 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2005Another myopia theory
With s.m.v. now bingeing on the pathogenesis of myopia, I'm now ready to postulate yet another theory. It's pretty simple, and is based on the anatomy of the human eye and the geometry of converging to bifoveally fixate a near object. Consider where the optic nerve attaches to the eyeball. A couple of millimeters nasally from the fovea and optical axis. This insertion was "designed" to be comfortably relaxed when the eyes are in the primary position. When the eyes converge as in viewing a near object, the optic nerves must actually "stretch" as the foveas turn outward in aligning with the near object. This stretch must exert a finite pull on the back of the eye backwards, towards its source, behind the orbital fossa. I presume that long hours of such stretching could influence the shape of the eye, and that influence could be a or the cause of ordinary myopia. This could explain why we see axial elongation in myopia, as well as explain the existence of myopic conus, which appears exactly as if the globe were streched at the point of insertion. Of course conventional wisdom would be that it is the retina and choroid that are being stretched here, but there is no reason to believe that an adaptation to this prolonged pull by the optic nerve could not cause a physical elongation of the globe itself. Obviously, if this theory is correct, plus lenses would not work, while very strong base in prisms would be preventive. I don't know if such strong prisms have been studied in any meaningful way, and it would be impossible to do on humans, but could be done on any lab animals that are prone to myopia development and that have similar optical systems (probably primates). w.stacy, o.d. In Russia 20 years are successfully applied Bifocal Sphere-Prismatic Glasses. They are developed by academician Utehin. In this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=6703005&query_hl=1 They used a prism with 2 delta base-in each eye. Doesn't this suppose to take care of most of the convergence needed for close distance reading ?. Even if it takes care of only *some* of the convergence done in close distance, still, Mike will tell you that if the expriment was done using many people, then if there is any truth in your theory, then correlation should have been found, even if by a small degree. Right, Mike ?. It's so easy being on the other side of the fence... If they only used 2^ base in in each eye, that only accounts for about 1/4 the total convergence that is required at 17 inches/40 cm working distance. It would take about 8^ base in O.U. to fully neutralize this, and more if we are talking small children whose near working distance is probably closer, maybe a LOT closer. w.stacy,o.d. >In this article: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > They used a prism with 2 delta base-in each eye. Doesn't this suppose > to take care of most of the convergence needed for close distance > reading ?. 2 BI OU is pretty accurate for a group of adult males. The "delta" symbol indicates "prism diopters." > if the expriment was > done using many people, then if there is any truth in your theory, then > correlation should have been found, even if by a small degree. We can't get Otis to think beyond one or two favorable studies. -MT > 2 BI OU is pretty accurate for a group of adult males. The "delta" symbol > indicates "prism diopters." Gasp.. did I blow that or what? -MT Have you done a literature search to find any support for your hypothesis? On the other hand, the current thrust seems to be on accommodative lag, defocus, and similar mechanisms. ================================================================ Aberrations and myopia [In Process Citation] Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2005 Jul;25(4):285-301 (ISSN: 0275-5408) Charman WN Optometry and Neuroscience, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK. Accommodation, accommodative convergence, and response AC/A ratios before and at the onset of myopia in children. Optom Vis Sci 2005 Apr;82(4):273-8 (SSN: 1040-5488) Gwiazda J; Thorn F; Held R Myopia Research Center, The New England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. Image defocus modulates activity of bipolar and amacrine cells in macaque retina. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004 Jul;45(7):2065-74 (ISSN: 0146-0404) Zhong X; Ge J; Smith EL; Stell WK Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, Neuroscience Research Group and Lions' Sight Centre, University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine, Alberta, Canada ================================================================ I have not. But then I've hung around this group long enough that if one existed, I'd have heard about it. I'm talking strong prisms. Just making the "glasses" for the subjects would be a challenge, to say the least. w.stacy, o.d. >Have you done a literature search to find any support for your >hypothesis? On the other hand, the current thrust seems to be on [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > by the way, my theory would also explain why so often higher myopes have tilted discs. They are the ones that are really stretched. > "If they only used 2^ base in in each eye, that only accounts for about 1/4 the total convergence that is required at 17 inches/40 cm working distance." Still, Mike will say that if your theory was correct, this 1/4 less convergence needed by those wearing the prism glasses in the experiment, should have announced itself in the statistics, even if by a very small degree. In my opinion, if the test subjects in that experiments still needed to do 75% convergence on their own, it is possible that the difference between 75% and 100% convergence is not that big, in terms of the development of myopia, but the difference between 5% convergence and 100% convergence, might be very significant in terms of myopia. Who said we are talking about a linear relationship here ?. Not at all linear, which is why I suggest "prescribing" the full prismatic equivalent for the study. Some human eyes (perhaps most non-Asian ones) are simply incapable of developing myopia, no matter what you do to them. These eyes "stop growing" early and thus lack the ability to grow towards the source of the tension. Others are capable of developing small amounts of myopia, some moderate amounts, and still others are capable (seemingly programmed to do so) of developing huge amounts as in pathologic myopia. On thing will throw a "monkey" wrench into my theory. Theoretically, a constant unilateral exotropia could cause myopia to develop in the non-deviating eye, while the tropic eye should not develop it (I suppose large exotropias could even be influenced by a similar stretch as the eye turns farther and farther outward). This suggests the possibility of severing the extraocular muscles of one eye in the experimental group. My theory would require the clipped eyes to not get myopic while the unclipped eyes would. Don't alert the animal rights people... w.stacy, o.d. w.stacy, o.d. > Who >said we are talking about a linear relationship here ?. > > William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:C_nOe.158$sV7.56 @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com: > This suggests the possibility of > severing the extraocular muscles of one eye in the experimental group. > My theory would require the clipped eyes to not get myopic while the > unclipped eyes would. If you do this in young animals, I'd expect amblyopia. If you did this in developed animals, I'd expect a very strange diplopia. Are there any cases of monocular complete apraxia in a seeing eye?  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Obviously amblyopia and diplopia are both possible and likely outcomes. We know that. What we don't know is will it cause myopia to the non/amblyopic eye and no significant myopia to develop in the deviating eye? Myopia can easily me measured in the presence or absence of amblyopia and diplopia. w.stacy, o.d. >William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:C_nOe.158$sV7.56 >@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:x8oOe.160$sV7.38 @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com: > Myopia can easily me measured in the presence or absence of > amblyopia and diplopia. But the clipped eye can hardly be called anywhere near normal. Any developments in that eye would be highly suspect. Are they in line with your theory, or is it because that eye is rarely gazing upon any target of meaning. It would be a tough experiment to cram through a study section, because the findings would be very tough to interpret. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply I would be interested to know if after using the myopter for 12 hours reading, my distant vision will not deteriorate at the end of the day, like it does today (actually, just before I got myopia, I started noticing this deterioration in distant vision at the end of a long day of reading, but it went off in the morning, until one day it didn't...). > I would be interested to know if after using the myopter for 12 hours > reading, my distant vision will not deteriorate at the end of the day, > like it does today (actually, just before I got myopia, I started > noticing this deterioration in distant vision at the end of a long day > of reading, but it went off in the morning, until one day it didn't...). We're talking about doing experiments, not suggesting therapeutics. If you really think your vision is deteriorating as the day goes on, perhaps you should let your doctor know. Maybe you're having blood sugar problems SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Well, three months ago I went through a complete blood exam and everything was fine. I didn't know it was so rare to have your distant vision more blurred at the end of the day (than it was in the morning when you woke up), after a full day of working with near-field objects... > Well, three months ago I went through a complete blood exam and > everything was fine. > > I didn't know it was so rare to have your distant vision more blurred > at the end of the day (than it was in the morning when you woke up), > after a full day of working with near-field objects... It's not. Do a search for "accomodative spasm", and add "pseudomyopia" to the search if you're feeling adventurous. The myopter probably wouldn't help you more than a slight reading correction. It's no mystery, and has little to do with myopia "prevention", or anything like that. Try this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2958503&dopt=Abstract That said, "complete blood exams" mean different things to different people. I'd be surprised if glucose were included in a normal blood screening, unless you had a family history of diabetes-- or complained about vision changes during the course of a day. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply >> I would be interested to know if after using the myopter for 12 hours >> reading, my distant vision will not deteriorate at the end of the day, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >perhaps you should let your doctor know. Maybe you're having blood sugar >problems Good point, Scott. It also could be (did we get a definitive answer regarding whether or not Jonsy has had a cycloplegic refraction?) indicative that this is ciliary/accommodative stress (or symptoms of dry eye or....) > 1/4 the total convergence that is required at 17 inches/40 cm working You prolly need to check the math. 2BI OU can't be wrong. > Who > said we are talking about a linear relationship here ?. Interesting you should ask .. prism diopters are nonlinear! :) -MT 2^ is way wrong in the context of this discussion, and prism diopters are actually pretty linear, up to the point of total internal reflections... w.stacy, o.d. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:DJlOe.107$5k1.96 @newssvr27.news.prodigy.net: > Obviously, if this theory is correct, plus lenses would not work, while > very strong base in prisms would be preventive. I don't know if such > strong prisms have been studied in any meaningful way, and it would be > impossible to do on humans, but could be done on any lab animals that > are prone to myopia development and that have similar optical systems > (probably primates). I would think that give strong base ins, any foveate animal would simple give up on trying to fuse images. How much divergence can a primate generate? I would think almost none. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply If you place the prisms so that they are only in play when the animal is attempting to fixate a NEAR object, 15^ total base in will place no convergence/divergence demand on the system by itself. It would simply allow the animal's visual axes to remain essentially parallel while viewing a near object. Of course animals with higher AC/A ratios might have to be excluded since they may well get diplopia without the *help* of an add. w.stacy, o.d. >I would think that give strong base ins, any foveate animal would simple >give up on trying to fuse images. How much divergence can a primate >generate? I would think almost none. > > I wonder what it will do to distant perception... Also, you are totally uncoupling accommodation from convergence. This my lead to some unexpected results, after prolonged usage. Distance perception, I meant. My mistake, you are not doing that. This is what is done today with using only plus. lol. Dear Jonsy, Subject: Ending BOTH convergence and accommodation. Don Rehm (The Myopia Myth) has developed a "Myopter" the with plus lenses and mirrors elliminates BOTH items. You can find his site from mine in the discussion area. www.myopiafree.com Best, Otis Otis, you have got to be kidding: http://www.myopia.org/myopterpaper.htm Also, it seemed to work for some kids in the 1970's, what happened after that ?, it stopped delivering results ?. Try getting a monkey or any human child to wear that thing all day long. Otis actually seems to *like* the idea of child abuse... w.stacy, o.d. >Otis, you have got to be kidding: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dear Jonsy, Subject: Kids -- and what they do. It is amost impossible to get kids to do ANYTHING. Getting to wear the "Myopter" would be very difficult -- at best. Just getting my sister's kid to us a simple plus -- was almost impossible. But they did it. I guess they are the only ones who benifited from Jacob Raphaelson's advocacy. (What a wonderful guy. I obviously still think of him. I realized that the only way that I could have AVOIDED nearsighdness -- was to have Jacob as my father. He would have done it right. My sister's kids "wised up" about the necessity of it -- and did it, always passing the DMV and always avoiding the necessity of ANY minus lens. But that was the impact that kind old man had on me. His personal sincerty and integrety made such an impression on me that I had no choice but to continue his work -- on an an abstract or intellectual level. But the real answer was in his heart -- with due respect for the "majority opinion". Best, Otis William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:NEnOe.156$sV7.149 @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com: > If you place the prisms so that they are only in play when the animal is > attempting to fixate a NEAR object, 15^ total base in will place no [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. I think that the dual periscope, or "myopter", as its appeared in this thread, is likely the better way to go about doing this. At least the convergence/accomodation ratio would remain linear, there wouldn't be any discontinuities, and it would work across the entire field of vision available through the device. The disadvantages are that they're a whole bunch more intrusive than specatacles. Also, depth perception through disparity would suffer. Why not just permanently cover one eye? Get rid of the vergence system entirely. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Nope, because of the existence of accommodative convergence (the AC in AC/A ratio). The patched eye will accommodate and converge under the patch... w.stacy, o.d. >Why not just permanently cover one eye? Get rid of the vergence system >entirely. > > William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:jgoOe.163$sV7.32 @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com: > The patched eye will accommodate and converge under the patch... > > w.stacy, o.d. Even if you start it on neonates? SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Yes, theoretically, although it has never been tried, unless maybe Otis did it. He'll try anything on a kid... w.stacy, o.d. >William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:jgoOe.163$sV7.32 >@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > "The myopter probably wouldn't help you more than a slight reading correction ". Reading correction ?. Btw, how can you explain the fact that I only started noticing the distant vision degradation at night (not in terms of lighting) about 1 year before it became permanent ?. I think I have something new, no one has ever heard about... :-( > I think I have something new, no one > has ever heard about... :-( I doubt it. I just think you notice it and worry about it more than most people. You need to find yourself a very patient optometrist or ophthalmologist, and discuss this with him. Did you read the link I sent you to? SignatureScott Reverse name to reply On 8/22/05 12:00 PM, in article Xns96BA98B48EB87scottseidmanmindspri@130.133.1.4, "Scott Seidman" <namdiesttocs@mindspring.com> wrote: >> I think I have something new, no one >> has ever heard about... :-( [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Did you read the link I sent you to? Although I am in sympathy with Jonsy, if he must see a professional to cope with his problem, it should be a psychiatrist or psychologist. It won't help improve his vision, but it may help him live with his "defect." I guess booze and some illegal drugs could do that too--for a while. :=) Bill > When the eyes converge as in viewing a near object, the optic nerves must > actually "stretch" as the foveas turn outward in aligning with the near > object. This stretch must exert a finite pull on the back of the eye > backwards, towards its source, behind the orbital fossa. I presume that > long hours of such stretching could influence the shape of the eye, and > that influence could be a or the cause of ordinary myopia. So if I find a sample of young transcriptionists who habitually use originals at their left or right, the opposite eye will be more nearsighted? -MT (still sheepish.. geesh..) C'mon Mike. We are talking during the myopia development years. I suppose if you could find some 10 year old transcriptionists... Baaa Baaa.... w.stacy, o.d. >So if I find a sample of young transcriptionists who habitually use >originals at their left or right, the opposite eye will be more nearsighted? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://sobko.ru/english/parts.php?112 "Did you read the link I sent you to?" Yes, the one with the emotional problems and car accidents. I wasn't sure how this relates to my condition... > "Did you read the link I sent you to?" > > Yes, the one with the emotional problems and car accidents. I wasn't > sure how this relates to my condition... The whole notion that many of the cases in which young adults are bothered by problems like this, the problems are "functional" as opposed to physiological should ring a bell. This doesn't mean that they're not real problems. One type of problem of this sort that I'm particulary aware of because of the research I do is functional oscillopsia, or motion of the world during head movements. When you move your head in certain ways, motor reflexes can only stabilize gaze in one section of the visual world at a time. If you hold your finger in front of you while you bounce up and down gently on your toes, you'll notice that the background appears to move around a bunch while you look at your finger, and your finger appears to move around a bunch if you look at the background. Some people will notice this, and think something's very wrong. It becomes quite disturbing to them. However, its physiologically normal (and, in fact, impossible not to have), and most people just supress this motion, and most can live their entire lives without noticing it. Thus, when people start noticing it to the point that it disturbs them, we call it "functional". That doesn't mean that it can't be very disturbing, and interfere with everyday activities, it just means that there's nothing physiologically wrong with the patient. Now, you seem to be having some accomodative spasm, which actually is a physiological problem, but you seem strangely fixated on it, perhaps reaching a little bit toward the obsessive. You also seem to be spending much more time reading than I've ever heard of a student doing--and I know and advise lots of students. You're even willing to try wearing a myopter for twelve hours to fix it, even after you've seen a picture of a myopter. Try doing your reading with dime-store reading glasses for a few weeks, and see if that helps you. If that doesn't work, see yourself an eye doctor. Tell him that you think you are having problems with accomodative spasm, and tell him why. Let him do the eye exam, maybe with cycloplegic refraction to temporariliy paralyze the muscle in spasm. Listen to what the doctor recommends. If he does the exam, and concludes that you have some accomodative spasm and its causing the problems you describe, its fairly likely that you do. Hell, I know how frustrating these types of problems can be. One of my favorite things is watching TV, and reading during boring parts and commercials. It's extremely frustrating not to be able to do that easily, now that presbyopia is starting to set it. But--its presbyopia. It's not something new that somebody hasn't seen before. Before too much longer, I suspect, I'll have some adds in my lenses. That has its own set of disadvantages, so I'll put it off as long as I can. In the meantime, I wear a fairly strong magnifying glass on a headband when I tie flies for fishing, and on the stream I have a little flip down x2.5 magnifier on the brim of my hat that I use when I tie the fly onto my line. I have my computer set up with fonts a size or two larger than I used to use. It's presbyopia, and life goes on. It's not optic nerve glioma. It's not brain cancer. It's not some disorder that's yet to be discovered. In the meantime, if this problem starts interfering with your academics, make yourself an appointment with your primary doctor before things slip too far. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply On 8/22/05 7:57 AM, in article DJlOe.107$5k1.96@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net, > Consider where the optic nerve attaches to the eyeball. A couple of > millimeters nasally from the fovea and optical axis. This insertion was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that long hours of such stretching could influence the shape of the eye, > and that influence could be a or the cause of ordinary myopia. What is known about progressive myopia in one-eyed people? Although my memory is hazy, The two one-eyed people of an age for progressive myopia did not wear glasses. I presume that with the number of ODs on this newsgroup, some must have opportunity to observe them. Jonsy and his twin brother together show that environmental factors are important. Bill >What is known about progressive myopia in one-eyed people? Although my >memory is hazy, The two one-eyed people of an age for progressive myopia did >not wear glasses. I presume that with the number of ODs on this newsgroup, >some must have opportunity to observe them. > The term "progressive myopia" is properly used only to describe an eye disease that is also known as high myopia, pathologic myopia, or degenerative myopia, a disease of the eye that is not all that common. Unfortunately, some people use the term incorrectly to describe ordinary low to modertate levels of myopia. As far as one-eyed people, I don't recall any relationship with either high or "regular" myopia. >Jonsy and his twin brother together show that environmental factors are >important. > > Everyone agrees that environmental factors are important in the development of all types of myopia. The question this thread is all about is: What is the mechanism of those environmental factor(s)? Several have been postulated and mostly discounted. To my knowledge, the optic nerve stretch theory set forth in the first post of this subject has not been described elsewhere. w.stacy, o.d. > Everyone agrees that environmental factors are important in the > development of all types of myopia. The question this thread is all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. ...and, since there is no evidence one way or the other, nobody can argue that you aren't correct. DrG No evidence? Well there's a lot of evidence that *something* in the excessively near point world in which we now live is causing an increase in the incidence of myopia. Since my theory has not been tested scientifically, there is no experimental evidence pro or con this theory. But there is a certain amount of observational evidence that may support it (the anatomical/geometrical model itself, the existences of myopic conus and optic disc tilt). Certainly nobody has (yet) refuted the logic of those points.... w.stacy, o.d. >...and, since there is no evidence one way or the other, nobody can >argue that you aren't correct. > >DrG > > William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:zHsOe.132$A%1.16 @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com: > No evidence? Well there's a lot of evidence that *something* in the > excessively near point world in which we now live is causing an increase [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. You can start here: http://crea.berkeley.edu/enoch-profile.shtml In Professor Enoch's laboratory, recent research has concentrated upon adult myopia and associated retinal degenerative phenomena. Myopia is a major cause of blindness and its prevalence has increased sharply worldwide, particularly in the Far East and Southeast Asia, where it affects the majority of teenagers. A substantial proportion of affected individuals usually have rather marked degrees of high myopia. Dr. Enoch has been studying the effects of myopia-related retinal traction that shift both retinal and choroidal tissue temporal-ward. In individuals with -5.00 D myopia or more, the retina and choroid literally override the nasal side of the optic nerve head or disc, and these over-rides can cover up to 2/3 of the optic disc. Such research has shown these displaced tissues to retain visual function (although reduced) upon the blind spot, and there is clear evidence for transient functional changes occurring in these tissues within short timespans. It is not known if these overrides represent a form of safety valve or whether they are a sign that the eyes will be subject to more serious degenerative changes in future years. That's mostly refering to detachment, but I think there's likely something there someplace about the biomechanics of the globe. Presented at: http://64.233.161.104/search? q=cache:EV_viOK9UbYJ:www.escrs.org/events/05Lisbon/Posters.asp+globe+biom echanics+optic+nerve&hl=enM. Mehdizadeh, IRAN Does change in position from supine to prone exert different amount of pressure upon optic nerve head? Also, Joel Miller and Joe Demer have been slicing up orbits and doing a ton of immunohistochemical work. Maybe some of their images would help assess retrobulbar slack: http://www.eidactics.com/Projects/EOTA_proj/EOTA_Slideshow.htm http://www.eidactics.com/index.html?content=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.eidactics.com%2FProjects%2FEOTA_proj%2F http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/41/10/2991 If you can't get the the link (we have an institutional subscription): The Optic Nerve Head as a Biomechanical Structure: Initial Finite Element Modeling Anthony J. Bellezza1, Richard T. Hart1 and Claude F. Burgoyne1,2 1 From the Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana; and the 2 Louisiana State University Eye Center, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans. Also: I. A. Sigal, J. G. Flanagan, I. Tertinegg, and C. R. Ethier Finite Element Modeling of Optic Nerve Head Biomechanics Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., December 1, 2004; 45(12): 4378 - 4387. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04242003- 131157/unrestricted/Thesis.pdf Static and Dynamic Stress/Strain Properties for Human and Porcine Eyes Katherine D. Voorhies (ABSTRACT) SignatureScott Reverse name to reply I glanced at the links that I could see, and it looks like the general subject area of biomechanics of the optic nerve is indeed being studied, but mostly within the realms of strabismus, glaucoma and myopic retinal degenerations. I didn't see anything that might implicate the optic nerve itself as a possible *cause* of myopia. But thanks for the pointers. I'm going to send Dean Enoch an e-mail to see if he's ever considered the possibility. I'll report back if he answers. w.stacy, o.d. >William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:zHsOe.132$A%1.16 >@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com: [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] >(ABSTRACT) > William Stacy <wstacy@obase.net> wrote in news:cYtOe.3639$Z87.2408 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: > I'm going to send Dean Enoch an e-mail to see if he's ever > considered the possibility. I'll report back if he answers. It really looks like he's spend a lot of time talking about the biomechanics of the back of the eye. I'm sure he'd be able to point you in the right direction. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Then, have you done a literature search on myopic conus and optic disc tilt? In any event, you theory sounds just as good as those espoused by Bates regarding the role of EOMs in refractive error. I'm sure you will soon have your little band of devotees. DrG Not yet. But I will later today. BTW the EOMs are part of my theory. They are the root cause of the tension on the optic nerve. Especially the medial recti, which are the largest and strongest of the EOMs and are the ones chiefly in play while reading, computing, etc. w.stacy, o.d. > Then, have you done a literature search on myopic conus and optic disc > tilt? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > DrG On 8/22/05 3:24 PM, in article hgsOe.1225$L77.69@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com, > Everyone agrees that environmental factors are important in the > development of all types of myopia. The question this thread is all > about is: What is the mechanism of those environmental factor(s)? > Several have been postulated and mostly discounted. To my knowledge, > the optic nerve stretch theory set forth in the first post of this > subject has not been described elsewhere. How would the stretch theory apply to one-eyed people? When I close one eye and read my monitor, I turn my head to look directly at what I am reading. There should be no stretching. Bill The "anatomical position of rest" is that position the eye takes when completely denervated like when you die, is slightly outward, so theoretically if a one eyed person always read with his head slightly turned toward his missing eye, there would be no tension on the optic nerve and he would not get myopic. I would call such people "chicken eyed" since that's also how a chicken looks at an object. w.stacy, o.d. > How would the stretch theory apply to one-eyed people? When I close one eye > and read my monitor, I turn my head to look directly at what I am reading. > There should be no stretching. > > Bill Sorry to disillusion you, but I think you're about a hundred years late with this.. I'm almost certain that this very hypothesis is described in Brian J. Curtin's The Myopias. As he put it quaintly, "It would appear at one point toward the close of the 19th century that any opthalmologist who experienced a night of insomnia arose in the morning with a new, and usually more bizarre, theory" (p.61). "I don't think so, unless that person develops what I call "chicken-eye" syndrome (see a couple of posts earlier to this thread).". Do chickens develop myopia ?. > Do chickens develop myopia ?. They do if they are forced to wear -10 spectacles or deprived of form. Otherwise, we might do well to learn the "funky chicken." Does this mean that exotropes do not become myopic? ;) DrG Chicks are special. As to exotropes, my optic nerve stretch theory would say that if you had a condition of orthophoria at far, and constant unilateral (NOT alternating) exotropia of about 15^ at near only, that yes, the non deviating eye could become myopic (assuming the proper genetic proclivity) while the deviating eye would not, since it would never be subjected to significant pull on the optic nerve from any of the EOMs. However, as you know, such a person does not exist, or *very* rarely does, for obvious reasons. w.stacy, o.d. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Well, to be more accurate, and to make your suggestion truly implausable, make it a 7.5^ unliateral exotrope at near only... w.stacy, o.d. OK I'll bite. The quote you give doesn't say anything about optic nerve stretch. Was there anything in that publication that did? Until then, I still assume I'm first. w.stacy, o.d. >Sorry to disillusion you, but I think you're about a hundred years late >with this.. I'm almost certain that this very hypothesis is described [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > My memory turned out to be correct. The hypothesis that myopia could be caused by the pull of the optic nerve on the sclera was first proposed by Hasner in 1874*. Other investigators also had this idea (Weiss, 1876, , Paulsen 1882, Emmert, 1904 and Stock, 1907). This hypothesis was disproved by Stilling in 1905.and Hanssen in 1921. Curtin put the final nail in the coffin with his statement that "Today optic traction, in the absence of demonstrated exophthalmia or nerve shortening, is no longer considered an etiological factor in myopia". *Hasner, J. Ueber die Aetiologie des Langbauses. Vjschr Prakt Heilk ( Prague) 31.50 (1874). This example shows how difficult it is to come up with a hypothesis on the etiology of myopia that nobody else has thought of in the last 150 years of research in physiological optics. However, it is not impossible. Several years ago I proposed a hypothesis explaining the influence of the extraocular muscles on the crystalline lens, but nobody liked it :-) To further quote Curtin: "One of the least appealing theories advanced during the 19th century concerned the effects of tension exerted upon the posterior sclera by the optic nerve in convergence. This effect would be produced by a short optic nerve; however, studies indicate that very few myopic eyes have such anatomy. Nevertheless, this view was supported by other authors, including Weiss. It was rejected firmly by other authors, including von Hasses, who, in the face of proven redundancy of the nerve in many cases, theorized that the sclera was weakened not by traction but by repeated trauma. This was inflicted on the posterior sclera by a springlike nerve during lid blinking. >My memory turned out to be correct. The hypothesis that myopia could be >caused by the pull of the optic nerve on the sclera was first proposed >by Hasner in 1874*. Other investigators also had this idea (Weiss, >1876, , Paulsen 1882, Emmert, 1904 and Stock, 1907). > > Glad to know I'm in good company. > This hypothesis was disproved by Stilling in 1905.and Hanssen in >1921. Curtin put the final nail in the coffin with his statement that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Maybe it's not new, but are you sure it was "disproved" to today's standards? I don't read German so will have to try to find an english translation of that paper. >However, it is not impossible. Several years ago I proposed a >hypothesis explaining the influence of the extraocular muscles on the >crystalline lens, but nobody liked it :-) > > Nobody liking it is my definition of disapproval, NOT of disproval. >To further quote Curtin: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >short optic nerve; however, studies indicate that very few myopic eyes >have such anatomy. Obviously it is not a "short" nerve that is at fault, but it is conceivable that a very low amount of constant tension could influence a genetically weak sclera. I will continue to look for, and am open to, any logical or evidentiary disproving of this idea. >Nevertheless, this view was supported by other >authors, including Weiss. It was rejected firmly by other authors, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I think the repeated trauma idea and the blinking notion are far less credible... w.stacy, o.d. ... > When the eyes converge as in viewing a near object, the optic nerves must > actually "stretch" as the foveas turn outward in aligning with the near > object. This stretch must exert a finite pull on the back of the eye > backwards, towards its source, behind the orbital fossa. I presume that > long hours of such stretching could influence the shape of the eye, and > that influence could be a or the cause of ordinary myopia. William, If your theory is correct, you would expect a person who was born blind in one eye not to develop ordinary myopia. Are there proportionately as many nearsighted one-eyed people in the population? Robert --------------------------------------------------------------- She was a suicide blond, she dyed by her own hand. --------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think so, unless that person develops what I call "chicken-eye" syndrome (see a couple of posts earlier to this thread). Most people born with one eye blind will keep their head straight while reading, thus causing the seeing eye to turn inward to fixate the target just exactly the same amount as if there were 2 seeing eyes. The same forces apply. w.stacy, o.d. Robert wrote: >William, >If your theory is correct, you would expect a person who was born blind in >one eye not to develop ordinary myopia. Are there proportionately as many >nearsighted one-eyed people in the population? > > Dear William and others, (please excuse my English) for some time I am following the myopia discussion in this group, and I find it very interesting. Usually, I only read and do not post myself. But your idea of convergence as a cause of myopia,.due to force of the optic nerve, is at least not illogical. May you believe it or not, I for myself had a similar idea. But as a medical amateur I must learn that the optical nerve has a S-shaped form to follow very easy that means with practically no force acting the moves of the eyeball. On the other hand according to Newton's actio = reactio, if there were a force acting on the eyeball, the same force must be acting on the nerve and its hull, and it is doubtful, if the nerve's matter can withstand such an enduring force..There may be, nevertheless, forces being at work, but only for the moment when convergence is achieved, and not during ongoing convergence. But as I wrote, your idea is ad hoc logical, and I am a medical amateur, so these arguments may be wrong. During my own investigation I found the following quotation of Mr Bayramlar. Unfortunately in this short version nothing is said about the origin of the force that causes the deformation of the eyeball during convergence. You will find it at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/324/7347/1195#22260 (search for "bayramlar"): --------------------------- Convergence: a possible cause for the development of myopia Dear Editor; I would like to comment on the clinical review article of Fredrick entitled "myopia" appearing on the issue of 18 May 2002 in BMJ.1 The author stated that "most research into myopia has been limited by its retrospective nature; lack of control group and follow up". We, however, performed a prospective, controlled, three-year follow-up study on myopia. 2 In this study, we showed a direct evidence of myopic shift in students reading and doing intensive near work compared with the children who not attending the school, not reading much as schoolchildren and working as skilled laborers. The author also mentioned three possible causes for the development of myopia: retinal blur, accommodation and familial factors. I think there is a fourth possible hypothetical explanation for that: convergence. It has been suggested that convergence, rather than accommodation, could be an important factor in myopic progression.3-5 Parssinen et al, in their 3 year-follow-up study, showed that neither the use of bifocals nor avoiding the use of myopic spectacles in reading has slowed down the myopic progression.3 Again, Parssinen and Lyyra found more myopic progression in subjects needing less accommodation stimulus than the subjects needing more accommodation.4 They concluded that if accommodation played a significant role in myopic progression, the feedback mechanism would probably halt the process when reading with undercorrected glasses or without glasses.4 In our different study, we observed a significant axial length elongation during near fixation both with and without cycloplegia, that is, with and without accommodation.5 Those reports and our results do not support the hypothesis of accommodation as a significant cause of myopia. Rather, axial elongation during near focusing in our study could support the hypothesis that convergence may be one factor inducing myopia. Parssinen and Hemminki3 and Parssinen and Lyyra4 have supposed that constant saccadic back-and-fourth eye movements during reading could cause repeated pressure and stretch pulses on the eye during reading. Based upon above-mentioned studies, we suggest that the axial elongation which is a main cause of myopic progression, seems to be due to the effect of accomodative convergence rather than accommodation itself. Much use of convergence may be one of the contributing factors in adult onset and adult progression of myopia. Hüseyin Bayramlar, M.D. Associate Professor in Ophthalmology Ýnönü University, Turgut Özal Medical Centre Malatya, TURKEY References: 1. Fredrick DR. Myopia. BMJ 2002;324:1195-9. 2. Hepsen IF, Evereklioglu C, Bayramlar H. The effect of reading and near- work on the development of myopia in emmetropic boys: a prospective, controlled, three-year follow-up study. Vision Res 2001;41:2511-20. 3. Parssinen O, Hemminki E, Klemetti A. Effect of spectacle use and accommodation on myopic progression: final results of a three-year randomized clinical trial among schoolchildren. Br J Ophthalmol 1989;73:547-51. 4. Parssinen O, Lyyra AL. Myopia and myopic progression among schoolchildren: a three-year follow-up study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:2794-2802. 5. Bayramlar H, Cekic O, Hepsen IF. Does convergence, not accommodation, cause axial-length elongation at near? A biometric study in teens. Ophthalmic Res 1999;31:304-8. --------------------------- Now, while I am writing here, some general remarks: Special cases of myopia to investigate could be of some interest: Myopia in only one eye. Microscopist's myopia in the eye used at the microscope. And, in addition, some general questions: Modern malnutrition as a cause of myopia? Or is it possible, that the nervous system of some people is simply not capable to manage the flood of information produced by normal eyes (especially in our modern environment), and therefore the nervous system itself pushes the eyes into myopia? And at last a word to Otis. The plus lense method seems to be not illogical, too. I can't see any experimental abuse of children when giving proper reading glasses to them. Maybe Otis is wrong, maybe not, at least in some cases. So I do not quite understand, why Otis is, one must say it, the best hated man in this group? By the way, the bifocal studies do not disprove the plus lens method, this could only be done by a plus lense study. Of course, the myopter is not suitable, no one would wear this monster. A projection of the book at the wall would be far better, but still difficult to manage. Micha - not an eye doctor, more a type of engineer ;-) William Stacy schrieb: > With s.m.v. now bingeing on the pathogenesis of myopia, I'm now ready to > postulate yet another theory. It's pretty simple, and is based on the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. Dear Micha, Subject: The TRUE difficulties of prevention. Most people LOVE that minus lens. And I have no objection to the use -- if the person understands there is a "secondary" risk to using it. The "bifocal" study by Francis Young SUGGESTED a "better" study, where the individual is fully informed of the experimental facts themselves concerning the dynamic nature of the eye. Francis Young's study showed that a highly placed STRONG plus stopped the natural eye's downward movement into nearsighedness. The test group when "down" at zero diopters per year, and the single-minus when down at -1/2 diopter per year. This is very suggestive of something important. That, with the people who have true scientific motivation it would be possible to PREVENT it from even starting -- if these people would make their own "choice" in this matter. Given the profound hostility to true prevention I doubt that we could get someting like this started in the USA, but perhaps in your country, they would be more "wise" about this intelligent choice. I have prepared a proposal on my site: www.myopiafree.com Under the title, "Aeronautical College". There is no doubt that it takes a "strong will" and a strong plus to get this scientific study to "work" but I believe it is possible -- with the right group of people. Sincerely, Otis Micha, The only place in the universe where plus lenses are discussed as a means of prevention is anywhere Otis Brown posts his drivel. Otherwise, it is not being considered seriously by scientists at this time. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the published literature. The majority of us in this NG are serious, and are tired of being dragged into more silly discussions of this type. DrG On 8/25/05 5:11 AM, in article 1124971871.001839.54190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: > The only place in the universe where plus lenses are discussed as a > means of prevention is anywhere Otis Brown posts his drivel. I came up with a similar idea more than three decades ago. From the posts here, it is clear to me that the issue is far from settled. Laetril got Congress to fund a big study. Maybe we need something of that magnitude for myopia. Bill > On 8/25/05 5:11 AM, in article > 1124971871.001839.54190@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bill Great minds think alike? DrG Dear DrG, There was a Medical Doctor by the name of Ignaz Seimelwiess He discovered that midwives had a much lower "death rate" than the medical doctors -- delivering babys. After his investigation, he concluded that the doctors doing dissecting and delievering babys were CAUSING death rates of 30 percent. There was an "explosion" in the medical community. It was IMPOSSIBLE that Doctors (good heavens) could be CAUSING this type of problem. The DOCTORS ran their OWN studies and concluded that Ignaz was crazy. So they continued delivering babys -- without washing their hands -- and the death-rate continued at 30 percent. This tragically tends to be an "attitude" and is not a character of science. Please remember, that not all ODs agree with you -- even in detail. At this time, prevention with the plus is the "second-opinion", and with reasonable SCIENTIFIC support could be accomplished. But PREVENTION ONLY. Best, Otis >Please remember, that not all ODs agree with you -- even >in detail. If not all, then awfully damned close to all. Like . . . all but maybe three, and one of them is, apparently, up on charges by his governing board. Very poor analogy, Otis. It is true that at one time, the idea that myopia could be stopped or slowed with plus lenses and bifocals had more adherents (I know because I was in optometry school at the time). In fact, the idea was so compelling and controversial that it attracted a number of scientific studies. Taken in toto, those studies have completely discredited the idea, and the enquiry has now changed direction and focus. Indeed, most of those who had supported your views have retired. But, instead of allowing this group to move on to more elightened matters, you keep dragging everybody back to the dumpster of flawed science. DrG Dear DrG, Subject: The PUBLIC'S Rejection of the preventive plus. Re: John's experience and statement. As you recall, I suggest ONLY prevention. But that, I mean that the person himself reviews the relevalent scientific fact -- and determins if HE (on HIS judgment) wishes to "follow" the preventive concept. Because of "John's" reaction, it is cear that you can not "legally" do this. If you did -- and ANYTHING happened -- even if it had NOTHING to do with the plus the person was using -- YOU WOULD GET SUED. I accept that as YOUR explanation as to why YOU can not "perescribe prevention". As long as we are clear in our minds about that issue -- we have no arguments. This or course proves nothing about whether a person cal clear his distant vision from say 20/50 to 20/30 (better than the DMV requirement.) Some people have done is successfully -- but this issue depends on the qualities of judgment and a "technical sense" that you can not provide. That is why I use the term "refractive state" to indicate the proven behavior of the primate eye. I think that anyone wishing for "prevention" should evaluate that data -- relative to his desire to retain clear vision (DMV or better) under his OWN control -- because you are not allowed (legally) to do it for him. Best, Otis > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fact -- and determins if HE (on HIS judgment) wishes > to "follow" the preventive concept. I seems to me that you go beyond discussing the concept of prevention to suggest exactly how to do it. Who wouldn't want to prevent themselves from developing myopia? > Because of "John's" reaction, it is cear that you can not > "legally" do this. If you did -- and ANYTHING happened -- > even if it had NOTHING to do with the plus the > person was using -- YOU WOULD GET SUED. That's very incorrect. "Legally," I can employ lenses and/or therapy to treat vision defects. Were I to make unsubstantiated, exaggerated, or untruthful claims about the efficacy of such treatments, then that would be another matter. > I accept that as YOUR explanation as to why YOU > can not "perescribe prevention". Of course I can prescribe "prevention." I do so when I recommend nutritional advice regarding macular degneration. I prescribe glaucoma medication to "prevent" blindness. Giving people proper advice regarding the use of contact lenses is done to "prevent" problems arising from abuse, etc. > As long as we are clear in our minds about that > issue -- we have no arguments. How does that follow? > This or course proves nothing about whether > a person cal clear his distant vision from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > judgment and a "technical sense" that > you can not provide. I am unaware of any controlled studies showing efficacy of your method. Are you hiding them from us? > That is why I use the term "refractive state" > to indicate the proven behavior of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > under his OWN control -- because you > are not allowed (legally) to do it for him. When discussing humans, the conventional term is "refractive error." However, I believe that most of us understand what is meant by refractive state. The public only knows nearsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism. Again, I think you don't understand the distinction between what is illegal and what is unethical. DrG On 8/25/05 9:24 PM, in article 1125030280.377751.37480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "otisbrown@pa.net" > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Otis THAT'S IT Otis. Wash your hands just like Semmelweis did, and you will prevent myopia! Bill Dear Bill, Subject: Organization and commitment. It is very easy to say this in retrospect. If you read "The Cry and the Covenant" you will get the idea that the concept of "washing your hands" was just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone looking for a "quick fix" or an "easy solution" has gotten it wrong. There is nothing easy about true-prevention. The issue, I would suggest is that we must learn there are "limits" to they way we live -- or earn a living. For a long time pilots and mechanics would work in a 100 to 110 dB enviroment. No one thought anything of it. Anyone seen wearing "muffs" would have been ridiculed. Many years later these "old hands" were hard-of-hearing if not deaf. Finally a few made the connection. Today, they wear muffs systematically. No one when deaf in a few days in a 110 dB environment so no one could make the "connection". I suggest the same "truth" about the natural eye moving from a positive refractive status to a negative refractive status. The person who understand these facts, COULD "wake up" and use protective muffs, and avoid getting into the situation. Our our brains functioning here? Best, Otis Best, Otis > Dear Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Otis The appropriate visual analogy to earmuffs would be sunglasses, not plus lenses. DrG Dear Dr. G, Sun glasses are "plano", and have no optical effect on the "near" environment. A person reading at -2 diopters (20 inches) has the accommodation system at -2 diopters. A person looking at "infinity" has the accommodation sytem at 0.0 diopters. A person looking through a +2 diopter lens at a distance of -2.0 diopters is living in an visual enviroment of zero diopters. This is not tha case if he is wearing a "plano" lens. A plus is the correct analogy for the primate eye living in a "open" enviroment, i.e., accommodation system consistently at "infinity" or zero diopters as explained above. The "near" envrioment is the analogy of working for a long number of years in an "un-desired" enviroment -- that it was not designed for. QED Best, Otis Dr G is right in his observation, at least I see where he is coming from, ear muffs are protecting the person from excessive sound levels that would damage one's hearing after prolonged exposure. This is valid for EVERYONE. Plus lenses don't protect EVERYONE's distant vision. If it does for some, than the correct analogy would be ear muffs protect some people's hearing at high sound levels. On the other hand, sunglasses of course protect "EVERYONE"s eyes from excessive UV. Your analogy is wrong. > Dear Dr. G, > > Sun glasses are "plano", and have no optical effect > on the "near" environment. They don't have to be plano. > A person reading at -2 diopters (20 inches) has > the accommodation system at -2 diopters. Wrong. A person reading at 2 diopters typically has the accommodation system at 1.50 to 1.25 diopters. > A person looking at "infinity" has the accommodation > sytem at 0.0 diopters. > > A person looking through a +2 diopter lens at > a distance of -2.0 diopters is living in > an visual enviroment of zero diopters. ....but only at 20 inches, no more and no less. > This is not tha case if he is wearing a "plano" > lens. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > system consistently at "infinity" or zero diopters > as explained above. You used the ear muff analogy. The ear muff filters out most of the auditory spectrum. Plus lenses don't. Sunglasses filter out most of the visual spectrum. It was your analogy, not mine. > The "near" envrioment is the analogy of working > for a long number of years in an "un-desired" enviroment -- > that it was not designed for. God gave us accommodation for working at near. One of my employees went through a tough college with high marks and works on the computer 75% of the time. She has perfect vision. Evidently, her eyes were designed for all environments. But, I do get your point, and agree that close work is a major trigger for myopiagenesis. DrG > For a long time pilots and mechanics would work > in a 100 to 110 dB enviroment. No one thought > anything of it. Anyone seen wearing "muffs" would > have been ridiculed. Many years later these > "old hands" were hard-of-hearing if not deaf. For a long time doctors have been trying plus to prevent, slow, or reverse myopia. Any kid seen wearing "bifocals" or "reading glasses" would have been ridiculed. Many years later these "old hands" are still nearsighted. -MT Dear Mike, You are not quite-right about the "bifocal" remarks. I certainly appreciate the "thought" behind the bifocal, but the real purpose of the plus is to AVOID GETTING INTO IT. My sister's kids all recieve a "bifocal prescription". This is an expensive prescription indeed. However when they check there eye-chart they were approximatly 20/40. Thus is was clear (at that point) that they did not require the minus. But from the studies of Francis Young, the minus was a "problem". Equally clear, the person had to "take control", and use a strong plus agressively. This is what my nephew did, by wearing the plus and keeping his distant vision clear, to always pass the DMV. Since he achieve this desired objective -- the subject matter and success is "lost" to optometry. If you are on the threshold of nearsighedness, i.e., 20/40, it would be wise to consider the preventive option at that point. I certainly do acknowledge the difficulties of prevention, but the person whe manages the "art" of prevention can keep his distant vision clear (in college) when he friends will lose there ditant vision. Best, Otis > > For a long time pilots and mechanics would work > > in a 100 to 110 dB enviroment. No one thought [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -MT > But from the studies of Francis > Young, the minus was a "problem". Would you like to know another problem? It's "irreproducible results." > If you are on the threshold of nearsighedness, > i.e., 20/40, it would be wise to consider > the preventive option at that point. If you find one that works, please let us know. -MT Dear Mike, The results are produced by the "observer" or the person making the objective measurements -- read that to mean the person who wishes to protect his distant vision by the preventive-method. This means catagorically that you can not prescribe it -- and the issue is NOT MEDICINE. It is also a learning process -- to respect what the scientific facts actually tell us about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye when tested on an "input" versus "output" basis. I sorry you choose to ignore all these scientific studies where objective scientifc truth is of paramount importance. Keith reached the right conclusion, that he had to make his decision, choice and measurements himself, because you could not do this for him. But this issue of understanding the true meaning of objective facts must depend on HIS JUDGMENT and not on your judgment. You can argue that you must deal with a great mass of people who are deeply into it -- and I agree with you that that constitutes and "impossible" problem. The public (and John M) demands that extreme sharpness of vision -- which is only possible with a minus lens. I simply don't argue with a person who demands extreme sharpness of vision -- up to 20/10 vision. Once a person even STARTS with that minus -- I blieve that "prevention" will no longer work. But that is why the concept of "prevention" is so difficult. Very few people can "accept" the necessity of it -- but Keith did, and kept his vision clear -- under his own control Best, Otis >But that is why the concept of "prevention" is >so difficult. Very few people can "accept" >the necessity of it -- but Keith did, and >kept his vision clear -- under his own control http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence > The results are produced by the "observer" or the person > making the objective measurements -- read that to > mean the person who wishes to protect his distant > vision by the preventive-method. You haven't presented any "preventive-method" that works. We can't replicate Dr. Young's results and you haven't told us how to make it work. > This means catagorically that you can not prescribe > it -- and the issue is NOT MEDICINE. It's true that I haven't seen the myopia control studies that were published in engineering journals. > It is > also a learning process -- to respect what > the scientific facts actually tell us about > the dynamic behavior of the natural eye > when tested on an "input" versus "output" basis. Yada yada. Show us your "input" and "output" values compared to untreated controls. They are the same. > I sorry you choose to ignore all these scientific > studies where objective scientifc truth > is of paramount importance. Yada yada. Please show us that it works and we won't ignore it. > But this issue of understanding the true meaning > of objective facts must depend on HIS JUDGMENT > and not on your judgment. That statement doesn't bother you at all, does it? > Once a person even STARTS with that minus -- I > blieve that "prevention" will no longer work. I blieve you are wrong. -MT OtisBrown wrote: > > But this issue of understanding the true meaning > > of objective facts must depend on HIS JUDGMENT [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I blieve you are wrong. I blieve Otis is a nut-case, plain and simple. Try to prove me wrong! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message