 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 20074th annual: Are shoes the cause of vision problems?
TO: All vision researchers, doctors, and patients. The purpose of this yearly post is to stimulate interest and discussion about the biomechanical effects of shoes on "age-related" degenerative conditions, such as vision problems. Chiropodist Dr. Simon J. Wikler pioneered efforts to understand the influences of shoes in the 1950's, but his work was neglected during the subsequent drug- and diet-based approaches to medicine. However, the prolific footwear historian and podiatrist Dr. William A. Rossi clearly demonstrated throughout his publications that shoes influence the posture of the human body. Therefore, using the posture-based approaches to medicine of the distinguished orthopedist Dr. Joel E. Goldthwait, I have expanded Dr. Wikler's insightful work to include a variety of illnesses and conditions whose causes remain unknown. Vision problems are just examples of conditions that result from the habitual use of shoes, particularly during the formative, childhood years. It really makes no sense for humans to have four relatively sharp senses of hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling, but an extremely poor-quality fifth one of vision. Indeed, the distinguishing factor is that none of the other senses share the fantastic muscular control necessary for proper organic functioning. The eye is thus directly subject to unnatural postural strain with imbalanced feet. After walking around in shoes for several years--and it does not take very long at all--the multiple, tiny muscles of a person's eyes have been subjected to tremendous postural stress. Faulty body mechanics seems to be responsible for myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, presbyopia, strabismus, amblyopia, or other degenerate conditions, but shoes apparently also influence internal diseases such as cataracts, macular degeneration, glaucoma, and others. You may find my thesis regarding shoes and disease on the Internet at: http://www.shoebusters.com Thank you very much for considering my novel approach. James Semmel Albuquerque, New Mexico >Vision problems are just examples of conditions that result from the >habitual use of shoes, particularly during the formative, childhood >years. > Please redirect your ideas to our resident expert on such matters: Dr. Otis Brown otisbrown@pat.net He will be glad to disseminate your information to the appropriate recipients. w.stacy, o.d. Dear Second-opinion friends, Of course, some people believed that the earth was the center of the universe -- and others did not. I believe that the natural eye is DYNAMIC will therefore change its refractive STATE as shown in the blue-tint animation of a population of natural eyes. See: http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html Others believe that the natural eye simply will not change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters in six months when you place -3 diopter lens on it. But I believe in the scientific facts, and not the traditional belief system that is AGAINST these scientific facts. Let the majority opinion (flat earth) and the second opinion (round earth) continue to thrive with these pleasant scientific discussions. Enjoy, Otis > >Vision problems are just examples of conditions that result from the > >habitual use of shoes, particularly during the formative, childhood [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. And with all due respect, William, I suggest the following: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy ... Hamlet, Act I W. Shakespeare Otis > >Vision problems are just examples of conditions that result from the > >habitual use of shoes, particularly during the formative, childhood [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. >[...] >Vision problems are just examples of conditions that result from the >habitual use of shoes [...] I took a look at your web site. You do indeed have an very interesing and unusual sense of humor. How many stiffs have you suckered in so far? :-) Bob, You might be the only one so far, but I'll have to double-check. Glad to 'see' you found the website 'illuminating'. james > >[...] > >Vision problems are just examples of conditions that result from the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and unusual sense of humor. > How many stiffs have you suckered in so far? :-) Do people really understand the "dynamic nature" of the human foot? If one adds a plus size to your shoes, does it stop ones foot from getting bigger? indeed. usually most podiatrists embrace a "shoe-box" theory of the foot that suggests that once the adult shoe size is reached it remains "static" throughout the remainder of a persons life. my good friend Albert Einstein, however, realized that all things are relative. And so its quite obvious that reducing the shoe size can actually shrink the foot while increasing it will cause the foot to lengthen even though there is no data to support it and statistical analysis has proven it not to be true in multiple published papers. all those people are stupid-- just take it on faith. > Do people really understand the "dynamic nature" of the human foot? > > If one adds a plus size to your shoes, does it stop ones foot from > getting bigger? Well, PClar, I am pleased you are good friends with Albert. PClar> my good friend Albert Einstein, however, realized that all things are relative. OtisYou will enjoy his quotes. And back in 1905, everyone thought that Albert has slipped off the "deep end" because he said that material objects must change shape as speed increased. I mean that has got to be impossible, right? What does length have to do with speed. Enjoy! "It seems that the human mind has first to construct forms independently before we can find them in things. Kepler's marvelous achievement is a particularly fine example of the truth that knowledge cannot spring from experience alone, but only from the comparison of the inventions of the mind with observed fact." Albert Einstein The formulation of a problem is often far more essential than its solution, which may be a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science. Albert Einstein "Any intelligent fool can make thing bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- as a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought. Albert Einstein It is the theory that decides what we can observe. Albert Einstein The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Einstein Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison. Albert Einstein "The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing". Albert Einstein "The skeptic will say, 'It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint, but this does not prove that it corresponds to nature.' You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. Albert Einstein "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > indeed. usually most podiatrists embrace a "shoe-box" theory of the > foot that suggests that once the adult shoe size is reached it remains [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > If one adds a plus size to your shoes, does it stop ones foot from > > getting bigger? > OtisYou will enjoy his quotes. And back in 1905, everyone thought > that Albert has slipped off the "deep end" because he > said that material objects must change shape as speed > increased. I mean that has got to be impossible, right? > What does length have to do with speed. Enjoy! Sure, and subsequent observations have proven him correct. But Grosvenor, Shotwell, Ong, Gwiazda, Parnissen and several others have failed trying to confirm YOUR hypothesis. So either they were incompetent, or you, sir, are no Einstein. -MT And, just to be clear, Clar, PClar> my good friend Albert Einstein, however, realized that all things are relative. The Blue-Tint dynamic eye paradigm is a relativistic concept for the behavior of all natural and normal eye, measured in terms of refractive STATE, and NOT refractive ERROR. http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html The Blue-Tint dynamic eye paradigm is a relativistic concept for the behavior of all natural and normal eye, measured in terms of refractive STATE, and NOT refractive ERROR. Where the refractive STATE is measured by Retinoscope/Cycloplegic. I suggest just keeping the concept clear. Change the AVERAGE value of accommodation with a -3 dioper lens. Ask the question, does the natural eye change its refractive STATE as per the change in accommodation by -3 diopters or not. The blue-tint paradigm answers the scientific question neatly. We disagree about concept (your shoe-box theory, or box-camera concept) versus the performance of the natural eye's objective behavior. Otis > Well, PClar, I am pleased you are good friends with Albert. > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > > If one adds a plus size to your shoes, does it stop ones foot from > > > getting bigger? > We disagree about concept (your shoe-box theory, or box-camera > concept) versus the performance of the natural eye's objective > behavior. The paper bag theory is clearly superior. > The Blue-Tint dynamic eye paradigm is a relativistic concept > for the behavior of all natural and normal eye, measured > in terms of refractive STATE, and NOT refractive ERROR. So you use different units? When is a diopter not a diopter? > Ask the question, does the natural eye change its refractive STATE > as per the change in accommodation by -3 diopters or not. I did. It doesn't in humans, after infancy. And hyperopes don't get myopia by taking off their glasses. > The blue-tint paradigm answers the scientific question neatly. For the first year of life. Testing humans after age 6 you find a different story. If you look. You don't look. > We disagree about concept (your shoe-box theory, or box-camera > concept) versus the performance of the natural eye's objective > behavior. No, we disagree about what happens to real people in real life. If you had any experience, we would not disagree. Next time you speak with Dr. Wildsoet, ask her why human adolescents get just as nearsighted when they take off their glasses. Ask her how long her blue-tint paradigm persists in humans. She doesn't claim it applies to everybody and she knows there is evidence it doesn't persist into school age. Yes, myopia responds to close work. It matters how close you work, and how long you work up close. But wearing lenses doesn't make any real difference in by school-age. We lost Otis several paragraphs ago. For those who might still be reading, some apologetics: I started optometry school 25 years ago intent on using every wit and technique available to modify or "control" human refractive error. The problem was I took a few quarters of graduate statistics and experimental design, and found when basic statistical principles were maintained, refractive error was stubbornly durable to _any_ manipulations of spectacle lens power, for good or ill. Refractive errors like hyperopia, astigmatism, and myopia do follow patterns, making it predictable to some degree. But whether we wear these glasses or those glasses or no glasses, seems to make little difference in how they progress. So the object of refracting and prescribing spectacles is NOT to control the course of the conditions, but to facilitate comfort and performance. More if anybody cares... -MT Mike, In other words, you agree with the blue-tint paradigm for all young eyes, primate or human up to the age of 5, and then the eye is "frozen" and will not change its refractive STATE regardless of average value of accommodation induced by EITHER environment or an applied -3 diopter lens. Is this your theory? Otis > > The Blue-Tint dynamic eye paradigm is a relativistic concept > > for the behavior of all natural and normal eye, measured [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > -MT > In other words, you agree with the blue-tint paradigm for all > young eyes, primate or human up to the age of 5, and > then the eye is "frozen" and will not change its refractive STATE > regardless > of average value of accommodation induced by EITHER > environment or an applied -3 diopter lens. Environment still influences myopia, even into adulthood, but only a little. Lenses don't make a difference. Accommodation is not the mechanism. Else hyperopia would go away. > Is this your theory? No. It's my experience. You haven't any, but you're going to contradict me again. -MT it's not a theory otis, it is simply the current state of the collective knowledge of medical science regarding changes in the refractive state of the human eye-- taking into account all of the statistical scientific studies that have been performed so far. you, on the other hand, prefer to ignor many studies and instead propose a theory (which is an older theory that has been tested and disproven multiple times) that is not consistent with the completed research results. And is also not consistent with clinical observations from eye doctors. yet you don't care! you choose to be a proponent of such a theory anyway and choose to ignor all the proof which contradicts it. perhaps old retired engineers who live in pennsylvania are "gifted" and understand the human body without the need to rely on scientific data or experience. so be it. we all know you well enough by now otis-- you are not a logical man. ignorance is bliss. ============ > Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > > > -MT |
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.