 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2006Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your hypothesis??? ---- http://tinyurl.com/pueav The Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study: Study Design and Main Findings Marion Hastings Edwards, Roger Wing-hong Li, Carly Siu-yin Lam, John Kwok-fai Lew and Bibianna Sin-ying Yu From the Centre for Myopia Research, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong. PURPOSE. To determine whether the use of progressive addition spectacle lenses reduced the progression of myopia, over a 2-year period, in Hong Kong children between the ages of 7 and 10.5 years. METHODS. A clinical trial was carried out to compare the progression in myopia in a treatment group of 138 (121 retained) subjects wearing progressive lenses (PAL; add +1.50 D) and in a control group of 160 (133 retained) subjects wearing single vision lenses (SV). The research design was masked with random allocation to groups. Primary measurements outcomes were spherical equivalent refractive error and axial length (both measured using a cycloplegic agent). RESULTS. There were no statistically significant differences between the PAL and the SV groups for of any of the baseline outcome measures. After 2 years there had been statistically significant increases in myopia and axial length in both groups; however, there was no difference in the increases that occurred between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS. The research design used resulted in matched treatment and control groups. There was no evidence that progression of myopia was retarded by wearing progressive addition lenses, either in terms of refractive error or axial length. >Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY >CONTRADICTS your hypothesis??? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >was retarded by wearing progressive addition lenses, either in terms >of refractive error or axial length. Dear Neil, Subject: the Hong Kong study Re: my response Perhaps you did not read the responses to this study by other researchers. In their responses, they recommended that "sub-populations" be identified as there WERE some instances where the plus lenses DID help slow the rate of myopic progression slightly. The "sub-population" identified were those subjects with "NEAR-POINT ESOPHORIA." This is a "convergence disorder." Oh, wait. Isn't that what YOU have been saying all along, Neil?? I believe it is. Since the ONLY people who seemed to show ANY benefit with plus lenses were those WITH a "convergence disorder," then I must also assume that people WITHOUT such a disorder must be at increased risk of DEVELOPING a "convergence disorder" AS A RESULT of an inappropriate intervention WITH the unprescribed plus lens. Perhaps the people at the Shoxalot Institute here in Franklin County did not give me sufficient joules last week. I shall return for further treatments post haste. Q.E.D. Best, Odis Ingenue > Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY > CONTRADICTS your hypothesis??? Uh... 133 isn't a large enough sample. Or... The wrong subjects were chosen. Or... None of the authors had engineering degrees. Or... PALs aren't "plus" lenses. Or... The subjects weren't looking down to read. Or... Refraction and axial length are not Snellen VA. Or... The researchers lied. Take your pick. The results simply MUST be wrong. -MT >> Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY >> CONTRADICTS your hypothesis??? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >-MT Many thanks, Mike. That DOES clear things right up. >>>Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY >>>CONTRADICTS your hypothesis??? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Many thanks, Mike. That DOES clear things right up. Thing is, even when he does reply, you know rather than dealing with the subject at hand, he'll change it to: Dear Neil, Subject: Proven nature of the fundamental PRIMATE eye >>>>Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY >>>>CONTRADICTS your hypothesis??? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Subject: Proven nature of the fundamental PRIMATE eye Meaning ... the eye of the PRIMATE that DIDN'T NEED GLASSES. I keep recommending (quite sincerely, by the way) that Otis inject high-dose epinephrine directly into his heart. I mean: why should the fact that it ISN'T MEDICALLY INDICATED stop him? If he is a TRUE scientist, then he SHOULD perform this experiment on himself ... to prove the scientific behavior of the FUNDAMENTAL heart ... as he so often recommends others do by putting a non medically indicated lens on themselves. I don't think it should stop him. I think he should try the epi- thing. Just one man's opinion.... > Meaning ... the eye of the PRIMATE that DIDN'T NEED GLASSES. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Just one man's opinion.... Dear Neil, Subject: Lasik in Britain Otis P. Off Cya Simon > > Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY > > CONTRADICTS your hypothesis??? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -MT Good point Mike! Let me add in a few more points.... 1. The subjects looked at the upper potion 2. +1.5 add is not enough when the subjects read 8 inches away they are still inducing axial myopia to reduce the near work stress 3. Why not tell the subjects to take their glasses off everytime they read? 4. Do what Otis suggests and have half the subjects use plus glasses(NO minus!) and exercise their eyes to naturally improve their vision. Way too much uncertainity to make a conclusion there. > Good point Mike! Let me add in a few more points.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Way too much uncertainity to make a conclusion there. 1) I ... uh ... believe that Mike was being facetious; 2) "Inducing axial myopia??" WTF??? > Good point Mike! Let me add in a few more points.... > > 1. The subjects looked at the upper potion Really? They ALL did that? Don't you think they were instructed as to how to use a bifocal? > 2. +1.5 add is not enough when the subjects read 8 inches away they are > still inducing axial myopia to reduce the near work stress +1.5D is still a significant bifocal add. It would have reduced accommodation significantly. And if you think that accommodation causes the eye to elongate, then explain why uncorrected hyperopes who accommodate during every waking minute do not have their eyes "grow" until they become myopic. And why don't low myopes who go around uncorrected continue to progress further into myopia. And why do undercorrected myopes produce accelerated myopia development while overcorrected myopes produce no change at all? The simple-minded "accommodation causes axial elongation" theory was in vogue in the 60's but its been disproven so many times that anyone who really knows anything about physiological optics (obviously not you) realizes its just a worthless old idea. > 3. Why not tell the subjects to take their glasses off everytime they > read? Its been tried in separate study and it doesn't have any effect on myopia progression. > 4. Do what Otis suggests and have half the subjects use plus glasses(NO > minus!) and exercise their eyes to naturally improve their vision. Separate plus readers have been tried in other studies-- guess what? No effect on myopia progression. > Way too much uncertainity to make a conclusion there. The only thing that's uncertain here is why you still continue to comment on subjects you don't understand? You give yourself way too much credit for being intelligent, or else you think the rest of the world is full of idiots. Sorry to burst your little bubble Aceman but there are quite a lot of intelligent AND EXPERIENCED people who have studied this problem and understand it WAY better than you or Otis do. Its like you guys are from a time warp from the 1960's and don't realize all the research that has occurred over the last several decades. And since neither of you has any clinical experience, or even a modest understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the human eye, its rather ludicrous that you continue to post on this topic. Go back to eating mushrooms and looking at girly pictures. > > Good point Mike! Let me add in a few more points.... > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Go back to eating mushrooms and looking at girly pictures. 1. You think you can tell a 7 year old what to do and expect him to listen half the time? Right. 2. Yes but not enough to prevent incuding axial myopia. Instead of 5 to 7 diopters accomodation you use 3 to 5 diopters. A strong plus lens is what needs to be used, not any minus, not even a weak minus. Going without glasses alltogether is much better than using the evil wretched minus lens. As for hyperopes, they can and do become myopic. Most of us started as a hyperope. Otis will say that the dynamic eye has a positive refractive state. Please read about emmetropization. http://www.agingeye.net/myopia/3.3.5.php Your eyes can get worse even without the evil minus lens if you do lots of near work then your eye enlongates in an adaptive response. Overcorrecting a myope makes you get stair-case myopia like Otis said. I know of people who have done it on purpose to end up high myopes on purpose because they have a thick glasses fetish and want to be like a -10! Its already proven near work causes near sightness. 3. Maybe if you tell them not to read with their nose pressed into the book! 4. Otis knows the plus lens will work if used correctly and at the threshold. He is the one who speaks from experience and considers himself the expert. Otis knows the living eye is dynamic and will change accroding to its environment. Its a fact myopia is far more prevelent among the readers! > 4. Otis knows the plus lens will work if used correctly and at the > threshold. He is the one who speaks from experience and considers > himself the expert. Hey----I've got this bridge that I can sell you, cheap. For more info, please go to: www.chinamyopinonamgod.com look kid, there is no simple compensatory mechanism that modulates the amount of accommodation and adjusts the length of the eye accordingly-- at least not without interaction with many other mechanisms that also effect eye length and are much more potent than simple accommodative stress. tell us why uncorrected hyperopes, who lets say are +2.00, and who accommodate all day long just to see in the distance not to mention the effort they expend to see at near, do not have their eyes grow longer and become emmetropic? how come studies show that overminusing does not cause myopia progression? how come Chung's study on underminusing showed that insufficient minus ACCELERATED myopia? such a compensatory emmetropization mechanism likely IS at play during a brief period during early childhood but myopia development is a MUCH different subject than infant eye development. you simply are an immature kid who reads a few superficial summaries like the link you provided below and think you understand the topic. the fact that you buddy up to otis is further proof of your stupidity. go study psychotropic mushrooms and female anatomy and get the hell out of this newsgroup you twit. > > > Good point Mike! Let me add in a few more points.... > > > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > Otis knows the living eye is dynamic and will change accroding to its > environment. Its a fact myopia is far more prevelent among the readers! Or... Conspiracy! ========= >> Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY >> CONTRADICTS your hypothesis??? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -MT |
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.