 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2006Peer Reviewed Paper on Stair-case Myopia (Change of Refractive State)
PeerRev.txt Dear Bill, "You can recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his back." Beverly Rubik ] "New ideas are always criticized - not because an idea lacks merit, but because it might turn out to be workable, which would threaten the reputations of many people whose opinions conflict with it. Some people may even lose their jobs." Physicist, requested anonymity Subject: Peer Reviewed Paper on Stair-Case Myopia. When some of these majority-opinion ODs insist that there is no peer-reviewed discussion of stair-case myopia -- they are pulling the wool over your eyes. Here is one published paper considering the effect a minus lens has on the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye. Further when they "invent" the word "conspiracy" -- that his just false. Is the "second-opinion" a conspiracy??? Or for that matter, is the majority-opinion a conspiracy? Of course not -- but these M.O. would have you believe it is so. Here is the papers. Sorry, I don't have the full publication with figures. It would be a good review of these various subjects. Best, Otis PERGAMON -- VISION RESEARCH "A Model of the Contribution of Oculomotor and Optical Factors to Emmetropization and Myopia. D. I. Flitcorft Institute of Ophthalmology, University College Dublin, 60 Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Ireland Vision Research 38 (1998) 2869 - 2879 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. Graph, Figure 9, Shows the refractive STATE of the eye adjusting to both the near environment, and the "environment" made optically nearer by a minus lens. ----------------------------------------------------- DrL> Nope. Not to my knowledge. But, those aren't peer-reviewed, and they borrow their ideas from other sources -- namely the peer-reviewed literature. Bill> 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 On 7/23/06 10:24 AM, in article 1153675476.864126.249340@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "otisbrown@pa.net" > Subject: Peer Reviewed Paper on Stair-Case Myopia. If I remember, the next time I visit the LMU library near here, I will try to find the paper. I doubt that it will be available there. It might be available at UCLA. Even so, I doubt a 10 page paper would be an adequate review paper. A scientific American paper, with all the alleged limitations, is more likely to get my attention. Bill -- Ferme le Bush > On 7/23/06 10:24 AM, in article > 1153675476.864126.249340@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "otisbrown@pa.net" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Bill > -- Ferme le Bush Since you have established that your mind isn't likely to be changed by anything but a Scientific American Article, why are you here? To annoy the rest of us, perhaps? DrG > Since you have established that your mind isn't likely to be changed by > anything but a Scientific American Article, why are you here? To annoy > the rest of us, perhaps? > > DrG It's a public NG, if you don't like it, too damn bad. if you expect to read about myopia research in Scientific American, and thats the only thing that will "get your attention" then don't hold your breath. Scientific American is like the Reader's Digest of science publications. amateur scientist aren't you? ============ > On 7/23/06 10:24 AM, in article > 1153675476.864126.249340@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "otisbrown@pa.net" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Bill > -- Ferme le Bush So now Bill, with a Ph.D. -- is a amateur scientist. Do YOU have a Ph.D.??? Otis > if you expect to read about myopia research in Scientific American, and > thats the only thing that will "get your attention" then don't hold [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Bill > > -- Ferme le Bush Well at least optometrists are admitting near work causes myopia. This is what starts the fire. The wretched minus glasses is the fuel that feeds the fire. Dear AceMan, I would say that we should recognize that the fundamental eye is a dynamic system, and will change its refractive STATE, from "plus" to "minus" if you: 1. Move the "environment" nearer -- (in terms of diopters). 2. And same thing for an applied -3 diopter lens. Thus I RESPECT all fundamental eyes as DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, and test for this EXPECTED responsed. While the result is the same, the concept is profoundly different. In effect, you recognize that there ar ENGINEERING LIMITS to the way you use this sophisticated, auto-focused camera. Our problem is that we think we can do ANYTHING WE WANT TO DO WITH OUR EYES -- with no effect on our refractive STATE. And that is just WRONG. But this work ACCEPTS the dynamic-eye paradigm, and rejects the concept that the eye can be represented or analyized as a "frozen" box-camera. That was just a simplistic theory -- that does not stand the light of day (fundamental scientific analysis). I know we disagree on the words we use to describe the eye -- and the ASSUMPTIONS of those words. But the reality is that the fundamental eye proves-out to be a dynamic system. What this means (in the long run) is that it WILL BE POSSIBLE TO PREVENT the development of a negative refractive STATE -- but the person himself must "wise up" to these issues. And that is why we are discussing paradigm-analysis of the living, fundamental eye. Best, Otis > Well at least optometrists are admitting near work causes myopia. This > is what starts the fire. The wretched minus glasses is the fuel that > feeds the fire. Otis, where have you published this work on human subjects? DrG > Dear AceMan, > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > is what starts the fire. The wretched minus glasses is the fuel that > > feeds the fire. Dear Majority-Opinion "L", > Otis, where have you published this work on human subjects? I have presented this data concerning the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye -- again, and again, and again. And you CHOOSE to totally IGNORE ALL OF IT -- preferring your misconceptsions and your ignorance of it. I am not going to repeat it. But I would suggest to AceMan, that he seriously study your preferred ignorance of the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye -- and plan to support his own child with plus-prevention -- as the second-opinion. We know that your OPINION is that the fundamental eye is NOT DYNAMIC, and that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACITVE STATE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE. On a pure-scientific level -- your null hypothesis is proven false. AceMan can take it from there -- when his children develop a slight negative STATE, of -1 diotpers (and a Snellen of 20/50). It is a difficult choice, because NEGLECT and the minus lens are so much easier. But that will be EXCLUSIVELY AceMan's choice -- for his kids. I hope he makes a wise (preventive) decision. Based on SCIENCE, and not your de-construction of SCIENCE. Best, Otis > DrG > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > > is what starts the fire. The wretched minus glasses is the fuel that > > > feeds the fire. > Dear Majority-Opinion "L", Dear Otis: You talk about young chickens and young monkeys, but nothing about human subjects that supports anything at all about your theories and treatments. You cannot get from A to B, except in your own imagination. And I'm supposed to do what? Change my clinical practices because of your fantasies? Get a grip on reality, man. DrG > Dear Majority-Opinion "L", > >> Otis, where have you published this work on human >> subjects? > I am not going to repeat it. Oh, that's convenient? You weren't asked to repeat it, just point to it. A huge reply but too much trouble for one line to say where it is? > But I would suggest to AceMan, that he seriously study > your preferred ignorance of the dynamic behavior of the > fundamental eye -- So you're not going to tell Ace either? He should study "preferred ignorance" rather than the "work" itself? How will he know what to do? -Quick > Otis, where have you published this work on human subjects? > > DrG ... He published it in a peer-reviewed forum called sci.med.vision - the problem is, it was rejected by his peers, due partly to overcapitalisation and the misuse of quotation marks. Dom nice theory. its an old theory which seemed rational a few decades ago. unfortunately the real-life data on humans does not agree. so when the data doesn't agree with the theory then the theory is incorrect. or its a conspiracy! ===== > Dear AceMan, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thus I RESPECT all fundamental eyes as DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, > and test for this EXPECTED responsed. yes, and an OD > So now Bill, with a Ph.D. -- is a amateur scientist. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > Bill > > > -- Ferme le Bush Gee, ya think that Flitcroft and others must might have changed their minds since 1998? Unlike Otis, who seems stuck in a time warp of badly outdated ideas, some people do re-evaluate their positions based on new data. DrG > PeerRev.txt > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > -- Ferme le Bush Dear Myopia-avoidance friends, Yes, and indeed some second-opinion optometrists do re-evaluate the drivel they were taught in OD school, to the effect that the fundamental eye is NOT DYNAMIC, and that a -3 diopter lens has no effect on the refractive STATE of the eye. They EVALUATE PURE SCIENTIFIC TESTS. They then realize, that we INDUCE a negative refractive STATE because of the long-term requirements of or civilization. i.e., they will not use a minus knee-jerk prescription ON THEIR OWN CHILDREN. It is DrL who is stuck in the "time-warp" since he is using the "analytic method" developed by Johann Kepler, 400 years ago -- to evaluate the negative refractive STATE he developed whilest spending 16 years evaluating the circular orbit of Mars -- and finally determining its true path. It is DrL who is living in the past -- and refuses to look at ANY EXPERIMENTAL DATA that disproves the ASSUMPTIONS of his practice. Enjoy, Otis > Gee, ya think that Flitcroft and others must might have changed their > minds since 1998? [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > > > -- Ferme le Bush I disagree with Otis's theories and think he's a tad over the wall, but he does have the right to post. > I disagree with Otis's theories and think he's a tad over the wall, but > he does have the right to post. I never questioned anybody's *right* to post, just their motivations for posting one line insults. DrG > It is DrL who is living in the past -- and refuses to > look at ANY EXPERIMENTAL DATA that disproves > the ASSUMPTIONS of his practice. Dear Prevention-Minded Rational Friends: Since when have I held up a study published more than 20 years ago, like the Young-Oakley study on myopes with nearpoint esophoria that forms the foundation of Otis' thinking? This field is rapidly changing, and if you haven't kept up with the work that has been ongoing within the past couple of years, your knoweldge is fairly obsolete. Yet, Otis blindly bats away anything that challenges his stubbornly held preconceived notions that were formed nearly 3 decades ago, and have not undergone any alteration since. DrG Otis, you aren't avery critical thinker are you? i've laughed over your interpretation of the Oakley-Young study, and now you barely understandable post suggests that this article by Flitcroft supports the notion of staircase myopia. it does nothing of the sort. its a theoretical paper that associates nearwork with myopia-- an association that is well-known and pretty much accepted by most vision researchers and eye doctors. here is the abstract for everybody else to read and see Otis's stupidity and propensity to misinterpret and misrepresent. == A model of the contribution of oculomotor and optical factors to emmetropization and myopia. Flitcroft DI. Vision Res. 1998 Oct;38(19):2869-79.. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College Dublin, Ireland. The purpose of this work was to investigate quantitatively the interactions between accommodation, vergence and a mechanism of emmetropization driven by optical blur within the retinal image with a view to developing a model that provides an explanation of both normal emmetropization and near-work associated myopia. The simulations of the change in the refractive state of the eye over time that derive from this model indicate that optical regulation of eye growth can result in emmetropization, i.e. a progressive reduction in refractive errors over time leading towards emmetropia. This occurs when viewing conditions involve a preponderance of distance work. With increasing near work, the model predicts that the refraction of the eyes will converge towards myopia. In keeping with the previously reported associations of myopia with esophoria, poor accommodation function and high AC/A ratios, these conditions increase the amount of myopia produced under intensive near viewing conditions but do not lead to myopia during mainly distance viewing. This model provides quantitative validation of the hypothesis that the epidemiological association between myopia and increased nearwork may be caused by a disturbance of normal emmetropization by steady state errors of accommodation. The same model can explain normal emmetropization, increasing myopia with increasing nearwork demands and the currently recognised oculomotor associations that have been reported to precede the development of myopia. ======================================== > PeerRev.txt > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > -- Ferme le Bush Sounds like the abstract is saying that myopia is likely to decrease or disappear if you spend most of your time outside. Do I read that right? Yet the eyes are not fooled by plus lenses somehow. > Otis, you aren't avery critical thinker are you? i've laughed over > your interpretation of the Oakley-Young study, and now you barely [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > > > -- Ferme le Bush -- Dear Charles, Provided we are talking about a negative refractive STATE of the fundamental eye -- and the person NEVER wore a minus lens (at about 20/50), then the implication is that completely ENDING all near enviroment (physically, or with a plus lens) will result in the NATURAL eye slowly changing its refractive STATE in a positive direction. At least that is what tests of the dynamic natural eye show. Best, Otis > Sounds like the abstract is saying that myopia is likely to decrease or > disappear if you spend most of your time outside. Do I read that right? [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > -- the Flitcroft paper doesn't say that at all! that is YOUR assumptions and YOUR bullshit that you are trying to weave into the meaning of the paper. the paper describes a quantitative theoretical model that predicts how nearwork, accommodative dysfunction, and retinal blur appear to contribute changes in refractive state. And somehow you manage to spin that into saying it proves staircase myopia!?! what an idiot you are. when you die your brain needs to be preserved so the exact nature of your pathology can be studied. ################################################### > Dear Charles, > [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > > > -- > Subject: Peer Reviewed Paper on Stair-Case Myopia. Yes, it is a peer reviewed article that speaks to staircase myopia, but presents absolutely no physiological data, and thus provides no evidence, for or against. Flitcroft also discusses the issues as an adult: "The impact of spectacle correction on the development and progression of myopia is a controversial area in part due to the lack of data on the impact of spectacle wear on myopia progression in humans [13,23]. In view of increasing animal evidence that lenses can alter ocular growth, this is an important area for study." I don't many here disagree with that. If I were refereeing this, I would ask for a treatment on development vs. growth issues, and for citation of more recent studies (1998 was a while ago), some of which put a damper on the idea. Now, if you want to behave as a scientist would, you would go to some electronic version of Science Citation Index, find the 34 papers that cite this Flitcroft paper, read them, digest them, and present the findings in a way that acknowledges both sides of the story. For a start, you might try Wallman J, Winawer J Homeostasis of eye growth and the question of myopia NEURON 43 (4): 447-468 AUG 19 2004  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > PeerRev.txt > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Here is one published paper considering the effect a minus > lens has on the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye. snip Your usual great job at wool pulling, Otis. As always, you quote a study as a basis for your ideas when the study in question has nothing to do with them. Here is the actual abstract about the article, nowhere does it mention the effect of minus lenses nor is it about "staircase myopia" The article is an hypothesis regarding why emmetropization fails to correct myopia in children with esophoria and accommodation anomalies who do a lot of near work. It is a model and hypothesis only, no actual experiment with humans wearing or not wearing plus or minus was done. Whether the hypothesis proves true will depend on the results of experiments with live subjects. Dr Judy "The purpose of this work was to investigate quantitatively the interactions between accommodation, vergence and a mechanism of emmetropization driven by optical blur within the retinal image with a view to developing a model that provides an explanation of both normal emmetropization and near-work associated myopia. The simulations of the change in the refractive state of the eye over time that derive from this model indicate that optical regulation of eye growth can result in emmetropization, i.e. a progressive reduction in refractive errors over time leading towards emmetropia. This occurs when viewing conditions involve a preponderance of distance work. With increasing near work, the model predicts that the refraction of the eyes will converge towards myopia. In keeping with the previously reported associations of myopia with esophoria, poor accommodation function and high AC/A ratios, these conditions increase the amount of myopia produced under intensive near viewing conditions but do not lead to myopia during mainly distance viewing. This model provides quantitative validation of the hypothesis that the epidemiological association between myopia and increased nearwork may be caused by a disturbance of normal emmetropization by steady state errors of accommodation. The same model can explain normal emmetropization, increasing myopia with increasing nearwork demands and the currently recognised oculomotor associations that have been reported to precede the development of myopia." |
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.