Optometric Study Center: April, 2001 Can We Conquer Myopia? Plus ways to slow myopia

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by acemanvx, Jul 25, 2006.

  1. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest


    Excerpt below:

    Fortunately, a larger NEI-funded study of bifocals is ongoing. The
    Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial (COMET) is studying more than 400
    children who have been randomized to two groups: those wearing
    progressive addition lenses with a +2.00D add and those wearing
    single-vision spectacles for at least three years. A preliminary study
    in Hong Kong found that the PALs not only cut the progression of myopia
    by half; they helped slow the growth in axial length.

    This will be of interest to optometrists! Reserch is underway to
    control myopia and bifocals have been proven to slow down myopia
    progression! Otis stands correct preaching the merits of the plus lens
    as an aid to help control myopia. I wish I had been given bifocals, I
    would be much less myopic to this day!


    Let's get straight to the point: Nearsightedness is caused by
    nearwork. "Nearwork" means any lengthy task performed at a range of 6
    feet (2m) or less. You can avoid the worst effects of nearwork by
    doing it intelligently (i.e. adopting good visual habits), and by
    wearing "plus" lenses such as one finds in drug-store type reading
    glasses.(see link for full story)

    - Correspondingly, negative lenses and overcorrection with negative
    lenses increase esophoria139. - According to the generally and
    scientifically agreed fact of emmetropization (section 3.3.5),
    accommodation (section 3.2), accommodation induced elevated IOP
    (section 3.6.2) and artificially negative lens induced myopia (section
    3.3) the positive effect of adding of plus power for near work is

    - As there were no negative results published for the use of simply
    adding some plus power for extensive near work, the recommendation
    should be: Try it!

    1. Myopia Progression--Effect of Bifocal vs. Single Lenses
    In a small preliminary study researchers have found that children who
    wore bifocal eyeglasses had a slightly slower progression of myopia, or
    nearsightedness, than children who wore traditional single-vision
    eyeglasses. These findings appear in the August 2000 issue of Optometry
    and Vision Science.

    acemanvx, Jul 25, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. acemanvx

    ummwellduh Guest

    hello aceman

    I would like to ask a couple of questions:

    1) how many chicks, primates and shrews used were 'genetically
    predisposed' to myopia? did the experiments make them permanently

    2) how many humans are subjected to similar thorough, inhumane
    conditions to get myopia? why would any parent allow '...suturing the
    eyelid....' or '....putting blurring glasses...' on his/her child? or
    '...severely restrict the vision to near.....'

    3) what 5 yr old would follow 'instructions'? what does this disparity
    in human and animal experiments say about the validity of statistics
    collected (either FOR or AGAINST a given myopia theory [whether
    accepted by the scientific community or not]')?
    ummwellduh, Jul 25, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. acemanvx

    Salmon Egg Guest

    This is what I mean by obfuscation. To be understood by scientifically savvy
    but non-specialist people, the author should at least translate PAL, SVL,
    and COMET. The following paragraph gives some explanation, but introduces
    new obfuscation with the term "esophoria." Do OD's wish to be understood
    only by members of their own guild?
    This whole business will never be settled until the science is carried out
    that will provide the biological basis for why eyeballs do or do not
    elongate because of near work.

    While I am skeptical of the optometric party line, I do not see any real
    attempt to justify the party line.

    -- Ferme le Bush
    Salmon Egg, Jul 25, 2006

  4. All abbreviations are defined in the paper at their first use. You don't
    type the whole thing out each time--it would be counterproductive to the
    idea of using abbreviations.
    Scott Seidman, Jul 25, 2006
  5. acemanvx

    Quick Guest

    The Cliff notes didn't include that part...

    Quick, Jul 25, 2006
  6. acemanvx

    drfrank21 Guest

    Bill, this was meant for professionals in the eye care field and not
    for amatuers; there is absolutely no intent for obfuscation (and I
    use the accepted definition: "To make so confused or opaque as
    to be difficult to perceive or understand"). It is incumbent on the
    person reading the information to understand the terminology
    in journal articles ( this is not "Entertainment Weekly"!).
    It would be my responsibility, for instance, to become versed
    in terms of electrical engineers- I would not accuse the field
    of "obfuscation" because of their lingo and terminology
    especially if I was challenging their studies.

    Axial length is developmental- the eye does not "become" longer
    with just near work no matter what some cultists believe.

    drfrank21, Jul 25, 2006
  7. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    The reason this topic is so unproductive in this newsgroup is because
    of the presence of a persistent troll who uses intellectually dishonest
    arguments and obfuscation in order to drag the discussion back into the
    dark ages of accommodation as the cause of all myopia and the use of
    reading glasses as the only cure. Many people seem to be comfortable
    with that explanation because it is so simplistic.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "party line."

    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 25, 2006
  8. acemanvx

    p.clarkii Guest

    all specialists, when they talk with one another as they do when they
    publish papers in specialty journals, etc. use jargon. they all do.

    now why you seem to think that we need to spell things out so clearly
    and on such an elementary level as to make them obvious to you i don't
    understand. sorry if you don't understand every word of whats being
    said and what every abbreviation is, but I don't feel like I have to
    make you understand. suffice it to say that much larger minds than
    yours (and mine) have researched this topic and are continuing to
    research this topic. most of what Otis believes, i.e. that
    accommodation causes myopia, has long been disproven.

    if you can't accept it at that, then wait forever for your Scientific
    American article.
    or perhaps you would like to claim there is some kind of conspiracy.

    p.clarkii, Jul 26, 2006
  9. acemanvx

    Salmon Egg Guest

    I think it should be the duty of the poster who is ostensibly trying to
    educate, to add that little bit of glossary. I could not find esophoria in
    my unabridged dictionary. I did not Google or go to a medical dictionary. I
    rail just as strongly against obfuscation when I see it in my own field. I
    boggles my mind as to how obscure acronyms can get.

    Saying that "Axial length is developmental" is evasive at best. What are the
    enzymes, hormones, neurotransmitters or anything else that determines how
    and when elongation takes place. It is not a matter that God waves a magic
    wand. While there may be no money in discovering such detail, the answers
    are of significant scientific interest,

    -- Ferme le Bush
    Salmon Egg, Jul 26, 2006
  10. acemanvx

    Salmon Egg Guest

    You certainly do not have to make me understand. That is not your duty
    unless you take in onto yourself. You have been very successful in not
    providing an explanation.

    Salmon Egg, Jul 26, 2006
  11. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I don't agree. This audience is far too diverse. While I don't try to
    be obscure, neither do I attempt to define every term. I run across
    terms and expressions that require research from me on a daily basis.
    With a Ph.D. yet, why do you insist on being spoon fed?
    The answers to your questions are already in the scientific literature.
    Perhaps not *all* of the pathways have been fully elucidated, but we
    know that they are mediated by at least one transmitter, and that is

    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 26, 2006
  12. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Bill,

    Therea are some issues that need to be addressed:

    1. The minus is very easy to apply -- and the public LOVES that
    minus lens.

    2. Any use of the plus (for prevention) must START before that
    minus lens is applied. THAT would require an intelligent scientist,
    or WISE parent to understand the REASON why prevention must
    start at that time.

    3. It truly is impossible to expect BOTH, extremely sharp vision
    instantly (i.e., BVA for 20/18, 20/15, and 20/10 -- from a strong
    minus) and ALSO prevention with a plus.

    4. At the threshold -- is must be one -- or the other.

    5. The Oakley-Young study shows that a +1.5 diopter (high) and
    a under-prescribed minus -- stopped the eye's adaptation to
    its NEAR enviroment. The full-strength minus group went down by
    -2 diopers per 4 years, while the "plus" group went down by
    0 diopters in those 4 years. Obviously the M.O. ODs on sci.med.vision
    are going to fight like crazy against that scientific results -- but
    that is the reality of it.

    6. Any further work should be the use of the plus, when the refractive
    state is zero for that person (and Snellen 20/20). That WOULD require
    an fully informed person to understand the nature of this
    preventive work.

    7. The public itself will block any effort of prevention -- that a
    S.O. OD might attempt. That is a tough reality of these discussions,
    and must be considered a serious scientific subject.

    I will post some remarks by a S.O. OD, and the response the "public"
    had to his preventive advocacy.

    As always, enjoy our pleasant analysis of the natural
    eye as a dynamic sytem (dynamic eye paradigm, versus
    optical box-camera paradigm).

    The issue of true-prevention AT THE THRESHOLD is still
    open, and will remain so.

    But some second-opinion ODs have their own CHILDREN
    in a plus (at 20/20 and a refractive state of zero). That
    is real "leadership" in that person. We should learn
    from that optometrist.


    Neither M.O. OD nor the S.O. OD is wrong. It is just
    that they have a diffent concept for preventing the deveopment
    of a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye.



    otisbrown, Jul 26, 2006
  13. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Your classification scheme of OD's is totally artificial, and is
    frankly wearing quite thin. There is no clinically effective
    preventive technique that either can offer aside from atropine at this

    Plus lenses, indeed.

    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 26, 2006
  14. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear L,

    that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

    I can certainly agree to the difficulties of prevention -- but
    they are not IMPOSSIBILITIES -- as you insist.

    You just wish to BELIEVE that preventing a negative
    refractive STATE for the natural eye is IMPOSSIBLE -- and
    so you believe it.

    That is not science -- that is just your own bias.


    otisbrown, Jul 26, 2006
  15. acemanvx

    Salmon Egg Guest

    As I said to your opposition, the case (either way) will not be clinched
    until the mechanisms controlling elongation are explained.

    The theory and the measurements must develop simultaneously.

    -- Ferme le Bush
    Salmon Egg, Jul 26, 2006
  16. acemanvx

    retinula Guest

    the "second opinion" has no validity because it has no proof that it
    works. show me some scientific proof in humans that minus lenses cause
    myopia and that plus lenses reverse that effect. studies in humans do
    indeed exist, its just that they all prove the opposite of what you
    say. show me some studies, and i don't require that they be published
    in Scientific American. and don't bother with posting the results of
    your "thought experiments".
    retinula, Jul 26, 2006
  17. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    The so-called *second opinion* is something that you have conjured up
    in order to dress up your arguments. You and two or three other people
    do not constitute a *second opinion.* Rather, you constitute a fringe
    is a much more accurate description.

    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 26, 2006
  18. acemanvx

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Bill,

    Subject: How the experimental facts are evaluated.

    It is clear that the M.O. OD, and the S.O. OD see the dynamic
    natural eye DIFFERENTLY.

    The M.O. OD is trained to BELIEVE that pure optics DEFINES
    all eyes. Thus they wind up BELINING that you can represent
    the eye as a PASSIVE system.

    But the experimtal data simply does not support their
    concept that the living eye is a frozen optical device, and

    In fact, what will happen if you do this to the living eye, is
    that the NATURAL EYE will change its refractive STATE by
    -2 diopters in 12 months, relative to a control group that
    has no -3 diopter lens on it.

    This type of testing PROVES that the LIVING EYE is
    a dynamic system, and not a frozen box camera -- that
    was the previous paradigm.

    But the JUDGMENT of instituting a PREVENTIVE method,
    will START with a parent (WHO IS AN OPTOMETRIST) and
    RESPECTS this type of scientific proof an understanding.

    Thus, it is the parent who can guide his child in the correct
    use of a PREVENTIVE PLUS, and help his child keep
    his distant vision clear (positive refractive state from zero to +0.5
    diopters) through the school years). This is CONFIRMED
    by the Oakley-Young study.

    But the implications are that a STRONGER PLUS, (not +1.5, but
    +2.5 -- adjusted for the child's habitual reading distance) must be

    Further, the child should NOT be prescribed for 'BEST VISUAL ACUITY"
    at all -- and if the child has DMV level vision (as first-myopes have)
    minus should be used at all.

    But all of this DEPENDS on making a preventive decision or "choice"
    before that first minus is applied.

    Clearly SOME ODs have this preventive concept -- and can
    use it CORRECTLY on their own children.

    Attempting to deal with the "public" is a completely different

    But that is how a preveventive second-opinion can develop.


    otisbrown, Jul 26, 2006
  19. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Yet another STRAWMAN argument from the leader of the FG (Fringe Group).

    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 26, 2006

  20. So, in short, you'd like nonexperts in the field to bring you up to the
    level of an expert in the field, simply because you post the request to a
    Scott Seidman, Jul 26, 2006
    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.