Just wondering??

I'm new to this group and don't quite understand what is with all the personal attacks?

Personal attacks are pretty much saying, "You win, I don't have any valid argument against you". It does far more damage to your own credibility than to others. Try a personal attack in a court room and you just lost your credibility along with your case. Same rules apply on the internet.

To take sides here, first I need to understand the argument.

Is the argument over does close work cause myopia? I think that has already been answered, yes according to the AOA ( see below ).
Is the argument over does a plus lens for close work reduce the strain on the eyes? Here is another yes ( basic physics ).

From this, we derive that plus lens used for close work will prevent myopia... This makes perfect sense to a layman, very simple deductive reasoning.

Asking anyone in this group to prove either side is pointless, as it seems everyone's opinions stated here are based on anecdotal evidences and conflicting data. Nobody in this group has the means to provide their own research to prove their opinion.

As an outsider, I would tend to believe someone that provides links and references, more than one that personally attacks someone that differs in opinion.

~Jack ( normally pronounced Swedish )


===================

AOA states:

Nearsightedness is a very common vision condition affecting nearly 30 percent of the U.S. population. Some research supports the theory that nearsightedness is hereditary. There is also growing evidence that it is influenced by the visual stress of too much close work.

There is significant evidence that many people inherit the tendency to develop nearsightedness. Even though the tendency to develop nearsightedness may be inherited, its actual development may be affected by how a person uses his or her eyes. Individuals who spend considerable time reading, working at a computer, or doing other intense close visual work may be more likely to develop nearsightedness.

People who do an excessive amount of near vision work may experience a false or "pseudo" myopia. Their blurred distance vision is caused by over use of the eyes' focusing mechanism. After long periods of near work, their eyes are unable to refocus to see clearly in the distance. The symptoms are usually temporary and clear distance vision may return after resting the eyes. However, over time constant visual stress may lead to a permanent reduction in distance vision.

Dear Layman Jack,

Subject: A scientific and supporting group -- that it not hostile to
the preventive second opinion.

The endless name-calling an personal insults on sci.med.vision -- are
endless.

If you wish a group that intelligently discusses the need for
prevention, under more positive support by the parent, then why not
join this group:


http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/

There are no "perfect" answers -- only a wise choice to impliment plus-
prevention for your child, and to learn more from a group that is not
using these methods.

The group is intelligently moderated -- to reduce these endless
attacks on an fair-minded and scientific second-opinion.

If you wish, join this group moderated by Alex Eulenberg.

Second-opinon and prevention best,

Otis






On Jan 7, 11:23*pm, "Layman Jack" <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> I'm new to *this group and don't quite understand what is with all the personal attacks? *
>
> Personal attacks are pretty much saying, *"You win, I don't have any valid argument against you". *It does far more damage to your own credibility than to others. *Try a personal attack in a court room and you just lost your credibility along with your case. *Same rules apply on the internet.
>
> To take sides here, first I need to understand the argument.
>
> Is the argument over does close work cause myopia? * I think that has already been answered, yes according to the AOA ( see below ). *
> Is the argument over does a plus lens for close work reduce the strain onthe eyes? *Here is another yes ( basic physics ). *
>
> From this, we derive that plus lens used for close work will prevent myopia... This makes perfect sense to a layman, very simple deductive reasoning.. * *
>
> Asking anyone in this group to prove either side is pointless, as it seems everyone's opinions stated here are based on anecdotal evidences and conflicting data. *Nobody in this group has the means to provide their own research to prove their opinion.
>
> As an outsider, *I would tend to believe someone that provides links and references, *more than one that personally attacks someone that differsin opinion.
>
> ~Jack ( normally pronounced Swedish )
>
> ===================
>
> AOA states:
>
> Nearsightedness is a very common vision condition affecting nearly 30 percent of the U.S. population. Some research supports the theory that nearsightedness is hereditary. *There is also growing evidence that it is influenced by the visual stress of too much close work.
>
> There is significant evidence that many people inherit the tendency to develop nearsightedness. *Even though the tendency to develop nearsightedness may be inherited, its actual development may be affected by how a personuses his or her eyes. Individuals who spend considerable time reading, working at a computer, or doing other intense close visual work may be more likely to develop nearsightedness.
>
> People who do an excessive amount of near vision work may experience a false or "pseudo" myopia. Their blurred distance vision is caused by over useof the eyes' focusing mechanism. After long periods of near work, their eyes are unable to refocus to see clearly in the distance. The symptoms are usually temporary and clear distance vision may return after resting the eyes. However, over time constant visual stress may lead to a permanent reduction in distance vision.

On Jan 7, 9:23*pm, "Layman Jack" <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> I'm new to *this group and don't quite understand what is with all the personal attacks? *

> Personal attacks are pretty much saying, *"You win, I don't have any valid argument against you". *It does far more damage to your own credibility than to others. *Try a personal attack in a court room and you just lost your credibility along with your case. *Same rules apply on the internet.
>
> To take sides here, first I need to understand the argument.

I actually can't imagine that anybody on this forum cares whether you
take sides or not.

But ... you've been warned.

Given that you care ... at all ... you can spend a few minutes looking
into the history of Otis Brown on s.m.v., and the destruction he has
wrought on what was once a useful newsgroup populated by charitable
and wise eye doctors.

The only one left is Mike Tyner -- bless his soul.

Otis Brown IS a pathological liar. That's far from ad hominem.

Caveat emptor.

On Jan 8, 4:23*am, "Layman Jack" <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> I'm new to *this group and don't quite understand what is with all the personal attacks? *
>
(trimmed)
> ===================
>
> AOA states:
>
> Nearsightedness is a very common vision condition affecting nearly 30 percent of the U.S. population. Some research supports the theory that nearsightedness is hereditary. *There is also growing evidence that it is influenced by the visual stress of too much close work.
>
> There is significant evidence that many people inherit the tendency to develop nearsightedness. *Even though the tendency to develop nearsightedness may be inherited, its actual development may be affected by how a personuses his or her eyes. Individuals who spend considerable time reading, working at a computer, or doing other intense close visual work may be more likely to develop nearsightedness.
>
> People who do an excessive amount of near vision work may experience a false or "pseudo" myopia. Their blurred distance vision is caused by over useof the eyes' focusing mechanism. After long periods of near work, their eyes are unable to refocus to see clearly in the distance. The symptoms are usually temporary and clear distance vision may return after resting the eyes. However, over time constant visual stress may lead to a permanent reduction in distance vision.

The AOA quote you give does not reflect new work, no doubt still to be
taken with a grain of salt, on myopia and (lack of) exposure to
daylight. See e.g. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/
121396654/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0>
and
<http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/iovs.09-3419v1>
In which we have observational studies on humans and experimental
studies on chicks pointing in the same direction.

I think a certain amount of frustration at the apparent lack of
progress for some time on understanding the causes of myopia and
providing strategies to present it is understandable.

However I would not, myself, persist in adherence to the Bates method,
in the face of a great deal of the work done since its development (c.
1912 according to http://www.i-see.org/early_bates/bates_myopia1912b.html),
nor would I use the same style of debate as Otis - if only because it
does not conform to any theory of scientific progress of which I am
aware. The most cynical version of that I can call to mind is that you
convert newcomers to your good new idea and wait for your existing
opponents to die of old age. Staging arguments in which neither
theories nor facts dominate does not appear to me to be a good way of
converting newcomers.

Dear Jack,

Subject: Endless personal attacks on me (i.e., an accurate preventive
concept).

This is probably the most accurate "reason".

Men live by their routines; and when these are called into question,
they lose all power of normal judgment. They will listen to nothing
save the echo of their own voices; all else becomes dangerous
thoughts. - Harold Laski


What I express, is simply the under-current of objection to the over-
prescription of the minus lens.

Certinly I know it is very easy and simple to apply. But, for a
person more "reflective" in science and engineering, a pure-preventive
process is possible.

But as you have discovered, no consistent "logic", nor science can be
presented, for the simply reason that if it is presented, it will be
"shouted down" before any systematic scientific analysis is even
started.

Further, the following poster mentions "Bates" and his 1913 study.
Bates made some mistakes in concept. But at least he made an EFFORT.

I think a great deal of science -- that developed after 1930, shows
that (in the concept of prevention -- before the minus) Jacob
Raphaelson had the correct scientific concept. (This was also stated
by a Dr. Prentice).

So I suggest that you check "I-SEE" were the level of mindless
personal attacks are "reduced" and more "level, scientific reason and
facts" can prevail.

You have taken the first step with your son. Now it just a matter of
learning more to help him.

Science and Engineering best,

Otis



On Jan 7, 11:23*pm, "Layman Jack" <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> I'm new to *this group and don't quite understand what is with all the personal attacks? *
>
> Personal attacks are pretty much saying, *"You win, I don't have any valid argument against you". *It does far more damage to your own credibility than to others. *Try a personal attack in a court room and you just lost your credibility along with your case. *Same rules apply on the internet.
>
> To take sides here, first I need to understand the argument.
>
> Is the argument over does close work cause myopia? * I think that has already been answered, yes according to the AOA ( see below ). *
> Is the argument over does a plus lens for close work reduce the strain onthe eyes? *Here is another yes ( basic physics ). *
>
> From this, we derive that plus lens used for close work will prevent myopia... This makes perfect sense to a layman, very simple deductive reasoning.. * *
>
> Asking anyone in this group to prove either side is pointless, as it seems everyone's opinions stated here are based on anecdotal evidences and conflicting data. *Nobody in this group has the means to provide their own research to prove their opinion.
>
> As an outsider, *I would tend to believe someone that provides links and references, *more than one that personally attacks someone that differsin opinion.
>
> ~Jack ( normally pronounced Swedish )
>
> ===================
>
> AOA states:
>
> Nearsightedness is a very common vision condition affecting nearly 30 percent of the U.S. population. Some research supports the theory that nearsightedness is hereditary. *There is also growing evidence that it is influenced by the visual stress of too much close work.
>
> There is significant evidence that many people inherit the tendency to develop nearsightedness. *Even though the tendency to develop nearsightedness may be inherited, its actual development may be affected by how a personuses his or her eyes. Individuals who spend considerable time reading, working at a computer, or doing other intense close visual work may be more likely to develop nearsightedness.
>
> People who do an excessive amount of near vision work may experience a false or "pseudo" myopia. Their blurred distance vision is caused by over useof the eyes' focusing mechanism. After long periods of near work, their eyes are unable to refocus to see clearly in the distance. The symptoms are usually temporary and clear distance vision may return after resting the eyes. However, over time constant visual stress may lead to a permanent reduction in distance vision.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 07:30:09 -0800 (PST), Otis
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>Subject: Endless personal attacks on me (i.e., an accurate preventive
>concept).

What you call personal attacks truly *are* nothing more than accurate
characterizations.

You *are* intellectually dishonest. You *do* lie -- primarily and
notably about what others say and do.

In fact, it now rises to the level of a Tortious act.

After having this pointed out to you on so many occasions, there
really *are* only a few possible explanations: you are either lying,
or are incapable of distinguishing the truth of the matter.

Neither speaks well of you. Neither has a valid reason.

>What I express, is simply the under-current of objection to the over-
>prescription of the minus lens.

Can you please support the notion that it is "over-prescribed?"

Though asked repeatedly, you never directly respond. This is nothing
more than intellectual dishonesty and cowardice on your part.

>Certinly I know it is very easy and simple to apply. But, for a
>person more "reflective" in science and engineering, a pure-preventive
>process is possible.

What might that be, and how do you know that it works?

>But as you have discovered, no consistent "logic", nor science can be
>presented, for the simply reason that if it is presented, it will be
>"shouted down" before any systematic scientific analysis is even
>started.

That's patently ridiculous.

If you mean theories and hypotheses, then you should refer to them in
that way.

On Jan 7, 11:23*pm, "Layman Jack" <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> Is the argument over does close work cause myopia? * I think that has already been answered, yes according to the AOA ( see below ). *

Please reread. The AOA does not say cause, it says influenced.
Research is ongoing about the relationship between near work and
myopia. Although they are associated, it is not known whether myopia
causes more reading, or reading causes more myopia or some other
factor causes both reading and myopia. What is known from animal
studies is that accommodation (lens focusing) is not the cause. The
featureless nature of print may be implicated.

> Is the argument over does a plus lens for close work reduce the strain onthe eyes? *Here is another yes ( basic physics ). *

Not really. Using a plus lens reduces accommodative demand but
increases convergence demand, substituting one strain for another.

>
> From this, we derive that plus lens used for close work will prevent myopia... This makes perfect sense to a layman, very simple deductive reasoning.. * *

May make sense to a layman, but controlled scientific experiments do
not find that plus lens at near prevent myopia.

> Asking anyone in this group to prove either side is pointless, as it seems everyone's opinions stated here are based on anecdotal evidences and conflicting data. *Nobody in this group has the means to provide their own research to prove their opinion.

There is no need to do personal research, vision researchers have been
exploring the relationship between near work, plus lenses at near and
myopia for close to three decades. You will not find a current
researcher advocating for plus at near to prevent myopia, only non
researchers.

The recent forum arguments you have seen reflect frustration with Otis
who periodically hijacks the forum with the same posts over and over
again. He has been doing this for about two decades. He cites the
same few anecdotal stories and one or two 30+ year old minor
studies. He ignores more recent studies despite having been provided
with them repeatedly.

I agree personal attacks serve no purpose and it is better to simply
ignore Otis' trolling.

Judy

On Jan 9, 10:07*am, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 11:23*pm, "Layman Jack" <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is the argument over does close work cause myopia? * I think that hasalready been answered, yes according to the AOA ( see below ). *
>
> Please reread. *The AOA does not say cause, it says influenced.
> Research is ongoing about the relationship between near work and
> myopia. *Although they are associated, it is not known whether myopia
> causes more reading, or reading causes more myopia or some other
> factor causes both reading and myopia. *What is known from animal
> studies is that accommodation (lens focusing) is not the cause. *The
> featureless nature of print may be implicated.
>
> > Is the argument over does a plus lens for close work reduce the strain on the eyes? *Here is another yes ( basic physics ). *
>
> Not really. *Using a plus lens reduces accommodative demand but
> increases convergence demand, substituting one strain for another.


Sort of, but ... more specifically ... they tend to induce exotropia,
leading to additional convergence, *which then leads to additional
accommodation*.


Depending on the CA:C and AC:A ratios, the use of plus may net MORE
convergence than not ever using the lenses at all, no??



> > From this, we derive that plus lens used for close work will prevent myopia... This makes perfect sense to a layman, very simple deductive reasoning. * *
>
> May make sense to a layman, but controlled scientific experiments do
> not find that plus lens at near prevent myopia.
>
> > Asking anyone in this group to prove either side is pointless, as it seems everyone's opinions stated here are based on anecdotal evidences and conflicting data. *Nobody in this group has the means to provide their own research to prove their opinion.
>
> There is no need to do personal research, vision researchers have been
> exploring the relationship between near work, plus lenses at near and
> myopia for close to three decades. *You will not find a current
> researcher advocating for plus at near to prevent myopia, only non
> researchers.
>
> The recent forum arguments you have seen reflect frustration with Otis
> who periodically hijacks the forum with the same *posts over and over
> again. *He has been doing this for about two decades. *He cites the
> same few anecdotal stories and one or two 30+ year old minor
> studies. * He ignores more recent studies despite having been provided
> with them repeatedly.
>
> I agree personal attacks serve no purpose and it is better to simply
> ignore Otis' trolling.

If he were a troll, then few would disagree. I don't think people
consider him a troll at all. By pure internet definitions, he
*clearly* is *not* a troll.

Just a lunatic ;-)

On Jan 9, 10:42*am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 10:07*am, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 11:23*pm, "Layman Jack" <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is the argument over does close work cause myopia? * I think that has already been answered, yes according to the AOA ( see below ). *
>
> > Please reread. *The AOA does not say cause, it says influenced.
> > Research is ongoing about the relationship between near work and
> > myopia. *Although they are associated, it is not known whether myopia
> > causes more reading, or reading causes more myopia or some other
> > factor causes both reading and myopia. *What is known from animal
> > studies is that accommodation (lens focusing) is not the cause. *The
> > featureless nature of print may be implicated.
>
> > > Is the argument over does a plus lens for close work reduce the strain on the eyes? *Here is another yes ( basic physics ). *
>
> > Not really. *Using a plus lens reduces accommodative demand but
> > increases convergence demand, substituting one strain for another.
>
> Sort of, but ... more specifically ... they tend to induce exotropia,
> leading to additional convergence, *which then leads to additional
> accommodation*.
>
> Depending on the CA:C and AC:A ratios, the use of plus may net MORE
> convergence than not ever using the lenses at all, no??


I meant to say "may net MORE *accommodation* than not ever using the
lenses at all...."



> > > From this, we derive that plus lens used for close work will prevent myopia... This makes perfect sense to a layman, very simple deductive reasoning. * *
>
> > May make sense to a layman, but controlled scientific experiments do
> > not find that plus lens at near prevent myopia.
>
> > > Asking anyone in this group to prove either side is pointless, as it seems everyone's opinions stated here are based on anecdotal evidences and conflicting data. *Nobody in this group has the means to provide their own research to prove their opinion.
>
> > There is no need to do personal research, vision researchers have been
> > exploring the relationship between near work, plus lenses at near and
> > myopia for close to three decades. *You will not find a current
> > researcher advocating for plus at near to prevent myopia, only non
> > researchers.
>
> > The recent forum arguments you have seen reflect frustration with Otis
> > who periodically hijacks the forum with the same *posts over and over
> > again. *He has been doing this for about two decades. *He cites the
> > same few anecdotal stories and one or two 30+ year old minor
> > studies. * He ignores more recent studies despite having been provided
> > with them repeatedly.
>
> > I agree personal attacks serve no purpose and it is better to simply
> > ignore Otis' trolling.
>
> If he were a troll, then few would disagree. *I don't think people
> consider him a troll at all. *By pure internet definitions, he
> *clearly* is *not* a troll.
>
> Just a lunatic ;-)

Dear Layman Jack,

Subject Hearing only ONE SIDE of the story.

These are majority-opinion ODs "talking". They of course must
convince you that "reading" has nothing to do with the eye's
refractive state -- EVER.

The must convince you that the SCIENTIFIC STUDY AND ANALYSIS by Dr.
Geroge Hung, showing that incipent myopia is induced by long-term
"near" is WRONG.

But that is just their strong opinion, not based on the scientific
facts you have already reviewed -- and come to the correct answer.

That it is wise to listen to BOTH sides of the story, and choose the
preventive method that is best for your child. I think you have
already realized that truth, and will continue to help your child with
plus-prevention.

As he gets older, and keeps his refractive STATE postive, and his
Snellen clear, I think he will thank you for helping him avoid entry
into serious myopia.

Whille second-opinion ODs are not posting on sci.med.vision, let me
post the statement of a Dr. Orfield, who strongly advocates
prevention.

She calls any use of the minus "Iatrogenic", or "Doctor Caused".

By this she means that any use of a minus, will CAUSE even more
myopia, and the eye will be "locked" into myopia by that minus. As a
"balance" to the majority-opinion expressed here (that a minus has no
effect on the refractive STATE of the nomral eye) I suggest reading
Dr. Orfields statement:


http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/od-success/


You will find that this idea of plus-prevention has been developed
over the last 50 years, by medical doctors (second-opinion).

You have the correct answer -- but it is not easy. There are indeed
highly qualified professionals who will support you -- but the largest
degree of support must come from YOU.

Engineering/Science second-opinion best,

Otis









On Jan 7, 11:23*pm, "Layman Jack" <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> I'm new to *this group and don't quite understand what is with all the personal attacks? *
>
> Personal attacks are pretty much saying, *"You win, I don't have any valid argument against you". *It does far more damage to your own credibility than to others. *Try a personal attack in a court room and you just lost your credibility along with your case. *Same rules apply on the internet.
>
> To take sides here, first I need to understand the argument.
>
> Is the argument over does close work cause myopia? * I think that has already been answered, yes according to the AOA ( see below ). *
> Is the argument over does a plus lens for close work reduce the strain onthe eyes? *Here is another yes ( basic physics ). *
>
> From this, we derive that plus lens used for close work will prevent myopia... This makes perfect sense to a layman, very simple deductive reasoning.. * *
>
> Asking anyone in this group to prove either side is pointless, as it seems everyone's opinions stated here are based on anecdotal evidences and conflicting data. *Nobody in this group has the means to provide their own research to prove their opinion.
>
> As an outsider, *I would tend to believe someone that provides links and references, *more than one that personally attacks someone that differsin opinion.
>
> ~Jack ( normally pronounced Swedish )
>
> ===================
>
> AOA states:
>
> Nearsightedness is a very common vision condition affecting nearly 30 percent of the U.S. population. Some research supports the theory that nearsightedness is hereditary. *There is also growing evidence that it is influenced by the visual stress of too much close work.
>
> There is significant evidence that many people inherit the tendency to develop nearsightedness. *Even though the tendency to develop nearsightedness may be inherited, its actual development may be affected by how a personuses his or her eyes. Individuals who spend considerable time reading, working at a computer, or doing other intense close visual work may be more likely to develop nearsightedness.
>
> People who do an excessive amount of near vision work may experience a false or "pseudo" myopia. Their blurred distance vision is caused by over useof the eyes' focusing mechanism. After long periods of near work, their eyes are unable to refocus to see clearly in the distance. The symptoms are usually temporary and clear distance vision may return after resting the eyes. However, over time constant visual stress may lead to a permanent reduction in distance vision.