 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2006And you wonder why so many children ruin their eyes and become highly myopic?
http://www.babyart.org/store/en/articles/img220.jpg http://www.calvarycdc.com/cdc/images/gal_boy-w-glasses.gif Glasses at a young age and reading without taking your minus glasses off will led to stair-case myopia and your eyes will be really bad in short time. And you wonder why myopia is an epidemic! > http://www.babyart.org/store/en/articles/img220.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > off will led to stair-case myopia and your eyes will be really bad in > short time. And you wonder why myopia is an epidemic! I hate to be impolite, but you post absolute rubbish. What's your problem? DrG On 7/21/06 5:14 AM, in article 1153484042.696356.61000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: >> http://www.babyart.org/store/en/articles/img220.jpg >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > DrG I have yet to be convinced that acemanvx's view is indeed rubbish. I have seen the propaganda but not the evidence. DrB (not MD, OD etc) -- Ferme le Bush Dear Salmon, DrL expresses his OPINION -- that anyone who disagrees with his OPINION -- is rubbish. This includes all second-opinion people, scientists, medical doctors, other optometrists, engineers, pilots -- and anyone who questions putting a 3 year-old child with 20/50 -- into a -10 diopter minus lens. I suggest that we take time to UNDERSTAND the second-opinion, and the SCIENTIFIC reasons for it. Best, Otis > On 7/21/06 5:14 AM, in article > 1153484042.696356.61000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > DrB (not MD, OD etc) > -- Ferme le Bush > I suggest that we take time to UNDERSTAND the > second-opinion, and the SCIENTIFIC reasons for it. And I suggest you take time to find us a study where wearing glasses made myopia worse. Until you do, you're preaching myths as if they were fact. (I know - the studies were done but the results were suppressed by a vast optical conspiracy.) -MT > I have yet to be convinced that acemanvx's view is indeed rubbish. I have > seen the propaganda but not the evidence. You will search far and wide trying to find a study showing "staircase myopia" exists. I haven't found one yet, after 20 years of looking. Everything I've found (comparing those wearing full-time and those wearing part-time or not-at-all) shows it makes no real difference. Please tell us when you find otherwise. -MT On 7/21/06 10:27 AM, in article pOednTEb9LLkk1zZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote: >> I have yet to be convinced that acemanvx's view is indeed rubbish. I have >> seen the propaganda but not the evidence. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -MT There certainly is some experimental evidence with chickens and primates that indicate negative lenses induce myopia. While there may be no smoking gun with regard to negative lenses and human myopia, the implication has not been disproven either. I do not know how an ethical experiment using humans could be implemented. -- Ferme le Bush http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/eef72f749779a f1d/b8576d5a0c87f3eb?lnk=gst&q=this+guy+improved&rnum=5#b8576d5a0c87f3eb http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schw0709/stories/VisionTherapy.html Need I say more? *why* was he prescribed a minus lens? *Why* was I prescribed a minus lens? Why wasnt I told about the plus lens which could have cleared my vision like it worked for him???????? >While there may be no smoking > gun with regard to negative lenses and human myopia, the implication has not > been disproven either. I do not know how an ethical experiment using humans > could be implemented. > -- Ferme le Bush Perhaps you are unfamiliar with otis-troll and his minion aceman-troll. this topic is old and tired and has been discussed more in this forum than it is worth. the facts are CLEAR. there is CONSIDERABLE scientific evidence in HUMANS that myopia is not induced by minus lenses and that wearing glasses does not have any influence on the progression of refractive error. below I have posted a few for your reading. please look at these references-- its certain that Otis and Aceman won't. they don't care about evidence, their minds are made up and facts won't change them. BTW, myopia research has proven that animal models of myopia development are much different than the human system. this is a well known fact. you should look for a current review of the state of research on myopia development to get the facts you are looking for. == Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic progression. Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=6703013&query_hl=3 Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages from 7.38 to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over the power required to correct their myopia exactly. These 36 experimental subjects were matched by control subjects selected at random from the files of the Indiana University Optometry Clinics. The criteria used in matching were sex, beginning age, beginning refractive error, and duration of time covered by the record. The mean rate of change of refractive error for the experimental group was (minus indicating increase of myopia) -0.49 D/year (range, +0.37 to -1.95 D/year) on retinoscopy and -0.52 D/year (range, +0.21 to -1.32 D/year) on subjective refraction. The mean rate of change for the control group was -0.47 D/year (range, +0.06 to -2.03 D/year) on retinoscopy and -0.47 D/year (range, +0.28 to -1.72 D/year) on subjective refraction. Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly different. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that an overcorrected myope has a lower rate of increase of myopia than a myope wearing a conventional spectacle correction. ========================== Kushner BJ.(1999) Arch Ophthalmol. May 117(5):638-42. Does overcorrecting minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia cause myopia? http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/5/638 RESULTS: At the time of initial examination, the mean (+/-SD) refractive error was 0.00 +/- 1.40 diopters (D) in the control group, 0.00 +/- 1.50 D in the study group, and -0.10 +/- 1.50 D in the 5-year study group, all of which were essentially identical. Five years after initial examination, the mean change in refractive error was -1.40 +/- 2.80 D in the control group, -1.52 +/- 1.80 D in the 6-month treatment group, and -1.54 +/- 1.80 D in the 5-year treatment group. These differences in the change in refractive error (myopic shift) were not statistically significant (t test), and the differences are clinically unimportant. CONCLUSION: Overcorrecting minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia does not appear to cause myopia. ======================= Ong E, Grice K, Held R, Thorn F, Gwiazda J.(1999) Optom Vis Sci. 76(6):363-9. Effects of spectacle intervention on the progression of myopia in children. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1 0416930&dopt=Abstract (snip) Based on their wearing patterns, subjects were divided into four categories: (1) full-time wearers; (2) myopes who switched from distance to full-time wear; (3) distance wearers; and (4) nonwearers. Exponential functions were fit to the individual refraction data. The age of onset of myopia, the mean myopia at onset of spectacle wear, and the refractive shift over a period of at least 3 years were derived from these fits. Results show that the 3-year refractive shifts are not significantly different among the four groups. Although I older than I would like to admit, my brain is not yet fully converted into mush. The quoted stuff below is virtually impossible to understand because of its obfuscating style of writing, The technical content is not the problem. See my comments in the appropriate spot On 7/22/06 4:15 AM, in article 1153566932.230606.31650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "retinula" >> While there may be no smoking >> gun with regard to negative lenses and human myopia, the implication has not [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > known fact. you should look for a current review of the state of > research on myopia development to get the facts you are looking for. Why should they be? While there may be true developmental differences, explaining such differences would be of great scientific interest. > == > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > an overcorrected myope has a lower rate of increase of myopia than a > myope wearing a conventional spectacle correction. It is not clear to me whether overcorrecting means more negative or more positive power introduced into the eye's optical system. My inclination is that overcorrecting means algebraically smaller total power. Could it be that there is a limit to how fast an eye structure can change in response to a change in the refractive environment? That rate may be what is being measured. > ========================== > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia does not appear to > cause myopia. More gobbledegook. It looks like this jargon was written for optometry geeks. At first I though SD stood for left and right. Then I thought standard deviation. In the end, there was too much ambiguity what was said. I worked in optics for many years and have advanced degrees in engineering. > ======================= > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 3-year refractive shifts are not significantly different among the > four groups. More gobbledegook. Maybe the full papers are more useful than the abstracts, but that is all I have to go with. Bill -- Ferme le Bush it is clear from your remarks that you indeed do not understand what the articles are saying. of course there is nomenclature that you would be unfamiliar with. maybe it appears like gobbledegook to you but not to us. and "SD" is standard deviation in just about anyones terminology. so just take it from people who DO understand the research, minus lenses or eyeglasses DO NOT cause further worsening of vision. its been tested and statistically evaluated and found not to be true. somehow Otis thinks he is smarter than the entire worldwide community of optometrists, ophthalmologists, and vision researchers. he steadfastly holds that minus lenses cause staircase myopia even though he cannot produce even one centilla of scientific proof that it does. recently he has told me that his evidence comes from "thought experiments". that ought to tell you the kind of guy that we're dealing with! ======= > Although I older than I would like to admit, my brain is not yet fully > converted into mush. The quoted stuff below is virtually impossible to [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > Bill > -- Ferme le Bush On 7/22/06 11:01 AM, in article 1153591272.108870.103290@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "retinula" > it is clear from your remarks that you indeed do not understand what > the articles are saying. of course there is nomenclature that you > would be unfamiliar with. maybe it appears like gobbledegook to you > but not to us. and "SD" is standard deviation in just about anyones > terminology. Thinking optometry and noticing numbers that probably indicated diopters, I thought sinister and dextro which made little sense. I would have spelled out standard deviation at least once. I might have used "rms error" as a term. > so just take it from people who DO understand the research, minus > lenses or eyeglasses DO NOT cause further worsening of vision. its [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > experiments". that ought to tell you the kind of guy that we're > dealing with! I am not a defender of Otis, but I am not his enemy either. In a recent post seemed to think that peer review was key. As a retail consumer of science outside my purview, an invited review paper in Scientific American, American Scientist, or Physics Today is much more likely to change my thinking than obtuse papers in journals of the peers, by the peers, and for the peers. How many of those papers are used to publish instead of perish? Bill -- Ferme le Bush > I am not a defender of Otis, but I am not his enemy either. In a recent post > seemed to think that peer review was key. As a retail consumer of science > outside my purview, an invited review paper in Scientific American, American > Scientist, or Physics Today is much more likely to change my thinking than > obtuse papers in journals of the peers, by the peers, and for the peers. How > many of those papers are used to publish instead of perish? Scientific American has published a number of highly interesting articles about vision. But, they do not publish original papers. They simply obtain the information from outside sources and synthesize it and dress it up with outstanding graphics and artwork. But, hey, I once found some useful scientific information between the covers of the University of Chicago alumni magazine. Drg On 7/22/06 3:56 PM, in article 1153608984.124182.231820@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: > Scientific American has published a number of highly interesting > articles about vision. But, they do not publish original papers. They > simply obtain the information from outside sources and synthesize it > and dress it up with outstanding graphics and artwork. That is performing a useful service. I have used Scientific American articles for my personal education in lasers, optics, and nonlinear optics. Many professional papers are one-upmanship exercises intended more to impress than to educate. Several times, I have applied apparently unrelated knowledge gained from the Scientific American to my work. Bill -- Ferme le Bush > As a retail consumer of science > outside my purview, an invited review paper in Scientific American, American > Scientist, or Physics Today is much more likely to change my thinking than > obtuse papers in journals of the peers, by the peers, and for the peers. Then you are a "popular" scientist rather than someone who is a serious researcher. most important papers today are published in specialty journals like Vision Research, Experimental Eye Research, Investigative Ophthalmol., just to mention a few BASIC research journals-- there are many more and many more clinical journals as well. the experts in the field read these journals. they are preferred over the ones you mentioned. besides, the articles in those popular science journals are usually invited. just because you don't see anything about myopia prevention there doesn't mean there isn't significant valid science going on. i wonder what kind of science expert you are. > More gobbledegook. Maybe the full papers are more useful than the abstracts, > but that is all I have to go with. You're doing absolutely no good in shoring up your position. Just because I do not understand Stephen Hawking doesn' t make him an idiot. DrG On 7/22/06 3:59 PM, in article 1153609185.973790.74910@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: > You're doing absolutely no good in shoring up your position. Just > because I do not understand Stephen Hawking doesn' t make him an idiot. Richard Feynman considered it part of his scientific mission to explain complex scientific concepts to educated people. He was about as good as it gets in that endeavor. He spent many years fine tuning his explanations of quantum theory to make it understandable without dumbing it down to uselessness. I cannot say the same of modern explanations of string theory as exposited on PBS's Nova. Bill -- Ferme le Bush > Richard Feynman considered it part of his scientific mission to explain > complex scientific concepts to educated people. He was about as good as it > gets in that endeavor. He spent many years fine tuning his explanations of > quantum theory to make it understandable without dumbing it down to > uselessness. I cannot say the same of modern explanations of string theory > as exposited on PBS's Nova. I think this requires a prepared mind, and I am not so sure yours is prepared. DrG > On 7/21/06 10:27 AM, in article > pOednTEb9LLkk1zZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Mike Tyner" > <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote: snip > There certainly is some experimental evidence with chickens and primates > that indicate negative lenses induce myopia. While there may be no smoking > gun with regard to negative lenses and human myopia, the implication has not > been disproven either. I do not know how an ethical experiment using humans > could be implemented. > -- Ferme le Bush Almost all the animal studies you refer to involved using lenses to induce large amounts of myopic or hyperopic blur in neonatal animals in order to study how the visual system deals with congenital refractive error. They have little relevance to using lenses to compensate for existing refractive error in older humans. A limited number of animal studies have used correcting lenses on animals with refractive error, ie the lens power was chosen to compensate for the refractive error leaving the animal with residual myopic or hyperopic blur. In those studies, the lenses did not induce any further myopic change -- staircase myopia was not noted. Dr Judy On 7/23/06 9:49 AM, in article 1153673387.458056.282050@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Dr Judy" <mpace99@rogers.com> wrote: >> On 7/21/06 10:27 AM, in article >> pOednTEb9LLkk1zZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Mike Tyner" [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dr Judy After all these things are said my question is: Is there a peer reviewed review paper available that can be found in a typical college library explaining all of this? I would hope such paper would not drown the reader in jargon without defining terms. Bill -- Ferme le Bush > On 7/23/06 9:49 AM, in article > 1153673387.458056.282050@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Dr Judy" [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > typical college library explaining all of this? I would hope such paper > would not drown the reader in jargon without defining terms. For a detailed scientific but readable account, use PubMed to find J Wallman's article titled: Homeostasis of Eye Growth and the Question of Myopia Josh Wallman, and Jonathan Winawer On the PubMed site, click on CellPress, then chose Science Direct and you will be able to read the whole article on your computer. For a simple discussion try http://www.revoptom.com/osc/apr01/lesson_0401.htm Dr Judy "Dr Judy" <mpace99@rogers.com> wrote in news:1153763898.335496.286790 @i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > For a detailed scientific but readable account, use PubMed to find J > Wallman's article titled: > > Homeostasis of Eye Growth and the Question of Myopia > > Josh Wallman, and Jonathan Winawer I thought you'd like this one. It's a nice review, with a fair discussion. The biggest problem I can see is that nobody in this field categorizes the emmetropization process in chicks, and possibly in young monkeys, as a DEVELOPMENTAL process, as opposed the homeostatic emmetropization process that these folks keep assuming they're observing. I think its really an unfortunate blind spot, as it were.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > Is there a peer reviewed review paper available that can be found in a > typical college library explaining all of this? I would hope such paper > would not drown the reader in jargon without defining terms. There are textbooks in ophthalmology and optometry and non-clinical visual physiology but theyre full of jargon and p-values and SDs and stuff. Translated, they say glasses don't make enough difference that we should ponder the wisdom every time we prescribe the evil minus lens. These folks think in rates of change and regression and p-values and SDs and comparisons between groups, tools so reliable that the FDA bases their decisions about your medicines on the same process. One of my favorite HUMAN studies was Parssinen (Parssinnen?) et al.. don't have time to look it up.. That group found a humane way to evaluate the process, the "sensitivity" to glasses. They chose the most relevant group, 8+ year-olds, when they first begin showing symptoms. They evened-out the groups for gender and demographics and age, and the only "difference" between the groups in any rate of change With tools like SDs and p-values, over a period of three years or more, it's clear that none of the three patterns of wear made enough difference to matter. "Not enough difference to matter" was also the conclusion of the most recent bifocal study. COMET didn't address all possible test conditions, but it was carefully designed to humanely answer the question in the most relevant group: does it make any difference if we alleviate the effort of accommodation with bifocals? Not enough to matter, "clinically". That last term, like p-values, represents a rule-of-thumb level at which doctors should seriously anticipate such effects when they "force that child to wear the evil minus." Otis doesn't take long to reveal his logical processes. Save yourself the trouble, go to a medical library and look up the myopia chapter in Duane's Ophthalmology. Prolly a public library could borrow you a copy on CD. I find it wise to check every couple of years, because it changes and at least twice we have studies that showed the opposite of what you'd expect. So consensus grows around a "preponderance of evidence" and you nor I have enough experience to figure out all the ramifications of who-found-what so that's why we have textbooks. -MT > I have yet to be convinced that acemanvx's view is indeed rubbish. I have > seen the propaganda but not the evidence. And you choose to believe the propaganda? If you have a Ph.D., then you had to demonstrate your ability to do independent research, as well as a command of the literature. I suggest you use your abilities, get outside this group, and delve into the many published studies, and then you will more than likely come to the same conclusions that many of us share. Right, "doctor"? DrG On 7/22/06 5:00 AM, in article 1153569629.564281.118040@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: > And you choose to believe the propaganda? The propaganda I referred to is that produced by the optometry-industrial complex. And I do not believe that! Has there been an article in the Scientific American, American Scientist, Nature, Physics Today, or Science summarizing the effects of negative lenses on progressive myopia? These are not lightweight publications even though they cater to generally well educated readers as opposed to specialists. Bill -- Ferme le Bush > On 7/22/06 5:00 AM, in article > The propaganda I referred to is that produced by the optometry-industrial > complex. And I do not believe that! Try the optometry/ophthalmology/ARVO/visual sciences knowledge base. > Has there been an article in the Scientific American, American Scientist, > Nature, Physics Today, or Science summarizing the effects of negative lenses > on progressive myopia? These are not lightweight publications even though > they cater to generally well educated readers as opposed to specialists. Nope. Not to my knowledge. But, those aren't peer-reviewed, and they borrow their ideas from other sources -- namely the peer-reviewed literature. DrG On 7/22/06 10:19 AM, in article 1153588772.834224.267470@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: >> Has there been an article in the Scientific American, American Scientist, >> Nature, Physics Today, or Science summarizing the effects of negative lenses [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > borrow their ideas from other sources -- namely the peer-reviewed > literature. It is very difficult to get published in some of those listed. Often they publish invited papers. Nature may not require extensive peer review. But from my own knowledge, Nature published the first announcement of successful laser operation when the very peer reviewed Physical Review refused to accept a paper from Ted Maiman et al. -- Ferme le Bush > It is very difficult to get published in some of those listed. Often they > publish invited papers. Nature may not require extensive peer review. But > from my own knowledge, Nature published the first announcement of successful > laser operation when the very peer reviewed Physical Review refused to > accept a paper from Ted Maiman et al. Look, I'm really sorry that you are an engineer, but after all, people don't go to engineers for medical treatment. There is a branch of engineering called biomedical engineering, and I dare say a biomedical engineer would probably understand the jargon. Unfortunately, at some point you have to be able to read and understand the ophthalmic literature, because that is where the research is being reported. DrG On 7/22/06 3:53 PM, in article 1153608810.808734.193000@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: > Look, I'm really sorry that you are an engineer, but after all, people > don't go to engineers for medical treatment. There is a branch of > engineering called biomedical engineering, and I dare say a biomedical > engineer would probably understand the jargon. Unfortunately, at some > point you have to be able to read and understand the ophthalmic > literature, because that is where the research is being reported. Being a physician IS being an engineer. Incomplete scientific knowledge is applied to the art of medicine for the benefit of mankind. Bill -- Ferme le Bush > Being a physician IS being an engineer. Incomplete scientific knowledge is > applied to the art of medicine for the benefit of mankind. What a stretch. Both are technologists, I guess. DrG oh my god! perhaps you also give credence to Otis' conspiracy theories! do you produce your own data via "thought experiments" like Otis does? ---------- > The propaganda I referred to is that produced by the optometry-industrial > complex. And I do not believe that! Dear Egg, Retinula FORGETS to run FUNDAMENTAL experimets to determine if the natural eye is a dynamic system -- as expected. His thesis it that the NATURAL eye is not a dynamic system and THEREFORE, and fundamental eye MUST NOT CHANGE ITS REFRACTIVE STATE -- WHEN YOU PLACE A -3 DIOPTER LENS ON IT. But when you test a population of fundamental eyes -- where you have control of the "ENVIRONMENT -- (AVERAGE) then you can check to see if the natural living eye is a dynamic system (and not the box-camera optics) that Retinula was taught in OD school. Thus on a pure scientific level -- you check it out. You take a population of natural eyes. You measure the refractive STATE of all of them. Then you divide the group in half. Retinula "null hypothesis" it that, after you place a -3 diopter lens on the test group, NO CHANGE IN REFRACTIVE STATE WILL DEVELOP BETWEEN THE TEST AND CONTROL GROUPS. But when you run this test, using SCIENTIFIC PROTOCOLS, you will find that the -3 diotper TESTS GROUP will experience a change in refractive STATE by greater-than -2 diopters in 12 months. His response to pure-scientific testing of this nature??? He tells you to IGNORE ALL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, where he, Retinula, does not like the implication of the experimtal results. Some scientist. But further, plus-PREVENTION is indeed the second-opinion, in that optometrists have their own children wearing the plus (at a refractive STATE of zero) so that their kids will NEVER fail the Snellen. But that truly defines the the nature of the second-opinion -- which Retinula chooses to ignore. I personally choose to take science, and scientific results SERIOUSLY -- and ignore Retinul'a intellectully blind majority-opinion. Read: www.chinamyopia.org For details. Best, Otis > oh my god! > perhaps you also give credence to Otis' conspiracy theories! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The propaganda I referred to is that produced by the optometry-industrial > > complex. And I do not believe that! > Has there been an article in the Scientific American, American > Scientist, Nature, Physics Today, or Science summarizing the effects > of negative lenses on progressive myopia? These are not lightweight > publications even though they cater to generally well educated > readers as opposed to specialists. Thing is, they probably wouldn't bother including such an article unless it said that prescription glasses did, in fact, lead to more nearsightedness (staircase myopia, etc.). If this were not the case, the article wouldn't be all that interesting. -- > Has there been an article in the Scientific American, American Scientist, > Nature, Physics Today, or Science summarizing the effects of negative lenses > on progressive myopia? These are not lightweight publications even though > they cater to generally well educated readers as opposed to specialists. There has been a study, summarised at <http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/short_sightedness.asp>. It appeared to show that the eyesight of children with undercorrecting glasses deteriorated more rapidly than in those with the correct prescription. SignatureThe address in the Reply-To is genuine and should not be edited. See <http://www.realh.co.uk/contact.html> for more reliable contact addresses. On 7/22/06 1:26 PM, in article slrnec561k.pcl.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk, "Tony Houghton" <this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk> wrote: >> Has there been an article in the Scientific American, American Scientist, >> Nature, Physics Today, or Science summarizing the effects of negative lenses [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that the eyesight of children with undercorrecting glasses deteriorated > more rapidly than in those with the correct prescription. This summary is far from conclusive. It illustrates that there is no definitive answer yet. Bill -- Ferme le Bush > This summary is far from conclusive. It illustrates that there is no > definitive answer yet. I believe that we are close to a definitive answer, and it has been discussed here from time to time. Except every time it has been discussed, it gets buried under a ton of Otis bovine fertilizer. It is apparently too abstract for this group. But, the idea is seriously discussed in academic and continuing education settings for eye care professionals. Say, aren't you the guy who cannot quite grasp wavefront aberrometry, and who keeps referring to it as some sort of interferometry? DrG On 7/23/06 5:44 AM, in article 1153658659.167566.74860@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: >> This summary is far from conclusive. It illustrates that there is no >> definitive answer yet. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > discussed, it gets buried under a ton of Otis bovine fertilizer. It is > apparently too abstract for this group. If that truly is the case, why is there no optometrist or ophthalmologist taking it upon themselves to explain it to the educated population at large? Considering all the interest and money for Bates techniques and similar garbage, there should be plenty of interest for a such an exposition. > But, the idea is seriously discussed in academic and continuing > education settings for eye care professionals. If not carefully, such activity can be considered incestuous. > Say, aren't you the guy who cannot quite grasp wavefront aberrometry, > and who keeps referring to it as some sort of interferometry? I may be. Rather than separating the concepts of aberrometry and interferometry, I consider them to be aspects of the same underlying principles. Certainly, there is a long history of classifying aberrations according to the matching of wavefront distortions as measured by interferometry. Most often, these days, Zernicke matching is used. > DrG Bill -- Ferme le Bush Dear Bill, As I have mentioned -- the "show stoppers" are the: 1. Parents -- who do not what there child wearing a "preventive-plus". 2.The kids -- who will not "initially" understand the necessity of it, and 3. The M.O. OD who love to "impress" the kids, and parents with a strong minus -- implying that a minus lens has no effect on the refractive STATE of all fundamental eyes. Bill> This summary is far from conclusive. It illustrates that there is no definitive answer yet. Bill With the above issues RECOGNIZED and CLEARLY STATED, then your issue that "some issues are not completely resolved" -- can be resolved by the second-opinion parent -- who wishes to PROTECT his kids long-term distant vision, by INSISTING that his child (with a refractive STATE of zero) begin the habitual use of the preventive-plus at the threshold. Commiting his own child to the preventive-plus, means that he can help the parent UNDERSTAND the choice the parent can make for his child -- at the threshold. This is just common sense -- and "fair" practice. Just one man's opinion. Best, Otis > On 7/22/06 1:26 PM, in article > slrnec561k.pcl.this.address.is.fake@realh.co.uk, "Tony Houghton" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Bill > -- Ferme le Bush More bovine -- er, Otis fertilizer. I rest my case. DrG > Dear Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Bill > > -- Ferme le Bush More Majority-Opinion "I don't give a damm about your long-term vision", and the stair-case myopia that will be induced in your kid's refractive STATE -- when they begin wearing is all the time, as is often recommended. Remember this -- there are Optometrists who are respectul of the public's right to an INFORMED, competent second-opinion. I guess SOME will learn how to pay attention to objective scientifc facts that prove that the eye is a dynamic system, and responds as it does to an applied -3 diopter lens. (By going DOWN by -2 diopters in 12 months.) But that is indeed the reason for developing and using the preventive second-opinion. See: www.chinamyopia.org for details. Best, Otis ++++++++ > More bovine -- er, Otis fertilizer. I rest my case. > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > > Bill > > > -- Ferme le Bush But DrL insists that your read ONLY the majority-opinion literature. There is a second-opinion that, the fundamental eye is a dynamic sytem, and will change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters if you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye -- and keep it there 16/7 for one year. So make certain you read all the literature, and define the nature of the PREVENTIVE second-opinion. Just one man's opinion. Otis > > I have yet to be convinced that acemanvx's view is indeed rubbish. I have > > seen the propaganda but not the evidence. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > DrG > There is a second-opinion that, the fundamental eye is a dynamic > sytem, and will change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters if > you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye -- and > keep it there 16/7 for one year. Says Otis. By the way, when is the "minority opinion" going to issue its own journals and scientific body of knowledge? DrG >> http://www.babyart.org/store/en/articles/img220.jpg >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I hate to be impolite, but you post absolute rubbish. > What's your problem? Drugs, socially disfunctional, no self esteem, craving attention and recognition, ... etc. -Quick Dear AceMan, That is nothing -- compared to a recent report of a 3 year-old with 20/50 vision. The child was "judged" to be -10 diopters MYOPIC. So rather that allowing the child time to develop -- they PRESCRIBED a -10 diotper lens -- and insisted that the child START WEARING IT ALL THE TIME. >From the study of the primate eye -- is it clear that the eye's refractive STATE will "follow" an applied -3 diopter lens. (i.e., the refractive STATE of the -3 diopter group will change by -2 diopters -- if the -3 diopter is worn 16/7. It is hard to see why a child (at 20/50) would be put into a -10 diopter lens -- with no concern with the secondary risk of that action. I think the parent should have been informed of this issue -- and given a choice or option. But that never happened. Just one man's opinion. Best, Otis +++++++ > http://www.babyart.org/store/en/articles/img220.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > off will led to stair-case myopia and your eyes will be really bad in > short time. And you wonder why myopia is an epidemic! Dear AceMan, It is the total obliterating arrogance and associated ignorance of these majority-opinion ODs! I can acknowledge that if you have a person sitting in a chair, and can "wave" a strong minus lens and clear from 20/50 to 20/15 -- you can "impress" the hell out of them. But that simple act -- virtually guarantees stair-case myopia for that person. And worse, the loss of distant vision (from stair-case minus-lens use) will become permanent. This, therefore is a "choice" with life-time consequences. No one should plunge you into a strong minus -- until after you fully understand the consequences of that simple act. We (second-opinion) people on sci.med.vision can begin to adress that issue -- on a pure scientific level. When you start wearing that over-prescribed minus -- that is the last you are going to see of your distant vision -- for life. The scientific data profoundly proves the "risks" of that minus lens. (See Flitcroft Paper) The repeated posts by Retinula DENYING SCIENTFIC PROOF AND TRUTH -- are destructive on a pure-scientific level. There are PREVENTION ODs like Steve Leung. We must start a process of SUPPORTING men like him. Let us hope that when your children start to develop a negative refractive STATE -- you will be wise enough to start them into the plus at the threshold -- and avoid the stair-case. This is not easy, but it is possible. The decision and leadership will depend more on you -- than anyone else. It is also true that we must "change our ways" -- and that will include the idea that we START with the plus at the 20/50 level -- when it can be effective for true-prevention. Best, Otis > http://www.babyart.org/store/en/articles/img220.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > off will led to stair-case myopia and your eyes will be really bad in > short time. And you wonder why myopia is an epidemic! Bullshit! Please explain to us exactly where in the Flitcroft paper it shows that minus lenses induce myopia. Thats not what the paper is about at all. Would you like for me to give you references to publications where groups of people actually WERE given excessive minus lenses and shown to have NO DIFFERENCE in refractive error progression than groups given their exact refraction? Do you want me to give you a reference that shows that people who wore their minus prescription glasses full time, versus a similar group of people who wore their glasses only part-time(distance only), versus another group who didn't wear their glasses at all produced NO DIFFERENCE in refractive error progression between the groups. Oh how you long to have some real valid scientific studies to back you up. but all you have are misrepresented studies on emmetropization in animals, or your crazy interpretation of the Oakley-Young bifocal study on nearpoint esophores. Flitcroft is not helpful for you at all and what is most laughable is that you don't even realize it. Do you even read these scientific papers? I know they have big words that you don't understand but you should at least try. > The scientific data profoundly proves the "risks" of that minus lens. > (See Flitcroft Paper) acemanvx@yahoo.com schreef: > http://www.babyart.org/store/en/articles/img220.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > off will led to stair-case myopia and your eyes will be really bad in > short time. And you wonder why myopia is an epidemic! If so, why showing two URL's with kids wearing plus glasses? Jan (normally Dutch spoken) |
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.