 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005The OD-Quota -- 10 minutes to discuss prevention with plus
Dear Prevention minded Friends, and R. Izaac, Subject: Separating engineering-scientific issues from "medical" issues. Re: What is the proven effect of a -3.0 D lens on the refractive state of the adolescent primate eye -- in terms of engineering-science. Given the incredible "blasts" by Jan, Neil, RM, and Mike Tyner, I would suggest that a calm compassionate and thoughtful discussion about the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye would be impossible. Further, I never suggested that you could reduce an engineering-scientific "understanding" of the natural eye's dyanamic behavior into a "quick fix" which can be provided in 10 minutes. Further, I have restricted my "site" to adress the interest and concerns of people who have reached "their majority", i.e., not children. In fact, it must be the person (with the required motivation and insights and education) -- to do the work himself -- and verify the results. But with that said, I will post your statement to the people who are actively following these technical arguments concerning the behavior of the natural eye. _____________________________________ From: "R. Izaac" Otis> Dear Friend, Otis> My statement is that at the threshold (i.e., -1.5 diopter 20/40 to 20/70), the POTENTIAL for prevention does exist. Otis> Once you begin wearing an over-prescribed minus lens -- all bets are off. Izaac> Ok, please explain how the minus lens damages the dynamic nature of the eye? Show us the research. [Comment: I NEVER said "damage". I stated that the refractive state of the natural eye would move "down" if, (1). you place a minus lens on it, and (2). If you place the eye in a more-confined visual enviroment. This is basic scientific "input" versus "output" testing. The research I just sent you, and is also contained in my book, "How to Avoid Nearsighedness". ALL OF THIS IS TOTALLY IGNORED BY Izaac with his statement "...show us the research". That is why I suggest that the "intellectual" person LOOK AT THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA HIMSELF -- since Izaac only "pretends" to do so. OSB] Otis> The person who first put you into a minus lens has the responsibility of telling you this. Izaac> Yep, "Sorry Mr Tan, but I have to tell you that the minus lens will damage the dynamic responce of your son's eye, I understand your son cannot function in school, but this is only temperary, why not take him out of school for a couple of years till he passes the DMV test. We will put him on the plus lenses till he recovers." [Comment: Obviously I never said anything of this nature. Further, the person should verify his vision himself in the range of 20/30 to 20/60. I have seen a number of instances where the person checks this himself, and finds he reads the 20/40 line. He then goest to an OD who puts him in a darkened room with a poorly illuminated Snellen, and gets a "reading" of -2.0 diopters. OSB] Izaac> Mr Tan: "DMV test? what are you talking about, he is 9 years old. Why can't you give him glasses to see?" Otis> Please read, "The Pritner's Son" below. If after a discussion of the proven effect that a minus lens has on the refractive status of the natural eye, "Mr. Tan" still insists that his child MUST BE wearing a -2.0 diopter lens all the time -- then no problem -- put the child into that minus two. But then, Mr. Tan, or his child should have no complaint about the fact that his child's vision goes "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year for the next ten years. OSB] Otis> I simply do not talk to "chidren" about this issue of prevention. But when the person is old enough to "understand" these issues, then he should be offered a discussion of the preventive alternative. At 20/50, most people can function without wearing the minus lens. The intention is that the person will "clear" to the legal requirment of 20/40 -- and pass the DMV test. Obviously this use of the plus must continue. It takes a "strong mind" to truly understand this issue. You can not "prescribe" that kind of strong-will. But yes, we must PASS the legal requirment of reading 1.8 cm letters at 6 meters. OSB] Izaac> "Oh come now Mr. Tan, that method is 400 years old. Now we won't worry if he can't see, our main concern is prevention at the treshold." Izaac> Mr. Tan: "Is the plus lens a proven way" [Comment: Is the minus proven to be "safe"? OSB] Izaac> Not really, but at least the method is relatively new. Now I need to ask you some questions. Is your son intelegent? _________________ [Comment: I do not propose to deal with a great mass of the population walking in off the street. The OD (who is on a "quota" system) is expected to produce an "exam" in 10 minutes. Obviously, no effective "discussion" is possible under these circumstances. That is why I separate engineering-scientifc issues from "medical" issues. I can only afford to deal with a person who undertands what he "wants" in his life and is prepared to use the plus "agressively" under his own control. But it is important that you understand the nature of "izaac's" arguments. That is why I post, "The Printer's Son", to indicate that the "public's" lack of interest, and hostility towards the plus will always "shut down" the OD who would attempt to offer "prevention with the plus". OSB] ___________________________ Review of various publications. "A man with only a hammer -- will see every problem as a nail" THE GORDIAN KNOT Intricate; complicated, like the GORDIAN KNOT tied by Gordius, King of Phrygia. An oracle having declared that he who should untie the knot should be master of Asia, Alexander the Great cut it with his sword. STATMENT: Jacob Raphaelson used a mild plus-one on a child at about 20/40. After wearing the plus 16/7, the child returned with 20/20 vision. The parents did not understand the necessity of wearing the plus in this manner -- and rejected it. QUESTION: Why is this issue not addressed in the following publications? Clearly, only an "educated" parent and child could understand and properly use the plus for prevention. STATEMENT: That specific "interaction" issue, where the person must have some "control" as to the above issue is TOTALLY IGNORED in ALL THE FOLLOWING research publications. STATEMENT: Further the total hostility of the ODs (on sci.med.vision) is like-wise completely ignored. Any meaningful progress is impossible until the "non-research" (but human-motivation) issue is addressed. A man's "protection" of his "professional position" is understandable, but sometimes it becomes excessive -- and that kind of bias must be understood in a comprehensive review. Equally, the "habit" of the ignorant public to REJECT any use of the "plus" at the threshold must be understood and addressed. It is essential that anyone "deeply" involved in the goal of effective prevention begin a process of evaluating these issues. What follows is an incredible number of publications that "investigate" the prevention of a negative refractive state for the natural eye. And this is only up to the year 2000! You get the feeling that these people only make themselves "more confused" by their own research. This is a massive data-base of research. It will put you to sleep if you attempt to read it. An engineering-scientific approch is makes issues clearer -- and more fundamental by addressing the underlying process where the natural eye maintains engineering accuracy with respect to its average visual enviroment. Sincerely, Otis _____________________________________________________ Br J Ophthalmol 1998;82:210-211 ( March ) Commentary Ophthalmologists should consider the causes of myopia and not simply treat its consequences Myopia has been undergoing a major re-evaluation in recent years both by ophthalmologists and basic scientists, though for different reasons. For ophthalmologists the rise of refractive surgery in the past decade has seen myopia changing from a condition requiring optical correction to one that can be managed surgically with the aid of the excimer laser and other techniques. For basic scientists interested in the control of eye growth, the past decade has been equally revolutionary with a huge increase in the understanding of mechanisms by which eye growth is regulated by the quality of the retinal image. This research offers insights into why myopia develops in humans and offers clinicians a novel perspective from which to approach the management of myopia. Rather than attempting to alter corneal curvature to "treat" myopia, it may be possible to prevent or "cure" myopia by directly manipulating the growth mechanisms of the eye. _________________________________________ Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol 112, Issue 5 575-577, Copyright © 1975 by Canadian Medical Association Inuit myopia: an environmentally induced "epidemic"? R. W. Morgan, J. S. Speakman and S. E. Grimshaw Among Inuit less than 30 years old the prevalence of myopia is far in excess of that of their elders. This is especially true for females. There seems to be little, if any, genetic contribution to this "epidemic" of myopia in the young. The age and sex distribution indicates the likelihood of an environmental factor, probably cultural, being responsible for the current pattern. Other data implicate school attendance as a possible etiologic (causitive) factor. [drivel snipped] Otis, A couple of quick things: 1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems a little narcissistic and self-serving, don't you think? 2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri, etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the highest of scrutiny before being labeled as "safe," "accurate," "state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister. It's up there for you to surmount. Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses. Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I don't think it is). But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot and a dottering, old fool. The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others. Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing, accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in what you spout -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe your methods, you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with Bagolini, Helmholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all the other paragons whose names are memorialized in the annals of vision care. Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help. "Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt. It does nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your signature said, "I am not a doctor. My theories are my own, have not been proved, and are not shared by most in the medical community. Further, I am pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses legitimately tested. Consult your doctor." Neil Dear Friends, There are people who think -- and then there is Neil. You are obviously not an OD, since you could not spell the name of that great ophthalmologist, Dr. Herman Helmholtz. No offense intended, but must be a shill. The problem of "prevention" with the plus is not easy. It takes a person with considerable resolve to do it. You can not "prescribe it", but some people do get the "better" idea. Enjoy! Otiis Otis, A couple of quick things: 1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems a little narcissistic and self-serving, don't you think? 2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri, etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the highest of scrutiny before being labeled as "safe," "accurate," "state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister. It's up there for you to surmount. Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses. Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I don't think it is). But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot and a dottering, old fool. The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others. Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing, accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in what you spout -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe your methods, you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with Bagolini, Helmholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all the other paragons whose names are memorialized in the annals of vision care. Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help. "Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt. It does nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your signature said, "I am not a doctor. My theories are my own, have not been proved, and are not shared by most in the medical community. Further, I am pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses legitimately tested. Consult your doctor." Neil How come you start your messages with "Dear Friends"? nobody in this forum likes you. no one believes anything you say. only Rishi will talk to you and you two don't even agree with each other. I guess its like they say. Misery loves company. From: "R. Izaac" Otis> Dear Friend, Otis> My statement is that at the threshold (i.e., -1.5 diopter 20/40 to 20/70), the POTENTIAL for prevention does exist. Otis> Once you begin wearing an over-prescribed minus lens -- all bets are off. Izaac> Ok, please explain how the minus lens damages the dynamic nature of the eye? Show us the research. [Comment: I NEVER said "damage". I stated that the refractive state of the natural eye would move "down" if, (1). you place a minus lens on it, and (2). If you place the eye in a more-confined visual enviroment. This is basic scientific "input" versus "output" testing. The research I just sent you, and is also contained in my book, "How to Avoid Nearsighedness". ALL OF THIS IS TOTALLY IGNORED BY Izaac with his statement "...show us the research". That is why I suggest that the "intellectual" person LOOK AT THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA HIMSELF -- since Izaac only "pretends" to do so. OSB] Follow this logic:- According to Otis, Natural eye is dynamic----Natural eye will respond to plus lens therapy, but only before first minus lens is worn. ----First minus lens must have done something to cause the eye to stop responding to the plus therapy. My question is what. Otis> The person who first put you into a minus lens has the responsibility of telling you this. Izaac> Yep, "Sorry Mr Tan, but I have to tell you that the minus lens will damage the dynamic responce of your son's eye, I understand your son cannot function in school, but this is only temperary, why not take him out of school for a couple of years till he passes the DMV test. We will put him on the plus lenses till he recovers." [Comment: Obviously I never said anything of this nature. Further, the person should verify his vision himself in the range of 20/30 to 20/60. I have seen a number of instances where the person checks this himself, and finds he reads the 20/40 line. He then goest to an OD who puts him in a darkened room with a poorly illuminated Snellen, and gets a "reading" of -2.0 diopters. OSB] Obviously you Can't detect sarcasm Roland J. Izaac But it is clear that you understand nothing, perhaps you are an idiot. How can you rule out that SOME patient MAY respond to Otis treatment? You just talk about your own convictions, not about truth. Rishi> You just talk about your own convictions, not about truth. Otis> BINGO! What was that famous expression? ...So that you might know the truth ... and the truth shall make you free. Now who said that -- I wonder. Otis Engineer Otis Brown drooled: >Rishi> You just talk about your own convictions, not about truth. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Now who said that -- I wonder. But the truth is able to be proved, whereas faith (your kind of science) is not. Therefore, Otis, A couple of quick things: 1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems a little narcissistic and self-serving, don't you think? 2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri, etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the highest of scrutiny before being labeled as "safe," "accurate," "state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister. It's up there for you to surmount. Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses. Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I don't think it is). But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot and a dottering, old fool. The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others. Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing, accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in what you spout -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe your methods, you'll be rich, and you'll be right up there with Bagolini, Helmholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all the other paragons whose names are memorialized in the annals of vision care. Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help. "Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt. It does nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your signature said, "I am not a doctor. My theories are my own, have not been proved, and are not shared by most in the medical community. Further, I am pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses legitimately tested. Consult your doctor." Neil > But the truth is able to be proved, whereas faith (your kind of > science) is not. Therefore, Everybody can prove that if he removes the glasses for some hour or days, when he wears them again they are too strong. This is a truth. > Everybody can prove that if he removes the glasses for some hour or > days, when he wears them again they are too strong. > > This is a truth. Until you go to college. A good college strips away misconceptions and sloppy logic. The most important thing you learn is that believing something doesn't make it true. It makes you less gullible, and most people consider that a good thing. But I doubt that college could teach you much, at this point. You'd flunk out. Every wrong answer would cause an argument. Did you flunk out of college? I don't think you have dyslexia or a learning disability. Instead it's an emotional agenda that interferes with your ability to learn. No? OK, in vacuum, which falls faster - a feather or a hammer? Dazzle us. -MT > > Everybody can prove that if he removes the glasses for some hour or > > days, when he wears them again they are too strong. > > > > This is a truth. I would like to know if somebody on this board has tried the experiment and can confirm that when he wears again the glasses, they are too strong. It is a very simple experiment, a full evidence that glasses have something that does not work. Opticians know very well, it is the core of their business, that once you get your first pair of glasses, you have to change them before or after, and if then you stop changing it, it is simply because you stop tests because you are fed up with these things and you settle in a degree of semi-blur and eccentric fixation. Your practice is TOTALLY UNLOGICAL. I remember my own experience. When the doctoress gave my first 0,50 minus lense, she said she was undercorrecting me. Despite of that, I felt great pain when I used the glasses first time. She told me to wear them slowly, only for particular occasions. Now this is absurd. If a cure is a cure, it should work forever. But it is not a cure, but just a "correction". Now the correction was to be changed just after 6 months. The correction soared from -0,50 to -1,50, and then to -2,50 in another 6 months. Wher is your LOGIC here? No logic at all. The doctress was just groping in the dark. She chose to go for undercorrecting, then for full correction, then again when I reached -5 went again for undercorrection... Where is the logic? Just groping in the dark. It is all wrong. A child would rebel against the glasses, very easily. But you compel him to wear them, teaching him that he has to endure the discomfort. A physician who creates discomfort... You are a host of bad criminals. > I would like to know if somebody on this board has tried the experiment > and can confirm that when he wears again the glasses, they are too > strong. Since most people don't sleep in their glasses, EVERYONE who wears glasses has tried your experiment. It seems like my patients would tell me. Wonder why they choose to complain to you and not me? -MT > > I would like to know if somebody on this board has tried the experiment > > and can confirm that when he wears again the glasses, they are too > > strong. > > Since most people don't sleep in their glasses, EVERYONE who wears glasses > has tried your experiment. In fact in the morning you see better, isn't it? How can you be so stupid? > It seems like my patients would tell me. Wonder why they choose to complain > to you and not me? They don't complain to you because you will change the glasses and ask more money. Please, shut up, it's better for your reputation if you stay silent. > In fact in the morning you see better, isn't it? > How can you be so stupid? In fact I don't. How can you embarrass Italy so? -MT > > In fact in the morning you see better, isn't it? > > How can you be so stupid? > > In fact I don't. > > How can you embarrass Italy so? The land that gave birth to Dr. Bates is in the hands of such idiots! Everybody sees much better in the morning, except this dirty idiot that conceals the truth for saving his own dirty business of selling the glasses! How can you exclude such easy things every one can demonstrate for himself? It's really absurd! That vision is not fixed and static is so clear to everybody! >> > In fact in the morning you see better, isn't it? >> > How can you be so stupid? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >The land that gave birth to Dr. Bates is in the hands of such idiots! I guess I never realized that Bates's first name was Luigi.... > Otis> My statement is that at the threshold (i.e., -1.5 diopter > 20/40 to 20/70), the POTENTIAL for prevention does exist. > > Otis> Once you begin wearing an over-prescribed minus lens -- all > bets are off. I am so confused about who the people are that you claim can be helped by your plus lens approach. Once it was "pilot-engineers who are in a 4-year college and are intelligent". Then it was "the entire population of adolescent human eyes". Now it's something like "those people at the THRESHOLD (?) which have never worn an over-prescribed minus lens. Perhaps it's really "anglo-saxons on a full moon who throw salt over their shoulder". And you try to lecture everyone here about the real meaning of science? Ha. Go design a better vacuum cleaner. You'd be good at it because your logic really sucks bigtime! Mike What would be much more fun for me than picking on Otis would be to wonder why you spend so much time on this list? Dont you have better things to do? Do you have a life? Maybe, maybe not. I know you are married and myopic.....and your wife is hyperopic....I cant remember if you are astigmatic...but i think you have mentioned that you are. I do know that you are not stupid and can provide a reasonable argument and produce some good solid data and I have learnt that when you are not attacking Otis that you can be quite helpful if asked a reasonable question **and** you can calm down sufficiently to reflect and chose 'helpful mode', rather than 'Sarcastic mode' or 'destroy' mode. For some reason Otis presses some button in you that is there to be pressed. I have the same problem with Otis. He drives me completely insane with his never ending drivel. Others suggest that we select the ignore button....but i am not sure this is possible because i only visit the web page rather than receive email. Otis does seem to have taken it upon himself to destroy this list. And seems to take over other lists in a similar fashion. However the conclusion i come to is this list is just a junk list. A silly list. If it were not Otis there would be some other crank. Now, as you know, I believe that Myopia is a brain problem that is reflected in the eye. Otis has around 6 diopters of myopia in his eyes, and as you point out his brain is obviously myopic too. The myopic way is to imagine we are clever but in reality make stupid life decisions. Its kind of myopic to waste time talking to Otis. And its equally myopic of Otis to imagine that his silly behaviour will achieve anything at all. A more far seeing approach would be to ignore him and construct some other situation where what we really really want to happen is possible. This means that we build a vision of some better future. An Otis free future! Meanwhile a desire to feel important (when we dont feel important) drives our behaviour in an inappropriate direction. You and the other OD's here are 'experts'. Folk come to the list and need to be helped. You help these people and I imagine you feel important loved and needed. Lists like this are like a kind of family....There are the competitive brothers and sisters who are either the folk who are not OD's or who are the OD's battling their wits against each other but rarely really agreeing or supporting one another. Each OD aims to be an Authority of father figure so they can feel loved and important. Challenges have to be punished, dismissed ridiculed. Agreement becomes difficult. This is after all neurotic behaviour and cooperation is far too healthy. Meanwhile life trundles by and slowly goes down the drain. Perhaps one day you imagined you might make it somehow? Be important? Be somebody? Its kind of sad. The highlight of the day is to attack an old man who only means well but presents himself, from our point of view, as a retarded individual who is so annoying that we are reduced to ranting and raving or attempting to be more and more clever in the hope that somehow he can be embarrassed into just retreating to his own little world of fantasy. If only all this energy could go into World peace or maybe clubbing together to pay for a hit man or anything. Anything at all. Instead the list is just a pile of drivel, populated by people wasting time with nothing better to do. Sigh Andrew > Instead the list is just a pile of drivel, populated by people wasting > time with nothing better to do. > > Sigh > > Andrew Much time has passed, did you finally remove your glasses? > For some reason Otis presses some button in you that is there to be > pressed. I have the same problem with Otis. He drives me completely [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > However the conclusion i come to is this list is just a junk list. A > silly list. If it were not Otis there would be some other crank. I agree Andrew, reading your statement below. > Now, as you know, I believe that Myopia is a brain problem that is > reflected in the eye. I suppose you want the interchange the words ''myopic'' and the in more ways to interpret words "short sighted'' Myopia is a definition ONLY used in eyes to explain a condition in optical error of the eye.  SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > > Now, as you know, I believe that Myopia is a brain problem that is > > reflected in the eye. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Myopia is a definition ONLY used in eyes to explain a condition in optical > error of the eye. Jan You always in my view tend to make rather silly statements. Although myopia is indeed an optical error of the eye, to suggest that it is only an optical error of the eye is incorrect. As measured by a variety of parameters myopic eyes have a number of peculiarities other than a simple optical error. And importantly in the bigger picture (apparently unnoticed by ophthalmology) our human eyes are connected directly to our brains. Ophthalmology which myopically only considers the eye and does not consider the evolving sciences of perception and vision is in the dark ages as regards any attempt at understanding the eye in relation to the human body in its entirety. In 1949 the novelist Aldous Huxley (admittedly a clever man) wrote that seeing involves: 1. The sense of sight 2. Selection of one part of that sense of sight or visual field 3. Perception of what is selected or sensed. 4. A change to what is sensed following a recognition of what is perceived. Even your average person in the street realises that the act of seeing involves far more than simply the eye. To see normally requires an eye mind coordination that is mind boggling complex. Interestingly in myopia we see not just refractive error but peculiarities of eye movement and indeed oddities of personality. Personality links dont show causality but a scientific view would take an interest in that linkage given the complex interaction between higher brain function and eye movement. Frankly its idiotic to limit myopia to only the eye. Meanwhile Ophthalmology blindly gropes around for a solution to an eye epidemic for which it is largely clueless to provide assistance and continues to peddle theories for which there is little or any evidence. Silly comments such as yours only reinforce the notion that eye professionals are unbelieveably blinkered and myopic in their ability to see a bigger picture of vision problems. Andrew > Andrew Well said! What about your cure? Have you dropped the glasses finally? have you noticed that everyone ignors your postings? > Interestingly in myopia we see not just refractive error but > peculiarities of eye movement and indeed oddities of personality. We know this because...? -MT > > Interestingly in myopia we see not just refractive error but > > peculiarities of eye movement and indeed oddities of personality. > > We know this because...? > > -MT Eye movement/displacement with myopia = Phorias/under over convergence/strabismus. Personality factors is well documented in the literature Kelley, Charles R. "Psychological Factors in Myopia." Ph.D. dissertation. New School for Social Research, New York: 1958. Fox, Jack. "Functional Factors in Myopia." Ph.D. dissertation. UCLA: 1958. A PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF MYOPIA.. ZEIGER, CAROLYN ALLEN, PHD. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER, 1976. 262 pp. THE VISUAL ANOMALIES OF MYOPIA AND HYPEROPIA RELATED TO PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS.. BRANDT, ROBERT, PHD. CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY - BERKELEY/ALAMEDA, 1977. 158 pp. Gottlieb, Ray. "The Psychophysiology of Nearsightedness." Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: 1978. McClay, William H. "Systematic Relaxation: A Treatment for Visual Problems." Ph.D. dissertation. United States International University, San Diego: 1978. FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF MYOPIA.. GRIGSBY, EUGENE HOWARD, PHD. WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, 1979. 90 pp. PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BOYS WITH MYOPIA. SEITLER, BURTON NORMAN, PHD. FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, 1981. 242 pp. MYOPIA AND PERSONALITY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MYOPIC SUBGROUPS. CARLIN, ENID SUSAN, PHD. UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, 1981. 77 pp. Kellum, R.B. Capitalism and the Eye. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Dissertation Information Service, 1997." > Personality factors is well documented in the literature Wow. It must be difficult coming up with a list that large that doesn't contain one peer reviewed citation. Scott >Eye movement/displacement with myopia = Phorias/under over >convergence/strabismus. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Kellum, R.B. Capitalism and the Eye. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI >Dissertation Information Service, 1997." I was able to find a few of these . . . on iBlindness.org--a Bates site. The *gaping* hole in their "logic" is post hoc, ergo propter hoc. They continually make the assertion that strain and or personality typing *cause* refractive error without proving the cause-effect. It's equally (and I would argue far more) likely that refractive error leads to eyestrain and shapes personalities in the process. That's not to say that personalities and stress are not *contributory*, but to infer that the cause and effect works this way is a gigantic leap of faith that--in my review of the literature cited--continually fails to be substantiated. If I've missed something, or you have other studies--especially studies which were performed more recently than Harry Truman's presidency, for example--please let me know. > >Eye movement/displacement with myopia = Phorias/under over > >convergence/strabismus. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > studies which were performed more recently than Harry Truman's > presidency, for example--please let me know. Neil I am not American but I knew that Truman was president in 1945 when the bombs were dropped on Japan which kind of emphasises the difficulties he had in mind "when, on April 12, 1945, he became President. He told reporters, "I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me." All my studies were from 1958 and Truman was not president after 1953 or? Its true that at least one or two of these studies are really opinion rather than research worthy of a PhD. My apologies. I appreciate that you did take some trouble to look them up. However for example Burton Seitler, who is now a practicing psychoanalyst, appears to have produced something worthy of attention. I have spoken to him. He is not your average nutty shrink or eccentric. I also spoke to Zieglers supervising professor Lew Harvey Jnr who is now a respected authority in visual perception. He wanted the study to be taken further but was not involved in those kind of studies any longer. The latest of the studies I quoted was 1997. Last year one of the Worlds top myopia researchers was interested in me developing a personality study to be submitted to the Singapore cohort study they have going there. We kind of disagreed on how to approach the study. But they have an interest in such a study since 'there were noticable differences in personality for myopes' and it 'ought to be studied'. I realise that personality and vision can seem completely wacky. However when we are aware of the way mental attention drives eye movement it can easily be believable that defects in normal mental attention created by stress or trauma could conceivably create certain visual behaviour. It is known that there is a diagostic eye movement characteristic of schizophrenia. (half of the medical community believes that schizophrenia arises from family influences and half believe its genetic). At one time i was interested in the physical 'how' of eye problems but now much much less so. What is interesting though is the way that obviously different 'visual styles' create obviously different eye problems. Hypermetropia is opposite to myopia. Myopia is related to inhibition, shyness. Fearfulness. Even if it is disguised by an apparant but *unreal* or artificial agression or exstroversion - the nerd factor if you like. Myopes tend to be intellectually clever but emotionally immature. They get stuck into detail but miss the bigger picture of themselves in time and space in their lives. Hypermetropia is related to feeling a strong emotion - usually anger. Hyperopes tend to be mature emmotionaly but resist details - its not their style. They see the bigger picture...but find it hard to look inwards. If you are working with clients every day its relatively simple to see these kind of differences if you only look at none astigmatics. Astigmatism confuses the picture quite dramatically. But if you really want to know for yourself, just take the info i posted on astigmatism and make it dinner party topic and see what comes up. Interestingly astigmatism is always associated with some issue in expression of anger as is hypermetropia. And large amounts of astigmatism are common with hypermetropia - True? Even knowing the exact stats for the spread of various vision measurements across a population would be very interesting in this regard. These patterns are very strong in my experience of talking to people with vision problems. Andrew > These patterns are very strong in my experience of talking to people > with vision problems. "Very strong patterns" have been observed between personality and anatomical features on other occasions. Dr. Spurzheim saw "very strong" correlation between personality and bumps on the skull. It prompted the Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine to quip in 1823: "'Fool' and 'phrenologist' are terms nearly synonymous." -MT > > These patterns are very strong in my experience of talking to people > > with vision problems. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -MT Mike there is probably some kind of correlation Brainless people have small craniums or microcephalous i believe it is called. A person with a brain is going to have more bumps. Yeah. I can see you have some bumps but I dont know what they reveal. > Yeah. I can see you have some bumps but I dont know what they reveal. Most people have astigmatism, but I don't know what it reveals. Mainly it reveals the shape of a part of their face. Perhaps long noses mean something and short noses are the opposite. Big ears? Could be significant. Let's assume it is. Let's assume astigmatism axis 90 means one thing, and axis 180 means another, and axis 135 and 45 something entirely different. Let's assume that 45 and 135 are opposites of 135 and 45. Let's assume that those with axis 159 or 23 are hopelessly confused. If we just make those few assumptions, what fun we'll have! -MT > > Yeah. I can see you have some bumps but I dont know what they reveal. > > Most people have astigmatism, but I don't know what it reveals. > Mainly it reveals the shape of a part of their face. Perhaps long noses mean > something and short noses are the opposite. There is evidence that musicians who habitually play in a certain position get astigmatism. Posture seems to be relevant. > Big ears? Could be significant. > > Let's assume it is. Anything is possible. So you are right to consider big ears. But there is no evidence so far that this is true. > Let's assume astigmatism axis 90 means one thing, and axis 180 means > another, and axis 135 and 45 something entirely different. Let's assume that > 45 and 135 are opposites of 135 and 45. Let's assume that those with axis > 159 or 23 are hopelessly confused. Ok...well this is how science works..... Kaplan found 4 basic patterns. In my experience using these patterns to understand why people have a vision problem, 23 degrees does indicate that their is a mixture of two of the 4 patterns. You seem confused mike....its all pretty simple really. > You seem confused mike....its all pretty simple really. the ease with which you make such sweeping personality judgments about people with so little information is amazing to me. and your posts make it clear that you are rather taken with yourself. I think you would have been a favorite of Hitler's if you lived in Germany during WWII. What sort of refractive errors do Jews have? > There is evidence that musicians who habitually play in a certain > position get astigmatism. Posture seems to be relevant. Despite the fact that many people keep virtually the same astigmatism throughout life. Posture plays a role? In utero? Well, I could be convinced. But astigmatism reflects personality? That's phrenology. > You seem confused mike....its all pretty simple really. It would be simple for me too, if I hadn't examined so many. Be sure of this: if you think it's simple, then you've missed something important. -MT >> > Now, as you know, I believe that Myopia is a brain problem that is >> > reflected in the eye. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You always in my view tend to make rather silly statements. Then point out why and when they are silly. > Although myopia is indeed an optical error of the eye, to suggest that > it is only an optical error of the eye is incorrect. Andrew, what ever you may say, myopia, hyperopia, emmetropia and presbyopia are definitions of a condition in refraction of the optical system in the eye. > As measured by a variety of parameters myopic eyes have a number of > peculiarities other than a simple optical error. You used your language as a politician, lots of words and nothing said. > And importantly in the bigger picture (apparently unnoticed by > ophthalmology) our human eyes are connected directly to our brains. Google on the words ''visual pathway'' Andrew and see what eyecareprofessionals from opticiens to opthalmologist already knew and what obviosly is quit new to you. Also google on ''human anatomy and physiology'' and especialy on ''the development of the eye''. From out of nowhere you suddenly see the words ''development of the brain'', you can't mis it. Other words to google on are amniotic cavity, neural plate, neural groove ectoderm, mesoderm, endoderm, notocord, neural tube, telencephalon, diencephalon, midbrain and hindbrain. > Ophthalmology which myopically only considers the eye and does not > consider the evolving sciences of perception and vision is in the dark > ages as regards any attempt at understanding the eye in relation to > the human body in its entirety. Why should eyecareprofessionals only consider myopia when speaking of perception? Are you that narrow minded? > Even your average person in the street realises that the act of seeing > involves far more than simply the eye. To see normally requires an > eye mind coordination that is mind boggling complex. Are eyecareprofessionals not average? > Interestingly in myopia we see not just refractive error but > peculiarities of eye movement and indeed oddities of personality. As asked several months ago by me, how about the mixed astigmatics (one direction myopic other direction hypermetropic) when speaking of oddities of personality? One silly question, can you measure this condition whithout knowing the error in the optical system of the eye? > Frankly its idiotic to limit myopia to only the eye. Then why not consider hyperopia or a mix of hyperopia, emmetropia and myopia. Think of OD and OS being of a differend type of optical error is also a nice one. Who is the idiot here? > Meanwhile Ophthalmology blindly gropes around for a solution to an eye > epidemic for which it is largely clueless to provide assistance and > continues to peddle theories for which there is little or any > evidence. If you know the answer then help the human kind! > Silly comments such as yours only reinforce the notion that eye > professionals are unbelieveably blinkered and myopic in their ability > to see a bigger picture of vision problems. Empty words Andrew. You already are placed in the row of Otis and those silly Italians. SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) >>As asked several months ago by me, how about the mixed astigmatics (one direction myopic other direction hypermetropic) when speaking of oddities of personality? One silly question, can you measure this condition whithout knowing the error in the optical system of the eye? Jan I recall i did answer this question at the time. And I indicated that Roberto Kaplan OD (A former professor of optometry) empirically linked different 'visual styles' to astigmatic values by getting a social worker trained in client interviews to talk to thousands of his clients. In my experience (and i now have quite a bit of experience of talking/interviewing myopes), it is possible to interview a person and begin to get a feeling that their astigmatic value just from that interview. However science is not always so clear cut. Science uses statistics to get results. In my view these trends are relatively obvious. For example yourself Jan. What i seem to notice about you is: You seem to be stubborn and inflexible....unable to listen. You tend to be confrontational. Sarcastic (hidden anger) You seem to prefer fighting to cooperation. Quite strongly it seems you find it difficult to change your point of view and quite strongly it seems you are able to or have an inclination to attack another person in a disrespectful manner. It seems you offer no olive branches. However really i know little about you. If i were with you in person its much much easier to make an assessment but i believe **it can be done** so that statistically a result would fit into one of the available patterns. To get a better picture i would need to talk to you about how you feel about what i have said and see how your respond. Of the available 4 patterns of 180 stubborn and inflexible and impatient 90 lack of committment lack of voicing your truth, lack of love 135 left eye 45 right eye. Clash of will surrender of will 135 right eye 45 left eye. Unresolved anger and resentment. One difficulty is that your personality (confrontational aggressive) as seen on this message board might not reflect your style that is visible in real life. It could be you are aware that you are avoiding speaking your mind in Holland (a country renowned for forthright speakers) and compensate for this on this message board. So I am inclined to think you have a visual problem....and that 180 degrees is possible.....but i just dont know sufficient details Andrew >And I indicated that Roberto Kaplan OD (A former professor of >optometry) empirically linked different 'visual styles' to astigmatic [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >done** so that statistically a result would fit into one of the >available patterns. However, a scientist *worth a damn* would recuse himself from this folly *unless* they were a native Dutch speaker, like Jan. To draw inferences otherwise would make one appear rather foolish, don't you think? > However, a scientist *worth a damn* would recuse himself from this > folly *unless* they were a native Dutch speaker, like Jan. To draw > inferences otherwise would make one appear rather foolish, don't you > think? Well i made it quite clear that at this stage i did not have sufficient information. You seem capable of being a reasonable person Neil so i wont hold it against you, but it will be noted and perhaps used in evidence at some point later. Thats how these things work:-) Part of this kind of process is to figure out how a person reacts. No reaction suggests mental calmness and confidence. Those are not commonly identified with myopia. If Jan supplies me with sufficient information via the way he responds to me I would be able to come up with an informed opinion with some kind of statistical significance i believe, but without his cooperation its much much harder. Thats kind of obvious. Dont you think? > What i seem to notice about you is: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > However really i know little about you. Then why do you act as though you know him so well. > One difficulty is that your personality (confrontational aggressive) > as seen on this message board might not reflect your style that is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Andrew I think you are an egotistical prick who thinks rather highly of himself! I bet you are married and your wife hates you and looks around at other men while feeling sad that she made such a bad decision to marry you. How do you classify yourself? >I think you are an egotistical prick who thinks rather highly of himself! I >bet you are married and your wife hates you and looks around at other men >while feeling sad that she made such a bad decision to marry you. How do >you classify yourself? To the people who are so anti troll-engagers: You realize, of course, that if you had your way, we'd be deprived of priceless responses like this. Well done, RM! > >I think you are an egotistical prick who thinks rather highly of himself! I > >bet you are married and your wife hates you and looks around at other men [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Well done, RM! Roberto Kaplan OD wrote an interesting book called 'Conscious Seeing' At first it might seem rather amusing to think of somebody like RM, anonomously self distructing somewhere in the World, while he boils with rage and desparately trys to come up with some kind of intelligent response to inflict maximum damage to some perceived threat to his sense of world order or whatever. Kaplan says that myopia in particular is related to fear of expression. Hopefuly RM will froth around a bit.....let off a bit of steam and then perhaps feel differently. Kaplan suggests that myopes tend to react as if they were in a difficult past rather than responding in the most appropriate manner that will create the best possible present and future moments. Effectively myopes look anxiously and fearfully into the future. Kaplans book is very thought provoking. Its the nature of anybody who posts on a list like this that they/we want to have a reaction. The myope considers themself clever. Therefore the reaction has to reflect their intellect and so forth. In reality the reason for posting is driven by some other factor. Insecurity need to be loved lack of importance etc. Interesting that i should be described as an egotistical prick who thinks rather highly of himself. :-) It almost makes me feel important. I was noticed. Bravo! I want more! Please. Feed me some more please. Hello, Andrew. Long time, no see. Your posting again here reminds me that this group has indeed come full circle. You were one of the frequent posters when I first discovered this board, which was fully infested with Bates proponents. I see that you still have a fascination with "junk" science. You may take comfort in the fact that your existence has been acknowledged. Admiration, annoyance, it's all the same, isn't it? DrG > > >I think you are an egotistical prick who thinks rather highly of himself! I > > >bet you are married and your wife hates you and looks around at other men [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Please. Feed me some more please. > Hello, Andrew. Long time, no see. Your posting again here reminds me > that this group has indeed come full circle. You were one of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your existence has been acknowledged. Admiration, annoyance, it's all > the same, isn't it? Hi Dr G Its interesting that you say "Admiration, annoyance, it's all the same, isn't it?" Another way of putting this is that to our nervous system 'Fear is not really different to excitement'. Its just our perception that creates a difference. But I suppose you were wanting to be ironic or something rather than erudite? However bitchy comments aside it is nice to see you acknowledging my existance even if you do regard me as part of an infestation. An infestation that for some reason you are happy to encourage! Admiration? Annoyance? Does it matter if its amusing? But I am annoyed that a supposedly scientific list prefers abuse rather than science. The science of visual perception and the philosophy of vision are not "junk" Science. Do I admire you or are you just annoying? I seem to remember believing you were able to put forth a reasonable argument to justify a particular viewpoint and do so without being abusive. However I imagine after 5 or so years of this list you have reached complete breaking point and so in the scheme of things your post might be considered a measured response designed to create some useful effect. That effect being? Or is it just your way of saying hello? Is it me or is it unclear? In a manner of speaking you appear to be saying 'f.ck off' but there does seem more to it than just that. Excitement? Annoyance? Astigmatism? Andrew > > Hello, Andrew. Long time, no see. Your posting again here reminds me > > that this group has indeed come full circle. You were one of the [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Andrew I rest my case. I wasn't trying to be abusive, but just stating an observation that you seem to want to be affirmed. DrG > > "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in message > news:<1110371725.824820.320190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > DrG I think I do have a need to be affirmed. > In my experience (and i now have quite a bit of experience of > talking/interviewing myopes), it is possible to interview a person and > begin to get a feeling that their astigmatic value just from that > interview. You talking a bit like Otis, lots of words but obviously nothing proved what so ever. > It seems you offer no olive branches. Italy is know for there olive threes, try those two weirdo's living over there, BTW they are very kind and friendly as you may have observed (astigmatic against the rule I suppose?) More seriously, what is the purpose in being friendly to a person who is dishonouring eyecareprofessionals in general. Me sarcastic, yes and I have no problem att all to admit it. Bye bye weirdo and don't start crying as you did several months ago, please just leave before you get hurt. SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > > In my experience (and i now have quite a bit of experience of > > talking/interviewing myopes), it is possible to interview a person and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Bye bye weirdo and don't start crying as you did several months ago, please > just leave before you get hurt. Sarcasm is a fearful form of expression. Under the veil of 'humour' the person attempts to attack the other person but can't see cleary what they are doing. Similarly an apparant need to be separate from a person "Bye by weirdo" etc is mixed with concerns for the persons well being. Commonly in astigmatism there was a difficulty being able to integrate conflicting messages from each parent so that the astigmatic needed to distort their sense of self to please both. > Commonly in astigmatism there was a difficulty being able > to integrate conflicting messages from each parent so that > the astigmatic needed to distort their sense of self to please > both. So it's pretty common, huh? -MT > Commonly in astigmatism there was a difficulty being able to integrate > conflicting messages from each parent so that the astigmatic needed to > distort their sense of self to please both. Andrew this is real humor and much better than my sarcasm. But after I finished laughing out loud (it takes about at least five minutes, thank you) I realize this is sic.med.vision and I should ask you to leave and go to alt.psychology. Bye bye weirdo. A day not laughed, a day not lived. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Commonly in astigmatism there was a difficulty being able to integrate > conflicting messages from each parent so that the astigmatic needed to > distort their sense of self to please both. Incredible! "andrew Judd" <andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:64b5c3aa.0503101035.22e58b62@posting.google.com... > Commonly in astigmatism there was a difficulty being able to integrate > conflicting messages from each parent so that the astigmatic needed to > distort their sense of self to please both. Andrew this is real humor and much better than my sarcasm. But after I finished laughing out loud (it takes about at least five minutes, thank you) I realize this is sic.med.vision and I should ask you to leave and go to alt.psychology. Bye bye weirdo. A day not laughed, a day not lived. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Jan, I suggest you form the Sci.med.eye list which would treat the eye separately from the mind. I think we would all be happier really. This is the Sci.med.vision list and as every person knows these days vision happens in the mind, while the eye is only a sense organ. Visual science and psychology are similar areas. It seems inappropriate that you and your collegues dominate this list with your limited understanding of vision when sci.med.eye would be a far more appropriate environment for you to inhabit. Andrew >> Commonly in astigmatism there was a difficulty being able to integrate >> conflicting messages from each parent so that the astigmatic needed to >> distort their sense of self to please both. What is the mechanism by which conflicting messages from each parent results in the formation of corneal cylinder? Does astigmatism not affect children from single-parent homes? > >> Commonly in astigmatism there was a difficulty being able to integrate > >> conflicting messages from each parent so that the astigmatic needed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in the formation of corneal cylinder? Does astigmatism not affect children > from single-parent homes? Mike When in suits you say there are no absolutes but now 'commonly' becomes an absolute. Its a warped kind of thinking that seeks to twist in order that no matter what you hear it fits your already decided viewpoint. Thats the kind of thinking that is related to astigmatism. Meanwhile you are forced to live in a fantasy or abstract world that supports your view of that World However what is the message that a none existing parent gives a child? Does that parent love the child? Was the child wanted? What is the message that the other parent who has cared for the child has given? Common sense would suggest that a child could receive a different message in such a scenario. It seems you have difficulty seeing outside of a narrow minded little box which has to be precisely described by only what you can understand. I have no idea how the twisted way of thinking above creates astigmatism. Dispite your prejudices these patterns are present just as kaplan describes. Is it known what gravity really is? Does our ignorance mean that the World must fly into space? Open minded is just that. Seems your mind is kind of closed. As another O.D. has already stated, your ideas fall into the same category as phrenology, Bates, iridology, and other cogent-sounding theories that simply fall apart when scrutinized closely. Sure, they make good reading and they have their internal logic, but they do not accurately describe or predict any state of affairs in the real world. You criticize others for living in a narrow-minded little box, yet there are many of us apparently living in similar boxes who understand and can communicate with each other by means of independently verifiable experiments which comprise the body of visual science and medicine. OTOH, the box you live in seems rather solitary. For example, you fail to provide or even suggest any mechanism whereby early childhood experiences translate into changes in the physical shape of the eye or its components. Why not study the nose and its various configurations. After all, it is the major sense organ of smell, the end organ of CN I. Can it not also be said that smell has an important neurological component apart from the structure of the nose? Or the ears? DrG > As another O.D. has already stated, your ideas fall into the same > category as phrenology, Bates, iridology, and other cogent-sounding [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > DrG > As another O.D. has already stated, your ideas fall into the same > category as phrenology, Bates, iridology, and other cogent-sounding [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > DrG Dear DrG It would be nice if we could team up together to do a project to test this mechanism in a scientific manner:-) However in the near future I am going to be selling an assett and then i am going to begin doing this stuff in a more structured manner. Advertising and so forth. I feel i know sufficient facts now that I can make a success of this and get some kind of satisfaction from it regardless of what others (who disagree) might think. Simplisticly it might sound absurd that astigmatism could be related to thought processes that are in conflict with one another. I can only speculate a mechanism however much is known about the brain being composed of two hemispheres and that each hemisphere can hold separate memories. I can speculate two mechanisms. 1. Saccadic motion is driven by thought. We attend to a 'single' thought and the eye races to what we are attending to. There is a characteristic thought process occuring in astigmatism. For example. "hey that sounds possible. hmm its an interesting idea" but this quickly becomes "For gods sake! You would be insane to think that could be true! If that were true dont you think it would have been discovered by now!" The first thought is considered to be what is true for you, and the second thoughts are what you have learnt from some influential person in your life. So the eye attends to one thought, gets Acellerated to go to that thought. is halted. (saccade ends) and is then accellerated to another thought. With this occurring in an habitual but distorted manner. Its possible that some kind of muscular imbalance in the eyes could be creating these distortions in the eye long term via the extraocular muscles. 2. How much is really really known about the ciliary? An unevenly contracted ciliary (related to left right hemispheric imbalance) could create an unevenly focused lens which could lead to emmetropisation changes in the cornea. That is possible. At the moment the exact mechanism that produces astigmatism (scientificly observed astigmatism) is unknown. My interest is not really in these physical changes exactly but I am interested in finding out more about the underlying causes it is true. I believe the answer lies in the brain rather than in the eye that shows the physical changes. Meanwhile in the conversations/dialogues/interviews i have with astigmatics I do find these basic patterns appearing. It would be nice to get some kind of study done that demonstrates to others I am not insane but the feedback i am getting from others that i am helping suggests there is an underlying truth to this work. I have written to some of the main UK eye hospitals etc over the last year or so. I did obtain an important contact in Singapore who is a world famous myopia reasearcher. But they want me to produce a test to be given to myopic children. It was too academic. What i do can seem like mind reading. But it in fact scientifically based because the prescription or optical error in the eye is biofeedback from the brain. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Introduce somebody to me via email who can buy into this concept (resistance is ok) and we will then have a look at their prescription and their underlying thought processes and they can then report back if i am on to something. I dont make anything up. I simply 'read' the prescription and then invite them to comment. There is no or little possibility that what I am doing is ever going to replace the need for glasses. People have vision problems because of what they do not want to see. Changing that is not at all easy, but demonstrating the underlying pattern is relatively easy. Cheers Andrew Andrew, One can readily measure saccadic eye movements, undershoots and overshoots. What you are suggesting is more of a relationship between thought patterns and reading efficiency. DrG > Andrew, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > DrG Are you saying that there is a known relationship between vision problems and reading efficiency? I would expect that. But really so what? whats the underlying cause? That is my interest. The underlying cause. YOU were the one who brought up the relationship between saccadic eye movements, thought processes and structural changes in the eye. Since you cannot measure the thought processes, you can measure saccades, regressions, etc. The number of saccades and regressions is directly correlated to reading efficiency, i.e. good readers show fewer saccades and regressions. This idea is readily measured. But then, I have to ask you: So what? DrG > YOU were the one who brought up the relationship between saccadic eye > movements, thought processes and structural changes in the eye. Since [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > DrG My original point was that myopes tended to have various peculiarities of eye movement and so it was not correct to say that myopia was 'just' refractive error. Other people have then wanted to focus on saccades as a result of that. Perhaps foolishly i have replied to them. Such is life. Indeed so what. I am not an expert on the eye. My expertise is in the relationship between prescriptions and personality correlates. > > YOU were the one who brought up the relationship between saccadic eye > > movements, thought processes and structural changes in the eye. Since [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Indeed so what. I am not an expert on the eye. My expertise is in > the relationship between prescriptions and personality correlates. So now you have expanded your enquiry to include peculiarities in eye movement. Just for fun, what types of eye movements are there, and how are they different for each kind of refractive error? DrG > > "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in message > news:<1110718389.083892.72540@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > DrG I am not sure if these movements are related to specific refractive errors. However there does seem to be somekind of relationship with strabismus and astigmatism. Commonly in myopia there is a variable stabismus. To the casual observer who infrequently observes a person it is not obvious. Here is a case history from a woman that i know well. She has myopia of about 5.5 in each eye and astigmatism of le 180 and re 90 Generally her eyes would not be considered strabismic. She herself is not aware of ever being found strabismic. However when stressed/stubborn/childlike her right eye points inwards. Samuel Berne OD considers this form of strabismus to be related to inflexible thinking. My older brother and I both have a right eye that points outwards when we do not wear glasses. These kinds of variation are quite common in my experience amongst myopes. > Commonly in myopia there is a variable stabismus. To > the casual observer who infrequently observes a person > it is not obvious. Funny how it isn't obvious to doctors who test for strabismus. > She has myopia of about 5.5 in each eye and astigmatism > of le 180 and re 90 Now there's something to investigate. How common is it to have 180 axis in one eye and 90 in the other? > However when stressed/stubborn/childlike her right eye points inwards. So, intermittent esotropia is common in myopes? > Samuel Berne OD considers this form of strabismus to be related to > inflexible thinking. So keep an open mind or your eyes will cross? > My older brother and I both have a right eye that points outwards when > we do not wear glasses. > > These kinds of variation are quite common in my experience amongst > myopes. If you knew how to test for strabismus, you might feel differently. -MT > > > "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in message > > news:<1110718389.083892.72540@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > These kinds of variation are quite common in my experience amongst > myopes. My first thought is that your experience must be very limited. Most people with astigmatism have an axis that is close to 180. Because it is more common, it is also called "with-the-rule." Most people with esotropia are not nearsighted. They are farsighted. Farsighted individuals are also more likely to have "against-the-rule" astigmatism. Many myopes show nearpoint exophoria when uncorrected. This is due to inhibition of accommodation/convergence at near. Esotropia in a myopic eye with "against-the-rule" astigmatism may be indicative of excessive accommodation. That patient should have a cycloplegic refraction, and may possibly be a candidate for bifocals. Binocular vision disorders show a strong genetic pattern, and have nothing to do with early childhood emotional development. The interesting thing I have come to observe about the internet is that it is a very empowering medium, where anybody can express any opinion. DrG Dear Dr G, Andrew Judd wrote: >However when stressed/stubborn/childlike her right eye points >inwards. Wouldn't this be esophoria, a common tendency which is routinely tested for by various means in examination so that it may be determined whether or not such a tendency exists? As such, I believe it is considered distinct from esotropia, which is a form of strabismus. Please advise. Thank you, Fran Eisner >> "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in message > news:<1110750823.435281.61980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > DrG |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message