 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2007New Book on SUCCESSFUL Myopia Prevention
Dear Prevention-minded friends, Subject: Second-opinion Book on True Prevention. Some people are interested in getting the "tint" of their minus lens "just right". Others do not care about having a "tinted" minus lens, but want to clear their vision (on their Snellen) and avoid any use of the minus lens. There are a number of excellent books advocating change in the traditional "broken" system of the minus lens. I think Jacob Liberman's book is excellent, as well as Dr. Bates origianl book -- all as the secon-opinion. Here is a new book by David De Angelis for your interest: ================= Editorial Reviews "The Secret of Perfect Vision" Book Description Author David De Angelis's search for a cure for nearsightedness was both professional and personal, since he suffered from the disease himself. An expert in muscular work dynamics, he discovered through extensive testing and an immersion in decades of scientific studies that working the extrinsic ocular muscles could preserve sight and re- educate the eyes toward better vision. He came to understand the importance of retinal defocus for transforming ocular refractive status. In this book, the author shares both the science and the "secret"-progressive retinal defocus technique-of how he was able to reverse his own myopia. The system's efficacy, he says, comes from the fact that it directly intervenes with the causes that generate myopia onset and development (overaccommodative/near-point stress). When adequately stimulated by the simple exercises presented in the book, ocular refractive capability leads to gradual strengthening of focusing capability and gradual decreasing of refractive error. Written in straightforward language, and featuring an extensive section on the scientific research in this field, The Secret of Perfect Vision offers a proven program of healing to the millions of people afflicted with this condition. About the Author David De Angelis received his degree in law at La Sapienza University in Rome and was heading toward a career in forensics when he became interested in learning more about the body's development and psycho- bodily integration in the wake of muscular rehabilitation techniques and bioenergetics. After a great deal of studying and research, De Angelis wrote Power Flex Stretching: Super Flexibility and Strength for Peak Performance (Pagefree Publishing 2005), in which he explains innovative techniques for developing greater strength and flexibility. http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Perfect-Vision-Prevent-Nearsightedness/dp/155643677 7/ref=sr_1_3/105-0454972-3184419?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184239601&sr=1-3 > both professional and personal, since he suffered from the disease > himself. You don't consider myopia a disease, do you? > The system's efficacy, he says, comes from the fact that it directly > intervenes with the causes that generate myopia onset and development > (overaccommodative/near-point stress). So the first and only premise is false, isn't it? Farsighted people overaccommodate constantly, without "generating myopia onset." I can't find any myopia citations from anyone with that name. In his book, does he publish any comparisons with controls? Y'know, the sorta stuff that shows a treatment is safe and effective? Oh, you haven't read the book, have you. When you read it, please come back and tell us how all the graduate specialty programs are wrong. -MT >You don't consider myopia a disease, do you? This came from the 'editorial review', not from Otis. >So the first and only premise is false, isn't it? Farsighted people >overaccommodate constantly, without "generating myopia onset." So you are saying that hyperopia and myopia are the result of the same cause? Or that they unfold with similar characteristics/ show similar developmental behavior? Wikipedia states this: "It is worth noting, however, that in the case of myopia, such treatments may also have the long-term effect of exacerbating that refractive error -- i.e., making the patient even more nearsighted. This would be due to the very same prescription that is tailored for use at a 12-to-20-foot distance also commonly being used for close-up work as well, thus artificially amplifying the focusing stress that would normally be presented to the accommodation mechanisms of the eye at that distance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_error#Treatment_and_management Is it correct? (Just curious about your view). <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote >>So the first and only premise is false, isn't it? Farsighted people >>overaccommodate constantly, without "generating myopia onset." > > So you are saying that hyperopia and myopia are the result of the same > cause? Or that they unfold with similar characteristics/ show similar > developmental behavior? Without glasses, nearsighted people hardly need to accommodate. Without glasses, farsighted people must accommodate constantly. According to the premise, farsighted people should get nearsighted. Nearsighted people should stop getting nearsighted when they quit wearing glasses. Farsighted people accommodate more but don't get nearsighted. Nearsighted people accommodate less but continue getting nearsighted. Which of these facts are open to doubt? How important can "accommodative stress" be? > Wikipedia states this: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Is it correct? (Just curious about your view). Farsighted people endure the most "artificially amplified focusing stress" of anybody. But farsighted people don't get more nearsighted than any other group. My "view" has nothing to do with it. -MT > <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > -MT Thank you, Mike. > <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > -MT Thanks Mike. This "accommodation" theory is an obvious crap, but it seems to be the favorite of the "alternative" crowd. The fact that no credible evidence supports their alternative view doesn't seem to make any difference to them. Dear Ms.Brainy, >To quote Otis, this is "just one woman's opinion". Any comments? I am not entirely sure whether your post was directed in a sarcastic manner, but I will comment nonetheless. Firstly let me state that I have no disposition as to the true mechanism of accommodation, nor is it of any concern to the "alternative crowd". If something works, it works -- there is really no need to bother with the anatomical details behind it. For example, let's take some of the world's experts in piano playing. Do they need to know about the anatomy of the fingers? Hell no, they just want to know how to play well. Similarly, it is not necessary for a person to learn the anatomy of the eye in order to improve his or her sight. He just wants to know how to see again -- regardless of how it is done. >Actually, both Bates and most of the "i-see" people (together with our >Quasimodo) attribute myopia to "bad habits" and "bad attitude". I would attribute it to a form of tension or strain. >In no way does it seem that the existing alternative methods of >fighting myopia have any merit, How can you say that? I know of many people that have been cured with relaxation treatment. Don't you find it strange that there are so many so called 'quacks' around? We are not talking about anyone special here -- just the ordinary, normal people with common sense. Don't you find it strange that all these people claim to have been cured? Sure enough, a few of us could be lying, but are you saying that ALL these people are lying? The people on i-see, 2-see, i-blindness, and the infinite other groups out there -- these are only a small portion of the figures we are dealing with here. And no, this isn't just concerning myopia. We are talking hyperopia, myopia, presbyopia, cataract, glaucoma, and more other defects than I care to name. How is it that you are so quick to brush off so many cases that go against the current theories? >The fact that no credible evidence supports their alternative > view doesn't seem to make any difference to them. I am not in acceptance with your statement, but there was no credible evidence, what does it matter? If a person is able to see perfectly again, do you think he cares about 'evidence'? I assure you, the person would have quite enough evidence for himself! - Edwardo <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote > Firstly let me state that I have no disposition as to the true > mechanism of accommodation, nor is it of any concern to the > "alternative crowd". If something works, it works -- there is really > no need to bother with the anatomical details behind it. Myopia stops on its own, and frequently it even reverses, without any treatment whatsoever. Some myopia is semivoluntary and therefore easy to "relax" away. So how do you determine whether relaxation or plus lenses or palming or sunning or imagining perfect black have any beneficial effects? You measure objectively and compare the treated group to a matched group of untreated controls. If something works, the difference will be apparent each time you compare treated and untreated groups. Psychology, public health, medicine, physics, marketing, engineering - they ALL use efficacy statistics and they ALL have this same standard. > For example, > let's take some of the world's experts in piano playing. Do they need > to know about the anatomy of the fingers? Hell no, they just want to > know how to play well. Similarly, it is not necessary for a person to > learn the anatomy of the eye in order to improve his or her sight. He > just wants to know how to see again -- regardless of how it is done. Sure. Who cares how it works, IF IT WORKS. >>Actually, both Bates and most of the "i-see" people (together with our >>Quasimodo) attribute myopia to "bad habits" and "bad attitude". These are judgements. How do you assign them a value? How do you fit them onto the x-axis? This violates the first requirement for determining whether something works - measure objectively. > I would attribute it to a form of tension or strain. Then you'd be choosing an independent variable you can't measure. You can't explain why those with more "tension" get LESS nearsighted and those with less "tension" get MORE nearsighted. > How can you say that? I know of many people that have been cured with > relaxation treatment. I know of many people who have been "cured" WITHOUT relaxation treatment. > Don't you find it strange that there are so many > so called 'quacks' around? We are not talking about anyone special > here -- just the ordinary, normal people with common sense. Don't you > find it strange that all these people claim to have been cured? If you express their "cure" in physical units like diopters, and compare them to a similar group who were not "treated," you won't be so impressed. > Sure > enough, a few of us could be lying, but are you saying that ALL these > people are lying? No. Many young myopes experience "improvement" as they get older, without any treatment whatsoever. > We are talking hyperopia, myopia, presbyopia, > cataract, glaucoma, and more other defects than I care to name. How is > it that you are so quick to brush off so many cases that go against > the current theories? Because the "cures" you describe would make headlines if they could be replicated with proper controls. When a simple treatment is claimed to cure so many different, unrelated problems, you need to be more suspicious. -MT ><absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Psychology, public health, medicine, physics, marketing, engineering - they >ALL use efficacy statistics and they ALL have this same standard. There seems to be a consensus that near work is at least a very plausible environmental factor tending to cause or increase myopia in susceptible individuals. I have been unable to find any statistically respectable study which attempted to measure the efficacy of attempts to, for instance, advise people to perform near work at the furthest practical distance. Could you give me a reference to such a study, please? 'Visual Hygiene' may date back to the Victorians, but I am not aware of statistically respectable studies of its effects, and the introduction of cheap high-quality computer displays and the availability of text on computer now makes significant increases in the distance at which near work is performed quite easy. Some pretty basic mathematics suggests a possible genetically based factor that might explain variable susceptibility, and further suggests that quite a small increase in the distance at which near work is performed might have noticeable effects (alas for Otis, it is consistent with the experimental evidence that under-correction does not work): http://www.mcdowella.demon.co.uk/MyopiaGrowth.html. (stuff below trimmed)  SignatureA.G.McDowell Dear Mr. McDowell, Subject: Some commentary on the PREVENTIVE second-opinion. Mac> Some pretty basic mathematics suggests a possible genetically based factor that might explain variable susceptibility, and further suggests that quite a small increase in the distance at which near work is performed might have noticeable effects. The only true way (second-opinion) is to strongly test the primate eye to see if it is dynamic (or not dynamic). Just place the eye in a STRONG NEAR ENVIRONMENT, and measure its refractive state, relative to eyes that are not forced to look at -3 diopters. The majority-opinion ODs DENY these results. The second-opinion ODs ACCEPT these results. This is a matter of human judgement, and no one can resolve THAT dispute. (alas for Otis, it is consistent with the experimental evidence that under-correction does not work): [That, as per the above depends on WHO is doing the judging of the dynamic character of the natural eye. (In terms of refractive STATE -- if you please.] http://www.mcdowella.demon.co.uk/MyopiaGrowth.html. The minus is obviously easy. Quick, impressive, and the preventive method "difficult". The only issue the understanding and MOTIVATION of the person on the threshold, who wishes to avoid myopia entry. Because of these disputes, I finally comes down to what a second-opinion optometrist does for his own children. When that person INSISTS that his children wear a plus to avoid entry, then I think you will have a "change" in this wretched "system". Success in prevention depends, not on the majority-opinion OD, but on the person himself. Just one man's opinion. Otis (stuff below trimmed) -- A.G.McDowell On Jul 16, 1:13 am, "A.G.McDowell" <mcdowe...@mcdowella.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <W4CdnSjpzcXkIAfbnZ2dnUVZ_s23n...@giganews.com>, Mike Tyner > <mty...@mindspring.com> writes [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >The only true way (second-opinion) is to strongly test the >primate eye to see if it is dynamic (or not dynamic). Just [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ACCEPT these results. This is a matter of human >judgement, and no one can resolve THAT dispute. Ah. Excuse me, but this would be a good time to interject my now-legendary questions: www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt Your understanding of science and test methodology to evaluate a hypothesis is ... um ... deeply flawed, at best. ... and no one can resolve THAT (unless you seek professional help, soon). >(alas for Otis, it is consistent >with the experimental evidence that under-correction does not work): > >[That, as per the above depends on WHO is doing >the judging of the dynamic character of the natural >eye. (In terms of refractive STATE -- if you please.] Hm. I don't believe that he was talking about "testing the primate eye to see if it is dynamic." Actually, I don't see that anybody ... is ever ... talking about that. Except you. Wicked straw man argument, Uncle Otie. Stupid, but ..... >http://www.mcdowella.demon.co.uk/MyopiaGrowth.html. > >The minus is obviously easy. Quick, impressive, and >the preventive method "difficult". By difficult, do you mean that it offers no more success than untreated control groups? If so, then I'd have to agree with you. Or, by difficult, do you mean that it doesn't work for the ignorant and the lazy ... like your niece, Joy Benson? That's quite another matter, entirely, no? >The only issue the understanding and MOTIVATION >of the person on the threshold, who wishes >to avoid myopia entry. Did Joy grow up to be morbidly obese? That seems like the little girl that you've described to us for many years now. Sad, isn't it. >Because of these disputes, I finally comes down >to what a second-opinion optometrist does for >his own children. When that person INSISTS >that his children wear a plus to avoid entry, >then I think you will have a "change" in this >wretched "system". Please see my questions. Please see a team of psychiatrists. You're mentally ill. >Success in prevention depends, not on the majority-opinion OD, >but on the person himself. That doesn't speak well for Joy, then, now does it? Is SHE mentally ill, too, or does she simply lack intellectual capacity and great personal resolve? Dear Mr. McDowell, SPECIAL REQUEST. Could you please provide the author's name. If you wish to keep it private, send it to: otisbrown@pa.net Thanks, Otis On Jul 16, 10:10 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Mr. McDowell, > [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > The only true way (second-opinion) is to strongly test the > primate eye to see if it is dynamic (or not dynamic). Just > place the eye in a STRONG NEAR ENVIRONMENT, and > measure its refractive state, relative to eyes that > are not forced to look at -3 diopters. Well, you could count the number of +3.00 hyperopes who turn nearsighted. How many is that? -MT On Jul 16, 10:10 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Mr. McDowell, > > Subject: Some commentary on the PREVENTIVE second-opinion. Otis, don't you get the impression that Mr. McDowell is not interested in your "commentary". He seems to be asking for statistically-valid results which demonstrate your conclusions. He doesn't care what Raphaelson wrote in "The printers son". He doesn't care about your nephew Keith and his personal results. He is apparently a rational man who is asking for validated proof of what you claim. I suspect that once you realize this, you will ignor him as you do others who request documented proof of what you say. Are you beginning to realize that people of wisdom demand more proof than you have to offer? Perhaps its time for you to hunker-down and start name-calling. The choice to understand the PREVENTIVE second-opinion must rest with A. G. McDowell, if he wishes to review the OBJECTIVE science that supports it. Certainly I understand the power and force behind the minus lens. Each of us must make our own judgment about the dynamic nature of all fundamental eyes. Just one man's opinion. Otis On Jul 16, 9:11 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 16, 10:10 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Perhaps its time for you to hunker-down and start name-calling. On Jul 17, 8:28 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > The choice to understand the PREVENTIVE second-opinion > must rest with A. G. McDowell... blah blah > blah > Just one man's opinion. > > Otis indeed. "understanding the preventative second-opinion" only involves that one must recognize that it's "just one man's opinion" and nothing more. and that man is Otis Brown, Engineer (allegedly). and BTW, you should refrain from claiming that there is objective science supporting "your opinion." there is none if one is talking about humans. you do have some basis for arguing about chickens and monkeys, but the objective data clearly shows that accommodative strain DOES NOT cause myopia development in humans. I keep trying to get you to explain why the data that I cite refuting your opinion is wrong, but you just fade away as I'm sure you will do now again. -> or perhaps you will explain to use why uncorrected hyperopes do not become myopic, or at least less hyperopic. -> or maybe you'll explain why uncorrected myopes do not lose their myopia, while in fact many of them develop even more myopia. -> or maybe you'll explain why the study Goss et al, which involved following the refractive development of children who were intentionally overminused, showed that they did NOT develop accelerated "staircase" myopia as you claim that they should. No. Time to turn and run. Dear Mr. McDowell, Subject: Special Request. Who is the author(s) of this paper? Thanks in advance. If you wish, send the answer to: otisbrown@pa.net Otis On Jul 16, 1:13 am, "A.G.McDowell" <mcdowe...@mcdowella.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <W4CdnSjpzcXkIAfbnZ2dnUVZ_s23n...@giganews.com>, Mike Tyner > <mty...@mindspring.com> writes [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >Dear Mr. McDowell, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Otis I have now replied to an email you sent me, confirming that I am the author of the writeup at http://www.mcdowella.demon.co.uk/MyopiaGrowth.html I hope this answers your question. It comes with no imprimatur or authority, I am afraid; it must stand or fall by itself. SignatureA.G.McDowell >>Dear Mr. McDowell, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I hope this answers your question. It comes with no imprimatur or >authority, I am afraid; it must stand or fall by itself. And now that Otis has it, you may expect to be constantly misquoted, your conclusions--if any--to be misinterpreted and/or mis-stated, and to have your paper frequently cited as incontrovertible "proof" of arguments totally unrelated to anything even remotely addressed by your paper. Take care. > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:00:55 +0100, "A.G.McDowell" > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Take care. and of course you should expect to be misquoted and misinterpreted in a closed forum moderated by King Otis, Engineer (allegedly). furthermore you will not know were this internet site is and you will not be able to respond to the misquotes and mis-statements presented by King Otis, Engineer (allegedly). On Jul 15, 10:44 am, Edwardo Alphonse Elric <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear Ms.Brainy, > > I am not entirely sure whether your post was directed in a sarcastic > manner, but I will comment nonetheless. No, it was not sarcastic. However, I cannot guarantee no sarcasm in this response. > Firstly let me state that I have no disposition as to the true > mechanism of accommodation, nor is it of any concern to the > "alternative crowd". No? Read i-see messages. They seem to be obssessed with accommodation. > If something works, it works -- there is really > no need to bother with the anatomical details behind it. For the sake of this response I will agree, although I would not agree that "bothering" with the anatomical details is futile. >For example, > let's take some of the world's experts in piano playing. Do they need > to know about the anatomy of the fingers? Hell no, they just want to > know how to play well. Do you play the piano? I do. And analyzing what you are doing is helpful and essential if you wish to achieve higher technic and success. Have you seen computer simulations of athletes in action? Are they creating these simulations just for fun? > Similarly, it is not necessary for a person to > learn the anatomy of the eye in order to improve his or her sight. He > just wants to know how to see again -- regardless of how it is done. But those who design the methods for claimed vision improvement DO present a theory and analysis, the rest just follow their instructions based on the (forbidden) authority and faith in the authority. > >Actually, both Bates and most of the "i-see" people (together with our > >Quasimodo) attribute myopia to "bad habits" and "bad attitude". > > I would attribute it to a form of tension or strain. Here you already offer a theory. How do you know that? > >In no way does it seem that the existing alternative methods of > >fighting myopia have any merit, > > How can you say that? I know of many people that have been cured with > relaxation treatment. How many do you actually KNOW? And how do you know that they actually have been cured? And how can I trust that YOU are telling the truth, after your credibility has been ruined repeatedly and consistently by no other but yourself? > Don't you find it strange that there are so many > so called 'quacks' around? No, I don't find it strange. Go to any faith healing church (you can also watch it on TV) and see the thousands who flock there, believing and waiting for miracles, despite the colossal evidence of the mega- fraud that's going on and thesmashing debunking. > We are not talking about anyone special > here -- just the ordinary, normal people with common sense. Don't you > find it strange that all these people claim to have been cured? Knowing how suggestable people are, no, I don't find it strange. Which does not mean that they are indeed "cured". > Sure enough, a few of us could be lying, but are you saying that ALL these > people are lying? The people on i-see, 2-see, i-blindness, and the > infinite other groups out there -- these are only a small portion of > the figures we are dealing with here. Let's really look at the figures. After a few months of reading the nonsense on those sites, it's clear that only a small portion of the participants actually declare success. The rest is still struggling, trying and hoping. The "big number" argument totally fails. > And no, this isn't just > concerning myopia. We are talking hyperopia, myopia, presbyopia, > cataract, glaucoma, and more other defects than I care to name. Hold it here! Cataract? Glaucoma? I start to be very suspicious. > How is > it that you are so quick to brush off so many cases that go against > the current theories? First, there are no "so many cases". Second, the very few cases are not objectively verified. Third, even if there are some verified cases, causality has not been proven. > >The fact that no credible evidence supports their alternative > > view doesn't seem to make any difference to them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > again, do you think he cares about 'evidence'? I assure you, the > person would have quite enough evidence for himself! Believers have been known to fool themselves, but they cannot full me. Now Edwardo (or whoever you are today), if you want to be taken seriously, you have to start rebuilding your credibility here. Quit the stupid games. Choose one name with one personality and stick with it. And since you believe in anecdotal evidence, come forward and tell your personal story HONESTLY. Tell us about your condition before your salvation. Provide accurate data. Tell why you were desparate and crying. And describe what YOU have done and what the results are. With accurate data. We might then be able to evaluate your information. Be prepared for cross examination. > On Jul 15, 10:44 am, Edwardo Alphonse Elric > [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > results are. With accurate data. We might then be able to evaluate > your information. Be prepared for cross examination. Dear Ms. Brainy and Mike, Okay, fair enough! Thank you for your long answers. > On Jul 15, 10:44 am, Edwardo Alphonse Elric > [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > results are. With accurate data. We might then be able to evaluate > your information. Be prepared for cross examination. Dear Ms. Brainy and Mike, OK, fair enough! Thank you for your long answers. - Edwardo =================== looks interesting otis. i will definitely investigate the book. but i'm sure you realize that this new revelation about a way to prevent myopia has followed an unusual course. generally scientists don't just write a book about a new discovery-- they usually publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals so as to facilitate discussion and replication of their findings. without developing a consensus opinion its hard for scientists to come to believe that a new discovery has been made. also, it makes you wonder if somebody isn't just trying to make $$$ by selling a book too! > Author David De Angelis's search for a cure for nearsightedness was > both professional and personal, since he suffered from the disease > himself. this is interesting. myopia as a disease? i guess gray hair and wrinkles might also be considered a disease. > He came to understand the > importance of retinal defocus for transforming ocular refractive > status. wow. if he has shown that retinal defocus is a cause of myopia (really that not anything new) then just think what your plus lens approach has been doing. you've probably induced myopia in lots of people Otis! personally, i suspect it's a scam just like the people at "I See Clearly". i bet the author hasn't even read Raphaelson! On Jul 15, 8:48 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > =================== > > this is interesting. myopia as a disease? i guess gray hair and > wrinkles might also be considered a disease. I would compare myopia (usually due to the shape and length of the eyeball) to the size and shape of the nose. All babies are born with a cute little nose, but some noses evolve later on to very big ones. Both big noses and myopia are genetic, and according to the writer's view of myopia as a disease, so should be big noses. Actually, both Bates and most of the "i-see" people (together with our Quasimodo) attribute myopia to "bad habits" and "bad attitude". While it's easy to dismiss this view, there is still a possibility of environmental and/or behavioral factors contributing to the INCREASE of myopia rate in certain populations. Although there are various speculations as to the cause(s) for such increase, I am not aware of any studies and definite conclusions to pinpoint these causes. The increase of myopia rate in such populations in recent years cannot be explained by genetics, so there must be some other explanation. And if the causes for the increase are determined and found, there might be a way to prevent myopia at least in a portion of cases by eliminating or decreasing such environmrntal and/or behavioral factors. In no way does it seem that the existing alternative methods of fighting myopia have any merit, which does not preclude the possibility of finding such method in the future. None of the present methods of treating myopia (including various corrective lenses, refractive surgery, relaxing eye exercises, strengthening of the eye muscles, sunning and improved attitude) does anything to affect the undisputed cause of myopia -- the elongated eyeball. To quote Otis, this is "just one woman's opinion". Any comments? > On Jul 15, 8:48 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > To quote Otis, this is "just one woman's opinion". Any comments? to me there isn't much in your statement to comment about. and it really isn't just an opinion-- it's an accurate summary statement regarding the current state of affairs in myopia research. On Jul 15, 7:11 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Prevention-minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > vision (on their Snellen) and avoid > any use of the minus lens. Otis: Obviously your inspiration for the above lines came from William Stacy's post seeking advice about tint for a pilot. However, Dr. Stacy mentioned nothing about any "minus lens". For all I understand, the subject piloot needs no refractive correction. All he wants is some protection from sun and glare in the upper skies -- no minus, no plus. Anything wrong with this, professor? So why are you distorting his message Otis??? Why do you do these kind of stuff continually? Do you enjoy the attacks on you? Still? After years and years? I am fed up with these repeated arguments after a short time being on this NG, but you don't feel yet that you have had enough? Why do you continue to invite people to ridicule you and lable you lunatic and idiot? >Dear Prevention-minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Here is a new book by David De Angelis for your >interest: Dear Uncle Otie: If you believe that this new book teaches people how to prevent myopia, then perhaps you'd be interested in reviewing the manuscript for THIS new book that I have written. It's called "How Wearing a Baseball Cap Backward During the Summer Prevents Hemmorhoids." It's chock full of scientific facts like yours that unequivocally establish the correlation between the two events. That's gotta be good enough for C & O publishing, right? > Dear Uncle Otie: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's chock full of scientific facts like yours that unequivocally > establish the correlation between the two events. Neil, must you make me laugh so hard? >> Dear Uncle Otie: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Neil, must you make me laugh so hard? Uh ... well ... yes, actually. It's in the book. Read the front dust jacket flap and you'll learn ALL about it. Uncle Otie?? You didn't WEAR YOUR cap backwards last summer, did you? Oh, wait. It only correlates with prevention of GETTING hemmorhoids--not BECOMING ONE. My mistake. Carry on. Simple solution to stop myopia - Don't have children. Second method - develop a time machine and abort all myopes. It is really pretty simple Cletis. |
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.