No. Pseudomyopia is indistinguishable from the accommodation used by
uncorrected hyperopes.

Uncorrected hyperopes don't get axial myopia.

Genetics would be the only "reason" firmly supported by the myopia
literature. The contribution of environment (working up close, prolonged
close work) is small, and the contribution of corrective lenses is nil.

-MT

Dear DrG and Mike Tyner,

I think it says pseudomyopia lead to axial myopia, do you believe so?
Could both of you please list all of the causes of axial myopia, all of
the reasons that axial elongation happens?  And which one you believe
in, or agree with, and which one you don't.

Thanks.

S.Seagal

Well, for one, you could refer to the recent paper by Hung and
Ciuffreda recently discussed.

I think so, don't you?  I see a fairly significant number of adults who
show regression, but I'm not sure if it is related to accommodation or
some other mechanism inherent in the aging of the lens.  I know that in
younger people, biofeedback methods have been successfully employed
with variable success.

DrG

Dear Dr.G.

Thank you very much for your response.

Could you please tell me about these credible mechanisms that explain
axial elongation?

Does accommodative spasm decrease or disappear without human
intervention (using topical cycloplegics, near adds, etc.), that is,
does accommodative spasm decrease or disappear naturally? (due to old
age? or when/what else?)  Thanks.

Dr.Seagal

dr.sea...@yahoo.com wrote:

Pseudomyopia is blur caused by sustained accommodation.  True, or axial
myopia is blur caused by mismatch between the optics of the eye and its
axial length.  In humans, I am not aware of any mechanism by which
axial length can be shortened.  On the other hand, there are credible
mechanisms to explain axial elongation.

Therefore, any decrease in the plus power of the eye (i.e. decrease in
the minus prescription) must be due to something other than a change in
the axial length, and must be due either to change in accommodation, or
the anterior corneal curvature, or the index of refraction of the
media.

In the data you presented, I have noticed that the prescription changes
are relatively small, and that a significant amount of myopia remains.
Which one of the variables do you think you are manipulating in order
to eliminate myopia (given that you haven't really eliminated anything,
only changed the magnitude slightly)?

With regard to reducing or eliminating accommodative spasm, topical
cycloplegics are helpful, as are near adds.

Dear Dr.G,

Normally speaking, when or how does pseudomyopia disappear?
Also, what can be done to reduce or eliminate accommodative spasm or
pseudomyopia?  I'm curious to know about your opinions and your
methods.  Thanks.

Dr. Seagal

You seem so earnest that I am almost reluctant to point this out, but I
observe that most of your cases suffered from against-the-rule
astigmatism, which very often goes along with accommodative spasm,
suggesting that these patients may have been over-minused to begin
with.  The fact that their myopia decreased by a relatively small
amount further attests to the presence of pseudomyopia.

Now, a regression to zero, or emmetropia, would indeed be something
noteworthy.

DrG

Dear William Stacy, DrG, Mike Tyner, p.clarkii, Dan Abel, fellow
optometrists, and all truth seekers:

Thank you all for your compliments and for being polite.

Dear Mike,

Mike Tyner wrote:

This was also what I thought when I first started practising optometry
in Asia years ago.  I knew nearsightedness can be reduced or cured if
it is not too severe, but I didn't know if the same theory applies to
astigmatism.  I had only read it somewhere that astigmatism should not
be corrected and somewhere else that it could be reduced with a special
lens.  I didn't know if it is true since I had never seen it.

Nevertheless, I gave it a try on my patients, since I am a seeker of
truth.  I wanted to see for myself whether or not astigmatism could be
reduced or completely cured.

The results were astonishing.

One of my first few patients, an elementary school teacher's daughter,
an 8-year-old girl, had pretty high astigmatism when she first came to
see me.  Her astigmatism was -2.50D.  I gave her a pair of special
glasses to wear and asked her to come back a few weeks later.

Six weeks later, her astigmatism was down to -0.50D.

Another early patient, a 15-year-old girl (a high school student), was
at -3.50D sph. -0.50D cyl.  Three weeks later, it went down to -3.00D
sph. PL (0.00) cyl.  Her astigmatism disappeared.

reduced or cured if treated properly.

Some more recent cases for your interest.

1. Philips C. (Name changed for privacy)   age 10
5/13/06   sph.  cyl.  axis          bare eye
O.D.    -2.00  -0.50  90              20/120
O.S.    -2.00  -0.50  90              20/120

5/20/06   sph.  cyl.  axis          bare eye
O.D.    -1.00  -0.50  90              20/30
O.S.    -1.25   0.00                   20/40

6/10/06   sph.  cyl.  axis          bare eye
O.D.    -0.75   0.00                   20/30
O.S.    -0.75   0.00                   20/30

7/9/06   sph.  cyl.  axis          bare eye
O.D.    -0.25   0.00                   20/20
O.S.    -0.25   0.00                   20/20

2. Arthur T. (Name changed for privacy)    age 11
8/9/06   sph.  cyl.   axis          bare eye
O.D.    -2.75  -0.50  180            20/200
O.S.    -3.00  -0.75   25             20/200

8/17/06   sph.  cyl.   axis          bare eye
O.D.    -2.00   0.00                    20/60
O.S.    -2.25   0.00                    20/80

8/31/06   sph.  cyl.   axis          bare eye
O.D.    -1.75   0.00                    20/60
O.S.    -2.25   0.00                    20/80

9/28/06   sph.  cyl.   axis          bare eye
O.D.    -1.75   0.00                    20/60
O.S.    -2.00   0.00                    20/60

I should also point out that astigmatism sometimes also changes
"strangely".  It is either that or these optometrists didn't examine
the eyes properly.  See the following case:

This mother of two boys heard of me through her friends and called me.
I asked her to bring all of the old glassess of the two boys when she
came.

Here is her older son, Andrew C. (Name changed for privacy)   age 11
1st pair of glasses, made in 2002:
            sph.  cyl.   axis
O.D.    -2.75   0.00
O.S.    -3.25  -0.25   95

2nd pair of glasses, made in 2003:
            sph.  cyl.   axis
O.D.    -4.50  -0.25   45
O.S.    -5.50  -1.00   105

3rd pair of glasses, made in 2004: (This pair was lost)
            sph.   cyl.   axis
O.D.    -5.25 ?   ?
O.S.    -7.50 ?   ?

4th pair of glasses, made in 2005:
            sph.  cyl.   axis
O.D.    -6.00  -1.00   95
O.S.    -9.00  -0.50   135

5th pair of glasses, made in August, 2006:
            sph.   cyl.   axis
O.D.     -7.25   -0.25   95
O.S.    -10.00  -0.50   135

Interesting facts:
1. Astigmatism in his left eye (O.S.) changed from -1.00 (2003) to
-0.50 (2005)
2. Astigmatism in his right eye (O.D.) changed from -1.00 (2005) to
-0.25 (2006)

The following is my record of Andrew C. (Name changed for privacy)
age 11
11/4/06   sph.  cyl.    axis
O.D.     -7.75   -0.50   180
O.S.    -10.00  -0.50   135

11/18/06   sph.  cyl.    axis
O.D.     -7.00    0.00
O.S.     -9.50    0.00

12/2/06   sph.  cyl.    axis
O.D.     -6.75   0.00
O.S.     -8.50   0.00

1/6/07 3:00p.m.    sph.  cyl.    axis
O.D.
O.S.                          we'll see.......

The conclusion here is that astigmatism can be reduced and cured, so
can nearsightedness.

Dear DrG,
Thanks for reminding me.  I will publish this in the future, unless I
get shot and die.

p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:

Dear p.clarkii,
My training is the same as yours if you are also an optometrist.  The
difference is that I am not a "follow the dead book" or "follow the
false education" type of person.  I am a truth seeker.  I want to find
the truth.  I want to understand the real science, not "business-based
science".

When there is a new finding, I will try to learn more about it,
understand it, if it somewhat makes sense, some people tried it with
good results, I will then try it out myself to prove that it is true.

I won't say things like: the study/research doesn't say so, you are
lying, you are a liar.
On the contrary, I will try to understand it and experiment with it.

If the problem can't be solved, it means the theories are incorrect.

Suppose that your child comes home from school one day walking with a
cane and says,
"Mom, I can't walk right any more. They tell me I'll have to use this
cane the rest of my life and that it will only get worse. And one third
of the other kids in school are also going around with canes or
crutches. They said that I inherited this, but you and dad aren't
crippled. My grandparents aren't crippled. I don't understand this.
What's happening to me?"

Now suppose that your child comes home from school one day and says,
"Mom, I can't see the words on the board like I used to. Everything is
blurred. They say I am nearsighted and need glasses. They say I'll have
to wear the glasses the rest of my life and that it will only get
worse. And one third of the other kids are already wearing glasses.
They say that I inherited this, but you and dad aren't nearsighted. My
grandparents aren't nearsighted. I don't understand this. What's
happening to me?"

In reality, can the external doctor help prevent the patient's small
leg injury from getting worse and cure it?
The answer is YES.

Now, in reality, can the eye doctor help prevent the patient's newly
acquired myopia from getting worse and cure it?
The answer is YES, ABSOLUTELY.

In reality, can the eye doctor help prevent a ten-year-old child's low
myopia from getting worse?
The answer is YES, ABSOLUTELY.

In reality, can the eye doctor help prevent a ten-year-old child's
medium myopia from getting worse?
The answer is YES, ABSOLUTELY.

Again, if the problem can't be solved, it means the theories are
incorrect.

In reality, a myopic child's eyeball does not grow longer and longer
until he/she reaches adulthood.

I became an optometrist because I wanted to save people's eyes, not for
the money. None of my patients need to come back for a new pair of
glasses, year after year.  I always tell my patients that one day I
will die of hunger.  However, I will die of hunger happily, since I
enjoy what I do, and, hopefully, I will go to heaven.

Sincerely,
S.Seagal, O.D.

If You Are Not Part Of The Solution You Are Part Of The Problem

This is obviously very important groundbreaking research, and should be
published.  In which journal kind I find this work?

DrG

Dear William Stacy,

You are right about this as far as "conventional optometry" is
concerned.  However, when it comes to Real Optometry, True Optometry,
or REAL EYECARE, astigmatism (and nearsightedness) can be reduced or
completely eliminated if it is not too severe.

"Conventional optometry" deals with sharp vision (quick fix) wearing
glasses, which has side effects or bad consequences.  REAL EYECARE
helps people attain sharp vision bare eye (slightly slower fix).

I am interested in bare eye sharp vision, so are my patients.  Of more
than a thousand patients I have seen so far, not even one failure.

If you say I am wrong, I guess that means my patients came from Mars,
since things like these don't happen in "conventional optometry" in
this world.

Sincerely,
Dr. Seagal

You've gotten 2 bizarre answers, probably more to come.  Assuming the Rx
is indeed a CLRx (not a spectacle Rx that is "OK for contacts" type),
you can get the -11 (no more, and I'm amazed to see who suggested that
little tidbit), and then have the resudual measured while you are
wearing the contacts for the over-wear glasses.  The other "Dr." is just
wrong.  1.25 cyls just don't disappear, and the idea of ignoring it is a
bad one, if you're interested in sharp vision.

w.stacy, o.d.

I'm probably using the wrong terms, but hopefully you'll get my point.
If I have a contacts prescription of -11 sph, -1.25 cyl. What would
happen if I wore spherical contacts -11 and left the astigmatism
uncorrected? What would my "equivalent" vision be like?

The reason I'm asking is because they do not make disposable contacts
with my prescription, only custom-made torics. But they do have
spherical disposables at the same power. I'm just wondering if I could
see decently (everything except reading and driving) without correcting
astigmatism.