Peer Reviewed Paper on Stair-case Myopia (Change of Refractive State)

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Jul 23, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    PeerRev.txt


    Dear Bill,

    "You can recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his back."

    Beverly Rubik
    ]
    "New ideas are always criticized - not because an idea lacks
    merit, but because it might turn out to be workable, which would
    threaten the reputations of many people whose opinions conflict
    with it. Some people may even lose their jobs."

    Physicist, requested anonymity



    Subject: Peer Reviewed Paper on Stair-Case Myopia.

    When some of these majority-opinion ODs insist that there is
    no peer-reviewed discussion of stair-case myopia -- they are
    pulling the wool over your eyes.

    Here is one published paper considering the effect a minus
    lens has on the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye.

    Further when they "invent" the word "conspiracy" -- that his
    just false.

    Is the "second-opinion" a conspiracy??? Or for that matter,
    is the majority-opinion a conspiracy? Of course not -- but these
    M.O. would have you believe it is so.

    Here is the papers. Sorry, I don't have the full publication
    with figures. It would be a good review of these various
    subjects.

    Best,

    Otis


    PERGAMON -- VISION RESEARCH


    "A Model of the Contribution of Oculomotor and Optical
    Factors to Emmetropization and Myopia.

    D. I. Flitcorft

    Institute of Ophthalmology, University College Dublin, 60
    Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Ireland

    Vision Research 38 (1998) 2869 - 2879

    1998 Elsevier Science Ltd.

    Graph, Figure 9, Shows the refractive STATE of the eye
    adjusting to both the near environment, and the "environment" made
    optically nearer by a minus lens.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    DrL> Nope. Not to my knowledge. But, those aren't
    peer-reviewed, and they borrow their ideas from other sources --
    namely the peer-reviewed literature.

    Bill> It is very difficult to get published in some of those
    listed. Often they publish invited papers. Nature may not
    require extensive peer review. But from my own knowledge, Nature
    published the first announcement of successful laser operation
    when the very peer reviewed Physical Review refused to accept a
    paper from Ted Maiman et al.

    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    otisbrown, Jul 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Salmon Egg Guest

    If I remember, the next time I visit the LMU library near here, I will try
    to find the paper. I doubt that it will be available there. It might be
    available at UCLA.

    Even so, I doubt a 10 page paper would be an adequate review paper. A
    scientific American paper, with all the alleged limitations, is more likely
    to get my attention.

    Bill
    -- Ferme le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Jul 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Gee, ya think that Flitcroft and others must might have changed their
    minds since 1998?
    Unlike Otis, who seems stuck in a time warp of badly outdated ideas,
    some people do re-evaluate their positions based on new data.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 23, 2006
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Since you have established that your mind isn't likely to be changed by
    anything but a Scientific American Article, why are you here? To annoy
    the rest of us, perhaps?

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 23, 2006
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    serebel Guest


    It's a public NG, if you don't like it, too damn bad.
     
    serebel, Jul 24, 2006
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Myopia-avoidance friends,

    Yes, and indeed some second-opinion optometrists do re-evaluate
    the drivel they were taught in OD school, to the effect that
    the fundamental eye is NOT DYNAMIC, and that
    a -3 diopter lens has no effect on the refractive STATE of
    the eye.

    They EVALUATE PURE SCIENTIFIC TESTS.

    They then realize, that we INDUCE a negative refractive STATE
    because of the long-term requirements of or civilization.
    i.e., they will not use a minus knee-jerk prescription ON THEIR
    OWN CHILDREN.

    It is DrL who is stuck in the "time-warp" since he is using
    the "analytic method" developed by Johann Kepler, 400 years
    ago -- to evaluate the negative refractive STATE he developed
    whilest spending 16 years evaluating the circular orbit
    of Mars -- and finally determining its true path.

    It is DrL who is living in the past -- and refuses to
    look at ANY EXPERIMENTAL DATA that disproves
    the ASSUMPTIONS of his practice.

    Enjoy,

    Otis




     
    otisbrown, Jul 24, 2006
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    if you expect to read about myopia research in Scientific American, and
    thats the only thing that will "get your attention" then don't hold
    your breath. Scientific American is like the Reader's Digest of
    science publications. amateur scientist aren't you?

    ============
     
    retinula, Jul 24, 2006
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    serebel Guest

    I disagree with Otis's theories and think he's a tad over the wall, but
    he does have the right to post.
     
    serebel, Jul 24, 2006
    #8
  9. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    Otis, you aren't avery critical thinker are you? i've laughed over
    your interpretation of the Oakley-Young study, and now you barely
    understandable post suggests that this article by Flitcroft supports
    the notion of staircase myopia. it does nothing of the sort. its a
    theoretical paper that associates nearwork with myopia-- an association
    that is well-known and pretty much accepted by most vision researchers
    and eye doctors.

    here is the abstract for everybody else to read and see Otis's
    stupidity and propensity to misinterpret and misrepresent.

    ==

    A model of the contribution of oculomotor and optical factors to
    emmetropization and myopia.

    Flitcroft DI. Vision Res. 1998 Oct;38(19):2869-79..

    Institute of Ophthalmology, University College Dublin, Ireland.

    The purpose of this work was to investigate quantitatively the
    interactions between accommodation, vergence and a mechanism of
    emmetropization driven by optical blur within the retinal image with a
    view to developing a model that provides an explanation of both normal
    emmetropization and near-work associated myopia. The simulations of the
    change in the refractive state of the eye over time that derive from
    this model indicate that optical regulation of eye growth can result in
    emmetropization, i.e. a progressive reduction in refractive errors over
    time leading towards emmetropia. This occurs when viewing conditions
    involve a preponderance of distance work. With increasing near work,
    the model predicts that the refraction of the eyes will converge
    towards myopia. In keeping with the previously reported associations of
    myopia with esophoria, poor accommodation function and high AC/A
    ratios, these conditions increase the amount of myopia produced under
    intensive near viewing conditions but do not lead to myopia during
    mainly distance viewing. This model provides quantitative validation of
    the hypothesis that the epidemiological association between myopia and
    increased nearwork may be caused by a disturbance of normal
    emmetropization by steady state errors of accommodation. The same model
    can explain normal emmetropization, increasing myopia with increasing
    nearwork demands and the currently recognised oculomotor associations
    that have been reported to precede the development of myopia.


    ========================================
     
    retinula, Jul 24, 2006
    #9
  10. otisbrown

    Charles Guest

    Sounds like the abstract is saying that myopia is likely to decrease or
    disappear if you spend most of your time outside. Do I read that right?

    Yet the eyes are not fooled by plus lenses somehow.


    --
     
    Charles, Jul 24, 2006
    #10
  11. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Dear Prevention-Minded Rational Friends:

    Since when have I held up a study published more than 20 years ago,
    like the Young-Oakley study on myopes with nearpoint esophoria that
    forms the foundation of Otis' thinking?

    This field is rapidly changing, and if you haven't kept up with the
    work that has been ongoing within the past couple of years, your
    knoweldge is fairly obsolete. Yet, Otis blindly bats away anything
    that challenges his stubbornly held preconceived notions that were
    formed nearly 3 decades ago, and have not undergone any alteration
    since.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 24, 2006
    #11
  12. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Charles,

    Provided we are talking about a negative refractive STATE of the
    fundamental eye -- and the person NEVER wore a minus lens (at about
    20/50), then the implication is that completely ENDING all near
    enviroment (physically, or with a plus lens) will result in the NATURAL
    eye slowly changing its refractive STATE in a positive direction.

    At least that is what tests of the dynamic natural eye show.

    Best,

    Otis


     
    otisbrown, Jul 24, 2006
    #12
  13. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    the Flitcroft paper doesn't say that at all! that is YOUR assumptions
    and YOUR bullshit that you are trying to weave into the meaning of the
    paper.

    the paper describes a quantitative theoretical model that predicts how
    nearwork, accommodative dysfunction, and retinal blur appear to
    contribute changes in refractive state. And somehow you manage to
    spin that into saying it proves staircase myopia!?! what an idiot you
    are. when you die your brain needs to be preserved so the exact nature
    of your pathology can be studied.

    ###################################################

     
    p.clarkii, Jul 24, 2006
    #13
  14. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    So now Bill, with a Ph.D. -- is a amateur scientist.

    Do YOU have a Ph.D.???

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jul 24, 2006
    #14
  15. otisbrown

    acemanvx Guest

    Well at least optometrists are admitting near work causes myopia. This
    is what starts the fire. The wretched minus glasses is the fuel that
    feeds the fire.
     
    acemanvx, Jul 24, 2006
    #15
  16. Yes, it is a peer reviewed article that speaks to staircase myopia, but
    presents absolutely no physiological data, and thus provides no evidence,
    for or against.

    Flitcroft also discusses the issues as an adult:
    "The impact of spectacle correction on the development
    and progression of myopia is a controversial
    area in part due to the lack of data on the impact of
    spectacle wear on myopia progression in humans
    [13,23]. In view of increasing animal evidence that
    lenses can alter ocular growth, this is an important
    area for study."

    I don't many here disagree with that. If I were refereeing this, I would
    ask for a treatment on development vs. growth issues, and for citation of
    more recent studies (1998 was a while ago), some of which put a damper on
    the idea.

    Now, if you want to behave as a scientist would, you would go to some
    electronic version of Science Citation Index, find the 34 papers that
    cite this Flitcroft paper, read them, digest them, and present the
    findings in a way that acknowledges both sides of the story. For a
    start, you might try
    Wallman J, Winawer J
    Homeostasis of eye growth and the question of myopia
    NEURON 43 (4): 447-468 AUG 19 2004
     
    Scott Seidman, Jul 24, 2006
    #16
  17. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear AceMan,

    I would say that we should recognize that the fundamental eye is
    a dynamic system, and will change its refractive STATE, from
    "plus" to "minus" if you:

    1. Move the "environment" nearer -- (in terms of diopters).

    2. And same thing for an applied -3 diopter lens.

    Thus I RESPECT all fundamental eyes as DYNAMIC SYSTEMS,
    and test for this EXPECTED responsed.

    While the result is the same, the concept is profoundly different.

    In effect, you recognize that there ar ENGINEERING LIMITS
    to the way you use this sophisticated, auto-focused camera.

    Our problem is that we think we can do ANYTHING WE WANT
    TO DO WITH OUR EYES -- with no effect on our refractive STATE.

    And that is just WRONG.

    But this work ACCEPTS the dynamic-eye paradigm, and
    rejects the concept that the eye can be represented or
    analyized as a "frozen" box-camera. That was just
    a simplistic theory -- that does not stand the light
    of day (fundamental scientific analysis).

    I know we disagree on the words we use to describe the
    eye -- and the ASSUMPTIONS of those words. But
    the reality is that the fundamental eye proves-out to
    be a dynamic system.

    What this means (in the long run) is that it WILL BE POSSIBLE
    TO PREVENT the development of a negative refractive STATE -- but
    the person himself must "wise up" to these issues.

    And that is why we are discussing paradigm-analysis of
    the living, fundamental eye.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jul 24, 2006
    #17
  18. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Otis, where have you published this work on human subjects?

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 24, 2006
    #18
  19. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Majority-Opinion "L",

    I have presented this data concerning the dynamic behavior
    of the fundamental eye -- again, and again, and again.

    And you CHOOSE to totally IGNORE ALL OF IT -- preferring
    your misconceptsions and your ignorance of it.

    I am not going to repeat it.

    But I would suggest to AceMan, that he seriously study
    your preferred ignorance of the dynamic behavior of the
    fundamental eye -- and plan to support his own
    child with plus-prevention -- as the second-opinion.

    We know that your OPINION is that the fundamental eye
    is NOT DYNAMIC, and that a -3 diopter lens has
    NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACITVE STATE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
    EYE.

    On a pure-scientific level -- your null hypothesis is proven
    false.

    AceMan can take it from there -- when his children develop
    a slight negative STATE, of -1 diotpers (and a Snellen of 20/50).

    It is a difficult choice, because NEGLECT and the minus lens
    are so much easier.

    But that will be EXCLUSIVELY AceMan's choice -- for
    his kids. I hope he makes a wise (preventive) decision.

    Based on SCIENCE, and not your de-construction of SCIENCE.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jul 24, 2006
    #19
  20. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Dear Otis:

    You talk about young chickens and young monkeys, but nothing about
    human subjects that supports anything at all about your theories and
    treatments.

    You cannot get from A to B, except in your own imagination. And I'm
    supposed to do what? Change my clinical practices because of your
    fantasies?

    Get a grip on reality, man.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 24, 2006
    #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.