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

http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?ArticleType=SiteSpec&page=osc/apr01/lesson_0401.htm


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!



http://members.aol.com/myopiaprev/prv1.htm


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
convincing.

- 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.


http://www.agingeye.net/myopia/3.2.2.php

 

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
myopic?

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]')?

 

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.

Bill
-- Ferme le Bush

 

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.

 

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

-Quick

 

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.

frank

 

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."

DrG

 

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.

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

 

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,

Bill
-- Ferme le Bush

 

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.

Bill

 

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
acetylcholine.

DrG

 

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
approximatley
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.

www.chinamyopia.org

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.


Best,

Otis

+++++++

 

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
time.

Plus lenses, indeed.

DrG

 

Dear L,

This is CLASSIC. The MAJORITY OPINION will ALWAYS
DENY THE VALIDITY OF THE SECOND OPINION -- and
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.

ipso-facto.

Otis

 

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.

Bill
-- Ferme le Bush

 

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".

 

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
group.

is a much more accurate description.

DrG

 

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
that THE LIVING EYE WILL NOT CHANGE ITS REFRACTIVE
STATE -- WHEN YOU PLACE A -3 DIOPTER LENS ON IT.

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
used.

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)
no
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
story.

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

Best,

Otis

 

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

DrG

 

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
newsgroup.