 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2009The Scientific Basis of Soon's Graph
Subject: The Scientific Basis of Soon’s Graph. Re: Ophthalmologist D. I. Flitcroft’s Analytic Paper of the Fundamental Eye's Dynamic Behavior Soon’s graphs are simplification and clarification of developing scientific and medical thinking about the behavior of the fundamental eye. Thus, while denied by the majority-opinion optometrists, they are analyzed ophthalmologists. For the record, here is the paper. Since many of you don’t like the concept of prevention, and to respect Dr. D. I. Flitcroft, let us just call this the professional (preventive) second-opinion, and thus avoid the endless personal attacks that have no place in science. Perhaps this paper is on the “Web”. Maybe some of you could find it? VISION RESEARCH PERGAMON Vision Research 38 (1998) 2869 – 2879 A Model of the contribution of oculomotor and optical factors to emmetropization and myopia. D. I. Flitcroft INSTITUTE OF OPHTHALMOLOGY University College Dublin 60 Eccles Street Dublin 7, Ireland ABSTRACT: The purpose of this work was to investigate quantitatively the interactions between accommodation, vergence and a mechanism of emmetropization driven by optical blur within the retinal image with a view to developing a model that provides and explanation of both normal emmetropization and near-work associated myopia….. I would recommend that anyone who wishes to challenge Soon’s graph (which is an extension of this paper, obtain the paper and READ IT. Enjoy, Otis > I would recommend that anyone who wishes to challenge Soon’s graph > (which is an extension of this paper, obtain the paper and READ IT. You mean you haven't? -MT Dear Mike, I have read it -- have you? If you have, then please publish your evaluation of the paper. Otis > > I would recommend that anyone who wishes to challenge Soon’s graph > > (which is an extension of this paper, obtain the paper and READ IT. > > You mean you haven't? > > -MT Reminder -- here is Soon's Graph: http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html You will find this graph on page 2876, as Figure 9. Enjoy, > Subject: The Scientific Basis of Soon’s Graph. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Otis > Subject: The Scientific Basis of Soon’s Graph. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > D. I. Flitcroft From the conclusion: "In keeping with the previously reported associations of myopia with esophoria, poor accommodation function and high AC/A ratios, these conditions increase the amount of myopia produced under intensive near viewing conditions but do not lead to myopia during mainly distance viewing. This model provides quantitative validation of the hypothesis that the epidemiological association between myopia and increased nearwork may be caused by a disturbance of normal emmetropization by steady state errors of accommodation. " Flitcroft states that poor accommodation function may lead to increased myopia with near work. He does not mention use of minus lenses to correct myopia as a factor, nor does he say anything about "stair case myopia", nor does his paper support Soon's Graph. Poor accommodation function and steady state errors exist with or without myopia and minus lenses. Wearing plus at near will not improve poor accommodation, nor will wearing minus make good function turn into poor function. And his paper is speculative, not measured. Do you have any actual measured evidence to support Soon's Graph? Judy > Subject: The Scientific Basis of Soon’s Graph. > > Perhaps this paper is on the “Web”. Maybe some of you could find it? Costs about $30 to read via Elsevier http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9797983 > Vision Research 38 (1998) 2869 – 2879 > > A Model of the contribution of oculomotor and optical factors to > emmetropization and myopia. > > D. I. Flitcroft Dear Judy, Subject: Publication Costs. As you know, there is an effort to get any "U.S. Goverment Funded Study" to be published on the "net" -- for free. The idea is that the taxpayer (You and I) have paid for it, why should we have to pay $30 for research we already paid for. It would be easy to write this into funding requests to the National Eye Institute. In this case, however, I don't think this was the case. I have received a copy of the paper by Flitcroft, and think it is EXCELLENT. I think that ANY SERIOUS PREVEIVE STUDY -- should be required to read and discuss this paper -- before any preventive effort was started. Thus the person could NEVER be considered a "subject", or a "patient", but a co-reseacher in the science of the dynamic behavior of the eye -- as he would measure it. Science and second-opinion best, > > Subject: The Scientific Basis of Soon’s Graph. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > I think that ANY SERIOUS PREVEIVE STUDY -- should be required to read > and discuss this paper -- before any preventive effort was started. > > Thus the person could NEVER be considered a "subject", or a "patient", > but a co-reseacher in the science of the dynamic behavior of the eye > -- as he would measure it. I don't think anybody needs to wonder why your proposed "test" methodology ALWAYS involves an unbelievable amount of bias on the part of the test subjects. No. I can't imagine anybody wonders at all.... [some comments about the cost of obtaining copies of published papers] You have strayed from the topic of this thread which is the "Scientific Basis of Soon's Graph". Interesting a Flitcrofts's paper is, as I said in my previous post: "Flitcroft states that poor accommodation function may lead to increased myopia with near work. He does not mention use of minus lenses to correct myopia as a factor, nor does he say anything about "stair case myopia", nor does his paper support Soon's Graph. Poor accommodation function and steady state errors exist with or without myopia and minus lenses. Wearing plus at near will not improve poor accommodation, nor will wearing minus make good function turn into poor function. And his paper is speculative, not measured. Do you have any actual measured evidence to support Soon's Graph?" Judy This would be primarily aimed at Otis. The Soon curve was first brought to my attention by Otis. At this time I do not know if this is purported as actual measurement or not. Please answer: 1. Is the Soon curve as presented supposed to be experimental fact? Yes/No 2. Is the Soon curve as presented the way an experimental result is to be expected? Yes/No Bill  SignatureMost people go to college to get their missing high school education. > This would be primarily aimed at Otis. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 2. Is the Soon curve as presented the way an experimental result is to > be expected? Yes/No I'm sorry, Bill. Are you still laboring under the belief that Otis might give direct answers to valid, rational, coherent, logical, relevant, direct questions?? Good luck with that ;-) > This would be primarily aimed at Otis. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 2. Is the Soon curve as presented the way an experimental result is to > be expected? Yes/No No matter what Otis answers, if you look at Soon's site http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/ you will notice that he has no references for the graphs. Also, we don't know if there is an actual person named "Soon", the website is called "Soon I Can See". The webmaster does not identify himself, so there is no way to know if he/she is a researcher. Judy > No matter what Otis answers, if you look at Soon's site http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/ > > you will notice that he has no references for the graphs. Also, we > don't know if there is an actual person named "Soon", the website is > called "Soon I Can See". The webmaster does not identify himself, so > there is no way to know if he/she is a researcher. As always, your basic premise is correct. It appears, though, that this person IS in business, in Malaysia, as an optician: Soon See, Optician ReLeX Eyecare 56 Taman Bunga Matahari 32400 Ayer Tawar Perak Malaysia Tel: 60-5-672-5619 A future office is planned close to Singapore. http://www.myopia.org/ReLeX_Eyecare.gif They claim to "prevent, control, reduce, and cure children's and teenagers' nearsightedness." The answer to the time-immemorial and critical question is simple: he/ she has offered no proof of efficacy and safety (that would comport with internationally accepted standards), either. It's a pretty good money maker, if you think about it. According to a longitudinal study ... posted BY Otis ... 85% of kids DON'T GET myopia. So ... if you gave every young patient Placebo, you'd still appear to have an 85% cure rate. Then -- just like Uncle Otie -- you blame the failures of the other 15% on their [laziness, immaturity, lack of personal resolve, ignorance, lack of understanding of the "fundamental," natural eye as a "dynamic system," etc., etc., etc.] If you tried that HERE, people like ME WOULD do everything in our legal power to see that your license was jeopardized. But ... if you're Otis (selling books), or Steve Leung, or Fred Deakins, or Soon See, or Alex Eulenberg ... you have nothing to lose ... but income. Hmm. In article <506b5261-3562-46e3-b01e-83107b701234@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > No matter what Otis answers, if you look at Soon's site > http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > called "Soon I Can See". The webmaster does not identify himself, so > there is no way to know if he/she is a researcher. I usually try to avoid far-fetched what if questions. But as you can tell from my previous posts, I do believe that at least some of what Otis says is indeed true. If Soon's curves are indeed fact, what conclusion can be drawn from them? My escalating quarrel with Otis now is not with what he believes but what he demonstrates. If it can be demonstrated that Soon curves are valid, I will be more strongly convinced that Otis's ideas have merit. On the other hand, if it can be shown that these curves are without merit, I am willing to change my belief. Otis has picked a subject that certainly can help make him or break him, That is why I am so intrigued by the topic. Bill SignatureMost people go to college to get their missing high school education. > I usually try to avoid far-fetched what if questions. But as you can > tell from my previous posts, I do believe that at least some of what > Otis says is indeed true. If Soon's curves are indeed fact, what > conclusion can be drawn from them? Bifocals/plus lenses can easily stop myopia. 2-diopter myopes will hardly ever get worse if they remove glasses for near. Overcorrecting would accelerate myopia. Hyperopia would disappear. -MT Dear Bill and Mike, Subject: Prevention BEFORE ANY MINUS IS APPLIED. What a excellent "bi-focal" study showed (always DENIED by the majority-opinion group) is that a PROPER AND STRONG PLUS, (alone) could be effective in the sense of prevention, BUT WITH THE INTELLECTUAL INVOLVEMENT OF THE PERSON HIMSELF. This is what I mean by PREVENT, or AVOID, and LIMITED TO NO MINUS USED. This means an "engineering compromise" -- THAT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE PERSON HIMSELF. This is why Stirling Colagete was successful. This is why other pilots (at the threshold) were successful. They simply monitored their Snellen -- and cleared it by dint of strong personal resolved. Obviously an OD can't "make money" on these people, and the cost of this type of true-prevention is only the cost of the "plus" they got from the store. But, I would like a second-opinion OD like Soon and Steve Leung involved in this PREVENTIVE PROCESS. That is the importance of Soon's graph for the natural eye's behavior. Further engineering/scientific response: ========= Salmon Egg" <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote Bill> I usually try to avoid far-fetched what if questions. But as you can tell from my previous posts, I do believe that at least some of what Otis says is indeed true. If Soon's curves are indeed fact, what conclusion can be drawn from them? Tyner> Bifocals/plus lenses can easily stop myopia. [ I have NEVER said this. In fact, the use of the "minus" in the "bi- focal" PREVENTS RECOVERY. It is the plus ALONE that must be used, consisten with the person being able to pass the 20/60 INITIALLY. It is critical that this process be UNDERSTOOD before that minus lens is applied. The Soon curve strongly suggests this. OSB ] 2-diopter myopes will hardly ever get worse if they remove glasses for near. [ If the person is "wise", and personlly can commit to the plus (at the 20/60 stage of FUNCTIONAL VISION) and just use the a plus at near, he will never become a -2 diopter myope, and in the fact that he clears his Snellen to pass the DMV line, he will require NO MINUS LENS AT ALL -- EVER. OSB ] Tyner> Overcorrecting would accelerate myopia. [ From the primate, objective, scientific data -- oh, so true. OSB ] Hyperopia would disappear. [ Well you can't have BOTH a postive and negative refractive STATE for the natrual eye. OSB ] Just a clarification of the concept of prevention -- before the minus. -MT > > I usually try to avoid far-fetched what if questions. But as you can > > tell from my previous posts, I do believe that at least some of what [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -MT > Subject: Prevention BEFORE ANY MINUS IS APPLIED. EARLY MYOPIA IS THE SAME AS WEARING PLUS. Why doesn't it STOP before any minus is applied? > What a excellent "bi-focal" study showed (always DENIED by the > majority-opinion group) is that a PROPER AND STRONG PLUS, (alone) > could be effective in the sense of prevention, BUT WITH THE > INTELLECTUAL INVOLVEMENT OF THE PERSON HIMSELF. Too bad you weren't around to coach every kid in the COMET study. Their results were pretty pitiful. > This means an "engineering compromise" -- THAT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD > BY THE PERSON HIMSELF. THE PERSON HIMSELF WILL GET NEARSIGHTED UNLESS YOU ARE THERE TO COACH HIM IN "PROPER USE OF THE PLUS." WE ARE NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT WORK LIKE YOU CAN. > This is why Stirling Colagete was successful. STIRLING COLGATE CURED HIMSELF OF ACCOMMODATIVE SPASM AT AGE 14. WE CAN DO THAT. > But, I would like a second-opinion OD like Soon and Steve Leung > involved in this PREVENTIVE PROCESS. That is the importance of Soon's > graph for the natural eye's behavior. OPINIONS ARE NOT DATA. You haven't shown us any new data. SOON'S GRAPH IS IMAGINARY. NO DATA. If you really want optometrists to recommend plus, you could help us out... Go find us some new data we can show the pediatricians. -MT Otis, You behave like an archeologist who has sifted through his dig dirt to get a pile of shards and other artifacts. Among these you have found the Soon curve. When I ask for supporting material, it is as if you put what you have found back into a pile of dirt so that it can be sifted again. In addition You bring in material from other digs around the world. From my previous posts, you should know that I want you to be correct. But you offer little real evidence. For now, forget all the other crap. Concentrate on the Soon curve. Establishing that is about the most important thing you can do to bolster you cause. Bill SignatureMost people go to college to get their missing high school education. Dear Bill, Subject: Helping the "Stirling Colgates" of the world with plus- prevention (at the threshold -- before the minus). As Tyner stated, Colgate was successful in prevention -- because he had the smarts, the wisdom, and fortitude to DO IT HIMSELF. I am in complete agreement with Tyner ON THAT POINT. Plus-prevention is indeed an INTRUSION in a person's life. Unless he knows what he wants in his life -- he is going to REJECT plus- prevention. Only by himself PERSONALLY reviewing ALL THESE ISSUES, and finally making a choice (as per Soon's curve) would it be possible to mount a true preventive effort or study. Given the profound hostility to that type of effort, and lack of sincere support, I doubt that (at this time) such a study could be conducted. But I do suggest that it would be possible to talk to engineers/pliots entering a four year college (with Snellens of no worse that 20/70, and refractive STATES no deeper than -1.5 diopters) to be part of a true preventive effort -- that would have a statistical chance of success. (i.e., the test group would clear their Snellens, and confirm their change in refractive STATE with their own trial-lens kit). But, like "weith loss" it will take a strong personal resolve to do it -- and that does depend on the insights of a person like Stirling Colgage. No one "prescribed" plus-prevention to Stirling. He just "reasoned out" the necessity of it -- and did it UNDER HIS CONTROL. That issue removes the subject matter from "medicine" or "optometry". I have prepared a protocol for that type of study. But given the incredible hostility on sci.med.vision, I think you will agree that it will be impossible to even start the study. Enjoy, > Otis, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > Most people go to college to get their missing high school education. > As Tyner stated, Colgate was successful in prevention -- because he > had the smarts, the wisdom, and fortitude to DO IT HIMSELF. > I am in complete agreement with Tyner ON THAT POINT. But you think all "negative refractive states" have the same cause. > No one "prescribed" plus-prevention to Stirling. He just "reasoned > out" the necessity of it -- and did it UNDER HIS CONTROL. Accommodative myopia is "under control." Axial myopia is not. It is STUBBORN, just like you. > That issue removes the subject matter from "medicine" or "optometry". You can treat all the accommodative myopia you want. It isn't permanent, and it responds to placebo just fine. Eventually it goes away on its own. If you learn to distinguish accommodative myopia from axial myopia, your success rate will approach 100%. But here's the thing - in young people, they're often intermingled. You can't fix the other kind, the kind like yours, axial myopia, the sort that doesn't fade away after 30. > I have prepared a protocol for that type of study. First learn the difference between ciliary spasm and axial myopia. Learn to use the actual definitions printed in textbooks. Then come teach us what we don't know. > But given the incredible hostility on sci.med.vision, I think you > will agree that it will be impossible to even start the study. Of COURSE you get hostile responses. You spread ignorance and anxiety. What's so incredible? -MT > From my previous posts, you should know that I want you to be correct. > But you offer little real evidence. For now, forget all the other crap. > Concentrate on the Soon curve. Establishing that is about the most > important thing you can do to bolster you cause. You've shot yourself in the foot. We all want to believe in magic, but when you push Otis, he just runs away and makes up a new story. SignatureDan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel@sonic.net In article <dabel-DF2567.18381803072009@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, > > From my previous posts, you should know that I want you to be correct. > > But you offer little real evidence. For now, forget all the other crap. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You've shot yourself in the foot. We all want to believe in magic, but > when you push Otis, he just runs away and makes up a new story. Well, I finally am giving up on Otis. He is not worth much trouble on my account. I now need to see experimental points plotted on the same on a Soon curve. I do not expect that will ever happen. Bill SignatureMost people go to college to get their missing high school education. Dear Bill, Thanks for your commentary. Best, > In article > <dabel-DF2567.18381803072...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > Most people go to college to get their missing high school education. So, now that you have the paper in-hand, can you tell us how many actual measurements were made in order to prove that eyeglasses contribute to myopia? -MT Dear Judy, Subject: Publication Costs. As you know, there is an effort to get any "U.S. Goverment Funded Study" to be published on the "net" -- for free. The idea is that the taxpayer (You and I) have paid for it, why should we have to pay $30 for research we already paid for. It would be easy to write this into funding requests to the National Eye Institute. In this case, however, I don't think this was the case. I have received a copy of the paper by Flitcroft, and think it is EXCELLENT. I think that ANY SERIOUS PREVEIVE STUDY -- should be required to read and discuss this paper -- before any preventive effort was started. Thus the person could NEVER be considered a "subject", or a "patient", but a co-reseacher in the science of the dynamic behavior of the eye -- as he would measure it. Science and second-opinion best, On Jun 26, 11:31 pm, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote: > On Jun 26, 9:10 am, Otis <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.