Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Remarks by Dr. Young on Refractive STATES.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
otisbrown@pa.net - 15 Feb 2007 03:56 GMT
Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject:  Remarks by Dr. Young on the refractive
STATE of the natural eye, whether plus or minus.

Re: Paradigm shift -- learn to RESPECT the
fundamental eye as a DYNAMIC system -- in the
first place.

Here is an assessment by Dr. Young of the effect of 12
years of school on the refractive STATES of our natural eyes.

Refractive STATE of from zero to +3 diopters are natural
for the fundamental eye in the "open".

Young reports negative refractive STATES when
the kids are kept in school for 12 years.

There eyes DID NOT BECOME "DEFECTIVE".  Only
a primitive and simplistic understanding of
the natural eye would JUMP to that CONCLUSION.

Here are Dr. Young's scientific facts.  Draw
your own conclusions.

Otis

===========

>From Contacto:

"The Development of Myopia"

By Francis Young

THE NON-READING PARENTS

"...What we found in this situation (Eskimos who did scant
reading, and lived a "hunting" life) and again we have not
completed the analysis of all our data, is that out of 130
parents, only two individuals show myopia, one with -0.25 diopters
and one with -1.5 diopters. All the rest of the parents show
refractive errors (STATES OSB) between 0.0 and +3 diopters with
the majority of them exceeding +1.5 diopters.

In our way of thinking, these people demonstrate a type of
refractive condition which has been determined by heredity and
which is achieved as early as the second year of life.

Thus, we are dealing with a population has effectively not
been exposed to a near-work environment..."

===============

THE 12 YEAR SCHOOL CHILDREN

"...When we look at the cildren of these none-myopic parents,
we find a completely different picture. Fully 60% of the school
children examined showed a measurable amount of myopia with groups
averaging as much as 2 or more diopters of myopia within different
age levels. We found that of 53 individuals, who were between 21
and 25 years of age, 88% of them are myopic. There is a beginning
of myopia at about 10 years of age and a steady increase in the
proportions of the children showing myopia up to the group in the
21 to 25 year old range.

Since both the children and the parents are still using, for
at least part of the day, the basic Eskimo diet, but for one meal
a day are eating essentially and American type of diet as supplied
by the school of supplier in there employment situation, we can
probably rule out any effects of diet.

If the diet change is ruled out, then the major difference
between the parents and the children is the reading continuum..."

+++++++++++++++++++++

SUBJECT: The nature of the refractive STATES of primates and
man "in the wild".

>From other studies conducted by Dr. Young, it is very clear
that normal refractive STATE of the natural eye is positive,
running from zero to +3 diopters. In my opinion, it is not
reasonable to refer to that natural eye with normal refractive
STATES as having an "error" of any sort at all -- although
the obsolete theory of a long time ago insists that
exclusively a refractive STATE of zero is normal, and
all other eyes have terrible postive errors.

Best,

Otis
Dr. Leukoma - 15 Feb 2007 04:42 GMT
On Feb 14, 9:56 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Prevention-minded friends,
>
[quoted text clipped - 89 lines]
>
> Otis

As a former optometry student, I learned about these studies.  We all
know that there is a connection between reading and myopia, between
genetic and myopia, and the COMET study was quite clear on the role of
bifocals in treating myopia.  Have you by any chance read it?

DrG
otisbrown@pa.net - 15 Feb 2007 18:36 GMT
Subject:  The Commet study versus the Oakley-Young study.

Yes, I have read both of them.

You seem to have NOT read the Oakley-Young study,
or have not UNDERSTOOD IT.

Both study show this:

1.  If you place a child in a strong minus (the control group)
their natural refractive STATE follows that wretched minus, and
goes DOWN at a rate of -1/2 to 6/10 diopter PER YEAR.

2. Fancis Young used a HIGH PLACED PLUS, so
the child could not avoid looking through the plus for
ALL CLOSE WORK.

3.  The various small segment "bifocal" studies enable
the child to AVOID LOOKING THROUGH THE PLUS.
Further THERE WAS NO EFFORT TO SEE IF THE
KIDS ACTUALLY LOOKED THROUGH THE PLUS.
Thus it hardly qualified as a controlled study, since
what the kids were doing was un-controlled.

4.  What Francis Youngs "plus" study showed that
the control group went DOWN at a rate of -1/2 diopter
per year over four years.  The "plus" went down
at essentially zero diopters per year.  Thus
after four years, (in concept) a plus lens user
would keep his distant vision clear, while the
strong-minus would be down by -2 diopters
or 20/140 four years.

Yes, you majority-opinion DENYS all facts
that you don't like.

Hardly an open mind I would suggest.

The second-opinion ODs suppport the
concept of the person being supplied
with this type of preventive information.

I think that the parent has the right to
review this type of second-opinion, and
you do not.  That is the difference between us.

Otis

> On Feb 14, 9:56 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 100 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks - 15 Feb 2007 18:51 GMT
You're lying again, Otis.

See: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt
Mike Tyner - 15 Feb 2007 19:04 GMT
> Yes, I have read both of them.

Then you know that one of them hasn't been repeatable.

> You seem to have NOT read the Oakley-Young study,
> or have not UNDERSTOOD IT.

And YOU seem to think nobody tried it after the study was released.

> 1.  If you place a child in a strong minus (the control group)
> their natural refractive STATE follows that wretched minus, and
> goes DOWN at a rate of -1/2 to 6/10 diopter PER YEAR.

Other studies show the "natural refractive STATE goes DOWN" when they DON'T
wear that wretched minus.

> Yes, you majority-opinion DENYS all facts
> that you don't like.

No, just the ones we can't verify.

-MT
Dr. Leukoma - 15 Feb 2007 20:13 GMT
On Feb 15, 12:36 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Subject:  The Commet study versus the Oakley-Young study.
>
> Yes, I have read both of them.
>
> You seem to have NOT read the Oakley-Young study,
> or have not UNDERSTOOD IT.

Yes, I have read it several times, just so that I could be sure that
you misunderstood it.

> 1.  If you place a child in a strong minus (the control group)
> their natural refractive STATE follows that wretched minus, and
> goes DOWN at a rate of -1/2 to 6/10 diopter PER YEAR.

Neither study concludes that.  Both studies show that some children
get more nearsighted.

> 2. Fancis Young used a HIGH PLACED PLUS, so
> the child could not avoid looking through the plus for
> ALL CLOSE WORK.

So did the COMET study.  The seg was placed 4 mm above the pupil.

> 3.  The various small segment "bifocal" studies enable
> the child to AVOID LOOKING THROUGH THE PLUS.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Hardly an open mind I would suggest.

Apparently my mind is more open than yours.  Oakley-Young's subjects
were all nearpoint esophores.  All studies, including the COMET study
show that myopes who are nearpoint esopheres benefit more from the use
of bifocals than the rest of the myopes.  AT MOST this represents 25%
of the myopic population.

Now, if you cannot get that through your incredible information
filter, then that's just unfortunate for you.

DrG
 
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



©2008 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.