Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2006
Correction for Mike Tyner on S. Colgate Statement.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
otisbrown@pa.net - 17 Dec 2006 20:16 GMT Mike,
Please understand the following.
1. I support the Wildsoet dynamic-eye paradigm, versus the forzen eye pardigm of Doners-Helmholtz.
2. I support the concept of plus-prevention but ONLY at the threshold. In my opinion is can be prevented AT THE THE THRESHOLD. Once you start wearing an over-prescribed minus, your eyes "adjust" to that minus (as per the dynamic-eye paradigm), and your eyes continue down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. (Oakley-Young study).
3. Once you START with that minus, and that rate is "set-up" your distant vision becomes a "lost cause", or for the rest of your life.
4. My site argues for vision-CLEARING from 20/70 to 20/40 or better. (Or approximately -1.0 diopters for 20/70).
5. I recommend that the person check his sellen BEFORE he goes to a medical individual. I support the medical check, looking for all medical problems with the retina.
6. But I think that the parents should understand this preventive second-opinion. It is obvious from Catman's (Grants) remarks that any prevention-minded parents will have to avoid Grant and his obvious hostility towards plus-prevention, and find a SUPPORTIVE optometrist like Steve Leung.
Thus, I consider this a critical choice for a parent and child -- and too critical to rely on the "attitude" of a person like Grant.
With that said, let me correct your following assumption about Dr. Colgate's vision-clearing.
============
> I can understand how using plus lenses might not improve > existing myopia. Mike> But that's exactly what Stirling Colgate did, according to Otis, something like 6 diopters of it.
Otis> This is completely false. Dr. Colgate stated that he was pleased to catch his vision at 20/70 (about -1 diopter) and SLOWLY clear his vision back to normal.
Otis> Dr. Colgate's book is on my site FOR FREE. I suggest you read it to be clear on that point.
Mike> When a 14-year-old "recovers" from 6 or more diopters of myopia, the most likely explanation (other than diabetes) is that the myopia was due to excess accommodation, not axial length.
Otis> As per the Oakly-Young study, I believe that it can only be PREVENTED at the threshold. These kids at age 5 will have a refractive STATE of zero to +1/4 diopter. As they enter school, their refractive STATE follows the AVERAGE value of accommodation (as a dynamic system). When their refractive STATE is negative, at about -1 diopter, they get an over-prescribed minus, which they are told to wear all the time. This creates a "world" that is no farther than 1 meter from their eyes. Now their eyes take that first step in "stair-case" myopia. It is by this process that you get a -6 diopter myope in about 12 years of school.
Functional myopia would respond to "relaxation" techniques. Anatomical myopia would not.
Otis> The real issue is whether the person will work on vision-clearing at that -1 dipoter (20/70 level) or not. That becomes a choice with life-time consequences for the person who even STARTS with the minus.
> The question is: Can positive lenses prevent eye anatomy from > becoming even more myopic? That is, can it prevent the eyeball > from lengthening the way it happens to many bookworms? Otis> BINGO! Also review the Wildsoet paradigm to understand how this happens.
There are several studies that test this question directly or indirectly, and almost all of them indicate that plus lenses, or reading without glasses, or bifocals make no real difference in the progress of myopia.
Otis> After you even BEGIN wearing that minus, and your eyes "adapt" to is -- I agee the cause is lost.
Mike> If it worked, they'd all show pronounced differences between experimental and control groups.
Otis> It works if the person himself has the motivation to BEGIN the use of the plus before the minus, and will moitor the child's Snellen the way that he did. But that by-passes you completely, and it is obvious why that step was necessary.
They don't, in fact sometimes it goes the other way - full correction and full-time wear seem more preventative than "undercorrection" (a form of "plus".)
"..myopic progression is connected with much use of the eyes in reading and close work and with short reading distance but .. progression cannot be
reduced by diminishing accommodation with bifocals or by reading without spectacles."
-MT
============
Just remember, I only advocate that the parents be informed of the prevetive choice before that first minus is applied.
Best,
Otis
Salmon Egg - 17 Dec 2006 20:39 GMT On 12/17/06 12:16 PM, in article 1166386606.206797.321330@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "otisbrown@pa.net"
> 1. I support the Wildsoet dynamic-eye paradigm, versus the > forzen eye pardigm of Doners-Helmholtz. I would expect that our military would be very interested in any phenomena associated with progressive myopia and its prevention or reversal. In particular, I would expect the Air Force to be particularly concerned about pilots' vision. What research has USAF sponsored along these lines? Do they merely take "experts'" opinions at face value?
Bill -- Fermez le Bush
Neil Brooks - 17 Dec 2006 20:51 GMT > On 12/17/06 12:16 PM, in article > 1166386606.206797.321330@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "otisbrown@pa.net" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pilots' vision. What research has USAF sponsored along these lines? Do they > merely take "experts'" opinions at face value? Beyond that, the National Academy of Sciences has looked into this issue quite thoroughly:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/1420.html#toc
Almost everything in this work directly contradicts Otis's "assertions," "citations," "conclusions," "quotations," and "assumptions." It boggles the mind.
The publication itself makes for interesting and informative reading, though....
otisbrown@pa.net - 18 Dec 2006 03:14 GMT Dear Bill,
I heard this as a "story" -- but one optometrist went to the commodant of the Air Force Academy and suggested the possibility of runing a plus-preventive study.
He was told that he would run "medical" study of prevention over the commadant's dead body.
End of story,
Otis
> On 12/17/06 12:16 PM, in article > 1166386606.206797.321330@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "otisbrown@pa.net" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Bill > -- Fermez le Bush CatmanX - 18 Dec 2006 09:33 GMT Once again your stupidity astounds me.
An optometrist went to the head of an Air Force Academy.......
There once was an optometrist that worked for the Air Force. His name was Colonel Roy Rengstorff. He did studies on myopia prevention in military personell by using bifocals.
His statistical analysis found quite conclusively that bifocals reduced myopia in all the bifocal wearing group and that the control group continued to deteriorate.
The only problem was that when you looked at the raw data, every one of the bifocal wearers got worse. The statistical analysis gave false results.
This only goes to prove the veracity of the addage: Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Now there is a new saying: Stupid, really f.cking stupid, then there is Cletis.
dr grant
otisbrown@pa.net - 18 Dec 2006 03:28 GMT Dear Bill,
In fact we have prepared a proposal of this nature. See:
http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/Embry.html
This follows the leadership of the Oakley-Young study, where the single-minus group went down at -1/2 diotper per year, while the "plus" group did not go down.
The only issue is to run the study as an "open" scientific study rather than a "medical" study.
Thus the entering student would have to have the intelligence and WILL POWER of Stirilng Colgate, and would have to receive detailed instructions as to the correct use of the plus lens.
This would preclude the possibility that effective prevention could ever be a "blind" study.
But, given the education of the person (knowledge of science and the history of the "problem", I think that a highly motivated pilot could understand the engineering and scientific analysis, and the dynamic-eye paradigm to conduct an effective PREVENTIVE and vision-clearing study.
Best,
Otis
> On 12/17/06 12:16 PM, in article > 1166386606.206797.321330@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "otisbrown@pa.net" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Bill > -- Fermez le Bush otisbrown@pa.net - 18 Dec 2006 03:34 GMT And of course, where the individual is "bright" and able to "figure it out", and get is own plus lens, he can clear his distant vision as this student did:
http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/august20.html
But of course he was not under "control" of these majority-opinion optometrists either who insist that vision-clearing from 20/70 (-1 dipoter) is IMPOSSIBLE.
Best,
Oits
> On 12/17/06 12:16 PM, in article > 1166386606.206797.321330@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "otisbrown@pa.net" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Bill > -- Fermez le Bush Dr. Leukoma - 18 Dec 2006 12:45 GMT > But of course he was not under "control" of these > majority-opinion optometrists either who insist > that vision-clearing from 20/70 (-1 dipoter) > is IMPOSSIBLE. You would appear to be describing one of the members of your plus lens/pseudomyopia cult. To think that I exert some form of "control" over my patients can only be described as some sort of paranoid ideation.
DrG
otisbrown@pa.net - 18 Dec 2006 03:40 GMT But, it is essential that the entering student at Annapolis, West Point or the U. S. Air Academy have an accurate understanding of the fact that the eye goes "down" at a rate of -1/3 diopter per year at these academies -- as he would enter into a plus-preventive study. See below
++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: How Can You Predict Nearsightedness Development at a Four Year College?
Re: A question from Sci.med.vision. Otis -- If a person is slightly myopic (20/25) at the time they reach college (the USAF Academy) what are the chances that he will become more nearsighted from the required reading load? Has the USAF run any experiments to find out about this nearsightedness change in their personnel? Bill.
REFERENCES
1. Reynolds Hayden, M.D., "Development and Prevention of Myopia at the United States Naval Academy", Volume 25, (old series Volume 82), Number 4., The American Medical Association.
2. Gmelin, Maj. Robert T., MSC, USA, "Myopia at West Point: Past and Present." Military Medicine, 141 (8) 542-3
Dear Bill,
Let me rephrase your question as follows. If you know the refractive status of an "entering" student, can you predict the resultant refractive state after four years? The refractive status is easily measured with a trial-lens kit.
Once you know a person's refractive status you can predict the resultant status change (degree of nearsightedness after four years in college.
If you check the person's focal status, and find it to close to "zero" or "plano", on entry, (20/20) -- then what is the probability that that person will retain 20/20 for the four years.
The probability is about one percent -- as stated by Dr. Hayden, and confirmed by a study at West Point. (References 1 and 2)
Note: The natural eye can have a negative or positive refractive status depending on the visual environment. A positive status is called "hyperopia" or "hypermetropia" and a negative status is called "myopia", "nearsightedness".
Here is the information that I have on your question about "base-line data" concerning the behavior of the natural healthy eye at the Naval Academy.
OVER-ALL SYNOPSIS OF THESE MILITARY STUDIES OF THE EYE'S DOWNWARD MOVEMENT WHILE IN A FOUR YEAR COLLEGE.
The studies of military cadets in the United States have shown that their vision changes over the years of their academic work. Records reveal that a large percentage of the cadets (39% of those at the U.S. Military Academy in 1956) [2] became nearsighted and needed a negative lens by graduation. Further, of those who developed 20/25 vision, only one percent recovered to 20/20 over the four years, [1].
In early years the cause of their degraded vision not known, and later, on any number of factors wear speculated, but the upshot of these studies was that none of these circumstance were really behind the cadet's loss of visual acuity.
The development of nearsightedness (negative change of focal state) was a result of the fact that the natural eye controls its focal state to its average visual environment. Roughly, that is looking close, studying, reading, looking at books, for long periods of time -- rather than at distant objects.
SUMMARIZED STATEMENTS FROM DR. HAYDEN, REFERENCE 1
"...For many years the high incidence of myopia which developed among midshipmen after admission to the United States Naval Academy with supposedly normal vision was a cause of serious concern to all those interested."
Dr. Hayden stated that many methods and efforts were made to "save" the men with previously perfect vision.
"...and by retaining may of them (who became nearsighted) in the Naval Academy for one to three years in the hope that their vision would improve."
"...In the vast majority of cases their vision did not improve, and the midshipmen was forced to leave the naval service after two to four years in the Naval Academy. Experience showed that only about one percent of such men had 20/20 on their final physical examination."
[In summary -- if their focal status became even SLIGHTLY negative (20/25) they had virtually no chance of clearing their distant vision to 20/20. At that time there was no attempt to offer systematic use of a strong plus lens for the purpose of recovery and prevention. Otis Brown]
"...Furthermore, an excessive number of junior line officers were being retired because of defective vision, and the records showed that the vision of 3/4 of these had become defection defective (negative status, vision less than 20/20 for each eye) at the Naval Academy."
"...Any candidate, however, who if found to have any degree of myopia following the use of a cycloplegic, even -0.12 or -0.25 diopters is rejected."
[There are two methods of measuring refractive status of the natural eye, eye chart and induced paralysis or cycloplegia. They produce slightly different values for the refractive status of the eye. OSB]
NECESSITY OF A POSITVE REFRACTIVE STATUS (HYPEROPIC RESERVE) ON ENTRY AS DEFINED BY DR. HAYDEN
[I have paraphrased this rather long section. OSB]
A review of the refraction of the eye of candidates at the time of preliminary entry physical examination showed that the great majority of candidates whose refraction was of the plano-type, (refractive state 0.0) to +0.25 diopters).
At the first year their examination a significant number would show that they had myopia.
Occasionally a candidate who showed as much as +0.5 diopters "hyper-metropia" on preliminary physical examination was found to have become -0.25 diopters of myopia in the first year.
DR. HAYDEN STATES THAT EMMETROPIA IS NOT NORMAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS
[EMMETROPIA IS DEFINED AS NORMAL OR PERFECT BASED ON THE DONDERS-HELMHOLTZ CONCEPTUALIZATION -- OSB]
"...As is well known, the emmetropic eye is for practical purpose is an abnormal eye -- the great majority of persons with so-called normal vision being actually hyper-metropic. Those candidates, then, whose refraction was of the plano (emmetropic -- focal status exactly zero) had borderline conditions definitely on the way to myopia. For all practical purposes, experience here has shown that patients with +1/4 diopters of hyper-metropia are in the same class."
"In view of the experience at the Naval Academy during the past three years as described, it is evident that a reserve of preferably one diopter or at least 1/2 diopter is necessary at the time of preliminary refraction to be reasonably sure that the candidate will pass his physical examination for admission."
"Furthermore, in order to be reasonably sure of being visually qualified for a commission in the line of the Navy after four years at the Naval Academy -- it is necessary that the student have a reserve (positive refractive status) of at least one diopter of hyper-metropia at the time of admission."
"Of course, an occasional candidate will +1/4 to +1/2 diopter of hypermetropia at the time of admission will survive visually after four years and receive a commission, but that is exceptional."
DR. HAYDEN THEN DISCUSSES ATROPINE A DRUG FOR INDUCING PARALYSIS FOR PURPOSE OF MEASUREMENT.
He details the loss of people in various classes who were "emmetropic" (focal state zero) on entry, using various drugs and percentage mixtures of those drugs. It was hoped that different drugs would produce better results and these emmetropic eyes could be "saved". However the drug of choice for measurement and the results were the same.
DR. HAYDEN PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF ILLUMINATION LEVELS AND EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THESE LEVELS, BUT CONCLUDED THAT THIS HAD NO EFFECT.
CONCLUSION BY DR. HAYDEN
"It is considered that during the past three years the Naval Academy has definitely proved the necessity of midshipmen having a "hyperopic reserve" of at least one diopter at the time of admission to the Naval Academy, and of their meeting the present visual requirements if the visual standards of the Naval are to be maintained."
"...Any candidate having less than 1/2 diopter of hyper-metropia at the time of a preliminary ocular refraction should be informed that, while visually qualified at the time, he has a borderline condition which may progress to a low degree of myopia by the time he takes his physical examination for admission to the Naval Academy, and may therefore be rejected."
"Any candidate having from 1/2 to one diopters of hypermetropia at the time of a preliminary ocular refraction should be informed that, while he should pass the physical examination for entrance to the Naval Academy, he stands no better than an even chance of visually obtaining a commission in the line of the Navy on graduation."
__________________________
The Gmelin Report
Selected items:
In the report by Maj McKenney "A Study of Refractive Trends at West Point", he concluded:
1. Pseudo-myopia during periods of stress associated with studying may result in blurred vision in cadets with little hyperopic reserve **
** [Their refractive status was very close to zero]
2. The average increase in myopia was -1.37 diopters (the range being -1.12 diopters through -1.62 diopters).
3. 39 percent of the graduating class (1956) has less than 20/20 vision at graduation
4. Recommendation that the visual standard remain unchanged -- that hyperopia over +2.0 diopters and myopia over -1.5 diopters should be cause for ENTRANCE disqualification.
** The natural eye changes its refractive status in a negative at a rate of -1/3 diopter per year (where accurate records are maintained) in a four year college.
***********************
Note 1: All these men had healthy retinas. All retinas had the capability of resolving 5 minute-of-angle targets at 20 feet. Their natural eye's behaved as expected. The controlled their focal state to the visual environment. For this reason an "undesired" focal state does no indicate an "organic defect" or words to that effect. For that reason I use the term focal state so their is no confusion in your mind about that point.
Note 2: The words emmetropia and ametropia were introduced by Donders. Donders took the focal states of the normal eye to be DEFECTS of the eye. Any non-zero focal state of the eye was, by definition, a defect (ametropia). A focal state of EXACTLY zero was defined as "normal". Under this definition, very few, if any, animals or humans have eyes that are normal!
_______________________________________________________
The Gmelin Summary:
After a century of investigation, it has been established that the cadets at the United States Military Academy become progressively myopic (or less hyperopic) ** during their four years of education. Still to be accomplished however, is an in-depth study of myopia progression and prevention among these USMA Cadets.
Dear Friends,
Subject: 99 percent go "down" at West Point.
MikeT> If you believe one percent survives four years without negative refractive change, then you believe 99% DID experience negative refractive change.
MikeT> Is that how you arrived at 99%?
Otis> It turns out that your are correct.
Otis> Mike -- Actually 100 percent nearsighted got worse. Thus your 99 percent was not accurate -- it was 100 percent. No one "improved" to 20/20.
Otis> Here are the figures for those cadets who are nearsightednss at West Point -- who were nearsighted on entry.
__________________________________________________
Gmelin: Myopia at West Point: Past and Present Military Medicine, 141 (8) 542 - 3 Aug 76
2. The average increase in myopia was -1.37 diopters (the range being -1.12 diopters through -1.62 diopters (over four years).
Otis> Always glad to "correct" your 99 percent got worse to 100 percent for those who were nearsighted at West Point.
Best,
Otis
_______________________
Otis> Are you just playing dumb? I stated that the POPULATION AVERAGE moves "down" at a rate of -1/3 diopter per year.
MikeT> Yes, but you also "stated":
> Otis> It may be that he believes (a slightly nearsighted person at 20/25) that he will be the one-percent who survives four years with NO FURTHER NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE CHANGE.
MikeT> If you believe one percent survives four years without negative refractive change, then you believe 99% DID experience negative refractive change.
MikeT> Since it doesn't happen, we must assume you simply spout figures without understanding them.
[I don't "spout figures". Here are the published values for those who "cleared" their vision from nearsightedness at West Point. In fact NONE did. OSB]
Otis> It is true that even high school students can figure out the implications of that statement.
MikeT> Is that how you arrived at 99%?
Otis> Actually this West Point study is how I arrived at the percentage of myopes who went "down" at the college. How did YOU calculate the percentage?
Best,
Otis Engineer
___________________________________
Gmelin> The subject of progressive myopia among the cadets remained dormant at the USMA for ten year. Renewed interest in among the cadets remained dormant and not further investigations were made the subject of myopia was generated by the study of MAJ McKinney MC, on the Cadet Class of 1956. In his unpublished report, "A Study of Refractive Trends at West Point", MAJ McKinney concluded:
1. Pseudo-myopia during periods of stress associated with studying may result in blurred vision in cadets with little "hyperopic reserve".
2. The average increase in myopia was -1.37 diopters (the range being -1.12 diopters through -1.62 diopters (over four years).
3. 39 percent of the graduating cadets of the 1956 had less than 20/20 vision at graduation; and
4. Recommendation that the vision standards remain unchanged -- that hyperopia over +2 diopters and that myopia less than -1.5 diopters be cause for entrance disqualification.
Best,
Otis
> On 12/17/06 12:16 PM, in article > 1166386606.206797.321330@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "otisbrown@pa.net" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Bill > -- Fermez le Bush Neil Brooks - 18 Dec 2006 04:02 GMT > But, it is essential that the entering student at > Annapolis, West Point or the U. S. Air Academy > have an accurate understanding of the fact that > the eye goes "down" at a rate of -1/3 diopter per > year at these academies -- as he would enter > into a plus-preventive study. See below Please cite your source for this.
I have shown that the studies you PURPORT to cite say nothing of the sort. Is it a fundamental mis-understanding of statistics on your part or flat-out dishonesty.
Or both?
Dr Judy - 17 Dec 2006 22:20 GMT > Mike, > > Please understand the following. > > 1. I support the Wildsoet dynamic-eye paradigm, versus the > forzen eye pardigm of Doners-Helmholtz. I very much doubt that Wildoset supports your concept of "dynamic eye". Nothing she has published and nothing on her web pages supports the use of plus to prevent or reverse myopia in school age or adult humans.
Further, Donders and Helmholtz did not think the eye was "frozen". Their theory of accommodation is an explanatin of how the eye changes in response to accommodative demand.
Dr Judy
Dr. Leukoma - 17 Dec 2006 23:57 GMT Here, here. Let's cut the b.s.
Plus lenses have been around for hundreds of years. Even chimpanzees could have figured out that plus lenses prevent mypopia by now if indeed plus lenses did such a thing.
DrG
> Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > > Otis otisbrown@pa.net - 18 Dec 2006 03:18 GMT You are right Dr. Leukoma, Rhesus monkeys and you can not figure out how to prevent the development of a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye.
But Physicist Stirling Colgate did. No problem.
But then Stirling was a bright scientist -- even at age 14.
Otis
> Here, here. Let's cut the b.s. > [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > > > Otis Dr. Leukoma - 18 Dec 2006 12:41 GMT > You are right Dr. Leukoma, Rhesus monkeys and > you can not figure out how to prevent the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But then Stirling was a bright scientist -- even > at age 14. Stirling Colgate should stay with his strengths, and not pretend that he knows how to prevent myopia. Stirling Colgate is also bright enough to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence.
You, however, do not.
DrG
Mike Tyner - 18 Dec 2006 21:33 GMT > But then Stirling was a bright scientist -- even > at age 14. And as we all know, 14-year-olds NEVER get pseudomyopia.
-MT
Neil Brooks - 18 Dec 2006 21:39 GMT > > But then Stirling was a bright scientist -- even > > at age 14. > > And as we all know, 14-year-olds NEVER get pseudomyopia. IOW, (Scr)Otis:
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
Thanks.
Mike Tyner - 18 Dec 2006 21:24 GMT > 1. I support the Wildsoet dynamic-eye paradigm, versus the > forzen eye pardigm of Doners-Helmholtz. Perhaps you can share your evidence for believing emmetropization continues past infancy.
Perhaps not.
> 3. Once you START with that minus, and that rate > is "set-up" your distant vision becomes a "lost cause", > or for the rest of your life. Whatever you believe, myopes wearing glasses don't get nearsighted any faster. You've never pointed to a study showing they did, and I've given you several citations showing they don't. Your imagination and distortion of Oakley-Young doesn't outweigh the evidence.
> 4. My site argues for vision-CLEARING from 20/70 to > 20/40 or better. (Or approximately -1.0 diopters for 20/70). First you say you can cure myopia. Then you say myopia can't be cured, only prevented. Then you say you can cure a diopter of myopia. Which is it?
> With that said, let me correct your following assumption > about Dr. Colgate's vision-clearing. I didn't "assume". Colgate "assumed." You said so.
> Otis> This is completely false. Dr. Colgate stated that he was > pleased to catch his vision at 20/70 (about -1 diopter) and > SLOWLY clear his vision back to normal. So how is that not a "cure"? But you can't "cure" myopia. But he just said he did.
> Otis> As per the Oakly-Young study, I believe that it can only > be PREVENTED at the threshold. How many pediatricians or ophthalmologists agree with you? Yeah, whadda they know.
> These kids at age 5 will > have a refractive STATE of zero to +1/4 diopter. Another false assumption.
As they
> enter school, their refractive STATE follows the > AVERAGE value of accommodation (as a dynamic system). It does not. Three quarters of them don't change.
> When their refractive STATE is negative, at about -1 diopter, > they get an over-prescribed minus, which they are told > to wear all the time. You're lying here to make your point, because you don't know what happens in the real world.
1) How is a one-diopter lens "over-prescribed" for a one-diopter myope?
2) I do not tell -1 children to wear glasses full time. Who does?
> This creates a "world" that is no > farther than 1 meter from their eyes. Nonsense.
> Now their eyes > take that first step in "stair-case" myopia. Is that why hyperopia eventually disappears? It doesn't, you know.
>It > is by this process that you get a -6 diopter myope > in about 12 years of school. So genes have nothing to do with it.
> Functional myopia would respond to > "relaxation" techniques. Anatomical myopia would not. > > Otis> The real issue is whether the person will work > on vision-clearing at that -1 dipoter (20/70 level) or not. No, one "real" issue is that you don't know the difference between accommodation and axial length.
> That becomes a choice with life-time consequences > for the person who even STARTS with the minus. So you think myopes never get better. Never happens.
>> The question is: Can positive lenses prevent eye anatomy from >> becoming even more myopic? That is, can it prevent the eyeball >> from lengthening the way it happens to many bookworms? > > Otis> BINGO! Also review the Wildsoet paradigm to > understand how this happens. Or review the Parssinen study, Grosvenor, Shotwell, COMET - WHY DIDN'T IT WORK?
> There are several studies that test this question directly or > indirectly, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Otis> After you even BEGIN wearing that minus, and your > eyes "adapt" to is -- I agee the cause is lost. Nonsense. Myopes get myopic whether they wear glasses or not. SHOW US OTHERWISE.
> Otis> It works if the person himself has the motivation to BEGIN > the use of the plus before the minus, and will moitor the child's > Snellen the way that he did. But that by-passes you completely, > and it is obvious why that step was necessary. I see. Colgate wasn't myopic when he started. O....K.
> Just remember, I only advocate that the parents be > informed of the prevetive choice before that > first minus is applied. And I advocate that every cancer patient should be told the benefits of peach pits and coffee enemas, before that first chemotherapy is ever tried. Because once you start treating it, it never goes away.
-MT
|
|
|