 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2006farwell to the cast of sci.med.vision
In the never ending drama made especially for the internet, (soon to be in a theater near you. ) Staring: Otis - He is not a doctor, and does not claim to be. Seems like an intelligent engineer with a passion to help people to try and prevent myopia.. He admits he is not qualified to give medical advice. Recommends getting second opinions from ODs that support his theory that myopia can be prevented or reduced. His argument makes sense on paper but needs data to back it up! Ace - Draws alot alot of negative attention because he is sometimes in support of what Otis is preaching. Claims to be reducing his dependancy on glasses by taking Otis's advice. Go Ace GO! Not sure of his age or drug habits, but this is used in discrediting him. Seems to get bashed even for seemingly intelligent posts. The Central Scrutinizer - Seems to not know much about the eye or its response, my guess is he is currently trying to self diagonose himself as either a sociopath or dissocial personality disorder. Seems to jump on the bandwagon with Otis bashing, hoping for acceptance into society. (all but a virtual one ) Neil Brooks - Trying to run Otis out of town by getting the feds involved. Screams every few days that Otis is not qualifed to give medical advice. Seems to think that posting to a newsgroup and recommending a getting a second opinion is illegal. Dan Abel - Seems like a level headed person that stays out of the debate about plus vs. minus and is probably why people come to this group for medical advice. If I had a medical problem with my eyes I would trust him. Mike Turner - A living text book. Another resource for people looking for true medical advice. Seems to be a mentor to Ace, as he does a good job of correcting anything Ace writes that "isn't by the book". If I had a medical problem with my eyes I would trust him. DrG - Seems to totally disagree that myopia is a result of close work, or it can be prevented. Seems to have the same symptoms as "The Central". The Real Bev - Likes to waste bandwidth and disk space on hundreds of thousands of newsservs hard drives and personal computers around the world by posting a "Welcome message". This message whines about that posts by non-medical professionals about theory pertaining to the eye, is a waste of disk space. Its 2006, disk space is virtually unlimted! I agree this is a "med" newsgroup, and the plus & fixing myopia arguement is getting old . Even though this is a "real" theory for debate, Well its been fun... Back to just lurking in this group, like 864,000 other lurkers. Can you believe this is one of the most read newsgroups in the med world? Congrats, you are all famous! And for a short time, so was I.... Dr. Grant- very rude, vulgar guy. My friends talk about him and his manners, lack of. He used to be nicer in the past but now all he does is scream, swear and cuss. Poor cranky old man! Otis is a nice guy who is concerned about the vision of children and does not want them to face a life time of myopia. He has successfuly prevented myopia in his own nephew and several children. Myopia prevention takes lots of effort, he even tells you that you need to put lots of time, effort and be motivated to clear your vision. Not everyone gets 20/20 but he speaks of the DMV 20/40. Pass that and your good to go without glasses forever. I believe in much of what Otis says in addition, I believe in the Bates method for natural vision improvement. My own vision improved by a diopter in the last year and is still improving! Ace, f.cking moron who knows sh.t about anything. Pity he uses any brains for evil instead of kindness. Pretends to have friends, but doesn't. Has his mummy and daddy send him to bed for being naughty. Dr grant, absolute legend who knows all there is to know about eyes. Has the science and intuition to accurately diagnose over the net. Sees stupidity at 100 pixels and exposes stupid morons who extol idiotic tripe about curing something they know nothing about. > Dr. Grant- very rude, vulgar guy. My friends talk about him and his > manners, lack of. He used to be nicer in the past but now all he does > is scream, swear and cuss. Poor cranky old man! Doesn't improve his credibility a lot. > Otis is a nice guy Now, if he could only get in some contact with reality. > I believe in much of what Otis says in addition, I believe in the Bates > method for natural vision improvement. How is the tooth fairy doing?  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > Otis - He is not a doctor, and does not claim to be. Seems like an > intelligent engineer with a passion to help people to try and prevent > myopia.. He admits he is not qualified to give medical advice. Recommends > getting second opinions from ODs that support his theory that myopia can be > prevented or reduced. His argument makes sense on paper but needs > data to back it up! At one time I'm sure that the flat earth theory looked good on paper, EQ. As I said before, you have simply fallen for a good, but very old and disproven story. But, if you don't believe me, get off your double-wide and do your homework. > DrG - Seems to totally disagree that myopia is a result of close work, or > it can be prevented. Seems to have the same symptoms as "The Central". What you know about what I believe is about as much as you know about myopiagenesis. Anybody can relate heredity and close work to myopia. The difficult part is trying to figure out what it is about close work that triggers myopia in "some" people. Why don't you contribute something useful and figure this out for us? Eye Question: A naive newbie who believes in fairy tales. DrG said to "Eye Question": > The difficult part is trying to figure out what it is about close work > that triggers myopia in "some" people. Why don't you contribute > something useful and figure this out for us? Is it fair to require a person or "Question" who/which asks a question, to figure out what the answer to his question is, particularly if it is the Question itself which poses it? My particular question got lost in the babble months ago, but I would like to present it once again. Deeply in my heart, I believe it is a useful question. What is it in the anatomical structure of the eye which supplies the restoring force which returns the lens to its far-focus rest condition when the ciliary muscle relaxes? Which is to say, what structure(s) would correspond to the "springs" in my diagram at http://home.att.net/~muffkat/accommodation/ ??? Yes, I have heard that that theory belongs to some one (in addition to me) who is known to be a fool. Perhaps that is the best answer one can get here. -- Dicky What is it in the anatomical structure of the eye which supplies the restoring force which returns the lens to its far-focus rest condition when the ciliary muscle relaxes? Which is to say, what structure(s) would correspond to the "springs" in my diagram at http://home.att.net/~muffkat/accommodation/ Ciliary zonules, aka zonular fibers, suspensory ligaments. They aren't very elastic. The tension is provided by the relaxing ciliary muscle. -MT > What is it in the anatomical structure of the eye which supplies the > restoring force which returns the lens to its far-focus rest condition [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They aren't very elastic. The tension is provided by the relaxing ciliary > muscle. Makes no sense! Takes contraction to provide tension. Relaxation is not good for providing tension. "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:1141416278.824650.13310@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > [ ... ] > Springs or ligaments? The ligaments suspending the lens are called the > zonules, or Zonules of Zinn. I am not aware of any other structures > connecting the lens to the CB. Please review my diagram http://home.att.net/~muffkat/accommodation/ I presumed springy elements exterior to the ciliary muscle. I understand that the Zonules are neither muscular nor elastic. In that diagram, the Zonules would be represented by the lines between the lens and the circle denoted as the muscle. I am trying to identify the springy structure(s). "CatmanX" <drgrant@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:1141417724.821212.238640@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > The spring is the muscle itself. The ciliary muscle is smooth muscle > and acts by contracting and relaxing. The relaxation phase is generally > a little slower than the contraction which is active vs relaxation > which is passive. Yes -- when ciliary muscle contracts it relieves tension transmitted to the periphery of the lens by the Zonules, allowing the lens to round up according to its own internal forces. In relaxing, it allows that tension to be restored, to cause the lens to become less convex thus to reachieve far-point focus (which happens, for myopic eyes, to be short of infinity). My question was about what structure(s?) supplies the restoring tension. > ... What clowns like Otis and Ace don't understand is that this is > different from striated (skeletal muscle) as it is the only smooth > muscle under voluntary control in the body .... I guess the question was just too hard. Let's just forget it and go back to bashing Otis and Ace. Bash me, too. Why not? > ... This is such a complex area, I am yet to find 2 researchers in the area > tha thave either a clear idea of what affects these issues, or a > similarity in opinion as to the cause. I'd be happy to find 2 eye-care professionals who have a clear idea of how eyes work. But I guess that is not essential for writing scripts and fitting prostheses. -- Dicky > Makes no sense! Takes contraction to provide tension. Relaxation > is not good for providing tension. It's a sphincter. Sphincter muscles can stay "tensed" without any evidence of fatigue. Most of them close completely but the ciliary sphincter is different, open in the center with ciliary zonules suspending the lens across the diameter of the opening. When the ciliary sphincter relaxes, the diameter increases, and the zonules pull the lens into a flattened shape. It's the natural elasticity of the lens that forces it thick again, when the ciliary sphincter tightens. Ciliary relaxation is the only way to produce flattening in the lens. The ciliary muscle is a smooth-muscle innervated by the autonomic nervous system. Most smooth-muscle, autonomic sphincters stay tightly closed without any effort whatsoever. Therefore accommodation is virtually effortless. As a smooth-muscle sphincter, it easily adopts a non-zero rest point, some level of "tension" it considers normal. Uncorrected hyperopes can easily habituate a certain level of accommodation. It's so easy that myopes do it too. Especially high-strung anal retentives. :) -MT > Most smooth-muscle, autonomic sphincters stay tightly closed without any > effort whatsoever. Clearly, there are a few folks around here whose autonomics work oppositely. They've got a sphincter that's sadly open, and leaking. LB > [ ... ] > Ciliary relaxation is the only way to produce flattening in the lens. Perhaps we are looking here at a central-dogma failure. > Most smooth-muscle, autonomic sphincters stay tightly closed without any > effort whatsoever. Irrelevant! This discussion is about what may when the ciliary muscle relaxes. Please review my diagram at http://home.att.net/~muffkat/accommodation/ I propose that an elastic structure restores, via the Zonules, tension on the periphery of the lens when the ciliary muscle relaxes. A muscle in relaxing does not produce tension. Perhaps engineers could come up with a ring of some material which could exert force as it expanded, but it would be hard to do with smooth muscle, and it is doubtful that calling the device a sphincter would solve the problem. > Therefore accommodation is virtually effortless. As a smooth-muscle > sphincter, it easily adopts a non-zero rest point, some level of "tension" > it considers normal. Perhaps that is the genesis of the misnomer "tonic accommodation". It is much easier to assume that the mechanism comes to rest at complete relaxation. That concept is most readily facilitated by postulating a springy element which returns the lens to its far-focus shape when the ciliary muscle relaxes completely. If that element were the sclera, it would explain some of the ugly consequences of extreme myopia, like floaters and retinal detachment. It is consistent with the lens moving forward (as well as becoming more convex) for near focus. But it is hard to believe that a little gadget like the ciliary body could deform the eyeball so much as to squeeze it to egg shaped. I am trying not to go there. But recently there was a study done to show that a earth-collision bound asteroid could be diverted by placing a small robot spacecraft in proximity to it so that its small gravitational attraction could be applied over a sufficient interval. Which makes one think that a small force applied over a sufficient amount of time can have a big effect. > Uncorrected hyperopes can easily habituate a certain > level of accommodation. It's so easy that myopes do it too. Especially > high-strung anal retentives. :) Oh, that is so typical -- when the discussion gets confusing, start calling names! -- Dicky (Professional Myope, possibly Anal, so what?) >From Adler's Physiology of the eye, 6th ed., Mosby: ============================================================== "At one time it was speculated that the choroid was too tender a structure to be pulled upon by the ciliary muscle. The choroid is thin but is actually as elastic as rubber over a limited range....The choroid is stretched forward by the ciliary muscle contraction. The forward movement of the ora serrata with accommodation has been measured...about 0.05 mm with each diopter of accommodation..." ============================================================== So it would appear that the "springy things" are actually the elastic tissue of the choroid and ciliary body. DrG > My particular question got lost in the babble months ago, but I would > like to present it once again. Deeply in my heart, I believe it is a useful [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://home.att.net/~muffkat/accommodation/ > ??? Springs or ligaments? The ligaments suspending the lens are called the zonules, or Zonules of Zinn. I am not aware of any other structures connecting the lens to the CB. DrG The spring is the muscle itself. The ciliary muscle is smooth muscle and acts by contracting and relaxing. The relaxation phase is generally a little slower than the contraction which is active vs relaxation which is passive. What clowns like Otis and Ace don't understand is that this is different from striated (skeletal muscle) as it is the only smooth muscle under voluntary control in the body. Smooth muscle does not get stronger by using it more as does striated muscle, it actually fatigues with continuous usage. This is why we get so many kids needing reading glasses these days as we make them read more at school. It also begins to explain the myopia/pseudomyopia debate (no not entirely explain) as we then start to see personal style effet the muscle with things such as stress, attention, amount of close work etc. This is such a complex area, I am yet to find 2 researchers in the area tha thave either a clear idea of what affects these issues, or a similarity in opinion as to the cause. dr grant Jim Jones got 913 people to drink the Kool-Aid. Charlie Manson got his disciples to commit the Tate-LaBianca murders. David Koresh got 76 people to endure some pretty ghastly immolation. I'll pass. You follow your faith wherever it leads you. At some point (think Christian Scientists), the State tends to intervene, declaring you not competent to make decisions and preventing you from endangering the welfare of your children. What neither of us knows (and, to my knowledge, ISN'T yet known) is what inappropriate interference with the near-vision triad (plus lenses) can do to young eyes. You also may want to be sure that you understand the difference between pseudomyopia and myopia. Good night, Gracie.... Dear Eye_Question, Subject: Myself. >From the study of the primate eye it is clear to me that (as a bad habit) I INDUCED a negative refractive state in my natural eyes. (Slight, like 20/40.) Thus, having induced such a state makes me personally responsible for the consequences. At the 20/40 level (as your son now is) it is possible to PREVENT this situation. I do not know your son, and clearly he probably has not interest in prevention, but it would not hurt to offer him a choice. I do not need the "harassment" by Neil Brooks, and there is an indication that Brooks has committed mail fraud on me. I will find out eventually. That is the reason I depart, I fear such a person --and if I practice ANYTHING with the plubic, I sure as hell would not attempt "prevention" with the public, consisting of "Central" and Brolks. This is why you will receive no preventive information -- and your son will go "down" about -1.3 diopters (average) in a four year college. If you are interested, then join www.i-see.org The second-opinion site where there is a more "open mind" about prevention at the threshold. Best, Otis > This is why you will receive > no preventive information -- and > your son will go "down" > about -1.3 diopters (average) > in a four year college. Please tell us where you find college students altering their rate of myopia with plus lenses. I can't find any published studies showing it works. All the studies I find involving college students say plus didn't make a difference. Are you making this up? -MT > I do not need the "harassment" > by Neil Brooks, and there > is an indication that Brooks > has committed mail fraud on > me. I will find out eventually. What the HELL are you talking about now?? Nut-job. > > I do not need the "harassment" > > by Neil Brooks, and there [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What the HELL are you talking about now?? Let me go one step further: Before you go accusing me of a FELONY online, you'd better make sure you have some solid evidence, a.shole, and you can't. I have told you repeatedly--and I have stood by my word--that I would use EVERY LEGAL MEANS at my disposal to ensure that you were not in a position to continue to hurt people by practicing medicine without a license. Using the law is what I have done. I have not broken any laws, nor will I. If the State of Pennsylvania deems fit to bring charges against you, then they will do so based on "informed choice." You need to curtail your libel, Mr. Brown. Seriously. > >From the study of the primate > eye it is clear to me that > (as a bad habit) I INDUCED > a negative refractive state > in my natural eyes. (Slight, > like 20/40.) >From the study of the primate eye, it cannot be concluded that you became nearsighted SOLELY as a result of the environment. I think this is where you get off on the wrong foot, and continue to limp along on that same foot. > If you are interested, then > join [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about prevention at the > threshold. What a ridiculous notion to assert that you are anywhere close to being "open minded." Hello, but it is 2006 and you are still mucking around in studies that were published 20 to 30 years ago, and have a false understanding of their conclusions at that. DrG > Dear Eye_Question, > > Subject: Myself. thats the subject of every message otis posts! ======== Otis "Engineer" is a zealot who advocates his "plus lens" prevention theory without good reason. There is no scientific data to prove what he proposes. He would ask that all myopes (=nearsighted persons) go around wearing plus reading glasses in hopes that it will eventually reverse their nearsightedness. Nevermind that the blurry distance vision that myopes complain about is made worse by plus lenses! Nevermind that there is no proof for what he claims. If you are interested in Otis' approach, I have some other links that you might also be interested in: GET RICH QUICK http://www.clickvolume.net http://www.meetmark.com HARD PENILE ERECTIONS USING NATURAL HERBS http://www.herbaalex.com/panadex.htm LOOK AND FEEL YOUNGER http://www.youngeryounger.com FIND A BEAUTIFUL RUSSIAN WIFE http://www.russianladies.com For information on killfilling (filtering out the posts of a troll or spammer like Otis) see the following link: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm For additional information on handling "trolls", refer to this link: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm > ... If you are interested in Otis' approach, I have some other links that you > might also be interested in: ... I am not. The only time I am aware of Otis is when you idiots reply to his posts. Why the f.ck do you do it? > I am not. The only time I am aware of Otis is when you idiots reply > to his posts. Why the f.ck do you do it? Because newby laypeople like yourself (and myself) come here and see that Otis is sincere and just trying to help. They defend him for awhile, until they figure out what a crackpot he is. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > Because newby laypeople like yourself (and myself) come here and see > that Otis is sincere and just trying to help. They defend him for > awhile, until they figure out what a crackpot he is. I think that many of those in the eye profession that post here don't have faith that "lay people" can figure out on their own that Otis is a crackpot. I think most do, the few that don't are goofs themselves. The replies to Otis just add noise to the newsgroup that is not necessary and is counterproductive. I think the welcome post that The Real Bev puts up every week is enough for new people who find the newsgroup. SignatureCharles Personally, I could care less what other people think of Otis or his beliefs, and I argue with him for the sheer fun of it. At one point, many moons ago, it provided a springboard that launched some interesting discussions. Now, it has turned into just a rather sick blood sport of pile-on. The galling aspect is his rather unfortunate pilloring of the entire profession. Unfortunately, when one lunatic exits, another one pops up to take his place. There is a seemingly endless supply. DrG > I could care less what other people think of Otis surely you mean couldn't care less... Signature~RT Obivously you understood what I meant from the context, but thanks for pointing out my carelessness. DrG > Obivously you understood what I meant from the context, but thanks for > pointing out my carelessness. > > DrG It's a very common error, people say it all the time when they mean could "not" care less. It's something that I should care less about, but since I don't, it's one of those things that jump out at me when I read or hear it. Signature~RT Dear Dicky, Subject: I was ready to stop posting! Then some one decided to use my name in the title of the thread -- so I reaponded. About 10 or so "responding" posts followed! I have acknowledged that as a young child I PERSONALLY induced a negative refractive state in my natural eyes. (As a natural process, because the primate eye "works" that way.) Thus a negative refractive state is a "design limitation", and I "accept it that way. Being self-induced I am directly responsible, and wish that I had information related to prevention. I might have rejected the information (as so many do on sci.med.vision) but then the result (stair-case myopia) would have been my EXCLUSIVE responsibility. But that is just my educated guess. Or as Einstein said, "Curiosity has its own reason for being." (I think I have the quote correct -- from memory.) Best, Otis > Staring: I guess "staring" <sic> is an appropriate thing to do on this group. > Otis - He is not a doctor, and does not claim to be. Seems Seems is the word. > Ace - Draws alot alot of negative attention because he is > sometimes in support of what Otis is preaching. No, he is bashed because he thinks he knows everything. > Dan Abel - Seems like a level headed person that stays out of the debate > about plus vs. minus and is probably why people come to this group for > medical advice. If I had a medical problem with my eyes I would trust him. Thanks. I hope I can help people understand what their doctor is advising them. 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.