Pseudomyopia

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Andrew Chew, Feb 6, 2005.

  1. Andrew Chew

    Andrew Chew Guest

    Is there an easy way to tell between pseudomyopia and true myopia?
    Could someone suffering from pseudomyopia develop true myopia upon wearing
    lenses?
     
    Andrew Chew, Feb 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Andrew Chew

    Andrew Chew Guest

    "Mike Tyner" <> wrote in message
    news:FYqNd.3259$...
    >
    > "Andrew Chew" <> wrote
    >
    >> Is there an easy way to tell between pseudomyopia and true myopia?

    >
    > The "gold standard" test uses cycloplegic drops to paralyze the focusing
    > muscles temporarily. Cyclopentolate or homatropine eliminate the effect of
    > accommodation. Pseudomyopia is habitual accommodation.
    >
    >> Could someone suffering from pseudomyopia develop true myopia upon
    >> wearing lenses?

    >
    > Otis is convinced that it happens, but he's relying on his own intuition.
    >
    > Farsighted people accommodate all the time, out of necessity. It doesn't
    > make them nearsighted.


    Mostly likely people whose myopia resolves eventually were pseudomyopics
    anyway. It's too bad that there isn't an easier way to test the condition.
    It seems to me everyone should be tested for pseudomyopia before being
    prescribed glasses.
     
    Andrew Chew, Feb 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Andrew Chew

    RM Guest

    A careful dry refraction with frequent "plus to blur" steps can sometimes
    reveal a pseudomyope. Sometimes you can also "see" them during retinoscopy
    but they won't accept less minus when you do the subjective refraction.

    Regardless, even if you did recognize them as an "habitual accommodator"
    their problem is that they can't see clearly in the distance. Realization
    of the problem, or stern language, won't make them stop accommodating. The
    standard of care is to prescribe them only as much minus power as they need
    to do their distance tasks (driving, reading the board in school, etc.) and
    educating them not to wear their glasses any more than they need to.
    Glasses and/or contacts are a hassle but they don't hurt anybody. As you
    say, their myopia will resolve eventually anyway.

    Regards

    -------------

    "Andrew Chew" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Mike Tyner" <> wrote in message
    > news:FYqNd.3259$...
    >>
    >> "Andrew Chew" <> wrote
    >>
    >>> Is there an easy way to tell between pseudomyopia and true myopia?

    >>
    >> The "gold standard" test uses cycloplegic drops to paralyze the focusing
    >> muscles temporarily. Cyclopentolate or homatropine eliminate the effect
    >> of accommodation. Pseudomyopia is habitual accommodation.
    >>
    >>> Could someone suffering from pseudomyopia develop true myopia upon
    >>> wearing lenses?

    >>
    >> Otis is convinced that it happens, but he's relying on his own intuition.
    >>
    >> Farsighted people accommodate all the time, out of necessity. It doesn't
    >> make them nearsighted.

    >
    > Mostly likely people whose myopia resolves eventually were pseudomyopics
    > anyway. It's too bad that there isn't an easier way to test the condition.
    > It seems to me everyone should be tested for pseudomyopia before being
    > prescribed glasses.
    >
     
    RM, Feb 6, 2005
    #3
  4. Andrew Chew

    Guest

    Dear Andrew,

    Providing we respect the fact that the
    natural eye is "dyanamic", then
    the answer is yes to both of your
    questions. This includes the
    MDs and ODs who acknowledge
    the true scientific facts concerning
    the natural eye's behavior.

    The answer from the ODs who
    do not respect the natural eye
    as "dyanamic" is NO to
    both of your questions.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    , Feb 6, 2005
    #4
  5. "Andrew Chew" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Is there an easy way to tell between pseudomyopia and true myopia?
    > Could someone suffering from pseudomyopia develop true myopia upon wearing
    > lenses?


    The answers you will get by the so-called learned men here are all
    wrong.

    You just do your own experiment following some rest treatment for a
    couple of days without the use of any kind of glasses.

    You will discover quickly that the problem of pseudomyopia is simply
    FALSE.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Feb 6, 2005
    #5
  6. Andrew Chew

    RM Guest


    > The answer from the ODs who
    > do not respect the natural eye
    > as "dyanamic" is NO to
    > both of your questions.


    No OD has ever said this Otis. Only you say this. Another example of your
    misquoting and lying. And so:

    -----------

    This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
    that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
    "" or "Otis, Engineer".

    Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
    training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is
    unproven.

    In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the
    names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been
    caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise.
    Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel
    him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument.

    Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not
    reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that
    should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick
    psychological needs.

    No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is
    only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained
    eyecare expert.

    For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of
    scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following
    link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf. If you have other topics
    you wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you.
    Don't waste your time with Otis.

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually
    appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that
    you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum.
     
    RM, Feb 6, 2005
    #6
  7. Andrew Chew

    Guest

    Dear Andrew,

    There is no easy way to separate "true myopia" from pseudo myopia. But
    I would suggest the following. If you enter high school with 20/20,
    and after two years you are reading the eye chart at 20/40 -- there is
    a good possibility that you have "pseudo-myopia.

    "Could someone suffering from pseudomyopia develop true myopia upon
    wearing
    lenses? "'

    This has been the "Bates" concept for the last 80 years. The $64,000
    question is this -- can you clear bact to 20/20, if you just got into
    it?

    The standard statement "majority opinion" is that it "can't be done".
    The minority opinion (do your research) that it is possible to clear
    back to 20/20 (if you previously had 20/20).

    The rest you must figure out for yourself.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    , Feb 7, 2005
    #7
  8. Andrew Chew

    A Lieberman Guest

    On 6 Feb 2005 18:02:29 -0800, wrote:

    > The standard statement "majority opinion" is that it "can't be done".
    > The minority opinion (do your research) that it is possible to clear
    > back to 20/20 (if you previously had 20/20).


    Help me Otis as I tried doing my research. I cannot find ANYTHING OUTSIDE
    YOUR WEBSITE and some quacky myopiachina whatever website you claim.

    Please provide OBJECTIVE medical websites that support your position. I
    bet you can't as you make up stuff as you go along.

    I have asked this in the past, and I bet you can't provide it now.

    I will forward this message on to my imaginary friends so they can enjoy
    your point of view.

    Best,

    Allen
    Pilot

    cc
    Dr Quack
    Dr Rubby Ducky
    and other imaginary pilots and subjects
     
    A Lieberman, Feb 7, 2005
    #8
  9. Andrew Chew

    Guest

    The statement was for Andrew -- who
    can probably figure out some of these
    issues -- because you obviously can not.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    , Feb 7, 2005
    #9
  10. Andrew Chew

    RM Guest

    What we can all figure out Otis, it that once again someone is asking you to
    prove your claims. But you cannot!

    That speaks volumes about the validity of what you say, as well as its
    "scientific" nature. You don't understand a thing about science.

    -------


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The statement was for Andrew -- who
    > can probably figure out some of these
    > issues -- because you obviously can not.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Otis
    >
     
    RM, Feb 7, 2005
    #10
  11. "RM" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > What we can all figure out Otis, it that once again someone is asking you to
    > prove your claims. But you cannot!
    >
    > That speaks volumes about the validity of what you say, as well as its
    > "scientific" nature. You don't understand a thing about science.
    >



    The truth is very simple and you can test it by yourself.

    You stay without glasses for a while, in a good light, expecially in
    the sun, and make a practice, easy practise with no effort, to read
    small letters at the farthest distance you can without strain.

    Do this several times a day without ever put your glasses on.

    Then you will see quickly a FLASH of PERFECT SIGHT, which cannot be
    explained by any pseudomyopia or other things, EXCEPT WITH THE FACT
    THAT THE MIND HAS STARTED FOR A SIMPLE LITTLE MOMENT TO WORK IN REST,
    IN PEACE, and the eyes followed.


    If you do not try this experiment on yourself, then you are simply a
    self-quack, a real idiot.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Feb 7, 2005
    #11
  12. Andrew Chew

    Guest

    My Not-identified RM,

    My remarks were addressed to Andrew -- and
    not to you.

    The fact that you must "jump in" and
    tell Andrew what he "must think"
    should send a strong message
    about your arrogance to him.

    Rishi makes a good point about you.

    While "prevention" still remains a
    difficult problem -- your "attitude" is
    indeed a "block" to progress.

    You habit of denying objective
    scientific facts -- and insisting
    that a minus lens has no effect
    on the dynamic, or the natural eye,
    suggest intensive bias on your part.

    Andrew can factor your bias into
    his judgment about the experimental
    data itself -- and reach his OWN
    conclusion.

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    , Feb 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Andrew Chew

    RM Guest

    > Rishi makes a good point about you.

    Rishi is the only one in this forum who is a bigger fool than you.

    > You habit of denying objective
    > scientific facts -- and insisting
    > that a minus lens has no effect
    > on the dynamic, or the natural eye,
    > suggest intensive bias on your part.


    Really? Tell me the objective scientific facts as you have been asked to do
    multiple times. Why do you keep dodging the questions? Ask your good
    "friends of the week" Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Ted Grosvenor, Dr. Blah Blah,
    one of your intelligent pilot engineer buddies, anyone! Perhaps they can
    help you answer the questions since you are incapable of understanding them
    yourself. Your knowledge of the eye is zippo! Otis, the pathetic old fool!

    1. Please enlighten us on some of the "great deal of direct scientific
    experimental data" that shows that minus lenses are not safe. Those are
    your exact words-- tell us what the evidence is.

    2. What are the "facts" that prove that plus lens treatment prevents myopia
    in "the entire population of adolescent natural eyes" as you have stated
    previously. Those are your exact words-- tell us what the facts are.

    3. Please provide some of the "objective scientific facts that the natural
    eyes 'goes down' when you place a minus lens on it". Those are your exact
    words. Please
    show the data. And I don't mean your equation derived from a primate study
    where the animals were drastically overminused. Where is the proof that
    when you provide just enough minus lens power on the
    human eye to focus the image on the retina that it causes the eye to "go
    down".

    4. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and are
    therefore walking around with net plus power on their eye 24/7 DO NOT become
    less myopic. This is optically equivalent to wearing plus lenses all the
    time. Why is it that they don't revert to emmetropia? Why is it that they
    oftentimes become even more myopic? Optometrists have these types of
    adolescent patients all the time.

    5. Why is it that young hyperopes, who very frequently do not wear their
    plus lens corrections, continue to maintain their hyperopia? They are in
    fact internally compensating for their hyperopia by accommodation. There
    eyes are straining all the time. This is the same as being overminused
    24/7. Why don't their eyes "go down" (your
    "scientific" terminology) and become more myopic (meaning less hyperopic)?
    Why is it that when you check them years later they are just as hyperopic as
    before, and when they approach age 40 they actually manifest even more
    hyperopia than before?
     
    RM, Feb 8, 2005
    #13
  14. Andrew Chew

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Otis, please cut the B.S.

    Show that your method of myopia prevention works, or just respect those
    of us who actually understand these concepts.

    You have a website, you have a (mythical) study group, and you have
    some patients. Certainly, you have some concrete results by now. If
    so, then go along and get them published in a reputable peer-reviewed
    scientific -- heck, even and engineering journal will suffice. It
    shouldn't be all that difficult.

    Or, is perhaps it is just easier be an armchair critic who can engage
    is intellectual sophistry from the safe confines of his living room
    without having to prove a thing.....


    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 8, 2005
    #14
  15. "RM" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > Rishi makes a good point about you.

    >
    > Rishi is the only one in this forum who is a bigger fool than you.


    Hey, you idiot, please, explain to me one way you can use to help
    people cure their imperfect sight.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Feb 8, 2005
    #15
  16. Andrew Chew

    RM Guest


    > Or, is perhaps it is just easier be an armchair critic who can engage
    > is intellectual sophistry from the safe confines of his living room
    > without having to prove a thing.....


    Yes, I think it is this and also something else.

    Otis has some deeper psychological issues as well. I believe Otis views
    himself as some kind of "knight-in-shining armour who is going to fight a
    crusade against the current medical paradigm and issue in a new age of
    myopia prevention where all children wear plus reading glasses in school."
    Perhaps he envisions his name being listed in the future pages of medical
    history as someone who "fought the good fight in order the improve the lives
    of the masses."

    Perhaps Otis' inadequacy, or nonacceptance by his peers, in his chosen
    career as an engineer is causing him to dabble in something else??

    I also think Otis just likes to stir up some arguing.
     
    RM, Feb 8, 2005
    #16
  17. Andrew Chew

    Guest

    of course the answer to your question depends on the nature of their
    "imperfect sight". Are you aware that there are multiple
    classifications and causes?

    Anyway, lets assume the cause is simple myopia. This is usually due to
    anatomical misalignment of the optics of the eye. If is is proven to
    not be due to ciliary muscle overactivity (using a cycloplegic
    refraction) then the treatments are:
    1. spectacle correction
    2. contact lens correction
    3. refractive eye surgery

    Unproven methods that you will likely try to advocate are:
    1. Plus lens prevention-- doesn't work except in the case of
    pseudomyopia. But thats not the example we are discussing here and is
    relatively uncommon anyway. YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE LENGTH OF THE EYE OR
    THE SHAPE OF THE CORNEA BY USING PLUS LENSES. The "dynamic" part of
    the nature eye is the ciliary body, and if that's not the cause of the
    refractive error then you have zero chance of changing the anatomy of
    the eye with a plus lens.
    2. Sungazing-- this is quackery. This is detrimental to anyones
    vision. You should be hunted down and prosecuted for recommending this
    to anyone.

    Start up another newsgroup (alt.quack.eyes) and propose your theories
    there.
     
    , Feb 8, 2005
    #17
  18. > OK assuming that I want to do this test -- please tell me, what
    > is "a while"?


    A while depends from your intelligence.
    It may take just few minutes to understand, or more, days or weeks, or
    years.

    >
    > Will 3 days be enough?


    I hope so.

    > Or do I need 7 days? Or 12 days? Or more?
    >
    > Please provide a guideline.


    The only guideline which is useful you have to provide to yourself by
    yourself: any mind is different, the treatment is individual.

    A person with perfect sight may be of help in the beginning.
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Feb 8, 2005
    #18
  19. Andrew Chew

    LarryDoc Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:

    And YOU are replying to a quack because ?

    Perhaps you haven't noticed that no one cares about "rishi" and he is so
    clearly wacko that we don't have to make an issue of it. "Otis", our
    other resident quack has been embarrassed away from here.

    Please don't feed the trolls.
     
    LarryDoc, Feb 8, 2005
    #19
  20. Andrew Chew

    RM Guest

    Otis is a quack and a zealot. Rishi is a quack and a zealot (and
    obnoxious).
    While everything you write about in your post is true and accurate they will
    never listen. They just like to argue for the sake of argument.
    Best to ignor them and just warn any unsuspecting layperson who might seem
    to be listening to their drivel. Nothing else.


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > of course the answer to your question depends on the nature of their
    > "imperfect sight". Are you aware that there are multiple
    > classifications and causes?
    >
    > Anyway, lets assume the cause is simple myopia. This is usually due to
    > anatomical misalignment of the optics of the eye. If is is proven to
    > not be due to ciliary muscle overactivity (using a cycloplegic
    > refraction) then the treatments are:
    > 1. spectacle correction
    > 2. contact lens correction
    > 3. refractive eye surgery
    >
    > Unproven methods that you will likely try to advocate are:
    > 1. Plus lens prevention-- doesn't work except in the case of
    > pseudomyopia. But thats not the example we are discussing here and is
    > relatively uncommon anyway. YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE LENGTH OF THE EYE OR
    > THE SHAPE OF THE CORNEA BY USING PLUS LENSES. The "dynamic" part of
    > the nature eye is the ciliary body, and if that's not the cause of the
    > refractive error then you have zero chance of changing the anatomy of
    > the eye with a plus lens.
    > 2. Sungazing-- this is quackery. This is detrimental to anyones
    > vision. You should be hunted down and prosecuted for recommending this
    > to anyone.
    >
    > Start up another newsgroup (alt.quack.eyes) and propose your theories
    > there.
    >
     
    RM, Feb 8, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Twoashes
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    669
    Dr. Leukoma
    Dec 18, 2003
  2. Eric Suing

    LASIK with pseudomyopia questions?

    Eric Suing, Feb 2, 2004, in forum: Laser Eye Surgery
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    579
    Dr. Leukoma
    Feb 6, 2004
  3. andrew Judd
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    510
    andrew Judd
    Aug 7, 2004
  4. Replies:
    104
    Views:
    2,894
  5. Neil Brooks

    Prevention - pseudomyopia/accommodative spasm

    Neil Brooks, Dec 17, 2006, in forum: Optometry Archives
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    398
Loading...

Share This Page