You _presume_ that you solve the myopia problem.

If you don't use scientific methods to test the efficacy of your treatment,
you cannot know that it works. Don't you agree?

And I would really enjoy your telling us how you know you can cure myopia.

-MT

Dear DrG,

I guess that means "low success rate" unless you would like to kindly
give a more definite answer.  (I was not asking about how much worse
the myopes got.  I was asking about the percentage of the myopes in
your office whose myopia does not get worse.  Mike Tyner's answer is
zero which means none of the myopes in his office whose myopia does not
get worse.)

Yes, it is safe, efficacious, and practical to use.  No helmets are
used.  I solve myopia problem (axial elongation, etc.) with glasses,
not helmets.

I hope you do embrace it, as the method is science.  If it is not
science, it won't work.  Don't you agree?

So do I.  And I really enjoy solving myopia problems (eyeball
elongation, retinal detachment, etc.) instead of creating more myopia
problems.

S.Seagal

It's difficult to say how much worse the myopes in my practice would
have gotten without my intervention because I don't treat one eye and
use the other for a control, treat one group and not the other, etc.

It it was safe, efficacious, and practical to use, then I would employ
it.  If it involves putting small children into helmets with plus
lenses in front of their eyes 24/7, then I would defer.

I don't regard myself as being a dogmatic person, and if such a method
was presented and backed by sound science, then I would embrace it.

But, I happen to believe that we are indeed on the cusp of having such
a method(s), and I think that this is a great time to be an
optometrist.

DrG

Dear Dr.G and Mike Tyner,

Just to confirm, what is the success rate for myopia control in your
office?

What would you do if you know of a myopia control method that really
works?

S.Seagal

Because no "myopia treatment" successfully reduces axial length. Decreases
in myopia are more likely from relaxing accommodation, not reducing axial
length.

I'm not qualified to say what you think.

I know that accommodative spasm is common and notoriously variable in the
young population you described.

I know that attempts to reduce or retard axial myopia with lenses and
exercises have failed, as compared to controls.

And I know that a collection of anecdotes cannot outweigh statistical
comparisons between treated and untreated groups.

Then I doubt you will offer any new statistical comparisons between treated
and untreated groups.

I'm just another anecdote, and focusing on anecdotes doesn't answer any of
the real questions.

From childhood to about age 40, my refraction changed from pl-025x090 to
pl-100x090 OU and I wore no correction.

I got glasses around age 40, and I've worn them fulltime now for 12 years,
and it's still pl-100x090. If you rely on my example, you'd have to conclude
that astigmatism increases when uncorrected, and stabilizes once you begin
wearing glasses.

Such is the treachery of anecdotes.

-MT

Why do you think so, I don't quite understand.  Please explain or
clarify.
I would like to know what you think I think about axial myopia and
accommodative myopia, which one can be controlled, reduced, or cured,
and which one can't, or, both can, or, both can't......

I will tell you about this and answer your other questions after you
response.

Are you myopic?  How myopic?  And what is your diopter of cyl?  Do you
wear glasses or contact lenses?  Of what diopter?
I will answer your "Why didn't it?" question and the remaining
questions after you response.

I think you're confusing axial myopia with accommodative myopia.

Western journals don't contain any "myopia control" techniques that work for
axial myopia, except topical muscarinics.

Please tell us if you've seen successful comparisons between treated and
untreated groups.

No reason to think it should.

I've seen astigmatism get better. I've seen it get worse. I wouldn't trust
my own experience, other than to say small increases and decreases are
common. Looking it up I find astigmatism doesn't respond to spectacle
correction appreciably, either way. That's just what the textbooks say, not
me.

I've had my own diopter of cyl, uncorrected for decades, and it never went
away. Why didn't it?

My impression is that you've seen your most "astonishing" results among a
population who are notoriously variable on tests like the Jackson Cross
Cylinder. Were there objective measurements that changed (retinoscopy,
autorefractor, keratometry), or was the JCC your only instrument?

Using what test? Fifteen-year-old girls aren't very reliable, and a sudden
decrease in myopia should make you less confident of any changes in
cylinder.

Don't be offended but did your optometry degree program require any
statistics courses?

I would point out that children have the attention span of goldfish when
answering tedious questions.

And that JCC results can be skewed dramatically by changing the instructions
just a little, or by using different targets.

I would point out that minor astigmatism (050) is normally variable, subject
to patient responses and measurement techniques, before considering
hydration, hormones, nocturnal exposure, and habitual lid position.

My conclusion is you've never applied the standard statistical methods for
testing a hypothesis.

My conclusion is you might change the shape of your ear cartilage by keeping
it bent a certain way, but you won't change it by hanging a piece of clear
plastic out in front of it.

-MT

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.