driving with outdated glasses pescriptions,
some not even seeing 20/40! Theres tons of people whos vision got
ruined with lasik but still drive. Heck theres many people who drive
when they arent feeling well and this affects their concentration. Many
low myopes who meet the DMVD dont bother even getting glasses and have
never worn or will ever wear glasses, period. Dont worry about me, I
dont drive. I can meet the 20/40 requirement but I wont make a very
safe driver vs. someone who can see 20/20. I also have several other
reasons for not wanting to drive. Theres also other reasons for high
vision requirements, some jobs and activities require very good vision.
In most cases its important to see the best one can but if someone is
at home, its perfectly acceptable to wear weaker glasses around the
house. Its also acceptable for doing lots of near work, in fact many
people DONT see very well with their distance glasses for near work.
Dick Adams
2005-12-12 15:43:19 UTC
Permalink
With regard to Ace's inquiries and discussion:

I have considerable empathy since, at his age, I was going
through much the same quandary as he is.

This was my theory, and it made considerable sense.
http://home.att.net/~muffkat/accomodation/

It still does. It makes a whole lot more sense than
the axial-length-changing theory.

So maybe that is good for chickens. I could not dispute
that.

I guess there are plenty of similar and identical theories,
but they seem presently to be in eclipse.

Listen! Eyeballs are round. If they got long and
skinny, how could eyes be "rolled"? Probably they
grow, in spherical diameter, to fit the sockets they are
in, as those grow.

Are there any studies of whale eyes out there?

Most of the you guys here seem to be on the same
bandwagon, except Otis, who seems to be on his
own.

Well, guys, we still got to explain why it is that populations
who go studious invariably go myopic.

So, perhaps I am wrong about everything. I am sure you
will tell me, and send me over in the corner with Otis (where
I do not think I actually belong). (Send me over to the same
corner as Ace.)

--
Dicky
Dick Adams
2005-12-12 15:48:51 UTC
Permalink
"Dick Adams" <***@nonexist.com> wrote in message news:rUgnf.147862$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
With regard to Ace's inquiries and discussion:

I have considerable empathy since, at his age, I was going
through much the same quandary as he is.

This was my theory, and it made considerable sense.
http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Accomodation/

It still does. It makes a whole lot more sense than
the axial-length-changing theory.

So maybe that is good for chickens. I could not dispute
that.

I guess there are plenty of similar and identical theories,
but they seem presently to be in eclipse.

Listen! Eyeballs are round. If they got long and
skinny, how could eyes be "rolled"? Probably they
grow, in spherical diameter, to fit the sockets they are
in, as those grow.

Are there any studies of whale eyes out there?

Most of the you guys here seem to be on the same
bandwagon, except Otis, who seems to be on his
own.

Well, guys, we still got to explain why it is that populations
who go studious invariably go myopic.

So, perhaps I am wrong about everything. I am sure you
will tell me, and send me over in the corner with Otis (where
I do not think I actually belong). (Send me over to the same
corner as Ace.)

--
Dicky
William Stacy
2005-12-12 18:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
Well, guys, we still got to explain why it is that populations
who go studious invariably go myopic.
It's emmetropization gone haywire to the near point. Everyone in eyecare
knows that, regardless of what Beavis claims.

w.stacy, o.d.
Dick Adams
2005-12-12 19:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Stacy
Post by Dick Adams
Well, guys, we still got to explain why it is that populations
who go studious invariably go myopic.
It's emmetropization gone haywire to the near point.
What a great theory. Maybe some one will write a dissertation
about that.

Heck, maybe it will be Ace.
Post by William Stacy
Everyone in eyecare knows that, regardless of what Beavis claims.
It is good to know that there is a simple answer. Which one is "Beavis"?

--
Dicky
Neil Brooks
2005-12-12 19:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
Post by William Stacy
Post by Dick Adams
Well, guys, we still got to explain why it is that populations
who go studious invariably go myopic.
It's emmetropization gone haywire to the near point.
What a great theory. Maybe some one will write a dissertation
about that.
Heck, maybe it will be Ace.
Post by William Stacy
Everyone in eyecare knows that, regardless of what Beavis claims.
It is good to know that there is a simple answer. Which one is "Beavis"?
Blonde hair. "Metallica" shirt (NOT the brunette in the AC/DC shirt).

HTH,

Neil
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
Dr. Leukoma
2005-12-13 13:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
This was my theory, and it made considerable sense.
http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Accomodation/
It still does. It makes a whole lot more sense than
the axial-length-changing theory.
Then, you and Otis belong in the same room together where you can share
your beliefs without provoking arguments with people who have more
knoweldge of the subject. Clinging to a belief in the face of evidence
to the contrary is irrational.

DrG
Dick Adams
2005-12-13 14:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Leukoma
Post by Dick Adams
This was my theory, and it made considerable sense.
http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Accomodation/
It still does. It makes a whole lot more sense than
the axial-length-changing theory.
Then, you and Otis belong in the same room together where you can share
your beliefs without provoking arguments with people who have more
knoweldge of the subject. Clinging to a belief in the face of evidence
to the contrary is irrational.
I know this is a bit hard to understand, but Otis and I are not exactly
saying the same thing (so far as I can understand what Otis may be saying).

Otis proposes a therapy, whereas I attempt to discuss a possible mechanism.

I doubt if myopia is reversible. Pseudomyopia seems a very fuzzy concept.

I consider that myopic progression in some cases may be preventable in
spite that there may not be adequate evidence that it has yet been done.

Maybe those little white flecks which characterize you make it difficult to
see what you may be trying to read correctly?

--
Dicky
Dr. Leukoma
2005-12-13 17:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
I know this is a bit hard to understand, but Otis and I are not exactly
saying the same thing (so far as I can understand what Otis may be saying).
Otis proposes a therapy, whereas I attempt to discuss a possible mechanism.
I doubt if myopia is reversible. Pseudomyopia seems a very fuzzy concept.
I consider that myopic progression in some cases may be preventable in
spite that there may not be adequate evidence that it has yet been done.
Maybe those little white flecks which characterize you make it difficult to
see what you may be trying to read correctly?
I think I understand you perfectly well. In proposing a theory, Otis
has expressed his belief in the same causal mechanism. Pseudomyopia
doesn't seem like a "fuzzy concept" to me.

I know that myopic progression can be arrested. This has already been
shown with atropine, a non-selective anti-muscarinic agent, and to a
lesser extent with the selective anti-muscarinic agent, pirenzepine.
This method works without plus lenses. There is also an accumulating
body of work on the effect of eye shape factor on the progression of
refractive errors. An important point is that the eye seems to respond
quite strongly to defocus -- and not to accommodation.

DrG
Dick Adams
2005-12-13 17:58:58 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
I know that myopic progression can be arrested. This has already been
shown with atropine, a non-selective anti-muscarinic agent, and to a
lesser extent with the selective anti-muscarinic agent, pirenzepine.
I hope for a more convenient way.
This method works without plus lenses.
"Plus lens" is a pretty crude descriptor. I have not used that term.
There is also an accumulating body of work on the effect of eye
shape factor on the progression of refractive errors.
No doubt longer eyes are more apt to become myopic. I express
doubt that elongation is an adaptive mechanism, and that longer eyes
are not proportionally fatter in the interest of being rounder,
notwithstanding chickens.
An important point is that the eye seems to respond
quite strongly to defocus -- and not to accommodation.
I understand that they eye responds to defocus by trying to focus,
which is to say, by accommodating. Otherwise I can't guess what
you are trying to get at.

Is it about chickens?

There does seem a possibility that accommodating close objects
may lead to myopic changes over a period of time, particularly in
adolescents.

--
Dicky
Dr. Leukoma
2005-12-13 18:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
I understand that they eye responds to defocus by trying to focus,
which is to say, by accommodating. Otherwise I can't guess what
you are trying to get at.
Is it about chickens?
There does seem a possibility that accommodating close objects
may lead to myopic changes over a period of time, particularly in
adolescents.
The eye responds to defocus by elongating (or getting shorter in the
case of chicks), even when accommodation is prevented.

Don't take my word for it, though. Do a literature search.

DrG
Mike Tyner
2005-12-13 18:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
There does seem a possibility that accommodating close objects
may lead to myopic changes over a period of time, particularly in
adolescents.
As shown by all those uncorrected adolescent hyperopes who don't get
nearsighted?

-MT
Neil Brooks
2005-12-13 18:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Dick Adams
There does seem a possibility that accommodating close objects
may lead to myopic changes over a period of time, particularly in
adolescents.
As shown by all those uncorrected adolescent hyperopes who don't get
nearsighted?
Oh, would that it were so....

Neil
Chairman Emeritus
Hapless Hyperopes of America
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
Dick Adams
2005-12-13 20:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Dick Adams
There does seem a possibility that accommodating close objects
may lead to myopic changes over a period of time, particularly in
adolescents.
As shown by all those uncorrected adolescent hyperopes who don't get
nearsighted?
Some don't get nearsighted. Probably the ones with small eyeballs are
more likely not to. That is why I carefully used the word "may". That
inclusion expresses that I am not saying "all", or not definitely "any". But,
some do, you know, and more likely the nerds than the jocks.

I think that some of you folks need to do a review of General Semantics.
"A" may be "B", does not imply that all that all "B" is "A".

By the way, while we are on the subject, "B" not different than "A" is
without meaning if both "B" and "A" are a total blur.

--
Dicky
o***@pa.net
2005-12-13 22:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Dicky> > There does seem a possibility that accommodating close objects

may lead to myopic changes over a period of time, particularly in
adolescents.

Dear Dick Adams,

Right you are!!!

The Oakley-Young study proved that the full-corrected
child went "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per years
(2 diopters over 4 years) while the "plus" group
did not go "down" at all.

(Please remember this was a "blind" study so
it was very difficult to "control" this child in
his use of the plut.)

Ths indication is that more "forceful" use of
the plus COULD HAVE resulted in the
person's CLEARING of his distant vision
if he used a STRONGER plus at
the threshold.

Of course this result has already been
achieved by pilots who "woke up"
the SCIENTIFIC (not medical) necessity
of it.

Best,

Otis
Mike Tyner
2005-12-14 00:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
Some don't get nearsighted.
If you wanted to be accurate you'd say "the majority don't get nearsighted."

But that sorta shoots your theory in the foot. So does this one:

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Vol 40, 1050-1060
K Zadnik, DO Mutti, HS Kim, LA Jones, PH Qiu and ML Moeschberger
Tonic accommodation, age, and refractive error in children

CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to document an association between age
and tonic accommodation. The known association between tonic accommodation
and refractive error was confirmed and it was shown that an ocular
component, Gullstrand lens power, also contributed to the tonic
accommodation level. There does not seem to be an increased risk of onset of
juvenile myopia associated with tonic accommodation.
Post by Dick Adams
Probably the ones with small
eyeballs are more likely not to.
I'd like to know more about the sampling methods you used to determine that.
Post by Dick Adams
I think that some of you folks need to
do a review of General Semantics.
"A" may be "B", does not imply that all "B" is "A".
So all myopia is caused by accommodation?

By the time most people start developing myopia, the diameter and
circumference have reached 95-100% of adult size. Then the axial changes
associated with juvenile myopia are easy to measure with ultrasound, so it's
no mystery. This is just the first reference I found..
http://www.optometrists.asn.au/ceo/backissues/vol79/no4/1083
Post by Dick Adams
By the way, while we are on the subject,
"B" not different than "A" is without meaning
if both "B" and "A" are a total blur.
That sounds like your refractionist having a bad day.

-MT
Dick Adams
2005-12-14 05:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tyner
If you wanted to be accurate you'd say "the majority don't get nearsighted."
That would be taking a bigger chance of being inaccurate, as I do not
have the precise numbers at hand.
Post by Mike Tyner
But that sorta shoots your theory in the foot.
Exactly what theory are you ascribing to me?
Post by Mike Tyner
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Vol 40, 1050-1060
K Zadnik, DO Mutti, HS Kim, LA Jones, PH Qiu and ML Moeschberger
Tonic accommodation, age, and refractive error in children
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to document an association between age
and tonic accommodation. The known association between tonic accommodation
and refractive error was confirmed and it was shown that an ocular
component, Gullstrand lens power, also contributed to the tonic
accommodation level. There does not seem to be an increased risk of onset of
juvenile myopia associated with tonic accommodation.
That must be your writing, not the authors'. What exactly do you take to be
the meaning of *tonic accommodation*??
Post by Mike Tyner
Probably the ones with small eyeballs are more likely not to (become
myopic).
I'd like to know more about the sampling methods you used to
determine that.
Oh, one is free to speculate without making a determination. That was
hardly a categorical statement. But I will stick by it.
Post by Mike Tyner
I think that some of you folks need to do a review of
General Semantics.
"A" may be "B", does not imply that all "B" is "A".
So all myopia is caused by accommodation?
That does not follow from the above Boolean axiom.
You are again demonstrating the art of *non-sequitur*

Accommodation is the process of obtaining a sharp image
of a viewed object on the retina. To say that accommodation
causes myopia is like saying that driving cars causes automobile
accidents.
Post by Mike Tyner
By the time most people start developing myopia, the diameter and
circumference have reached 95-100% of adult size. Then the axial changes
associated with juvenile myopia are easy to measure with ultrasound, so it's
no mystery. This is just the first reference I found..
http://www.optometrists.asn.au/ceo/backissues/vol79/no4/1083
That is an abstract which concludes: "This result shows an association
between axial elongation of the globe and optic disc ovalness, in addition
to the previously described temporal myopic crescent. Therefore, in myopic
subjects, a vertically oval disc may be associated with a myopic refraction
rather than glaucoma."

What does that have to do with this subject at hand?

I would like to find the ultrasound data to which you allude.

--
Dicky
Mike Tyner
2005-12-14 15:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
Post by Mike Tyner
If you wanted to be accurate you'd say "the majority don't get nearsighted."
That would be taking a bigger chance of being inaccurate, as I do not
have the precise numbers at hand.
Nor do I, but after 20 years of measuring them I can tell you that the
majority of hyperopes do not get nearsighted. Which they should, if
accommodation stimulated myopia.
Post by Dick Adams
Post by Mike Tyner
But that sorta shoots your theory in the foot.
Exactly what theory are you ascribing to me?
The one at http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Accomodation/ . That was yours,
right?
Post by Dick Adams
Post by Mike Tyner
accommodation level. There does not seem to be an increased risk of onset of
juvenile myopia associated with tonic accommodation.
That must be your writing, not the authors'. What exactly do you take to be
the meaning of *tonic accommodation*??
No, I didn't write that. I cut and pasted from the abstract.

I believe you know what accommodation is. You should also know that the
ciliary muscles are seldom completely at rest, even during sleep. "Tonic"
accommodation is accommodation that remains when the stimulus is at infinity
and the eyes are "at rest." Roughly it's the difference between a good
cycloplegic refraction and a refraction without cycloplegic.
Post by Dick Adams
Post by Mike Tyner
Probably the ones with small eyeballs are more likely not to (become
myopic).
Oh, one is free to speculate without making a determination. That was
hardly a categorical statement. But I will stick by it.
I believe Asian eyes are on average a little smaller than caucasian. Yet
they have 2-3 times more myopia.
Post by Dick Adams
Post by Mike Tyner
Post by Dick Adams
I think that some of you folks need to do a review of
General Semantics.
"A" may be "B", does not imply that all "B" is "A".
So all myopia is caused by accommodation?
That does not follow from the above Boolean axiom.
You are again demonstrating the art of *non-sequitur*
As in "Some myopia may be due to accommodation, therefore ciliary stretching
causes all myopia?"
Post by Dick Adams
Accommodation is the process of obtaining a sharp image
of a viewed object on the retina. To say that accommodation
causes myopia is like saying that driving cars causes automobile
accidents.
I thought that was the purpose of the "stretchy string" diagram, indicating
that myopia happens at the ciliary zonules. If so, there's still that pesky
increase in axial length to be explained away.
Post by Dick Adams
Post by Mike Tyner
By the time most people start developing myopia, the diameter and
circumference have reached 95-100% of adult size. Then the axial changes
associated with juvenile myopia are easy to measure with ultrasound, so it's
no mystery. This is just the first reference I found..
http://www.optometrists.asn.au/ceo/backissues/vol79/no4/1083
That is an abstract which concludes: "This result shows an association
between axial elongation of the globe and optic disc ovalness, in addition
to the previously described temporal myopic crescent. Therefore, in myopic
subjects, a vertically oval disc may be associated with a myopic refraction
rather than glaucoma."
What does that have to do with this subject at hand?
You missed "The axial length was significantly correlated with the degree of
myopia, indicating that the myopia was axial in nature."
Post by Dick Adams
I would like to find the ultrasound data to which you allude.
You'll want to search pubmed for terms like "myopia a-scan axial," or just
read a textbook on myopia.

-MT
Dick Adams
2005-12-14 17:08:02 UTC
Permalink
"Mike Tyner" continues to underscore the fallacies rampant in
... after 20 years of measuring them I can tell you that the
majority of hyperopes do not get nearsighted.
They are the lucky ones. The myopes go on to get more
myopic, up to a point you might say, but not always up to
a point, unfortunately.
Which they should, if accommodation stimulated myopia.
I wish you would cut that out. Accommodation simply means
bringing an image to focus on the retina. The main thing that
accommodation causes is sharp vision.
Post by Dick Adams
Exactly what theory are you ascribing to me?
The one at http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Accomodation/ . That was yours,
right?
Right. Well, Mike, you seem to have a penchant for lumping things.
There's short-term, long-term, myopic, and what is hoped for.
I used the term emmetropia in the latter context, for which I apologize
because I am not qualified to use eye-doctor jargon. I feel OK about
"accommodation" because it is a word in the English language, and about
myopic, because I personally was that for many years.
I believe you know what accommodation is. You should also know that the
ciliary muscles are seldom completely at rest, even during sleep. "Tonic"
accommodation is accommodation that remains when the stimulus is at infinity
and the eyes are "at rest."
That is what I understand. What I did not understand was some implication
that tonic accommodation (and accommodation quite in general) might be causal
towards myopic progression.
I believe Asian eyes are on average a little smaller than caucasian. Yet
they have 2-3 times more myopia.
That point could be taken in refutation to me, assuming it is correct, as far
as I believe that short eyeballs are less like to suffer shortsightedness. But it
should be noticed also that the Asians who suffer the most myopia are the
more studious ones.
Post by Dick Adams
You are again demonstrating the art of *non-sequitur*
As in "Some myopia may be due to accommodation, therefore
ciliary stretching causes all myopia?"
You said that, not me. I have not said "all" about anything. I
did not say "ciliary" in this context. I did not identify any particular
anatomical parts in the diagram, except "lens". If I were to
say that some myopia may be due to accommodation, I would be
careful to mention the circumstances under which I thought that
to be true.
I thought that was the purpose of the "stretchy string" diagram, indicating
that myopia happens at the ciliary zonules. If so, there's still that pesky
increase in axial length to be explained away.
I did label some parts as "springs", but not "stretchy strings". I did not
identify the suspensory elements interior to the circular "muscle", but those
might be the zonules. I do not know what anatomical part the "springs"
might correspond to. Probably I need to microdissect some eyes.

How about the small-eyed Asians you mentioned? Their eyeballs must
be getting really long and skinny.
Post by Dick Adams
Post by Mike Tyner
http://www.optometrists.asn.au/ceo/backissues/vol79/no4/1083
What does that have to do with this subject at hand?
You missed "The axial length was significantly correlated with the degree of
myopia, indicating that the myopia was axial in nature."
I would expect the eyes in which the retina is furthest from the lens to be
the most prone to being myopic. So what else is new?
Post by Dick Adams
I would like to find the ultrasound data to which you allude.
You'll want to search pubmed for terms like "myopia a-scan axial," or just
read a textbook on myopia.
Those words bring up some titles. I do not have access to an opthamologic library
nor to subscription services. Already I have spent some money to download PDF files
that proved non-cogent. Perhaps you can look at the results of the search you
recommended and tell me which items are pertinent to our discussion. If you
could mention a textbook on myopia which is not too professional-school-
oriented, perhaps I could order it through my town's library network.

TIA
Dicky
William Stacy
2005-12-14 20:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
"Mike Tyner" continues to underscore the fallacies rampant in
... after 20 years of measuring them I can tell you that the
majority of hyperopes do not get nearsighted.
They are the lucky ones. The myopes go on to get more
myopic, up to a point you might say, but not always up to
a point, unfortunately.
I disagree. Hyperopes always (if they live long enough) end up with
unclear vision at all distances, maybe excepting the very low hyperopes
of .25 or .50. Myopes always have clear vision at some distance. And
what do you mean "not always up to a point"? All myopia levels off at
some point, except for some very rare and pathologic cases.

w.stacy, o.d.
Dick Adams
2005-12-15 04:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Hyperopes always (if they live long enough) end up with unclear
vision at all distances, maybe excepting the very low hyperopes
of .25 or .50.
If they don't live too long, and are not too hyperopic, it seems that
they are driving around and doing most of their stuff without eyeglasses
for most of their lives. But what do I know(?) -- maybe they are wearing
contacts.
Myopes always have clear vision at some distance. And what do you
mean "not always up to a point"? All myopia levels off at some point,
except for some very rare and pathologic cases.
I have had about 20 changes in my eyeglass prescription since reaching
adulthood. One eye was always good for changing watch batteries
and that sort of thing, but the other was several diopters wrong for
watch batteries, and astigmatic enough to be poor for reading.

These IOLs are not good for watch batteries, but these days we are
throwing away stuff with dead batteries anyway because it's not worth
the hassle, not to mention that it is usually about as cheap to buy a new
one.

--
Dicky
William Stacy
2005-12-15 05:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
If they don't live too long, and are not too hyperopic, it seems that
they are driving around and doing most of their stuff without eyeglasses
for most of their lives. But what do I know(?) -- maybe they are wearing
contacts.
Maybe your town has more emmetropes and low hyperopes than mine, but one
thing is for sure, ALL hyperopes need reading glasses beyond age 42, and
if they have more than a diopter of hyperopia, they really should have
glasses for distance vision as well. They hate it, and many of them are
in denial, but they sure could use 'em.
Post by Dick Adams
I have had about 20 changes in my eyeglass prescription since reaching
adulthood. One eye was always good for changing watch batteries
and that sort of thing, but the other was several diopters wrong for
watch batteries, and astigmatic enough to be poor for reading.
OK I'm betting most of those 20 changes were not the increases in minus
that happen in adolescent myopia, especially in you non-reading eye.
Post by Dick Adams
These IOLs are not good for watch batteries
I'll bet they are with the proper reading Rx. Don't tell me you wore
something like -6.00 full time for years and now are complaining about
needing a lousy +2.00 or something for changing watch batteries. You
just can't please some folks...

w.stacy, o.d.
o***@pa.net
2005-12-15 22:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear Readres -- and William,

Subject: Simplification of language to describe the refractive
states of the natural eye.

Rather than using the antique words "emmetropia", hyperopia and
myopia -- why not simplify and simply say
that a natural eye can have a positive refractive state -- or
a negative refractive state.

Perhaps William could give us an EXACT definition of
"hyperopia".

I have heard the following.

A positive refractive state greater than +2 diopters.

Greater than +1 diopter

Greater than 1/2 diopter.

Greater than 0.0 diopters.

(0.0 diopters is considered "emmetropia")

Anything less than 0.0 diopters is considered "myopia" -- or
perhaps William could clarify.

In fact any refractive state not exactly zero -- is
called "ametropia".

Let me point out that primates in the wild
have normal refractive states running between
zero to +2 diopters -- and there is nothing
wrong with positive refractive states of
these values.

Commentary?

Best,

Otis
Post by William Stacy
Post by Dick Adams
If they don't live too long, and are not too hyperopic, it seems that
they are driving around and doing most of their stuff without eyeglasses
for most of their lives. But what do I know(?) -- maybe they are wearing
contacts.
Maybe your town has more emmetropes and low hyperopes than mine, but one
thing is for sure, ALL hyperopes need reading glasses beyond age 42, and
if they have more than a diopter of hyperopia, they really should have
glasses for distance vision as well. They hate it, and many of them are
in denial, but they sure could use 'em.
Post by Dick Adams
I have had about 20 changes in my eyeglass prescription since reaching
adulthood. One eye was always good for changing watch batteries
and that sort of thing, but the other was several diopters wrong for
watch batteries, and astigmatic enough to be poor for reading.
OK I'm betting most of those 20 changes were not the increases in minus
that happen in adolescent myopia, especially in you non-reading eye.
Post by Dick Adams
These IOLs are not good for watch batteries
I'll bet they are with the proper reading Rx. Don't tell me you wore
something like -6.00 full time for years and now are complaining about
needing a lousy +2.00 or something for changing watch batteries. You
just can't please some folks...
w.stacy, o.d.
Neil Brooks
2005-12-15 22:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@pa.net
Dear Readres -- and William,
Subject: Simplification of language to describe the refractive
states of the natural eye.
They create a new term to describe a common phenomenon that could be
(or is) described in a simpler way. (+40 points)
Post by o***@pa.net
Rather than using the antique words "emmetropia", hyperopia and
myopia -- why not simplify and simply say
that a natural eye can have a positive refractive state -- or
a negative refractive state.
They create their own custom definitions for extant words or concepts.
(+ 40 points)
Post by o***@pa.net
Perhaps William could give us an EXACT definition of
"hyperopia".
I have heard the following.
A positive refractive state greater than +2 diopters.
Greater than +1 diopter
Greater than 1/2 diopter.
Greater than 0.0 diopters.
(0.0 diopters is considered "emmetropia")
Anything less than 0.0 diopters is considered "myopia" -- or
perhaps William could clarify.
In fact any refractive state not exactly zero -- is
called "ametropia".
Let me point out that primates in the wild
have normal refractive states running between
zero to +2 diopters -- and there is nothing
wrong with positive refractive states of
these values.
Commentary?
They create a new term to describe a common phenomenon that could be
(or is) described in a simpler way. (+40 points)

Commonly forces their hypothesis into discussion threads that are
discussing other topics. (+ 40 points)
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
Dr. Leukoma
2005-12-16 00:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@pa.net
Dear Readres -- and William,
Subject: Simplification of language to describe the refractive
states of the natural eye.
Rather than using the antique words "emmetropia", hyperopia and
myopia -- why not simplify and simply say
that a natural eye can have a positive refractive state -- or
a negative refractive state.
Why use any "antique" words with latin or greek roots?
Post by o***@pa.net
Perhaps William could give us an EXACT definition of
"hyperopia".
I have heard the following.
A positive refractive state greater than +2 diopters.
Greater than +1 diopter
Greater than 1/2 diopter.
Greater than 0.0 diopters.
(0.0 diopters is considered "emmetropia")
Anything less than 0.0 diopters is considered "myopia" -- or
perhaps William could clarify.
In fact any refractive state not exactly zero -- is
called "ametropia".
A hyperopic eye has a negative defocus. A myopic eye has a positive
defocus. The smallest amount of defocus or astigmatism that can be
measured with a conventional manual refractor is 0.25 diopters. Trial
lenses are available in 0.125 diopter increments. How precise do you
want to be? How much is practical?
Post by o***@pa.net
Let me point out that primates in the wild
have normal refractive states running between
zero to +2 diopters -- and there is nothing
wrong with positive refractive states of
these values.
What is the point of that?

DrG
Dick Adams
2005-12-16 06:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Leukoma
A hyperopic eye has a negative defocus. A myopic eye has a positive
defocus.
By George, I think I've got it:

At rest, the farsighted eye places the image of a distant object beyond
the retina. That image in the nearsighted eye always falls short of the retina.
Post by Dr. Leukoma
The smallest amount of defocus or astigmatism that can be
measured with a conventional manual refractor is 0.25 diopters. Trial
lenses are available in 0.125 diopter increments. How precise do you
want to be?
I'd be pleased to have it right to the closest 0.25D.
Post by Dr. Leukoma
How much is practical?
Sometimes high -D people experience undercorrection. I can't tell you
exactly why. (Maybe it is some subconscious drive towards "The Plus".)
Sometimes it is not practical to go back too many times for stronger lenses,
especially if you have to pay each time. So you just give up, and forget
about the writing on the blackboard, street signs, house numbers,
recognizing people across the street, etc.

--
Dicky
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-16 11:48:15 UTC
Permalink
many young hyperopes see clear without correction for a number of
years. Some use glasses just for near. Normal vision is plus or minus
half diopter and not a significent refractive error to impair vision.
Many very low myopes dont even bother with glasses, my brother
included. Everyone with a -.5 gets by fine without glasses and most -1s
do, although its permissiable for those -1s to wear glasses just for
driving to be on the safe side. Many people do go around with
undercorrected glasses to save money and more importantly, slow or halt
the progression of myopia.
o***@pa.net
2005-12-16 15:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Dear Ace,

The person (who "wakes up") and sees his vision
(on the chart) at 20/50 or 20/60, and generally
"clear" it to 20/40 or better.

If the person will "accept" the responsibility to
"work" the preventive method, and always
PASS the LEGAL requirment (of 20/40) then
there is no reason to wear a minus lens.
From the people who post on my site, I find
some who can "clear" from 20/200 to 20/30,
(i.e., pass all legal VA tests) but that is rare.

Better to start the "preventive" process before
the situation gets out-of-hand.

Obviously this takes great personal resolve -- and
can not be "prescribed" as "conventional medicine"
if you get my drift.

It is a tough choice and decision. And it is
the "second opinion." But it only "works"
on the threshold.

Best,

Otis
Neil Brooks
2005-12-16 15:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@pa.net
Dear Ace,
If the person will "accept" the responsibility to
"work" the preventive method, and always
PASS the LEGAL requirment (of 20/40) then
there is no reason to wear a minus lens.
Are there any clinical studies that show that your proposed method
works in myopic humans?
Post by o***@pa.net
From the people who post on my site, I find
some who can "clear" from 20/200 to 20/30,
(i.e., pass all legal VA tests) but that is rare.
Better to start the "preventive" process before
the situation gets out-of-hand.
Is there any scientifically-valid evidence that shows that this
"preventive" process works in myopic humans?
Post by o***@pa.net
Obviously this takes great personal resolve -- and
can not be "prescribed" as "conventional medicine"
if you get my drift.
Is there any scientifically-valid evidence that--with "great personal
resolve"--this method works in myopic humans?
Post by o***@pa.net
It is a tough choice and decision. And it is
the "second opinion." But it only "works"
on the threshold.
Is there any scientifically-valid evidence that--with "great personal
resolve" and at the "threshold"--this method works in myopic humans?

(Statistically, Otis, I'm bound to outlast you ... by at least 20 or
30 years. How's your stamina?)
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
Neil Brooks
2005-12-16 15:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Many people do go around with
undercorrected glasses to save money and more importantly, slow or halt
the progression of myopia.
Interesting.

Could you please provide a citation for the study that backs up this
claim (that wearing less-than-indicated correction slows or halts the
progression of myopia)?
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
Dr. Leukoma
2005-12-16 13:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
Sometimes high -D people experience undercorrection. I can't tell you
exactly why. (Maybe it is some subconscious drive towards "The Plus".)
Sometimes it is not practical to go back too many times for stronger lenses,
especially if you have to pay each time. So you just give up, and forget
about the writing on the blackboard, street signs, house numbers,
recognizing people across the street, etc.
I disagree that there is a subconscious "drive towards The Plus," and
here is why.

In optometry school I was taught that high myopes "eat minus." What
does that mean? It means that myopes with good accommodation can
accommodate to more minus, which increases the contrast of the eye
chart. The increase in contrast is "interpreted" as greater clarity by
some. This is why optometrists are carefully taught how to control
accommodation during the refraction.

Hyperopes with good accommodation also tend to like more minus or less
plus.

DrG
Dick Adams
2005-12-16 21:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Leukoma
In optometry school I was taught that high myopes "eat minus." What
does that mean? It means that myopes with good accommodation can
accommodate to more minus, which increases the contrast of the eye
chart.
So let's hold out on them suckers so their eyeballs won't eat too much
minus!?

Send them to Otis to teach their eyeballs to eat The Plus.
Post by Dr. Leukoma
Hyperopes with good accommodation also tend to like more minus or less
plus.
Does anybody like to see the 20/15 line? What do they tell you in school
to do with such people? I guess they can be problems.

--
Dicky
a***@yahoo.com
2005-12-17 00:11:33 UTC
Permalink
"? It means that myopes with good accommodation can
accommodate to more minus, which increases the contrast of the eye
chart. The increase in contrast is "interpreted" as greater clarity by

some. This is why optometrists are carefully taught how to control
accommodation during the refraction."


Accomodation constricts the pupil hence why things seem a bit darker.
Some optometrists use the fogging technique. A good way to tell if
someone is overminused is give him just enough minus so he barely sees
his BCVA then compare to the minus he chooses. Say someone can barely
see 20/20 with a -2.25 lense but says -3 is the best and sees 20/20
clearly. Would this then mean -2.5 is the approperate pescription?
Especially so if he reports the 20/20 isnt a problem with -2.5 but -3
makes the letters darker. If in doubt, theres always cycoplegic
refractions, this will also rule out pseudomyopia.


"Does anybody like to see the 20/15 line? What do they tell you in
school
to do with such people? I guess they can be problems."


Overminiusing does not increase BCVA courtray to what many think. Your
eye is capable of what it allows. Some think if your seeing better than
20/20 your overcorrected. Not revelent! You just have few high order
aberrations! I cant be corrected to 20/20 and an overcorrection does
not gain me any lines, just makes things a little darker and
eventrually blurry but still the same darkness! Its also great for
ruining eyes! One optometrist corrects you enough to barely see your
BCVA. If you can see half of the 20/20 line then you get enough minus
for that, no more, no less. If you cant see any of the 20/20 he
subtracts -.25 then you see half of the 20/20 then he subtracts another
-.25 and you say things are darker yet you still only see half of 20/20
so he undo the extra -.25 As long as more minus gains lines then good
but once an extra -.25 doesnt gain part or all of another line, thats
your BCVA.
o***@pa.net
2005-12-17 02:38:36 UTC
Permalink
Dear Ace,

Original Subject: Could all my myopia be pseudomyopia? See
accomodative amplitude

The answer is yes -- on the threshold. You had
"pseudo-myopia", i.e., if you had checked it
youself, you would have seen "blur" when
you looked up after long periods of reading.

At that point you could have "prevented" it
if you choose to do so. i.e., used a
prevetive, or "plus" lens for all close work.

If you neglect this, then pseudo-myopia
"converts" into "regular" myopia.

The word "Best Visual Acuity", means exactly
that. Snellen judged that MOST eyes
could resolve 20/20 ( 0.9 cm at 6 meters -- with
a minus lens.) Some eyes can do better than
that. As Wiilliam Stacy said, he prefers
to "correct" for BVA, if he can get
20/15 from the eye. He says that most
people "prefer" it.
From some reports I have received, some
people (on their own eye chart) read 20/40.

When they go to the OD, they are "prescribed"
a -2.0 diopter lens! How does this happen?

Most "exams" are given in a darkened room,
using a low-illumination eye chart. This
can induce "night-myopia", or
blank-field accommodation. Blank-field
is from about -1 to -3 diopters different
from day refraction.

The result is that the child receives this
"night" prescription (which would be fine -- if
the child spent most of his time in semi-darkness)
and is told to "wear it all the time.")

You can judge the consequence of doing this.

Just one man's opinion.

Best,

Otis
Dick Adams
2005-12-17 03:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Leukoma
In optometry school I was taught that high myopes "eat minus." What
does that mean? It means that myopes with good accommodation can
accommodate to more minus, which increases the contrast of the eye
chart. The increase in contrast is "interpreted" as greater clarity by
some. This is why optometrists are carefully taught how to control
accommodation during the refraction.
One more thing about that:

As my adult myopia progressed, I could guess my refractive error by various
tests, like could I read the lit numbers on the VCR from my recliner. So when
I thought I needed another -.75 or -1.0D, I'd go in, and some Dr.-trained lady
would allow me an increase of maybe -0.25, or maybe a half.

She might say something like "Your eyes are very different, and if I give you
too much correction in one, it might get them out of balance."

Finally I found a relic old-time eye-guy down on my main street, and he would
lend me free lenses, like -0.25, -0.50, and -1.00. Then I would go out after
sunset, sit on the main street (in my vehicle), and see what it took plus my
existing eyeglasses, by combining the borrowed lenses, to see the lit signs and
the street signs and the dark housenumbers clearly. Then he'd make me new
panes for my frames. That worked pretty well until he started wanting to sell
me new frames.

You might ask why I didn't change my eye doctor. Well, I did. Several times.
Most of them examine your eyes with their gadgets, and let a tech do the refraction.
The doctors and the techs all seem to have their own theories about what is best,
and the degree of poor vision one must get used to, and why.

My most accurate refractions have been given starting with an autorefractor.
There is usually then the curious remark "The autorefractor results mean nothing!!"

Figure that!

--
Dicky
Dr. Leukoma
2005-12-17 04:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
Post by Dr. Leukoma
In optometry school I was taught that high myopes "eat minus." What
does that mean? It means that myopes with good accommodation can
accommodate to more minus, which increases the contrast of the eye
chart. The increase in contrast is "interpreted" as greater clarity by
some. This is why optometrists are carefully taught how to control
accommodation during the refraction.
As my adult myopia progressed, I could guess my refractive error by various
tests, like could I read the lit numbers on the VCR from my recliner. So when
I thought I needed another -.75 or -1.0D, I'd go in, and some Dr.-trained lady
would allow me an increase of maybe -0.25, or maybe a half.
She might say something like "Your eyes are very different, and if I give you
too much correction in one, it might get them out of balance."
Finally I found a relic old-time eye-guy down on my main street, and he would
lend me free lenses, like -0.25, -0.50, and -1.00. Then I would go out after
sunset, sit on the main street (in my vehicle), and see what it took plus my
existing eyeglasses, by combining the borrowed lenses, to see the lit signs and
the street signs and the dark housenumbers clearly. Then he'd make me new
panes for my frames. That worked pretty well until he started wanting to sell
me new frames.
You might ask why I didn't change my eye doctor. Well, I did. Several times.
Most of them examine your eyes with their gadgets, and let a tech do the refraction.
The doctors and the techs all seem to have their own theories about what is best,
and the degree of poor vision one must get used to, and why.
My most accurate refractions have been given starting with an autorefractor.
There is usually then the curious remark "The autorefractor results mean nothing!!"
Figure that!
Figure what? Figure that different people have slightly different ways
of doing things? In optometry school, I was taught to do a full "21
point" eye exam. I was allotted two hours to complete it, and
sometimes took longer. Each year, the time allottment was shorter,
requiring the elimination of some of the redundant tests. In other
words, there are several ways of obtaining the same data.

The bottom line is that there is remarkable consistency between the
refractions performed by different doctors. This is demonstrated every
day, multiple times in my practice with new patients, as well as with
old patients who might receive a refraction from another doctor in my
practice. The system works pretty well for the most part, yet people
like you and Otis continue to see smoke where there is no fire.

I agree with NOT using autorefractor results exept as a starting point
for a subjective refraction.

DrG

William Stacy
2005-12-16 04:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@pa.net
Dear Readres -- and William,
Perhaps William could give us an EXACT definition of
"hyperopia".
I could but it's been done a zillion times already, on the 'net, in
print, and everywhere else in the world.
Post by o***@pa.net
Anything less than 0.0 diopters is considered "myopia" -- or
perhaps William could clarify.
I could but that's also been done a zillion or more times already; why
would I want to bore the readers with what they already know, or can
easily find out with a simple google or wikipedia search?

I normally don't respond to you, and no doubt will continue that
proclivity immediately after I hit the send button and regain my sanity...

w.stacy, o.d.
Dan Abel
2005-12-15 06:11:25 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Dick Adams
These IOLs are not good for watch batteries, but these days we are
throwing away stuff with dead batteries anyway because it's not worth
the hassle, not to mention that it is usually about as cheap to buy a new
one.
What's a watch battery?

:-)

When I was a kid, my father had a hobby of fixing watches. He had all
this expensive equipment, and zillions of parts. Watch parts, of
course, aren't very big. He had various optical equipment. You can't
see the guts of a watch with your bare eyes. It was pretty interesting.
He thought that when he retired, he could work at fixing watches for a
few extra bucks. Seemed like a plan to me.

By the time he retired, these watches were history. Everything was
digital, and had a battery. There was nothing to repair.

The first watches burned up batteries (they were LCD), and replacing the
batteries was the way to go.

Many years back, they came out with the five year batteries. The watch
was US$15. The five years assumed that you turned on the once an hour
beep, that you used the alarm every day and that you used the light some
number of times every day. I hate the beep, I used the alarm a few
times a year, and used the light once a month. It lasted forever. The
band was way cheap and fell apart long before the battery died. It
lasted a long time.

I bought a new watch. It doesn't have a battery. It has a capacitor.
It holds enough electricity for four days. It has a solar cell. Four
minutes a day in the sun. We have a lot of sun. I spend a lot of time
walking around outside.
--
Dan Abel
***@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA
Dr. Leukoma
2005-12-14 01:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
I think that some of you folks need to do a review of General Semantics.
"A" may be "B", does not imply that all that all "B" is "A".
Dicky, if you want to have meaningful scientific discussions with
scientists then you need to become more familiar with the current
trends in research. That's it. Just do some searching and reading.
Unless, like Otis, you think you are the Leonardo DaVinci -- er, I mean
the Galileo of physiological optics and visual science.

DrG
o***@pa.net
2005-12-13 19:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Dear Dicky,

Subject: SELECTIVE reporting of "the facts".

You have to be careful. Mike reports his bias -- as seen
through his eyes in an office.

To get a better perspective, you should read the
"second opinion" by Steve Leung OD.

The REAL decision, is not what an OD does with
or for the public -- it is rather his own judgment of
all these primate studies, the biforcal studies, and
then his quesition about his own children -- do
I wish them to avoid stair-case myopia -- as
proven by the Oakley Young study? If so,
I MUST start them in a strong plus -- at the
threshod, so they can avoid getting in to it.
It takes a wise OD to do this -- and an
"educated" parent and child. I say nothing
about "recovery" only about prevention -- which
is indeed difficult.

It is Mike's contention that true-prevention
is IMPOSSIBLE. I would agree with him
that it is impossible for him to deliever it
in 15 minutes to the general public that
walks in off the street.

To further comment on this majority opinion.
[ ... ]
I know that myopic progression can be arrested. This has already been
shown with atropine, a non-selective anti-muscarinic agent, and to a
lesser extent with the selective anti-muscarinic agent, pirenzepine.
Otis> I personally HATE these drugs. The plus is low-cost,
and easy. But it does take persistance -- that
Mike can NEVER prescribe. The issue is
"motivational" for the person concerned with it -- as
per Steve Leung.

I hope for a more convenient way.

Otis> Prevention is not "convenient" but it can be
effective for the person who "gives up" on Mike
and does it himself.
This method works without plus lenses.
Otis> Drugs better than prevention with plus?
A poor choice indeed.


"Plus lens" is a pretty crude descriptor. I have not used that term.


Otis> The intention of the plus is to completely elliminate
the "near" enviroment -- before the situation gets
out-of-hand. It does take a strong force-of-will to
empoy. As far as I am concerned this issue is
not medical, but a scientific appreciation of
the natural eye's proven behavior.

Otis> It pays to learn to ask the "right" questions -- to
get the right answers.

Best,

Otis
Neil Brooks
2005-12-13 19:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@pa.net
Dear Dicky,
Subject: SELECTIVE reporting of "the facts".
By the acknowledged expert in the field ... Otis Brown.
Post by o***@pa.net
You have to be careful. Mike reports his bias -- as seen
through his eyes in an office.
To get a better perspective, you should read the
"second opinion" by Steve Leung OD.
16) Consistently uses quotes from only one book/paper/article/TV-show
as the sole external support for their theory. (+ 20 points)
Post by o***@pa.net
The REAL decision, is not what an OD does with
or for the public -- it is rather his own judgment of
all these primate studies, the biforcal studies, and
then his quesition about his own children -- do
I wish them to avoid stair-case myopia -- as
proven by the Oakley Young study?
23) Uses a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely
accepted real experiment. (+20 points)

16) Consistently uses quotes from only one book/paper/article/TV-show
as the sole external support for their theory. (+ 20 points)

17) Is not aware of the widely published evidence that contradicts
his/her hypothesis. (+ 10 points)

18) Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided
by others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is
strong evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points).
Post by o***@pa.net
If so,
I MUST start them in a strong plus -- at the
threshod, so they can avoid getting in to it.
It takes a wise OD to do this -- and an
"educated" parent and child. I say nothing
about "recovery" only about prevention -- which
is indeed difficult.
17) Is not aware of the widely published evidence that contradicts
his/her hypothesis. (+ 10 points).

18) Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided
by others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is
strong evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points).
Post by o***@pa.net
It is Mike's contention that true-prevention
is IMPOSSIBLE. I would agree with him
that it is impossible for him to deliever it
in 15 minutes to the general public that
walks in off the street.
6) Makes a statement that is widely known to be a misrepresentation of
a researcher's published conclusion. (+ 30 points)

14) Shows (or admits) no/little knowledge of other people's previous
work on the subject. (+ 40 points)
Post by o***@pa.net
To further comment on this majority opinion.
[ ... ]
I know that myopic progression can be arrested. This has already been
shown with atropine, a non-selective anti-muscarinic agent, and to a
lesser extent with the selective anti-muscarinic agent, pirenzepine.
Otis> I personally HATE these drugs. The plus is low-cost,
and easy. But it does take persistance -- that
Mike can NEVER prescribe. The issue is
"motivational" for the person concerned with it -- as
per Steve Leung.
5) Claims that their hypothesis is too complex for some/many/most
people to understand. (+ 20 points)

16) Consistently uses quotes from only one book/paper/article/TV-show
as the sole external support for their theory. (+ 20 points)
Post by o***@pa.net
I hope for a more convenient way.
Otis> Prevention is not "convenient" but it can be
effective for the person who "gives up" on Mike
and does it himself.
7) Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be false. (+10 points
per statement)

12) Makes a statement that is clearly vacuous (i.e., without content).
(+10 points per statement)

14) Shows (or admits) no/little knowledge of other people's previous
work on the subject. (+ 40 points)
Post by o***@pa.net
This method works without plus lenses.
Otis> Drugs better than prevention with plus?
A poor choice indeed.
14) Shows (or admits) no/little knowledge of other people's previous
work on the subject. (+ 40 points)

17) Is not aware of the widely published evidence that contradicts
his/her hypothesis. (+ 10 points)

18) Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided
by others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is
strong evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points)
Post by o***@pa.net
"Plus lens" is a pretty crude descriptor. I have not used that term.
Otis> The intention of the plus is to completely elliminate
the "near" enviroment -- before the situation gets
out-of-hand. It does take a strong force-of-will to
empoy. As far as I am concerned this issue is
not medical, but a scientific appreciation of
the natural eye's proven behavior.
5) Claims that their hypothesis is too complex for some/many/most
people to understand. (+ 20 points)

7) Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be false. (+10 points
per statement)

10) They create their own custom definitions for extant words or
concepts. (+ 40 points)

11) They create a new term to describe a common phenomenon that could
be (or is) described in a simpler way. (+40 points)

14) Shows (or admits) no/little knowledge of other people's previous
work on the subject. (+ 40 points)

17) Is not aware of the widely published evidence that contradicts
his/her hypothesis. (+ 10 points).

18) Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided
by others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is
strong evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points).
Post by o***@pa.net
Otis> It pays to learn to ask the "right" questions -- to
get the right answers.
Best,
Otis
Another chart-topper.

And the hits ... they just keep on coming!
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
o***@pa.net
2005-12-13 22:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Dear Neil,

Subject: Your presumptions.

If I were an OD, and I had to deal with the "likes" of
you -- I would say "forget it".

My deepest sympathies go with Steve Leung, and
indeed all ODs who deal with the public -- and YOU.

I am certain you would be knee-jerk quick to
sue any OD who attempted to offer
a discussion of this scientific second
opinion.

That is why I do respect Mike and other
ODs, because they fase lawsuits from
people like you -- who have not a clue.

Best,

Otis
Neil Brooks
2005-12-14 00:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@pa.net
Dear Neil,
Subject: Your presumptions.
If I were an OD, and I had to deal with the "likes" of
you -- I would say "forget it".
Don't worry, Otis. I would dismiss you as an incompetent old fool
fifteen minutes into talking with you (I'm being generous).

As a patient, I would immediately see that your zealotry overcame any
knowledge of medicine that you might have learned along the way, and
that this would be an absolute impediment to your ever being able to
help me.
Post by o***@pa.net
My deepest sympathies go with Steve Leung, and
indeed all ODs who deal with the public -- and YOU.
Actually, eye docs like me. I'm bright, have an interesting set of
peepers, and learned a long time ago how to spot a kook (hint, hint).
Post by o***@pa.net
I am certain you would be knee-jerk quick to
sue any OD who attempted to offer
a discussion of this scientific second
opinion.
I would certainly be skeptical of any zealot who so vociferously
spewed as science that which had been disproven (by the scientific
method) so many times.
Post by o***@pa.net
That is why I do respect Mike and other
ODs, because they fase lawsuits from
people like you -- who have not a clue.
There are many reasons to respect Mike Tyner; precious few to respect
you, Uncle Otie. Fewer and fewer, in fact, with each successive OSB
post.
Post by o***@pa.net
Best,
Otis
Your best just isn't very good, Otis.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
Dan Abel
2005-12-14 05:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Brooks
Actually, eye docs like me. I'm bright, have an interesting set of
peepers,
Likewise. My OD really likes to look at my eyes. I don't have anything
like as many problems as you, but I guess they are pretty fascinating to
him.

I had a retinal detachment in July. I had some followup visits. My
retinal specialist dumps me. Great. She is really nice, and I like her
a lot, but she has *way* too many emergency surgeries. I understand.
She came in Friday night and did my surgery. I'm guessing it was maybe
9PM. The OR wasn't available until 11 PM. It was two hours for the
surgery. She hangs around to make sure I am OK. I'm the number four
emergency surgery that day for her. She needs to see all four of us for
a postop visit the next day. It's her day off. They aren't even open.
She is doing what she needs to do, and sees us anyway.

The next visit is two hours in the waiting room. She has emergency
surgery and gets behind. The next followup visit is unbelievable. This
guy is having heart trouble. He doesn't even belong to the HMO, he just
drove in his friend and is in the waiting room. My retinal specialist
is taking care of him. Things get behind. I see the doctor, and she
says she is too busy. My eye is doing really great, and I don't need to
see a retinal specialist anymore. She does emergency stuff, and I'm not
an emergency any more. She refers me to a regular OMD, the one I saw
first in the ER. He had asked about me. This is a good thing. I see
him. Things are doing well, but not great. I talk to him about getting
a refraction for the other eye. He suggests waiting to do both eyes. I
ask if he really thinks that things will change. OK, do the OD thing.
He writes some referrals. I go to the receptionist. I make the
appointment for the field test and the OMD. I tell her to forget the
OD. I have private vision insurance, and it covers glasses. My HMO
doesn't. The private insurance expires on November 30.

I make an appointment with the OD. It's maybe three days after I see
the regular OMD (which is a few weeks after seeing the retinal
specialist).

I've seen this guy for years. Now I just had the OMD visit. I had a
big time dilation and exam. We talk about this. He explains that he
doesn't need to dilate my eyes. I know exactly what he means. I tell
him that it isn't a problem, and if he wants to, I've got nothing else
to do. I get the dilation, and he is happy. I'm pretty sure I am going
to get really good service, I made the guy really happy.
--
Dan Abel
***@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA
Mike Tyner
2005-12-13 19:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@pa.net
To get a better perspective, you should read the
"second opinion" by Steve Leung OD.
Now you'll tell us where this Dr. Leung has published his efficacy data?

-MT
o***@pa.net
2005-12-17 02:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Test Message

(Google Page-Fault Check)
Dan Abel
2005-12-14 02:12:17 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Dick Adams
Post by Dick Adams
This was my theory, and it made considerable sense.
http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Accomodation/
Your theory doesn't work. Neither does your URL.
Post by Dick Adams
Post by Dick Adams
It still does. It makes a whole lot more sense than
the axial-length-changing theory.
Obviously, the sun revolves around the Earth. Just look. It makes
sense. Some think otherwise, though.
Post by Dick Adams
Otis proposes a therapy, whereas I attempt to discuss a possible mechanism.
I don't see a lot of difference between is therapy and your mechanism.
Post by Dick Adams
I doubt if myopia is reversible. Pseudomyopia seems a very fuzzy concept.
Very fuzzy. Lot's of things in medicine are fuzzy. That's in large
part because I don't really understand them. When my doctors tell me to
do stuff, and it's fuzzy, then I do it. That's why I paid them US$10.00.

:-)
Post by Dick Adams
I consider that myopic progression in some cases may be preventable in
spite that there may not be adequate evidence that it has yet been done.
OK.
--
Dan Abel
***@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA
Dick Adams
2005-12-12 16:04:53 UTC
Permalink
"Dick Adams" <***@nonexist.com> wrote in message news:rUgnf.147862$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

There was an error in the link. I tried to fix it, but don't
know if the fix went through.

http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Accomodation/
o***@pa.net
2005-12-14 02:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Dear Dicky,

Subject: Not bad for a "first cut" of an accommodation theory.

I liked your picture. This is of course part of the
Helmholtz-Donders theory of the eye, where
refractive power change results in change of
shape of the "lens" of the eye.

Thus, in the young eye, the total power of
the eye change be changed through
a range of 60 to 70 diopters as
objects are moved nearer and further
from the eye.

This is indeed a sophisticated system.

Best,

Otis
Mike Tyner
2005-12-12 17:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dick Adams
Well, guys, we still got to explain why it is that populations
who go studious invariably go myopic.
The "why" is pretty obvious. It's a beneficial adaptation, good for the
species as a whole.

The "how" is more important, if we want to control or modify this
adaptation.

Myopia DOES increase in select populations who are confined to small spaces
or engaged in fulltime close work. Certainly over generations, probably even
within a single generation.

But using plus lenses to simulate the "relaxation" of distance vision does
NOT prove effective in modifying this natural adaptation.

It's difficult to accept but you have to realize how many studies would have
SHOWN dramatic differences between treated and untreated groups, if it DID
work.

The alternative is a worldwide conspiracy of optical retailers, paying off
all the academicians and researchers to bias their results. According to the
professors, nothing works, short of surgery or atropine.

-MT
Dick Adams
2005-12-12 17:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Tyner
The "why" is pretty obvious. It's a beneficial adaptation, good for the
species as a whole.
When your going for the Big "-D's", the "adaptation" is mainly good for
the species of optical-aid purveyors.
Post by Mike Tyner
The "how" is more important, if we want to control or modify this
adaptation.
Agreed! Where is the discussion of that?
Post by Mike Tyner
Myopia DOES increase in select populations who are confined to small spaces
or engaged in fulltime close work. Certainly over generations, probably even
within a single generation.
Yes ...
Post by Mike Tyner
But using plus lenses to simulate the "relaxation" of distance vision does
NOT prove effective in modifying this natural adaptation.
Zikes, can't we get over Otis and "The Plus".

Reading glasses, with an appropriate "add" to a proper distance correction,
are not stimulating relaxation exactly. What they are doing is taking the
tension off of the accommodative mechanism by making the eyeballs think that
the viewed objects are further away than they actually are.

If studies of "The Plus" have failed (or succeed, even), we should want
know exactly what is meant by "The Plus".
Post by Mike Tyner
It's difficult to accept but you have to realize how many studies would have
SHOWN dramatic differences between treated and untreated groups, if it DID
work.
Well, when I was young, I was about to undertake those studies. But unfortunately
I got sidetracked, and now I am too old. I don't know why they were all done
wrong. I guess that Ace will have to step up to the plate.
Post by Mike Tyner
The alternative is a worldwide conspiracy of optical retailers, paying off
all the academicians and researchers to bias their results.
Do you really think that academicians cannot be corrupted?
Post by Mike Tyner
According to the professors, nothing works, short of surgery or atropine.
Those are *your* professors. I should probably go out there and corrupt
some for myself.

--
Dicky
Neil Brooks
2005-12-13 06:56:58 UTC
Permalink
"***@pa.net" <***@pa.net> wrote:

From the Net Loon Index

http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html

...also review the Crackpot Index

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Mike likes to "invent" the idea that 'ALL PROFESSORS' and
"ALL SCIENTISTS' believe exactly as he does.
This is of course popy-cock.
6) Makes a statement that is widely known to be a misrepresentation of
a researcher's published conclusion. (+ 30 points).
Further, when people
ask penetrating questions about the proven behavior
of the dynamic eye,
10) They create their own custom definitions for extant words or
concepts. (+ 40 points).
he then jumps up and
says that anyone who does not believe as
he believes is part of a conspiricy.
12) Makes a statement that is clearly vacuous (i.e., without content).
(+10 points per statement)

22) Claims that the professional science community is trying to
silence him/her because the professional science community is trying
to cover up the "truth". (+40 points).
Of course it is a convenient myth that Mike finds
convenieint to tout.
Very little of it is true. But there are some
half-truths in it -- and we can review them.
I certainly agree that the situation is only
preventable, and clearly not under Mike's
control
15) Prefaces (or ends) their statement with a comment about how
misguided/shortsighted/brainwashed/delusional the professional
scientific community is. (+ 40 points).

18) Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided
by others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is
strong evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points).
But in Mikes defense, I will say that he "believes" in
the minus-lens method -- and will use it on his
own children. There is no professional or
ethical or practical problem with Mike doing this.
15) Prefaces (or ends) their statement with a comment about how
misguided/shortsighted/brainwashed/delusional the professional
scientific community is. (+ 40 points).
There is a "second-opinion" and that will be used
by the OD parents -- who assimillate the scientific
facts differently, and will get their child to start
the use of the plus as soon as the child's refractive
state is zero. (Staggering on the threshold of
nearsighedness.) It takes a wise parent to do this -- or
permit it -- and that does take the subject matter
outside the "scope" of optometry.
3) Commonly forces their hypothesis into discussion threads that are
discussing other topics. (+ 40 points).

22) Claims that the professional science community is trying to
silence him/her because the professional science community is trying
to cover up the "truth". (+40 points).*
To further respond.
Dick> Well, when I was young, I was about to undertake those studies.
But unfortunately
I got sidetracked, and now I am too old.
Dick> I don't know why they were all done
wrong.
Otis> It depends on what you mean by "done wrong".
It personally think the studies of Francis Young were
"done right" -- although most people do not like
the science of it.
16) Consistently uses quotes from only one book/paper/article/TV-show
as the sole external support for their theory. (+ 20 points).

17) Is not aware of the widely published evidence that contradicts
his/her hypothesis. (+ 10 points).

18) Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided
by others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is
strong evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points).
Dick> I guess that Ace will have to step up to the plate.
Otis> Ace has some intuitive sense of this situation.
He is learning.
12) Makes a statement that is clearly vacuous (i.e., without content).
(+10 points per statement)
Post by Mike Tyner
The alternative is a worldwide conspiracy of optical retailers, paying off
all the academicians and researchers to bias their results.
Otis> This is just so much self-serving bulls___. Prevention is
indeed difficult, however, and you can not boil it down
to a magic "quick fix" in an office. That is not a
"conspiricy" -- that is just office short-sighted.
But knowing how the "public" reacts, I can see
why Mike might make a remark of this nature.
17) Is not aware of the widely published evidence that contradicts
his/her hypothesis. (+ 10 points).
Do you really think that academicians cannot be corrupted?
Otis> It depends on what you mean by "corrupted?"?
But there is a problem when you put the foxes in
charge of the chicken coop. The welfare of the
foxes will always be taken care of.
22) Claims that the professional science community is trying to
silence him/her because the professional science community is trying
to cover up the "truth". (+40 points).
Mike> According to the professors, nothing works, short of surgery or
atropine.
Otis> Mike's simplistic notion. If fact, a number of professors
have recognized that the natural eye is dynamic, and
that a negative refractive state can be prevented. Mike
means OPTOMETRIC PROFESSORS. But here
the "second opinion" applies.
11) They create a new term to describe a common phenomenon that could
be (or is) described in a simpler way. (+40 points)
----
Dear Uncle Otie-

I lost track of the actual score, but you are off the charts in
lunacy.

Bravo, Uncle Otie, Bravo!
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
Neil Brooks
2005-12-13 06:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Dear Reader,

Otis Brown is in no way qualified to give medical advice.

Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
(***@pa.net) writes, I urge you to review all of his previous
posts.

Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy,
but there IS plenty that proves him wrong.

Otis Brown is more than simply bizarre. He's wrong. See the weekly
(Mondays) "welcome to sci.med.vision" for information on how to block
his ramblings.

If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof
of the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression
of myopia in humans then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so
only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist.

"Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted
within the "scientific method" explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Otis's posts can be reviewed at: http://snipurl.com/i7k2

The results of clinical trials of using plus lens therapy to prevent
the progression of myopia can be found at (hint: it did not work):

http://snipurl.com/fij0

http://snipurl.com/fimq

http://snipurl.com/fimr

The details of a proper, controlled test have been proposed and can be
reviewed at the following site, beginning with Page 40, Section 7(A)
and continuing through Page 42:

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/40.html

The remainder of this text
(http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html) provides significant
information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory.
Much, in fact, directly contradicts it.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
o***@pa.net
2005-12-13 04:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Dear Dicky,

Mike likes to "invent" the idea that 'ALL PROFESSORS' and
"ALL SCIENTISTS' believe exactly as he does.
This is of course popy-cock. Further, when people
ask penetrating questions about the proven behavior
of the dynamic eye, he then jumps up and
says that anyone who does not believe as
he believes is part of a conspiricy.

Of course it is a convenient myth that Mike finds
convenieint to tout.

Very little of it is true. But there are some
half-truths in it -- and we can review them.

I certainly agree that the situation is only
preventable, and clearly not under Mike's
control

But in Mikes defense, I will say that he "believes" in
the minus-lens method -- and will use it on his
own children. There is no professional or
ethical or practical problem with Mike doing this.

There is a "second-opinion" and that will be used
by the OD parents -- who assimillate the scientific
facts differently, and will get their child to start
the use of the plus as soon as the child's refractive
state is zero. (Staggering on the threshold of
nearsighedness.) It takes a wise parent to do this -- or
permit it -- and that does take the subject matter
outside the "scope" of optometry.

To further respond.


Dick> Well, when I was young, I was about to undertake those studies.
But unfortunately
I got sidetracked, and now I am too old.

Dick> I don't know why they were all done
wrong.

Otis> It depends on what you mean by "done wrong".
It personally think the studies of Francis Young were
"done right" -- although most people do not like
the science of it.

Dick> I guess that Ace will have to step up to the plate.

Otis> Ace has some intuitive sense of this situation.
He is learning.
Post by Mike Tyner
The alternative is a worldwide conspiracy of optical retailers, paying off
all the academicians and researchers to bias their results.
Otis> This is just so much self-serving bulls___. Prevention is
indeed difficult, however, and you can not boil it down
to a magic "quick fix" in an office. That is not a
"conspiricy" -- that is just office short-sighted.
But knowing how the "public" reacts, I can see
why Mike might make a remark of this nature.


Do you really think that academicians cannot be corrupted?

Otis> It depends on what you mean by "corrupted?"?
But there is a problem when you put the foxes in
charge of the chicken coop. The welfare of the
foxes will always be taken care of.


Mike> According to the professors, nothing works, short of surgery or
atropine.

Otis> Mike's simplistic notion. If fact, a number of professors
have recognized that the natural eye is dynamic, and
that a negative refractive state can be prevented. Mike
means OPTOMETRIC PROFESSORS. But here
the "second opinion" applies.


Those are *your* professors. I should probably go out there and
corrupt
some for myself.
--
Dicky
William Stacy
2005-12-12 18:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Sure, go on over there. Just don't do like the quack does and repeat
interminably that NONE of us mainstream o.d.s believe in emmetropization
or that the (abnormal) near demands of modern day earth cause myopia.
We all know all that (it's been known and well accepted for over 30
years). We all accept both, regardless of what the charlatan claims.
What we don't agree with, in addition to the feeble lies as to what we
believe or don't believe, is all those claims he makes that have not
panned out for anyone except his handful of supposed cures. So long as
you don't make unsubstantiated claims or outrageous suggestions, fine.

w.stacy, o.d.
Post by Dick Adams
I have considerable empathy since, at his age, I was going
through much the same quandary as he is.
This was my theory, and it made considerable sense.
http://home.att.net/~muffkat/accomodation/
It still does. It makes a whole lot more sense than
the axial-length-changing theory.
So maybe that is good for chickens. I could not dispute
that.
I guess there are plenty of similar and identical theories,
but they seem presently to be in eclipse.
Listen! Eyeballs are round. If they got long and
skinny, how could eyes be "rolled"? Probably they
grow, in spherical diameter, to fit the sockets they are
in, as those grow.
Are there any studies of whale eyes out there?
Most of the you guys here seem to be on the same
bandwagon, except Otis, who seems to be on his
own.
Well, guys, we still got to explain why it is that populations
who go studious invariably go myopic.
So, perhaps I am wrong about everything. I am sure you
will tell me, and send me over in the corner with Otis (where
I do not think I actually belong). (Send me over to the same
corner as Ace.)
--
Dicky
o***@pa.net
2005-12-12 02:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Dear Acema,

Subject: Proof that the natural eye changes its refractive-state
as previously stated -- as a "natural" process.

These "majority opinion" ODs keep on insisting that the natural eye
does not do this.

In fact, under direct scientific test the proof is final. I prefer
the "neutral words -- refractive state". But if
you wish to say "change size" -- then that is the
same thing for the natural eye, but less "direct".

Here is a statement by Professor Dave Guyton about
this "designed-in" behavior characteristic of all
natural eyes under direct scientific test. How
simple can this get?

Why make a "big mystery" out of this?

Best,

Otis

______________________


A report in the August "Nature Medicine" shows that the eyes
of young rhesus monkeys change shape in an attempt to focus
blurred images. Texas researchers raised 11 infant monkeys with
glasses fixed permanently in front of their eyes. The left lens
was always plain, flat glass, while the right lens (plus or minus)
caused images to focus either in front of the retina or behind it.
After three months, one eye had grown more than the other,
presumably to position the retina at the proper spot for clear
vision. When the spectacles were removed, the monkeys' eyes again
grew at different rates and eventually returned to similar
lengths, restoring their vision to normal. (i.e., the focal
status of the right eye changed to match the left eye.)

If visual cues such as poorly focused images signal the eyes
to grow or stop growing, then treating myopia with glasses or
contact lenses before the eyes stop growing could interfere with
this natural correction.

We asked Dr. David Guyton, the Krieger Professor of
Pediatric Ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins' Wilmer Eye Institute, to
discuss how these new findings may change the treatment of myopia
in children and young adults. -- The Editors


***************

The Physician's Perspective -- David L. Guyton, MD

According to old-wives' tales, wearing glasses makes the eyes
worse. Generations of ophthalmologists and optometrists have told
their patients just the opposite, that the eye's development is
predetermined by genetics and cannot be affected by glasses. A
growing body of animal and human research, however, suggests that
the old wives were right after all.

The ability of young rhesus monkeys' eyes to gradually change
shape in response to what they see comes as no surprise to vision
scientists. Over the past two decades, their studies have
demonstrated that the eyes of young birds, tree shrews, guinea
pigs, and marmosets react to unfocused images by altering their
growth to correct the problem.

It is highly likely that the eyes of infants and young
children also adapt to what they see. This adaptation occurs by a
relative change in eye length that works something like this: As
the front of the eye grows and becomes less curved, images focus
deeper and deeper within the eye. If the lengthwise growth
perfectly matches the change in the eye's other dimensions, then
images continue to focus on the retina. If there is a mismatch
and the focus is off by even the thickness of this paper, then
vision will be blurred. Remarkably, the eye apparently senses
where images focus and compensates when needed. If light focuses
in front of the retina, the eye will stop lengthening until the
images catch up. If the focus is behind the retina, the eye grows
in length at an accelerated rate until the retina is "pushed back"
to the correct spot relative to the eye's other dimensions.

Thanks to this feedback mechanism, the eyes generally
maintain clearly focused images throughout early life despite
dramatic changes in size.

In addition to eye size and shape, the distance between the
eye and the objects it is viewing also determines where images
focus. Near objects come to focus behind the retina, but the lens
changes shape and pulls the images forward until they are clear
enough to recognize. However, they often remain slightly behind
the retina. This slight mismatch may be the mechanism by which
prolonged close work such as reading can signal the eye to grow
longer. If such a signal occurs frequently and strongly enough in
early life, the human eye may gradually lengthen and become
permanently focused for near objects. This produces
nearsightedness.

Most of the adaptive changes in eye length occur during
infancy and youth, while the eye is still growing in its socket.
When the front of the eye stops growing, around age nine or ten,
any further adaptive change can occur only in the myopic direction
-Ä the eye can grow longer, but not shhorter. Activities such as
prolonged reading at close distances may cause the eyes to
continue lengthening well into one's 20s.

If this cycle of incomplete focus and eye lengthening is the
primary cause of myopia, how can we intervene in this process?
Some practitioners believe that limiting the amount of close-up
reading or television watching a child or young adult does each
day may prevent myopia. These days that is a difficult task. So
I advise parents to encourage children to hold objects and reading
materials as far away from their faces as comfortable, and to sit
at least three feet away from the television screen.


[Comment: I should add that some children have some
terrible "reading" habits -- pulling the work in to
5 and 4 inches (-10 diopters) -- but for some reason
no one "warns" the parents about this bad
myopia-inducing habit. If there is ever to
be a better "preventive" solution, then a more
forceful effort must be made at that point.
Just one man's opinion. OSB]
William Stacy
2005-12-12 03:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
If driving with the minimum 20/40 vision was harmful then the
requirement should be 20/25 or something.
OK one last shot before I give up on you. There are minimums for lots
of things in life, most of which are reasoned guesstimates based on
analyses by experts. For example, it's also legal to drive with 1/8
inch tread remaining on your tires. Does this mean you should purposely
drive with 1/8" remaining, or that you should buy some 1/8" tread tires
because they are so cheap? Of course it's legal to do so, but stupid,
just like it's legal to drive with 20/40 but if you can correct to 20/20
or better, why wouldn't you? Obviously, by definition you will see
signs twice as early, identify small animals and people twice as early.
The 20/40 rule is there because they have to draw the line somewhere,
just like the 1/8" rule. It is NOT a suggestion! I'm pretty sure you
are smart enough to understand what I'm saying. If not, I hope you
never drive in California. We have enough hazards.

w.stacy, o.d.



This of course would leave
Post by a***@yahoo.com
more people out from driving but it would support your statement that
20/40 is not good enough to safely drive. By your statement, I probably
shouldnt drive because my BCVA isnt good enough, especially not at
night. I dont drive but I have other excuses besides my vision. As for
amblyopia, this is often caused by anisometropia, one eye being much
more dormant than the other, seeing much better than the other. Use the
patch to exercise the weaker eye!
"the stair-case myopia
that develops when you begin wearing an
over-prescribed minus -- all the time, and
pseudo-myopia is converted into
"regular myopia" by that process."
This seems to explain perfectly how me and my friends became more and
more myopic and each time our glasses got bumped up, our eyes would
rapidly get worse then slow down due to the now too weak glasses. One
time I put off getting new glasses for 2 years and my vision didnt get
any worse than it did after one year then as soon as I got the new
glasses in 3 months it got another half diopter worse then stopped.
"You can see the same thing in the
proven behavior of the primate eye when
1. Place a minus lens on it, or
2. Place the test group in a
more-confined visual environment."
exactly! read this on the net, its been proven!
"Oh, that damnable minus lens. The scourge of humanity. If only we'd
found the stockpiles of minus lenses when we invaded Iraq. That would
have shown 'em."
LOL! In its defense, the minus lense can be used for stuff like
driving, watching movies, reading the chalkboard from back of class or
basically using it for distance seeing. DO however go without glasses
for near seeing and if your a low myope, forgo wearing glasses around
the house and in familiar surroundings.
William Stacy
2005-12-12 02:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
If driving with the minimum 20/40 vision was harmful then the
requirement should be 20/25 or something.
OK one last shot before I give up on you. There are minimums for lots
of things in life, most of which are reasoned guesstimates based on
analyses by experts. For example, it's also legal to drive with 1/8
inch tread remaining on your tires. Does this mean you should purposely
drive with 1/8" remaining, or that you should buy some 1/8" tread tires
because they are so cheap? Of course it's legal to do so, but stupid,
just like it's legal to drive with 20/40 but if you can correct to 20/20
or better, why wouldn't you? Obviously, by definition you will see
signs twice as early, identify small animals and people twice as early.
The 20/40 rule is there because they have to draw the line somewhere,
just like the 1/8" rule. It is NOT a suggestion! I'm pretty sure you
are smart enough to understand what I'm saying. If not, I hope you
never drive in California. We have enough hazards.

w.stacy, o.d.
p***@gmail.com
2005-12-11 16:02:26 UTC
Permalink
how does pseudomyopia convert to "real" myopia? does the eyeball get
longer? does the cornea change its curvature? does the index of
refraction of the ocular media change? does the lens change its
curvature within the eye (without the action of the ciliary muscle
which would then be classified as pseudomyopia)? do you understand
physiological optics?

why do you come back to this forum and post your unlearned ***@p?

do you seek to be intellectually undressed once again? i think you
have psychological issues!
RM
2005-12-11 16:18:38 UTC
Permalink
***** OTIS WARNING *****


This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
"***@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer".

Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
training is nil. Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He falsely
claims to be associated with doctors who do not know him. He has given
people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have
psychological problems that compel him to argue against people just for the
sake of argument.

Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not
reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space and it
also just fulfils his sick psychological needs.

No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only
meant to forewarn newcomers who might misconstrue Otis as a expert. Those
of us who have been here for awhile know Otis oh too well!

For anyone who is interested in understanding the true state of
scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following
links:
http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf
http://www.optometrists.asn.au/gui/files/ceo865276.pdf

If you are interested in Otis' theories of myopia prevention then visit his
favorite websites www.i-see.org and www.chinamyopia.com. You can also post
in the newsgroup alt.med.vision.improve or contact Otis directly by e-mail
at ***@pa.net

Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision", which usually
appears on Mondays, for a guide regarding this newsgroup and for information
on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in
worthwhile discussions in this forum.

For further information on killfilling (filtering out the posts of a troll
or spammer) see the following link:
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm
For additional information on handling "trolls" like Otis, refer to this
link:
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
Post by o***@pa.net
Dear Acema,
Could all my myopia be pseudomyopia?
In its initial phase, your all your myopia
(say -1.0 diopters) could have been
pseudo-myopia -- which converts
to "real myopia" once you begin
wearing a minus lens all the time.
www.myopiafree.com
Just one man's opinion.
Best,
Otis
Loading...