 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2005So myopia is a diease huh. It is progressive and does not stop.
So myopia is a diease huh. It is progressive and does not stop. Dear Spockie, Subject: The refractive states of the dynamic eye. Re: Refractive states (slightly positive and slightly negative) are NOT diseased states. It is always an error to jump to conclusions. By not understanding the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye you make the eye "defective" when it has a normal positive refractive states. A lot of the problem of scientific communication means "re-learining" the proven behavior of the natural eye. But I do agree, that when you place an over-prescribed minus on an primate eye with a SLIGHT negative refractive state -- the refractive state will simply "follow" the effect of now BOTH the "near" enviroment, made even "nearer" by that minus lens -- worn all the time. This situation is at least preventable in that first stage. But that is the nature of our arguments. Best, Otis > But I do agree, that when you > place an over-prescribed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > made even "nearer" by that > minus lens -- worn all the time. Dear Spockie It appears that Otis is giving medical advice above. Please disregard Otis's postings. Otis is not in the position to give medical advice as he is not in the medical profession. Thank You! Allen Dear Spockie, Subject Use of exact words to describe what you measure. The natural PRIMATE eye (entire population) is either a sophisticated dynamic system -- or it is not. I absolutly do not provide ANY medical advice -- at all. I suggest you analyize the facts themselves concerning the behavior of this system -- and reach your own conclusions. If you think a scientific assessment of the natural eye's beahvior is "medical" -- then think again. Lieberman's mind is foggy on that issue. That is the real nature of a discriminating mind. Best, Otis please provide the scientific data on the human eye which shows that minus lenses cause an acceleration in myopia and that plus lenses reduce it. please also provide any data on human eyes to the contrary so that you can assure all the objective thinking people here that you are indeed truly informed of all the evidence, that you have considered it all, and that you have made a corrective and objective assessment when you offer your advise. Dear Spockie, Here are some remarks about "Mexican Myopia" for your interest and understanding. Mexican myopia report (44 %) and remarks by Don Rehm on the tragic situation. "When will we ever learn"? ____________________ Prevalence of Myopia among 12- to 13-Year-Old Schoolchildren in Northern Mexico. Optometry & Vision Science. 80(5):369-373, May 2003. VILLARREAL, GERARDO M. MD; OHLSSON, JOSEFIN MD, PhD; CAVAZOS, HUMBERTO MD, PhD; ABRAHAMSSON, MATHS MScEE, PhD; MOHAMED, and JESUS H. MD, PhD Abstract: Purpose: The aim of this article was to report the prevalence of refractive errors, mainly myopia, among 12- to 13-year-old children in a metropolitan setting in Mexico. Methods: A total of 1035 schoolchildren were examined in a field study in Monterrey, Mexico. The examination included best-corrected visual acuity and refraction during cycloplegia. A sample of the children was sent to a pediatric eye clinic and underwent cycloplegic refraction with an autorefractor. Results: We found a prevalence of myopia ( > = - 0.5 D SE ) of 44%, whereas bilateral myopia was present in 37% of the children. In the total sample, high myopia ( > = - 5D) was found in 1.4%. The prevalence of myopia was significantly higher in girls. Only 20% of children with bilateral myopia used prescription glasses; 8% had prescribed glasses, but did not use them. Hyperopia ( > = + 1 D ) was present in 6.0% of the total population, and astigmatism ( > = - 1.5 D ) was present in 9.5%. Conclusions: The prevalence of myopia among 12- to 13-year-old children in Mexico is high. The majority of cases are low grade, and a large number of the myopic children do not have, or do not use, prescription glasses. ++++++++ Dear Don and open minded scientific friends, Truly incredible. These ODs make field-trips and then discover 44 percent nearsighedness Mexico. The same thing happend with the eskimos running 88 percent. Gee wiz -- someone should do somgthing by gosh. But not the OD. And not the child. If fact no one does ANYTHING, except sit at their computer and type "complaints" about it. The ODs then go "home" and publish a "gee wiz" statement, and go back to over-prescribing the minus. This trgically described BOTH the OD AND the general public. It would be nice if they just SUGGESTED the possiblity of true prevention with the plus on the threshold -- as the second-opinion. Is that asking too much? Best, Otis ========= >From Don Rehm (Author, "The Myopia Myth") What gets me is statements from people in the far east saying "we shouldn't teach our kids to read so soon" or "We should cut back on their homework." Why can't they take the next step and think of plus lenses? I think that day is coming. Don > These ODs make field-trips and then discover 44 percent > nearsighedness Mexico. More than 80% of whom never wore those wretched minus lenses. 100% of that 80% were blurred at distance just as if they were wearing plus. -MT That's right, plus lenses really helped these kids stop going myopic. Have you read the literature that says that blurring people out makes them go more short sighted more quickly?? dr grant > That's right, plus lenses really helped these kids stop going myopic. > > Have you read the literature that says that blurring people out makes > them go more short sighted more quickly?? One may have a tendency to blur concepts. Wearing reading glasses for distant vision does not tend to seem a good idea. But proper reading glasses for myopia-prone adolescents may make some sense. -- Dicky "One may have a tendency to blur concepts. Wearing reading glasses for distant vision does not tend to seem a good idea. But proper reading glasses for myopia-prone adolescents may make some sense. " --------- Sorry dicky but the only concept blurred was yours. dr. grant is right-- there is evidence that suggests undercorrecting myopes may worsen the situation. the best evidence says keep a sharp retinal image all the time this is why people like Otis might be dangerous. > >"One may have a tendency to blur concepts. > > > > Wearing reading glasses for distant vision does not tend to seem > > a good idea. But proper reading glasses for myopia-prone adolescents > > may make some sense. > Sorry dicky but the only concept blurred was yours. dr. grant is > right-- there is evidence that suggests undercorrecting myopes may > worsen the situation. I don't think you grasp the concept. Did I invoke undercorrection? Did I mention myopes? Well maybe I should have pointed out that "reading glasses" means glasses to be used for reading. Proper, in that context means appropriate to the refractive state of the wearer, and such as to fool the eyes into thinking near objects are distant. There is much fuzziness here. > the best evidence says keep a sharp retinal image all the time. I am definitely for that. > this is why people like Otis might be dangerous He might be, then again he might not be. He is too old to do much damage, but I think that Ace may become an optometrist. -- Dicky > I don't think you grasp the concept. Did I invoke undercorrection? > Did I mention myopes? Well maybe I should have pointed out that > "reading glasses" means glasses to be used for reading. Proper, in > that context means appropriate to the refractive state of the wearer, > and such as to fool the eyes into thinking near objects are distant. Now THERE'S an idea we can get behind. Every kid needs reading glasses. Comprehensive exams every year, and of course they'll want designer frames, and Trivex lenses with AR coating. What good would it do? I dunno. But it sounds like a GREAT idea. -MT > > I don't think you grasp the concept. Did I invoke undercorrection? > > Did I mention myopes? Well maybe I should have pointed out that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now THERE'S an idea we can get behind. Every kid needs reading glasses. No, just kids predisposed to myopia. You guys seem really hellbent on distortion. > Comprehensive exams every year, and of course they'll want designer frames, > and Trivex lenses with AR coating. Ordinary (hopefully competent) refractions, maybe one to start, and the kid checks back if he finds some difficulty reading the small letters on the black board. Of course, if parents think they are going to have to pay $300 for eyeglasses on a regular basis, there will not be much interest. But there is always Zenni and a few more. And Walgreens readers for some, if not most. But maybe base-out prisms -- that is something to think about. Just to be clear, I do not think that reading glasses should be used for anything but reading and similar close work. And I strongly doubt that myopia, once it occurs, is reversible. But progression may be slowed or halted. I know, Mike, you want to sell loads of those designer frames and Trivex lenses with AR coating and I want to wish you loads of luck. -- Dicky P.S. My $30 frameless readers from Zenni seem to be coated. Reflections are very dim, and blue. Of course they just might be birefringent as hell. MT> Now THERE'S an idea we can get behind. Every kid needs reading glasses. > No, just kids predisposed to myopia. You guys seem really hellbent on > distortion. No, simply poking fun at the impracticality. 1) It has never been shown to have reliable impact in humans who actually start getting myopia. 2) If it _did_ work, it would stimulate hyperopia in those who aren't "predisposed." 3) If it _did_ work, it would be impractical, expensive and more intrusive than kids would tolerate. > I know, Mike, you want to sell loads of those designer frames and Trivex > lenses with AR coating and I want to wish you loads of luck. The fact is I don't sell glasses and don't want to. -MT dicky, lets not be fuzzy about this point-- i thought you already knew it-- plus readers don't slow or prevent myopia progression. if they did then then your idea would be great but its been shown that they don't. neither does bifocals, contacts, overcorrection, and anything else thats been tried with the exception of some recent experiments that suggest that anti-muscarinic eye drops might help. you are likely confused because you pay attention to otis brown too much. otis may have been a good engineer in his day but he is totally misinformed about the visual sciences. > damage, but I think that Ace may become an optometrist. Never going to happen. Unless he grows up. But I don't think he is that young. To be become an OD, you need to go to school for a long time. At school, they expect that you will listen and learn, not tell the teachers how things work, especially when you don't know.  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > > damage, but I think that Ace may become an optometrist. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dabel@sonic.net > Petaluma, California, USA LOL! DrG www.leukoma.com > ... To be become an OD, you need to go to school for a long > time. At school, they expect that you will listen and learn, not tell > the teachers how things work, especially when you don't know. Or you can be one on TV, on the Internet. You can be personally trained by the opthamologist whose refractions and tests you are doing. Well, maybe not quite an OD. Call it OS to further equivocate their lexicon. (I can't mention what I take OS to stand for in this context.) With regard to reading glasses for adolescents predisposed towards myopia Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:w9Lrf.478$M%4.138@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net... > 1) It has never been shown to have reliable impact in humans who actually > start getting myopia. It took quite a while to figure it out about the planets and the sun. > 2) If it _did_ work, it would stimulate hyperopia in those who aren't > "predisposed." That is another thing that has never been shown. It I do not see why it should if it is done right. Anyway, I do not think it is too big a deal to figure out which kids are on the verge of myopia. We certainly would not want to do it for hyperopes. > 3) If it _did_ work, it would be impractical, expensive and more intrusive > than kids would tolerate. Yes, it is hard to get kids to wear eyeglasses, even if just for reading. I'd guess that would be a factor in why the alleged studies have failed. As far as expense is concerned, single-vision eyeglasses start at ~ $19, and refractions done, like in the military or at an HMO, by a technician, can cost very little. Maybe school nurses could be trained. They are not always stupid. "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:1135604711.986535.231640@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > [ ... ] > this group continues to be dragged back into the garbage heap of > outdated and discarded theories by a few cranks who are only > interested in tweaking the noses of the optoms who post here just > in order to provoke a response. Well, it does keep the discussion going, doncha agree? -- Dicky Dear Dicky, Subject: Skill level. The original "Doctor" of optics degree took a two week course -- and then you could go out and prescribe lenses. Best, Otis Dear Dicky, Subject: ODs and MDs who advocate for true-prevention with plus (and other means) -- as the second opinion. There has been a consistent advocacy for prevention among the ODs themselves concerning true-prevention. But, unless the person himself "understands" advocacy for prevention, and ACTUALLY uses the plus, not much is going to change. Let me state that some "obsolete" words are used to describe the refractive states of the natural eye. Specifically, the natural eye can have a positive refractive state (zero to +2 diopters) and be COMPLETELY NORMAL. Calling such normal refracitve states hyperopia, ametropia, and the like distorts understanding of the actual performance of the natural eye. Thus, depending on the average visual enviroment, the eye can have a positive refractive state, a refractive state of EXACTLY ZERO ("emmetropia") and a negative refractive state. (Which is generated by a minus lens -- for objective testing.) To further respond: DrL> 1) It has never been shown to have reliable impact in humans who actually start getting myopia. Otis> That depends completely on WHO is using the plus and judging the results. When Dr. Colgate used a +2.5 dipoter for reading (at 20/60) he was VERY successful. But that was because the effort was under HIS control -- and he had the motivation to do the work "correctly". Dicky> It took quite a while to figure it out about the planets and the sun. Otis> If you dig deeper -- then that is the nature of our SCIENTIFIC arguments. It is a matter of respecting the natural eye as a dynamic system -- and working on true-prevention on that basis. > 2) If it _did_ work, it would stimulate hyperopia in those who aren't > "predisposed." Otis> Given that successful use of the plus, means that the refractive state of the eye must move from a negative value to a positive value, then clearing to 20/20, from -1/2 diopter must necessarily mean that the eye' refractive state "moved positive". This is just use of a poor definition of the natural eye's behavior to "scare" people away from intelligent use of the plus for true-prevention. Jeeze! In fact, at the Naval Academy, the were going to insist that the entering midshipman have 20/20 AND a positive refractive state of 1.0 diopters -- because refractive states of zero were virtually certain to move negative, (20/25 or greater). So a positive refractive state is a valuable "buffer" to avoid enterning into a negative refractive state. Dicky> That is another thing that has never been shown. It I do not see why it should if it is done right. Anyway, I do not think it is too big a deal to figure out which kids are on the verge of myopia. Otis> In fact, given the records at BOTH Annapolis and West Point, it is clear that a person with 20/20 (but a refractive state of zero) will see in refraction move "down" by -1.3 diopters in four years AVERAGE (with the spread being -1.1 D to -1.6 diopters). (Data from the 201 personal records.) This is consistent across the years. But the person must be informed of this situation -- on entry. It would be up to HIM do determine if he wished to take ANY preventive work -- under his OWN control. It is obvious, from the hostility on sci.med.vision, that the person will get NO HELP, and NO SUPPORT for his own preventive work. Dicky> We certainly would not want to do it for hyperopes. Otis> There would be no point for a person with a refractive state of +1.0 diopters. But a person with a refractive state of -1/2 diopter (20/30) who verifies this with BOTH his eye chart and his own trial-lens kit -- could make his own "preventive" decision -- if he had the motivation for it. > 3) If it _did_ work, it would be impractical, expensive and more intrusive > than kids would tolerate. Otis> That is a VAST PRESUMPTION. That would depend on the parent's understanding of these issues. It is true that you make yourself DEPENDENT on the person himself for true-prevention (self empowerment) but when he realizes that he must take personal responsibility to do ALL THE WORK HIMSELF, then the issue can not be classes as a "medical issues" at all. Dicky > Yes, it is hard to get kids to wear eyeglasses, even if just for reading. I'd guess that would be a factor in why the alleged studies have failed. Otis> You got this right. But I believe that the person should go through an "educational process" on this issue before a minus lens is ever used. I consider our discussions on sci.med.vision to be part of this scientific, educational process. Success or "failure" will depend on the person himself and NOT ON THE OD. Dicky> As far as expense is concerned, single-vision eyeglasses start at ~ $19, and refractions done, like in the military or at an HMO, by a technician, can cost very little. Otis> In fact, the "readers" cost about $8, and you could train the person himself to measure his refractive state. The only true "show stopper" his the question of how much does he "value" his distant vision -- at the threshold. If he does not value it -- then he is going to lose is in a four year college as previously described. (This was the "education" my nephew received on this subject. He just use the $8 "reader", monitored his eye chart, and always passed all legal visual acuity requirments imposed on him. Real credit belongs to him -- for his obvious success. He won -- everyone else "loses".) Dicky> Maybe school nurses could be trained. They are not always stupid. Otis> Most people are not stupid. But is very difficult to deal with people who have no understanding of these issues. But even if they did, true-prevention takes strong personal motivation -- and most people lack that motivation. The minus is so much "easier". > [ ... ] > this group continues to be dragged back into the garbage heap of > outdated and discarded theories by a few cranks who are only > interested in tweaking the noses of the optoms who post here just > in order to provoke a response. Well, it does keep the discussion going, doncha agree? Otis> I will post my statement RESPECTING DrL in the "confines" of his office -- and his un-proven "medical" theory. Otis> The reality of the natural eyes PROVEN behavior (on a scientific level) is the real natura of our arguments. Since sci.med.vision has SCIENCE as part of the description -- the science of the natural primate eye will be evaluated. And not by DrL's fiat's against the concept. Otis SignatureDicky > Otis> The reality of the natural eyes PROVEN behavior > (on a scientific level) is the real natura of our arguments. > Since sci.med.vision has SCIENCE as part of the > description -- the science of the natural primate > eye will be evaluated. And not by DrL's fiat's > against the concept. You don't have a clue, Otis. You reject the current scientific evidence in favor of old, outdated, and disproven theories. Show me a study published within, let's say the past two decades in support of your advocacy for the plus lens, as well as your antipathy toward minus lenses for the correction of refractive error. Show us that any of the natural primate studies translate into an effective clinical method for the prevention of myopia. DrG There is some research going on into this, such as H5 antagonists, retinal blur, and many others. The research to date is that nothing exists to stop myopia, we cling to some old beliefs that we ( I ) can slow the process, but there is really no evidence to justify this, in fact the research is coming out in droves now that we were wrong all along (god I hate that). One thing we are seeing in the newer studies are better controls, better scientific method and greater scrutiny of results. The glaucoma studies of mid to late 90's were the classic examples, large, multicentre studies, longtitudinal format, double blind, well controlled sample groups, subject matching and so forth. They are landmark studies as there was NO real research into progression and prevention of progression of glaucoma at that point, and they sat down and put together a study that we can't shoot down due to poor methodology. Where is your controlled studies Otis? Young was fatally flawed and his findings have been shown in successive follow-ups to have not been valid. dr grant My current doctor of optometry degree took four years. My Ph.D. degree in Physiological Optics was earned separately and took 4.5 years. How long did it take you to earn your degree in Optometry, Optics, Ophthalmology, or Physiological Optics. Oh, I forgot. You met Bates one day and then read a story by Raphaelson and became a zealot overnight. You are an old fool Otis Brown. Go back to your Yahoo newsgroup of herbalists and psychofreaks. ----- > Dear Dicky, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Otis > > 1) It has never been shown to have reliable impact in humans who actually > > start getting myopia. > > It took quite a while to figure it out about the planets and the sun. And just like it is obvious about myopia, it was equally obvious that the sun revolved around the earth. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA |
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.