An engineer helps his kids avoid entry into myopia.

Dear Ace,


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

Re: Here are some of the details.

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.


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

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.

(Address supressed to protect
him from a Neil Brooks attack.)

 

http://www.i-see.org/archive/alarie

Denis Alarie , P. Eng.
229 Rosemary Crescent
Timmins Ontario
Canada, P4P-7C2


"The following letter was sent to me by Denis Alarie, from Ontario. He
originally sent it to Howard Howland, a vision researcher at Cornell who
has done work on chicks, inducing myopia by applying minus lenses to
their eyes."

Hrm.

Cluck cluck cluck

 

Dear Simon,

Very nice of you to point that out.

Now Neil can post "Denis" warnings
on sci.med.vision, and send
threatening emails to Denis about
how he was wrong, wrong, wrong,
to help his kids avoid entry into
nearsighedness.

Too bad that Ace's parents did
not have that insight into protecting
his distant vision -- as the second-opinion.

I do not think that Ace would be
saying, what you say.

But, that is the nature of the
preventive second opinion, isn't it?

Best,

Otis

 

Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any
myopia by giving them the plus lens. An ounce of prevention(plus lens)
is worth a pound of "cure"(glasses, contacts, lasik, etc) But on the
bright side, the guy who became -1 is not at a disadvantage if he does
alot of work because what this will mean is a reduced dependancy on
reading glasses and probably wont need any glasses for intermediate
such as using the computer or talking to someone at arm's length or
waking up to clearly see the alarm clock. Bate's book(and supporters)
even says keep a little myopia for it will help you immensely in your
2nd half of your life and allow you to see clear from near and
intermediate without much compromise on distance vision.

We live in a near work society so its only natural our eyes get myopic
to adapt to the near work. Using the minus lens tricks the eye into
thinking it needs to get more myopic for near work. If you must wear
glasses, keep them OFF for near work or use bifocals/progressives!


My brother has the same story. He never got worse than -2 and is now
-1.25 to this day because he rejected the minus lens. He does tons of
near work so it was only natural his eyes get myopic in response to his
environment. As long as he takes breaks and doesnt read very close,
such at the 6" point, his eyes shouldnt get any worse.

My sister on the other hand is a full time contact wearer and does lots
of near work. As a response, her eyes have gotten worse. We might go to
the optometrist tomorrow to get her stronger contacts. She is not
interested in 2nd opinion nor vision improvement. She likes the instant
gratification of very clear 20/20 vision that her contacts provide and
she tolerates contacts fine. She doesnt care about her eyes as long as
she corrects to 20/20 and can deal with contacts fine. She will
probably get lasik or whatever surgury is out 10, 15 or 20 years from
now when she can no longer tolerate contacts. She may want to consider
monovision or slightly undercorrecting her eyes so they are focused at
near to avoid reading glasses and further axial myopia.

I am not getting any surgury any time soon, if ever. I do want to get
orthoK which will reduce my myopia. I dont know if orthoK can eliminate
all my myopia nor do I care to be plano because of all the near work I
do. I will be happy to be in the -1.25 to -2 range with as little
astigmastim as possible. This will have the greatest effect of nearly
eliminating my dependence on glasses.

 

Prove they would have had myopia without the plus?

 

The degree to which you are an idiot is utterly astounding, Cletis (I
like that!).

 

Uncle Otie: all you've accomplished here is to prove that there are
*other* morons besides yourself who understand neither logic nor
reason, and are unable to differentiate between correlation and
causation. In your case, I imagine these challenges extend to tying
one's own shoelaces ... but I digress.

Isn't it just as likely--if not more so--that myopics don't become
truck drivers??

God, you're dumb. Never ceases to astound me ... or most people on
this forum.

Glad to see you and your illegitimate offspring, AceMan are getting on
so well here.

 

Uncle Otie:

What ELSE did your parents force you to do as a child that has so
horribly scarred you ... and have you sought some sort of psychological
therapy in order to come to some resolution with it?

Best,

Neil

 

Actually, that's a very interesting point, Uncle Otie. I mean ... this
little assertion of this fictitious friend of yours could hardly be
considered science without a control group, now could it??

Perhaps you haven't heard of the scientific method. Here's a link for
you. Perhaps you can learn something about it:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Here's an interesting quote from that site that seems *particularly*
applicable to you:

"Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not
support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the
possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes,
however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is
true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a
specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to
find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do
not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree
with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is
that all data must be handled in the same way."

 

Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any

Prove they would have had myopia without the plus?

Otis> Prove to whom? The father? The daughters?
It is clear from the primate studies, and
the avian studies that the refractive state
of these natural eyes "follow" as a dynamic
sytem, a change in their average visual environment.

Otis> The engineer was wise to understand this
issue, and implement the prevetive method for
his own faimly.

Otis> No one will EVER ask you to develop
wisdom (and engineering smarts) of this nature.

Otis> This is why prevention (as the second-oipinion)
is for the people who value their distant vision and
will take this "first step" towards prevention.

Otis> The "easy" way is indeed the minus,
and the effect is immediate and obvious.
I can not argue with that kind of "success"
can I? If you like it -- wear it -- but
do not complain about your stair-case
myopia after it is too late to do anything
about it.


Best,

Otis

 

Neil> Is there any proof that minus lenses increase the rate at which
one becomes myopic?


Neil> or are you just vocalizing from your posterior again?


Neil> Because the research I've seen seems to indicate that just the
opposite is true.


Neil> Otis??


Neil> Are you off your meds?

 

between tokes on his bong, Acemanvx farted out the following remark:
"because of all the near work I
do"

what kind of WORK do you do? or are you referring to your endless
hours of surfing the internet using daddy's computer and daddy's
internet connection in daddy's house?

you and otis are quite a pair. get a life!

 

Good. Im glad you said that.

Im a computer programmer, where's my myopia? Im hyperopic. Your theory
of prevention obviously doesn't work in all cases. Maybe your theory is
flawed? Maybe theres another factor you're ignoring?

The guy in the story who wore plus glasses didn't have his myopia
reversed. It obviously doesn't reverse myopia in all cases. Maybe it's
just a placebo and you're ignorant and you should be looking for some
other preventative method?

 

Grow up Otis.

Anyone with five seconds could have done a Google Search and found the
"article" linked from your own website.

 

"Prove they would have had myopia without the plus?"

"Please tell us how you know this works. Anecdotes aren't enough."


http://www.preventmyopia.org/prescription.html
http://www.chinamyopia.org/stopmyopiaenglish.htm
http://www.myopia.org/page2.htm
http://www.nearsightedness.org/


"I recently heard a (very respected) lasik surgeon advertising:
"lasik fixes the damage caused by years of wearing glasses"

It made me wonder how this group would respond
to a claim like that..."


I would consider lasik a treatment rather than a cure. It does not
address the underlaying causes for your myopia. natural vision
improvement does and teaches you how to use your eyes correctly to
reduce your myopia. If your myopia is low, less than -3 then vision
improvement can improve you to the point of 20/40, meeting the DMV or
even achieve plano!
Higher amounts of myopia can be reduced. People like lasik because its
quick, instant gratification(if things dont go amiss) your eyes can
still get worse after lasik just like they can get worse for glasses
and contact wearers. From what ive seen, about half of the lasik people
are no longer 20/20 UCVA at the 5 year period with a typical
pescription of -.5 to -1.25 I can tell you all the stories of people
back in glasses years after lasik. Some people end up under/over
corrected or regress shortly after lasik. Theres enhancements but its
more risk. Lasik will NOT gurantee 20/20 or whatever your BCVA is, it
will probably get you closer to plano and reduce or make you less
dependant on glasses. Many people still wear glasses after lasik for
reading, driving, watching movies, etc.


"Im a computer programmer, where's my myopia? Im hyperopic. Your theory

of prevention obviously doesn't work in all cases. Maybe your theory is

flawed? Maybe theres another factor you're ignoring?"


You did not do much near work when you were younger and therefore kept
your eye in a positive refractive state.


"The guy in the story who wore plus glasses didn't have his myopia
reversed. It obviously doesn't reverse myopia in all cases."


probably because his eyeball already enlongated into -1 axial myopia.
All he could do was prevent further myopia progression which he
successfully did. Otis emphasizes preventing myopia at the treshold and
rejecting the minus lens. Once you accept it, axial myopia occurs and
this becomes permaent.

 

snip garbage which didn't relate to my question...

Ahh... so without even knowing my childhood, you bend the fact and
create an fictional environment to prove your theory?

I would be interested to know what "much near work" means. Enough to get
myopia I guess is your yard stick, and anyone who does "much near work"
and doesn't get myopia can therefore be disregarded as not doing "much
near work".

Would schooling and TV from the age of 4 do it? With computing from the
age of 8?

Can't help but saying, whatever.

 

Ummm, bad assumption.

I'm another hyperope (+4, +2.5) who had his "nose in the book" my
entire youth AND have done nothing but close work my entire carrer. A
little "stair-case myopia" would have been good for me...;-)

 

Yes,

We have asked Otis to explain why hyperops, who strain to see at near their
entire live, do not change and become less hyperopic or even myopic over
time. If they did then that would support his "eyestrain at near"
hypothesis. But he just ignors that question. In general he just ignors
any question that he can't answer. Otis has a repetoire of about a dozen
"arguments" that he keeps repeating time after time. They range from a
romantic story about "Raphaelson and the Printers Son" to anecdotal stories
about engineer/pilots who he helped regain their eyesight.

Otis has been in this newsgroup a long time and despite being repeatedly
proven wrong he keeps on blurting out the same tired old stuff year after
year. Whats amazing is he keeps trying to act like a "man of science".
Actually its kind of pathetic. Now Aceman on the other hand is a
sociopathic adolescent who doesn't have a real life-- he just seems to like
to "live" some artificial life posting and surfing on the internet.

Its probably best to just killfile both of them.

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

 

Dear RM,

Subject: Refractive states of primates in the wild.

Primates in the whild have refractive states running from
zero to +2 diopters. These are objective scientific
facts. That is just the way it is. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE
HAVE I EVER SAID THEY ARE "STRAINING" TO SEE.

That is a results of your false notion of the behavior of
the natural eye.

To further respond:


RM> We have asked Otis to explain why hyperops, who strain to see at
near their
entire live,

Otis> This is your false understanding of the behavior of the
natural eye. Sorry you do not understand these basic
facts.


RM> do not change and become less hyperopic or even myopic over
time.

RM> If they did then that would support his "eyestrain at near"

Otis> I never said anything like this -- at all. And I never
use your term "eye-strain" to describe the natural process
were the eye changes it refractive state, with a
change in its average visual environment.

Otis> This change is as a funtioning auto-focused camera,
and is part of the behavior of the natural primate eye.

Otis> The natural eyes refractive state (plus or minus) is
established by its average visual environment.
(Primate studies which you do not understand -- so
you totally reject them.)


Best,

Otis

 

Dear Simon,

Subject: Refractive behavior of the natural primate eye.

(Use NEUTRAL WORDS to describe what you measure.)

The "holy grail" of measurement is atropine -- and REFRACTIVE
STATE.

If you take a population of primtes that have
a refractive state of -1/2 diopter (MYOPIC),
and place a plus lens on them, then there
refractive state will "more positive" to
a refractive state of +1/2 diopter, and
suddenly you have a bunch of HYPEROPIC
primates.

But just say refractive state is either
positive or negative -- and do not
bother with biased words based
on a fractured theory of practice.

Best,

Otis