 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007Perfect Mental Control for Perfect Sight
... Perfect sight is impossible without continual shifting, and such shifting is a striking illustration of the mental control necessary for normal vision. It requires perfect mental control to think of thousands of things in a fraction of a second; and each point of fixation has to be thought of separately, because it is impossible to think of two things, or of two parts of one thing, perfectly at the same time. The eye with imperfect sight tries to accomplish the impossible by looking fixedly at one point for an appreciable length of time; that is, by staring. When it looks at a strange letter and does not see it, it keeps on looking at it in an effort to see it better. Such efforts always fail, and are an important factor in the production of imperfect sight ... Better Eyesight magazine, Dec.1919 Dear absolutely correct, Do you believe that Dr. Bates was correct in making these statements about science and the minus lens? Re: Who defines a scientific statement of objective fact? Do you believe in Bates? Re: Are Dr. W. H. Bate's statements about the effect of a minus lens on the eye's refractive STATUS correct? Did Dr. Bates make intentionally make false statements concerning the behavior of the eye in order to sell his book? Was Dr. Bates a scientist? Was he a good ophthalmologist? Would he lie, or make false or perhaps inaccurate statements about the effect that the minus lens has on the natural eye in order to get you to use is "relaxation" methods? Was he a quack as so many claim? Was he thinking of your visual welfare, or did he only wished to make a buck? It is standard practice for most ODs to ridicule Dr. Bates and all his followers -- as non-scientific, by calling them flakes, practicing pseudo-science, engagining in psycho-babble and other such pleasantries. Do you believe these are accurate descriptions of Bates and people who would initiate second-opinion, or preventive methods? I keep an open-mind on both Bates and the opponents of Bates. That seems to be the most you can do. I also believe there is an honest second opinion on prevention which you do not seem to understand. Best, Otis ********************************************** Subject: Is Dr. Bates, right or wrong? Science is never merely knowledge; it is orderly knowledge. Josiah Royce Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar -- and often convincing. Oscar Wilde And as for putting glasses upon a child it is enough to make the angels weep. William Bates This is Dr. Bates' statement about his reason for his opposing the use of a minus lens on an eye that is slightly nearsighted. I believe that the parents should be aware of the proven effect that the minus lens has on the refractive state of the eye, as stated by Dr. Bates. You can make the eyes change in a negative direction by forced wearing of a minus lens on the natural eye -- but that scientific truth was not known in 1920. Today this effect is very clear from the direct experimental (scientific) data. [Scientific reference: Both chicken and primate eye.] It is intellectually short-sighted continue to deny the proven effect that a minus lens has on the natural eye. ____________________________________________________ From Chapter 8 by Dr. Bates (Clarifying statement) ...That (minus-lens) glasses must injure the eye is evident from the facts given in the preceding chapter. One cannot see through them unless one produces the degree of refractive error which they are designed to correct. But refractive errors, in the eye which is left to itself, are never constant. If one secures good vision by the aid of concave, lenses, therefore, it means that one is maintaining constantly a degree of refractive error which otherwise would not be maintained constantly. It is only to be expected that this should make the condition worse, and it is a matter of common experience that it does. After people once begin to wear (minus-lens) glasses their strength, in most cases, has to be steadily increased in order to maintain the degree of visual acuity secured by the aid of the first pair... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A person with myopia of 20/70 who puts on glasses giving him a vision of 20/20 may find that in a week's time his unaided vision has declined to 20/200. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ We have the testimony of Dr. Sidler-Huguenin, of Zurich, that of the thousands of myopes treated by him the majority grew steadily worse, in spite of all the skill he could apply to the fitting of (minus-lens) glasses for them. When people break their glasses and go without them for a week or two, they frequently observe that their sight has improved. As a matter of fact the sight always improves, to a greater or less degree, when glasses are discarded, although the fact may not always be noted. That the human eye resents (minus lens) glasses is a fact which no one would attempt to deny. ** Every oculist knows that patients have to "get used" to them, and that sometimes they never succeed in doing so. Patients with high degrees of myopia have a great difficulty in accustoming themselves to the full correction, and often are never able to do so. The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree make all objects seem much smaller than they really are... These are unpleasantness that cannot be overcome... All glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less degree. Even with very weak glasses patients are unable to see distinctly unless they look through the center of the lenses, with the frames at right angles to the line of vision; and their vision lowered if they fail to do this ... As for putting (minus-lens) glasses upon a child it is enough to make the angels weep. ______________________________________________ COMMENTARY ** Except for an honest disagreement about this statement by some people, I would say "adapts to the minus lens" rather than "resents", but the implication is still the same. What is the final truth about the effect of the minus lens on the natural eye? What do YOU think? How would you prove that Dr. Bates right or wrong on his fundamental statement? Commentary? _________________________________________ SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE The task of science is both to extend the range of our experience and to reduce it to order, and this task presents various aspects inseparable connected with one another. Only by experience itself do we come to recognize those laws which grant us a comprehensive view of the diversity of phenomena. As our knowledge becomes wider, we must even be prepared therefore to expect alterations in the point of view best suited for the ordering of experience. Niels Bohr, "Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature." > ... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Better Eyesight magazine, Dec.1919 On Aug 24, 3:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear absolutely correct, > [quoted text clipped - 179 lines] > > > Better Eyesight magazine, Dec.1919 Dear Otis, I will agree -- as with the concept of the dynamic nature of a fundamental eye. However, I will "keep" an open mind -- to the preventive second opinion. Enjoy. Dear Absolutly Incredible, Subject: My first introduction to Dr. Bates -- concept. Yeah, my ophthamologist told me that Bates was a jerk, trying to "sell books", and was completely discredited by the majority-opinion. I resolved to find out what this "under-dog" has to say -- and determine if his scientific experiments were correct and repeatable. I also wanted to understand this situation through the "eyes" of a second-opinion optometrists -- to understand what he thought was the nature of the problem (of prevention). Was it public hostility towards the concept -- or what. Was it that vision-clering simply does not work -- under any circumstance, or the "best" circumstance. That is the nature of our discussions on sci.med.vision, and that is why we should enjoy this scientific review of the natural eye's behavior. Second-opinion best, Otis > On Aug 24, 3:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 191 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Otis, Subject: Prevention -- or the "quick-fix" minus It is certain that prevention is not easy -- but the public must be informed. Enjoy. > Dear Otis, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Enjoy. ============ "The Public Must Be Informed!!" said Otis "Paul Revere" Brown, engineer, as he rode off into the night on his valient steed! Dear PClar, Subject: And EXCELLENT study of the effect of the minus on the eye. Since you are certain that a -3 diopter lens has no effect upon the focal state of the fundamental eye -- the public must be left to decide for themselves your credibility. Enjoy. > Dear PClar, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Enjoy. I don't think that PClar has a problem with credibility. You do. DrG, Subject: And HONEST "second opinion" Yes you will of course "insist" that the fundamental eye is not a dynamic system -- however we should allow the readers to "decide" for themselves. Enjoy. Dear Absolutely Correct Subject: SCIENCE and the natural eye's dynamic behavior. I am willing to agree that plus-prevention is tough. It takes a person with good insights (Dr. Stirling Colgate at age 14 years) to do it RIGHT. But when some majority-opinion OD tells me that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATE OF THE EYE -- I am going to doubt his SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY. When he tells me I must IGNORE ALL SCIENTIFIC DATA -- THAT "HE" DOES NOT LIKE, I am going to totally doubt both his scientific ability as well as his scientific competence. But remember, it is JUST the majority-opinion ODs who are in a state of DENIAL. The second-opinion ODs like Steve Leung SUPPORT plus-prevention at the threshold -- when the plus must be used if prevention is the goal of the parent and child. www.chinamyopia.org That type of "path" choice in your life will have major and personal consequences if you choose the "easy" minus. Face scientific facts squarely -- and make your choice on the facts, and not the intense bias of the majority-opinion. Second-opinion best, Otis > Dear PClar, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Enjoy. On Aug 28, 1:01 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > But when some majority-opinion OD tells me that a > -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE > STATE OF THE EYE -- I am going to doubt > his SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY. I'm not sure I am a majority-opinion OD, but I am an OD, and I will tell you that any lens has an effect on the refractive state of the eye. In the case of a -3.00 diopter lens on an emmetropic eye, the eye is changed to a hyperopic refractive state. In the case of a hyperopic eye, the eye is changed to a more hyperopic state. In the case of a myopic eye, the eye is change to a less myopic state up to the power of the lens, and then a hyperopic state if the power of the minus lens exceeds the power of the eye. So see? There is no doubt whatsoever for you to doubt my scientific crediblity (although your sanity is in question). DrG O.D. Hello, >In the case of a -3.00 diopter lens on an emmetropic eye, the >eye is changed to a hyperopic refractive state. Please please could you explain that. I am confused when you said that the eye changes its refractive state. I thought that the actual refractive state of the eye itself is not changed; I mean the correction of the lens just allows the light to focus normally on the eye. But the physical eye itself is not changed unless through surgical operation. Isn't that right, or wrong? > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > focus normally on the eye. But the physical eye itself is not changed > unless through surgical operation. Isn't that right, or wrong? That is a very astute observation. I meant the eye experiences a different refractive state. I also forgot to include the effects of accommodation. A negative lens will move the focal plane back towards the retina in the case of a myopic eye, and back away from the retina in the case of an emmetropic or hyperopic eye. Accommodation will bring the focal plane forward within the limits of its amplitude. Meanwhile, the retinal defocus changes its size with respect to the distance of the focal plane from the retina. Some researchers think that long term retinal defocus can alter the refractive state of the human eye in the presence of a genetic predisposition to myopia. > On Aug 28, 1:01 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the power of the lens, and then a hyperopic state if the power of the > minus lens exceeds the power of the eye. If it is so "innocent" and safe to wear -3 for person With 20/20 And nothing going to happen. Why we would not conduct that experiment. It is save. Vision not going change in 1 year. Let's make it. Humanitarian reasons are satisfied . It is safe. No risk. > So see? There is no doubt whatsoever for you to doubt my scientific > crediblity (although your sanity is in question). > > DrG O.D. Dear Lena, Subject: Test to prove a -3 diopter on the normal eye is "perfectly safe". You would first want to check this by placing a -3 diopter lens on a population of eyes that are normal. The goal of this test would be to PROVE that the refractive STATE (objectively measured) DOES NOT CHANGE by -2 diopters in six months. I would OBJECTIVELY test their concept on the natural monkey-primate eye -- before I would test it on the normal (20/20) human-primate eye. Given the proven results (i.e., the refractive STATE changes as a control-system would change), I would say that you would never get "human experiment" -- to confirm what you already know from objective science as it concerns this characteristic behavior of the natural eye. I know that if I had 20/20 (and a refractive STATE of zero diopters), (after confirming the scientific data) I would not want MY refractive STATE to go negative by -2 diopters from wearing a -3 diopter lens 16/7. Maybe you want to volunteer your children for this study. The natural-eye data convinces me that this is far more than speculation. The natural YOUNG human eye will do the same thing. Just one man's opinion. Otis > > On Aug 28, 1:01 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > If it is so "innocent" and safe to wear -3 for person > With 20/20 And nothing going to happen. > Why we would not conduct that experiment. > It is save. Vision not going change in 1 year. > Let's make it. Humanitarian reasons are satisfied . > It is safe. No risk. There is no medical reason for doing so. One doesn't give drugs to a person who has no disease. Although I did observe this to happen once with one of my patients who was over-corrected by about 4 diopters for a period of about one year. She did not suffer any permanent ill- effects, and no refractive change. However, it did cause some headaches and disturbances in her near vision. Why don't you conduct such a study, get it published, and we can all talk about it here on sci.med.vision. > Why don't you conduct such a study, get it published, and we can all > talk about it here on sci.med.vision. Dr G I think it is one thing to talk about the effect of minus lenses on healthy people or on some myopic people. As a general rule it does seem to be true that the strength of a minus lense **does** influence the amount of measured myopia. Studies have shown that a reduction in minus does create **more** mypoia for some people. I know you are not going to dispute that. But even so you are absolutely sure that too much minus can have no effect. Is that actually true? For sure? I think it is more complicated than it is obvious. For example i have a range of lenses for my vision in 0.25 steps. I found that if i wear too much of a reduction my eyesight gets worse in about 1 day. It becomes noticable via the blurr diameter i observe of a distant light. (That test has always proven a very reliable indicator of my vision as measured by an optician). But i then find if i wear a higher power that my vision gets better and i can *then* wear a slightly lower power and find my vision is stable for weeks on end with that power. My own experience of wearing full strength minus lenses is that my vision very quickly becomes noticably blurry after about 3 hours whereas in the beginning it is absolutely totally clear as measured by the blurr diameter of distance lights. But I think us myopic people do need opticians and i am certainly not blaming opticians for my eyesight being defective. However many competant opticians do believe that amount of minus does in some manner influence the degree of myopia progression that their clients are likely to suffer from. Studies as i know you agree dont really prove much at all. People tend to prove what they want to prove. I am inclined to think that the jury is out still on the effect of lenses upon the eye. For example i think it is accepted that contact lenses are more likely than eyeglasses to produce stable vision rather than progressively worsening vision. Either way i know plenty of people who after life style changes found they got better vision. Divorce. Birth of a child. Emmigration. At the end of the day I think people are wrong to point the finger at the bad minus and imagine that they dont have some responsibility in the vision they get. But that is where you and I disagree. I think for example that the vision Otis has of around -5.5 which is a moderate to high amount of myopia is related to the dogmatic style of reasoning he has where only his opinion can be considered to be TRUE SCIENCE. In his TRUE SCIENCE reasoning ALL NATURAL EYES are DYNAMIC. And yet he has no success at all with using his plus lenses to improve his vision. Total failure at that. So how dynamic are his own eyes? Evidently for his TRUE SCIENCE to be correct he would have to accept the THIRD OPINION that ALL NATURAL EYES - 1 are dynamic. Somehow that kind of logic means nothing to him. He is not interested in what is true or false. He is only interested in his opinion. He is typically highly myopic. What is inside him is more important than what exists outside of him. The natural world no longer interests him. He only sees his own world inside his mind. That is the myopic way. Andrew On Aug 29, 3:44 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > But even so you are absolutely sure that too much minus can have no > effect. Uncorrected hyperopes experience exactly the same conditions. They have problems, but getting myopic isn't one of them. > For example i think it is accepted that contact lenses are more likely > than eyeglasses to produce stable vision rather than progressively > worsening vision. Accepted by whom? -MT > > For example i think it is accepted that contact lenses are more likely > > than eyeglasses to produce stable vision rather than progressively > > worsening vision. > > Accepted by whom? http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/4004/articles/4004a1.html Aim and Background: Recent studies in the West have shown that rigid gas-permeable (RGP) contact lenses can control the progress of myopia in children. <Snip> Results: The results show that there was a suppression of the progress of myopia in children wearing the lenses as compared to their counterparts wearing spectacles On Aug 29, 3:44 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > But even so you are absolutely sure that too much minus can have no > effect. Here is one study that directly answers your question. =============================================== Changes in refractive error for exotropes treated with overminus lenses.Rutstein RP, Marsh-Tootle W, London R. School of Optometry Medical Center, University of Alabama, Birmingham. The refractive changes of pediatric patients who were prescribed overminus lenses for exotropia were evaluated. Overminus lenses means additional minus power over the lenses required to correct the refractive error at distance. Forty exotropic patients, ages 1 to 15 years, were prescribed overminus lenses (-0.50 D to -3.75 D) for a period of 9 to 86 months. A small but significant correlation was found between the initial refractive error and the mean annual change toward myopia. Other factors such as age when treatment was given, duration of therapy, amount of overminus, and the amount of the exodeviation had little effect on the rate of myopic change. The mean annual changes in refractive error for hyperopes (-0.13 +/- 0.44 D, N = 15), emmetropes (-0.26 +/- 0.37 D, N = 17), and myopes (-0.75 +/- 0.77 D, N = 18) were similar to values reported in the literature for nonexotropic children. ========================================== It seems that under conditions of over-prescribing minus, myopes get myopic at a faster rate than non-myopes and at a rate that is not significantly different than for non-overprescribed myopes. Now, can we PLEASE give this a rest? >>It seems that under conditions of over-prescribing minus, myopes get myopic at a faster rate than non-myopes and at a rate that is not significantly different than for non-overprescribed myopes. >Now, can we PLEASE give this a rest? Even so something is going on that is interesting if studies do show that RGP lenses can arrest/slow down myopia progression. http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/4004/articles/4004a1.html This is giving us some information. The only question is what? My own experience with hard lens before i became intolerant to them was that the vision quality was simply fantastic. Simply no comparison to what i could get with glasses and much better than from soft lenses. I found therefore that my vision became very important to me - particularly during the day when the oily residue on the lens was not noticable and i would go for long walks just endlessly amused by how fantastic my vision had become. Many writers on good vision do think that good vision relies on a person being in awe or interested by what they sense on their retina, as opposed by being in awe of what they experience in their mind as an opinion, or imagination, or what is generated in their mind by the symbols they read. My own experience was of awe at what i could see. Delight at seeing. Andrew On Aug 29, 11:48 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Aug 30, 12:51 am, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> wrote:>>It seems that under conditions of over-prescribing minus, myopes get > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Andrew Who are these many writers on good vision? Once again, Andrew. This is sci.med.vision and you don't fit here. The reason that rigid lenses are thought to slightly slow down the progression of myopia is thought to be something else entirely than "being at awe at what you can see." Are you off your meds again? >>The reason that rigid lenses are thought to slightly slow down the progression of myopia I see. So science gets done that says myopia is arrested or slowed down. and then along comes the great Dr G. "slightly slowed down" And for some reason you imagine you can use "are thought" as if this means "definately proven". Why do you need to keep doing this. It does not show you in a very good light at all. You are not a superior being. You are not better than me How about coming down off your high horse and walk amongst us ordinary mortals for a while? I think you might find it much more fun. Andrew On Aug 30, 9:18 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > I see. So science gets done that says myopia is arrested or slowed > down. I read the study you linked. You obviously didn't. > And for some reason you imagine you can use "are thought" as if this > means "definately proven". This effect is being study. A hypothesis has been proposed. Is that your standard for "proof"? > Why do you need to keep doing this. It does not show you in a very > good light at all. Because it bothers me to see you trampling all over the science. > You are not better than me Did I hit a raw nerve? I think so. > How about coming down off your high horse and walk amongst us ordinary > mortals for a while? I think you might find it much more fun. Is that what this is about? Is this about your need to feel important by posing as a visual scientist and arguing with them? >>Is that what this is about? Is this about your need to feel important by posing as a visual scientist and arguing with them Dr G I find it peculiar that you continue to believe you are better than me. I have not to my knowledge been arguing with any scientists so far. Just a bunch of people with opinions. And many of these opinions I have demonstrated to be wrong opinions. I am sure i must be wrong on something but so far i am not sure of what. It is a pity that in Science that authority, paper certificates, and reputations count far more than reasoned arguments, facts and plain good old common sense. At some point i hope you will realise that the ability to deal with reality is something worth aiming for rather than avoiding. A. > On Aug 30, 9:18 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > I see. So science gets done that says myopia is arrested or slowed > > down. > > I read the study you linked. You obviously didn't. Dr G I need some help here to understand how you have concluded that: "that rigid lenses are thought to slightly slow down the progression of myopia" Based on the study that you read which you claim i did not.. The study concludes that one in 10 childrens myopia was *arrested* and http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/4004/tables/4004a1t1.html there was an almost 50% reduction in the mean rate of progression of myopia. Why do you conclude you have more accurately read this study than i have to arrive at "slightly slow down" When i said "arrested or slowed down" Can you explain this to me please? Thanks Andrew On Aug 30, 2:02 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Aug 30, 9:18 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Andrew There was still a net progression in the RGP lens group, but it was 0.36 diopters/year less than the spectacle group. Of that difference, only 0.23 diopters/year was attributable to less axial length growth in the RGP group. The rest was attributable to corneal changes. Also, there was great intersubject variability, such that the changes were unpredictable in individuals. So, maybe 0.23 is more than slight. I dunno. It's all relative. Of course, I think it is highly interesting because of the implications for the retinal defocus/image quality adherents. > So, maybe 0.23 is more than slight. I dunno. It's all relative. Of > course, I think it is highly interesting because of the implications > for the retinal defocus/image quality adherents Dr G For some reason you still want to over look that you said "slightly" And i said "arrested or slowed down" You are now saying "more than slight" The study results were "10% arrested and the rest slowed down" Why are you still implying i was wrong? Am i wrong? A. On Aug 30, 10:44 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > So, maybe 0.23 is more than slight. I dunno. It's all relative. Of > > course, I think it is highly interesting because of the implications [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > A. I never said you were wrong. Where did I say that? I think it is very hopeful that contact lenses can slow down the progression of myopia. But, if a child is progressing at the rate of 0.75 diopters/ year because of axial growth, and the difference between spectacles and the contacts on axial growth is only 0.23 diopters, then the child is still undergoing axial growth changes of 0.52 diopters/year even with the contact lenses. The rest is presumed to be corneal and therefore reversible, i.e. transient. What if the same effect can be realized not just with contact lenses, but with spectacle lens design, or even soft lenses? You would argue with a brick, and the brick would win. On Aug 30, 2:02 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Aug 30, 9:18 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Andrew Maybe we should define what we mean by myopia. I am primarily interested in myopia due to axial growth, and not accommodative or changes in corneal curvature. This is typically what researchers mean by myopia. You may have something else in mind, I dunno. > On Aug 30, 2:02 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > changes in corneal curvature. This is typically what researchers mean > by myopia. You may have something else in mind, I dunno.- Hide quoted text - Dr G I may be argumentative, even so i like to stay focused on what can be argued so that some kind of *resolution* or agreement can be reached.. By myopia i mean an eye with too much structural refractive power. Axial myopia i think is the more correct term for what you are saying. And of course myopia is not only an axial change event as you have already pointed out. Somehow all of the factors *coordinate* I believe rather than any one factor being the main or most important factor. Sure axial elongation may form the most diopters of the overall myopia but is it actually the most relevant factor involved? Axial elongation could occur enormously rapidly in response to some triggering factor which has nothing to do with axial elongation. More or less we agree on that i think anyway. Dr Judy for example mentioned that early onset myopes had thicker lenses which i find interesting. It implies at that stage there is a "demand" for more minus. And then later it is found i think that the myopic lens is thinner, implying a demand for less minus. My area of interest in focused on myopic triggers. I believe the psychological correlates point to a wider problem than something happening in the eye. I guess you are instead focusing on a genetic effect, perhaps in the axial elongation area? I dont see any strong genetic effects though. And i have really looked into that. I was hoping to raise peoples awareness of what is know in science about genetic effects and myopia since this is an area i have spent a bit of time looking at. Dispite all the money that has been spent in the area of genetic effects if you look at the data closely it is hard to find anything that supports a mainly genetic effect. And i do know and correspond with a guy who is attempting to prove this so i know that what i say is not all wrong. He does not have answers for my questions and yet he keeps looking for genes and so forth. The best that can be said so far is that *high myopia* in the Han chinese is likely to have a *slight* genetic susceptibility according to *one* study. No such gene evidence *at all* exists for ordinary "school" myopia as it is called by these researchers in any human population. My point being that if researchers were more aware that myopia has not been shown to have any strong genetic correlation they would be more inclined to look at the behavioural factors as a beginning point rather than looking at finding some kind of drug based solution via gene studies and so forth. It is easily possible to go thru the genetic evidence to reach our own unbiased conclusions. But people dont seem willing to do that. Instead they fire off studies that are not read and draw biased conclusions. This is human nature of course. It is also what is commonly called myopic :-) Andrew On Aug 30, 11:49 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2:02 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If you have been following this group for any length of time, you would know that the optometrists and the visual scientists who post here are mainly concerned with axial myopia. This is the myopia that causes retinal stretching and a greater risk of detachments. Axial myopia is also called "true myopia," whereas accommodative myopia is also termed "pseudomyopia." The two share the same refractive results. Virtually all of the scientific discussions by visual scientists and myopia researchers is about axial myopia. Because you are fixated on emotions, it i logical that you would be more concerned with accommodative, or pseudomyopia. Let's consider a 2 diopter myope, in which 1 diopter is accommodative. Then, let's change his corneal curvature by 2 diopters with a contact lens, leaving the person emmetropic. At some point in time, as the accommodation changes, that person is likely to shift towards hyperopia and become hyperopic by as much as 1 diopter. So, then the patient stops wearing the contact lens and the corneal curvature steepens once again, changing the refractive error back to myopia. >>Because you are fixated on emotions, it i logical that you would be more concerned with accommodative, or pseudomyopia. Dr G ?? I defined myopia as "an eye with too much structural refractive power" A definition of myopia has to include other factors other than axial length. I think I can successfully argue that an eye of normal length that is myopicly refractive with no accommodation *is* a myopic eye. Andrew On Aug 31, 7:58 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > >>Because you are fixated on emotions, it i logical that you would be more concerned with accommodative, or pseudomyopia. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Andrew Whatever you say, Andrew. Use any terminology you want. I was going to say that you are being excessively pedantic, but that would not be correct. I'm going to do the same as Dr. Rick, which is to concede the argument. Now, go find somebody else to argue with. I'm done. > On Aug 31, 7:58 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > correct. I'm going to do the same as Dr. Rick, which is to concede > the argument. Now, go find somebody else to argue with. I'm done.- Dr G It is a bit sloppy to use any old terminology and then attempt to make that sound like a reasonable choice when it is *you* who is attempting to distort what i say for some egocentic advantage that keeps back firing upon you. And when you stop inventing what i say, and instead answer me from what i do say, I think both of our lives will be easier. If you want to be scientific here then answer me please based on what i have said rather than what you prefer to want to imagine i said. The solution here is not so complicated as you imagine. Andrew . Hello, Andrew is absolutely correct. If we were to all just stop wasting time and replying to what we wish to reply, then this entire debate would surely be resolved far sooner. Those whiners who blame others for blabbering, should stop the blabbering themselves. Answer directly and intelligently. Keep the entire picture of a post in mind before you set about a reply. Try to see from the opponent's point of view; what is the basis of his post? Much time would be saved for productive discussion; as opposed to the childish ad-hominem either side should have to endure. But you may do as you wish. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > But you may do as you wish. I took some time to go back and try to figure out how and where this discussion started. It seems to stem from a disagreement over what the meaning of "science" and "vision" are, and what constitutes ligitimate scientific discussion. Surely, this leaves out the Bates people. Andrew, the retired property developer, would like to discuss twin studies and the results of his personality inventories of people with different eye problems. The optometrists would like to stick to things that have been corroborated and verified experimentally. We are the end users of the scientific information, and for us any behavioral theories of refractive error seem all too easy to refute. I think it would help the discussion immensely if Andrew just stated his hypothesis as succinctly as possible, so that we can analyze it in a methodical, reasonable way. If Andrew would like to take this first step, I yield the floor to him. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_frm/thread/6b044f2377a0c97/ 7149f812f6e2f5c9?lnk=st&q=&rnum=222#7149f812f6e2f5c9 Hello, The discussion started, like this: "... Perfect sight is impossible without continual shifting, and such shifting is a striking illustration of the mental control necessary for normal vision. It requires perfect mental control to think of thousands of things in a fraction of a second; and each point of fixation has to be thought of separately, because it is impossible to think of two things, or of two parts of one thing, perfectly at the same time. The eye with imperfect sight tries to accomplish the impossible by looking fixedly at one point for an appreciable length of time; that is, by staring. When it looks at a strange letter and does not see it, it keeps on looking at it in an effort to see it better. Such efforts always fail, and are an important factor in the production of imperfect sight ... " > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ... > " No it didn't. It started several years ago in this group. I suspect that Andrew will remain silent on this because he does not want his ideas to be subjected to falsification. Hello, > It started several years ago in this group. No it started on August the 24th. Hello, >We are the end users of the scientific information You are not the end users. You are merely the feeders. The end user is the patient. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The end user is the patient. The end user of the knowledge is the doctor. The beneficiary is the patient. > Hello, > > > It started several years ago in this group. > > No it started on August the 24th. With Deidara, aka Rishi. > same time. The eye with imperfect sight tries to accomplish the > impossible by looking fixedly at one point for an appreciable length > of time; that is, by staring. When it looks at a strange letter and > does not see it, it keeps on looking at it in an effort to see it > better. Such efforts always fail, and are an important factor in the > production of imperfect sight I've done lots of eye movement recordings, and studied many more. I've never seen much difference between those with refractive error and those with "perfect sight". Perhaps your recording equipment was more sensitive. -MT Hello, It is a matter of common knowledge that the eye with imperfect sight stares more frequently than the eye with perfect sight. The eye with perfect sight is always shifting, always at a rest. What need is there for this 'eye movement recording'; simply observe those who wear glasses and those who do not. Really, your technological equipments are quite useless. Hello, >The end user of the knowledge is the doctor. The beneficiary is the patient. To benefit from something is to use it. The patient is indirectly a user of the knowledge. It is obvious. Hello, >The end user of the knowledge is the doctor. The beneficiary is the >patient. To benefit from something is to use it. The patient is indirectly a user of the knowledge. It is obvious. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It is obvious. Obviously not. To benefit is to receive the works or results of. If I do a laser treatment on the eye of a patient, how is the patient a user of that knowledge? You ARE Rishi. Only HE would be that stupid. > You ARE Rishi. Only HE would be that stupid. For a while, I was laboring under the assumption that this IS just one bored, frustrated adolescent who -- either from Thalidomide, or similar -- has arms which are too short to reach the thing that USUALLY occupies children of that age. But I'm starting to believe that you're right: this is three or four different people -- ALL suffering from a similar affliction -- who log in using the same e-mail address. Equally plausible, yet ... in the end ... their idiocy is fungible, palpable, and profound. > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Equally plausible, yet ... in the end ... their idiocy is fungible, > palpable, and profound. Let's face it, Neil, children who don't want to wear eyeglasses are the logical prey of people like Otis and Rishi/Bates. Neverland and the Lost Boys. > > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the logical prey of people like Otis and Rishi/Bates. Neverland and > the Lost Boys. False! Nothing in the word will make beautiful woman (I mean not the 99.999 % of woman I mean really beautiful ) put on eyeglasses. L > > > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I mean really beautiful ) put on eyeglasses. > L Well, then, Lena. I guess that's all the scientific validation that (a f.cking idiot like) Otis would ever need, right? People don't want to have myopia; therefore, Otis must be right? Is that it? What make you (or a f.cking idiot like Otis) think that citing statistics about myopia in Asia, or saying that beautiful women don't want to wear glasses provides ANY SUBSTANTIATION WHATSOEVER for anything else that you claim? One (two) of us is (are) really missing something major here ... and I'm fairly sure it isn't me.... > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > One (two) of us is (are) really missing something major here ... and > I'm fairly sure it isn't me.... Neil, Physiologically: way too much fixation on need of glasses everywhere. Industry does not have in plan to diminish volume of sales. Industry push sales. It is personal choice, (I mean like low degree) , but they try to fix people on Necessity. I it not a statement that Icompletely against glasses. Nothing wrong with glasses. Women just can buy 0D And wear for fun. Guys look attractive. I do not like pushing people into frames. I do not like not give a choise when a choise is possible. Scientifically : (I already post it) From: American Academy of ophthalmology Visual Training for Refractive Errors October 2004 CONCLUSIONS There is level I evidence that visual training for control of accommodation has no effect on myopia. In other studies (level II/III evidence), an improvement in subjective visual acuity for patients with myopia who have undertaken visual training has been shown but no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. The improvements in myopic patients noted in these studies have been postulated to be due to improvements in interpreting blurred images, changes i n mood or motivation, creation of an artificial contact lens by tear film changes, or a pinhole effect from miosis of the pupil. In this way, we can encourage high-quality, rigorous research on complementary therapies.23, 24 http://www.aao.org/education/guidelines/cta/training.cfm Lena > Physiologically: > way too much fixation on need of glasses everywhere. > Industry does not have in plan to diminish volume of sales. > Industry push sales. The fact is that the one person who pushes eyeglasses in this group is Otis. The rest of us don't push them. We offer them. The consumer has the final choice. There is no law requiring eyeglasses except as necessary for operating a motor vehicle. > > Physiologically: > > way too much fixation on need of glasses everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > has the final choice. There is no law requiring eyeglasses except as > necessary for operating a motor vehicle. Dr. Leukoma, PLEASE! Otis's, and -- it occasionally appears -- Lena's positions WHOLLY DEPEND upon a carefully constructed set of lies (about what eye doctors DO and DO NOT do) for support. Your irreverent statements about what ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE in an eye doctors office threaten to disrupt everything. ;-) > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > ;-) Actually when you call Some doctor (not eye, any), the fat nurse switch you to the answering machine to leave massage for her. > > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > you to the answering > machine to leave massage for her. Hm. I don't /think/ this has anything to do with your being a non- native English speaker, so ... I'll just ask you directly: What the hell are you talking about? > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > What the hell are you talking about Just only about that nurse should talk herself with patients on phone, not switch them to answ. mashine . If she can not find a time she should go work as a waitress , there they will train her how to be nice. > > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > a time she should go work as a waitress , > there they will train her how to be nice. Thank you for proving my point. I'll enter it again ... just for clarity: > > Hm. I don't /think/ this has anything to do with your being a non- > > native English speaker, so ... I'll just ask you directly: > > > What the hell are you talking about You just make sh.t up, don't you ... without regard to whether or not it moves the discussion forward and CERTAINLY without regard to its scientific value. You just make sh.t up. A female (?) Otis. Whaddya' know.... > > Physiologically: > > way too much fixation on need of glasses everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > has the final choice. There is no law requiring eyeglasses except as > necessary for operating a motor vehicle. There is the only way to push someone to do anything: it is to create illusion that That someone wants that anything himself. Old trick of advertisement industry. > > > Physiologically: > > > way too much fixation on need of glasses everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That someone wants that anything himself. > Old trick of advertisement industry. What the hell are you talking about. Drop all the conspiracy theory bullshit and try to make a case. Or don't. But you look and sound more and more like Otis when you come here with fairy tales that lack ANY semblance of supporting evidence. > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > But you look and sound more and more like Otis when you come here with > fairy tales that lack ANY semblance of supporting evidence. The one is not going to buy a pub Unless he wants to. The one is not going to wear glasses Unless he wants to. In both cases : problem is to make people to want anything. > > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > The one is not going to wear glasses Unless he wants to. > In both cases : problem is to make people to want anything. Thank you for proving my point. >> X-No-Archive: Yes >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The one is not going to wear glasses Unless he wants to. >In both cases : problem is to make people to want anything. Are you saying that people "want" glasses because somebody manipulated them to want them? My observation is that people want glasses because they want to see better. I have lived in many places and have seen many optometrists and opticians in the last 50 years. Nobody sent me to them, not even to the first one -- I went on my own. None of them, at any stage of my myopia development, ever told me that I "must" wear glasses. I could see that I couldn't see well enough, and I wanted to see, that simple. When I was 13 I thought glasses were cool. I didn't use them for reading, only for distance viewing. Then perhaps at 17 I stopped wearing them regularly because I wanted to be "pretty". Nobody advised me to remove my glasses, and nobody scolded me for not using them -- It was my free choice. I don't remember at what age I resumed wearing my glasses full time, but when I did my prescription had increased from -1.5D to -3d, more then during any other period in my life. At that point I was mature enough to realize that anybody who might dislike or reject me for wearing glasses was not worthy of my time or attention. But you, together with Otis, Andrew and Quasimodo, are totally screwed up. You think that myopia is a horrible disease and glasses are "wretched", ugly, disgraceful, and evil. If anybody is manipulated in their thought process, it's you, who think that an impaired vision is better than wearing glasses -- but only for women, not men, whom you find to be "attractive" with glasses. Just to illustrate how screwed up your thought procees is, look at what you wrote: "Nothing in the word will make beautiful woman (I mean not the 99.999 % of woman I mean really beautiful ) put on eyeglasses." I guess your thinking is as blurry as your vision, if not more. Did you mean that 99.999% of women are not "really" beautiful? Or that 99.999% of women will not put on eyeglasses? Or that the .001% of women will not, and the other 99.999% will? And what does it have to do with the fat nurse and the answering service? It's not your English, it's your brain. It's not that 99.999% of women are beatiful, or not, and will, or will not, wear glasses because somebody forced them, or not -- it's your screwed up mind. Intelligent people (myopic, hyperopic, blind, or not)can think clearly and can express themselves clearly. They don't contradict themselves as you do. But your mind is blurry and confused, and I don't believe you can reach maturity in the foreseeable future. Somehow I always get the feeling that you are challenging everybody to demonstrate how smart you are, but you achieve the opposite -- you let us know how dumb and screwed up you really are.  SignatureMsBrainy > > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Are you saying that people "want" glasses because somebody manipulated them to want them? My observation is that people want glasses because they want to see better. I have lived in many places and have seen many optometrists and opticians in the last 50 years. Nobody sent me to them, not even to the first one -- I went on my own. None of them, at any stage of my myopia development, ever told me that I "must" wear glasses. I could see that I couldn't see well enough, and I wanted to see, that simple. When I was 13 I thought glasses were cool. I didn't use them for reading, only for distance viewing. Then perhaps at 17 I stopped wearing them regularly because I wanted to be "pretty". Nobody advised me to remove my glasses, and nobody scolded me for not using them -- It was my free choice. I don't remember at what age I resumed wearing my glasses full time, but when I did my prescription had increased from -1.5D to -3d, more then during any other period in my life. At that point I was mature enough to realize that anybody who might dislike or reject me for wearing glasses was not worthy of my time or attention. But you, together with Otis, Andrew and Quasimodo, are totally screwed up. You think that myopia is a horrible disease and glasses are "wretched", ugly, disgraceful, and evil. If anybody is manipulated in their thought process, it's you, who think that an impaired vision is better than wearing glasses -- but only for women, not men, whom you find to be "attractive" with glasses. Just to illustrate how screwed up your thought procees is, look at what you wrote: "Nothing in the word will make beautiful woman (I mean not the 99.999 % of woman I mean really beautiful ) put on eyeglasses." I guess your thinking is as blurry as your vision, if not more. Did you mean that 99.999% of women are not "really" beautiful? Or that 99.999% of women will not put on eyeglasses? Or that the .001% of women will not, and the other 99.999% will? And what does it have to do with the fat nurse and the answering service? It's not your English, it's your brain. It's not that 99.999% of women are beatiful, or not, and will, or will not, wear glasses because somebody forced them, or not -- it's your screwed up mind. Intelligent people (myopic, hyperopic, blind, or not)can think clearly and can express themselves clearly. They don't contradict themselves as you do. But your mind is blurry and confused, and I don't believe you can reach maturity in the foreseeable future. Somehow I always get the feeling that you are challenging everybody to demonstrate how smart you are, but you achieve the opposite -- you let us know how dumb and screwed up you really are. > Somehow I always get the feeling that you are challenging > everybody > to demonstrate how smart you are, but you achieve the opposite -- you > let us > know how dumb and screwed up you really are. You hit the nail right on the head. That truly IS a character trait shared with Otis. I wish I could say that, left to their own devices, they would simply be their own worst enemies, but they really DO need gadflies to help them to hurt themselves. .... and I'm right here ... :-D > "Nothing in the word will make beautiful woman (I mean not the 99.999 > % of > woman I mean really beautiful ) put on eyeglasses." > I guess your thinking is as blurry as your vision, if not more. Did > you mean > that 99.999% of women are not "really" beautiful? Yes I did. Look around. Even new movies. I can name only Nicole Kidman > > "Nothing in the word will make beautiful woman (I mean not the 99.999 > > % of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Even new movies. > I can name only Nicole Kidman Is this another scientific statement? They teach you this in your physics department? Perhaps you need first to take philosophy101 so you'll understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Also, logic101 is highly recommended. > And what does it have to do with the fat nurse > and the > answering service? Neil wrote Your irreverent statements about what ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE in an eye doctors office threaten to disrupt everything. I wrote: Actually when you call Some doctor (not eye, any), the fat nurse switch you to the answering machine to leave massage for her. Just I gave big, general picture about doctor's office. (not doctors). > > And what does it have to do with the fat nurse > > and the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Just I gave big, general picture about doctor's office. (not doctors). No. Just you gave some unfounded, irrelevant, and likely WILDLY inaccurate assumption that you hold dearly to. You do that a lot. I wonder why. Or not. Why don't you tell us a bit more about your qualifications to generalize SO FREQUENTLY about what goes on in eye doctors' offices across the world. Thanks. > Actually when you call > Some doctor (not eye, any), the fat nurse switch > you to the answering > machine to leave massage for her. Not in my office, where a real live person answers the phone...unless the office closed, however. A few patients have my cell number, and they do call me after hours, though. It looks like you are the victim of a faulty system. Where do you live? > > Actually when you call > > Some doctor (not eye, any), the fat nurse switch [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the office closed, however. A few patients have my cell number, and > they do call me after hours, though. 1.I did not mean your office 2."Eye exercises have helped Gann return to work," You do not need reference for that do you ? There are some cases that VT will work. (Do not object that it is Different , I wrote "some") Only to find VT patient should search web, even not knowing key words "Vision therapy" Same with Ortho-K Try to find anything even in google not knowing "ortho correction" How many patients referred by the others ODs did you have? I bet not a lot if any. > It looks like you are the victim of a faulty system. Where do you > live? 1. i am not 2.Indiana > > > Actually when you call > > > Some doctor (not eye, any), the fat nurse switch [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 1. i am not > 2.Indiana I prescribe eye exercises quite frequently for binocular vision disorders. I just don't advertise it. I would not consider exercises to improve visual acuity. You seem to have taken a personal interest in me for some reason. May I ask why? > > > > Actually when you call > > > > Some doctor (not eye, any), the fat nurse switch [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > You seem to have taken a personal interest in me for some reason. May > I ask why? > > > > Actually when you call > > > > Some doctor (not eye, any), the fat nurse switch [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > You seem to have taken a personal interest in me for some reason. May > I ask why? Professional interest. DrG Your articles about Lasik Is absolutely cool (sorry For using word "cool") Lena > > > > Actually when you call > > > > Some doctor (not eye, any), the fat nurse switch [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > You seem to have taken a personal interest in me for some reason. May > I ask why? Professional interest , DrG Your articles about Lasik are Absolutely cool (Sorry for using here word "cool") Lena > Professional interest , DrG > Your articles about Lasik are > Absolutely cool > (Sorry for using here word "cool") Except that those articles were not written by me. They were written by either freelance writers, or the editorial staff of the publication. In all cases, I was prevented from changing the content. > > Professional interest , DrG > > Your articles about Lasik are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > by either freelance writers, or the editorial staff of the > publication. In all cases, I was prevented from changing the content. Annnnd ... there you go again, Doc. Lena's mind is made up. Please don't confuse her with facts. TYVM. > You think that myopia is a horrible disease O, No Right opposite Disease needs attention, treatment, Regular doctors visits.(once a year) It is them, who represent it like that. >Somehow I always get the feeling that you are challenging everybody to demonstrate how smart you are, but you achieve the opposite -- you let us know how dumb and screwed up you really are. Ms Brainy I get the picture of a lonely old woman. Bitter and twisted. Unable to think kindly thoughts towards anyone. And yet inside there is a softer side. The side that protects Otis from very terrible people like me. All in the interests of fair mindedness of course. Somehow I always get the feeling that you are challenging everybody to demonstrate how smart you are, but you achieve the opposite -- you let us know how dumb and screwed up you really are. Horrible words i would say. Just be softer. It might work wonders Andrew > There is the only way to push someone > to do anything: > it is to create illusion that > That someone wants that anything himself. > Old trick of advertisement industry. Yes. I agree. Everybody wants perfect sight. Therefore, sell them a book that promises it. That is the ultimate illusion. Hello, > If I do a laser treatment on the eye of a patient, >how is the patient a user of that knowledge? Please, you are the one stupid. The patient is user of the knowledge because he has indirectly used the money to use the doctors to use the knowledge to have the laser treatment. Hello, Please Neil, depart now from my thread. You are a true waste. > Hello, > > Please Neil, depart now from my thread. > > You are a true waste. Oh, but this is usenet, where anybody can join the fun. Hello, >Oh, but this is usenet, where anybody can join the fun. Yes, yes you are right it is. But then you should not object to my prescence. Hello, >It looks like you are the victim of a faulty system. The victim is you and your patients who suffer under your incompetence. Please wake up! > Please, you are the one stupid. To quote Zetsu: "It takes on to know one." > The patient is user of the knowledge because he has indirectly used > the money to use the doctors to use the knowledge to have the laser > treatment. Your sentence is grammatically correct. However, it is not logical. That is another trait of Rishi. Hello, >However, it is not logical. And how so, doctor? Where is held the illogicy? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message