 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005Letter to the NIH and NEI on PREVENTION methods
Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: Scientific letter and report on myopia prevention. It has long been known that the use of a strong plus lens is effective in preventing nearsighedness. The purpose of i-see is to make you aware of the scientifc alternative as advocated by Bates and other dedicated medical personnel and scientists. It does take strong personal resolve to do it, however. The experimental data is almost perfect in this regard. If you place a minus lens on the eye -- it goes "down" -- plane and simple. Nothing could be clearer on a scientific level. When a scientists -- who cleared his vision in this manner -- writes to the NIH and National Eye Institute -- what happens? Do they initiate a follow-up? Do they begin an investigation, helping others with this difficult but practical preventive method? You would think they would be interested in true-prevention -- even if difficult. But nooo! Here is the results -- incredible but true. Stirling's letter goes in the circular file -- with chuckles up the sleeve, and the young population is now reaching 84 percent in high school. If this sound like "success" to you -- I wonder what failure would look like. Does this disregard for scientific advocacy make sense to you. How much worse does is have to be come before we organize ourselves to prevent this situation? As always enjoy, because if we did not laugh -- we would have to cry at this incredible intellectual blindness towards objective scientific facts. Reference 1 is pure science, since the experiment can be repeated as many times as you like -- and the results will ALWAYS BE THE SAME. Apparently scientic results are ignored by the medical community because, well, that is "science" and not medicine. This is simple "input" versus "output" testing. I does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the refractive state of the eye "follows" this "input" visual enviroment. Why make this complex, when the scientifc facts are clear and to-the-point? Reference 2 simply shows the results of ignoring the effect that a "confined" environment, compounded by a minus lens has on the refractive state of the primate eye. Best, Otis ____________________________________ 1. Refractive Error and Eye Growth in Chickens", VISION RES., Vol 28, No. 5 pp 639-657, 1988. Pergamon Press. RESULTS: o All eyes treated with positive lenses became consistently more positive (hyperopic). o Negative lenses produced more negative (myopic) refractions (focal states) in all eyes. o In a test of plus/minus lenses on left/right eyes. o The eye with the plus lens moved in a positive direction. o The eye with a minus lens moved in a minus direction. The control group did not change significantly in any direction. ___________________________________ Note: Stirling Colgate is an internationally-known physicist. Other than send him a courtesy reply, nothing was ever done about his request by the NIH. LETTER TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE Dr. Elena Nightingale Director, Preventive Medicine National Institute of Medicine 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, DC 20418 Dear Dr. Nightingale: The enclosed two reports are a statement concerning the prevention of myopia - the one within the profession by Francis Young ("The Development and Control of Myopia in Human and Subhuman Primates", Contacto 19, p.16) and the other a discussion at an elementary level by myself, a physicist. The point is that myopia can be prevented in essentially all cases by appropriate management of the focal environment. It requires measuring each year the mean relaxed-state focal length of the eye during child development. When this refractive error is zero, one then uses any of the proven methods of preventing or inhibiting the progression of myopia. If the child does not progress beyond refractive error of zero, the child retains a refractive error of zero. This is called 20/20 vision. The simplest, easiest and least drastic means of inhibiting further progression of myopia is the use of positive lens glasses, +1.5 to +2 diopters for all reading and protracted close work. The eye progressively adapts to its mean focal environment starting from the focal properties of all new- born babies, +4 to +6 diopters, to progressively more near-sighted each year, usually -1/2 to -1 diopters per year. Then at the age of 6 to 10 years the mean relaxed state focus, refractive error, passes through zero. The normal environment of distance and no reading means that when the refractive error becomes zero, the time average contraction of the ciliary muscle becomes small and further adaptation to the focal environment ceases. This way the normal development leads to and maintains zero refractive error. The unnatural environment of reading causes myopia by extending the progressive adaptation to the unnatural near point focal environment of the book. The logical and least disruptive action is to change the effective focal properties of the book to infinity. Elementary optics indicates the use of a positive lens to accomplish this. Conventional ophthalmology has traditionally treated the symptoms, not the cause. We wait until the individual has adapted to the near-point focal environment. This adaptation is called myopia. We then fit the person with a negative lens which endows the distant object with the focal properties of a close-by one. If the individual then uses the negative lens glasses for reading, a further adaptation to a still closer point focus is made and the grotesque result is called progressive myopia. The optometry profession has traditionally defended itself on the basis that all focal properties of the eye are predetermined genetically. One can equally well explain the observed very large genetic correlation function and myopia with a variable genetic endowment affecting the focal adaptation mechanism. Francis Young has, in my opinion, demonstrated conclusive scientific evidence for the existence and for the mechanism of this adaptive mechanism - namely the small, progressive and irreversible lengthening of the eyeball in response to the fluid pressure increase caused by a contraction of the ciliary muscle. On very general grounds (information theory) one can argue that there has to exist some such mechanism: Genetic endowment generally encompasses a physiological dispersion of roughly 10 percent limited by cellular growth dispersion, i.e., cell growth is a noisy system. 20/20 vision on the other hand requires an accuracy of the composite structure of the normal eye of 1 in 5000, i.e., 2 x 10 (-4). The progression from a genetic noise figure of 10% to a functional accuracy of less than 1/10% requires a developmental feed-back mechanism. This mechanism is well documented by the work of Francis Young. The alleviation of myopia is a worthwhile goal. At the very least, an open choice and recognized knowledge of the causes and prevention would seem to me to be an outstanding objective in preventive medicine. Stirling A. Colgate, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics Division MS-210, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 2. Young,F.A., Leary, G. A., Goo, F. J., Johanson, C., Baldwin, W. R., West, D.C., Box, R. A., and Harris, E., "Refractive Errors, Reading Performance, and School Achievement Among Eskimo Children", Am. J. Optom. & Arch. Am. Acad. Optom., 47 (5), 384-390, 1970. (A review of this study is provided by Dr. Maurice Brummer, optomtertist.) The cause of myopia is further clearly indicated in a study of 1,200 Eskimos in Barrow, Alaska, published in the American Journal of Optometry in 1970, which showed that in one generation of the Eskimo population had moved from no myopia to approximately 65% myopia among the off-spring, and that neither the grandparents nor parents over 40 had any myopia. Thus the first generation between grandparents and parents was similar in that myopia was nonexistent, but in the second generation between the parents and their children, suddenly myopia occurs in a surprisingly high number of children. As a matter of fact, of 53 offspring who were in their early 20's, 88% had myopia. Such a sudden and great degree of change cannot readily be accounted for on the basis of heredity, especially when there has been no identifiable force which could have brought about this obviously considerable mutation in the genetic composition of the offspring. The obvious difference between the parents and the children is the amount of near work which is currently being done by the children. About the time of the second World War, the white man intruded into their lives, requiring the development of education among a population which was uneducated and illiterate. The Eskimo has become an avid reader because of his environment. While he spends a great deal of time out-of-doors in the warmer, daylight summer months, he spends relatively little time out-of-doors in the cold, dark winter months.". > It has long been known that the use of a strong plus lens is > effective in preventing nearsighedness. The NEI and the FDA seem to disagree with you. -MT >> It has long been known that the use of a strong plus lens is >> effective in preventing nearsighedness. > >The NEI and the FDA seem to disagree with you. The gall. > >> It has long been known that the use of a strong plus lens is > >> effective in preventing nearsighedness. > > > >The NEI and the FDA seem to disagree with you. > > The gall. Dontcha know- it's all a conspiracy by the eye industry, especially the docs,in order to remain rich. There can be no other reason for the FDA/NEI not to see the light with all the compelling evidence such as the printer's son. frank > It has long been known that the use of a strong plus lens is > effective in preventing nearsighedness. > When a scientists -- who cleared his vision in this manner -- > writes to the NIH and National Eye Institute -- what happens? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in high school. If this sound like "success" to you -- I wonder > what failure would look like. You can't have it both ways, Otis. Either it has "long been known" or else it needs an investigation. You don't need to investigate things that are already known to be true.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net Otis Brown, what am I, the -10 diopter myope with astigmatism supposed to do with this information? I feel that my vision has been stolen. Dear Friend, Subject: Your right to a "second-opinion" There are those on this site who say I am wrong when I state that you should have been offered the preventive alternative -- when you were at 20/40 or so. You have made some accurate jugments of this situation. It is tragic when a person "wakes up" to this issue -- after it is too late. A few of us are working to offer prevention -- before it gets out-of-hand. But it is very difficult. There are ODs who wish to make this intelligent change like Steve Leung. www.chinamyopia.org But the get accused of all kinds of nonsense -- and shouted down by the "majority" opinion. The result of this is that they "give up", and only help their own chilren with prevention by having the child begin wearing the plus at the threshold i.e., refractive stats of zero (but 20/20). You have posted some good insights on this issue on the forum. You are young -- but I think will understand these issues with greater clarity in the future. When the "plus" if offered -- the parents and child TURN IT DOWN -- because of a failure of understanding. The result is that in a year or two, the child is right back into -1.5 diopters or so. Only NOW he gets a strong minus lens that impress both the parents and the child. My posting of "The Printers Son" is an example of that "attitude". I will post remarks about the National Eye Institute which simply repeats the unproven "mantra" that a lens has no effect on the refractive state of the natural eye. It is not true -- but the ODs prefer to believe it. Whe I "woke up" (because of Raphaelson) I "arm twisted" my sister's kids on this issue. The result is: 1. The resented me. 2. They started thinking. 3. The woke up. 4. The begins wearing the plus (an cleared their vision -- BEFORE they wore the minus.) and 5. Alway passed the Snellen-DMV -- thus no over-prescribed minus. Our natural eyes are simply not designed for all the incredible "close work" we are doing in this 21st century. I we keep on "rejecting" prevention with the plus -- we simply will continue to get "stair-case" nearsightedness from the minus -- in my opinion. Best, Otis > There are those on this site who say I am wrong when > I state that you should have been offered the preventive > alternative -- when you were at 20/40 or so. There was no "preventive alternative," so you ought not fill his young head with such notions. By the way, in case someone hasn't brought this to your attention, your bibliography is sorely outdated. DrG >There are those on this site who say I am wrong when >I state that you should have been offered the preventive >alternative -- when you were at 20/40 or so. Actually, *everybody* says that it's foolhardiness for doctors to prescribe something that's never been proven to work. Except, that is, for Brother Otis's Traveling Salvation Show over here.... You stand steadfastly unwilling to submit scientifically valid proof. >You have made some accurate jugments of this >situation. It is tragic when a person "wakes up" >to this issue -- after it is too late. > >A few of us are working to offer prevention -- before >it gets out-of-hand. Unfortunately, that small, vocal group just isn't particularly interested in proving the efficacy of what it is we hawk. Don't expect that of them . . . or they *will* whine. >But it is very difficult. Proof? Yeah, it is difficult . . . especially if/when the thing you're trying to prove doesn't work. But why should the bar be any lower for you?? Right. Exactly. How *are* those studies coming, Best? Have you contacted an optometry school yet to discuss the possibility of working with them in clinical trials? >There are ODs who wish to make this intelligent >change like Steve Leung. Free post to that guy's website handily snipped. Here's the National Institutes of Health's latest position on myopia prevention: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001023.htm#Prevention >But the get accused of all kinds of nonsense -- Nonsense like being asked to prove your theory? That's really gotta' annoy you, now doesn't it, Otis? >and >shouted down by the "majority" opinion. The result >of this is that they "give up", and only help >their own chilren Most optometrists run a car equipped with that chimerical 500mpg carburetor, too.... >with prevention by having >the child begin wearing the plus at the threshold [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >on the forum. You are young -- but I think will >understand these issues with greater clarity in the future. Spoken as one who sees themselves as the messiah. I think people understand you quite well *now*. >When the "plus" if offered -- the parents and child >TURN IT DOWN -- because of a failure of understanding. Or . . . quite possibly . . . because it hasn't been proven to work. Yeah, that might be it. >The result is that in a year or two, the child is right back >into -1.5 diopters or so. Only NOW he gets a strong minus >lens that impress both the parents and the child. That's true. Improving the vision of a patient is impressive, I'll admit. Something *more* impressive would be proof that plus lens therapy worked to prevent the progression of myopia. >My posting of "The Printers Son" is an example of >that "attitude". So . . . a hundred years later and there's *still* no proof that his idea worked? Why is that?? Don't you think the demand for such a thing would be *huge*? Otis, many of us find conspiracy theories very interesting, but here's the thing: can you point to a single example of a widely trumpeted conspiracy theory *ever* having been proven true? Ever?? In most cases, we're just talking about small-minded outliers with delusions of grandeur who believe that *they* hold the answer, and that the rest of us are somehow profiting from keeping that answer away from them. >I will post remarks about the National Eye Institute >which simply repeats the unproven "mantra" that >a lens has no effect on the refractive state of the >natural eye. It is not true -- but the ODs >prefer to believe it. Prove they're wrong, Otis. Why is that concept so difficult for you to understand? Or is it simply sour grapes?? Ah, ok. >Whe I "woke up" (because of Raphaelson) I "arm twisted" >my sister's kids on this issue. The result is: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >5. Alway passed the Snellen-DMV -- thus no over-prescribed >minus. Otis, the mere fact that you put forth things like this *decimates* any shot at credibility that you might otherwise have. It hardly passes as *anecdotal*, much less scientific. And that's *giving* you the benefit of the doubt that it's flat out untrue. If you're looking to use your overwhelming charisma to convert disciples (rather than provide them with valid data derived by the scientific method), you should know that text is a pretty weak medium. >Our natural eyes are simply not designed for all the incredible >"close work" we are doing in this 21st century. I we keep >on "rejecting" prevention with the plus -- we simply >will continue to get "stair-case" nearsightedness from >the minus -- in my opinion. But there's nothing scientifically valid to back up your opinion, now is there? No. There isn't. They should really make a study where a control group with mild myopia is documented over the period of 5 years and have the variable group with mild myopia educated about these radical myopia theories. The problem is that most people reject these theories and do not even want to accept that they could have done something about myopia, also, no one even told them about it until it was too late. I do not believe that the world will prevent myopia. Most people do not want to hear it until their glasses get overprescribed and without their glasses they realize that they can't do anything. Thus the people that do care are a small minority. What's worse is that we are poor, as opposed to the optometrists and lasik doctors who are rich making money off us. We cannot win, I think it's time to give up, and as yoda said, go into exile. Maybe we could form our own little group or something. >They should really make a study where a control group with mild myopia >is documented over the period of 5 years and have the variable group >with mild myopia educated about these radical myopia theories. We've been sort of nudging Otis in that general direction. Problem here is: he's afraid it won't work. >The >problem is that most people reject these theories and do not even want >to accept that they could have done something about myopia, also, no >one even told them about it until it was too late. They reject them simply because there's no proof that they work. That's appropriate. Am I missing something here? >I do not believe that the world will prevent myopia. Not sure what that means so how can I possibly argue with that.... >Most people do >not want to hear it until their glasses get overprescribed and without >their glasses they realize that they can't do anything. If I read you correctly, that means you've already bought into the untested hypothesis that minus lenses accelerate the progression of myopia. It's not a fact. >Thus the >people that do care are a small minority. What's worse is that we are >poor, as opposed to the optometrists and lasik doctors who are rich >making money off us. Trash talk. If it worked, the OD's would practice it and shift a big chunk of their practices to the almighty plus lens therapy. Remember: people are too busy to do these things for themselves. The doc's would *profit* from a proven technique for myopia reduction/prevention, not *lose*. There just isn't such a thing for now. >We cannot win, I think it's time to give up, and >as yoda said, go into exile. Maybe we could form our own little group >or something. Uh, ok. I think Yoda quotes are a bit lost on me. Perhaps Thoreau.... How could I be wrong that minus lens encourage myopia? It cannot possibly be genetics that my vision's maximum ability to focus is 4 inches. Also if you never had any windows and the maximum distance you've ever looked was 5 feet, how can you be expected to read the 20/20 line from twenty feet away? >Trash talk. >If it worked, the OD's would practice >it and shift a big chunk of >their practices to the almighty plus >lens therapy. Remember: people >are too busy to do these things for >themselves. The doc's would >*profit* from a proven technique for >myopia reduction/prevention, not >*lose*. And again you are wrong. If the public knew about prevention they would buy plus lenses at their local drug store for ten dollars. Negative lenses would be destroyed and hated just like when Mao Zedong destroyed anti-communist books. Optometrists would find that they don't have a job, that no one would have staircase myopia and no one would even come for their help because all the help would be found on the internet. Because no one would have staircase myopia, optometrists would not make money off selling and overprescribing pair after pair of glasses to a single patient. >How could I be wrong that minus lens encourage myopia? First, studies have never confirmed it. Second, how did you become myopic before you *ever* wore a minus lens? >It cannot possibly be genetics that my vision's maximum ability to >focus is 4 inches. Ok. Why not? >Also if you never had any windows and the maximum distance you've ever >looked was 5 feet, how can you be expected to read the 20/20 line from >twenty feet away? Accommodative mechanism. Though cave-dwellers (hunter-gatherers) really spent the vast majority of their time looking out at the horizon, they somehow adapted to near vision when simple tools came on the scene, no? >>Trash talk. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >would not make money off selling and overprescribing pair after pair of >glasses to a single patient. I have enough to contend with giggling at Otis. I'm not really interested in adding some unnamed poster to the list. If *you* think that, then follow Otis . . . blindly. When you have a chance, though, consider what the OD's would do with the *rest* of their practice . . . those with other vision problems, farsightedness, amblyopia, astigmatism, etc., etc. You sound like you're among the faithful. That's cool. Bully for you. Just know that the science doesn't back you up, and that *nobody* is standing in the way of the Otises of this world *proving* the theories they espouse. Nobody. Go work with Otis on the proof of the safety and efficacy (in accordance with the generally accepted scientific method) of his theory. I'm quite sure he could use the company, and even *more* certain he could use the help. Although Otis cannot prove his "theory" of "myopic prevention", I believe there is proof that when a patient is fitted with glasses, they eyesight gets worse after the break in period. I believe they say that this is so-called "normal", that that is what your vision really is, and that your eyes just had to focus to adjust to it. But if they were really made for your eyes, then why do they make your eyes noticably worse? What, exactly, is happening here? >Although Otis cannot prove his "theory" of "myopic prevention", I >believe there is proof that when a patient is fitted with glasses, they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >really made for your eyes, then why do they make your eyes noticably >worse? What, exactly, is happening here? First, it would be helpful if you would use "quoting" when you post. Second, though I acknowledge that you believe it, and that Otis believes it . . . that simply doesn't make it so. Third, How much do *you* know about the accommodative mechanism and pseudomyopia? If you did some basic research on these keywords, you'd have a better understanding of the explanations you seek. Here's some starters that you may find helpful: http://www.indiana.edu/~v755/acc/acctx.htm http://www.doctorergo.com/home.html?main=consumer/accommodation.html http://www.emedicine.com/oph/topic699.htm > Although Otis cannot prove his "theory" of "myopic prevention", I > believe there is proof that when a patient is fitted with glasses, they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > really made for your eyes, then why do they make your eyes noticably > worse? What, exactly, is happening here? I believe that you are confusing cause with effect. The fact is that many myopes tend to get worse no matter what you do. If you don't give them spectacles, they still get worse. If you give them spectacles, they get worse at about the same rate. Walk a mile in my shoes, son. I've been observing myopes for more than 20 years. I've tried the bifocals on them, been there, done that. I've discussed reading hygeine, holding the book at the proper distance and all of that, but the myopes just keep coming. Close work obviously has something to do with it, but it isn't the entire story, and you cannot duplicate optical infinity with plus lenses. DrG >Close work obviously has something to do with it, but it isn't the >entire story, and you cannot duplicate optical infinity with plus >lenses. Wait a minute . . . If *you're* right, then Otis must . . . must . . . must be . . . wrong? Sigh.... ...well, you can simulate optical infinity, but spectacles don't have the same effect. The patient still converges, and I am convinced that there is something different about the shape of the myopic eye that causes it to focus differently, for what it's worth. DrG >and you cannot duplicate optical infinity with plus >lenses. > >DrG I didn't believe this before but I now agree. Even you do use plus lenses for in prolonged close work, when you take a break and look at distance, you still see a little blurriness, maybe not as same as not wearing plus, but it is there. This proves to me that optical infinity can not be achieved even with plus. SignaturePV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea I didn't believe this before but I now agree. Even you do use plus lenses for in prolonged close work, when you take a break and look at distance, you still see a little blurriness, maybe not as same as not wearing plus, but it is there. This proves to me that optical infinity can not be achieved even with plus. I have heard of this too, but I cannot confirm it because I do not wear optical devices that allow me to see 20/20. My vision is always blurry. So you're saying if a 20/20 peson puts on reading glasses and then they take them off the distance looks blurry? Even if vision still gets worse with out without glasses I would have liked to oppurtunity to see that for myself. Only recently have I installed an eyechart in my room. My eyesight is so bad that I wouldn't even know that it's there without my glasses. I have never tried to look at anything without my glasses until now, I just with I could have seen my vision deteorating before my very eyes. >Even if vision still gets worse with out without glasses I would have >liked to oppurtunity to see that for myself. Only recently have I >installed an eyechart in my room. My eyesight is so bad that I >wouldn't even know that it's there without my glasses. I have never >tried to look at anything without my glasses until now, I just with I >could have seen my vision deteorating before my very eyes. So go take Bill Stacy's bet. Work with impartial optometrists (to ensure accurate and consistent cycloplegic refractions), then follow Otis into myopic happy-land. If you get there, Bill might just hand you a big fat check. But you won't get there . . . cuz it doesn't work. Don't wear your glasses if you don't want to. Just don't expect results beyond gaining some measure of control of your accommodative mechanism--not an inherently bad thing, by the way. > But if they were > really made for your eyes, then why do they make your eyes noticably > worse? What, exactly, is happening here? What's happening is you're assuming that glasses make myopia worse. Every myope "gets worse," whether they wear glasses or not. It's rare to be born nearsighted. Real studies use large groups and cycloplegic refractions to eliminate individual variation. In those studies you find people who wear their glasses don't get worse faster. And removing glasses doesn't slow myopia down. -MT >Every myope "gets worse," whether they wear glasses or not. It's rare to be >born nearsighted. Dr. Tyner, should I expect to get worse further down the road? My first Rx at 18 was the same I confirmed a few days ago, 10 years later. Is there a type of myopia or a group of people that stays like this? SignaturePV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea Thursday, 02 Jun 2005 / 13:40:45 Korea Standard Time (+0900) > Dr. Tyner, should I expect to get worse further down the road? My first Rx > at 18 was the same I confirmed a few days ago, 10 years later. Is there a > type of myopia or a group of people that stays like this? Typically it changes for a few years - 2 for some, 15 for others - and then it stops for good. The result is a population average that shifts toward myopia between ages 10 and 30. After leveling off, many people see a slight improvement. A few people get major improvement. But the population average shifts _away_ from myopia between ages 30 and 60. YMMV. -MT >it stops for good. > >The result is a population average that shifts toward myopia between ages 10 >and 30. > > This is a good thing I am almost there. >After leveling off, many people see a slight improvement. A few people get >major improvement. But the population average shifts _away_ from myopia >between ages 30 and 60. > This I saw being mentioned a few weeks ago here, due to ? Presbyopia? Changes in the lens? >YMMV. > Hopefully not, and stays with averages. SignaturePV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea Thursday, 02 Jun 2005 / 21:19:01 Korea Standard Time (+0900) > The result is a population average that shifts toward myopia between ages 10 > and 30. I'm old enough to remember the days before PCs and I seem to recall that myopes I used to see generally levelled off in their late teens, maybe early 20s. Now I practice in the middle of a completely computerized community (less than a mile from 7000 Intel employees who mostly spend all day in front of computers), and I now see people increasing in myopia into their late 20s and early 30s. Not a great amount, but still shifting. However, some or all of this late change may be functional, because I'm also seeing larger myopia reductions as these people get into their late 30s and early 40s, as compared to the good old days... w.stacy, o.d. >Dr. Tyner, should I expect to get worse further down the road? My first Rx at 18 was the same I confirmed a few days ago, 10 years later. Is there a type of myopia or a group of people that stays like this? You're what optometrists would call, a human who has windows. I believe that when a society evolves to such a state that is this advanced, myopia is, sadly, inevitable. It just goes to show that the only people who care about you is you, not your parents, not your doctor, not your family. The only other people who care about you are radicals, and radicals never win. This time the radicals bear the truth. It is strange that, the truth has not prevailed... Is this not good versus evil? The idea of myopia prevention goes against everything the Bush administration stands for. It is ironic, though, that myopia prevention is in the best interest of all mankind. To believe in myopia prevention, people have to realize how much their teachers have lied to them, that studying is good for you, etc., etc. In the end they would rather believe the majority than some raving lunatic. But, the idea of myopia prevention has been, and still is, alive and well. None of us chose to be myopes. However, most of us have learned to adapt to our visual limitations. In the grand scheme of things, myopia counts for very little in the advance of civilization. In fact, you might even think of it as a by-product of the advancement of civilization. DrG >But, the idea of myopia prevention has been, and still is, alive and >well. None of us chose to be myopes. However, most of us have learned [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Don't you think it is kind of strange that for a 16 year old this guy is talking very intelligently and without almost any spelling errors? I don't know I am starting to believe Dr. Stacy about this guy and I think we are wasting bandwidth. SignaturePV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea Thursday, 02 Jun 2005 / 13:38:42 Korea Standard Time (+0900) I agree to a certain extent. However, he is either a spawn or a victim of Otis, and presents the same arguments. DrG That's what I said. Myopia is a by-product of advanced civilization where we live in homes and have no windows. Dear Friend, It is true the nearsightedness is only preventable in its early stage. It is also true that the "public" if offered a chance at prevention-with-plus, will most likely REJECT it. If your parents and YOU had been offered the use of a strong plus (at age 7) would you have: 1. Done further research. 2. Used the plus agressively and cleared your distant vision the way that Stirling Colgate did. Or would you have. 3. Ridiculed the sincere doctor who attemped to help you with agressive use of the plus -- and gone off to a "real doctor" who would have given you a strong minus -- that would have impressed both you and your parents. That is the delemia that faces prevention-minded optometrists. This is the problem that anyone who wishes to help you with the plus -- must face. Results depend completely on YOU, and your motivation to make this process work effectively for yourself. And you are right. The only person who really cares about you long-term vision -- is yourself. This comes down to RESPONSIBILITY (not blame). As always, keep an open mind about the concept that the natural eye is "dynamic" and -- as a natural process -- controls its refractive status to the AVERAGE visual enviroment. Best, Otis ________ > I believe that when a society evolves to such a state that is this > advanced, myopia is, sadly, inevitable. You are right. When you place the natural eye in a more-confined environment, the refractive status moves in a negative direction. This is confirmed by DIRECT scientific testing of the NATURAL eye. It is tragic that we refuse to understand the behavior of the natural eye in this manner -- on a direct, "input" versus "output" type of ENGINEERING testing. It just goes to show that the > only people who care about you is you, not your parents, not your > doctor, not your family. They care about you deeply. Only some times they are mislead. Prevention on the threshold is very difficult as I previously stated. It takes a good mind and a hell of a lot of persistance to keep your distant vision clear (by this process) through the school years. The only other people who care about you are > radicals, and radicals never win. A long time ago Ignaze Simmelwiez (sp) had this radical idea that you must WASH YOUR HANDs when you go from dissecting cadavars to delivering babys. About 30 percent of the women would die from "puperal fever" because of this process. That fact did not matter -- and Ignaze was declared a "radical" and kicked out of his position. Ignaze had reduced the death-rate to about 1 percent. It took 30 more years (and many more dead women) before his "radical idea" was accepted. This time the radicals bear the > truth. It is strange that, the truth has not prevailed... Is this not > good versus evil? It depends on how you interpert that "washing of hands" as "evil". As far as the not-wash-hands MDs were concerned Ignaz was "evil". It depends on how you look at it. > The idea of myopia prevention goes against everything the Bush > administration stands for. I don't know how "Bush" got in to this! It is ironic, though, that myopia > prevention is in the best interest of all mankind. Right on, brother, right on! To believe in > myopia prevention, people have to realize how much their teachers have > lied to them, that studying is good for you, etc., etc. I love to read -- but for our children -- they must learn to read it THROUGH a strong plus -- or else -- as far as I am concerned. Can we rise to the challenge? I certainly hope so. In the end > they would rather believe the majority than some raving lunatic. In the end I would rather believe in the "second opinion" as expressed by Steve Leung OD. www.chinamyopia.org But this will result in you being offered a "choice" or "fighting chance" at the threshold. That is better than no chance at all. Best, Otis >It is true the nearsightedness is only preventable in its >early stage. What proof do you have that it's preventable even then? >It is also true that the "public" if offered a chance >at prevention-with-plus, will most likely REJECT it. HAH! Sorry. I had to laugh at you. If it *proved* to be effective, I think people would actually jump at it. >If your parents and YOU had been offered the use of a >strong plus (at age 7) would you have: > >1. Done further research. Move over, second graders, this med school library ain't big enough for all of us.... >2. Used the plus agressively and cleared your distant >vision the way that Stirling Colgate did. Or would >you have. The toothpaste magnate? >3. Ridiculed the sincere doctor who attemped to >help you with agressive use of the plus -- and gone >off to a "real doctor" who would have given >you a strong minus -- that would have impressed >both you and your parents. If this method had ever been proven effective in humans: one response. If this method had *never* been proven effective in humans (reality): another. >That is the delemia that faces prevention-minded In your usual spate of ill typing, I have to presume this effort was meant as "dementia," rather than dilemma. It fits better in the context. >optometrists. This is the problem that anyone >who wishes to help you with the plus -- must face. Only if there's no evidence that what they're hawking works (see: mirror). >Results depend completely on YOU, and your motivation >to make this process work effectively for yourself. So . . . if they try it . . . and it does nothing . . . do you simply say "you weren't motivated enough. You didn't try hard enough"?? >And you are right. The only person who really cares >about you long-term vision -- is yourself. > >This comes down to RESPONSIBILITY (not blame). Actually, it should come down to proof of efficacy and safety. >As always, keep an open mind about the concept >that the natural eye is "dynamic" and -- as a natural >process -- controls its refractive status to >the AVERAGE visual enviroment. You left out "box camera" again. > So . . . if they try it . . . and it does nothing . . . do you simply > say "you weren't motivated enough. You didn't try hard enough"?? You are spot on with that one. Remember that 1K bet I had a few years ago? The doc who took the bet and tried her hardest, and was a "true believer", said in the end, after not even a .25 shift in a year of trying, blamed herself for not trying hard enough. Still a believer in the face of the overwhelming self evidence. Such blind faith is why snake oil will always be with us. w.stacy, o.d. > It is true the nearsightedness is only preventable in its > early stage. More false and misleading information from Otis. It's true because you say so? > It is also true that the "public" if offered a chance > at prevention-with-plus, will most likely REJECT it. Again false. Show us it works and we'll talk them into it. > As always, keep an open mind about the concept > that the natural eye is "dynamic" and -- as a natural > process -- controls its refractive status to > the AVERAGE visual enviroment. My average visual environment has been about 3 feet for the last 30 years. Why am I not nearsighted, Otis? Why is the majority of the population farsighted or emmetropic? They don't read? -MT >> It is true the nearsightedness is only preventable in its >> early stage. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Why is the majority of the population farsighted or emmetropic? They don't >read? Wow, Otis! Mike's really thrown you a few meaty puzzlers there. I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that you'll just ignore him.... Sigh. >My average visual environment has been about 3 feet for the last 30 years. >Why am I not nearsighted, Otis? If you're not nearsighted then why are in this newsgroup? What drove you to come here? Maybe you are old and farsighted and your plus lenses have protected your eyesight. Seriously you have no windows? Explain yourself Mike Tyner! >>My average visual environment has been about 3 feet for the last 30 years. >>Why am I not nearsighted, Otis? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >lenses have protected your eyesight. Seriously you have no windows? >Explain yourself Mike Tyner! You're posts are degenerating. >It depends on how you interpert that "washing of hands" as >"evil". As far as the not-wash-hands MDs were concerned >Ignaz was "evil". It depends on how you look at it. I was implying that negative lenses are the evil and plus lenses are the good. Dear Friend, The "evil" is ignorance of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye -- and ignoring all scientific data that concerns that issue. Telling the truth (as you might see it) to your parents and you (as the second opinion) is ALWAYS the right thing to do. I leave it to your intelligence to assign "evil" as you wish. Best, Otis > I was implying that negative lenses are the evil and plus lenses are > the good. Why stop there? It's long been known that all negative numbers are inherently evil. It's also a proven fact that large feet are evil. Smaller feet are morally superior. Large ears are evil. Small ears are good. Large noses are evil. Small noses are good. Otis is a magician. -MT > I was implying that negative lenses are the evil and plus lenses are > the good. That's like saying that hammers are good and screwdrivers are evil, or hammers are evil and screwdrivers are good. When you need to drive in a nail, hammers make life much easier. When you need to drive in a screw, a screwdriver is what you need. When you are myopic, wearing a minus lens lets you see sharply at distance. When you are hyperopic, wearing a plus lens lets you see sharply up close. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > I believe that when a society evolves to such a state that is this > advanced, myopia is, sadly, inevitable. If that is the case, then why are there more hyperopes (farsighted people) in the US than myopes? When all you have is a hammer, all you see are nails. > The idea of myopia prevention goes against everything the Bush > administration stands for. The idea that Bush cares beans about vision is ludicrous. Health care, yes, vision, no. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net |
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.