New groups SCI.MED.VISION.VISION and SCI.MED.VISION.EYE

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by andrewedwardjudd, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. Let's see, the opposite would be "You must not have a genetic factor (or
    heavy reading hyperopes and emmetropes who eat sugar would exist).

    Huh?

    I'm not denying that there *could* be stress factors that have not been
    documented as far as I know, it's just the denial of a genetic factor
    that bothers me. I mean I only have a few identical twin patient pairs,
    but they all have identical refractions, the most notable being sisters
    who are both -7.50 O.U. with the same corneal curvatures. They can wear
    each other's gas perm contacts.

    Genetics has to be a partial cause, even if the particular gene has not
    been found.

    w.stacy, o.d.

    p.s. sorry about the duplicate post I just did; my browser said it did
    not send, when apparently it had... netscape 7.2
     
    William Stacy, Apr 11, 2005
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill Stacey Wrote

    I can accept that
    not
    been found.

    I agree that having 2 sets of identical twins with identical visual
    components seems compelling.

    Similarly a family of normal sighted people seems compelling.

    As does a family of myopic people

    But until such time as you are prepared to examine the environmental
    correlates of identical twins who have large refraction differences or
    the environmental correlates of these families its not a very
    productive conversation from my point of view.

    Have you read this paper?

    "How genetic is school myopia? by Ian Morgan and Kathryn Rose"

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 11, 2005
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Greg

    You say you will not have conversations with me but now you are
    continuing. What does that say about your ability to think clearly?
    the first to recognize your prescience if it is someday shown that
    myopia is entirely behavioral.

    Myopia can never be entirely behavioural. If people are genetically
    predisposed to read or eat sugar and it was shown that reading and
    eating sugar were related to myopia development then those would be
    genetic factors in myopia. Drugs could then be given to discourage
    reading and sugar consumption.

    My complaint is that in this newsgroup no attempt whatsoever is ever
    taken to look at differences in behaviour of myopes and none myopes.

    A drug for myopia is possible based on genetic research.

    But equally a change of habit (if the habit was better understood)
    might be much more humane.

    Instead I get to hear this continual whine "its genetic you fool!
    Everybody knows its genetic you idiot! The genes have been found you
    moron. You are unscientific! You dont understand! We are experts!
    You know nothing!"

    Haha!

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 11, 2005
    #43
  4. Greg

    You seem to have made your mind up about me already. In your mind you
    are correct that i am unscientific. For reasons that suit your
    opinion you highlighted one sentence i wrote and began to trash it.

    You might also benefit from reading what Jamie said about the various
    financial intellectual and emotional influences at play in Science. To
    deny those influences is just unscientific - and yet you believe i am
    *unscientific* for being aware of them.

    **If** you are saying that environmental influences are allowed in a
    model for myopic development then we can also reason that different
    behaviour directs us to different environments.

    That is essentially what i believe.

    However, for no other reason than 'its unscientific' my arguments are
    constantly and relentlessly condemned. Similarly studies that support
    my argument are trashed in the same simplistic manner.

    Somehow in your mind you have to reconcile that if you do consider
    environmental factors are important then my argument is just as
    scientific as any other.

    The problem is in your mind you have already decided i cannot be
    correct and similarly studies that dont support your opinion are also
    bad science..

    Its a myopic viewpoint.

    What are the facts? What is actually happening outside your mind?

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 11, 2005
    #44
  5. andrewedwardjudd

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    It really doesn't say anything about my ability to think clearly,
    because that is not what I said. This is what I wrote:

    "I think you are so technically challenged in this field that no
    further
    meaningful conversation is possible."

    I didn't say that I would not reply to you, but that as it involves a
    dialogue between us, it cannot be meaningful because your ideas are
    rather far afield of anything now considered plausible, and also
    because your style of debate tends to be rather evasive.
    The reason is that it is not a meaningful idea to pursue.
    Rather far-fetched.
    But, you said yourself that science is nothing but a majority opinion,
    as if facts had no meaning.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Apr 11, 2005
    #45
  6. I can only guess of course but i wonder if the axial change created by
    blurr is related to some aspect of how we perceive blurr. Having an
    optic nerve or not make sense in that kind of model.

    For example 2D shifts in axial chromatic error seem impossible in an
    eye that sees as well as we do. Although there are retina factors
    that help our vision dispite the confusion of chromatic abberration it
    would appear that from a certain point of view retinally we see blurr
    often as not. The rest of the process then has to be interpreting
    the blurr.

    Personality correlates might seem absurd but from a left and right
    brain perspective they can be interesting.

    The right brain tends to be the big picture brain it sees things as
    wholes. The left the detail brain it breaks things into parts.

    In the bigger picture regardless of whether there is blurr on the
    retina, humans still have pretty good sight. Therefore having blurr
    is not necessarily something to worry about.

    But logically we can produce an intellectual analysis that we need
    crisp clear vision to see. We can focus on the detail of the
    perception of the blurr that does exist and amplify its importance. We
    can then worry about blurr and perhaps even try to correct it by some
    act of will.

    Myopes do tend to be picky people who worry about details, analyse and
    intellectualise and overlook the big picture of themselves in their
    lives. How they perceive blurr will be different to how a none
    worrying none analysing person will perceive blurr.

    Focusing is a more or less unconscious activity that is related to the
    perception of nearness and perhaps more complicated blurr detecting
    mechanisms based on red blue shifts possibly. Conscious behaviours
    that interefere with focusing could create under or over accommodation.

    Science has only seen half the picture in my view.

    If once the optic nerve to the brain is severed myopia stops, it
    suggests that the brain is involved in the process in a manner that is
    not understood.


    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 12, 2005
    #46
  7. Bill Stacey wrote
    I have not. perhaps you could excerpt some pertinent comments from it
    here (or summarize if you fear copyright infringment). I am totally
    open
    for such data, especially if from a peer reviewed source. I would also

    want to know how it was established that the twins were identical (dna
    testing, e.g.). Twins who look a like are not always, perhaps not even

    usually, identical genetically.

    Yes. I am aware of these pitfalls

    I have the school myopia study as a pdf and can send it to you if you
    give me an email address privately. I am andrew edward judd @ hotmail
    .. com without the spaces

    Alternately just plug that title into medline.

    The twin data was from a twin myopia study showing large genetic
    correlation using the classical twin method which does not consider
    environment of the different twin sets. That is available on the
    internet. Here is a link

    http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/full/42/6/1232

    All previous OD's on this list with whom I had this conversation that
    we are now having have used this study to attack me. But this study
    uses a questionable assumption to simplify the data. I have yet to
    find a test of this assumption in the literature to support its use and
    plenty to question its use. The study organisers have told told me
    they are planning to study the 'discordant twins' for possible
    environmental influences in childhood.

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 12, 2005
    #47
  8. Greg
    opinion,
    as if facts had no meaning.

    No. That was not my intention. You did not read it correctly.

    Thru the ages into the present day a man who strongly believes in his
    own theory finds it hard to see the validity of data that questions it.
    This is a well known delema in science. Yes we have peer review but
    peer review tends to be by people who are likely to believe what we
    believe. Papers probably go from journal to journal looking for a
    publisher in many cases.

    For example we have published twin studies of myopia that would never
    pass peer review amongst behavioural optometrists.

    Equally we have study titles that use the words 'Locus for myopia' that
    not unreasonably lead a reader to think that a gene for myopia exists.
    Compentant peer review would ensure that such exaggerations were not
    allowed.

    Facts are important. But what are the facts?

    What i notice with your science is that my facts are 'laugthable'. My
    scientific studies are meaningless etc.

    Meanwhile you believe it acceptable to decide what is science and what
    is not. In your mind that is reasonable but really its just bias.

    You say i am evasive. At this point in time i am unclear which of your
    facts i am supposedly ignoring, which of your facts i have challenged
    the scientific validity of and which facts we agree on.

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 12, 2005
    #48
  9. Mike Tyner said
    can
    have environments that are more dissimilar than those of non-twin
    siblings.

    I am not sure what you are saying.

    For the data to be valid each MZ + MZ twin pair must have the same
    environment relative to each other as the DZ + DZ twins have.

    This does not match common sense observation of twins.

    My mother for example was a none identical twin. The two girls were
    very different. As different as none twins. They fought and squabbled
    a great deal. The older twin was favoured by my grandmother.
    Identical twins generally have a close relationship and are treated
    very similarly in a family.

    Can you present your argument as to why the environments are the same?

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 12, 2005
    #49
  10. For the data to be valid each MZ + MZ twin pair must have the same
    environment relative to each other as the DZ + DZ twins have.


    That is not clear. I meant to say.

    For the data to be valid each MZ + MZ twin pair (just two people) must
    have the same
    environment relative to each other. **and** each DZ + DZ twin pair
    (just two people) must have the same environment relative to each
    other.

    If MZ twins are treated identically **and** DZ twins are treated
    identically then differences must be genetic because environmental
    effects were identical for each twin set.

    Thats the basis of the Equal environment assumption.

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 12, 2005
    #50
  11. I'm sorry if they attacked you and not your argument, but I must say the
    study correlates well with my own experiences, and makes a lot of sense.

    But this study
    Which assumption is that?

    w.stacy, o.d.
     
    William Stacy, Apr 12, 2005
    #51
  12. Ok I guess I can answer my own question. The assumption is that twins
    who grow up in the same family have essentially similar envionments, and
    if different results are found for identical and fraternal twins in
    these environments, then those differences are probably genetic.

    I think this assumption is correct and logical on its face. Obviously
    it is not possible to have truly "identical" environments, but growing
    up in the same family is a pretty good approximation thereof.

    w.stacy, o.d.
     
    William Stacy, Apr 12, 2005
    #52
  13. Mike Tyner wrote
    in each
    of the following groups:

    Yes I can. The groups are descending in order of environmental
    similarity.
    Less congruent: DZ twins
    Less congruent: non-twin siblings
    Least congruent: unrelated pairs
    environment. Your
    evidence hasn't convinced me yet.

    How can none twins share a common environment? For starters they are
    different ages often by many years.

    Studies show that MZ twins significantly more "spend time together,
    have the same friends and dress similarly than DZ twins."

    Clearly the environments are different for twins.

    I imagine your response to my answer will be 'so what? Those
    environmental differences will not make a difference'

    For you thats scientific. To me it just seems you are biased.

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 12, 2005
    #53
  14. Bill
    it is not possible to have truly "identical" environments, but growing
    up in the same family is a pretty good approximation thereof.

    If identical twins are found to spend more time together, share the
    same friends, and dress similarly compared to DZ twins does this not
    suggest to you that these environments are quite dissimilar rather than
    identical? Imagine two MZ twins who both wear leather and go to rock
    bands and and two DZ twins where one is in to classical music and the
    other likes heavy metal.

    The point of doing a study like this is to decide if its environment or
    genetic.

    Deciding to ignore the obvious differences is proving absolutely
    nothing at all

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 12, 2005
    #54
  15. andrewedwardjudd

    g.gatti Guest

    It makes no sense at all because the truth is one.

    You are creating unnecessary confusion.

    The cure of imperfect sight exists since 100 years. It was discovered
    by Dr. Bates. Of course you should practice it to get results. If you
    do not practice it, it does not work. To practice it you need to
    discard glasses forever. Every disease of the eye depends from that,
    form the imperfect sight, which can be conscious or unconscious (there
    is also unconscious imperfect sight, indeed), and can be cured if you
    cure the eyesight.

    Doctors who prescribe eyeglasses are to be put in jail because they
    destroy people's health.

    When this will be realized from the great mass of people, I do not
    know, most probably it will never be realized, but this does not mean
    that it is not true.

    The eye is an end organ, it has no relevant role in eyesight.


    http://TheCentralFixation.com
     
    g.gatti, Apr 12, 2005
    #55
  16. andrewedwardjudd

    LarryDoc Guest

    Once in a while I unblock the kill-file list for a little amusement and
    this time, I struck gold!
     
    LarryDoc, Apr 12, 2005
    #56
  17. andrewedwardjudd

    LarryDoc Guest

    Nice to see y'all found a new troll to feed.

    I'd thought I'd add a little *real* info here.

    Case one: Twins, one of whom I lived with one for many years. Two
    sisters, identical cornea curvatures, cornea diameter, iris color. One
    wore contact lenses, the other not. One was vegetarian, the other an
    opitunivor (whatever there was to eat!). Nearly identical levels of
    myopia and unchanged over time, job differences, stress levels.

    Case two: Close relatives of mine. Father/son. Separated at birth. 30
    years later, both had nearly identical handwriting and their voices were
    impossible to tell apart. Both myopic and close in power.

    We don't need a Human Genome Project to understand the relationships of
    genetics and physiology.

    --LB, O.D.
     
    LarryDoc, Apr 12, 2005
    #57
  18. andrewedwardjudd

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Hit the proverbial nail on the head, once again.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Apr 12, 2005
    #58
  19. andrewedwardjudd

    retinula Guest

    The eye is an end organ, it has no relevant role in eyesight.

    Stands to reason for me!
     
    retinula, Apr 12, 2005
    #59
  20. These real life twin and father son examples are definately
    interesting.

    These specific identical twins are definately interesting to me and for
    sure they make me think about my argument. Until such point in time
    that i can actually get to examine a twin set with identical and none
    identical refractions its had for me to comment more than say it is
    definately interesting that specific components of their vision are so
    identical. That suggests to me that an emmetropisation process does
    not effect these compononents. It would definately be interesting to
    see longitudinal data on twins from say 5 to 20. and plot out the
    various component changes over the range of errors.

    Identical corneal curvature could be relevant or not. Depends what
    varies elsewhere in myopia.

    Whether you people can believe it or not there is a scientific debate
    going on in the world of science about these issues.

    Abuse is not going to stop that debate

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 12, 2005
    #60
    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.