 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2007The Cause of Myopia
Dear all, Since the conventional optometrists here kept hiding what they know about the cause of myopia, I will share a little bit (which is all I know) about the cause of myopia. Myopia is caused by ...... (check it out here) http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare Sincerely, S.Seagal > Since the conventional optometrists here kept hiding what they know > about the cause of myopia, I will share a little bit (which is all I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (check it out here) > http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare We know where he/she/it learned "logic:" from Elevator Boy University--a correspondence school based in the Falkland Islands. "High Myopia does not normally occur without the use of the prescription glasses(minus lens)" Let me help straighten out the logical fallacy here ... in CASE anybody doesn't see it. Just like Elevator Boy's comment that truck drivers don't get high myopia. My answer? Maybe high myopes don't become truck drivers? IOW: correlation does NOT imply causation, no matter how much you might like it to. High myopes were usually once low or moderate myopes .... a class of people who commonly wear eyeglasses. There. Solved that fallacious assumption for you. Dr. Seagal: may I be among the first to say you're a bona fide bozo? I'm sure you haven't prevented myopia in a single person. Go run a randomized, controlled trial. Otherwise, you're a fear-mongering (and arguably libelous) snake oil salesman extraordinaire. Nothing on your website even APPROACHES what you call "proof." You're a fool if you believe it does. A fool just like Elevator Boy. And like Elevator Boy, you SWEAR that optometrists tell myopes to wear their glasses ALL THE TIME, no matter how often EVERY optometrist says otherwise. Don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story, "Dr." Seagal. You're a riot! Thanks ... and Happy New Year! I'm sure your patients can expect the same level of expertise and professionalism from your optometric practice that is clearly demonstrated in your website. Big hugs, Neil > Since the conventional optometrists here kept hiding what they know > about the cause of myopia, I will share a little bit (which is all I > know) about the cause of myopia. Interesting theory, Seagal, but not new. Good luck with that. Again, please publish your results. DrG. > Since the conventional optometrists here kept hiding what they know > about the cause of myopia, Oh... you've uncovered the conspiracy. Is it just the optometrists, or are there other professions involved? > I will share a little bit (which is all I > know) about the cause of myopia. And you obviously know more about myopia than you do statistics. > Myopia is caused by ...... wearing glasses. Right. Thanks ever so much for clearing that up. If nobody wears glasses, nobody gets myopia. If the long-necked Paduang women wore their rings on frames out in front of their eyes, would their eyes get longer? -MT Dear Mike Tyner, > > I will share a little bit (which is all I > > know) about the cause of myopia. > > And you obviously know more about myopia than you do statistics. The data which I posted is just a small portion of what I have. I guess I should post maybe 100 or 500 or 1000 or more to prove the theory. But I thought DrG said one is suffice. Dr. Leukoma wrote: > dr.sea...@yahoo.com wrote: > > And that is why you won't be able to find any myopes whose myopia [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DrG So I guess thirty or so is not enough to prove my theory right and your theory wrong BUT one is enough to prove my theory wrong and your theory right. OKAY, you win, DrG wins. All of you win. Come on, "GIVE ME A BREAK" as John Stossel (ABC 20/20) puts it. > > Myopia is caused by ...... > > wearing glasses. Right. Thanks ever so much for clearing that up. If nobody > wears glasses, nobody gets myopia. No, I never said that. I said myopia is caused by prolonged close work which you admitted in the beginning, remember? > <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. > -MT And you later said "It doesn't contribute much" and then said "Nobody knows" what causes myopia, trying to hide the truth from the public. > If the long-necked Paduang women wore their rings on frames out in front of > their eyes, would their eyes get longer? > > -MT Use common sense, my friend, rings only cause their neck to grow longer, nothing to do with the eye. And glasses cause myopes' eye to elongate as a result of sustained accommodation. S.Seagal > > dr.sea...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > And that is why you won't be able to find any myopes whose myopia > > > reaches -7D or -6D or -5D (you get the idea) if he/she does not wear > > > glasses for reading and does not wear glasses all the time or never > > > wears glasses. > So I guess thirty or so is not enough to prove my theory right and your > theory wrong BUT one is enough to prove my theory wrong and your theory > right. OKAY, you win, DrG wins. All of you win. Come on, "GIVE ME A > BREAK" as John Stossel (ABC 20/20) puts it. You said I wouldn't find ANY. It only takes one to disprove you. Now, with regards to the thirty. I can count to thirty, but what does that prove? DrG > Use common sense, my friend, rings only cause their neck to grow > longer, nothing to do with the eye. And glasses cause myopes' eye to > elongate as a result of sustained accommodation. Look here, Mr. Seagal. We only want you to abide by the same rules the rest of us have to observe, which is to design an experiment that will prove your case. What is your excuse for not having the acumen and discipline to publish in a bonafide journal? If what you do has merit, it will become a part of the permanent scientific record. DrG > The data which I posted is just a small portion of what I have. I > guess I should post maybe 100 or 500 or 1000 or more to prove the > theory. But I thought DrG said one is suffice. The data you posted is not organized into experimental and control groups. You must learn some statistical method before you can hope to contradict studies like those published by Parssinen, Shotwell, Grosvenor, Ong, and Gwiazda. > No, I never said that. I said myopia is caused by prolonged close work > which you admitted in the beginning, remember? Nonsense. I said prolonged close work contributes, but it doesn't contribute much. If you'd read any of the existing literature, you'd know that. > Use common sense, my friend, rings only cause their neck to grow > longer, nothing to do with the eye. And glasses cause myopes' eye to > elongate as a result of sustained accommodation. Then common sense says hyperopes should get BETTER if they don't wear glasses. Practicing in Asia, you may not get to see many hyperopes. We have tons of 'em here. They accommodate all day and don't get myopic. Why not? They want to. We want them to. It just doesn't happen. And by the way, we don't insist hyperopes wear full time, either. -MT > > If the long-necked Paduang women wore their rings on frames out in front of > > their eyes, would their eyes get longer? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > longer, nothing to do with the eye. And glasses cause myopes' eye to > elongate as a result of sustained accommodation. Wrong on both counts. The neck rings do not cause the neck to get longer, they push on the collar bone causing it to drop down closer to the ribs, neck bones are unaffected. Can you provide any evidence for your statement that minus lenses, used to correct existing myopia, cause sustained accommodation? Or that sustained accommodation causes myopia? Even in the animal studies using high minus on non myopic animals, accommodation was NOT a factor in axial growth: animals with their accommodative system nerves cut became myopic without accommodation. Dr Judy > S.Seagal > Dear all, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sincerely, > S.Seagal So, tomorrow will you tell us the causes and cures for cancer? > So, tomorrow will you tell us the causes and cures for cancer? Dear Dan Abel, I would if you want me to share it with you. I feel so sorry for your retinal detachment problem. A few of the myopes who came to see me had problems like retinal tear and vitreous detachment which will lead to retinal detachment and the problems are solved naturally and easily without buckles, surgeries, etc. Had you seen a REAL optometrist before your retina detached or when your myopia was not that high, you would not have to deal with the problems you are facing right now. The proofs I listed are just a small portion of the data we have. More proofs will be listed there. If you do your own observation/study/survey on the people around you (your relatives, friends, classmates, teachers, professors, colleagues, co-workers, patients or myopes in your office, parents of your children's classmates or friends, stranger you meet at the grocery store/bus station/airport), you will find that those who wear their glasses all the time since childhood have medium or high myopia and those who only wear their glasses when it is necessary (for driving, classroom board, etc.) have low myopia. Myopes from all over the world proof this theory. I hope your retinal detachment problem is getting better. Retinal detachment is the term I use to warn the myopic children in my office so that they take good care of their eyes to keep their myopia under control following my direction. So far, it is very successful. Happy New Year. Sincerely, S.Seagal > The proofs I listed are just a small portion of the data we have. More > proofs will be listed there. The so-called "proofs" aren't really proofs at all. So, if you intend to present more unscientific data like that, don't waste your time posting it here. > If you do your own observation/study/survey on the people around you > (your relatives, friends, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > glasses when it is > necessary (for driving, classroom board, etc.) have low myopia. In other words, those with high genetic myopia develop it earlier in childhood, and those who don't need to wear their glasses all the time don't wear their glasses all the time whereas those who do, do. Brilliant. DrG > > The proofs I listed are just a small portion of the data we have. More > > proofs will be listed there. > > The so-called "proofs" aren't really proofs at all. So, if you intend > to present more unscientific data like that, don't waste your time > posting it here. Dear DrG, If those are not some of the proofs, then WHAT IS PROOF? > > If you do your own observation/study/survey on the people around you > > (your relatives, friends, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > DrG I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED if you could show me one myope who has acquired myopia whose prescription is over -7.00D without ever wearing glasses in his/her life!! S.Seagal > If those are not some of the proofs, then WHAT IS PROOF? You presented lists of data. There is no proof whatsoever of cause and effect, and somehow I don't think that you are ever going to get it. > I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED if you could show me one myope who > has acquired myopia whose prescription is over -7.00D without ever > wearing > glasses in his/her life!! I probably would be hard pressed to find someone who expects to function in the 21st century who is a 7 diopter myope and who has not worn eyeglasses. DrG >> If those are not some of the proofs, then WHAT IS PROOF? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > DrG Hey, Dr. Seagal: Can you show me one person with a size 14 foot who never had a smaller foot? Damned shoe manufacturers! Did you get any farther than high school? Seriously. > > If those are not some of the proofs, then WHAT IS PROOF? > > You presented lists of data. There is no proof whatsoever of cause and > effect, and somehow I don't think that you are ever going to get it. Dear DrG, Cause and effect are presented here: http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare/theoryA.html http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare/theoryB.html and the proofs are listed here: http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare/Proof1.txt http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare/Proof2.txt If you read it carefully and are smart enough to understand the theory behind it (simple physics and math) and are interested in saving eyes instead of destroying eyes, you would agree in theory B. Otherwise, you would agree in Theory A and continue doing eyeglasses fitting and eye destruction. > > I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED if you could show me one myope who > > has acquired myopia whose prescription is over -7.00D without ever [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > DrG The point is: If a person with low myopia, say at -2.50D, his/her myopia will not progress to high myopia if he/she does not wear glasses for reading and does not wear glasses all the time which Mike Tyner agrees with. And that is why you won't be able to find any myopes whose myopia reaches -7D or -6D or -5D (you get the idea) if he/she does not wear glasses for reading and does not wear glasses all the time or never wears glasses. Mike Tyner wrote: > -2.50 is pretty common. As a professional, I seldom require anyone to > wear -2.50 full time. If they don't create a hazard by driving without > correction, there's little reason to insist on full-time wear. > > -MT, OD S.Seagal dr.sea...@yahoo.com wrote: > If you read it carefully and are smart enough to understand the theory > behind it (simple physics and math) and are interested in saving eyes > instead of destroying eyes, you would agree in theory B. Otherwise, > you would agree in Theory A and continue doing eyeglasses fitting and > eye destruction. Oh, I've read it carefully. I just don't believe your theory. It's old. There are better theories out there. > The point is: If a person with low myopia, say at -2.50D, his/her > myopia will not progress to high myopia if he/she does not wear glasses > for reading and does not wear glasses all the time which Mike Tyner > agrees with. Then you need to prove that using an experimental group with a control. > And that is why you won't be able to find any myopes whose myopia > reaches -7D or -6D or -5D (you get the idea) if he/she does not wear > glasses for reading and does not wear glasses all the time or never > wears glasses. I know of at least one. How many does it take to prove your statement wrong? One should suffice. Oh, but then Otis will say that the child was improperly refracted.... DrG > I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED if you could show me one myope who > has acquired myopia whose prescription is over -7.00D without ever > wearing > glasses in his/her life!! I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED (Otis talk) if a -7D myope didn't wear corrective lenses. It isn't fun to be without vision. > I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED (Otis talk) if a -7D myope didn't wear > corrective lenses. It isn't fun to be without vision. I won't find anybody around here not wearing shoes, either. I'm sure shoes cause feet to elongate by constricting the width of the foot. I'm certain that if you examine NATIVE or NATURAL FEET, you won't find a single foot larger than a size 6. DrG > > I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED (Otis talk) if a -7D myope didn't wear > > corrective lenses. It isn't fun to be without vision. > > I won't find anybody around here not wearing shoes, either. Wait a minute. I'm not wearing shoes. I often don't wear them in the house. I never wear them in bed. Sometimes I am NIFOC (Nude in Front of the Computer). . > Sometimes I am NIFOC (Nude in Front of the Computer). Too much information!!! > . > > > > Sometimes I am NIFOC (Nude in Front of the Computer). > > Too much information!!! I don't remember, but I suspect that I was born nude. I was present at the births of my children, and they were also born nude. At this time of year, I wear clothing, lots of it. I sleep nude, but we have a heated water bed. > I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED if you could show me one myope who > has acquired myopia whose prescription is over -7.00D without ever > wearing > glasses in his/her life!! Talk to anyone who has partipated in a Third World Vision program. They find lots of myopes who have never had an eye exam, never worn glasses and who have significant myopia. For an example see the link below: http://www.givingsight.org/how_we_help/testimonials/brien_h.asp Dr Judy > > So, tomorrow will you tell us the causes and cures for cancer? > > Dear Dan Abel, > > I would if you want me to share it with you. So, tomorrow will you give us a cure for death? > I hope your retinal detachment problem is getting better. It generally doesn't get better. How do you explain the statistical data that demonstrates that plus lenses don't prevent progression. and that bifocals don't significantly reduce progression. and that having myopes remove their glasses to read doesn't significantly reduce progression. and that undercorrecting myopia actually DOES statistically increase the development of myopia? What treatment do you propose for people to prevent myopia that doesn't involve one of the above disproven approaches? Quit trying to be elusive and just tell us exactly what you believe, why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, and what the treatments are that you suggest? ============================= > Dear all, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sincerely, > S.Seagal > How do you explain the statistical data that demonstrates that plus > lenses don't prevent progression. and that bifocals don't > significantly reduce progression. and that having myopes remove their > glasses to read doesn't significantly reduce progression. and that > undercorrecting myopia actually DOES statistically increase the > development of myopia? Dear retinula, I know why these studies failed. Do you need me to include simple physics/math equation and drawing/diagram with explanation OR just explanation alone is enough for you? > What treatment do you propose for people to prevent myopia that doesn't > involve one of the above disproven approaches? > > Quit trying to be elusive and just tell us exactly what you believe, > why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, and > what the treatments are that you suggest? I will tell you if you, just like me, also want to quit destroying myopes' eyes by making them more and more myopic year after year. S.Seagal Conceit.txt Dear Dr. Segal, Subject: Fundamental-science (second-opinion) versus Retinula's "Science" Click on: http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html See what the (blue-tinted) eye does when you place a minus lens on it. I have heard so much bull s___ from these M.O. ODs -- that I get tired of it. And worse, the un-employable Neil Brooks only adds to it. In my opinion, optometry must always fail, because of these two inter-locking ignorances. There is no way you can change it. Optometry supplies a magic pill that works in five minutes. That is crude quick-fixing -- and must be understood that way. BUT THAT IS NOT SCIENCE -- EVER. Science is when you realize all of the above, and ask, "...what do I actually measure -- in terms of refractive STATE. Or how do all fundamental eyes behave. When you REMOVE the misconceptions and ask "pure" scientific questions of this nature, it becomes clear (to engineers and scientists), that the "blue-tint" animation of the natural eye is accurate and correct. The BEST you can say about the minus is that it works instantly. That would be OK if the HUMBLE OD would admit it. It take MATURE INTELLECT to realize that a change in wording changes the context of understanding. So people HATE words, or the re-definition of the refractive STATES of the natural eye? So what? In the end a person who wakes-up to what he wants -- and will devote STRONG EFFORT at the 20/70 level (-1.5 diopters) can personally verify that his refractive STATE will SLOWLY move in a positive direction, and his Snellen will clear to at least 20/40. It takes a high quality person to do it -- and AVOID the nutty people like Neil Brooks, and sad to say, the Majority-opinion Retinula. But let us review Retinula's majority opinion, versus Steve Leung's second-opinion and the basis for it in scientific fact. ------------------------- Ret > How do you explain the statistical data that demonstrates that plus lenses don't prevent progression. Otis> This again, is Ret's office-fib. Do the studies "conflict"? Yes they do. But the Oakley-Young study showed that a "high", and strong plus STOPPED entry into myopia. So let us just say that Ret's states is OPINION and ignores the preventive second-opinion. Ret > and that bifocals don't significantly reduce progression. Otis> If you are SMART about this, the real indication is this. Avoid the minus completely. With 20/50 -- most children have no requirement for the minus. But AT THAT POINT, begin the use of a plus that ENDS the near environment -- and is comfortable for the child, and is "set" for the child's HABITUAL reading distance. This would require and EDUCATED parent to instruct the child in this "correct use" of the plus. This process could PREVENT ENTRY into a negative refractive STATE. Ret > and that having myopes remove their glasses to read doesn't significantly reduce progression Otis> At per the above, no minus lens would be "removed", and the child would not wear one. Rather, the child would be wearing a "correct strength" plus, and the child and parent would monitor the child's Snellen. As per the pilots who have done it, VERY SLOWLY, the child's snellen will clear. Ret > And that under-correcting myopia actually DOES statistically increase the development of myopia? Otis> Another false statement based on the flawed O'Leary-Chang study. Again, call this the majority-opinion, and the Oakley-Young study the second opinion. Ret > What treatment do you propose for people to prevent myopia that doesn't involve one of the above disproven approaches? Otis> Find a second-opinion OD who will review the self-serving ignorance and errors in Retinula assumption and distorted "facts". Study the blue-tint eye, and the effect of a -3 diopter lens on the primate eye. Otis> LEARN to make a choice for yourself if the face of this conflict. Take action BEFORE your Snellen goes below 20/70. Clear your Snellen and check your refractive STATE with a low-cost minus. Keep up the effort until you read the 20/40 line or better. UNDERSTAND the reasons why Retinula is a disaster for the human eye, and the nature of his ignorance and arrogance. Ret > Quit trying to be elusive and just tell us exactly what you believe, Otis> Click on the blue-tint dynamic eye -- and understand the FACTS that support it. Learn to think for yourself, and if you wish to clear your vision, use the plus to do it correctly. Ret > why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, Otis> This is more Retinula's bull sh.t. The blue-tint concept is accurate science. Ret is insisting that you ignore science, and "accept" his stair-case myopia from a minus lens as a consequences. This WILL have life-time consequences for your child. There are profound reasons to distrust M.O. Retinula on a scientific level. Ret > and what the treatments are that you suggest? Otis> In a "medical" sense -- no "treatment". In a scientific sense, learn to think for yourself, understand the preventive second-opinion, and use the method FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE. Otis> Learn the conceits and ignorance of Retinula. Learn to take care of your distant vision yourself, by clearing from 20/70 to 20/40, and avoid that minus lens unless absolutely necessary. Best, Otis > > How do you explain the statistical data that demonstrates that plus > > lenses don't prevent progression. and that bifocals don't [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > S.Seagal > It takes a high quality person to do it -- and AVOID the > nutty people like Neil Brooks, and sad to say, the > Majority-opinion Retinula. Got'cha. That's all we need to know about Otis and his theories. DrG > Conceit.txt > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html Otis yet again confuses emmetropization (minus lens on non myopic eye) with refractive error correction (minus lens to neutralize existing myopia). This site does not support the ideas of Otis. On that same site, Dr Wildsoet says: What do we know about human myopia? ... That bifocal corrections trialed as a treatment for myopia, appear to be somewhat successful in those exhibiting esophoria (overconvergence) at close distances, supports the notion that defocus may underlie myopia progression for this subgroup of myopes. Note "somewhat successful", "myopic defocus" (not accommodation), "esophoric subgroup" Myopia control treatments The most promising results to-date have come from pharmacological treatments... bifocal corrections have also been trialed as myopia treatments, with "esophoric myopes" being the most likely to benefit. > I know why these studies failed. Do you need me to include simple > physics/math equation and drawing/diagram with explanation OR just > explanation alone is enough for you? We'd settle for a comparison of matched groups over time. Got any of those? Because when we compare myopes wearing glasses with those who don't, they progress the same. Have you made statistical comparisons and found otherwise? If so, you really should publish, because all the _published_ comparisons we can find say that you're selling snake oil. It makes us question your qualifications. I'm sure you're familiar with publications like BJO and NEJM and Archives of Ophthalmology. They're all wrong? Gee the conspiracy is bigger than I thought. > I will tell you if you, just like me, also want to quit destroying > myopes' eyes by making them more and more myopic year after year. So how do you explain when they quit getting worse? You see, in the US we must apply for licenses to practice optometry. If we advertise false claims, like you're doing, they take our licenses away. Perhaps the requirements are not so stringent where you are? -MT > > I will tell you if you, just like me, also want to quit destroying > > myopes' eyes by making them more and more myopic year after year. > > So how do you explain when they quit getting worse? Dear Mike Tyner, Do you need explanation with physics/math equation and drawing/diagram OR simple explanation is enough? Before I answer this question, I like to know what you think (I was going to ask you this question): Why does myopia stop getting worse at adulthood or older? > You see, in the US we must apply for licenses to practice optometry. If we > advertise false claims, like you're doing, they take our licenses away. > Perhaps the requirements are not so stringent where you are? > > -MT What makes my claim false claims? S.Seagal > Do you need explanation with physics/math equation and drawing/diagram > OR simple explanation is enough? Before I answer this question.... blah blah blah just answer the question whichever way you want but ANSWER instead of promising to answer soon or asking your own questions to everyone else. why do the studies mentioned above not matter? what methods do YOU propose? what evidence is there that they work? YES-- i will change what i do if you can convince me, just get on with it! > Do you need explanation with physics/math equation and drawing/diagram > OR simple explanation is enough? Before I answer this question, I like > to know what you think (I was going to ask you this question): > Why does myopia stop getting worse at adulthood or older? Ever heard of adult-onset myopia? > What makes my claim false claims? Your claim of being able to cure myopia without any convincing proof. > > Do you need explanation with physics/math equation and drawing/diagram > > OR simple explanation is enough? Before I answer this question, I like > > to know what you think (I was going to ask you this question): > > Why does myopia stop getting worse at adulthood or older? > > Ever heard of adult-onset myopia? Dear DrG, Yes. Now, do you know the percentage of adult-onset myopia among myopes? 80%? 50%? 30%? or 5%? S.Seagal > > > Do you need explanation with physics/math equation and drawing/diagram > > > OR simple explanation is enough? Before I answer this question, I like [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > S.Seagal Dear DrG, You forgot to answer my question here. What is the percentage of adult-onset myopia among myopes and (another question) why is that? S.Seagal > > Yes. Now, do you know the percentage of adult-onset myopia among > > myopes? 80%? 50%? 30%? or 5%? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > S.Seagal According to your previous statement, Mr. Seagal, it should be 0%. Are you changing your mind? DrG > > > Yes. Now, do you know the percentage of adult-onset myopia among > > > myopes? 80%? 50%? 30%? or 5%? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > DrG Dear DrG, No, I never said 0%. You asked: > Ever heard of adult-onset myopia? And I said: Yes. That doesn't mean 0% and I am not changing my mind. Now, again, what is the percentage of adult-onset myopia among myopes and why is that? Don't try to sidetrack to something else as Mike Tyner did. Dear Mike Tyner, Could you please also answer the two questions above, based on your textbooks, etc.? S.Seagal dr.sea...@yahoo.com wrote: > No, I never said 0%. You asked: > > > Ever heard of adult-onset myopia? > > And I said: Yes. That doesn't mean 0% and I am not changing my mind. Here is what you said: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you need explanation with physics/math equation and drawing/diagram OR simple explanation is enough? Before I answer this question, I like to know what you think (I was going to ask you this question): Why does myopia stop getting worse at adulthood or older? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, if I show you one case where an adult's myopia gets worse, I win. Don't you agree? The fact is that axial -- and not accommodative -- myopia can and does get worse in adulthood. The way you phrased it, and according to you theory, if I demonstrate at least one case, your theory is wrong. DrG > And I said: Yes. That doesn't mean 0% and I am not changing my mind. Happy New Year everybody. Time for bed. Always be careful what you ask for. DrG > Could you please also answer the two questions above, based on your > textbooks, etc.? Have yours gone missing? After age 65, the entire population average shifts toward myopia. Myopes get more myopic, hyperopes get less hyperopic. Now pretty please, tell us how you cure myopia so we can do it too. -MT >>Could you please also answer the two questions above, based on your >>textbooks, etc.? > > Have yours gone missing? As I've said, I'm not sure if he/she/it has even graduated high school yet. And responding to this troll's posts directly is just what it wants. > >>Could you please also answer the two questions above, based on your > >>textbooks, etc.? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As I've said, I'm not sure if he/she/it has even graduated high school > yet. And responding to this troll's posts directly is just what it wants. How do you graduate a high school? ObPetPeeve: You graduate *from* a high school. > ObPetPeeve: You graduate *from* a high school. Certainly true, and I'll try to have less of my wife's midwestern talk rub off on me. But see my last post about really important peeves... >> So how do you explain when they quit getting worse? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to know what you think (I was going to ask you this question): > Why does myopia stop getting worse at adulthood or older? I know! It's because they quit wearing glasses. >> You see, in the US we must apply for licenses to practice optometry. If >> we >> advertise false claims, like you're doing, they take our licenses away. >> Perhaps the requirements are not so stringent where you are? >> > What makes my claim false claims? Several reasons: 1) You're the only one who believes it. 2) You haven't applied any statistical methods. 3) It contradicts published experiments using accepted statistical methods. 4) In the US, state governments and the Federal Trade Commission prosecute doctors who claim to cure myopia. 5) Entire generations of optometrists used to believe as you do and now they don't. 6) It contradicts my own experience. -MT > 4) In the US, state governments and the Federal Trade Commission prosecute > doctors who claim to cure myopia. My Ods fixed my myopia. They gave me glasses and contacts. What's hard to understand about that? ....nothing worth repeating. Geez, yet another looney nutcase. And you guys are doing an Otis on him. LB, O.D. > Geez, yet another looney nutcase. And you guys are doing an Otis on him. Gee, sorry mom. The problem is not the person but the ideology, and make no mistake, it is an ideology. It must be a profitable one at that, or else why would they keep promoting it. There really is very little downside to their scheme. DrG > > Geez, yet another looney nutcase. And you guys are doing an Otis on him. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > DrG You might be confusing or combining separate issues, that of zealotry, compulsive and impulsive behavior and profiteering into a single ideology. Of course we've never seen that successfully implemented in the real world. If it was, the result might be a polarization of political, social and economic society that could lead to serious conflict and even war. Flame on. LB Ever thought about going over there to join brother Seagal and brother Leung for some quick bucks? DrG how come bifocal spectacles, plus reading glasses, and removing glasses for reading don't slow myopia progression? are the rigorous statistical studies that demonstrate the above treatments don't work all wrong and only your old theory right? explain? how come one study showed that myopic undercorrection actually caused INCREASED myopia? how come one study showed that myopic OVERCORRECTION did not result in increased myopia in children? it should have caused them to get more myopic according to your (=old disproven) theory. do you believe there is a conspiracy among educated vision researchers around the world to hide the real truth so that they all cook their data to show that these treatments, which should work if your idea is right, don't actually work at all? do you think they are stupid and only you are smart? are your REALLY a doctor graduating from a REAL accredited optometry school? how come credible eye doctors don't agree with you? if you claim they do, then please list them. can you actually answer these questions directly? ???????????????????? > Dear all, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sincerely, > S.Seagal dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote in news:1167555051.715956.158750 @h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Dear all, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Myopia is caused by ...... Yo, S. Can you share a tad with us. Your user name has "dr." in it. Are you a doctor? This isn't of course, to say that if you aren't you should have nothing to say, but just to clarify your positions.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Dear retinula, p.clarkii, Mike Tyner, DrG, Dr Judy, Scott Seidman, fellow optometrists, current myopes, future myopes, parents of current myopes and parents of future myopes, Why bifocal studies failed? Check it out here: http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare/why_bifocal_studies_failed.html Bifocal studies failed for several reasons which will be discussed here. The "typical" bifocal uses an OVER-PRESCRIBED or FULL-PRESCRIBED minus lens for distance correction with an "add" of +0.50 to +1.50 Diopter for near correction. For example, if a myope is at 3D myopic, his bifocal will be -3.00D or more for distance correction with an "add" of ,say, +1.00 Diopter which will add up to -2.00D for near correction. Now, normally speaking, how many hours does a child spend looking at objects 20 feet or further away? Half an hour? One hour? Nowadays, most children spend their time indoor. Even if they spend their time outdoor, they are not looking at objects 20 feet or further away the whole time they spend outdoor. So, on average, we could say the children spend about 10% of their waking hours (don't be picky here, this is just an example, hope you get the idea) looking at objects 20 feet or further away. This means their eyes are completely relax for only 10% of their waking hours. (Figure 17A) Now, when we (or the children) spend our time indoor, how many hours do we spend looking at objects 20 feet or further away? How big is our house? How big is the living room, the dining room, the bedroom, the bathroom? How big is our office, or cubicle? How big is the classroom? etc. Again, when we (or the children) are staying indoor, how many hours do we spend looking at objects 20 feet or further away? I believe it is very close to zero. When we (or the children) are staying indoor, we don't spend the whole time looking at the clock on the wall in the living room from another end of the living room. Even if we do, the eyes are still under a constant state of stress (due to accommodation) since the living room is not 20 feet long. What do we (or the children) do when we are staying indoor? We eat, we chat, we (the children) play with toys, we take a shower or a bath, etc. (you get the idea). When we eat, how far away is the dinner plate from our eyes? When we chat, how far away are the people we are chatting with away from our eyes? When the children play with their toys, how far away are their toys away from their eyes? When we take a shower, how far away do we look? In summary, the eyes are under a constant state of stress (due to accommodation) if fully-prescribed minus lens are used, especially when staying indoor. (Figure 17B) This is one of the reasons bifocal studies failed. The bifocal studies might not have failed if the top segment for distance correction was lowered by one diopter or so. (Figure 17C) We will discuss this more later. The second reason bifocal studies failed is that the "add" is not enough. Doing close work with regular glasses without the "add", the eye is under a lot of stress as shown in Figure 19A. With an "add" of +1.00 Diopter, assuming a reading distance of 13 inches (1.1 feet), the eye is still under a lot of stress as shown in Figure 19B. The bifocal studies might not have failed if the "add" was increased to +3.00 Diopter or so, assuming a reading distance of 13 inches, which would have eliminated accommodation completely. (Figure 19C) The third reason bifocal studies failed is that the top segment (distance correction) is incorrectly used for reading since most children do not know or were not taught how to use bifocal glasses correctly. So, even if the "add" were increased to +3.00 Diopter or so, and assuming a reading distance of 13 inches, the studies would still have failed since reading with the top segment puts the eyes under a tremendous amount of stress as shown in Figure 19A. The fourth reason bifocal studies failed is that the reading distance is too close. Do children normally read at 13 inches or more? Normally speaking, most children don't. So, even if the "add" were increased to +3.00 Diopter or so, the studies would still have failed since most children read at a very close distance which puts the eyes under a tremendous amount of stress as shown in Figure 19D. In summary, bifocal studies failed for these reasons: 1. The top segment for distance correction is too strong 2. The bottom segment for near correction is not weak enough, i.e., the "add" is not enough 3. The top segment is used for reading 4. The reading distance is too close Now, let me try to answer some of your questions. retinula wrote: > How do you explain the statistical data that demonstrates that plus > lenses don't prevent progression. and that bifocals don't > significantly reduce progression. Bifocal studies were trying to prove that if reducing accommodation would reduce or stop myopia progression. The results prove that bifocals don't significantly reduce myopia progression because they DID NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE ACCOMMODATION. As I said, the top segment for distance correction is too strong. So the top segment does NOT reduce accommodation AT ALL. And the "add" is not enough which means the accommodation is only VERY SLIGHTLY REDUCED, even if the bifocal glasses were correctly used. Most other studies failed for the same reasons. For instance, plus lenses don't slow myopia progression or prevent myopia if, say, a +1.00D is used and the children are reading at six inches. There is still a tremendous amount of accommodation involved. Removing glasses for reading doesn't help much either if the children are reading at six inches. p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > how come bifocal spectacles, plus reading glasses, and removing glasses > for reading don't slow myopia progression? > > are the rigorous statistical studies that demonstrate the above > treatments don't work all wrong and only your old theory right? > explain? These studies are not wrong. These studies were just not done PROPERLY or CORRECTLY. My old theory is EXACTLY the same as the theories these studies are based on. The only difference is that I do it properly in my office. I TRY to COMPLETELY ELIMINATE ACCOMMODATION. More on this later. p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > how come one study showed that myopic undercorrection actually caused > INCREASED myopia? Again, undercorrection does not do much if not done properly or correctly. For instance, if a -2.00D myopic child is wearing -1.50D or -1.00D glasses all the time, including for reading, this child's myopia WILL INCREASE, even in my office. I will share with you later things that need to done so that myopia stops progressing. p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > how come one study showed that myopic OVERCORRECTION did not result in > increased myopia in children? it should have caused them to get more > myopic according to your (=old disproven) theory. Did you mean myopia in children with overcorrection actually stops in this study? If overcorrection does not result in increased myopia in children, I guess next time when a -1.00D myopic child comes to your office, you can let him/her wear -5.00D glasses to stop his myopia from progressing. More on this later. p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > do you believe there is a conspiracy among educated vision researchers > around the world to hide the real truth so that they all cook their > data to show that these treatments, which should work if your idea is > right, don't actually work at all? do you think they are stupid and > only you are smart? Yes, I believe there is a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I don't think they are stupid and I don't think I am the only smart one. I am not smart. I think they are EXTREMELY smart. They are BRILLIANT. p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > are your REALLY a doctor graduating from a REAL accredited optometry > school? Yes p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > how come credible eye doctors don't agree with you? if you claim they > do, then please list them. The following are some of the credible eye doctors and doctors that agree with me: Lee Anthony De Luca, M.D., Ophthalmologist Xu Guang-di, M.D., Ophthalmologist Edward C. Kondrot, M.D., Ophthalmologist Deborah Banker, M.D., Ophthalmologist E.F. Darling, M.D., Ophthalmologist W.B. MacCracken, M.D. Mei Xiang-Yang, M.D. Wang Jing-Ying, M.D. John L. Fielder, D.C., D.O., N.D. Dhiren Gala, B.Sc., D.H.M.S., D.O., D. Ac., C.G.O., C.C.H., A.R.S.H. D. R. Gala, N.D., D.N.O., D.C.O. Sanjay Gala, M.B. (BOM.), M.S. (ENT) Stan Appelbaum, O.D. Marc R. Grossman, O.D. Steve Leung, O.D. Joel H. Warshowsky, O.D. Jay M. Cohen, O.D. Sidney Groffman, O.D. Rochelle Mozlin, O.D. Henry Ettinger, O.D. James L. Cox, O.D. Neena Gabrielle, O.D. ......and many more ...... p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > can you actually answer these questions directly? Yes. I believe I have. retinula wrote: > What treatment do you propose for people to prevent myopia that doesn't > involve one of the above disproven approaches? The above disproven approaches were disproven ON PURPOSE by these BRILLIANT people to hide the real truth in order to make these theories or treatments "disappear" from optometry school and from this world. The above approaches are the treatments which I propose to prevent or control myopia. The above approaches are really simple to implement and easy to use and really work if done PROPERLY or CORRECTLY. Other treatments that doesn't involve the above approaches include yoga, acupuncture, acupressure, qigong, etc. which I am not currently into. p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > do you believe there is a conspiracy among educated vision researchers > around the world to hide the real truth ....... So you knew it (the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)? retinula wrote: > Quit trying to be elusive and just tell us exactly what you believe, > why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, and > what the treatments are that you suggest? I don't think I am the one who is trying to be elusive. My simple questions got answers like "NOBODY KNOWS", "NO ONE KNOWS", "It doesn't contribute much", "That would be pointless (to explain...)" etc. So you know who is trying to be elusive. retinula wrote: > ...... just tell us exactly what you believe, > why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, and > what the treatments are that you suggest? I am going to tell all of you now what I believe. I believe myopia is caused by sustained accommodation as a result of prolonged close work. I have chosen to believe that because THAT IS SCIENCE. Which part of this is not SCIENCE? When talking about the cause of myopia, most optometrists /researchers /textbooks /papers /articles will say things like "near work may not be associated with myopia progression", "near work is somewhat related", "near work doesn't contribute much", etc. They argue that there are people who became myopic without ever doing near work. "I guess there are maybe 95% of the people who became myopic without ever doing near work." Am I right? It seems like conventional optometry teaching/optometrists/researchers like to use rare cases to disprove a theory or to deny the real science. (Pardon my poor English writing skill and expressing skill as English is my seventh language but I hope you get the idea.) "Diet is not the cause of obesity since 2% of the obese people have healthy diet and 98% of the obese people have high fat, high calorie diet. And there are those people, about 1% of the population who have high fat, high calorie diet who do not become obese. So, diet is NOT the cause of obesity." I guess this is science. "Neosporin and bandages should not be use to treat a wound since they can't cure the wound on the people with diabetes." This is also science. Dear fellow optometrists, Wake up, wake up, rise and shine! retinula wrote: > ...... just tell us exactly what you believe, > why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, and > what the treatments are that you suggest? The treatment that I suggest is to try to eliminate accommodation completely. In real life, it is almost impossible to completely eliminate accommodation. That why I said "TRY TO". Try to reduce accommodation as much as possible. For example, when a -3.00D myopic child come to my office, I will check the minus lens power needed for the child to see 20/30, 20/40, 20/60 etc. Of course I will also check the child's full prescription but I won't give the child glasses with full prescription. I will ask the child how far away he/she sits from the board in the classroom and how big the teachers' writing is. Normally speaking, the teachers' writing is about the size of "HTYO" (20/60) and "VUAXT" (20/40) on my eye chart. If he/she sits in the front (close to the board), then the glasses for the board may be around -1.50D or so. If he/she sits in the middle (further away from the board), then the glasses for the board may be around -2.00D or so. If he/she sits in the back (far away from the board), then the glasses for the board may be around -2.50D or so. If transparencies with overhead projector are used in the classroom, then the glasses for the board will be stronger (less undercorrect). I seldom give bifocal glasses to the children since most children will not use bifocal glasses properly. They will use the top segment for near work, especially the younger children. So, I will tell the children to "push" the glasses (non-bifocal) up when copying stuff from the board. "Glasses for the board, bare-eye for the note pad" is what I normally tell them. I will also tell them to sit upright and stay as far away from the note pad as possible. The glasses for the board (distance correction) is only used for the classroom board, for watching TV at home or movie in the theater, for bicycle riding, for driving (age 16 and above), for operating dangerous machinery (I don't think children do this, but this is what I tell them), for looking at objects very far away (signs on the street, etc.), for outdoor when needed. I tell them to use the glasses for distance correction as little as possible. The only time this pair of glasses is used indoor is when watching TV or movie. Normally, there will be a second pair of glasses for close work (reading, writing, computer work, etc.) For example, a -6.00D myopic child will need one while a -3.00D myopic child may or may not need one. The power of the lens of this glasses depends on the reading/working distance this child is comfortable with or used to. If this child (-6.00D myopic) prefers to read at around 13 inches or so, his/her glasses for reading will be around -3.00D. If this child prefers to read at around 16 inches or so, his/her glasses for reading will be around -3.50D. If this child prefers to read at around 20 inches or so, his/her glasses for reading will be around -4.00D. This child will also be told to read at the far point. "Push the book as far away as possible until the letters on the book become very slightly blurry. If you want, pull the book in slightly and the letters on the book become perfectly clear and read this way." This is what I normally tell the children to do. The purpose of this is to completely eliminate accommodation when doing prolonged close work. Again, glasses for distance correction is used as little as possible. As for the glasses for near correction, it can be used all the time or only for near work. For example, a -3.50D myopic teenager can used his/her -1.00D glasses all the time or he/she can just use it for prolonged close work. When accommodation is reduced to a point where axial elongation stops, myopia stops progressing, i.e., myopia is under control. For younger children, it is best to try to completely eliminate accommodation in order to keep myopia under control while for older adults, a slight decrease in accommodation (using slightly undercorrect glasses) is all it takes to stop myopia progression. Accommodation is a major cause of myopia and myopia progression. That is why the rate of progression of adulthood myopia is lower than the rate of progression of childhood myopia and that is also why youth-onset myopia is much much more common than adult-onset myopia and late-adult-onset myopia since the power of accommodation of a young child is 20D while the power of accommodation is about 8D at age 30 and around 2D at age 50. This also explains why myopia progression normally stops at adulthood or late-adulthood and not during childhood. Those whose myopia continues to progress even at late-adulthood could mean their eyes are still very powerful (like a younger person) or the duration of their close work is too long or both or some other reasons. Again, don't try to use rare cases to disprove a theory or to deny the real science. Since accommodation causes myopia and myopia progression, minus lens should be carefully and properly used as minus lens will further cause accommodation which causes myopia progression. If minus lenses can be used improperly without any harm or side effects, there is no need to require a prescription to buy eyeglasses with minus lens, as in the case of plus lenses (reading glasses) which can be bought everywhere without prescription. If overcorrection is so safe, there is no need to have optometrists in this world. When a person becomes myopic, simply go to the grocery store or department store and get a pair of glasses with minus lenses. If -1.00D is not clear enough, get -5.00D or -10.00D which will produce a clearer image. Glasses of three powers (-1.00D, -5.00D and -10.00D or maybe more) in the store solve most myopia problems in the world. If I understand it correctly, prescription medicine must be used as directed. Why isn't there any direction for using the prescription glasses (minus lens)? If prescription glasses are used as directed, myopia progression will stop. And that is what I do. I give the myopes in my office directions for using the prescription glasses properly. Please don't blame unknown reasons as the cause of myopia and myopia progression. "Nobody knows", "No one knows" etc. And please don't be irresponsible eye doctors by refusing to solve myopia problems. And please don't degrade yourselves from eye doctors to eyeglass fitter. Myopia is caused by bad habits (reading too close, etc.) and myopia progression is caused by bad habits and improperly used prescription glasses. If prescription glasses are used properly and bad habits are changed to good habits, myopia progression simply stops. Again, don't try to use rare cases to disprove a theory or to deny the real science. I use common cases, and common sense. And that is my approach to solving myopia problems, one of which is myopia progression. And myopia progression stops in my office. The success rate is 100%. > > Just to confirm, what is the success rate for myopia control in your office? Mike Tyner wrote: > Zero. > > What would you do if you know of a myopia control method that really works? Mike Tyner wrote: > I'd use it. Dr. Leukoma wrote: > It it was safe, efficacious, and practical to use, then I would employ > it. If it involves putting small children into helmets with plus > lenses in front of their eyes 24/7, then I would defer. retinula wrote: > ...... just tell us exactly what you believe, > why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, and > what the treatments are that you suggest? > > I will tell you if you, just like me, also want to quit destroying > myopes' eyes by making them more and more myopic year after year. retinula wrote: > YES-- i will change what i do if you can convince me, just get on with > it! I have shared with you a little bit of what I know and what I do to stop myopia progression. I hope all of you keep your promise and start saving myopes' eyes. Sincerely, S.Seagal, O.D. http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare > http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare/why_bifocal_studies_failed.html > > Bifocal studies failed for several reasons which will be discussed > here. . > p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > > how come bifocal spectacles, plus reading glasses, and removing glasses > > for reading don't slow myopia progression? . > These studies are not wrong. These studies were just not done PROPERLY > or CORRECTLY. My old theory is EXACTLY the same as the theories these > studies are based on. The only difference is that I do it properly in > my office. I TRY to COMPLETELY ELIMINATE ACCOMMODATION. More on this > later. we are waiting for your answer. using plus readers and having myopes take off their glasses to read reduces accommodation. then why doesn't it slow myopia progression? > Again, undercorrection does not do much if not done properly or > correctly. indeed. it even makes myopia progress faster even though it reduces accommodative demand. why> > p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > > how come one study showed that myopic OVERCORRECTION did not result in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Did you mean myopia in children with overcorrection actually stops in > this study? no-- i mean it stayed the same as the group who were properly corrected. but the results showed that overcorrection DIDN'T causes accelerated myopia as your theory would predict. please explain this result. > p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote: > > do you believe there is a conspiracy among educated vision researchers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Yes, I believe there is a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ please fill in the blank. no games. just say it outright. Thank you for responding with details. If you change my mind, i will change the way i practice but the burden of proof is one you. please continue my friend. > Please don't blame unknown reasons as the cause of myopia and myopia > progression. "Nobody knows", "No one knows" etc. And please > don't be irresponsible eye doctors by refusing to solve myopia > problems. And please don't degrade yourselves from eye doctors to > eyeglass fitter. You don't know what causes myopia and you surely don't know how to prevent it. If you did, certainly you and your cohorts would be able to construct an experiment that would satisfy the scientific community and publish it. I think that it is about time that you and your "cohorts" start acting like responsible doctors and scientists and publish the proof. DrG > > Please don't blame unknown reasons as the cause of myopia and myopia > > progression. "Nobody knows", "No one knows" etc. And please [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > DrG or just admit "i don't know but i have a theory". if you choose to treat patients based upon theory rather than proven fact, then go do so. most of us won't, nor would i ever want anybody in my family to go to a doctor who does. > or just admit "i don't know but i have a theory". > > if you choose to treat patients based upon theory rather than proven > fact, then go do so. most of us won't, nor would i ever want anybody > in my family to go to a doctor who does. I dunno... In the absence of good clinical data, a good theory is better than nothing, especially if no harm is done. However, to discount an abundance of clinical data in favor of an outdated theory is clearly unreasonable. Even worse is to cling to an outdated theory and ignoring the clinical data that disagrees with it...(as in "OK, let's not get picky here"). DrG > or just admit "i don't know but i have a theory". These people do not want to be confronted with contradictory evidence, and they certainly don't want to bother with newer and better theories, and heaven forbid that they should actually have to show the rest of us some proof of a kind that will withstand scientific scrutiny. What about those studies? Well, they were all flawed.... > Again, don't try to use rare cases to disprove a theory or to deny > the real science. I use common cases, and common sense. And that is > my approach to solving myopia problems, one of which is myopia > progression. And myopia progression stops in my office. The success > rate is 100%. We call this "charlatanry." > I have shared with you a little bit of what I know and what I do to > stop myopia progression. I hope all of you keep your promise and start > saving myopes' eyes. And I hope you will learn to do a t-test. -MT dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote in news:1167899395.468298.147740@ 6g2000cwy.googlegroups.com: > Dear retinula, p.clarkii, Mike Tyner, DrG, Dr Judy, Scott Seidman, > fellow optometrists, current myopes, future myopes, parents of current > myopes and parents of future myopes, Don't get me wrong-- I have no interest in what you have to say-- I was just trying to make sure you're not misrepresenting yourself as a doctor with your screen name. Frankly, I'm still not convinced that you're a doctor, but at least now you unambiguously say you are one. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply There is no question that he/she/it is not a doctor of any kind, except maybe the kind you can get on the internet for a small price. I'm pretty sure it hasn't graduated from secondary school yet due to the childishness of the prose and his admission of no access to any text books on the subject. I'm amazed so many real docs are responding to the trolling at all... w.stacy, o.d. >Frankly, I'm still not convinced that you're a >doctor, but at least now you unambiguously say you are one. > > > There is no question that he/she/it is not a doctor of any kind, except > maybe the kind you can get on the internet for a small price. I'm > pretty sure it hasn't graduated from secondary school yet due to the > childishness of the prose and his admission of no access to any text > books on the subject. I'm amazed so many real docs are responding to > the trolling at all... ...especially those who respond to the responses and the responses to the responses. Myopia prevention is a pretty important topic IMHO, and there is lots of research going on, and so the topic is really apropos for this NG. The distinction between accommodation as the stimulus vs. retinal defocus as the stimulus is very subtle, but very important in terms of the treatment. In the the process of treating accommodation with bifocals, there are enough accommodative myopes out of the pool of myopes whose favorable treatment responses keep the myth alive, to which the Seagals of the world point and say "see, it works." It would seem that the fact of pirenzepine slowing the progression of myopia without affecting accommodation would be proof enough for even a sceptic like Mr. Seagal. DrG >...especially those who respond to the responses and the responses to >the responses. > > Hey, I don't see a problem with responding to a real doc who is talking about something a troll says. The troll gets no joy from that. I just object to posting to the troll directly, which is all they live for. > >...especially those who respond to the responses and the responses to > >the responses. > > > Hey, I don't see a problem with responding to a real doc who is talking > about something a troll says. The troll gets no joy from that. I just > object to posting to the troll directly, which is all they live for. How do you know which of us is genuine? Maybe we should add our license numbers to our signature line. DrG It's pretty obvious by the posts who has had an education, and I mean ANY formal education, in optometry/ophthalmology and who hasn't. Res ipse loquitur. > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > >...especially those who respond to the responses and the responses to > > >the responses. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How do you know which of us is genuine? Maybe we should add our > license numbers to our signature line. I have a bunch of license numbers. Most aren't mine (my driver's license is genuine). If I copy the license number of my OD from my last prescription to my sig, does that make me credible? :-( > I have a bunch of license numbers. Most aren't mine (my driver's > license is genuine). If I copy the license number of my OD from my last > prescription to my sig, does that make me credible? Shouldn't it? DrG > > I have a bunch of license numbers. Most aren't mine (my driver's > > license is genuine). If I copy the license number of my OD from my last > > prescription to my sig, does that make me credible? > > Shouldn't it? I'm not sure that I understand, but I realized that I have three vehicles with genuine license numbers. Does that make me more credible than you? :-) > I'm not sure that I understand, but I realized that I have three > vehicles with genuine license numbers. Does that make me more credible > than you? What if I told you that perceiving more contrast on the green side of the duochrome chart indicated that you were overminused. Would I have more credibility if you thought I was an optometrist or if you thought I was an unemployed part-time student living in his parent's basement? DrG > > I'm not sure that I understand, but I realized that I have three > > vehicles with genuine license numbers. Does that make me more credible [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > more credibility if you thought I was an optometrist or if you thought > I was an unemployed part-time student living in his parent's basement? Perhaps the joke has gone on too long. I was just trying to point out that seagal not only could put a "dr." in front of it's name, but could also put a fake OD license number in it's .sig. I wasn't questioning you personally. > In article <1167958261.794804.160680@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > Perhaps the joke has gone on too long. I was just trying to point out > that seagal not only could put a "dr." in front of it's name, but could > also put a fake OD license number in it's .sig. > > I wasn't questioning you personally. Precisely the point. I was only joking when I mentioned it. DrG "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in news:1167937376.238374.110040@ 51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com: > Myopia prevention is a pretty important topic IMHO, and there is lots > of research going on, True enough, and the NEI is still pretty interested. I'd still love to see a public health analysis, though. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > True enough, and the NEI is still pretty interested. I'd still love to see > a public health analysis, though. Are you implying that treating myopes with more bifocals is more expensive in the long run than single vision lenses? What about the self esteem involved in kids wearing bifocals vs. single vision lenses? Of course, accommodative ability will suffer as the eye gets used to never having to accommodate. But, who needs accommodation. Accommodation must be bad if it causes myopia. >> True enough, and the NEI is still pretty interested. I'd still love >> to see a public health analysis, though. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > never having to accommodate. But, who needs accommodation. > Accommodation must be bad if it causes myopia. No-- actually, I'm not sure that the cost of life-long spectacle correction AT ALL is a large enough public health problem to justify the research effort. Add any protective benefits that spectacle correction has-- will more people get hurt if less people wear glasses? In a world where NIH paylines are dropping precipitously, is this where the money needs to be spent? Except for high myopes (who may very well be a different beast, and fall entirely outside of most myopia studies), I tend to look at spectacles as pretty much a cure-- and an inexpensive one, at that. Now, presbyopia-- that's annoying-- with no convenient "cure". I'm not sure the child's stigma of wearing bifocals is all that much greater than the stigma of wearing a single vision lens in a way that has any public health impact. For extreme cases, maybe this has more impact, but I'm not sure that the extreme cases bear any resemblance to normal myopia progression. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > the real science. I use common cases, and common sense. And that is > my approach to solving myopia problems, one of which is myopia > progression. And myopia progression stops in my office. The success > rate is 100%. 100%? You can cure patients who aren't compliant? Children are notoriously non-compliant. Especially when they can see just fine. >100%? You can cure patients who aren't compliant? Children are >notoriously non-compliant. Especially when they can see just fine. > 100% of 0 is 0, so I guess the statement is true. |
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.