 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2006Otis is your friend he will help you prevent, reduce and improve myopia
By realizing the fundamental eye is dynamic and understanding the impact a wretched, evil minus lens has on stair-case myopia, one can strive thru effort to exercise an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. Think about your poor eyes and take the effort at the treshold to always pass the 20/40 DMV. Because Otis and I are NOT doctors, we both have suggested you seek a second opinion optometrist who can pescribe a plus lens(with prisms if neccessary) and he can also teach you about the dynamic eye and how to keep it a positive refractive state. Otis realizes the importance of preventing myopia at the threshold and keeping your distance vision clear and always passing DMV. He has saved dozens of children from stair-case myopia including his own nephew and neice(she DOES pass the DMV, at least in the better eye) He is to be praised for his way of thinking and as an engineer for understanding that the eye is dynamic and not passive. A -2 or -3 diopter minus lens will cause stair-case myopia in chickens and monkies and any other animals. Lots of near work starts the first signs of myopia and something needs to be done at the treshold or if you dont and use the wretched minus lens, your eyes will get worse year after year. >By realizing the fundamental eye is dynamic and understanding the >impact a wretched, evil minus lens has on stair-case myopia, one can [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >something needs to be done at the treshold or if you dont and use the >wretched minus lens, your eyes will get worse year after year. Why don't YOU take a shot at answering these, Ace: 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. > >By realizing the fundamental eye is dynamic and understanding the > >impact a wretched, evil minus lens has on stair-case myopia, one can [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > SAY THAT AT ALL? Please explain your position and provide citations > to the appropriate studies. 1. The eye is dynamic. 2. Thats why the minus lens should be avoided! 3. Myopia is not a disease, correction is not medically neccessary 4. www.chinamyopia.org 5. Ill let Otis elaborate this 6. Ill let Otis elaborate this 7. Use prisms 8. I bet he is alot less myopic than those stair-case victims. 9. Otis isnt in it for the money 10. Otis already explained this 11. No one has to buy anything 12. Myopia starts out pseudo but the eyeball enlongates and stair-case begins 13. Otis may know dozens of such optometrists 14. I bet he is alot less myopic than those stair-case victims. 15. She passes the DMV and is not required to wear glasses. 16. near work causes myopia. Happy now? You got all the answers :) > 1. The eye is dynamic. So, what does this prove? > 2. Thats why the minus lens should be avoided! Why, so people walk around in a blurry world? Research shows this makes you more myopic. > 3. Myopia is not a disease, correction is not medically neccessary Not unless you want to see the car coming towards you. > 4. www.chinamyopia.org Where is the proof. Every optom in HK knows Steven Leung is an idiot. He has no credibility anywhere and has never published any paper proving anything about muopia. > 5. Ill let Otis elaborate this Neither you nor Cletis can as you both know nothing. > 6. Ill let Otis elaborate this Ditto > 7. Use prisms How much? What about prism adaptation? What about seeing the blackboard in class? > 8. I bet he is alot less myopic than those stair-case victims. How do you know? Where is the double blind trial? > 9. Otis isnt in it for the money He is in it for the girls then? > 10. Otis already explained this Cletis has explained nothing. > 11. No one has to buy anything No, just listen to crap. > 12. Myopia starts out pseudo but the eyeball enlongates and stair-case > begins Myopia starts out as the person is genetically going to get it. Environment acts upon the genetic substrate. Why don't you advocate gene therapy? > 13. Otis may know dozens of such optometrists No he doesn't. That's why he keeps bringing up the same names all the time. Donald Rehm, Francis Young and Steven Leung. He has no one else to name drop. > 14. I bet he is alot less myopic than those stair-case victims. How do you know? Where's the double blind trial to prove it? > 15. She passes the DMV and is not required to wear glasses. And still sees blurred images. > 16. near work causes myopia. No near work is a stressor. It doesn't cause anything. > Happy now? You got all the answers :) You haven't answered anything yet. > Myopia starts out as the person is genetically going to get it. > Environment acts upon the genetic substrate. I totally agree with this statement. In almost every aspect of human development there is a genetic and environmental influence. Look at the cases of the Medina twins, 2 boys who were separated at birth. One grew up in an enviroment where reading and academics were stressed (joe) the other on a farm where lots of outside physical labor was the norm (jim). 20 years later, Joe is an overweight collage student who wears -6 lenses, whereas Jim is a mechanic and has uncorrected vision of 20/40. From this I could claim that they both had the genetic substrate to be both overwieght and myopic, and the difference in environment had shaped the extent these traits were to develop. One of the "problems" I have seen is with how vision screening program are implemented is some schools. The parents of a 7 yr old with 20/40 are told to take their child are told their child has vision problems, so they take him to the recommened eye doc. The doc gives them -1.5 lenses and tells the parents "make sure he wears them at all times". Two years later the child is in -3 lenses. Its amazing to see the number of kids wearing glasses in a school that promotes vision screening, vs the schools that don't. From what I seen from schools without vision screening is, only the children who "really need" glasses tend to get them. I'm not against vision screening, but the threshold for declaring a child has a problem should clearly be raised. A child with 20/40 should be moved to the front of the class, not forced to wear glasses. From what I have seen, many kids that take this route are still at 20/40, two years later. > I totally agree with this statement. In almost every > aspect of human development there is a genetic and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > difference in environment had shaped the extent these > traits were to develop. Really? I have twin boys. How come they don't look anything alike? Also, one is small for his age, wirey, and extroverted while the other is very large for his age, obese and introverted. I guess there is a pretty strong correlation with a sample size of one. -Quick There is a fairly strong correlation that identical twins, growing up in the same environment will have almost identical physical characteristics ( including myopia progression). Although sometimes, factors during the pregnancy, especially twin to twin transfusion syndrome, can lead to identical twins that have very different birth weights and are mistakenly thought to be fraternal. And sometimes, fraternal twins can look enough alike to be confused with identical twins. The reference in my previous post were identical twins. I assume that your kids are fraternal twins. Rev Jessie James wrote: Really? I have twin boys. How come they don't look anything alike? Also, one is small for his age, wirey, and extroverted while the other is very large for his age, obese and introverted. I guess there is a pretty strong correlation with a sample size of one. -Quick > The reference in my previous post were identical twins. I assume that > your > kids are fraternal twins. Thanks. We had to assume you meant identical. Most of the identical-twin studies go the other way, showing similar myopia despite environment. Only a few authorities will argue that myopia is purely genetic, because the influence of environment has been repeatedly measured. What's controversial is the unsupported belief that the environmental influence can be manipulated with lenses. I see good reason to think that the projector idea might work. And it's a lot more practical and socially acceptable than making a kid wear that myopter thingy. -MT > I see good reason to think that the projector idea might work. Then you might think that optically placing a page image at infinity, or at some increased distance, might be beneficial. > And it's a lot more practical and socially acceptable than > making a kid wear that myopter thingy. The myopter definitely seems clutzy. Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3aWdne29zfENmDnZnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > "Dick Adams" <bad.addr@nonexist.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm sure there are doctors who will prescribe appropriate lenses in order to > relieve you of $200-$400. Oh, I see. You mean charlatans! Well, you see, I have, over the years, had some experience for this, case of myself and of one of my children. The Professional response characteristically was that it was not a usual thing to do. But there also seemed some trepidation in the face of calculating the amount of prism to relieve vergence consistent with the amount of accommodation relief sought. It is a trigonometric thing. You'd think that somewhere in the Professional tool kit there would be a formula or simple nomogram to relate needed prism power to "add" value as a function of interpupillary distance. To solve the problem from scratch, one needs the definition of prism diopter, but you would be surprised at how many people do not know how a prism diopter is defined. Vergence-correct reading glasses would not, as the myopter claims to, flatten vision, in the sense of rendering non-stereoscopic. But I don't think that is consequential, except that the glasses might not be so mass-producable as the myopter thingy. -- Dicky > Then you might think that optically placing a page image at > infinity, or at some increased distance, might be beneficial. No I might not, and it might not. I agree that it SHOULD, logically. It just doesn't work, unless they're keeping secrets in the halls of academe. What we _do_ know is that myopia increases with time spent in near work of any sort, and with closer working distances. The projector addresses this more completely than lenses do. As I've told you, accommodation isn't the mechanism. Lenses can trick accommodation but it doesn't work. Distances are real and this idea hasn't really been tested, AFAIK. An image on the wall has the advantage of actually _being_ 4-5 feet away. It begs the question: if they're worse than -1.00, do they wear glasses? Glasses correcting just under? at? beyond focal distance? Anyway, professors and PhDs and those who see countless myopes in academic practice offer no recognized technique or principle that allows us to use lenses to control myopia. Their techniques would quickly become standard-of-care and everybody would know about it. Otis would tell us. Meanwhile, those same authorities make their living warning us about the risk of retinal detachment, the "duty to warn" regarding impact resistance, the product liabilities and the practical difficulties of all sorts of correction. But nowhere do they warn of the effects of lenses on myopia progression. Because there ain't any, or because what's there is subtle and doesn't behave as expected. Otherwise, you can be sure it would be commercially exploited. The SeeClearlyMethod would be getting awards, not investigations. Merrill Allen was good; I heard him speak in 1985. But he basically sold his name to charlatans, IMO. I still find it hard to accept that undercorrection INCREASES myopia. -MT >> >By realizing the fundamental eye is dynamic and understanding the >> >impact a wretched, evil minus lens has on stair-case myopia, one can [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > >1. The eye is dynamic. Didn't answer the question >2. Thats why the minus lens should be avoided! Doesn't answer the question. Why shouldn't people where it when it's indicated and not where it where it's not? >3. Myopia is not a disease, correction is not medically neccessary Didn't answer the question. Please try again. >4. www.chinamyopia.org Didn't answer the question. Please try again. >5. Ill let Otis elaborate this >6. Ill let Otis elaborate this >7. Use prisms Wow! At least that's an answer! >8. I bet he is alot less myopic than those stair-case victims. And I *know* I'm better looking than you. How sure are you that this is attributable to the breakfast cereal I ate as a child? >9. Otis isnt in it for the money Just like everything else: YOUR saying it (or HIS saying it) simply does NOT make it so. >10. Otis already explained this Poorly. >11. No one has to buy anything Otis screams, all day, about the agenda of optometrists. It is perfectly valid to point out his: pathology + money. >12. Myopia starts out pseudo but the eyeball enlongates and stair-case >begins Didn't answer the question. Please try again. >13. Otis may know dozens of such optometrists But their names are withheld in the interest of national security? Please try again. >14. I bet he is alot less myopic than those stair-case victims. And I *know* I'm better looking than you. How sure are you that this is attributable to the breakfast cereal I ate as a child? >15. She passes the DMV and is not required to wear glasses. She's myopic. The DMV restricted her license. Plus lens prevention didn't work. Or are we now using "kinda sorta worked" as the standard? >16. near work causes myopia. Didn't answer the question. Please try again. >Happy now? You got all the answers :) I got one. It's only partially valid. The rest was just regurgitation of Otis tripe. Try again. Everybody's watching. You want "respect?" Try again. Dear AceMan, Subject: The public LOVES very, very sharp vision -- INSTANTLY. When you have children -- you are going to face this issue. It is VERY EASY to sit a person in a chair in a darkened room, place a strong minus in front of their eyes, and create 20/15 vision (or what ever their retina is capable of. Why "object". The reason is the induction of stair-case myopia for a young child. Granted the child INDUCED a slight negative refractive STATE in the first place -- which makes HIM RESPONSIBLE -- but the compounding effect of a "minus" on the refractive STATE of the natural eye IS VERY CLEAR. I am NEVER going to "fight" with a parent who loves having his child in a strong minus (when his Snellen is 20/40) -- but the parent should be well-aware of the consequence of that FIRST -2 diotper minus (when the kid actually PASSES the DMV level test.) It is not MY intention that the child STAY at 20/50 (let us say), but that he WORK with a +2 diopter, and (by montoring his OWN SNELLEN, SLOWLY clear his naked eye to 20/30, 20/25, and perhaps 20/20. 20/20 is very, very shap vision indeed. With this concept in mind -- here are some remark about the value of clearing your vision to 20/50 -- to pass the 20/40 line FIRST, and then continue with the work to CLEAR more of the Snellen -- if you have both the interest and motivation to do so. ++++++++++ Charles> Why this obsession with "pass the DMV"? Most people don't want to see 20/40, despite what you repeatedly keep saying. Otis> If you love your childern to have 20/15 -- fine. But the kid may not love stair-case myopia. But that becomes a CHOICE of the parent. Charles> Please understand and absorb the fact that most people don't want to walk around seeing 20/40, or blowing off a -1.5 diopter prescription (sph or cyl) if they can wear glasses and see clearly. Otis> Fine. This is going to be a CHOICE that AceMan will have to make for HIS children. If he wants his kids wearing an over-prescribed minus -- then he can not complain about the consequences, now can he? When corrected, I see 20/15 or slightly better, and I can tell when I'm not there. Doctors on this forum have indicated that this is not unusual (being picky). Please assimilate this information and stop acting like everyone is as un-demanding about their vision as you claim to be. Otis> It depends on how much you VALUE naked eye vision. If you love an EASY -1.5, then no one is going to argue with you about it. Charles> Even if you guys had a way of getting nearsighted people to 20/40, it doesn't do all that much except keep some people from having to find their glasses to go to the bathroom at night. Otis> The issue is that the NATURAL eye will move from a postive refractive STATE to a negative refractive STATE -- if placed in a strong "near" environment -- as a matter of "pure" scientific test. Otis> Further, if you are PASSING the DMV with 20/40, you have a choice. And the choice is to take the proven behavior of the fundamental eye SERIOUSLY, and work to clear the 20/40 line -- to much clearer NAKED EYE VISION. Otis> I know that (as you say) you have absolulty NO INTEREST IN CLEAR DISTANT VISION FOR LIFE -- but do not exclude the possibility that SOME PARENTS who are a -8 diopters -- MIGHT WISH HELP TO AVOID ENTRY INTO A NAEGATIVE REFRACTIVE STATE, and avoid stair-case negative change in their kids NATURAL EYES. But that is their choice. Best, Otis > Why "object". The reason is the induction of stair-case myopia for > a young child. IF it happens. You haven't told us how you know it does. We can't find that wearing glasses makes any difference. How many have you studied? > Granted the child INDUCED a slight negative > refractive STATE in the first place -- which makes HIM RESPONSIBLE -- And your brain is smaller than average. That makes YOU responsible. -MT Dear AceMan, Thanks for the complement. Ace> Otis is your friend he will help you prevent, reduce and improve myopia But I should clarify. I am a friend of the SECOND-OPINION optometrist, and support a person who wishes prevention. I would therefore guide you to a professional optometrist (when your Snellen is 20/50) to provide you with advice and support to clear your vision from that level. See: www.chinamyopia.org I can not say, "Improve myopia", since the true goal is to AVOID entry into myopia in the first place. It is my belief -- that is a -10 dioper parent will help his child in wearing a +3 dioper lens -- the child's refractive state will be maintained at zero or slightly positive, and will always PASS all legal visual acuity statdards that apply to her. The support of a second-opinion optometrist (who has his own children wearing the preventive plus) would be of great value to the mother and child at that point. At age 6, my ophthamologist told my parents that I was going to be nearsighed. How did he know that??? Simple, any child with a refractive state of zero, is almost certain to "move negaitve" in the confined visual environment of school. In retrospect, I would have PAID for professional advice concerning plus-prevention at that point. The WORST that might have happened -- is that I would have ignored the warning and refused to wear the plus (preventive) lens. And then, of course, the refractive state of my eyes would have moved negative -- as a natural process. (Exactly the same as the primate eyes -- under SCIENTIFIC TEST. Best, Otis > 1. The eye is dynamic. > 2. Thats why the minus lens should be avoided! [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Happy now? You got all the answers :) >Dear AceMan, > >Thanks for the complement. > >Ace> Otis is your friend Actually, he's a quack and a borderline personality. Right on there Neil Why this obsession with "pass the DMV"? Most people don't want to see 20/40, despite what you repeatedly keep saying. Please understand and absorb the fact that most people don't want to walk around seeing 20/40, or blowing off a -1.5 diopter prescription (sph or cyl) if they can wear glasses and see clearly. When corrected, I see 20/15 or slightly better, and I can tell when I'm not there. Doctors on this forum have indicated that this is not unusual (being picky). Please assimilate this information and stop acting like everyone is as un-demanding about their vision as you claim to be. Even if you guys had a way of getting nearsighted people to 20/40, it doesn't do all that much except keep some people from having to find their glasses to go to the bathroom at night. > By realizing the fundamental eye is dynamic and understanding the > impact a wretched, evil minus lens has on stair-case myopia, one can [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you dont and use the wretched minus lens, your eyes will get worse > year after year. >Why this obsession with "pass the DMV"? Most people don't want to see >20/40, despite what you repeatedly keep saying. Please understand and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >doesn't do all that much except keep some people from having to find >their glasses to go to the bathroom at night. If your *corrected* vision is as bad as Otis's is, then you have a built-in excuse for why you haven't read ALL THE SCIENCE that contradicts your position ;-) I've been puzzled about that too. When I did my first go round with soft multifocals about the best we could do for distance was 20/40 at one point. I was stunned. I felt barely functional. I did try driving (during the day) but felt *very* uncomfortable doing so. I went a couple of blocks, parked and took them out (presbyopia is what I need corrected - my distance script is around +1 or less). That vision was unacceptable to me. I can understand if one is only *correctable* to 20/40 then you could *legally* drive if necessary. But to have a goal of 20/40 not corrected so you can drive without correction seems pointless. In fact, I think if you do so you're self centered and irresponsible. If 20/40 has been determined to be the minimum safe limit I think it should only apply as best corrected attested by a doctor. Allowable uncorrected should be much more stringent. So I agree with you 100%. -Quick > Why this obsession with "pass the DMV"? Most people > don't want to see 20/40, despite what you repeatedly keep [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> the wretched minus lens, your eyes will get worse year >> after year. Dear AceMan, Subject: Thanks for the vote-of-confidence -- for the SECOND-OPINION OPTOMETRIST It is very clear, from the study of the dynamic primate eye, that we INDUCE a negative refractive STATE, because we have moved our visual "world" close to our eyes. Our eyes should be recognized to be dyanmic SYSTEMS, and have a WARNING stenciled on them -- excellent visual system, but this sytem controls its refractive STATE to its average visual environment (defined in DIOPTERS.) I think all parents should go through a tutorial on this subject PRIOR to their kids getting too deep into it. It is a major choice or "decision" for the parent -- but well worth the time THINKING about this issue. The choice will in fact have life-time consequences for the child. Prevention is not easy -- and I NEVER SAID IT WAS. But is it a matter of intelligent choice for the INFORMED parent -- as the second-opinion. Remember, there are now PREVENTION-MINDED ODs who have their kids wearing a +2 diopter lens -- because their refractive state is ZERO -- and they know that by the next exam -- the kids refractive STATE will be negative. www.chinamyopia.org Prevention means recognizing this fact -- and developing the intellect to support true-prevention. Best, Otis +++++++++++++++ > By realizing the fundamental eye is dynamic and understanding the > impact a wretched, evil minus lens has on stair-case myopia, one can [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > something needs to be done at the treshold or if you dont and use the > wretched minus lens, your eyes will get worse year after year. > It is very clear, from the study of the dynamic primate eye, that we > INDUCE > a negative refractive STATE, because we have moved our visual "world" > close to our eyes. This conclusion is not supported by the evidence. The evidence indicates that refractive error can be induced using strong lenses in certain species of young primates. > Our eyes should be recognized to be dyanmic SYSTEMS, and have a > WARNING stenciled on them -- excellent visual system, but this > sytem controls its refractive STATE to its average visual environment > (defined > in DIOPTERS.) Again, a conclusion based upon pure conjecture in order to promote an agenda. > I think all parents should go through a tutorial on this subject PRIOR > to their > kids getting too deep into it. OF COURSE. You would certainly like to be able to brainwash as many as you can get your hands on. > It is a major choice or "decision" for the parent -- but well worth the > time THINKING about this issue. The choice will in fact have > life-time consequences for the child. Prevention is not easy -- and > I NEVER SAID IT WAS. I wonder if walking around in concrete overshoes will prevent the foot from growing, thereby saving lifetime costs on shoes? > But is it a matter of intelligent choice for the INFORMED parent -- as > the second-opinion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is ZERO -- and they know that by the next exam -- the > kids refractive STATE will be negative. Of course, the kid has nothing to say about being a guinea pig. DrG > It is very clear, from the study of the dynamic primate eye, that we > INDUCE > a negative refractive STATE, because we have moved our visual "world" > close to our eyes. No, that conclusion is not supported by the primate studies. If human eyes behaved like primate eyes, there would be no myopes, as the system would self correct and myopia would not develop. Further, in the primate studies, as little as two hours a day of non near work prevented myopia induced by constant near work. If human eyes behave like primate eyes, the to induce myopia, a child would need to spend more than 22 hours/day doing near point work without ever looking up. Dr Judy >Dear AceMan, > >Subject: Thanks for the vote-of-confidence -- for the SECOND-OPINION >OPTOMETRIST Not many grown people would take much pride in a cheering section comprising Ace and Doogle and nobody else. >It is very clear, from the study of the dynamic primate eye, that we >INDUCE >a negative refractive STATE, because we have moved our visual "world" >close to our eyes. But you CAN'T answer these simple questions??? 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? >Our eyes should be recognized to be dyanmic SYSTEMS, and have a >WARNING stenciled on them -- excellent visual system, but this >sytem controls its refractive STATE to its average visual environment >(defined >in DIOPTERS.) Actually, you should sh.t-can the theory and pay attention to the evidence. It's much more compelling. very funny ace-troll. trying to stir up some crap on this forum for your personal pleasure huh? why don't you just go down in your bedroom and eat some mushrooms. your Daddy would be upset if he knew you were causing trouble again. ========= > By realizing the fundamental eye is dynamic and understanding the > impact a wretched, evil minus lens has on stair-case myopia, one can [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > something needs to be done at the treshold or if you dont and use the > wretched minus lens, your eyes will get worse year after year. |
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.