 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2007Dr. Colgates second-opinion on prevention.
A SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF EYESIGHT AND THE EYE'S DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR by Stirling A. Colgate, Ph.D.. Theoretical Physics Division MS-210 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 [Previous Title: "A Physicist's Understanding of Eyesight, or, How to Manage Advantageously Your Mean Relaxed Eyesight Focus", dated 5/22/79] Edited by Otis S. Brown C & O Research 11286 Weatherstone Dr. Waynesboro, PA 17268 717-749-7895 otisbrown@pa.net _______________________________ Table of Contents Acknowledgment Personal Note by Stirling Colgate Why Stirling's Experience is Important to You Prologue How to Maintain Clear Distance Vision for Life: Introduction Lenses, Plus and Minus The Artificial Correction Mechanisms How to Maintain Distance Vision in a Civilized Environment How to Select Glasses What to do for Early Myopia Bifocals Other Caveats Why Do So Few People Know About This? Conclusion Letter to the National Institute of Medicine Dr. Stirling Colgate's Vita ******************************************** GENERAL DISCUSSION Acknowledgment I am deeply grateful to the very many people who have read, criticized, and encouraged this work. Foremost among these are my wife, Rosie, who helped start the project. Dr. Francis Young has insisted on technical accuracy and strongly encouraged the project. By his concern, Dr. Dick Garwin has added significantly to the final completion. A Personal Note by Dr. Colgate Since I am a physicist I am not dependent upon optometry or ophthalmology for my professional peer group. I have managed my own eyesight all my life. I have undertaken to try to explain this because I believe that the condition of myopia (and then having to wear nearsighted glasses for life) is totally unnecessary for the majority of the human race. I believe that the condition of progressive myopia is a grotesque and needless distortion of human physiology, created by our intellectual environment of reading and continued because of our collective denial of that very intellect. Fortunately, I understood most of how to manage eyesight for myself when I was studying biology and physics when I was 14. I first started to become nearsighted (again fortunately -- at a relatively late age) -- at 13 to 14. As soon as I noticed it, I immediately acted upon it by buying a pair of reading (farsighted) glasses, positive lenses, at the dime store. I used these for reading. A positive lens substitutes for further contraction of the ciliary muscle thereby allowing the eye focus to remain at infinity when reading a book up close. Within several weeks my eyesight had returned to normal -- focal state at infinity. Stirling Colgate Why Stirling's Experience is Important to You I had prepared eight papers on the dynamic behavior of the eye, from 1979 to 1985. My co-authors were long-established scientists and researchers. These papers presented the eye as a sophisticated feedback-controlled device, where the eye continually adjusts its focal state to the average visual environment. Towards the end of this effort, I received Dr. Stirling Colgate's manuscript from Dr. David Guyton, which further confirmed the scientific opinion that the eye is dynamic. I then organized my papers into a book called, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness". This book is dedicated to the welfare or pilots, and other self-motivated students of science who desire to return their distant vision to 20/40 or better. Since I had such a difficult time obtaining Stirling's manuscript, I think that it is important that we make an effort to formally publish Stirling's judgment about nearsightedness prevention. I have edited his original manuscript somewhat, to update it and make it consistent with current experimental data and knowledge. There is no doubt that Stirling accomplished precisely what he says he achieved, and that his statements are reinforced by the most direct and objective scientific measurements that are possible. To assist pilots and other highly motivated individuals in their understanding of the eye's behavior, Stirling wrote a letter to the NIH, to get their assistance in informing both the health profession and the general public about the experimental data, and the scientific opinion that the eye is dynamic, and that an alternative method does exist to prevent nearsightedness. Other than a courtesy receipt acknowledgment of Stirling's letter, no effort was mounted by the NIH, and NEI to assist with this important scientific work. (The letter is at the end of this article.) While the prevention of nearsightedness is not easy, it is possible. The traditional method (negative-lens) does work, and creates impressive clarity of vision. It is this initial success of the minus lens that blinds us to the deeper truth concerning the eye's behavior. The minus lens is a trap for the unwary, but most of us will step into it. I hope you enjoy Stirling's review and recognize his successful effort with a difficult scientific and practical problem. Otis Brown PROLOGUE "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck The following book is a description of what we think should be done. The study of the development of the dynamic eye should be a well-funded scientific research effort. With accurate knowledge of the normal eye's behavior, we can then expect that the preventive care of the eye can be an important part of science and medicine. We acknowledge that the person who is on the threshold of nearsightedness must play a fundamental and insightful role in the this process. If he is willing to do so, the maintenance of clear distant vision can be an entirely successful process. Offering a discussion of the preventative process to all individuals who are at 20/30 to 20/50 level is an engineering and medical responsibility. The preventative technique has been developed as the "second opinion" over the past fifty years. This manuscript has been prepared by two authors, Stirling Colgate and Otis Brown. We are both committed to a scientific understanding of facts. Stirling was able to defeat the situation by developing a clear understanding of the eye's fundamental behavior. It must be preceived that this book regards nearsightedness as a negative focal state of the eye -- with no necessary suggestion of defect. Since an accurate representation of the eye's behavior does not require the concept of "defect", we judge that research into this question of the eye's behavior is of prime importance for the solution of this difficult problem. If you, apriori, decide that myopia is an organic defect, or refractive error, then it will be difficult for you to form a coherent picture of the experimental data, as well as judging the success of the preventive approach. OSB & SAC HOW TO MAINATION CLEAR DISTANT VISION FOR LIFE INTRODUCTION It is not necessary for young people to become myopic. Progressive myopia is "iatrogenic" (a professionally induced condition). Myopia can be prevented by the use of far-sighted glasses for reading instead of the use of near-sighted glasses for distance. This book argues that myopia is completely preventable, and therefore need not be progressive. Young people should not use negative-lens glasses for distance vision -- unless they accurately understand the long-term consequences of such use. There is a trade-off; either use positive lens glasses for the unnatural act of reading or use negative-lens glasses to compensate a distorted eyeball for distance vision. The scientific investigations on which this factual assessment is made is based extensive scientific work by Dr. Francis A. Young, as well a many other gifted researchers. "Normal vision" means seeing mountains, birds and stars at a far distance -- "infinity" -- with sharp detail, as great a detail as is allowed by the spacing of receptors (rods and cones) of the retina of the eye. This spacing of receptors has biologically evolved in mammals, birds and some reptiles to corresponds to a resolution of about one in ten thousand (l in 10,000), or a resolution of 1 minute-of-angle. ++++++++++++ And of course, what Dr. Colgate is talking about is the physics and science of the natural eye's behavior when you place a minus lens on it. When you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye, it responds by changing its refractive STATE by -2 diopters in six months. See the blue-tint animation of this dynamic behavior of all natural eyes. http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html This natural and dynamic behavior is of course denied by the majority-opinion ODs, but learn to be wise about the bias against the proven behavior of the natural eye. Otis On Mar 7, 12:22 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > A SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF EYESIGHT > AND THE EYE'S DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR [quoted text clipped - 217 lines] > > ++++++++++++ On Mar 6, 9:35 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: [I can't imagine it matters, so it's been snipped] Uncle Otie? Would Dr. Colgate like to take a stab at answering these questions?? http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt If HE's actually a man of science, he'd be delighted to seek the truth--whichever way it takes him. > A SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF EYESIGHT > AND THE EYE'S DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR Ef-fi-ca-cy n. In a medical context it indicates that the therapeutic effect of a given intervention (e.g. intake of a medicine, an operation, or a public health measure) is acceptable. 'Acceptable' in that context refers to a consensus that it is at least as good as other available interventions to which it will have ideally been compared to in a clinical trial. For example, an efficacious vaccine has the ability to prevent or cure a specific illness in an acceptable proportion of exposed individuals. In strict epidemiological language, 'efficacy' refers to the impact of an intervention in a clinical trial, differing from 'effectiveness' which refers to the impact in real world situations. Dear Mike, If you mean by "Efficacy", as a magic pill that clears a child's vision in five minutes, then I would agree with your majority-opinion. Further, if this helps, if I were in YOUR POSITION, I would do EXACTLY what you are doing, i.e., impressing the public with a "magic" minus quick-fix in five minutes. But I an do not "deal" with the public as you do -- and never plan to do so. I will post an alternative judgment of how a second-opinion develops in due course. Best, Otis > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > trial, differing from 'effectiveness' which refers to the impact in real > world situations. On Mar 7, 8:15 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > But I an do not "deal" with the public as you do -- and > never plan to do so. That's right. You are free to be as irresponsible as you wish. The only person to whom you are accountable is Mrs. Brown. > I will post an alternative judgment of how a second-opinion > develops in due course. We don't need any more of your pettifoggery here. Spread your fertilizer somewhere else. DrG Dear "L", Since you put your own 5 year old in a strong minus -- I truly can not argue with you. But not all are convinced that is a "good idea", including prevention-minded optometrists like Steve Leung at: www.chinamyopia.org I personally think that a parent should have sufficient information to make and either/or choice about plus-prevention -- when it can be effective for the child. But, as always, I respect the fact that you use a minus on your child as the "majority-opinion". But let us never forget the existence of the preventive second- opinion. The "wrong" choice by a parent leads to consequences that can not be reversed. Best, Otis > On Mar 7, 8:15 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > DrG On Mar 7, 6:15 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > If you mean by "Efficacy", as a magic pill that clears > a child's vision in five minutes, then I would agree with > your majority-opinion. No, no, Uncle Otie. I think everybody here who is NOT heavily medicated (um, that's you) understands exactly what efficacy means. Prove it works. Your own letter to Dear Dr. Colage [sic] shows that--in literally tens of thousands of insane posts with which you've littered the internet for a decade or more--even YOU think you've only benefited a dozen people. That's decidedly worse than the probable outcomes of those same few had they NOT followed your incessant preachings. In other words, it's more likely than not that you only HURT people. Here's a study for you: Otie's nephew wears plus as a child. Now he's an emmetrope. Otie's niece wears plus as a child. Now she's a myope with a restricted driver's license. Doesn't spell efficacy to me. Spells failure ... maybe a failure that Dr. Colage [sic] can explain ... or maybe one that entitles Joy to get her money back from Fred Deakins ... or .... Hmmm. > If you mean by "Efficacy", as a magic pill that clears > a child's vision in five minutes, then I would agree with > your majority-opinion. No, efficacy is what the medical community requires you to demonstrate before they accept your "plus prevention." Without it, they call you "fraud". If you have a license, they take it away for fraud. If you take money, the Federal Trade Commission gets involved in fraud. If you just give your advice away, and you have no license to protect, you can make all the fraudulent claims you like, without ever having to show efficacy. You can cite other so-called "experts" who likewise have never demonstrated efficacy. You can claim 50,000 eye doctors are wrong and only your two or three have got it right. You can claim that neutralizing refractive error is harmful. You can claim that all the researchers and ophthalmology professors conspired to promote the sale of glasses. You can obsess over it to the point where you doth protest too much and your fraud becomes self-evident. This makes you a useful illustration, like Bates' PSWG. We occasionally need examples of how NOT to think. > But I an do not "deal" with the public as you do -- and > never plan to do so. No, all you do is sit there and launch potshots from your keyboard, plucking off every low-hanging newbie with your absolute faith in things not seen. I predict you'll continue to do so, as long as you're able. -MT You are a standing joke Cletis. Just bugger off and take your crap with you. You have nothing to offer anyone. You opinions are just that. You have NO justification of what you say, just random hearsay from people with no knowledge or grasp on myopia. HOW TO MAINATION CLEAR DISTANT VISION FOR LIFE INTRODUCTION (Continued) "Normal vision" means seeing mountains, birds and stars at a far distance -- "infinity" -- with sharp detail, as great a detail as is allowed by the spacing of receptors (rods and cones) of the retina of the eye. This spacing of receptors has biologically evolved in mammals, birds and some reptiles to corresponds to a resolution of about one in ten thousand (l in 10,000), or a resolution of 1 minute-of-angle. To make use of the resolution of the optical receptors requires a focal system that is also good to 1 in 10,000. We can't be born with physiological parts that are made that precisely; instead, there is a natural process in growth and development that corrects for the wide dispersion of the physical dimensions of the new born eye. Essentially all eyes at birth are far-sighted with a positive focal state. Continual close-work causes the normal eye to change from a positive to a negative focal state -- which is described as "nearsightedness". This process of adaptation is supposed to stop when the eye's focal status is zero. (All normal eyes have a zero or positive focal status.) The eye behaves in this manner for people and animals in a natural environment, outdoors -- i.e., people without books, TV, or sewing kits. Instead we learn to read, and then our focal status becomes as close as the book we read. We lose the ability to see clearly at a distance because our eyes have adapted to the close-up focus of the book. We call this condition "near-sighted" or myopic. Our response to this condition is disastrous, because we attempt to correct this condition by actions that exacerbate the original condition, namely by wearing near-sighted glasses. After we have changed our focus to a negative value, and we want to see a mountain, we must use a lens that moves the mountain (optically) closer. The mountain will have the same focal property as an object close up. Such a lens is called a negative lens or "near-sighted glasses". The focal property of a close-by object is that the rays of light diverge; for distant objects the light rays arrive parallel. A negative lens, or "near-sighted glasses", causes light rays to diverge; hence endowing the distant object with the focal properties of one close-by. When we start wearing such glasses they indeed bring the mountain closer, and of course in better (sharper) focus. But then with such glasses (when we read using these glasses) we bring the near object up still closer. Because of the wondrous adaptability of the eye, the eye continues to adapt to the still closer environment (caused by the negative lens) and you become still more nearsighted. That is, your normal eyes take on an ever increasing negative focal state, caused directly by your use of a negative lens. Fortunately, nature sometimes puts an end to this farce at the age of about 18 to 22 -- by refusing to adapt further. After that you are stuck with a negative focal state for life because the eyeball loses its ability to change in response to the close work you are doing. Of course, after the age of 40 to 50 you also lose the elasticity of the lens. This however, is an entirely different matter, just as glaucoma, blindness, etc., are entirely different eye problems. The elementary and obvious thing to do in order to maintain clear distant vision -- i.e., seeing mountains and stars clearly without glasses -- is to catch your focal adaptation when your eye-sight is on the threshold of the situation, i.e., your focal state is zero or slightly negative. When you first notice a slight blur at distance, begin using positive-lens glasses for reading. A positive lens endows the close object with the focal properties of a distant one by making near-by light rays parallel. When you use a plus-lens for a close-by object, the rays become parallel as rays are from a distant object. Remember, prolonged reading is the "unnatural" thing you are doing. Then the focal properties of the book you are reading are like those of the mountains, i.e. infinity, and the further adaptation of your eyes stops at this point. You then have, and can maintain normal vision. (A positive focal state of the eye.) Because this period of normal vision occurs early, 5 to 10 years old, you are usually too young to know when you are at "normal" vision. Your parents don't know either because until recently it has not been understood. Further, there has been no consistent effort to accurately explain the eye's behavior to you, so that you could not intelligently make this "either-or" decision, between recovery and successful prevention, or progressive worsening of vision. Every professional who deals with you owes it to you to broach the subject of this alternative when you are on the threshold of the situation. Your eyes, after all, belong to you. Since the nearsightedness produced by the negative lens cannot be undone by a positive lens, it is imperative that you understand and choose to use either one or the other of these two mutually exclusive techniques. Science has progressed to an accurate understanding this mechanism of slow change of the normal eye to its average environment. A significant number (several dozen) of professional people in ophthalmology and related disciplines have empirically and intuitively come to the same conclusion and unsuccessfully attempted, even with the dedication of a lifetime, to reverse the orthodox view of solely genetically determined eye focus. The "majority opinion" of those in the ophthalmology profession has been a refusal to recognize a mechanism of slow adaptation of the focal state of the eye to its mean focal environment -- for various reasons. Among these reasons are: 1. There is a long-standing orthodox view that all focal states of the normal eye are hereditary and therefore nothing affects focus after conception. 2. The public demands instantaneous sharp vision, i.e., "Johnny can't read the blackboard and I won't stand for any nonsense about getting positive glasses that make it still fuzzier -- even temporarily!" 3. The scientific understanding of the early development of the normal eye is new and not yet complete so there is always an excuse to ignore it. 4. There have been many non-scientific books about sight without glasses that have not logically argued the reasons, not giving the physics background, nor have they discussed the biological mechanism. For example, eye exercises involve contracting the ciliary muscle causing a shorter, more myopic focus and therefore tending to change the eyeball and produce a still more myopic state. 5. Ophthalmologists in general are not required to study the physics of the normal eye, which includes optics and information theory necessary to understanding a logical scientific argument for a physiological mechanism. 6. If reading glasses were used at the onset of myopia up to 90% of all myopia would be prevented, and then a significant fraction of the optometry profession would be eliminated. Furthermore, reading glasses cost no more than $6.00 to $9.00 to manufacture and sell for $12.00 to $19.00 without a prescription. 7. Many optometrists and even some ophthalmologists believe that myopia and wearing glasses is not such a bad thing; after all, many people want to buy glasses in order to look chic. The very many that undergo the discomfort and expense of wearing contact lenses is an overwhelming vote to the contrary. People would rather not be nearsighted. 8. Finally social pressure of intellectual achievement is forcing the age of first reading to an earlier, even preschool age, hence causing earlier myopia and a eventually, further progression. Note: Ophthalmologists who practice ophthalmology are trained as medical doctors specializing in the diseases of the eye. They have minimum training in optics, measuring human refractive states, physics, etc. Optometry on the other hand, came out of physics dealing with the physical optics approach and the application of physical optics to correction of human refractive errors. (This idea, of course, assumes that a negative focal state of the normal eye is a "refractive error".) Although optometry came from physics, little if any physics is retained in the curriculum of the training of optometrists. Optometrists, however, are somewhat more sympathetic to the concept that myopia can be prevented with a plus lens, than are ophthalmologists -- although opinions vary widely! "Normal vision" means seeing mountains, birds and stars at a far distance -- "infinity" -- with sharp detail, as great a detail as is allowed by the spacing of receptors (rods and cones) of the retina of the eye. This spacing of receptors has biologically evolved in mammals, birds and some reptiles to corresponds to a resolution of about one in ten thousand (l in 10,000), or a resolution of 1 minute-of-angle. To make use of the resolution of the optical receptors requires a focal system that is also good to 1 in 10,000. We can't be born with physiological parts that are made that precisely; instead, there is a natural process in growth and development that corrects for the wide dispersion of the physical dimensions of the new born eye. Essentially all eyes at birth are far-sighted with a positive focal state. Continual close-work causes the normal eye to change from a positive to a negative focal state -- which is described as "nearsightedness". This process of adaptation is supposed to stop when the eye's focal status is zero. (All normal eyes have a zero or positive focal status.) The eye behaves in this manner for people and animals in a natural environment, outdoors -- i.e., people without books, TV, or sewing kits. Instead we learn to read, and then our focal status becomes as close as the book we read. We lose the ability to see clearly at a distance because our eyes have adapted to the close-up focus of the book. We call this condition "near-sighted" or myopic. Our response to this condition is disastrous, because we attempt to correct this condition by actions that exacerbate the original condition, namely by wearing near-sighted glasses. After we have changed our focus to a negative value, and we want to see a mountain, we must use a lens that moves the mountain (optically) closer. The mountain will have the same focal property as an object close up. Such a lens is called a negative lens or "near-sighted glasses". The focal property of a close-by object is that the rays of light diverge; for distant objects the light rays arrive parallel. A negative lens, or "near-sighted glasses", causes light rays to diverge; hence endowing the distant object with the focal properties of one close-by. When we start wearing such glasses they indeed bring the mountain closer, and of course in better (sharper) focus. But then with such glasses (when we read using these glasses) we bring the near object up still closer. Because of the wondrous adaptability of the eye, the eye continues to adapt to the still closer environment (caused by the negative lens) and you become still more nearsighted. That is, your normal eyes take on an ever increasing negative focal state, caused directly by your use of a negative lens. Fortunately, nature sometimes puts an end to this farce at the age of about 18 to 22 -- by refusing to adapt further. After that you are stuck with a negative focal state for life because the eyeball loses its ability to change in response to the close work you are doing. Of course, after the age of 40 to 50 you also lose the elasticity of the lens. This however, is an entirely different matter, just as glaucoma, blindness, etc., are entirely different eye problems. The elementary and obvious thing to do in order to maintain clear distant vision -- i.e., seeing mountains and stars clearly without glasses -- is to catch your focal adaptation when your eye-sight is on the threshold of the situation, i.e., your focal state is zero or slightly negative. When you first notice a slight blur at distance, begin using positive-lens glasses for reading. A positive lens endows the close object with the focal properties of a distant one by making near-by light rays parallel. When you use a plus-lens for a close-by object, the rays become parallel as rays are from a distant object. Remember, prolonged reading is the "unnatural" thing you are doing. Then the focal properties of the book you are reading are like those of the mountains, i.e. infinity, and the further adaptation of your eyes stops at this point. You then have, and can maintain normal vision. (A positive focal state of the eye.) Because this period of normal vision occurs early, 5 to 10 years old, you are usually too young to know when you are at "normal" vision. Your parents don't know either because until recently it has not been understood. Further, there has been no consistent effort to accurately explain the eye's behavior to you, so that you could not intelligently make this "either-or" decision, between recovery and successful prevention, or progressive worsening of vision. Every professional who deals with you owes it to you to broach the subject of this alternative when you are on the threshold of the situation. Your eyes, after all, belong to you. Since the nearsightedness produced by the negative lens cannot be undone by a positive lens, it is imperative that you understand and choose to use either one or the other of these two mutually exclusive techniques. Science has progressed to an accurate understanding this mechanism of slow change of the normal eye to its average environment. A significant number (several dozen) of professional people in ophthalmology and related disciplines have empirically and intuitively come to the same conclusion and unsuccessfully attempted, even with the dedication of a lifetime, to reverse the orthodox view of solely genetically determined eye focus. The "majority opinion" of those in the ophthalmology profession has been a refusal to recognize a mechanism of slow adaptation of the focal state of the eye to its mean focal environment -- for various reasons. Among these reasons are: 1. There is a long-standing orthodox view that all focal states of the normal eye are hereditary and therefore nothing affects focus after conception. 2. The public demands instantaneous sharp vision, i.e., "Johnny can't read the blackboard and I won't stand for any nonsense about getting positive glasses that make it still fuzzier -- even temporarily!" 3. The scientific understanding of the early development of the normal eye is new and not yet complete so there is always an excuse to ignore it. 4. There have been many non-scientific books about sight without glasses that have not logically argued the reasons, not giving the physics background, nor have they discussed the biological mechanism. For example, eye exercises involve contracting the ciliary muscle causing a shorter, more myopic focus and therefore tending to change the eyeball and produce a still more myopic state. 5. Ophthalmologists in general are not required to study the physics of the normal eye, which includes optics and information theory necessary to understanding a logical scientific argument for a physiological mechanism. 6. If reading glasses were used at the onset of myopia up to 90% of all myopia would be prevented, and then a significant fraction of the optometry profession would be eliminated. Furthermore, reading glasses cost no more than $6.00 to $9.00 to manufacture and sell for $12.00 to $19.00 without a prescription. 7. Many optometrists and even some ophthalmologists believe that myopia and wearing glasses is not such a bad thing; after all, many people want to buy glasses in order to look chic. The very many that undergo the discomfort and expense of wearing contact lenses is an overwhelming vote to the contrary. People would rather not be nearsighted. 8. Finally social pressure of intellectual achievement is forcing the age of first reading to an earlier, even preschool age, hence causing earlier myopia and a eventually, further progression. Note: Ophthalmologists who practice ophthalmology are trained as medical doctors specializing in the diseases of the eye. They have minimum training in optics, measuring human refractive states, physics, etc. Optometry on the other hand, came out of physics dealing with the physical optics approach and the application of physical optics to correction of human refractive errors. (This idea, of course, assumes that a negative focal state of the normal eye is a "refractive error".) Although optometry came from physics, little if any physics is retained in the curriculum of the training of optometrists. Optometrists, however, are somewhat more sympathetic to the concept that myopia can be prevented with a plus lens, than are ophthalmologists -- although opinions vary widely! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ On Mar 7, 12:22 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > A SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF EYESIGHT > AND THE EYE'S DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR [quoted text clipped - 217 lines] > > ++++++++++++ On Mar 7, 8:03 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > HOW TO MAINATION CLEAR DISTANT VISION FOR LIFE Since this crap was all published by C&O (doubtless, Carol & Otis), at YOUR home address ... I must say ... your editors are pathetic. Perhaps they are ready for a visit to a qualified, majority-opinion optometrist for a thorough eye exam...... Think about it. |
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
|
©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.