A Parent Uses the Preventive Method of Drs Colgate, Young

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Jun 1, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: An engineer helps his children avoid entry in to
    nearsightedness.

    Re: The primate eye behaves as expected.

    Re: It seems the parents must FIRST figure out that there
    children MUST begin wearing the plus at zero" diopters --
    or else accept the consequences of NOT wearing the plus.


    Some parents finally "wake up" to the need for prevention at
    the threshold as an "now or never" choice. The HELP their
    children make systematic use of the plus to AVOID even entry into
    myopia.

    The Oakley-Young study suggests this preventive possibility,
    in that the un-protected eye went down by -2 diopters in
    four years, while the plus group did not go down.
    Denis' report -- simply confirms that this type
    of preventive success is possible.

    Obviously this type of dedication and support can NEVER be
    prescribed. Thus parental "do it yourself seems to be
    the only way. In the future there will be ODs who will
    ASSIST with prevention of this nature -- but the parent
    and child will have to make the commitment to doing so.

    Thus making the use of the prevetive plus might seem "tedious" but it
    is better than the alternative -- in MY OPINION. Here is the
    discussion for your interest.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Myopia Prevention: Theory and Practic

    By Denis Alarie, P. Eng.


    To: Mr. Howard C. Howland
    W201 Seeley G Mudd Hall
    Cornell University
    Ithaca NY 14853 USA


    Dear Sir:

    About your ongoing research on the development of the eye.

    It was with a great deal of interest that I read an article
    in Discover magazine in the October 1995 Issue concerning your
    ongoing work on the development of the eye and its relation to bio
    feedback.

    I come from a family of 7 where both the parents are with
    normal vision and where all 5 of the children were nearsigthed and
    read a lot. I graduated from Queen's University in 1977 with a
    first class degree in Civil engineering and also graduated with
    courses in Genetics. This interestingly enough, gave me a
    background in evolution, genetics, mechanics and physics.

    I had believed since I was about 15 that their was a causal
    link between eye development and Myopia and indeed was immensely
    interested when I read an article supporting that position.

    At first (around 1972) I had hopes that by carefully
    managing the use of my eyes I would be able to reverse the myopia
    about (- 1 dioptre ). This I theorized would be done by using
    reading glasses to simulate an at rest condition. I experimented
    with various lenses used while reading and studying ranging from
    +1.5 dioptre to + 2.5 dioptre, all the while thinking of and
    studying the structure of the eye to see if I could gain a better
    understanding of the process.

    Although my eyes never improved they did not get any worse
    from a refractory point of view. It was relatively easy to
    experiment since my eyes did not have any astigmatism. I could
    therefore purchase glasses at the drug store for reading. I also
    talked my eye doctor into prescribing glasses at -0.75 dioptre
    that I would wear while attending classes. This did not do
    anything even though I played around with this concept for years.

    One thing that it did do was make me more aware of the minor
    changes which seemed to occur with my eyes due to atmospheric
    pressure, influence of alcohol and marijuana use, reading,
    driving, smoking.

    After I graduated 1977, I married in 1978 and had a family.
    My wife was a graduate nurse at University of Toronto and was
    mildly myopic with -0.50 in the right eye and -0.75 in the left
    eye. She did not wear her glasses which probably helped to
    prevent her vision from changing further.

    We have two daughters aged 15 and 11 both of whom have eyes
    that are almost perfect as far as spherical corrections are
    concerned they are both at 0 dioptre +/- 0.25. From the time that
    they were young I have encouraged good eye habits in both of them,
    ie don't sit too close to the TV, Head up when they walk Etc.

    When we moved to Timmins in 1987 we went to see an eye doctor
    by the name of Al MacIvor. He was talked into prescribing reading
    glasses for both of the kids. My reasoning was that since my
    eyes had stabilized at about -1.00 to -1.25 dioptre that reading
    glasses of +1.25 dioptre would probably be about the right level
    for them. Al said that both of the girls had very little reserve
    in their eyes and would both be myopic by the time they were 15.
    He looked at me with a bit of a glazed look in his eyes when I
    started talking to him about my ideas and probably thought I was
    talking about pyramid glasses etc. I insisted that the
    prescription not contain any cylindrical corrections.

    This now 1995 and the girls are fine. Their eyes basically
    have not changed in 8 years. They both are avid readers and
    computer users and they both wear their reading glasses.

    In a further elaboration to the above I have noticed that in
    the workplace where I work there is a very high incidence of
    occupational myopia in office workers. Truck drivers never
    develop myopia. Similar to your observations about the pilots who
    have good vision prior to their studies and poor vision after.

    I am not looking for anything from this. Just trying to help
    where I can and enjoying the chance to finally be able to transmit
    my information to someone who takes it seriously and has the
    professional credentials and interest in pursuing it further .


    Sincerely Yours


    Denis Alarie, P. Eng.
     
    otisbrown, Jun 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    That's fascinating, Otis.

    Perhaps you'd care to answer the following questions:

    1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely
    differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying
    that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard?
    2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the
    SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus
    lens, the myopia was prevented?
    3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
    corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
    of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?

    4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you
    call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
    this in humans, can you cite your source for this claim?
    5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
    "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but
    Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get
    worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES
    this. Please explain your position.
    6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
    recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware
    that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses
    made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
    esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY
    EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE
    this convergence disorder?
    7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
    International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
    presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm
    states:
    Quote:"A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large
    add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between
    accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at
    something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation
    and convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of
    years, the brain has learned that this is the normal situation.
    Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa.
    Thus, if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or
    if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems
    can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue,
    double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two
    images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal
    binocular vision is interfered with."


    Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware
    of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?
    8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story.
    Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in
    truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his
    "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?
    9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
    Deakins?
    10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I
    provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
    your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
    that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
    that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
    were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
    ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
    nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?"
    If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last
    copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
    received any money for this book.
    11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a
    commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?
    12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative
    spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide
    credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia,
    or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia
    13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
    optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
    than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
    opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
    have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
    please provide it?
    14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any
    economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is
    honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is
    trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website,
    and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to
    sell both your and his book?
    15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your
    niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is,
    at this time, a myope?
     
    Neil Brooks, Jun 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    There are several important observations and comments to be made
    regarding this post. First and foremos is that the Oakley-Young study
    does not apply to axial myopia. For their subjects, they selected
    mypopes with accommodative-convergence dysfunction, who are
    particulalry susceptible to the effects of bifocals, and who represent
    a minority subset of all myopes.

    The second comment is that the engineer and his wife were very, very
    low myopes, well within the range of pseudomyopia. Since axial myopia
    has a hereditary basis, it is not surprising that the offspring of
    these parents would not have axial myopia. The true incidence of
    myopia in that age group is on the order of 25 - 40%, based upon my own
    surveys.

    Naturally, not being a vision scientist, Otis does not understand these
    distinctions, and continues to make fallacious arguments. Based upon
    the sudden spike in his posts, it would appear that Otis is on another
    "up" cycle.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 1, 2006
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Sorry folks, but apparently I cannot spell this morning, the reason
    being that I am wearing an old pair of progressive lenses and am having
    trouble seeing the text. Foremos=foremost, mypopes=myopes,
    particulalry=particularly.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 1, 2006
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    Dick Adams Guest

    You might find that reading glasses are better for reading. The reason for
    that is that it is hard for the eyes to find the exact portions of the panes
    which are good for reading text at same particular distance. (That is a
    fact that not everybody learns from their eye-care professional.)
    Single-vision reading glasses, to prescription, are very cheap from Zenni,
    and some other Internet advertisers.

    Earlier you mentioned that there is a hereditary basis for "axial myopia".
    Is that perhaps to say that people with big eyeballs are more likely than
    others to become myopic? Or is it to say that certain people are genetically
    apt to develop ocular tensions that stress their eyeballs into becoming
    unnaturally long.?

    How about the very pretty young Asian extreme myope who was here
    a short time back? Maybe we should ask her about her heredity? Can you
    figure out how much axial lengthening it would take to produce her degree
    of myopia?
     
    Dick Adams, Jun 1, 2006
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    MT> Off his lithium again.

    Otis> The usual "ad-homonin" attack yet again.

    And yes, Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Colgate, Dr. Holand, Steve Leung,
    and many other second-opinion (preventive) people
    are "off their lithium".

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 1, 2006
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dicky> How about the very pretty young Asian extreme myope who was
    here
    a short time back? Maybe we should ask her about her heredity? Can
    you
    figure out how much axial lengthening it would take to produce her
    degree
    of myopia?

    Otis> As you may recall, a woman said that her 3 year-old child had
    20/60 vision.

    Otis> So they put her into a -10 diopter lens.

    Otis> When you do this to a young pirmate eye -- the refracive STATE
    rapidly
    FOLLOWS the applied minus lens.

    Otis> I would expect this 3 year-old to wind up as a -20 diopter kid
    -- when
    she reached 20 years old.

    Otis> Just the natural response of the primate eye to a "delta"
    in the accommodation system.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 1, 2006
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I actually prefer the very expensive Hoya Summit ECP with Crizal Alize
    coating in a set of Oliver Peoples frames that I wear over my Acuvue
    Oasys contact lenses. Unfortunately, the one's I wear in the morning
    without my contact lenses are at least 10 years old, when I was -4.50.
    I am now -3.25.
    It is pretty much established that there is a genetic basis for axial
    myopia, which means that the posterior chamber elongates via some
    mechanism. It is the mechanism that we seem to be arguing over
    incessantly.
    Certain Asian populations indeed have a higher incidence of myopia.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 1, 2006
    #8
  9. otisbrown

    Quick Guest

    Really? They sound like real doctors. By "off their
    lithium" do you mean they are publishing some
    new findings for peer review? Do they have new
    results from new studies substantiating some
    new claims? Maybe just a new book for sale?

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Jun 1, 2006
    #9
  10. otisbrown

    LarryDoc Guest

    Oh my gods! You're using 33% STRONGER minus lens than what you "need''!
    Haven't you heard about "staircase myopia"?

    Wait..........you went UP the "down" staircase and became less
    nearsighted over ten years. Please, please tell us how you did it!

    PS: If you have a current prescription, I can help you get appropriate
    new spectacles.

    LB, O.D.
     
    LarryDoc, Jun 1, 2006
    #10
  11. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    Once again Cletis is posting made up people to make his redundant
    theories appear valid.

    Dr Colgate should stick to his toothpaste. How do you think an
    astrophysicist knows anything about biophysiology Cletis? What
    expertise does he have in this area? If you answer NONE, you would be
    correct. Therefore, his espousing quacks like you and Steven Leung is
    irrelevant.

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Jun 1, 2006
    #11
  12. otisbrown

    acemanvx Guest


    I feel bad for her but I understand. That 6 year old "myope" and her
    parents would take their chances listening to the doctors than anyone
    else. The strange thing is she sees 20/60 with or without glasses so
    they think she either has amblyopia or a deformed crystaline lens and
    are even thinking of giving her clear lens extraction surgury which
    would kill off all her accomodation, have lots of risks and still not
    guarantee she sees better than 20/60 if its amlyopia. I dont see how
    giving her a -10 glasses would do any good if it doesnt improve her
    BCVA but I guess if it makes her myopic, they want to give her clear
    lens extraction anyway.
     
    acemanvx, Jun 2, 2006
    #12
  13. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    Since I know the results of the primate studies -- when you
    put a -3 diopter lens on them -- it is almost certain
    what will happen to a child's refractive STATE when you
    put her into a -10 diopter lens.

    This is were "training" can lead people to do things -- that
    the primate data SUGGESTS should not be done.

    I would bet that there are second-opinion ODs -- who, if it
    were THEIR child --would do everything in their
    power to NOT put a child at 20/60 into a -10 diopters
    lens.

    That is the true meaning of an honest second-opnion.

    Acthins or choices you will make for your own children -- in
    similar circumstances.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 2, 2006
    #13
  14. otisbrown

    acemanvx Guest


    I dont think the parents even care if she quickly enters stair-case
    myopia, what they are worried about is her UCVA and BCVA is only 20/60.
    Her doctors suggested giving her -10 glasses was worth a shot in slowly
    improving her 20/60 BCVA. She will probably become myopic as a side
    effect but if theres any improvement in her BCVA its a success.
     
    acemanvx, Jun 2, 2006
    #14
  15. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Are "acthins" as tasty as Wheat Thins?

    Is the lisp a side effect of the ECT?
     
    Neil Brooks, Jun 2, 2006
    #15
  16. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace.

    It is indeed difficult to deal with parents on this subject.

    I suggested a "second-opinion", but the parent
    followed the -10 diopter recommendation.

    Once a decision, or choice like that is made -- there
    is no "reversing" it.

    It takes time to develop 20/20 vision -- and
    as some ODs know -- younger children
    do not have it. They will have 20/40 or maybe
    20/50. Typically this is ignored for
    3 year-old kids. I mean, why the hell would
    a 3 year-old need 20/20 vision?? But, again,
    that is a matter of the "second-opinion".

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 2, 2006
    #16
  17. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Yeah ... the ol' plus lens. That would have fixed her. It straightens
    curved spines, can solve the Middle East crisis, AND should be able to
    replace fossil fuels in another year or so.

    Idiot.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jun 2, 2006
    #17
  18. otisbrown

    acemanvx Guest


    Good point, maybe her brain just hasnt yet adapted to seeing. Although
    her optometrist said she was -10 something with a retinoscope and some
    specalists think she may have an abnormally shaped crystaline lens. We
    havent heard from her parents in many months and may never know the
    true story.
     
    acemanvx, Jun 2, 2006
    #18
  19. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I presume you know, however, that this won't stop Otis from making
    assumptions, then presenting them as supporting evidence for his
    antiquated notions, right?
     
    Neil Brooks, Jun 2, 2006
    #19
  20. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    We are never going to know the full "story".

    It is very hard to suggest a "go slow" or "wait"
    policy -- but I think that would have been
    the better (second-opinion) idea in this case.

    I mean, what the hell was the rush???

    The kid could function with 20/60 vision. Hell
    the state of Georgia and Florida have VA req.
    of 20/60 and 20/70.

    There was no good reason to put the kid in
    a -10 dioper lens.

    But I can see only one future for this kid -- her
    eyes "adapt" to that -10 dioper lens -- same
    as the primate -- with a strong "down" momvement
    to -20 diopers or so.

    That is a profoundy tragic future for that 3 year-old
    child.

    Just one man's opinion.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 2, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.