 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2006Book Projector for myopia prevention
Assuming too much close work triggers myopia in some children, I am looking for a projector that can project a book page onto a screen, to help my son who love reading so much but is starting to develop myopia at the age of 8. Much like the transparency projector we all know about, I am talking about the type that project the image of a non-transparent object like a book page. It has a camera type device that 'reads' the book and send the signal to be projected. Does anybody know what is the name for this device and where can I buy one ? I remember seeing it in a university library many years ago but can't remember what it is called. > Assuming too much close work triggers myopia in some children, This is a big assumption, not supported by the research. Avoiding near work is unlikely to prevent myopia in your son. If he has a near esophoria (ask his eye doctor), there may be some justification to the assumption. However, the research suggests that even in the small group of esophores, avoiding reading will reduce myopia by 10% to 20%, not prevent it altogether. Using such a device will destroy the joy of reading for him, it will become a big production to haul out the projector etc etc. If you believe that the accommodation associated with near work is causing his myopia, then simply provide him with +2.00 reading glasses to use for near work. Judy I am > looking for a projector that can project a book page onto a screen, to > help my son who love reading so much but is starting to develop myopia [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > one ? I remember seeing it in a university library many years ago but > can't remember what it is called. > > Assuming too much close work triggers myopia in some children, > > This is a big assumption, not supported by the research. Avoiding near > work is unlikely to prevent myopia in your son. ... I thought research did support that near work was likely to cause (contribute to the likelihood of developing) myopia, only that plus lenses and/or prisms didn't help to stop it. ? For a while my mind went down this path, only with the idea being to project the computer onto a wall rather than use a monitor. > > > Assuming too much close work triggers myopia in some children, > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (contribute to the likelihood of developing) myopia, only that plus > lenses and/or prisms didn't help to stop it. ? Although studies have shown plus lenses to not prevent myopia, there have been no controlled studies of avoiding near work as a method of preventing myopia. And you should know that many myopes do not have a history of lots of near work and many non myopes do have a history of near work. Research has shown an association between myopia and literate societies. Individuals who read a lot have a slightly higher incidence of myopia than those who don't. However, association does not imply cause. There could be a third factor common to both myopia and reading and such a factor does exist -- higher IQ. Higher IQ is also asssociated with myopia and one can imagine that people with higher IQs are more likely to read. At least one scientist has speculated that myopia is simply a side effect of the brain tissue/ brain chemisty that underlies better brain function and high IQ. When studies are done of factors which predict myopia, by far the best predictor of myopia is family history. Higher myopia (over -6) is likely to have a specific gene, lower amounts are mismatches between the various refractive components of the eye. Dr Judy > For a while my mind went down this path, only with the idea being to > project the computer onto a wall rather than use a monitor. > -- > Assuming too much close work triggers myopia in some children, I am > looking for a projector that can project a book page onto a screen, to > help my son who love reading so much but is starting to develop myopia > at the age of 8. Possibly an optical device which places the handheld book at infinity as far as the eyes can know. Needs prisms and spherical lenses. (homefully still plus, including cylinder if needed). Could look like a pair of eyeglasses. Unfortunately you will probably not be able to find an Eyecare Professional who will help you with this. It's been tried, and found not to work, they will say. A mistake with the prisms could get you a wall-eyed kid, I'd guess. Nobody will touch it. -- Dicky > Unfortunately you will probably not be able to find an Eyecare > Professional > who will help you with this. It's been tried, and found not to work, they > will say. A mistake with the prisms could get you a wall-eyed kid, I'd > guess. > Nobody will touch it. I'm sure there are doctors who will prescribe appropriate lenses in order to relieve you of $200-$400. Since you don't like paying for treatments that _do_ work, it's curious why you advocate treatments with dubious results. -MT > I'm sure there are doctors who will prescribe appropriate lenses in order to > relieve you of $200-$400. That's about cooking up a pair of eyeglasses for a kid, where there's prism and sphere to fool the kid's eyes into thinking that the book he holds is at infinity or at some far-away distance. And, after that, checked to see if those eyeglasses were used appropriately, before announcing any negative results? . Have you ever done it? Do you know anyone who has? And Otis, you keep out of this! This is a bit more subtle than "The Plus". > Since you don't like paying for treatments that _do_ work, it's curious why > you advocate treatments with dubious results. That is another thing entirely. I don't like paying for eyeglasses that do not do the job they are supposed optically as well as not fitting my fat face, especially when I have to pay more than once for the same incidence (possibly on account that eyecare professionals, having discovered that contact customers are constant patients, now equivocate eyeglass scripts and bias frames to develop similar levels of aftermarket potential.) -- Dicky Actually, I think you can still buy such a contraption, called the "myopter". http://www.i-care.net/myopter.htm I don't think it ever was very successful because who would wear it? w.stacy, o.d. > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Dicky > Dear BuyWheels, Subject: The SECOND-OPINION for prevention of a child's negative refractive STATE. Yours is an excellent idea. The "projector" is called a "View-Graph", as we called it when we used it. You will find S.O. ODs who completely support you concept at: www.chinamyopia.org And I would sugget reading his site. There are also M.O. ODs who are hostile to the concept of prevention -- as you propose it. I have prepared a PREVENTIVE site (as an engineer) to help you sort out these issues. I believe that nearsighedness (a negative refractive STATE) of the fundamental eye is PREVENTABLE, but with some obvious difficulties. The projector idea is excellent. Best, Otis ++++++++++++++ > Assuming too much close work triggers myopia in some children, I am > looking for a projector that can project a book page onto a screen, to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > one ? I remember seeing it in a university library many years ago but > can't remember what it is called. > I have prepared a PREVENTIVE site (as an engineer) to > help you sort out these issues. Perhaps your site now includes efficacy data? Not yet, huh? -MT Otis you seem to know what kind of device I am talking about.... do you have an idea where I can buy one ? I am not sure if it works, and I don't think any clinical trials has been conducted to prove that it does not work either.... what I know as someone with -8.0 myopia is that I am at a much higher risk in developing floaters, glaucoma, retinal detachment, macular degeneration etc when compare with someone without myopia.... so whatever I can do for my son I will give it a shot, even if it only helps slow the progression of myopia somehow I consider that good investment. Thanks. > Dear BuyWheels, > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > one ? I remember seeing it in a university library many years ago but > > can't remember what it is called. >I am not sure if it works, and I don't think any clinical trials has >been conducted to prove that it does not work either.... what I know [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Thanks. How about a thing like this: http://szjulong.en.alibaba.com/product/50068720/50313337/Digital_Visual_Presente rs/Video_Overhead_Projector.html OR http://tinyurl.com/n8kac Also, bear in mind that any low-vision type viewer (CCTV or similar) COULD work for your purposes. Your son could simply sit far back from the screen. http://www.lowvisionsolutions.com/Topaz/adwords.html http://www.enhancedvision.com/merlin_family.php http://www.enhancedvision.com/flipper_family.php etc. You can Google for "low vision" and devices, aids, products, etc. Good luck! Cool ! That is exactly what I am looking for , thanks so much ! > How about a thing like this: > http://szjulong.en.alibaba.com/product/50068720/50313337/Digital_Visual_Presente rs/Video_Overhead_Projector.html > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Good luck! Dear BuyWheels, You are going to get two diametically OPPSITE suggestions about how to handle you child's vision. I break this down to a majority-opinion (expressed exclusively on sci.med.vision, and the second-opinion (preventive) as suggested by Steve Leung OD at: www.chinamyopia.org The suggestion by Judy and Steve Leung, is that is your child's "Snellen" is no worse than 20/50, then it would be wise to consider the use of a +2 diopter lens for all close work. Yous will get contradictory opinions on this issue -- so be prepared for them. I think that WISE use of the preventive plus -- would be better than a "projector". I would also point out that Steve Leung has his own kids wearing a strong-plus for the purpose of PREVENTION, even though their kids vision is reasonably good. Prevention means that you understand this issue. But it is difficult. So please understand these issues. Do you know what you child can read on the Snellen eye-chart at this time? Best, Otis -------------- > Otis you seem to know what kind of device I am talking about.... do you > have an idea where I can buy one ? [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > > one ? I remember seeing it in a university library many years ago but > > > can't remember what it is called. Otis? Since you're here .... would you mind answering a few thoughtful questions for me, please? Thanks very much. 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? 4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this claim? 5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your position. 6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this convergence disorder? 7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm states: [quote]" if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with."[/quote] [b]Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?[/b] 8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product? 9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr. Deakins? 10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until, that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you received any money for this book. 11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website? 12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia 13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion" optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you please provide it? 14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to sell both your and his book? 15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is, at this time, a myope? 16. I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of the myopia progression studies that you lie about [URL=http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/62.html][b]CLICK ME! [/b] [/URL]. Why do you tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL? Please explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate studies. > I break this down to a majority-opinion (expressed > exclusively on sci.med.vision, Do you mean to say that this opinion is only a majority on sci.med.vision? What about all the docs across the US? How about the world? > and the second-opinion > (preventive) as suggested by Steve Leung OD at: This would be the minority opinion (1 doc)? Do you really think it's the second opinion? Wouldn't you expect a few other opinions between 1 doc's opinion and millions of docs' opinion? Your opinion doesn't count since you're not a doctor at all. -Quick > Dear BuyWheels, Dear BuyWheels, Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in any position to give medical advice. Thank you! Allen Otis wrote: Do you know what you child can read on the Snellen eye-chart at this time? I was told my son has -1 and -1.5 myopia on his eyes. He is turning 9 years old next month. To me this is any early onset of myopia, very similar to mine and I want to do something about it. Buywheels >Otis wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Buywheels Lots of people here are willing to help you. Be *very careful* with Otis. He (quite literally) HAS hurt any number of people. I forwarded all of their information (readily available if you do some internet digging) to the State of Pennsylvania who is conducting an investigation of him for practicing medicine without a license. He chalks them up as "exceptions" or "weak-willed" or "lacking personal resolve" or "lacking insight" or something like collateral damage. He won't lose any sleep. You will. Do your OWN research. Ask yourself why Otis *never* answers the list of valid questions that I pose. Understand that--while science *clearly* has its limitations, abandoning it entirely probably introduces a great deal more risk. All the best with your son. Sincerely. Thank you Neil for taking the time to write. As an adult of course I won't trust everthing I read on the Internet. I know the methods that I am thinking (projector and reading glasses - of course not at the same time) might not work, but I doubt it will cause any harm either. Since science and medicine cannot provide me with any help, I will probably give this a try. To share an off topic story: i was bothered by what my GI specialist called functional dyspepsia (indigestion) for six month about a year ago. I thought I had cancer at one point and went through all the tests there was. Nothing was found. Different medications were tried and nothing help. Then I found on the web someone suggested apple cider vinegar. Thinking this vinegar is a food in itself and couldn't cause much harm, I gave it a shot. Two weeks into taking the vineager daily, my ingestion improved significantly... not that it went away totally, but to a point which it did not bother me any more.... I told my doctor about it and he said it was a co-incidence which I did not agree.... When an illness affects oneself or your son, you will try more than what science has proved, as long as you are quite sure it won't cause any harm.... Neil wrote: Understand that--while science *clearly* has its limitations, abandoning it entirely probably introduces a great deal more risk. All the best with your son. Sincerely. >Thank you Neil for taking the time to write. As an adult of course I >won't trust everthing I read on the Internet. I know the methods that I >am thinking (projector and reading glasses - of course not at the same >time) might not work, but I doubt it will cause any harm either. Since >science and medicine cannot provide me with any help, I will probably >give this a try. Want the names and e-mail addresses of people who believed the same and--either their kids or they--developed double vision as a result? I would STRONGLY advise against unprescribed plus lenses for your child. If you believe in the plus theory, then work with a behavioral optometrist to evaluate (and monitor) your son's binocular vision and prescribe with appropriate prisms, if indicated. >To share an off topic story: i was bothered by what my GI specialist >called functional dyspepsia (indigestion) for six month about a year [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >but to a point which it did not bother me any more.... I told my doctor >about it and he said it was a co-incidence which I did not agree.... Mike Tyner is an OD on this board. Daily, Mike sprays Elephant Repellant (TM) in his yard. It works. He has no elephants in his yard. You might be right about the vinegar. You might be wrong. You did, however, commit the logical fallacy of conflating cause and effect. Science seeks to clarify cause and effect through randomised controlled trials. >When an illness affects oneself or your son, you will try more than >what science has proved, as long as you are quite sure it won't cause >any harm.... I live in that world ... every day. Being in that world can affect people's thinking. You can be "quite sure" and "quite wrong" simultaneously. I've outlined the possible harm of plus lenses above. If you're still "quite sure it won't cause any harm," then .... hmmmmm. Be careful. Why not look for a center that is participating in the COMET Phase II trial? http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/viewStudyWeb.aspx?id=123 'nuf said ... by me, anyway. Neil, can you tell me more about plus lenses causing double vision ? I am interested to hear about it. Thanks. Want the names and e-mail addresses of people who believed the same and--either their kids or they--developed double vision as a result? >Neil, can you tell me more about plus lenses causing double vision ? I >am interested to hear about it. Thanks. > > Want the names and e-mail addresses of people who believed the same > and--either their kids or they--developed double vision as a result? Here's what you really need to know. This is from Don Rehm--long-time friend of Otis's--in a petition to the FDA. Remember: Rehm believes the same thing as Otis. He's just a bit more ... uh ... honest than our local loon: -- "A very small percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation and convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of years, the brain has learned that this is the normal situation. Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa. Thus, if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with. For this reason, the book or other close object should always be held as far as possible from the eyes to reduce the amount of convergence needed." -- Otis, inexplicably, neglects to tell people about this--including a US Army pilot, stationed in Korea, who developed double vision following Otis's advice. Whoops! Dear BuyWheels, Neil is wearing +6 diopter plus lenses. Neil is a high-hyperope, and does not have a practical knowledge of these issues. But Neil could make the argument that the "plus" lens created his +6 diopter hyperopia. As always, think about the OD (who is nearsighted) PROTECTING his children from stair-case myopia) BEFORE they even get into it. This is not a easy "choice" for you -- and I would do your own research -- as WE ALL SUGGEST. The eye (in a school enviroment) goes DOWN at a rate of about -1/2 diopter per year -- so there is no need to make an imediate choice or decision. Just an informed to use the preventive second-opinion -- or not. Best, OTis > Neil, can you tell me more about plus lenses causing double vision ? I > am interested to hear about it. Thanks. > > Want the names and e-mail addresses of people who believed the same > and--either their kids or they--developed double vision as a result? >Neil is wearing +6 diopter plus lenses. Neil is a high-hyperope, >and does not have a practical knowledge of these issues. Another wonderful ad hominem attack, Otis, and--as always--totally irrelevant. >But Neil could make the argument that the "plus" lens >created his +6 diopter hyperopia. No, I couldn't, and no, I wouldn't. How many times do you need me to repeat that my cycloplegic refraction has been stable since infancy? >As always, think about the OD (who is nearsighted) PROTECTING >his children from stair-case myopia) BEFORE they even >get into it. ONE? Out of how many in the world? Iif it really seemed safe and effective, do you REALLY THINK that NO OTHER OD would do this with their kids??? >The eye (in a school enviroment) goes DOWN at a rate of >about -1/2 diopter per year -- so there is no need to >make an imediate choice or decision. Again, Otis, your understanding of statistics is non-existent, and worse. In this case, it's FAR more important to understand what % went hyperopic, what percent did NOT change, and what % went myopic, AND to understand what differentiated each group (current thinking: genetics) than it is to understand an average. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. When you present statistics, they are the worst kind of lie. >Just an informed to use the preventive second-opinion -- or not. Well said. Dear BuyWheels, There is an under-current of "objection" to the use of a strong minus -- among the doctors themselves. There are some doctors who will discuss this issue with you -- but you should understand it. While the minus makes a child's vision very, very sharp instantly -- there is doubt about its long-term effect, i.e., stair-case myopia. Here is an "open", second-opinion discussion about the presumed "safety" of an over-prescribed minus. Again, take your time, think, review, and do not jump to conclusions untill you have ALL THE FACTS, AND TRULY UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE PREVENTIVE SECOND-OPINION. Enjoy, Otis +++++++++++++++ Subject: The Effects of "Corrective" Lenses: Insight and Comment From Eye Doctors No clinical or statistical studies have ever demonstrated the long-term safety of a (minus) "corrective" lens. In fact, a certain percentage of doctors believe that -- as the second-opinion -- "corrective" lenses (also known as "compensatory" negative lenses) usually create dependency and make the eyes move more rapidly in a negative refractive direction. These concerns have been voiced in the professional literature by concerned doctors who support the concept the "second opinion" to do work for the prevention of nearsightedness with a plus lens. Here are sample excerpts from the professional literature voicing concerns about the safety of "corrective" lenses: ===================================== "The use of compensatory lenses to treat or neutralize the symptoms does not correct the problem. The current education and training of eye care practitioners discourages preventive and remedial treatment." R.L. Gottlieb, Journal of Optometry and Visual Development, 13(1):3-27, 1982. "The emphasis on compensatory lenses has posed a problem for many years in our examinations. These lenses do not correct anything and may not serve the patient in his best interests over a period of time." CJ. Forkiortis, OEP Curriculum, 53:1, 1980 "There are frequently ignored patterns of addiction to minus lenses. The typical prescription tends to overpower and fatigue the visual system and what is often a transitory condition becomes a lifelong situation which is likely to deteriorate with time." S. Gallop, Journal of Behavioral Optometry, 5(5):115-120, 1994 "Single-vision minus lenses for full-time use produce accommodative insufficiency associated with additional symptoms until the patient gets used to the lens. This is usually accompanied by a further increase in myopia and the cycle begins anew." M.H. Birnbaum, Review of Optometry, 110(21): 23-29, 1973. "Minus lenses are the most common approach, yet the least likely to prevent further myopic progression. Unfortunately, they increase the near-point stress that is associated with progression." B. May, OEP Publications, A- 112, 1984. For more information on this "sea change" in attitude to work towards effective prevention with the plus please read: +++++++++ > Neil, can you tell me more about plus lenses causing double vision ? I > am interested to hear about it. Thanks. > > Want the names and e-mail addresses of people who believed the same > and--either their kids or they--developed double vision as a result? >Dear BuyWheels, > >There is an under-current of "objection" to the use of a strong minus >-- among >the doctors themselves Well ... Steve Leung anyway ... and HE hasn't come up with one shred of evidence of safety OR efficacy AND has been investigated by his governing body. Much like you, huh, Otis? No wonder you guys are buds. Dear BuyWeels, I do not know if you live near Boston, but here is an optometrist who is working her way out of myopia. http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html But the "better" way, is to work with a (plus) prevention minded OD, as per the above, and now allow your child to enter into stair-case myopia -- IN THE FIRST PLACE. Or, an ounce of prevention is indeed worth a TON of "cure". Keep an open mind for your child. The "projector" concept and the "plus" are essentially the same thing. You will either "trust" the majority-opinion, as stated on sci.med.vision, or you can investigate the second-opinion as stated by this, and other optometrists. Best, Otis > Neil, can you tell me more about plus lenses causing double vision ? I > am interested to hear about it. Thanks. > > Want the names and e-mail addresses of people who believed the same > and--either their kids or they--developed double vision as a result? >Keep an open mind for your child. The "projector" concept >and the "plus" are essentially the same thing. How much risk of diplopia is associated with use of the projector, though, Otis? Thanks. > Dear BuyWeels, > > I do not know if you live near Boston, Dear BuyWheels, Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in any position to give medical advice. Thank you! Allen Thank you Neil for taking the time to write. As an adult of course I won't trust everthing I read on the Internet. I know the methods that I am thinking (projector and reading glasses - of course not at the same time) might not work, but I doubt it will cause any harm either. Since science and medicine cannot provide me with any help, I will probably give this a try. To share an off topic story: i was bothered by what my GI specialist called functional dyspepsia (indigestion) for six month about a year ago. I thought I had cancer at one point and went through all the tests there was. Nothing was found. Different medications were tried and nothing help. Then I found on the web someone suggested apple cider vinegar. Thinking this vinegar is a food in itself and couldn't cause much harm, I gave it a shot. Two weeks into taking the vineager daily, my ingestion improved significantly... not that it went away totally, but to a point which it did not bother me any more.... I told my doctor about it and he said it was a co-incidence which I did not agree.... When an illness affects you or your son, you will try more than what science has proved, as long as you are quite sure it won't cause any harm.... Neil wrote: Understand that--while science *clearly* has its limitations, abandoning it entirely probably introduces a great deal more risk. All the best with your son. Sincerely. Dear BuyWheels, Subject: Following Neil D. Brooks advice. If you wish to take the "majority opinion" advice, then by all means NEVER GET A PLUS FOR YOUR CHILD. And in fact, just drop the subject completely. When you put a strong minus on a child, you can predict that is refractive STATE will go down at a steady rate of -1/2 diopter per year. I consider that fact a "risk". You will have to strike a "balance" between these two risks. For yourself -- you KNOW your vision went down -- from the time you started wearing that over-prescribed miinus all the time. Here is a statement by Striling Colgate who used the plus to clear his vision -- and keep it clear through the school years. Enjoy, Otis +++++++++ My support for Steve Leung OD and Alfred Bossino To the Parents, I have often wondered why the profession of optometry does not change its treatment for the prevention of myopia with a plus lens -- in these decades after the ground-breaking scientific research by Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Howard Howland and others has been successfully completed. I have seen the number of young myopes increase in the USA and to an incredible extent in the Far East. The prevalence is very serious in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and China. I regret this obvious and rapid increase in the degree of myopia around the world -- because of the use of the traditional (minus-lens) treatment. This is a primitive method indeed. To this date there has been no systematic effort to educate the public about this method of effective nearsightedness prevention with the plus lens. I personally support and recommend the work of Steve H. Leung and Alfred Han Bossino. They are making a sincere effort to educate the public about the necessity of "correct use" of the plus lens for prevention. Mr. Leung's knowledge and skill will be of considerable value to your child in his goal of maintaining clear distant vision through the school years. ======= > Thank you Neil for taking the time to write. As an adult of course I > won't trust everthing I read on the Internet. I know the methods that I [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > All the best with your son. Sincerely. >Dear BuyWheels, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >NEVER >GET A PLUS FOR YOUR CHILD. Well, now you're just twisting words, telling fibs, and outright being silly. SINCE (not "if") there is a risk (no doubt understated by Rehm) of double vision, etc., with unprescribed plus lens use, that RISK can be mitigated by working with an optometrist to evaluate and monitor binocular vision. You're really only capable of black-white thinking, arent' you? Sad. >And in fact, just drop the subject completely. Translation: "Do it my way or give up on your child entirely?" Are you lording over people again, Otis? Optometric demagoguery? >When you put a strong minus on a child, you can predict that >is refractive STATE will go down at a steady rate of -1/2 diopter >per year. I consider that fact a "risk". You *could* "predict" that, but it's been disproven countless times. If you're referring to Oakley-Young ... well, then ... you're simply lying. >You will have to strike a "balance" between these two risks. >For yourself -- you KNOW your vision went down -- from >the time you started wearing that over-prescribed miinus >all the time. It actually probably started "going down" BEFORE he wore the "over-prescribed minus." That would explain why somebody would get glasses. Any conjecture assigning a causal relationship to the minus lens is the logical error of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, but ... I've told you that a thousand times. I'm not sure you can read. >Here is a statement by Striling Colgate who used the >plus to clear his vision -- and keep it clear through the school >years. Here is a statement by Mike Tyner proving that his spray repels elephants.... Shame it won't repel Otis. And here is a statement SUPPORTING second-opinion ODs -- in the use of the PREVENTIVE plus. Take the time to consider these issues carefully. Plus prevention is the second opinion. But to be effective, its use must start BEFORE the minus lens is applied. Getting out if is simply not possible -- once your son begins wearing the minus all the time. Take your time -- consider your choice wisely. The "projecter" concept -- is idential to the preventive-plus. Best, Otis +++++++++++++ Professor Emeritus at Wshington State University, Dr. Young is also a recipient of the AOA's prestigious Apollo Award, as well as ten other honors in the optometric profession. He has authored or co-authored more than 100 research papers, and his groundbreaking research with Native Alaskans in 1968 provided powerful evidence that nearsightedness might not be inherited and could potentially be prevented. He is a graduate of Ohio State University. ________________________________________________________________ My support for Steve Leung To the Parents: I would like to personally endorse the work of Steve H. Leung and Alfred Han Bossino in their effort to educate the public about the necessity of using the plus for prevention. Dr. Leung's knowledge and skill could be of considerable value to your child in his goal to maintain clear distant vision through the school years. Francis A. Young Ph.D. ------------------------------- Signature on File N.B.:Professor Young requests the removal of his name as an author of the Houston bifocal study. >The "projecter" concept -- is idential to the preventive-plus. Well ... except for that nagging "risk of double vision" thing, you could almost have a point there. Almost. Dear BuyWheels, Subject: Diametrically opposed OPINIONS. I give "advice" as a person who WISHED I HAD THE SUPPORT I REQUIRED FOR PREVENTION. At 9 years old, I also was at about -1.5 diopters. As you have seen from: www.chinamyopia.org There are second-opinion ODs who will support your child with a +2 diopter lens FOR READING. If you wish to take a PRELIMINARY STEP to help your child with prevention, then I would SUGGEST you do some general checking youself -- by having you child read the Snellen. This is a major step -- of stronger "empowerment" for you. NO ONE SHOULD OBJECT TO THAT STEP. I would suspect that your child can probably read a room-illuminated Snellen at about 20/40 to 20/60. That would be your FIRST PREVENTVE step for you child. This is NOT MEDICAL. This is just a matter of knowing EXACTLY your child's VA. Just remember, there are SECOND-OPINION ODs who support their OWN CHILDREN with this PREVENTIVE method. Obviously no one on sci.med.vision, can tell you what you should be doing. But read an understand the preventive second-opinion to the best of your understanding. Again, I wish I PERSONALLY had the support in the use of the plus -- when I was 9 years old. Also, when he reads -- approximately how far is the book from his eyes? 10 inches? 13 inches? 18 inches? Enjoy, Otis ++++++++ > Otis wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Buywheels >Dear BuyWheels, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >There are second-opinion ODs who will support your child >with a +2 diopter lens FOR READING. Well, there seems to be one, and ... he's trying to sell books AND he's offered no proof of safety or effectiveness either, has he? I wish my parents had fed me more Cheerios when I was younger. I just KNOW I would have been taller..... [again: beware Otis ... the human logical fallacy fountain] > I wish my parents had fed me more Cheerios when I was younger. I just > KNOW I would have been taller..... and Wheaties would have made you jump buildings in a single bound :-) Allen "Also, when he reads -- approximately how far is the book from his eyes? 10 inches? 13 inches? 18 inches?" Otis has a good point there. If your 9 year old son is reading way too close, he is inducing myopia. The same thing happened to me, my brother and sister. We all spent hours reading and on the computer and paid the price. My brother however never was worse than -2 and has improved to -1.25 because he avoided the wretched evil minus lens. He did get glasses for driving and to this day only wears glasses for driving and occasionally. I got my first -1 glasses at 12 and wore them part time then full time at -2.25 and my eyes kept getting worse. I have done natural vision improvement in the last 18 months and have improved from -6 to -5 in the worse eye. I expect to get to around -4, a big improvement over -6 but the damage is done and ill always be quite myopic. Its great you think about your son and his precious vision. Try to delay getting him minus glasses as long as possible, if he must wear glasses, ONLY for distance such as seeing the chalkboard in school. If you dont believe in the plus lens, at least he should read from at least 16" distance WITHOUT the minus lens! My brother never used the plus lens but because he almost never used the minus lens, he did not develop stair case myopia. You are highly myopic at -8 but your son should not go below -3 if the right things are done My own mom is in the -7 range but none of us are anywhere as bad as she is. Please try to ignore Ace with a fervor equal to that appropriately used when ignoring Otis. If you do not "mind" you child getting stair-case myopia from an over-prescribed minus -- the please ignore scientific warnings about this issue. Just bury your head in the sand -- as "accept" stair-case myopia that develps for your son -- because you could not implement your "book projector" concept -- for prevention. But let me add this: If you wish to have a "simple" book projector, where BOTH convergence (as Neil suggests) and accommodation are taken care of -- you might obtain an Myopter from Donald Rehm. That does ellimate the so-called "double vision" that Brooks SUGGESTS MIGHT develop if ONLY the preventive plus were used. Best, Otis ++++++++++ a > Please try to ignore Ace with a fervor equal to that appropriately > used when ignoring Otis. >If you do not "mind" you child getting stair-case myopia >from an over-prescribed minus -- If you don't mind providing a bit of evidence that this happens in humans ... I think we'd all be grateful. >>If you do not "mind" you child getting stair-case myopia >>from an over-prescribed minus -- > >If you don't mind providing a bit of evidence that this happens in >humans ... I think we'd all be grateful. Even if it is does happen to humans... the choice of reading and wearing glasses and just not reading would have been a nobrainer to me as a child. My head was always in a book, and a projector of some sort wouldn't have been at all practical, not exactly portable is it? So if the price to pay for being me is wearing glasses, then so be it. Ann Ann> Even if it is does happen to humans... the choice of reading and wearing glasses and just not reading would have been a nobrainer to me as a child. My head was always in a book, and a projector of some sort wouldn't have been at all practical, not exactly portable is it? So if the price to pay for being me is wearing glasses, then so be it. Otis> I truly can not "argue" with you logic here. But, I love to read also -- but I do respect the fact that there are LIMITS to the way I use my eyes. If I can be TAUGHT to place a +2 diopter lens on my eyes (moving the book out to the distance) and read AND KEEP MY DISTANT VISION CLEAR FOR LIFE, then I peronally would prefer to do it that way. Otis> I gain the benifits of reading (in our 21 century society) and I RESPECT the proven behavior of my natural eyes. The best of BOTH worlds. Otis> But it is clear that the preventive process MUST START before you get too deep into it. Just one man's opinion. Best, Otis +++++++++ > >>If you do not "mind" you child getting stair-case myopia > >>from an over-prescribed minus -- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ann > If I can be TAUGHT to place a +2 diopter lens on my eyes > (moving the book out to the distance) and read AND KEEP > MY DISTANT VISION CLEAR FOR LIFE, then I peronally > would prefer to do it that way. So would we. How do you know it works? -MT >Otis> I truly can not "argue" with you logic here. But, I love to >read also -- but nothing that disagrees with my position and > CERTAINLY nothing regarding vision or HUMAN testing. Well said. >I do respect the fact that there are LIMITS to the way I use my eyes. >If I can be TAUGHT to place a +2 diopter lens on my eyes (moving >the book out to the distance) and read AND KEEP MY DISTANT >VISION CLEAR FOR LIFE, then I peronally would prefer to >do it that way. Sadly, it fails. Witness your niece, Joy. >Otis> I gain the benifits of reading (in our 21 century society) and I >RESPECT the proven behavior of my natural eyes. The best of >BOTH worlds. If we're talking rhesus macaque eyes again, then ... maybe YOU COULD have derived this benefit, chimp-boy. But for humans ... why does it still fail ... in all experiments? Witness your niece, Joy. >Otis> But it is clear that the preventive process MUST START >before you get too deep into it. It could start in utero, but ... it keeps failing to work when tested in humans. Witness your niece, Joy. >Just one man's opinion. No. More like one lunatic's fanciful delusion. Instead of admitting defeat and resigning to the minus lens, the parents of this 9 year old is doing something to control his emerging myopia. Using the projector will work, so will using plus lenses. Keeping near work to a minimum will also work. He might not clear 20/40 but he can keep his myopia in check and not spirial out of control and end at -8 like his mother. He has the myopia genes and the environment is the trigger. By restricting the environmental influence, he can slow down or even stop his myopia progression. As long as what they are doing is not harmful, why not give it a shot? The projector idea is not harmful and theres nothing to lose. >Instead of admitting defeat and resigning to the minus lens, the >parents of this 9 year old is doing something to control his emerging [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >doing is not harmful, why not give it a shot? The projector idea is not >harmful and theres nothing to lose. Who's arguing? To whom are you addressing this? On what basis do you make any, or all, of your claims?? Ann's right: gotta' be Asperger, or similar. > Instead of admitting defeat and resigning to the minus lens, the > parents of this 9 year old is doing something to control his emerging > myopia. No argument. > Using the projector will work It might. We don't know. And it's "pojector." > so will using plus lenses. Otis says so, but I can't find the convincing studies. Pehaps you know where he hid them. -MT It might, but not when body's been able to make it work in groups with controls. > Keeping near work to a minimum will also work. He might not clear 20/40 > but he can keep his myopia in check and not spirial out of control and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > doing is not harmful, why not give it a shot? The projector idea is not > harmful and theres nothing to lose. > > Instead of admitting defeat and resigning to the minus lens, the > > parents of this 9 year old is doing something to control his emerging [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -MT Otis has shown studies numerous times. Perhaps youll see his studies with glasses ;) Ann said: "Otis, if I'd worn +2 lenses then I couldn't have read at all. A bit counterproductive don't you think? And daft to boot." If you are already highly myopic, you dont need plus lenses. All plus lenses do is bring near objects in the distance, the eye is fooled. "How do you know it will work? And it will do harm. It is treating the child in an odd way which is harmful in itself. You say keeping near work to a mininum.. so you mean the child not to do any school work? Not to do his nightly reading at home, and not to do any reading for pleasure? That is harmful for the child's future." I think its less harmful to use the plus lens and NOT be myopic than have your child become so myopic he can see almost nothing without his thick minus glasses. Also myopia is bad for the retina. His immature classmates might make fun of his glasses too. Nothing wrong with reading as long as you use the plus lens(with prisms if neccessary) and if you dont have the plus lens with you, hold the book away from you at arm's length. I wore the minus lens and look what happened to me, my uncorrected vision sucks now! Yes theres lasik but its risky. "Otis> This means that the child's Snellen is perhaps 20/40, but in semi-darkness it takes a -2 diopter to clear the 20/15 line." If your child can read 20/40 and an optometrist wants to overpescribe you, seek a second opinion. With 20/40 vision, you only need -1 or -1.25 to clear 20/20 and you can even undercorrect and give a -.5 diopter lens for 20/25 vision to slow down myopia progression. I know an optometrist who would undercorrect children by .5 to .75 diopters so they see 20/25 to 20/30 instead of 20/20 and this greatly slowed their myopia progression. Better yet, DONT get a minus lens, wear a plus and youll clear your vision. "Otis> And that ie EXACTLY the issue that this -8 diopter mother is talking about for her child." I wish my -7.5 mother knew about the plus lens. My eyes are ruined forever thanks to the wretched minus lens. Thanks to natural vision improvement, I am about a -4.5 but that is still unacceptable without near full time glasses, I take them off to eat and read but anything more than 10 inches is a blur. "Keith doesn't need glasses to see near or far now. Probably wouldn't have anwyay, even if he'd never met you (in which case, he'd have suffered less embarrassment, to be sure)." If he has the myopia gene, Otis saved his vision! Neil said: "I mean: Joy is a myope despite having NEVER worn a minus lens, AND having used the plus per the imerious Uncle Otie's mandate, right? Now she's just an uncorrected myope with blurry distance vision ... or did I read HER words incorrectly?" perhaps she did not correctly use the plus lens or not often enough. Still she is only slightly myopic, low enough that she only needs glasses to drive. Ann said: "Yes, and it seems to me that instead of wearing minus lenses you simply make the child wear plus lenses. Doesn't seem any advantage at all to the child." There is in the long term. Do you want your child to keep his distance vision clear or get so bad he is functionally blind? I paid the price and now my vision really sucks! Yea I can see clear from near without the plus lens but im functionally blind without glasses. "Having had children myself, I wanted them to be able to see clearly at all times and not some years in the future, it was important for their development that they do." If they wore the plus lens, they may not have needed minus lenses in the first place. Now they only see clearly as long as they wear the minus lens full time. Instant gratification with a price to pay with blurry uncorrected vision for life(unless you get risky lasik which things can go wrong) Otis is my role model and hero because he cares about others and doesnt want you to become myopic. It seems like most people dont care and arent doing anything to slow or halt their myopia progression. They just give up, wear the minus for instant gratification and end up stuck with glasses full time forever and crappy vision without glasses. >"How do you know it will work? And it will do harm. It is treating >the child in an odd way which is harmful in itself. You say keeping [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >have your child become so myopic he can see almost nothing without his >thick minus glasses. Your claims are rubbish. My son is now 28 and has myopia of the order of -1.5 and -1.75. Your and Otis's claims do not stand the test of use. Ann Also myopia is bad for the retina. His immature >classmates might make fun of his glasses too. Nothing wrong with >reading as long as you use the plus lens(with prisms if neccessary) and [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >just give up, wear the minus for instant gratification and end up stuck >with glasses full time forever and crappy vision without glasses. Dear AceMan, Subject: An Engineer helps his children avoid entry in to nearsightedness. Re: The primate eye behaves as expected. (Dynamic System) Re: It seems the parents must FIRST figure out that there children MUST begin wearing the plus at "zero" diopters -- or else accept the consequences of NOT wearing the plus. Ace, when you become a parent, and your child's refractive STATE moves from plus to minus (a natural and expected process) then you will be prepared to help him REVERSE -- or stabilize his vision. This is going to be YOUR CHOICE -- and must be made based on the proven facts of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. This is the second-opinion. Some parents finally "wake up" to the need for prevention at the threshold as an "now or never" choice. The HELP their children make systematic use of the plus to AVOID even entry into myopia. Obviously this type of dedication and support can NEVER be prescribed. Thus do it "yourself" seems to be the only way. Thus making the use of the prevetive plus might seem "tedious" but it is better than the alternative -- in MY OPINION. Here is the discussion for your interest. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Myopia Prevention: Theory and Practic By Denis Alarie, P. Eng. To: Mr. Howard C. Howland W201 Seeley G Mudd Hall Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 USA Dear Sir: About your ongoing research on the development of the eye. It was with a great deal of interest that I read an article in Discover magazine in the October 1995 Issue concerning your ongoing work on the development of the eye and its relation to bio feedback. I come from a family of 7 where both the parents are with normal vision and where all 5 of the children were nearsigthed and read a lot. I graduated from Queen's University in 1977 with a first class degree in Civil engineering and also graduated with courses in Genetics. This interestingly enough, gave me a background in evolution, genetics, mechanics and physics. I had believed since I was about 15 that their was a causal link between eye development and Myopia and indeed was immensely interested when I read an article supporting that position. At first (around 1972) I had hopes that by carefully managing the use of my eyes I would be able to reverse the myopia about (- 1 dioptre ). This I theorized would be done by using reading glasses to simulate an at rest condition. I experimented with various lenses used while reading and studying ranging from +1.5 dioptre to + 2.5 dioptre, all the while thinking of and studying the structure of the eye to see if I could gain a better understanding of the process. Although my eyes never improved they did not get any worse from a refractory point of view. It was relatively easy to experiment since my eyes did not have any astigmatism. I could therefore purchase glasses at the drug store for reading. I also talked my eye doctor into prescribing glasses at -0.75 dioptre that I would wear while attending classes. This did not do anything even though I played around with this concept for years. One thing that it did do was make me more aware of the minor changes which seemed to occur with my eyes due to atmospheric pressure, influence of alcohol and marijuana use, reading, driving, smoking. After I graduated 1977, I married in 1978 and had a family. My wife was a graduate nurse at University of Toronto and was mildly myopic with -0.50 in the right eye and -0.75 in the left eye. She did not wear her glasses which probably helped to prevent her vision from changing further. We have two daughters aged 15 and 11 both of whom have eyes that are almost perfect as far as spherical corrections are concerned they are both at 0 dioptre +/- 0.25. From the time that they were young I have encouraged good eye habits in both of them, ie don't sit too close to the TV, Head up when they walk Etc. When we moved to Timmins in 1987 we went to see an eye doctor by the name of Al MacIvor. He was talked into prescribing reading glasses for both of the kids. My reasoning was that since my eyes had stabilized at about -1.00 to -1.25 dioptre that reading glasses of +1.25 dioptre would probably be about the right level for them. Al said that both of the girls had very little reserve in their eyes and would both be myopic by the time they were 15. He looked at me with a bit of a glazed look in his eyes when I started talking to him about my ideas and probably thought I was talking about pyramid glasses etc. I insisted that the prescription not contain any cylindrical corrections. This now 1995 and the girls are fine. Their eyes basically have not changed in 8 years. They both are avid readers and computer users and they both wear their reading glasses. In a further elaboration to the above I have noticed that in the workplace where I work there is a very high incidence of occupational myopia in office workers. Truck drivers never develop myopia. Similar to your observations about the pilots who have good vision prior to their studies and poor vision after. I am not looking for anything from this. Just trying to help where I can and enjoying the chance to finally be able to transmit my information to someone who takes it seriously and has the professional credentials and interest in pursuing it further . Sincerely Yours Denis Alarie, P. Eng. > > > Instead of admitting defeat and resigning to the minus lens, the > > > parents of this 9 year old is doing something to control his emerging [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > just give up, wear the minus for instant gratification and end up stuck > with glasses full time forever and crappy vision without glasses. >Dear AceMan, > >Subject: An Engineer helps his children avoid entry in to > nearsightedness. > >Re: The primate eye behaves as expected. (Dynamic System) So ... if your kids are rhesus macaques .... then maybe this is a good idea. Seems to fall apart in other species of monkey and hasn't held up at all in humans. DID you breed with those chimps when you worked in Maryland, Otis? Is THAT WHY monkey vision data is so important to you?? The rest of us like human data better. We're idiosyncratic that way, huh? Was that what happened with you myopic niece, Joy, Otis? She didn't behave the way you thought all primates should?? Did you send her to bed without her banana?? Thank you. > Re: The primate eye behaves as expected. (Dynamic System) That's fine if you are omnipotent - all eyes would behave as you expect them to. In real life, it isn't so easy. That's why nobody can publish a study proving the efficacy of your treatment. If you had any credibility, you would care about that last point. -MT Dear Mike: Subject: credibility Mike> If you had any credibility, you would care about that last point. Odis> What I HAVE is the "strength" of my convictions. Things like FACTS are of little or NO interest to me. Best, Odis Ignoramus ++++ >> Re: The primate eye behaves as expected. (Dynamic System) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >-MT >Instead of admitting defeat and resigning to the minus lens, the >parents of this 9 year old is doing something to control his emerging [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >doing is not harmful, why not give it a shot? The projector idea is not >harmful and theres nothing to lose. How do you know it will work? And it will do harm. It is treating the child in an odd way which is harmful in itself. You say keeping near work to a mininum.. so you mean the child not to do any school work? Not to do his nightly reading at home, and not to do any reading for pleasure? That is harmful for the child's future. Ann >Ann> Even if it is does happen to humans... the choice of reading and >wearing glasses and just not reading would have been a nobrainer to me [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >VISION CLEAR FOR LIFE, then I peronally would prefer to >do it that way. Otis, if I'd worn +2 lenses then I couldn't have read at all. A bit counterproductive don't you think? And daft to boot. Ann >Otis> I gain the benifits of reading (in our 21 century society) and I >RESPECT the proven behavior of my natural eyes. The best of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> Ann Ann> Otis, if I'd worn +2 lenses then I couldn't have read at all. A bit counterproductive don't you think? And daft to boot. Otis> When the natural eye goes from a positive refractive state to a negative refractive STATE, there is a period of "grace", where the child's refraction in SLIGHTLY negative. Otis> This means that the child's Snellen is perhaps 20/40, but in semi-darkness it takes a -2 diopter to clear the 20/15 line. Otis> At that point, the child can use a "plus" selected for the child's HABITUAL READING DISTANCE. Otis> Therefore AT THAT POINT. there is no need for an excessive minus, and further, use of the plus (as per the primate studies) can slowly result in distant vision CLEARING. Otis> So that is the specific issue I was discussing. Otis> And the implimation of that "method" would HAVE TO DEPEND ON THE "EDUCATED' PARENT -- and the interst and motivation of the child. Otis> And that ie EXACTLY the issue that this -8 diopter mother is talking about for her child. Otis> But it is truly a tough decision. I hope she makes a wise second-opinion decision in this matter. Best, Otis ++++++++= > >Ann> Even if it is does happen to humans... the choice of reading and > >wearing glasses and just not reading would have been a nobrainer to me [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >> > >> Ann You don't have any children, do you, Otis. Your only "test" for your theory had a sample size of two: nephew, Keith, and niece, Joy. Keith doesn't need glasses to see near or far now. Probably wouldn't have anwyay, even if he'd never met you (in which case, he'd have suffered less embarrassment, to be sure). Niece, Joy, on the other hand, says the following: http://www.chinamyopia.org/otis%20&joy.htm "I am Otis Brown's niece. Thanks to him, I have been wearing the plus lenses since fifth grade. I am now 32 and was very happy to pass my driver's license eye exam once again this July (though because the vision in my left eye is not so good, I just got a restriction--I must have a rearview mirror on the left side, which is standard for most cars, anyway)." So ... you had a 50% failure rate on your only actual experiment and a single positive outcome that far more likely than not has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your "intervention." Why do you still claim that this works? On what basis do you think your little test failed. Is Joy simply the wrong species of macaque, or does she lack personal resolve? I'm not quite clear on this. I mean: Joy is a myope despite having NEVER worn a minus lens, AND having used the plus per the imerious Uncle Otie's mandate, right? Now she's just an uncorrected myope with blurry distance vision ... or did I read HER words incorrectly? Thanks in advance for what I'm sure will be a thoughtful, direct, and honest reply. Neil >Ann> Otis, if I'd worn +2 lenses then I couldn't have read at all. A >bit [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Otis> At that point, the child can use a "plus" selected for >the child's HABITUAL READING DISTANCE. Yes, and it seems to me that instead of wearing minus lenses you simply make the child wear plus lenses. Doesn't seem any advantage at all to the child. They are still wearing lenses only now they can't see clearly. I just read the email from Joy where she says that. There seems no point in it at all. Having had children myself, I wanted them to be able to see clearly at all times and not some years in the future, it was important for their development that they do. Ann >Otis> Therefore AT THAT POINT. there is no need for an excessive >minus, and further, use of the plus (as per the primate studies) [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >> >> >> >> Ann Dear Ann, Subject: Using a "plus" only when necessary, and keeping your distant vision clear for life -- versus getting stair-case myopia from the minus. This is of course an "trade-off". The minus is very easy and works instantly. But then, you get stair-case myopia from it (as your eyes adapt to BOTH the confined environment, made optically nearer from a full-strength minus). The result is that after several years, you are now completely dependent on that minus, and wering it 16/7 -- for the rest of you life. Further, at last check, the first minus costs about $350, and given the "down" rate of -1/2 diotper per year, then every 18 months, another $350. But that is indeed the trade off. If, on the other hand, you follow the plus-preventive method, you can monitor your Snellen, clear to pass all legal visual-acuity requirments -- and simply use the plus-2 whenever you have prolonged "near" work to do. So if you do 3 hours of close work, why then you use the plus 3/24. If you are in college, then simply wear it for all close work. You can simply look over the "tops" for clear distant vision. Yes the preventive-plus is indeed an "intrusion" in your life, and prevention is always more difficult that a simple quick-fix. And you have indeed stated your choice in this matter. Best, Otis +++++++++ Yes, and it seems to me that instead of wearing minus lenses you simply make the child wear plus lenses. Doesn't seem any advantage at all to the child. They are still wearing lenses only now they can't see clearly. I just read the email from Joy where she says that. There seems no point in it at all. Having had children myself, I wanted them to be able to see clearly at all times and not some years in the future, it was important for their development that they do. Ann > >Ann> Otis, if I'd worn +2 lenses then I couldn't have read at all. A > >bit [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > >> >> > >> >> Ann >Dear Ann, [ssssnip] So ... uh ... why did your method fail with Joy? Does she lack "insight" or "great personal resolve?" You still haven't explained why your method failed. Will you??? >+++++++++ > [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] >> >> >> >> >> >> Ann >Dear Ann, > >Subject: Using a "plus" only when necessary, and keeping >your distant vision clear for life -- versus getting >stair-case myopia from the minus. Where is your scientific evidence Otis? You have never shown any. Your claims are nothing more than guess work. >This is of course an "trade-off". The minus is very easy and >works instantly. But then, you get stair-case myopia [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >given the "down" rate of -1/2 diotper per year, then every >18 months, another $350. I haven't gone down half a dioptre per year. It is very rare for anyone to go down that much. >But that is indeed the trade off. > [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] >> >> >> >> >> >> Ann Dear Ann, Subject: down rate for the fundamental eye Ann> Where is your scientific evidence Otis? You have never shown any. Your claims are nothing more than guess work. Odis> I rely SOLELY on the PURE SCIENTIFIC (NOT medical) testing produced, in recent decades, by my exuberant alimentary canal. Odis> Why should I "accept" the "conclusions" of the "researchers" whose every effort is designed to SUPPORT ONLY the majority- opinion conclusion to which YOU seem to cling so tenaciously? Odis> Ample scientific evidence can be found at: www.chinaisinconflictwithtaiwan.com Here, you will find the SECOND-OPINION as practiced by a deranged lunatic and his HIGH MYOPE sidekick. Best, Odis Walking ad for Cialis +++++ >>Dear Ann, >> >>Subject: Using a "plus" only when necessary, and keeping >>your distant vision clear for life -- versus getting >>stair-case myopia from the minus. >>This is of course an "trade-off". The minus is very easy and >>works instantly. But then, you get stair-case myopia [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Ann > If you do not "mind" you child getting stair-case myopia > from an over-prescribed minus -- the please ignore > scientific warnings about this issue. Yes. The FDA requires that every minus lens be dispensed with a warning label, like cigarettes. Optical professionals always remove the warning labels... that's why you never see them. I hear warnings from you and your websites and your chums, like Donald Rehm. I don't hear them from the PhDs who are supposed to know this sort of stuff. Why don't they speak up? They know what we're doing and they aren't posting "warnings" on the internet or anywhere else. I don't hear any experienced professionals speaking out about this horror being perpetrated on the public. These days, one doctor in a thousand probably agrees with you. Nothing in human behavior or physiology is ever completely black-or-white. Used to be a lot more doctors agreed with you. Now not so much. Why? Probably one academic in a thousand still believes with fervor like yours. That doesn't make them right. > Just bury your head in the sand -- as "accept" stair-case myopia > that develps for your son -- because you could not implement > your "book projector" concept -- for prevention. Ah.. a new idea! And it might even work. That'd be great! But it still doesn't make plus lenses work, and it doesn't tell us there is harm in appropriate correction for myopia. For those of us who lack your faith I invite you again to tell us how you know "staircase" myopia is caused by glasses. > are taken care of -- you might obtain an Myopter from > Donald Rehm. That does ellimate the so-called "double > vision" that Brooks SUGGESTS MIGHT develop if > ONLY the preventive plus were used. Do you get a commission? Um.. OK, but please tell us how you know it's effective. > Best, > > Otis Not really. -MT Mike>> I don't hear them from the PhDs who are supposed to know this sort of stuff. Otis> Mike, Ph.Ds do know this "stuff". You just ignore all of them. Mike> Why don't they speak up? Otis> OK, here is Dr. Colgate -- a Senior Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory and a Member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. Otis> But of course you never "hear" anything because your ears are stopped up, and your eyes are blind to the proven dynamic behavior of the living eye. Mike> They know what we're doing and they aren't posting Otis> Read on, Mike: November 20, 2004 SF_NAS.txt To the Parents: In the Matter of Steve H. Leung OD and Alfred H. Bossino. Dear Sir, I am a senior scientists, astrophysicist and nuclear physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. For all of my scientific career I have been dedicated to understanding the cause of natural phenomena. From the age of 13 years, now 66 years ago, I recognized that the standard response to myopia was perhaps miss guided. Instead I used positive lens glasses to correct, or alter my focal environment, namely one of reading nearly all the time. (A positive lens "corrects" a near-point focal environment by altering the light rays to be more parallel from the near-point object. as if the print were made more distant.) Being young and therefore developmentally plastic, my eyes and their focal properties immediately responded. Within just a few weeks, the clarity or focus of distant objects had been restored. This was just as I expected from scientific arguments. I had to maintain a positive lens for reading thereafter. This was a small price to pay for perfect distance vision for all my life. I have continued an effort to bring this awareness of the focal adaptation of the natural eye to the public, but unfortunately the ease and immediate response of the standard treatment of using a negative lens to reverse the myopic adaptation to a near point environment is so immediate and so rewarding to the myope that I and a few associates have not been successful. This is regardless of the decades after the ground breaking scientific research by Dr. Francis Young, and Dr. Howard Howland and others. I have worked scientifically with Prof. Joshua Wallman of City College New York where his research on the response of the natural eye to focal and neurological environments is leading the fundamental research on this topic in the US. The animal model used is the recovery function of the deprivation induced myopia of the chicken eye. Here myopia and recovery can be altered by 10 diopters in a few weeks. This extreme animal model allows many factors of influence to be investigated in a short time. Although the complexity of the response of the eye is extraordinary and a detailed understanding of the mechanisms still eludes all in the scientific field, nevertheless there is no experiment, no anecdotal example that contradicts, and no doubt in my mind that myopia in all animals, including humans, is induced in response to a near point environment. In view of this research and countless personal successful examples the growing number of myopic individuals in the world is deplorable, when such a simple remedy is available to the public. Steve H. Leung OD is a dedicated optometrist who has taken a lead in attempting to bring this knowledge and benefit to their patients. For them to be persecuted within his own professional societies is wrong. He should be lauded and encouraged instead. I am reminded of the first health professionals who spoke out about the health problems that smoking brings to a society. Theirs was a difficult task, but now thirty years later, smoking in the US has declined to a negligible fraction of society. If we, as a culture, can give up smoking, we can also be weaned from the negative lens. I do hope and recommend that you strongly support what these dedicated optometrists are bringing to your profession. Sincerely yours, Stirling A. Colgate Ph.D. -------------------------- (Signature is on file) Dr. Colgate is a Senior Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory and a Member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. ++++++++++++++++ > > If you do not "mind" you child getting stair-case myopia > > from an over-prescribed minus -- the please ignore [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > -MT > Otis> Mike, Ph.Ds do know this "stuff". You just ignore all of them. No, you idiot. Just the one-in-a-thousand who agrees with you. I was talking about PhDs in human physiology. Your Dr. Colgate has never examined eyes or published any scientific work on myopia. He "cured" himself of accommodative spasm when he was fourteen, and evidently qualifies him for hero status in your very small world. > Otis> But of course you never "hear" anything because your ears > are stopped up, and your eyes are blind to the proven dynamic > behavior of the living eye. See "projection:" "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits." Or, "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile." Axial length changes. That doesn't mean you have the secret to controlling the process. Doctors who used your techniques didn't find them particularly helpful. Some people got better with treatment. But the same proportion of people get better _without_ treatment, so how is it useful? I know I lost you there. Anyway, likewise, the number of people wearing glasses and getting worse seems DISASTROUS in Asia. But the same proportion of demographically similar people get worse WITHOUT glasses. Lost you there too. Anyway, I think it's the diet. Rice causes myopia. -MT Mike Tyner schreef: > Anyway, I think it's the diet. Rice causes myopia. > > -MT I must agree and I tell you why, eating rice is done with chopsticks. You have to view these chopsticks when eating, I.O.W. this means you have to accommodate. BTW, the solution of the OP in causu putting your food and your face under the episcoop might solve this problem. Jan Oudesluys (normally Dutch spoken) > > Otis> OK, here is Dr. Colgate -- a Senior Fellow Los Alamos National > Laboratory > and a Member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. Not a researcher in Vision > I am a senior scientists, astrophysicist and nuclear > physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a member of the > National Academy of Sciences of the USA. snip > I have continued an effort to bring this awareness of the > focal adaptation of the natural eye to the public, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > breaking scientific research by Dr. Francis Young, and Dr. > Howard Howland and others. Check out Dr Howland's more recent research, in which he finds that wearing minus lenses does not result in increase in myopia in chicks, that different genetic strains of mice and chicks vary considerably in their eye growth response to myopic and hyperopic blur, that reading does not result in sustained accommodative spasm when reading stops, that wearing plus lenses during reading does not result in decreased accommodation during reading and that accommodation is really not much of a factor in myopia development. Find them all on PubMed Dr Judy >Check out Dr Howland's more recent research, in which he finds that >wearing minus lenses does not result in increase in myopia in chicks, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >result in decreased accommodation during reading and that accommodation >is really not much of a factor in myopia development. Yeah. Oooh. Ouch. Otis, that's GOTTA hurt (acknowledging that you do NOT read anything that contradicts your closely-held, but unsupported, belief). Otis, please provide your home address for those who wind up with accommodative excess and ciliary spasm. I'm sure they'd like to discuss this outcome with you face-to-face. Thank you. ===== http://tinyurl.com/hbtd3 Accommodative state of young adults using reading spectacles Jennifer A. Shapiro, Jennifer E. Kelly and Howard C. Howland, Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, W-201 Mudd Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States Received 26 September 2003; revised 27 May 2004. Available online 12 October 2004. Abstract We examined the accommodative state of young adults wearing +2D and +3D reading spectacles under normal conditions and with the elimination of accommodative cues. Subjects refractions were measured with an infrared PowerRefractor. Power of the vertical meridian was recorded for subjects viewing far and near targets in free space and through a Badal lens apparatus with and without reading spectacles. Additionally, refractive measurements were taken after subjects wore +2D reading spectacles for 30 min (post-adaptation). In free viewing and viewing through the Badal lens, subjects uniformly over-accommodated relative to the target while wearing reading spectacles (i.e., with the spectacles, they focused at a plane in front of the target). Subjects in the first post-adaptation test showed no significant difference in accommodation between viewing a near target with and without +2D spectacles after having read with them for 30 min, though they had without post-adaptation. Subjects in the second post-adaptation test were not significantly differently accommodated before and after reading when binocularly viewing a near target with +2D reading spectacles. The results imply that no adaptation of the subjects accommodative postures while viewing visual targets occurred as a result of a 1/2 h near work task with the spectacles. The over-accommodation of subjects using reading spectacles while they are performing visual tasks shows the necessity of measurement if their true accommodative posture is to be determined. Dear BuyWheel, You will get many suggestions on this issue. I obviously have my own opinion about this issue -- regarding PREVENTION, not a "cure". The two methods of prevention started a long time ago as an objection to the use of a minus lens. They are: William Bates (1920) who argued that the wearing of a minus lens produced a situation where initial vision of 20/70 (after the application of a minus lens) would change to 20/200. He advocated "exercises" or "relaxation" as a solution -- and avoiding the use of the minus lens. Dr. Jacob Raphaelso (1900 -- 1968) who argued that you should be offered a choice to use a plus lens (magnifing lens) at the threshold level of -1/2 diopter (20/50) vision. No one can give you any absolute advice here. It is of couse very easy to demonstrate sharp vision with a minus lens. Most people want nothing else other than that. But the few who "object" sometimes find that they can work their way out of it. It will be indeed a very difficult choice for your. You might wish to check my site: http://www.myopiafree.com We all enjoy the pleasant back-and-forth discussion about scientific studies that prove the dynamic behavior of the natural (not defective) eye. Think and act for yourself. The eaay thing to do -- is to do nothing. I hope your son is not yet to far "into it". Only you are going to actually know the result of any actions or choice you might take. Best, Otis > Otis you seem to know what kind of device I am talking about.... do you > have an idea where I can buy one ? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks. > Dear BuyWheel, Dear BuyWheels, Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in any position to give medical advice. Thank you! Allen >No one can give you any absolute advice here. Maybe not, but we CAN ask insightful questions ... and watch you run away. >We all enjoy the pleasant back-and-forth discussion It's not really a "back-and-forth discussion" if you aren't willing to answer my legitimate questions ... honestly, directly, and completely. Why aren't you? > Dear BuyWheels, Dear BuyWheels, Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in any position to give medical advice. Thank you! Allen buywheels@hotmail.com schreef: > Assuming too much close work triggers myopia in some children, I am > looking for a projector that can project a book page onto a screen, to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > one ? I remember seeing it in a university library many years ago but > can't remember what it is called. Google on the word episcoop. Having mentioned the name off the device I should strongly recomment to avoid the use of it. You need a somewhat dark room to see the projected book on the wall. Your son already being nearsighted probebly shall squint to see the letters on the wall more sharply. TMHO your idea is a bad one. Jan Oudesluys (normally Dutch spoken) >Jan Oudesluys (normally Dutch spoken) Jan! I almost forgot about you! My wife and I will be traveling in Europe soon and will *surely* visit Holland. If you'd like to have a cup of coffee together, send me an e-mail and we will keep in touch on our travels ;-) Don't worry: I *won't* be looking for free eye exams. I do *that* on sci.med.vision :-) Met plezier, Neil Dear BuyWheels, Subject: Correct use of the "second opinion" You have suggested a "projector" to help your child follow you "lock-step" into -8 diopters of myopia. Here is a what a -10 diopter mother accomplished by supporting her child in the use of a +3 dioper for reading. As you know the "traditional method" of the minus lens works instantly. Most, perhaps, prefer nothing else -- as will become "hostile" if offered the "correct use" of a plus lens. This person contacted me, and stated she was -10 diopters, and was deeply concerned about her child. The recent OD exam showed a refractive state of -1.5 diopters and about 20/70 vision. I explained that I was an engineer -- but I had done extensive research to establish that the natural eye was "dynamic" and she should understand that a percentage of ODs and MDs supported the concept of prevention -- at the threshold -- only. She decided to proceed, and obtained a +3 diopter lens for her daughter about 3 months ago. This is her statement of current progress. As always, enjoy our pleasant conversations about "alternative methods". Best, Otis Engineer _______________ Current vision clearing progress: Subject: can see a little bit of 20/20 Date: Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:51 PM Dear Otis, With the persistent wearing of +3 lenses, my daughter can now see a few letters along the 20/20 line (must be with both eyes open though). She can read her blackboard with the plus 3 lenses on now so she doesn't even take them off for looking at teacher's writings. It is interesting to see that most of the kids in her class (7-8 yr olds) are already in need of glasses. (Some already have glasses while others need eye exams). The teacher just moved the entire class' seats closer to the front so they can see better. Even with this change, some children are still squinting to read while sitting in first row. I will let you know of my daughter's progress. best wishes, Y. Wright ++++++++++ > Assuming too much close work triggers myopia in some children, I am > looking for a projector that can project a book page onto a screen, to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > one ? I remember seeing it in a university library many years ago but > can't remember what it is called. > I explained that I was an engineer -- but > I had done extensive research to establish > that the natural eye was "dynamic" Please site your peer-reviewed research and define "natural eye" and "dynamic" > should understand that a percentage > of ODs and MDs supported the concept > of prevention -- at the threshold -- only. At the threshold of what? What percentage? Oh......nevermind. >Dear BuyWheels, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >by supporting her child in the use of a +3 dioper >for reading. And here's the story of how you messed up your own niece's eyes so badly that she now has restrictions on her driver's license. Equally touching, huh? http://www.chinamyopia.org/otis%20&joy.htm [quote]I am Otis Brown's niece. Thanks to him, I have been wearing the plus lenses since fifth grade. I am now 32 and was very happy to pass my driver's license eye exam once again this July (though because the vision in my left eye is not so good, I just got a restriction--I must have a rearview mirror on the left side, which is standard for most cars, anyway).[/quote] |
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
|
©2009 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.