Neil Brooks

most of us on this forum have said, primarily in regards to Andrew,
Rishi, and Otis and their posts:

experiments (controls, blind design, adequate sample sizes, peer
review, replication, etc.).  If what they argue so passionately holds
up to testing, it will likely receive broad acceptance.

This sounds reasonable. However rather than discuss the thread you have
chosen to attack me, whereas it is **I** that am asking **you** to justify
your opinion.

I believe in the scientific method.   The people who are publishing myopia
and genetics material are strong on opinion but where is the science?

People who have strong opinions and who either dont read the science
involved or dont understand assumptions implicit in that science can
continue to believe they are right when they never take a critical view for
the basis for their beliefs.

Andrew

I have not missed any "crux". Just because something is not proven yet does
not make it so. Science is rife with examples of previous “facts” being
overturned. Light was thought to be a wave. Then it was shown to be a
particle. Then it was proven that light has both wave and particle
properties. Then it was shown it could share these properties at the exact
same moment in time and space. Talk about overturning previous notions.

Your clinging to your belief in scientific “facts” is symptomatic of our
desire for security, stability and comfort (not to mention arrogance and
prejudice). How many times have we been told that certain things (foods for
example) are bad for our hearts only then to be told by another researcher
that oops we erred, those things are actually good for the heart.
Scientists are prone to bias and error just like any other group of
individuals.

You may wish to be more cautious when you state that, “The problem,
therefore, is not their lack of formal education, per se. It's more their
vehemence in stating untested, unproven (or DISproven) hypotheses as
‘fact’."

I agree, it seems that there are a lot of seemingly scientific studies that
conclude that these views may be unproven (or even DISproven). Remember
that data is always subject to human, subjective interpretation. Time will
tell if these previously existing studies are overturned.

Please don't misunderstand me - I am a fan of science in general. But let's
not turn it into a god and idolize it (especially given our human ability
to influence results).

I don't think anyone in this forum is a Jared Diamond and that includes
yourselves.

Having to put another individual down is a sign of insecurity.

Being closed to other ideas is not always a sign of wisdom.

Criticizing the laymen's actions for providing advice when you believe
professional training and a degree are warranted is one thing. Criticizing
the individuals themselves is another. Is this a school yard with a bunch
of bullies?

I agree that another forum may be more suitable for these discussion.

However, I am not sure whether one requires to be an expert in a field or
to possess a certification to provide online advice. None of these
individuals claim to have any license to practice optometry. I am curious
to know whether an individual like Rishi could be successfully prosecuted
for providing advice in online forums. I have my doubts....is there a
precident?

What do you want such a reference to say?  That there is no relationship
between myopia and the psych factors you're mentioning?  Unlikely to come
up.  

A simple pubmed search on "myopia genetics" yielded 745 hits, with 72
review articles.  

This looks promising, as a 38 page review.
Morgan I, Rose K.     Related Articles, Links
Abstract     How genetic is school myopia?
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2005 Jan;24(1):1-38. Review.

A search on "myopia psychology" also proved interesting.
This looks interesting:
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1991 Oct;11(4):304-13.     Related Articles, Links

   The amelioration of myopia using biofeedback of accommodation: a
review.

   Gilmartin B, Gray LS, Winn B.

   Department of Vision Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.

   The purpose of this review is to give an account of the issues raised
by reports that myopia can be treated by operant conditioning or
biological feedback. Devices are available that provide auditory feedback
of accommodative state such that variation in tone frequency provides a
means by which the patient can monitor his or her ability to induce
changes in accommodation response, the task thus being to change the
pitch of the tone in a direction corresponding to a more distant far
point. The aim of a training programme is to reinforce and establish
control over the accommodative response by a process akin to operant
conditioning and subsequently to transfer the skill to normal visual
environments such that a manifest reduction in myopia becomes apparent.
Although there are reports that the technique can induce a reduction in
myopia by up to 3 D the findings are of limited value owing to the lack
of objective data, for example pre- and post-training cycloplegic
refraction. The pre- and post-training measures of subjective letter
acuity used by many studies are, with repeated trials, particularly
vulnerable to individual differences in the ability to learn how to
discriminate and interpret blurred images. The review concludes that more
comprehensive clinical trials are needed before accommodation biofeedback
can qualify as an established method of clinical treatment of myopia. The
trials should be designed to encompass the following issues: the
characteristics of a feasible physiological model linking accommodation
and myopia development; the rationale with regard to patient selection;
the technical performance of the optometer employed; the characteristics
of the control group used; the criteria for assessment of myopic change;
the transfer of training to performance in normal visual environments;
the economic viability of the programme of training and equipment; and
the skill, training and knowledge of the clinician implementing the
training programme.

   Publication Types:

       * Review
       * Review, Tutorial

****
I haven't read the paper, but the abstract looks excellent.  Biofeedback
has always been tricky business.  In the early '80s, as I recall, one BIG
biofeedback researcher was accused of fraud when nobody could reproduce
his results, and he killed himself.  I particularly like the above
criticism of optotypes, as I've often said myself that every study
employing acuity as a measurement should use a vernier acuity task to
avoid artifact.

****
The relationship between self-esteem of myopic children and ocular and
demographic characteristics.

Dias L, Manny RE, Hyman L, Fern K; Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial
Group.

Dept of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University Health Sciences
Center, Stony Brook, New York 11794-8036, USA. ldias@notes.cc.sunysb.edu

PURPOSE: To evaluate self-esteem and its relationship with various ocular
and demographic characteristics in 469 myopic children participating in
the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET), an ongoing,
randomized, multicenter clinical trial designed to evaluate the effects
of progressive addition lenses vs. single vision lenses on the
progression of juvenile-onset myopia. METHODS: Baseline data collection
included demographic information, refractive error measurements, parent-
reported myopia history, child-reported visual symptoms, and self-esteem
in several areas (scholastic/athletic competence, physical appearance,
social acceptance, behavioral conduct, and global self-worth) as measured
by the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Univariate and multiple
regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with self-
esteem. RESULTS: The Self-Perception Profile for Children is a reliable
measure of self-esteem in COMET children as indicated by the high
internal consistency reliabilities (0.74 to 0.81) obtained for the
various domains. COMET children's mean self-esteem scores ranged from
2.72 +/- 0.69 for athletic competence to 3.36 +/- 0.56 for global self-
worth and were similar to normative samples. Multiple regression analyses
showed that less symptomatic children had higher self-esteem in all areas
(p < 0.05), except athletic competence, after adjusting for other ocular
and demographic characteristics. Self-esteem also varied significantly by
age, gender, and ethnicity (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline self-esteem
is associated with visual symptoms, age, gender, and ethnicity, but not
with magnitude of refractive error. Follow-up reports will assess whether
there are changes in self-esteem associated with myopia progression and
lens assignment.

Publication Types:

   * Clinical Trial
   * Randomized Controlled Trial
*****

You need to be really careful of studies like the above.  Yes, these guys
show a relationship between self esteem and myopia, but it doesn't mean
that this is cause and effect.  For example, school myopia is related to
environmental issues like reading alot, and some kids who read alot might
have self esteem issues.  Hell, wearing glasses might effect self esteem.  
Indeed, the authors don't even say that low self esteem causes myopia,
and seem to suggest that the cause and effect is the other way around
"The influence of self-perceptions on motivation and behavior has
important implications for compliance and adherence to wearing eyeglasses
because if myopes think poorly about themselves in general and their
appearance in particular, they might be less likely to wear eyeglasses.

In addition to eyeglasses, other factors that might be related to the
self-esteem of myopic individuals include the age that eyeglasses are
first prescribed, length of time that eyeglasses have been worn, and
severity of myopia. Eyeglasses prescribed at a younger age and
consequently worn for a longer time might be associated with lower self-
esteem because childhood is the developmental period during which self-
esteem is formed. Similarly, higher levels of myopia, which require
thicker lenses and more noticeable eyeglasses, may be linked to lower
self-esteem. 10 In addition, the appearance of the eyes is minimized in
proportion to the lens power, thus de-emphasizing this important facial
issue. Although previous studies attempted to investigate the association
of these factors with self-esteem, 10, 11 they were limited by
small sample sizes and differing definitions and measures of self-
esteem."

Most of the papers this search yielded seem to be studies of how myopia
can impact a patient psychologically, not the other way around.

In fact, many of the things you've been pushing as cause and effect seem
to be the other way around.
"One fixates accurately in order to see clearly not because one sees
clearly.

Steinman RM, Pizlo Z, Forofonova TI, Epelboim J.

Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-
4411, USA. steinman@brissio.umd.edu

Binocular gaze was measured accurately under natural conditions with the
Maryland Revolving Field Monitor to determine how visual-clarity affects
gaze-accuracy. The gaze of 3 unrestrained, seated subjects (2 presbyopes
and 1 myope) was recorded as they tapped 4 LEDs with a long, narrow rod
cemented to a thimble worn on their index fingers. They wore positive
contact lenses, permitting very clear vision only nearby, within 35 cm.
This task was hard. It took more than 7 seconds to complete. Gaze-
accuracy varied inversely with target-distance. Gaze was less accurate
when targets were nearby, and seen clearly, than when targets were
farther away and harder to see. This result was not anticipated. It
implies that gaze is accurate in order to see clearly and not because
targets can be seen clearly."

don't get so emotional andrew.   after all, thats what got you
black-balled by that researcher from the singapore myopia group-- you
know, the people who you said they were so impressed with your big
brain that they wanted to drop what they were doing and have you teach
them everything you know.  too bad you burned that bridge (meaning
showed your a.s as usual)

think of how good you'll look at the televised newsconference when they
give you the nobel prize for proving myopia is caused by childhood
anxiety.  won't all your school mates be jealous when you finally prove
that you really aren't a jerk.

I'm sorry that I don't have the definitive answer to myopia development
Andrew.  I'm so embarrassed that the arguments that I, and subsequently
others, provided you were meer child's play for your critical intellect.
None of us apparently understands myopia, astigmatism, and even dry eyes
except for yourself.

For some unknown reason only you, a lonely, unheralded, unrecognized,
misunderstood, and egotistical chap is the only one whom has figured out
that psychological conflicts cause the corneal curvature to steepen and/or
the globe to elongate.  And now that you've explained it to me in such a
clear and convincing manner, I can't understand how I couldn't have figured
it out for myself.  It's just so obvious.  And to think all along I thought
it was something stupid like genetics or environment.  I guess I'm just not
worthy.

Indeed (chunder).