 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2007The Causes of Myopia
Mike Tyner wrote: > <dr.sea...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Dear DrG and Mike Tyner, > > Could both of you please list all of the causes of axial myopia, all of > > the reasons that axial elongation happens? > > Genetics would be the only "reason" firmly supported by the myopia > literature. The contribution of environment (working up close, prolonged > close work) is small, and the contribution of corrective lenses is nil. Dr. Leukoma wrote: > dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote: > > Dear DrG, > > Mike Tyner shared his view. What about you? > > Could you please share your view on all of the causes of myopia? > > Thanks. > > I believe that it is genetically based with environmental modulation. Dear Mike Tyner, DrG, and all optometrists, Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much. S.Seagal > Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up > close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much. It doesn't contribute much. So far, neither have you. -MT >> Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up >> close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much. > > It doesn't contribute much. > > So far, neither have you. Amen. > > Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up > > close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much. > > It doesn't contribute much. Dear Mike Tyner, As little as it does, I am still very very very interested. Please share it here. Please share your view here. Only then can I share the "Myopia Control" method that really works with all of you. Thank you very much. > So far, neither have you. I am getting there, I promise. Please be patient. When we get there, you will be extremely happy if you are the type of optometrist who wants to solve myopia problems (axial elongation, retinal detachments, etc.) in this world. S.Seagal >>> Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up >>> close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > wants to solve myopia problems (axial elongation, retinal detachments, > etc.) in this world. I presume you're also sitting on the infamous 200mpg carburetor? > I presume you're also sitting on the infamous 200mpg carburetor? You are out of touch with reality. It's up to 400mpg. :-) Besides, when is the last time you've seen a new car with a carburetor? >> I presume you're also sitting on the infamous 200mpg carburetor? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Besides, when is the last time you've seen a new car with a carburetor? Damn, you mean they've perfected the transmutation of air into fuel? Maybe I need a new car after all... Happy New Year, everybody!  SignatureCheers, Bev ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ No lawyering. Prosecutors will be violated. > > Besides, when is the last time you've seen a new car with a carburetor? > > Damn, you mean they've perfected the transmutation of air into fuel? > Maybe I need a new car after all... And why not? Plants do it. DrG the correlation between near work and myopia is simply that--- an observed correlation in large population studies that show that people who wear myopic prescriptions tend to be involved in activities that involve lots of close work. not all myopes do near work, and lots of people who do lots of near work are NOT myopes but the observation is simply a statistical correlation. but if you are an eye doc you should know that. there are no studies that show what it is about close work that causes myopia to develop. anyones "theory" or "guess" as to what causes it is irrelevant to a practitioner who needs to know the proven facts-- on HUMANS. when the correlation was first demonstrated, then many vision researchers tested the notion that increased ciliary muscle tone or accommodation must be the cause. this has been tested in numerous published studies that have been reviewed in this forum ad nauseum for the last few years. these studies all have shown that reducing or eliminating accommodation by using reading glasses or bifocals, or having myopes remove their glasses to read, have NO EFFECT on development of myopia. so much for the accommodations theory. now a current theory is that individuals who have an inaccurate visual response to near work (accommodative lag with resulting retinal blur, near-point esophores) are the ones who develop myopia. this makes sense because their also is a clear genetic component to myopia development as well. that theory is being tested at the present time. so NO ONE, including YOU, knows what causes myopia development. what we know is WHAT DOES NOT INFLUENCE myopia development and that includes plus readers, bifocals, overcorrection with minus, undercorrection with minus, and gas permeable contact lenses. anyone who claims they "know" what the true cause is and is treating patients based upon their supposed knowledge should be stripped of their license to practice and is a potential hazard to the public health. ================================ > > > Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up > > > close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > S.Seagal > the correlation between near work and myopia is simply that--- an > observed correlation in large population studies that show that people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > irrelevant to a practitioner who needs to know the proven facts-- on > HUMANS. I am convinced, based on anecdotal evidence with a sample size of one, that in fact myopia causes close work. What else are you going to do if you can't see at distance? Anybody can put a "dr." in front of their name on the internet. Anybody can change their name to "seagal" on the internet. It doesn't always mean that they have a license to practice medicine in the real world. > Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up > close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much. Please refer to this paper: A Unifying Theory of Refractive Error Development GEORGE K. HUNG, KENNETH J. CIUFFREDA Bulletin of Mathematical Biology (2000) 62, 1087-1108 These two authors discuss the neuromodulators that control sensitivity to retinal defocus, as it relates to contrast. Hung and Ciuffreda invoke a time-sensitive function involving a change in retinal defocus. Other researchers are investigating the quality of retinal defocus in the parafoveal area as being a stimulus for axial elongation, based upon the findings that neuromodulation seems to occur elsewhere in the retina. Which way do you lean, doctor? DrG Hung and Ciuffreda still believe that genetic based axial growth is the PRIMARY cause of myopia. > dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote: > > Just to confirm, what is the success rate for myopia control in your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Inquiring minds wish to know. You will know it. I am going to share it with you. > I don't regard myself as being a dogmatic person, and if such a method > was presented and backed by sound science, then I would embrace it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > DrG You are right, DrG, it really is a great time to be an optometrist. And I really enjoy solving myopia problems (eyeball elongation, retinal detachment, etc.) instead of creating more myopia problems. Mike Tyner wrote: > <dr.sea...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Dear DrG and Mike Tyner, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > literature. The contribution of environment (working up close, prolonged > close work) is small, and the contribution of corrective lenses is nil. > dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote: > > Dear DrG, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I believe that it is genetically based with environmental modulation. Dear DrG, I am not interested in what Hung and Ciuffreda believe. And I am not only interested in the PRIMARY cause of myopia, but I am interested in all of the causes of myopia. And you wrote "I believe that it is genetically based with environmental modulation." Since this is a discussion forum, let's discuss it The Re?l Bev wrote: > WELCOME TO THE SCI.MED.VISION NEWSGROUP > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > remedied, as well as items related to new research and > associated findings. Let's discuss how the eye works. So, Dr.G, please KINDLY share your view on how the environment causes myopia since both Mike Tyner and you believe that environment does contribute to myopia development. Even though Mike Tyner wrote "It doesn't contribute much.", it does not matter. Since the environment is a cause and since this is a discussion forum and since your "Inquiring minds wish to know" the method of solving myopia problems (axial elongation, etc.) with glasses, not helmets, so, LET'S DISCUSS IT. So, Dr.G, please KINDLY explain in detail how the environment causes myopia. I sincerely thank you from the bottom of my heart. S.Seagal > Hung and Ciuffreda still believe that genetic based axial growth is the > PRIMARY cause of myopia. Your unilateral approach to "discussion" grows tiresome. Maybe it's just me.... > So, Dr.G, please KINDLY explain in detail how > the environment causes myopia. Why do you think we know? Would it clarify anything for you to know that muscarinic agonists play a part? -MT Dear Mike, DrG, William Stacy, p.clarkii, and all optometrists, > > So, Dr.G, please KINDLY explain in detail how > > the environment causes myopia. > > Why do you think we know? Because all of you are optometrists who are really really smart, who have finished your education in optometry school, who really really know how the eye works. So, please share it with me. Please teach me how the eye works. Please explain how the environment causes myopia since you wrote "The contribution of environment (working up close, prolonged close work) is small" which means you admit that it is a factor even though you later wrote "It doesn't contribute much" as if you are trying to hide something > Why do you think we know? So, do you mean you don't know how the eye works and how environment causes myopia? Are you really an optometrist? > Would it clarify anything for you to know that muscarinic agonists play a > part? > > -MT No, it would not. And we have not reached this part yet. This is only the beginning of the discussion. Is it illegal to discuss the causes of myopia in this forum? Just wondering. Thank you all in advance for teaching me how the eye works, and how the environment causes myopia. Sincerely, S.Seagal Moving ever-so-surely from tiresome to condescending, sarcastic, and patronizing. Gee. What a cliffhanger. > So, do you mean you don't know how the eye works and how environment > causes myopia? Are you really an optometrist? Three questions, three answers: somewhat, no, and yes. >> Would it clarify anything for you to know that muscarinic agonists play a >> part? >> > No, it would not. And we have not reached this part yet. This is only > the beginning of the discussion. No you were asking the *how* the environment causes myopia. Nobody knows. > Is it illegal to discuss the causes of myopia in this forum? Just > wondering. You want simplistic answers for something nobody understands completely. If you don't want to discuss M4 receptors in scleral collagen, then you aren't really interested in "how." -MT > > Could you please explain the environmental modulation part? How does > > the environment cause myopia? Thanks. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -MT Dear Mike Tyner, > > So, do you mean you don't know how the eye works and how environment > > causes myopia? Are you really an optometrist? > > Three questions, three answers: somewhat, no, and yes. I guess that mean you are an optometrist, you somewhat know how the eye works and you DON'T KNOW how the environment causes myopia. I thought your textbook cover it. > >> Would it clarify anything for you to know that muscarinic agonists play a > >> part? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No you were asking the *how* the environment causes myopia. Nobody knows. Again, I thought your textbook cover it. And I thought they also teach that at your optometry school. I wonder what they teach at your optometry school? > > Is it illegal to discuss the causes of myopia in this forum? Just > > wondering. > > You want simplistic answers for something nobody understands completely. OH MY GOODNESS!! > If you don't want to discuss M4 receptors in scleral collagen, then you > aren't really interested in "how." > > -MT I think you are trying to sidetrack to something else. I am asking how the environment (prolonged close work) causes myopia, which mean how does prolonged close work cause the eyeball to change. S.Seagal > > Could you please list all of the causes of axial myopia, all of > > the reasons that axial elongation happens? MT > Genetics would be the only "reason" firmly supported by the myopia > literature. The contribution of environment (working up close, prolonged > close work) is small, and the contribution of corrective lenses is nil. Now, let me simplify the question. How does prolonged close work cause myopia? You mentioned the contribution of prolonged close work is small, but it does exist. Again, all of you expert, please share all that you know about this. How does prolonged close work cause myopia? Thanks a million. Sincerely, S.Seagal > and you DON'T KNOW how the environment causes myopia. I thought > your textbook cover it. Then you weren't reading what I said. The textbooks don't say exactly how gravity works, either. But I can make a pretty accurate prediction about what would happen if you jumped off a cliff. >> No you were asking the *how* the environment causes myopia. Nobody knows. > > Again, I thought your textbook cover it. And I thought they also teach > that at your optometry school. I wonder what they teach at your > optometry school? They teach us not to make unjustified assumptions. Useful, that. > I think you are trying to sidetrack to something else. I am asking how > the environment (prolonged close work) causes myopia, which mean how > does prolonged close work cause the eyeball to change. Nobody knows for sure. Well, maybe you, but you aren't telling. -MT Dear Mike Tyner, > > I think you are trying to sidetrack to something else. I am asking how > > the environment (prolonged close work) causes myopia, which mean how [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -MT It's not that I'm not telling, it is just that I was just about to start the discussion and everyone seems to want me to shut up or stop the discussion and someone said that I am a potential hazard to the public health. S.Seagal p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > the correlation between near work and myopia is simply that--- an > observed correlation in large population studies that show that people [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > ================================ dr.sea...@yahoo.com wrote: > It's not that I'm not telling, it is just that I was just about to > start the discussion and everyone seems to want me to shut up or stop > the discussion and someone said that I am a potential hazard to the > public health. Who wants you to shut up? We just want you to start talking about your theory of myopia prevention, something that seems to have eluded the rest of us. I may die of cancer one day, thanks to physicians who obviously want to keep the cure a secret from me. DrG Dear DrG, > dr.sea...@yahoo.com wrote: > > It's not that I'm not telling, it is just that I was just about to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > theory of myopia prevention, something that seems to have eluded the > rest of us. When I ask about the causes of myopia in another thread, the answer I got were: Mike Tyner wrote: > Genetics would be the only "reason" firmly supported by the myopia > literature. The contribution of environment (working up close, prolonged > close work) is small, and the contribution of corrective lenses is nil. > I believe that it is genetically based with environmental modulation. I guess these two answers means environment is a cause but small. And then in the beginning of this thread I wrote: Dear Mike Tyner, DrG, and all optometrists, Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Then Mike Tyner's answer changed from "small" to "It doesn't contribute much" And then p.clarkii said it has "NO EFFECT on development of myopia. so much for the accommodations theory" p.clarkii also wrote: > so NO ONE, including YOU, knows what causes myopia development. what > we know is WHAT DOES NOT INFLUENCE myopia development and that includes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > their license to practice and is a potential hazard to the public > health. Dear DrG, What does p.clarkii mean by that? And then you wrote: > I never said that the environment causes myopia. I don't believe that > the environment causes myopia. which is completely different from: > I believe that it is genetically based with environmental modulation. Dear DrG, what do all these mean? From "small" to "not much" to "NO EFFECT" ...... > I may die of cancer one day, thanks to physicians who obviously want to > keep the cure a secret from me. > > DrG In order to cure cancer, we have to first know what causes cancer. Here it goes: Dear fellow doctors, What is the causes of cancer? DrA: > Genetics would be the only "reason" firmly supported by the cancer (<<myopia>>) > literature. The contribution of diet (<<environment (working up close, prolonged > close work)>>) is small, and the contribution of sulfuric acid (<<corrective lenses>>) is nil. DrB: > I believe that it is genetically based with dietary (<<environmental>>) modulation. Dear fellow doctors: Please explain how diet causes cancer? DrA: > It doesn't contribute much. So far, neither have you. DrC: > it has NO EFFECT on development of cancer (<<myopia>>). so much for the dietary > (<<accommodations>>) theory. > so NO ONE, including YOU, knows what causes cancer (<<myopia>>) development. what > we know is WHAT DOES NOT INFLUENCE cancer (<<myopia>>) development and that > includes ......... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > their license to practice and is a potential hazard to the public > health. DrB: > I never said that the diet (<<environment>>) causes cancer (<<myopia>>). I don't believe > that the diet (<<environment>>) causes cancer (<<myopia>>). ================================== Incidentally, I had stage 4 cancer more than three years ago. I think it's cured. At least the Doctors said it is. I changed my diet completely, since then. This is true. Also, I was myopic before, and I am 20/15 now. I guess that mean it's cured. And this is also true. Now, we'll begin our discussion...... S.Seagal >dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote: snip blah blah snip "I used to have cancer but now I don't so now that proves I know everything" > I am 20/15 now. I guess that mean it's cured. And this is also true. so what-- I have many former myopes who become middle aged and lose their myopia. they didn't do anything to reverse it. they just got older. its remarkable what reduced ciliary muscle tone can do. and I also have met a few people who have been diagnosed with terminal cancer and beaten the odds. they aren't any smarter than anyone else-- just lucky! > Now, we'll begin our discussion...... > S.Seagal Thank god! FOR GODS SAKE THEN JUST GET ON WITH IT! your endless drivel and retorts are ludicrous. if you have some point to make then just make it. my point is, if you claim you know the cause of myopia, or you claim you know an effective way to reduce it, then you must be keeping it a secret because nothing has ever been shown in the scientific or medical literature to be very effective. and if you're just trying to pull some of the old disproven therapies out of the junk heap like our friend Otis then be prepared to be shouted down. There are many types of cancers and many theories of myopia. Which theory of myopia explains your success in eliminating it? DrG > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > > S.Seagal Dear DrG, > There are many types of cancers and many theories of myopia. Which > theory of myopia explains your success in eliminating it? > > DrG The theory of myopia I am about to share with you is very simple but effective. However, before I go on, I would like to get some professional oponions from you. In world XYZ, Conventional Doctors only believe in theory A: There is no cause for a wound. High impact does not cause a wound. No one knows what causes a wound. Studies/research have shown/proven that high impact does not cause a wound. The wound will get larger and larger regardless of the type of treatment used. When there is a wound, doctors will prescribe sulfuric acid to the patient to kill the bacteria in order to avoid infection. Studies/research have shown/proven that the wound will get larger and larger whether or not sulfuric acid is used. When the wound become really big, the doctors will remove the limb of the patient where the wound is. Millions of people's limbs have been surgically removed. New Doctors believe in theory B: High impact as a result of dangerous activities causes a would. When there is a wound, use neosporin and bandages to treat and cure the wound. If the wound is very small, simply leave it alone. Knee protectors, helmets, etc. should be used to prevent a wound. No one's wound gets larger and larger treated this way. Thousands of people have been treated with a success rate of 100%. My questions are: Should the conventional doctors who only believe in theory A start doing what the new doctors are doing? Is there any reason why theory B should not be used by conventional doctors and should not be thought in conventional medical schools? If there is a reason, what is it? Is there a need to do control studies or blind studies to prove that theory B is effective and should be used by conventional doctors? Is survey of a thousand people enough to prove that theory B is effective and should be used by conventional doctors? What needs to be done before theory B is thought in conventional medical schools and used by conventional doctors? (Please list them.) Thank you Sincerely, S.Seagal Let's talk about what happens in the real world, Dr. Seagal, where real physicians do not pour acid into wounds in order to heal them. There is an old retired engineer who likes to harangue us with studies from about the time I graduated from optometry school some 23 years/ago as if time has stood still. It was only 7 years/ago that researchers explained how the retina of certain primates responded to defocus and not to accommodation. I'll consider your pre-conditions to be non-starters and insofar as I am concerned, the discussion is over. If you have something credible, then publish it. Myopia is a hot topic. DrG > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Sincerely, > S.Seagal > Let's talk about what happens in the real world, Dr. Seagal, where real > physicians do not pour acid into wounds in order to heal them. There [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > am concerned, the discussion is over. If you have something credible, > then publish it. Myopia is a hot topic. Half a buck says he/she/it was just leading up to Elevator Boy's proposition anyway. Could even BE the infamous Steve Leung. In either event, all this rigmarole put me to sleep. Seems I'm not the only one. Thanks for playing, S. Seagal. Boy, you really wowed 'em over at s.m.v...... Being an iconoclast requires a certain type of personality. DrG > > Let's talk about what happens in the real world, Dr. Seagal, where real > > physicians do not pour acid into wounds in order to heal them. There [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Thanks for playing, S. Seagal. Boy, you really wowed 'em over at > s.m.v...... > However, before I go on, I would like to get some professional oponions > from you. Can't you just make your point without all this argumentative bullshit? Somehow all this "beating around the bush" indicates to me that you really don't have a logical rational theory after all. > > However, before I go on, I would like to get some professional oponions > > from you. > > Can't you just make your point without all this argumentative bullshit? > Somehow all this "beating around the bush" indicates to me that you > really don't have a logical rational theory after all. You seem a little dense. He/she/it already stated that glasses are the cure. Does it really matter whether they are plus lenses, reduced minus, bifocals or pinhole? Google says that there is a Steven Seagal who often acts as a doctor in movies. Dan Abel wrote, in part: > Google says that there is a Steven Seagal who often acts as a doctor in > movies. Yeah, but he's more of an herbalist ... with a penchant for fixing things with violent bursts of martial arts moves. But ... maybe ... maybe.... > You seem a little dense. How pleasant! >> You seem a little dense. > > How pleasant! Fairly sure Dan was being playfully tongue-in-cheek. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Dan. > >> You seem a little dense. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, Dan. You are correct. It wasn't meant to be offensive, but I don't understand why people are responding so much to he/she/it. well hello Neil. looks like Otis' old forum where we used to "visit" this summer has fallen to the spammers. weren't you going on a trip to Europe or something? hope you had a good time. i've been minding my own business and only get to check in here every once in a while. looks like things haven't changed-- except the names! cheers. ! ! ! ! ! > >> You seem a little dense. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, Dan. dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote in news:1167080053.896560.57410 @h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Because all of you are optometrists who are really really smart, who > have finished your education in optometry school, who really really > know how the eye works. So, please share it with me. Please teach me > how the eye works. If you're really interested, instead of merely argumentative, perhaps a scan of four or five years of discussion on the matter in this newsgroup will bring you up to date, and then you can let us know what's still up in the air for you. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > Let's discuss how the eye works. So, Dr.G, please KINDLY share your > view on how the environment causes myopia since both Mike Tyner and you > believe that environment does contribute to myopia development. > > So, Dr.G, please KINDLY explain in detail how the environment causes > myopia. I never said that the environment causes myopia. I don't believe that the environment causes myopia. Now, PRETTY PLEASE explain how you can reverse or slow the progression of myopia. DrG Dear DrG, > > Let's discuss how the eye works. So, Dr.G, please KINDLY share your > > view on how the environment causes myopia since both Mike Tyner and you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I never said that the environment causes myopia. I don't believe that > the environment causes myopia. My dearest DrG, then what did you mean when you wrote "I believe that it is genetically based with environmental modulation"? What did you mean by "environmental modulation"? Mike Tyner wrote: > <dr.sea...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Dear DrG and Mike Tyner, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > literature. The contribution of environment (working up close, prolonged > close work) is small, and the contribution of corrective lenses is nil. > > Dear DrG, > > Mike Tyner shared his view. What about you? > > Could you please share your view on all of the causes of myopia? > > Thanks. > > I believe that it is genetically based with environmental modulation. Doesn't "environmental modulation" mean changes (in the eyeball) resulting from the environmental factor (prolonged close work)? If not, please explain what it means, how it relates to myopia development, etc. > Now, PRETTY PLEASE explain how you can reverse or slow the progression > of myopia. > > DrG I will, my dearest DrG, I will, I promise, however, if the discussion doesn't begin, there is no use to go on. But I really hope we do continue and get to the end. S.Seagal dr.sea...@yahoo.com wrote: > I will, my dearest DrG, I will, I promise, however, if the discussion > doesn't begin, there is no use to go on. But I really hope we do > continue and get to the end. So, begin it, or don't. You are the one who professes to have something to teach me. So, get to it. Drg Dear DrG, We will begin now, > dr.sea...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Drg Dear DrG, > > Could you please share your view on all of the causes of myopia? > > Thanks. > > I believe that it is genetically based with environmental modulation. Could you please explain the environmental modulation part? Thank you. S.Seagal > Could you please explain the environmental modulation part? That would be pointless. Could you please explain how you reverse or at least prevent axial elongation? Then we might have a basis for discussion. DrG >> Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up >> close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to retinal defocus, as it relates to contrast. Hung and Ciuffreda > invoke a time-sensitive function involving a change in retinal defocus. retinal defocus and contrast? got any english type documents that show what this means? as you know, I have been perplexed for the past year or so over blurry close up vision under very specific circumstances, which to me seems like an issue to do with contrast. So, when you talk about defocus and contrast, I just have to ask, please sir, can I have some more? Ta Simon > So, when you talk about defocus and contrast, I just have to ask, please > sir, can I have some more? Well there's an interesting Twist.... > Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up > close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much. > > S.Seagal well well. you go away for a little bit and then you come back and find a totally new infestation! who are you? why can't you give people a straight answer? how to you cure people of myopia? do you live in Pennsylvania? or Singapore? |
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.