Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Myopia reduction proven - whats the next stage?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 27 Mar 2005 20:58 GMT
Having demonstrated amongst a small trial group that myopia reduction
is possible via a psychotherapeutic/guidance method that looks at
underlying tensions and anxieties I want to make this work more widely
known.

Here are some to the things i have tried so far.

1. I approached my local opticians and they were interested.  They
ordered Kaplans books (some they bought from me).  They contacted
Kaplan and got additional professional materials.   They were
enthusiastic but told me "Sorry we are part of a franchise, we can not
be publicly associated with this sort of thing"

2. I approached a friendly lens blank supplier and optometrist in the
UK and showed him how his prescription was directly connected to his
behaviour and 'visual style'.  He was amazed and really felt that since
i had last spoken to him i had "really nailed it down convincingly".
He said he would talk to his assistant and see if some kind of trial
group was possible to look at taking the idea further.   Nothing
happened for some weeks. My mum died. I gave up.

3. Before mum died I contacted Moorfields eye hospital looking for
researchers who might be interested.  They suggested I contact a
leading Singaporean Researcher on Aetiology of myopia.   She was
definately interested and already recognised patterns in myopes but it
'needed to be studied in her cohort'.   I was asked to produce a
questionnaire to be submitted to the cohort.   This questionnaire
seemed problematical and too intellectual/academic for my liking.  I
said that it would be best to show that myopia could be reduced rather
than study it and that is what i preferred.   We parted company.

4. I contacted a guy in England who was looking at myopia in families
and saying it was genetics.   I pointed out that it could be something
that is learnt in the family that is creating the myopia.  He had not
even considered that possibility.   He is a very nice man but his
interest is in "finding links between myopia and genetics not at
behavioural relationships".  I suggested i come and visit him and we
have a small group for a few hours and i can show him what i know. That
remains a possibility - but he prefers a study be done rather than a
demo of myopia reduction.

5. A twin study group is going to study Discordant MZ twins to see if
childhood differences are responsible for differences.  I am not
involved yet.

I have other irons in other fires.   One avenue is to go down the pub
with influencial myopic science journalists and show them how easy it
is to link myopia to somewhat complicated but known behavioural
patterns for each refractive error and then see if that can open doors.

This work can be done via email but in person its far more dramatic for
those willing to listen.

Meanwhile perhaps i am missing some other way of approaching this
problem.  Suggestions welcome.

Andrew
Jan - 27 Mar 2005 21:22 GMT
> Having demonstrated amongst a small trial group that myopia reduction
> is possible via a psychotherapeutic/guidance method that looks at
> underlying tensions and anxieties I want to make this work more widely
> known.

Until you prove (as you wrote in the subject line) you are a look-alike of
Otis.

Major snip in a lot off stories not proven to be true yet.

Signature

Free to  Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

Scott Seidman - 28 Mar 2005 14:46 GMT
> Until you prove (as you wrote in the subject line) you are a
> look-alike of Otis.

Actually, as he's selling these books, he's the worst combination of Otis
and Rishi.

Scott
g.gatti@agora.it - 28 Mar 2005 19:13 GMT
> > Until you prove (as you wrote in the subject line) you are a
> > look-alike of Otis.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Scott

Books are not injurious, while your false treatments are injurious.
Dr Judy - 27 Mar 2005 22:00 GMT
> Having demonstrated amongst a small trial group that myopia reduction
> is possible via a psychotherapeutic/guidance method that looks at
> underlying tensions and anxieties I want to make this work more widely
> known.

The usual way to interest researchers is to publish your small trial.

> Here are some to the things i have tried so far.
>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> Meanwhile perhaps i am missing some other way of approaching this
> problem.  Suggestions welcome.

Why are you rejecting the serious researchers who want to do proper
research?  The only scientific, believable way to "prove" your ideas and to
make them better known is not to cure individuals but to do controlled,
valid, scientific study.

If you are asking the question "Does personality affect myopia development?"
the way to study this is to have a group of young people have various
measures done, including accepted, reliable, valid, psychological tests and
then followed for a number of years, with repeat testing at various
specified times.  Those who become myopic are compared to those who do not
become myopic to see what the differences are.  It sounds like the
researcher with a cohort was doing this and was willing to add your
questions to her measures.  Why did you reject this, if an effect was found
she would have published it and the knowledge would be more widely known.

If you are asking the question "Can modifying behaviour reduce myopia?",
then, again, you need to not just treat some individuals but do a controlled
study, treating one group and not treating a matched control group to see if
there are statistically significant differences.

Dr Judy
Andrew Judd - 27 Mar 2005 22:47 GMT
Dear Dr Judy

I have not tried publishing.  A common reply i am getting at the moment
from academia is 'a very interesting hypothesis are you an academic
researcher'.  These days if you dont have a PhD you are more less nobody.
I have a B.Sc. only.

But I am not wanting to reject serious researchers if we can find some way
of working together.  

The singaporean researcher was not studying personality correlates in
myopia but felt it should be tested.  She felt that myopes had clear social
and maturity issues, and since no other correlation was showing a cause of
myopia it ought to be studied.  At the end of the say i don't want to spend
the next 5 years of my life involved in demonstrating what she and I could
already notice anyway in order that she fullfills her remit of 'studying
myopia' comprehensively.   However in hingsight (mum was desparately ill) I
was overly emotional when i met her and kind of burnt that bridge for now
anyway.

What i am saying is "'this works', something is going on here that ought to
be investigated.  I can do all the work if you provide me with a controlled
group of tested individuals and you agree to allow me to publish the
results with your refractions. Whats more i can even do this via email and
internet chat."

The work i am doing is pretty personal to the individuals concerned.  Some
are prepared for a reworked version of the conversation to be published to
show what i am doing, so that the similarities can be demonstrated in a
very clear manner.  But for my results to be meaningful each person needs
to be examined by some optometric authority (ideally a single person) who
will not then be ridiculed for doing an earlier 'inaccurate' refraction,
and who is publicly prepared to testify to others that these results were
recorded - even to the point of press conferences etc etc.

Academic studies have been done before on differences in myopes and none
myopes.  Nothing changes.

Andrew
RM - 28 Mar 2005 03:32 GMT
> I have not tried publishing.  A common reply i am getting at the moment
> from academia is 'a very interesting hypothesis are you an academic
> researcher'.  These days if you dont have a PhD you are more less nobody.
> I have a B.Sc. only.

I suggest you go to graduate school and earn a PhD or Masters.  This could
be your thesis topic.  If you think you are going to do it any other way you
are wasting your time.  For better or for worse, the system doesn't work
that way.

>I was overly emotional when i met her and kind of burnt that bridge for now
> anyway.

Based upon how you post in this NG, I can well imagine that this is true.

> even to the point of press conferences etc etc.

OK, so you see your name in lights.

Look-- you need a lot of help from academicians.  More than you realize.
Your study needs to be well-constructed by reputable and credible
authorities and conducted in a highly professional manner.  E-mail and chat
isn't going to cut it.  Talking to the local optical shop isn't going to
convince anyone.  Just being passionate about what you believe isn't enough.

Until then the title of your posting should be "Myopia reduction theory
seems very reasonable to me-- but how do I prove it to the rest of the
world?"
Andrew Judd - 28 Mar 2005 21:32 GMT
>>Look-- you need a lot of help from academicians.  More than you realize.
Your study needs to be well-constructed by reputable and credible
authorities and conducted in a highly professional manner.  E-mail and chat
isn't going to cut it.  Talking to the local optical shop isn't going to
convince anyone.  Just being passionate about what you believe isn't enough.

Jans reaction towards me is fairly typical of the profession.  "Myopia
cannot be improved and therefore those who say it can must be crazy.
Therefore if this guy has evidence that myopia can be improved, **and** I
agree with that,  **and** I support him, I run a considerable risk of being
professionally ruined.  Meanwhile I have a family to support and a position
in society that it impossible for me to risk."
Jan - 29 Mar 2005 00:10 GMT
> Jans reaction towards me is fairly typical of the profession.  "Myopia
> cannot be improved and therefore those who say it can must be crazy.

Quit the contrary, show me wich method works and I should be delighted to
use it and call myself a fool not having noticed the possibility.

> Therefore if this guy has evidence that myopia can be improved, **and** I
> agree with that,  **and** I support him, I run a considerable risk of
> being
> professionally ruined.  Meanwhile I have a family to support and a
> position
> in society that it impossible for me to risk."

What a  nonsense.
Why you are showing your opinion this very moment?
Not affraid a colleague of yours read this stuff?
Charlatanic behaviour just as your look-alike Otis.

Signature

Free to  Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 29 Mar 2005 02:04 GMT
> > Jans reaction towards me is fairly typical of the profession.  "Myopia
> > cannot be improved and therefore those who say it can must be crazy.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

Jan

Just recently you made an interesting comment on psychoemotional
correlations to pupil size.  But generally the logic in your replies is
difficult to understand.

By what method could a person show you a method can reduce myopia?

Andrew
RM - 29 Mar 2005 01:38 GMT
> Jans reaction towards me is fairly typical of the profession.  "Myopia
> cannot be improved and therefore those who say it can must be crazy.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> position
> in society that it impossible for me to risk."

Why are you telling me about your problems with Jan?
Getting a little overly emotional?
Andrew Judd - 29 Mar 2005 03:14 GMT
>>Why are you telling me about your problems with Jan?
Getting a little overly emotional?

RM

I think you are getting confused.   Jans first post to this thread was

"Until you prove (as you wrote in the subject line) you are a look-alike of
Otis.
Major snip in a lot off stories not proven to be true yet."

Elsewhere he has consistantly attacked any suggestion myopia may be related
to anxiety or emotional causes.

Meanwhile the COMET myopia study shows myopes as having self esteem
problems.

You then wrote a reply to me that was well written and deserved an answer.

I used the example of Jan to illustrate how difficult it is to change
perceptions of the nature of myopia - dispite the widespread studies that
support myopia and behavioural differences as compared to normal sighted
people.

I am aware that does not prove causality.  Most OD's here seem blind to the
relationship.

Many studies have shown that myopes are "outwardly calm and discinclined to
exhibitionism".  Whereas hypermetropes have been found to be "inclined to
exhibitionism"

In that context it is interesting that you be so quick to want to judge
that I am "Getting a little overly emotional?"   As if this was necessarily
some bad thing to be poked fun of or told tales about.

My mother had wonderful eyesight and was highly emotional

My father was inhibited and had myopia.

I am the product of my parents.  If its my nature to be 'highly emotional'
then so be it.  Regardless of whatever comment you wish to make on that.

Perhaps you need to lighten up a bit yourself?

I am having a great time:-)

Andrew
retinula@hotmail.com - 29 Mar 2005 04:36 GMT
we're hearing a little more than we need to about your mum and your dad
Dr. Leukoma - 28 Mar 2005 14:38 GMT
Sorry, Andrew, but some inventors and their theories just never seem to
get the recognistion they deserve.  You will probably be recognized
posthumously. ; )

DrG
Dr Judy - 29 Mar 2005 21:48 GMT
> Dear Dr Judy
>
> I have not tried publishing.

snip

At the end of the say i don't want to spend
> the next 5 years of my life involved in demonstrating what she and I could
> already notice anyway in order that she fullfills her remit of 'studying
> myopia' comprehensively.

Good research takes time, if you don't spend the time to do it properly,
nobody will believe you.

> What i am saying is "'this works', something is going on here that ought
> to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> results with your refractions. Whats more i can even do this via email and
> internet chat."

You don't need a controlled group, you need a treatment group and a matched,
no treatment /sham treatment control group.  You need a researcher to assist
you in determining how large the groups should be, how to test for matching,
to make sure the design is valid, to help design the sham treatment,  to
help with obtaining human research/ ethical clearance, to help find the
subjects and so on.  You need either a vision researcher or a licensed eye
examiner to do pre and post treatment cycloplegic refractions.

It will take time and it cannot be done by e-mail.

Dr Judy
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 29 Mar 2005 23:30 GMT
> You don't need a controlled group,

Correct.

you need a treatment group and a matched,
> no treatment /sham treatment control group.

Correct

You need a researcher to assist
> you in determining how large the groups should be, how to test for matching,
> to make sure the design is valid, to help design the sham treatment,  to
> help with obtaining human research/ ethical clearance, to help find the
> subjects and so on.  You need either a vision researcher or a licensed eye
> examiner to do pre and post treatment cycloplegic refractions.

Partially correct.  I need a bona fida authority who can present me
with the pre treatment group of which all have been screened for
ethical considerations.

> It will take time

Correct

> and it cannot be done by e-mail.

Incorrect.

The treatment is best done in person but it **can** be done via email.
Certainly the pretreatment work to determine which of the group are
likely to be able to continue with the work and who wish to be selected
for more highly personal interaction **can** be done via email.

The Email would form the basis of the discussion of the results.
Myopia improvement does not lend itself to traditional scientific
anaylsis.  It would require a massive write up or ideally video before
and after presentations of the behaviour and mannerisms of the myopes
before and after.

For example if myopes have issues with self esteem a video of them
being interviewed before and a video after treatment would speak a
thousand words.

But this work can be done via email of that i am confidant because I am
already doing it and getting results with people who recognise the
validity of what i am doing with them and who are finding they are
getting improvements in refraction.

Andrew
g.gatti@agora.it - 29 Mar 2005 23:55 GMT
> But this work can be done via email of that i am confidant because I am
> already doing it and getting results with people who recognise the
> validity of what i am doing with them and who are finding they are
> getting improvements in refraction.
>
> Andrew

I would like to acknowledge that you have cured yourself or discarded
glasses or reduced your prescription or something else in accord  to
your efforts.

What have you reached till now?
g.gatti@agora.it - 27 Mar 2005 23:41 GMT
> Dr Judy

HOW can you reduce myopia if you do not renounce eyeglasses?

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.