 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2005school myopia
Andrew: I read most of the "school myopia" piece, and appreciate your sending it. Quite an exhaustive review of the literature on the subject. One thing that stood out was the prevalence of myopia in Taiwan. The 80%+ numbers would seem to support my argument that low to moderate levels of myopia a really a normal adaptation to the near point environment. It's natures way of allowing close focused folks to maintain clarity at the near point throughout their lifetimes naturally. w.stacy, o.d. I gather you are referring to the study published in Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2005 Jan;46(1):51-7 by Saw, Tong, Chua et.al. of the Department of Community, Occupational and Family Medicine, National University of Singapore. The points I found most interesting were: --------------------------------------------------------------------- The 3-year cumulative incidence rates of myopia were higher in Chinese (49.5% vs. 27.2%) and in 7-year-old compared with 9-year-old children at baseline (47.7% vs. 32.4%), though the latter relationship was of borderline significance after adjustment for race, gender, amount of reading (books/week), and parental myopia (P=0.057). Premyopic children with greater axial lengths, vitreous chamber depths, and thinner lenses were more prone to the development of myopia, after controlling for age, gender, race, reading, and parental myopia. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure how Andrew will explain away an environmental basis for a premyopic structural/anatomical risk factor for the development of myopia, but I suspect that a doozy of an attempt will be made. No doubt the word "sugar" will figure into it. DrG "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in news:1113396197.657762.279070 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > The points I found most interesting were: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > age, gender, race, reading, and parental myopia. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- I love the term "borderline significant": I maintain my own personal tongue in cheek dictionary of scientific terms: borderline significant: not significant qualitatively similar: quantitatively different typical (in the context of "figure shows typical data"): the very best I could find ... Scott Actually it was "How genetic is school myopia?" by Ian Morgan and Kathryn Rose. w.stacy, o.d. > I gather you are referring to the study published in Investigative > Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2005 Jan;46(1):51-7 by Saw, Tong, Chua [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > DrG DRG wrote >>Premyopic children with greater axial lengths, vitreous chamber depths, and thinner lenses were more prone to the development of myopia, after controlling for age, gender, race, reading, and parental myopia. Bare in mind Scotts comments. Then take a look at a graph of the scatter and then see what 'prone' means. I can accept that if you are genetically predisposed to a combination of factors that make it more likely for you to get myopia, because the emmetropization factor has to work harder (and could if conditions in your life were ideal) that you will be more likely (prone) to get myopia. However if you remove the conditions that alter emmetropization you will not get myopia. At the end of the say genetic factors are there but environment is more influential. > At the end of the say genetic factors are there but environment is more > influential. Everyone has an opinion, but this one isn't consistent with real life. In the US, most bookkeepers and close-workers don't get nearsighted. Myopes have more schooling but the majority of people with schooling aren't nearsighted. Why does the environment fail to produce myopia in 70% of the US population? Only 30% are anxious? -MT For Andrew and William, Actually the percentage of "myopes" is higher. So I guess William is correct. The natural eye will "adapt" by changing it refractive state (as a natural process, if you place it in a long-term "confined" visual enviroment. Best, Otis ________ MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS Re: Changes in ocular refraction and its components among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom. Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345 National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year period. > myopia a really a normal adaptation to the near point environment. It's > natures way of allowing close focused folks to maintain clarity at the > near point throughout their lifetimes naturally. > > w.stacy, o.d. This william stacy is something. He has great degrees in learning but comes off with very stupid and ubelieving answers. The same old rotten answers given since hundreds of years. What is your way to cure myopia? Be serious! William wrote >>low to moderate levels of myopia a really a normal adaptation to the near point environment. Millions are being spent on myopia research in chinese asians countries. No single factor has yet stood out as being the cause of myopia. "No single factor"? Why are you unwilling to settle for less than a single causative factor? If they are spending millions in asia to find "THE" answer, that's fine, let 'em spend away. It's pretty obvious from the literature that it's at least partly the increased demands of modern near point stress that's triggering it in susceptible individuals. It's like spending millions to find out why people are getting taller, or why they are living longer. The causes are similarly complex and not answerable by a single factor, but they are pretty well, almost intuitively, understood. Maybe a better analogy would be to ask why is Arnold Schwarzenegger so muscular? The answer is a complex interaction of excercise, diet and genetics, at least. Everyone know that. Whatever the cause(s) of mild to moderate myopia, I'm not losing any sleep over it/them. Sorry to hear that some people are... w.stacy, o.d. >William wrote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > William Stacey wrote >>It's pretty obvious from the literature that it's at least partly the increased demands of modern near point stress that's triggering it in susceptible individuals. Susceptible individuals? You mean "The genes are known you fool! everybody knows its genetic you moron. You are so unscientific! Goodbye weirdo!"?? You know i would be almost depressed but I wrote to a prominant myopia researcher the other day and he sent me that school myopia study and said . "Regarding the twin study dilemma I attach a very recent paper (which I feel will have a significant influence on how the research community view myopia) by Ian Morgan and Kathryn Rose. In the light of your comments I think you will find section 3.5 very interesting." Change is hard i guess. Andrew Andrew, There is some material on PubMed about a population's variation in susceptibility to near point stress. I believe it has been calculated w/re to the speed at which the ciliary muscle can relax at a distance after a period of time spent doing near point work. There apparently is a difference in nerve innervation to the ciliary muscle in various individuals, and this seems to play a part in their different responses. I believe that in about 30% of the subjects in one particular study (done in the USA, I think) there was no difficulty in relaxing accommodation after prolonged work at near. I could look up the article; I think I have it in my files but you can of course find it as well. Cheers, Francine in article 1113446048.888768.100890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com at andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com wrote on 4/13/05 10:34 PM: > William Stacey wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Andrew > You mean "The genes are known you fool! everybody knows its genetic > you moron. You are so unscientific! Goodbye weirdo!"?? I don't think I meant that, but, whatever... night, night... w.stacy, o.d. > William Stacey wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Andrew Funny how Andrew focuses like a razor on any review article that he can use to support his cause, while he ignores a bonafide scientific study that contradicts his assumptions. Let's take the Morgan-Rose study for example: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is, moreover, little evidence to support the idea that individuals or populations differ in their susceptibility to environmental risk factors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In another study published in the same month and year, Song, Chong, Tua and other researchers from the >>There is, moreover, little evidence to support the idea that individuals or populations differ in their susceptibility to environmental risk factors. Once again i am accused of being unscientific. I ignored this quote? At first sight you might argue that we will differ in our suceptibility to environmental risk factors. for example if reading is a risk factor then we see variation to that risk. But what else varies in the environment of the people at risk? Perhaps school stress **and** reading are **two** risk factors to which all people would be equally effected.. What the study claims is that there is no evidence that we differ in our susceptibility to environmental risk factors. At first site that seems nonesense but if we take in all risk factors it makes more sense. I am not sure that is a reasonable thing to say but how does this make me unscientific? Andrew > William Stacey wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Andrew Funny how Andrew focuses like a razor on any review article that he can use to support his cause, while he ignores a bonafide scientific study that contradicts his assumptions. Let's take the Morgan-Rose study for example: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is, moreover, little evidence to support the idea that individuals or populations differ in their susceptibility to environmental risk factors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In another study published in the same month and year (Jan 2005), Song, Chong, Tua and other researchers from the National University of Singapore published a prospective cohort study of 981 children followed over a 3 year period. They found that the cumulative incidence rates were significantly higher in Chinese children, i.e. 49.5% vs. 27.2%. They also found that "premyopic children with greater axial lengths, vitreous chamber depths, and thinner lenses were more prone to the development of myopia, after controlling for age, gender, race, reading, and parental myopia." The fact that the incidence of myopia was found to be higher in a population group (Chinese) does seem to contradict the statement that there is no difference in susceptibility of different populations to environmental risk factors. Also, it stands to reason that susceptibility to myopia may have an anatomical or physiological correlate, and that these anatomical/physiological differences may determine the eye's response to reading. The environment serves merely to provide the increased exposure to tasks for which the structure/physiology of the eye(an inherited characteristic or population trait) is ill equipped to handle. DrG Drg G wrote >>They found that the cumulative incidence rates were significantly higher in Chinese children, i.e. 49.5% vs. 27.2%. They also found that "premyopic children with greater axial lengths, vitreous chamber depths, and thinner lenses were more prone to the development of myopia, after controlling for age, gender, race, reading, and parental myopia." Well first we need to define what is meant by premyopic children. If these children previously had shorter axial lengths and were not measured at that point then a myopic pattern of eye growth *may* have already started due to factors not identified in the study which have nothing to do with genetics. However i dont deny that if you do happen to have a combination of growth factors that result in myopic growth of the eye then an emmetropization process will have to work harder to resolve that. My point is that dispite widespread variance in eye component sizes normal sight is the norm when environmental influences do not work together to create myopia. I conclude that identifying precisely the nature of those environmental factors would be a useful thing to do. You conclude its pointless (Your eskimo comments). At this point in time i am unaware that Singapore University have concluded on the balance of all of their studies that Chinese children in Singapore are genetically more suceptible to getting myopia than any other group. Do you have a link to this study or ideally the full PDF i can read please? i have tried to find it but cannot so far locate it. Thanks Andrew >However i dont deny that if you do happen to have a combination of >growth factors that result in myopic growth of the eye then an >emmetropization process will have to work harder to resolve that. > I think emmetropization is probably a one way street. That is, a normally developing eye can grow its way from hyperopia into emmetropia, and then into myopia, but it can't "shrink" its way back from myopia to emmetropia, nor, thankfully, from emmetropia back into hyperopia. This is intuitive, for sure, but it also just happens to agree with what we observe clinically. w.stacy, o.d. >>but it can't "shrink" its way back from myopia to emmetropia, Emmetropization appears a process that works above the level of random growth of the eye components. It must be a process that can work in either direction at certain stages at least of myopia. Depends on the nature of emmetropisation. If you consider retinal blurr as being an important factor in myopic growth and you only see that as an optical event happening in the eye then its hard to understand the results that myopia often just gets worst with rare exceptions of it reversing. However if emmetropisation is occuring at the level of what is perceived as blurr or not via the brain and myopic observer then its obviously going to be vastly more complicated to improve myopia particularly if you believe that such perceptual factors are not relevant (but in fact it is found to be relevant) Andrew >>>but it can't "shrink" its way back from myopia to > > emmetropia, > > Emmetropization appears a process that works above the level of random > growth of the eye components. Agreed. It must be a process that can work in > either direction at certain stages at least of myopia. Not agreed. How do you arrive at that conclusion? What evidence do you have that supports your statement? The word "must" is a heavy one, that requires serious support. Unless perhaps you mean "that in order for my pet theory to be correct, it MUST..." > Depends on the nature of emmetropisation. If you consider retinal > blurr as being an important factor in myopic growth and you only see > that as an optical event happening in the eye then its hard to > understand the results that myopia often just gets worst with rare > exceptions of it reversing. Not hard at all. The eye continues to migrate into myopia as the near stress continues. It's a perfectly logical developmental situation. The rare exceptions of reversal are easily explainable by any one of the many forces at work that are unrelated to the emmetropization process. > However if emmetropisation is occuring at the level of what is > perceived as blurr or not via the brain and myopic observer There is no scientific evidence of this of which I am aware... then its > obviously going to be vastly more complicated to improve myopia > particularly if you believe that such perceptual factors are not > relevant (but in fact it is found to be relevant) Ok now here is where we part company. You are now talking about faith. I happen to be a believer in the power of faith. But sci.med.vision is a science forum. And here, to the scientific method you must adhere. (I'm a poet and don't know it). No, I think myopia development occurs at the eye level. All the science, logic and clinical evidence seems to point to that conclusion. The mind, spirit and soul are powerful things. But myopia is myopia. Nothing more, nothing less. Not a disease. Not a curse. Not a handicap. Not a scourge on mankind. It is simply nature's way of enabling presbyopes to do close work comfortably, accurately, and WITHOUT THE NEED FOR GLASSES! w.stacy, o.d. > Emmetropization appears a process that works above the level of random > growth of the eye components. It must be a process that can work in > either direction at certain stages at least of myopia. The standard deviation of human refractive error only decreases til age 6 or so. *If* emmetropization worked in "both directions" in the spectacle-wearing population, we'd see slower rates of myopia among those who don't wear glasses. We don't. It would be easy to reverse myopia with plus lenses. It isn't. Even Otis admits it isn't. > Depends on the nature of emmetropisation. If you consider retinal > blurr as being an important factor in myopic growth and you only see > that as an optical event happening in the eye then its hard to > understand the results that myopia often just gets worst with rare > exceptions of it reversing. I don't know where you get your idea of the natural history of myopia. The typical curve is sigmoid, leveling at some point and _often_ improving a notch or three from that point on. Complete reversal is indeed rare. A small reversal is common. > However if emmetropisation is occuring at the level of what is > perceived as blurr or not via the brain and myopic observer then its > obviously going to be vastly more complicated to improve myopia > particularly if you believe that such perceptual factors are not > relevant (but in fact it is found to be relevant) Not clear what you mean. The researchers tell us it's locally controlled. -MT Mike Tyner said >>Not clear what you mean. The researchers tell us it's locally controlled. Can you say more about it being locally controlled? How much is actually known about an exact mechanism? Earlier you have said that myopic progression ends when the optic nerve is severed when atropine is used. Andrew ok i have found it now. It was by Saw not Song. Singaporean incidence of myopia is well known. Singapore is a tiny island state on the end of the Malay peninsula. Population pressure for housing and economic pressures to be successful are huge there. Also there is an unusual semi authoritarian state structure. Asians countrys generally are big on family authority and compliance to it via emotional pressures. Similarly some American children call their fathers 'sir'. This kind of unyielding respect for authority and obeyance of it are not common for example in Australia or Britain where sticking your fingers up to the Queen is almost part of life for many people. Strange though it might seem, cultural differences and genetic differences are very hard to separate out unless you look at how cultures differ in aspects of what one might assume are identical factors across all cultures. Family life is one of the biggest environmental influences we can have. To suggest that ethnic chinese live identically to ethnic Malays is a bit of a stretch of the imagination. Its simplistic to point to genetic differences when complex environmental factors are at work. If a study shows different ethnics group living in very similar faimily and wider environments have similar myopia then I would be inclined to be influenced by such a study. What we do know is that myopia seems associated with urbanisation. Singapore and Taiwan are similar high population centres with high chinese myopia. what do we conclude? Andrew andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > ok i have found it now. It was by Saw not Song. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Andrew Indeed, what do we conclude? Don't take offense, and I don't say this to be mean because I think that you will agree that what we can conclude is that you are full of hot air. I literally had a hard time keeping a straight face. DrG DrG wrote >>Don't take offense, and I don't say this to be mean because I think that you will agree that what we can conclude is that you are full of hot air. I literally had a hard time keeping a straight face. I dont take offence. But i wonder what is happening here and why you are laughing. its not obvious to me. Myopia was unusual 100 years ago and now billions have it? This is funny? Can we argue that people are more successful at having children because of being myopic? Only the myopic survive? That is funny! Hahaha! Yes genetic tendencies must be there but which is more powerful? Environment or genetics. It would appear that the whole population is becoming more genetically susceptible to getting myopia. Thats possible but is there a genetic theory that can accont for that? Are people suggesting that the genetic structure of populations alters in a similar fashion while we are alive? Am I laughing? Not really. Its like dealing with a child. I just have to make allowances for your level of ability. Andrew What a slippery chameleon you are! You travel in and out of the environmental vs. heredity debate as though you are an expert. Everybody knows that your agenda is to promote a purely "behavioral basis" for myopia. Whether your goal is to obfuscate or not, that is the result. What a bunch of pettifoggery. DrG > Can we argue that people are more successful at having children because > of being myopic? Only the myopic survive? That is funny! Hahaha! Methinks you laugh too quickly. Years ago on this very forum, I postulated that myopes proliferated nicely through the stone age because they could see and appreciate better the finer anatomic details of their opposite sexes in the darkness of their caves than could their hyperopic brothers, who were out getting killed in droves while hunting and foraging in the forest primeval... plus they could make pretty baubles, sell them for profit, and, thank you very much, do quite nicely... and their equally myopic descendants could make frames, grind lenses, and, well, you know the rest... Interesting theory. I would think that by the time presbyopia occurs (when it would become a selective advantage to be nearsighted), reproduction is pretty much over with. Likewise, if someone was a young hunter-gatherer, if they were nearsighted they might miss their prey, or miss the predator hunting them. Likewise, they wouldn't recognize an attractive female from a distance. > Myopia was unusual 100 years ago and now billions have it? > This is funny? I'm not convinced myopia was so rare in Asia 100 years ago. The Chinese adopted glasses very early. > Can we argue that people are more successful at having children because > of being myopic? Only the myopic survive? That is funny! Hahaha! In a literate society where the population survives past presbyopia, myopia is easily a beneficial adaptation, depending on cultural acceptance and the sexual activity of literate presbyopes. Think Asia, polygamy, Confucius. In a society where the literati do not procreate, myopia will not be favored. Think Middle Ages, Catholicism, celibacy. -MT >>In a literate society where the population survives past presbyopia, myopia is easily a beneficial adaptation, depending on cultural acceptance and the sexual activity of literate presbyopes. Think Asia, polygamy, Confucius. >>In a society where the literati do not procreate, myopia will not be favored. Think Middle Ages, Catholicism, celibacy. Yeah it makes sense. The Eskimos came from russia in the last ice age and do look a bit chinese. Its obvious there worst than western rates of myopia are due to their chinese heritage where natural selection bred out the none readers 20,000 years ago. Clearly since no reading happening in Eskimoo land they had high rates of normal sight. And during ww2 most of the normal sighted western men were killed in battle and then in ww2 the same thing happened all over again. Yeah it makes sense. Clearly its overwhelming genetic. There would be no point in changing eskimo environment because the environmental effect is multifactorial and not just reading anyway and the myopia only happens to those eskimos who are geneticly prone to get myopia anyway. If i had a frontal lobotomy it would make sense i guess. > Maybe a better analogy would be to ask why is Arnold Schwarzenegger so > muscular? The answer is a complex interaction of excercise, diet and > genetics, at least. Everyone know that. I don't know if you're kidding us or not. It's hard to tell on newsgroups. It's steroids. He has admitted to using them.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net Maybe a better analogy would be to ask why is Arnold Schwarzenegger so > muscular? The answer is a complex interaction of excercise, diet and > genetics, at least. Everyone know that. >I don't know if you're kidding us or not. It's hard to tell on newsgroups. It's steroids. He has admitted to using them. Well if steroids are part of your diet then strange things happen. Diet alone would not have created Arnold. He did exercise too, and was enormously determined to be somebody when he was earlier mr nobody. Clearly genetics must play a part there somewhere. But take away the steroids and the exercise and you would have mr puniverse from Austria. Similarly the environmentalists argue that if you take away the complex environmental factors at play in myopia then myopia becomes very unlikely. Dear William, " It's natures way of allowing close focused folks to maintain clarity at the near point throughout their lifetimes naturally. " It would seem from this statement that even you would agree that, since the natural eye "adapts" its refractive status (by moving from a positive value to a negative value), then at least the "first-step" in a solution is to have the person completely elliminate the "near" enviroment with a strong plus. In fact, when "Mike" did this, his refractive status changed from a negative value (20/50) to a positive value. The only real difficulty is "Mike's" motivation to do this work successfully. Since you have already stated that you are not going to "lose any sleep" over these statistics, then I believe that "Mike" is warrented understanding your "casual" attitude, and taking responsibility to do this work himself -- under his own control You may not have much concern about this issue -- but Mike does. Maybe that is the issues that separates "Medicine" from pure science. In any event, true-prevention with the plus remains the "second opinion", in my judgment. Best, Otis Engineer > Dear William, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > at least the "first-step" in a solution is to have the person > completely elliminate the "near" enviroment with a strong plus. A very simple and intuitive thing to do. Unfortunately, has been tested extensively and found not to be very successful. I've tried it in tha past with similarly mixed results. > In fact, when "Mike" did this, his refractive status changed from a > negative value (20/50) to a positive value. I'm sure you've been advised that your notation is incorrect. 20/50 is an acuity value, not a refractive state. 20/50 simply means the eye can only read down to the 20/50 size letter at 20 ft test distance. This sub-normal performance can be caused by myopia, by hypermetropia, by astigmatism, by macular degeneration, cataract, amblyopia, solar burn of the retina, diabetic retinopathy, and a host of other conditions. Your attempt to simplify standard terminology simply confuses the issue. > The only real difficulty is "Mike's" motivation to do this work > successfully. Sure, blame the patient. That always works. > Since you have already stated that you are not going to "lose any > sleep" over these statistics, then I believe that "Mike" is warrented > understanding your "casual" attitude, and taking responsibility to do > this work himself -- under his own control Whatever. I don't think mild myopia is harmful. In fact I CHOSE it when I had my cataract surgeries, for one of my eyes. > You may not have much concern about this issue -- but Mike does. > > Maybe that is the issues that separates "Medicine" from pure science. No. In health care we help patients by the thousands. Your brand of "pure science" trys to help a few gullible people who are upset with the cards they were dealt. Most of the time you guys do no harm, but I've seen some potentially harmful suggestions on this news group and as long as I'm here, I'll fight that. It's my hippocratic duty. w.stacy, o.d. > No. In health care we help patients by the thousands. Your brand of > "pure science" trys to help a few gullible people who are upset with the > cards they were dealt. Most of the time you guys do no harm, but I've > seen some potentially harmful suggestions on this news group and as long > as I'm here, I'll fight that. It's my hippocratic duty. Nobody is helped by you. People stop to visit you out of desperation. Not because they are cure or have found some kind of relief. Primum Non Nuocere, it seems you have forgotten. You only do harm to poor people, gullible people who trust you because of your titles. And you cheat them. Please, bring one case where you were able to cure even half a dioptre of myopia. At least poor Otis is able to quote a few cases. But you? You just put on eyeglasses, and create a patient who has to come to you again in a 6 months time, to have the glasses changed... Isn't this a great harm? It's real injury. We are finally creating our Society for Perfect Sight. I will be glad to get member and their testimonials of persons who could cure themselves by the simple use of a Snellen chart as Dr. Bates has discovered it can be done. Children expecially. They are very easy to be cured, if they have never worn glasses and are less than 12 years old, they are cured by themselves in a few days or weeks or at the maximum months. Dr. Bates claimed NO EXCEPTIONS, to these kinds of cures. NO EXCEPTIONS means 100% scientific. It is always reproducible. Truth is on my side, we will see. This message is for the record. Not for your conviction. since the natural > eye "adapts" its refractive status (by moving > from a positive value to a negative value), then > at least the "first-step" in a solution is to have the person > completely elliminate the "near" enviroment with a strong plus. By the way, my own belief is that it's not just accommodation that's at fault. I think prolonged convergence may be even a greater factor. The internal rectus muscles pulling continuously on the side of the eyeball can not be dismissed as a partial cause. So maybe strong plus lenses with around 15^ of base in prism would do the trick. Who's going to pay for and wear those beasts? Just to avoid a little myopia? It's like trying to hit a fly with a sledge... w.stacy, o.d. > for and wear those beasts? Just to avoid a little myopia? It's like > trying to hit a fly with a sledge... Except with the hammer, you can be reasonably sure of your results. -MT Dear William, You should be clear on several points regarding, Jon, Mike John and others who are working to clear -- or have cleared their vison to pass the required legal standard, i.e., read 1.8 cm letters at 6 meters. 1. They all had a MEDICAL examination -- and any MEDICAL issue was repored to them. 2. They all understood the nature of the "second opinion" and the honest difficulties of true-prevention -- and accepted that they PERSONALLY had to do the work themselves -- to clear their distant vision to normal. 3. They ALL understood the difference between visual acuity checking and refractive status measurements (using a trial-lens kit) and made BOTH measurements. (Trial lens kit was the use of a minus lens of proper strength.) 4. The are well-aware that you don't lose any "sleep" about nearsightedness -- and obviously don't care -- but THEY DO. And I certainly agree that it takes a person of considerable fortitude to do this work "correctly". For that reason, success depends on the qualities of judgment and motivaiton of the person -- and not on your qualities. Best, Otis Engineer > Dear William, > > You should be clear on several points regarding, Jon, Mike > John and others who are working to clear -- or have cleared their > vison to pass the required legal standard, i.e., read 1.8 cm > letters at 6 meters. Dear William Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in the position of giving medical advice. In addition, the above individuals that Otis claims to clear their vision appear to be a part of his imagination since none has come forward in the newsgroup to share their experiences. Thank you! Allen > And I certainly agree that it takes a person of considerable > fortitude to do this work "correctly". For that reason, > success depends on the qualities of judgment and motivaiton > of the person -- and not on your qualities. Is that why there are no controlled studies showing that it works? -MT William Stacey >>By the way, my own belief is that it's not just accommodation that's at fault. I think prolonged convergence may be even a greater factor. The internal rectus muscles pulling continuously on the side of the eyeball can not be dismissed as a partial cause. Why should there be any significant tension on an eyeball during reading? Muscles can have various lengths without significant tension being felt on an anchoring point. But that is not to say that for **some** people there is in fact significant muscular tension at the anchor points of muscles when doing some activities. I would argue that its not the reading position that might be damaging but *how you read* or *why you read* For example, since accommodation is an essentially unconscious process, reading that is not done for pleasure (perhaps by myopes wanting good marks to please anxious parents) and reading that is done for pleasure (perhaps by hypermetropes who generally dont like reading) are likely to create different scenarios. I these are irrelevant considerations as to why some children get vision problems and why some dont. Andrew > For example, since accommodation is an essentially unconscious process, > reading that is not done for pleasure (perhaps by myopes wanting good [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I these are irrelevant considerations as to why some children get > vision problems and why some dont. I see, so focusing the eyes at the same focal plane, at the same working distance, and with the same amount of convergence, are different scenarios depending upon whether the person is regarding the near object out of self-interest or not? Is control of heart rhythm similar as well? >>I see, so focusing the eyes at the same focal plane, at the same working distance, and with the same amount of convergence, are different scenarios depending upon whether the person is regarding the near object out of self-interest or not? I did not say that. I said: >since accommodation is an essentially unconscious process, > reading that is not done for pleasure (perhaps by myopes wanting good > marks to please anxious parents) and reading that is done for pleasure > (perhaps by hypermetropes who generally dont like reading) are likely > to create different scenarios. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.