Long Term LASIK effect

Discussion in 'Laser Eye Surgery' started by LarryDoc, Jan 6, 2005.

  1. LarryDoc

    LarryDoc Guest

    I wonder if anyone has factored the following:

    LASIK causes loss of contrast sensitivity
    + cataract causes loss of contrast sensitvity
    Therefore LASIK'd people have higher overall problems with "old sight"
    So, older LASIK'd people replace light bulbs with high wattage/output
    bulbs
    = increased electric utility bills and increased energy production
    = the need to build more power plants
    = increased CO2 emissions
    = increased global warming
    = decreased sunlight
    = decreased contrast sensitivity and therefore further increase in
    wattage of light bulbs and..........

    So, therefore, LASIK surgery procedures should incorporate a "use tax"
    to offset the future increased costs to the average electric consumer.

    Perhaps we need an accountant to figure out the true long term costs of
    refractive surgery. Or an engineer?

    --LB, OD
     
    LarryDoc, Jan 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. LarryDoc

    g.gatti Guest

    That's the same with glasses.

    For this reason, you are all criminals.
     
    g.gatti, Jan 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. LarryDoc

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Larry,
    Indeed, one of my motivations to advocate
    "prevention" for my sister' children was
    that they avoid nearsighedness, and
    therefore avoid the $3,300 for Lasik.
    Yes, true prevention avoids these
    costs.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Jan 6, 2005
    #3
  4. .... and a cure for ALS avoids years of unimaginable suffering and a
    horrible death. Too bad neither currently exists.

    Scott
     
    Scott Seidman, Jan 6, 2005
    #4
  5. LarryDoc

    The Real Bev Guest

    If we ever needed Otis, this is the time. Does he have actuarial
    skills? Or maybe we could just ask the government. Since they can
    usually pull much larger numbers out of their collective ass, this
    should be a cinch.
    Hah! You'll be talking out of the other side of your mouth when you
    realize how much you need breast-reduction surgery and how much it
    costs!
     
    The Real Bev, Jan 7, 2005
    #5
  6. LarryDoc

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    The pilots and my nephew and neice reviewed the
    objective fact that show that the native eye
    goes down when

    1. You place a minus lens on it.

    2. You place it in a more-convinded
    visual enviroment.

    THEY paid attention to the objective facts
    you totally ignore.

    It is their judgment that resolved the
    issue for them.

    Obviously I don't trust you habit of
    inventing "rationalizations" for ignoring
    scientific facts and experimental truth.

    But that was THEIR (not your) decision.

    They looked at the -1.3 diopters "down" refractive
    movement -- and came to the "better" conclusion.

    RM would deny the existance of this
    type of scientifc truth.

    So when their friends (wearing minus coke bottles) ask
    my neice what she was doing -- putting the plus
    on for reading -- she explained.

    Her friend said, "Gee I wish I had your opportunity
    to avoid becomming myopic".

    QED.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Jan 7, 2005
    #6
  7. LarryDoc

    Neil Brooks Guest

    This constitutes clear and incontrovertible proof for me.

    I /was/ a bit skeptical with all the "Leung" and "Grosvenor" references, but
    we now have the irrefutable third-hand testimony of both Otis's nephew /and/
    his niece.

    I'm a believer now. Call the Review of Optometry. Tell them to hold the
    lead story in the upcoming issue.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jan 7, 2005
    #7
  8. LarryDoc

    LarryDoc Guest

    My original reasons for posting this topic were to encourage dialog (or
    not) on the long term and perhaps global consequences of our actions,
    with a humorous take on it.

    Instead you've allowed that Otis person to interject his useless moronic
    babble, yet again. To take over this thread. Yet again. The same BS. Yet
    again.

    So sad.

    --LB, OD
     
    LarryDoc, Jan 7, 2005
    #8
  9. LarryDoc

    g.gatti Guest

    OD.

    What does it mean?
     
    g.gatti, Jan 7, 2005
    #9
  10. LarryDoc

    Dan Abel Guest


    Let's face it. You could start a thread in here about going to Disneyland
    and Otis would turn it into a True Prevention post. Nobody "allowed" Otis
    anything. That's just how newsgroups work.
     
    Dan Abel, Jan 7, 2005
    #10
  11. LarryDoc

    g.gatti Guest

    I thought it meant that an OD was able to cure people and make them
    healthy again... not just 8 years of indoor training.
     
    g.gatti, Jan 7, 2005
    #11
  12. LarryDoc

    LarryDoc Guest

    OK. I used the wrong word. Sorry. Should have been "enabled", and that's
    done by replying to his moronic posts.

    Two years of his BS and no one here seems to get it. Don't engage him
    (or that other one). Just post a daily (or so) warning for newbies---the
    rest of us are well aware of what is rational and civil discussion,
    whether we agree or not.

    --LB, OD
     
    LarryDoc, Jan 7, 2005
    #12
  13. LarryDoc

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Sorry, the preson himself must see the results.

    With due respect, your time would be too "expensive" for you
    to be involved.

    Further, the person "working" the plus must see
    the results himself (as "Jon" did) or he will
    not believe them.

    You might read "The Printer's Son", Chapter 3,

    on www.i-see.org

    for clarification on that point.
    There is nothing "easy" about prevention
    with the plus.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jan 8, 2005
    #13
  14. LarryDoc

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Vision Prevention friends,

    Otis has yet to provide "subjects" that are real. He has not listed any
    pilots in the FAA database.

    He has not provided any tangible OBJECTIVE medical sources ON THE WEB to
    support his position.

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Jan 8, 2005
    #14
  15. LarryDoc

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Therefore, he is a troll, by the standard definition.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jan 8, 2005
    #15
  16. LarryDoc

    RM Guest

    Please provide us with the data.

    Of course, you won't because it doesn't exist. It's just your "hope" and
    "faith" that it works. Not good enough for science and medicine Otis.
    Preach your opinions to someone other than clinicians who expect real
    scientific proof.

    Theories in the absence of scientific proof constitute bias, Otis.

    Otis = zero credibility
     
    RM, Jan 8, 2005
    #16
  17. LarryDoc

    RM Guest

    You might read "The Printer's Son", Chapter 3,
    Otis has no proof. Only theories and romantic old stories.

    Otis is probably a kind old man who unfortunately has no understanding of
    science and medicine.
     
    RM, Jan 8, 2005
    #17
  18. LarryDoc

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear RM,

    Re: Please provide data demonstrating that the natural
    eye "moves negative" in a four year college at a
    specific rate.

    Please enjoy reading the following SCIENTIFIC
    reports.

    But again, you are going to insist that enviroment
    has no effect on the refractive status of the
    natural eye. Oh Yeah!

    Where is your exerimental data concerning the
    behavior of the natural (not defective) eye?

    Where have you PROVEN that the minus lens
    is even safe.

    You haven't produced any yet. Let us see
    it on an "input" versus "output" basis.

    What will be your rationalization now?

    Best,

    Otis
    Enineer




    Dear Prevention minded friends,


    This is some more detailed information on Dr. Hayden's
    publication on the fact that the natural eye goes "down" at a rate
    of -1/4 dipter per year at the U. S. Naval Academy. Please
    remember that ALL students were REQUIRED to have 20/20 on entry at
    the time this paper was published.

    Hayden published -1.0 diopters per four years.

    Gmelin published -1.3 diopters per four years.

    Some more commentary on this -1/4 diopter per year. I just
    received this from "RM-OD" on sci.med.vision.

    If you wish to know WHY I fear these ODs, then this describes
    the reason.

    I maintain that I want this information presented to me -- at
    the threshold -- about what is going to happen to my vision in a four
    year college. Specifically:

    _________________________________


    Otis> The ODs report that the eye goes "down" at a rate of -1/2
    diopter per year. In college the "down" rate is about -1/3
    diopter per year. Therefore you can expect this downward
    rate (which you have already confirmed) to continue, so that
    4 years from now, you can expect your eyes to go further
    negative by -1.3 diopters (on the average).

    RM > Where is this result documented. This OD (RM) would not tell
    any patient what you just said.



    Comment


    This is exactly the problem! I personally would INSIST that
    I be informed of the above in a clear, logical manner. That way I
    could make an intelligent decision about prevention -- either "up"
    or "down". RM thinks he is justified in restricting this type of
    information. Why?

    Further he asks, "...where is this result documented." I have
    spent the last 6 months presenting exactly this information on
    sci.med.vision.

    1. The -1/2 diopter per year is documented in the bifocal
    studies! Is this RM daft?

    2. The -1/3 diopter per year is documented in two studies at the
    Naval Academy and at West Point. And after all this -- he
    asks "...where is this result documented"?

    This is beyond belief. But you should form your own scientic
    judgment -- of course!

    Enjoy the following -- because I must laugh, otherwise I
    would cry! Does this RM have a clue?

    Best,

    Otis

    ________________________________________


    == 3 of 3 ==
    Date: Mon, Jan 3 2005 9:17 pm
    From: "RM"


    Otis> 1. The traditional answer -- nearsighedness is caused by
    heredity -- and there is nothing you can do about it.

    RM > Sorry, but myopia is more complex that just being due to
    genetics.

    Otis> The ODs report that the eye goes "down" at a rate of -1/2
    diopter per year. In college the "down" rate is about -1/3
    diopter per year. Therefore you can expect this downward
    rate (which you have already confirmed) to continue, so that
    4 years from now, you can expect your eyes to go further
    negative by -1.3 diopters (on the average).

    RM > Where is this result documented. This OD (RM) would not
    tell any patient what you just said.

    [For any intelligent person I would START by telling him the
    above. If he "faces facts" entering a four year college --
    then he MIGHT take prevention seriously. But when you
    "hide" facts -- he has no chance to make an intelligent
    decision or choice. This is the worst of the worst. OSB]

    RM > Everything is just black or white for you Otis. For example,
    you think ALL eyes will go down by an average amount, or
    that ALL pilot-engineers who attend a 4-year college and are
    intelligent can reverse their myopia. It is only so simple
    to someone who doesn't have any experience.

    [I have a great deal of experience dealing with this combiation
    of
    arrogance and ignorance. Why do you think we are still
    using the traditional minus lens -- put in use 400 years
    ago? OSB]

    RM > To the layperson, Otis is not a trained eyecare expert. He
    has a bias toward a particular theory of myopia prevention
    that has limited merit. See an eye doctor and follow his
    advise.

    [Always remember the concept of "the second opinion". I am
    certain this man BELIEVES he is right. That belief does
    not make him right -- but he wants to dictate the use of the
    minus lens -- without ANY consideration of the preventive
    alterative. As far as "...see your eye doctor", please
    remember that a smaller number of eye-doctors ADVOCATE
    prevention with the plus -- as the second opinion. I have
    learned how damaging RM's "attitude" is to all of us. OSB]

    ______________________


    Subject: Clarification of the -1/4 diopter per year statement for
    the natural eye at Annapolis and -1/3 diopter per year
    at West Point for the normal eye.


    Re: DR. HAYDEN STATES THAT EMMETROPIA IS NOT NORMAL FOR THE
    FOLLOWING REASONS

    Re: "...As is well known, the emmetropic eye is for practical
    purpose an abnormal eye -- the great majority of persons
    with so-called normal vision being actually
    hypermetropic. Those candidates, then, whose refraction
    was of the plano (emmetropic -- focal status exactly
    zero OSB) had borderline conditions definitely on the
    way to myopia. For all practical purposes, experience
    here has shown that patients with +0.25 diopters of
    hypermetropia are in the same class." Dr. Hayden

    Re: [This is why I use the word "focal state" to define what we
    measure, rather than implying "defect" for what is in
    fact refractive states that are completely normal. OSB]

    *************

    You asked for background information on the behavior of the
    normal eye at our military colleges.

    I stated specifically, that the "downward" rate for all these
    eyes was approximatly -1/3 diopters per year. This is the average
    value for ALL eyes.

    Some eyes went "down" at a faster rate, and some showed a
    rate of zero diopters. But the AVERAGE of all NORMAL EYES was
    -1/3 diopter per year, and obviously -1.3 for four years.

    Since you doubt these statistics, I am posting statements by
    Dr. R. Hayden about various issues concerning these fundamental,
    base-line statistics.

    In general, I simply report objective facts. Others can put
    their own "spin" on them if they like.

    It is often claimed that no one knows anything about
    the rate that eye develops nearsighedness. This is a false
    statement. The "standard" statement is that no one can "predict"
    the development of a negative focal status for the eye for a
    person entering college with 20/20, 20/25 or 20/30 vision.

    If a pilot enters a four year college with 20/20, but a focal
    status of zero (sometimes called "emmetropia"), it is virtually
    certain that he will not be 20/20 at graduation. The statistics
    show that his vision will be -1.0 to -1.3 diopters with a visual
    acuity of 20/70 to 20/100. No one ever bothers to tell any pilot
    about these statistics. If they only knew they MIGHT be able to
    take effective action for prevention.

    Here are the records and statment about the eyes movement
    from a positve value to a negative value at the Naval Academy.

    When we attempted to institute a "preventive" method at the
    Naval Academy we got nothing but "stone-walling" of the type you
    have seen from sci.med.vision.

    When I asked you to use the plus for prevention at college, I
    was well-aware of these statistics. It is very hard to miss the
    point -- but it seems many people manage to do so.

    Best,

    Otis

    ****************

    Re: Dear Otis -- If a person is not myopic by the time they reach
    college (USAF Academy) what are the chances of becoming
    myopic from the required reading load? Has the USAF run
    any experiments to find out what causes myopia in their
    personnel? -- Bill

    ________________________________________


    If you know the refractive state of an "entering" student can
    you predict the resultant refractive state after four years?

    If you check the person's focal status, and find it to be
    "zero" or "plano", then the probability the person will retain his
    20/20 is about one percent -- as stated by Dr. Hayden.


    Note: Refractive state is determined by using a trial-lens kit.
    It is first established that the pilot (or entering
    student) has 20/20. The next step it to use a sequence
    of stronger plus lenses to establish the student's
    refractive state as having some positive status.


    REFERENCES

    1. Reynolds Hayden, M.D., "Development and Prevention of Myopia at
    the United States Naval Academy", Volume 25, (old series
    Volume 82), Number 4., Copyright, 1941, The American
    Medical Association.

    2. Gmelin, Maj. Robert T., MSC, USA, "Myopia at West Point: Past
    and Present." Military Medicine, 141 (8) 542-3, August
    1976.


    Here is the information I have on your question about
    "base-line data" concerning the behavior of the natural and
    healthy eye at the Naval Academy.


    SYNOPSIS

    For years, since 1879 in fact, studies of military cadets in
    the United States have shown that their vision changes over the
    years of their academic work. Records reveal that a large
    percentage of the cadets (39% of those at the U.S. Military
    Academy in 1956) [2] became nearsighted and needed negative lenses
    by graduation.

    Further, of those who developed 20/25 vision, only one
    percent recovered to 20/20 over the four years, [1]. (They were
    not provided with plus-lenses, and for this reason had no chance
    to recover.)

    In early years their degraded vision was blamed on the fumes
    of gas lighting, and later, on any number of factors, but the
    upshot of the studies was that none of these circumstance were
    really behind the cadet's loss of visual acuity. The myopia
    (change of focal state) was a result of the fact that the natural
    eye controls its focal state to its average visual environment.
    Roughly, that is looking close, studying, reading, looking at
    books, for long periods of time -- rather than at distant objects.


    SELECTED STATEMENTS FROM DR. HAYDEN

    "...For many years the high incidence of myopia which
    apparently developed among midshipmen after admission to the
    United States Naval Academy with supposedly normal vision was a
    cause of serious concern to all those interested."

    (Extended "rest" was offered, as stated by Dr. Hayden)

    "...and by retaining may of them (who became nearsighted) in
    the Naval Academy for one to three years in the hope that their
    vision would improve."

    "...In the vast majority of cases their vision did not
    improve, and the midshipmen was forced to leave the naval service
    after two to four years in the Naval Academy. Experience showed
    that only about one percent of such men had 20/20 on their final
    physical examination."

    [Summary -- if their focal status became even SLIGHTLY
    negative (20/25) they had virtually no chance of clearing their
    distant vision to 20/20. OSB]

    "...Furthermore, an excessive number of junior line officers
    were being retired because of defective vision, and the records
    showed that the vision of 3/4 of these had become defection
    defective (vision less than 20/20 for each eye) at the Naval
    Academy."

    [Dr. Hayden then reviews the statistics on a class by class
    basis -- to long to type up.]

    "...Any candidate, however, who if found to have any degree
    of myopia following the use of a cycloplegic, even -0.12 or -0.25
    diopters is rejected."


    NECESSITY OF HYPEROPIC RESERVE

    (For young health men with 20/20 -- A
    Positive focal state of the eye. OSB)


    PARAPHRASE

    Review of the refraction of the eye of candidates at the time
    of preliminary physical examination showed that the great majority
    of candidates whose refraction was of the plano-type, including
    +0.25 diopters. At the first year their examination would show
    that they had myopia.

    Occasionally a candidate who showed as much as +0.5 diopters
    "hypermetropia" on preliminary physical examination was found to
    have -0.25 diotpers of myopia in the first year.


    [EMMETROPIA IS DEFINED AS NORMAL OR PERFECT BASED
    ON THE DONDERS-HELMHOLTZ CONCEPTUALIZATION -- OSB]

    DR. HAYDEN STATES THAT EMMETROPIA IS NOT NORMAL FOR
    THE FOLLOWING REASONS

    "...As is well known, the emmetropic eye is for practical
    purpose an abnormal eye -- the great majority of persons with
    so-called normal vision being actually hypermetropic. Those
    candidates, then, whose refraction was of the plano (emmetropic --
    focal status exactly zero) had borderline conditions definitely on
    the way to myopia. For all practical purposes, experience here
    has shown that patients with +0.25 diopters of hypermetropia are
    in the same class."

    [This is why I use the word "focal state" to define what we
    measure, rather than implying "defect" for what is in fact natural
    an normal. OSB]

    "In view of the experience at the Naval Academy during the
    past three years as described, it is evident that a reserve of
    preferably 1 diopter and at least 1/2 dipoter is necessary at the
    time of preliminary refraction to be reasonably sure that the
    candidate will pass his physical examination for admission."

    "Furthermore, in order to be reasonably sure of being
    visually qualified for a commission in the line of the Navy after
    four years at the Naval Academy -- it is necessary that the
    student have a hyperopic reserve of at least one diopter of
    hypermetropia at the time of admission."

    "Of course, an occasional candidate will +0.25 to +0.5
    diotper of hypermetropia at the time of admission admission will
    survive visually and receive a commission, but this is
    exceptional."


    DR. HAYDEN THEN DISCUSSES ATROPINE A CYCLOPLEGIC

    He details the loss of people in various classes who were
    "emmetropic" (focal state zero) on entry, using various drugs and
    percentage mixtures. It was hoped that using different drugs
    would produce better results and these emmetropic eyes could be
    "saved". However:

    In one case (c, d) the loss was 70 percent after three years,

    In another case (c, d) the loss was 85 percent at 2 years.


    THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF ILLUMINATION LEVELS
    AND EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THESE LEVELS


    CONCLUSIONS

    "It is considered that during the past three years the Naval
    Academy has definitely proved the necessity of midshipmen having a
    "hyperopic reserve" of at least 1 diopter at the time of admission
    to the Naval Academy, and of their meeting the present visual
    requirements if the visual standards of the Naval are to be
    maintained."

    "...Any candidate having less than 1/2 dipoter of
    hypermetropia at the time of a preliminary ocular refraction
    should be informed that, while visually qualified at the time, he
    has a borderline condition which may progress to a low degree of
    myopia by the time he takes his physical examination for admission
    to the Naval Academy, and may therefore be rejected."

    "Any candidate having from +0.5 to +1.0 diopters of
    hypermetropia at the time of a preliminary ocular refraction
    should be informed that, while he should pass the physical
    examination for entrance to the Naval Academy, he stands no better
    than an even chance of visually obtaining a commission in the line
    of the Navy on graduation."

    ____________________________________


    Note 1: All these men had healthy retinas. All retinas had the
    capability of resolving 5 minute-of-angle targets at 20
    feet. Their natural eye's behaved as expected. The eye
    controlls its focal state to its visual environment. For
    this reason an "undesired" focal state does not indicate
    an "organic defect", "error" or words to that effect.
    That is the reason I use the term "focal state" so their
    is no confusion about that point.


    Note 2: The words emmetropia and ametropia were introduced by
    Donders. Donders took the focal states (other than 0.0
    diopters) of the natural eye to be DEFECTS or ERRORS of
    the eye. Any non-zero focal state of the eye was, by
    definition, a defect (ametropia). A focal state of
    EXACTLY zero was defined as "normal". Under this
    definition, very few, if any, primates -- monkey or human
    -- have eyes that are normal!
     
    otisbrown, Jan 9, 2005
    #18
  19. LarryDoc

    A Lieberman Guest

    Otis,

    Is this "Dr Hayen's" publication on the web were I can read it myself? NOT
    FROM YOUR SITE, but an unbiased website, such as a medical journal website?

    Or is Dr Hayden another made up doctor?

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Jan 9, 2005
    #19
  20. LarryDoc

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    Wow! I do not know where you are comming from.

    Are you denying the existance of these studies, or
    only the scientific facts that demonstrate that
    the natural eye "moves negative" in
    a four year college at a rate of
    -1/3 diopter per year, or
    -1.3 diopters per FOUR years.

    (Sorry for the previous typo.)

    In any event, it is not my responsibility to
    post these reports on the web.

    If anyone wishes to do the research,
    then please let me know.

    Anyone entering a four year college with
    20/25 or 20/30 vision should be completely
    aware of these proven facts.

    Remember, RM-OD asked me to post
    them -- and so I did.

    I am not certain whether he wishes to deny these
    true-facts concerning the behavior of the natural
    eye -- or he is seeking to avoid telling the
    people who enter his office about them -- particularaly
    pilots engering a four year college -- who might
    take the concept of true-prevention seriously.
    I know I would.

    Best,

    Otis


    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Jan 10, 2005
    #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.