Refractive STATES of the eye -- kept in the "open".

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Oct 24, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention-minded scientific friends,

    When I suggested that we use a "plus" to keep your vision
    clear through the school years -- it was because of the scientific
    facts.

    And also because of Jake Raphaelson's statement about "The
    Printer's Son".

    Prevention is not easy at all. And most prefer neglect -- to
    aggressive plus use.

    But here are the refractive STATES of the natural eye, from
    one month old -- to adolescent primates living in the "wild".

    Children will now have the opportunity to "prevent" with
    the plus -- same as Steve Leung helping his own children.

    There is nothing "easy" about any of this -- but
    it beats getting stair-case myopia from an over-prescribed
    minus.

    Otie

    +++++++++++




    What are the refractive STATES of all fundamental eyes one
    month after birth?

    The term "refractive ERROR" has a deadly effect in
    understanding the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    I strongly suggest a "transition" to using the un-biased term
    refractive-State, to avoid any confusion about respecting the eye
    as a dynamic system.

    Below is the characterization of the refractive STATES
    (absolutely normal) at the age of one month.

    Data taken from:


    _____________________________________


    Title: "Spectacle lenses alter eye growth and the refractive
    status of Young monkeys"


    Li-Fang Hung, (1) M.L.J. Crawford (2) & Earl L. Smith (1)

    (1) Correspondence should be addressed to Earl L. Smith.

    (2) University of Houston, College of Optometry, Houston, TX
    77204

    (1) University of Texas, Graduate School of Biomedical
    Sciences, Sensory Science Center, Houston Texas 77030


    Abstract: The influence of visual experience on ocular
    development in higher primates is not well understood. To
    investigate the possible role of defocus in regulating ocular
    growth, spectacle lenses were used to optically simulate
    refractive anomalies in young monkeys (for example, myopia or
    nearsightedness). Both positive and negative lenses produced
    compensating ocular growth that reduced the lens-induced
    refractive errors and, at least for low lens powers (3 diopters)
    minimized any refractive-error differences between the two eyes.
    These results indicate that the developing primate visual system
    can detect the presence of refractive anomalies and alter each
    eye's growth to eliminate these refractive errors. Moreover,
    these results support the hypothesis that spectacle lenses can
    alter the eye development in young children.


    ______________________________


    My Commentary:

    I will summarize these results -- in terms of measured
    refractive STATE of the natural eye versus a substantial change in
    visual-environment.

    11 monkeys were used in this experiment.

    The issue is the dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- and
    how to establish it by direct measurements.

    The monkeys were:

    Lens power on right eye. Left eye is zero diopters

    Name - Lens - Eye -- State at one month

    HT2 0 D (Right) Control 4.5 D

    0 D (Left) 4.5 D

    K1 +6 D (Right) 5 D

    0 D (Left) 5 D

    ME +6 D (Right) 4 D

    0 D (Left) 4 D

    NT +3 D (Right) 5.5 D

    0 D (Left) 5.5 D

    HA +3 D (Right) 4 D

    0 D (Left) 4 D

    HT3 +3 D (Right) 2.5 D

    0 D (Left) 3 D

    NO -3 D (Right) 4 D

    0 D (Left) 4 D

    DE -3 D (Right) 8 D

    0 D (Left) 6 D

    HT1 -3 D (Right) 3.5 D

    0 D (Left) 3.5 D

    DI -6 D (Right) 2 D

    0 D (Left) 2 D

    QU -6 D (Right) 5 D

    0 D (Left) 5 D


    (The monkeys were maintained with these lenses for 72 to 113
    days. The result was that the refractive STATE "followed" the
    applied lens. i.e., the eye is dynamic with respect to the
    applied lens. This "following" process is normal and essential.
    OSB)

    The method of measurement of refractive STATE:

    The refractive status was done by retinoscopy.

    To make these measurements, cycloplegia was induced by the
    topical application of tropicamide (1%, 2 drops) and the were
    anaesthetized.

    Measurements were obtained at the onset of the lens-rearing
    procedures and typically every 2 weeks thereafter.


    ___________________________________________


    The average of these values was:

    mean = 4.3

    The standard deviation (Sigma)

    SD = 1.3


    There was nothing "wrong" with these eyes.

    The 2-Sigma numbers are +6.9 diopters and + 1.7 diopters.

    This means that 96 percent of the refractive STATES of
    primates (human and rhesus) will fall between these numbers.


    The 3-Sigma (99.7 percent) of the normal refractive STATES
    will lie between +0.4 diopters to + 8.2 diopters.

    For all practical purposes, there are no "myopic" primates at
    age 1 month.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Why are these "recognition" important?

    Because when primates (and humans) are raised "in the wild",
    their refractive STATES have the following values:

    Mean +0.7 diopters

    Sigma = 0.7 diopters

    Or, given the 2-Sigma spread, 96 percent of primates in the
    wild would have refractive STATES from -0.7 to +2.1 diopters. It
    must be understood that it is possible to have 20/20 vision and
    measure a -0.7 diopter refractive STATE.

    Higher positive refractive STATES have 20/20 vision at this
    age to post adolescent.

    Thus only the negative "tail" would be "nearsighted", and
    that would be 2 percent.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Oct 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Scott Guest

    yahoo... more monkey stories.

     
    Scott, Oct 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    Hey Cletis, where is the answer to my question:

    WHERE IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ARE THE WORDS NATURAL EYE AND
    FUNDAMENTAL EYE DEFINED?

    WHY DO YOU KEEP REPOSTING THE SAME ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED
    YEARS AGO AS WELL AS REPOSTING HEARSAY THAT HAS NO SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY?

    Stop spamming the board and answer the question.

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Oct 24, 2006
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    I get it Scott.

    Objective, scientific facts are too difficult for
    you.

    Go back to sleep.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Oct 24, 2006
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    Jan Guest

    schreef:
    I have got it a long time ago layman Otis.

    You refuse to answer clip and clear on questions asked by several real
    eyecare professionals here, again and again.

    You are a coward Otis, beat the retreat please.

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

    In conclusion, I think the " old plus lens therapy junk recovered by
    Otis" should be destroyed.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Jan, Oct 24, 2006
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    Hey Cletis, where is the answer to my question:

    WHERE IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ARE THE WORDS NATURAL EYE AND
    FUNDAMENTAL EYE DEFINED?

    WHY DO YOU KEEP REPOSTING THE SAME ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED
    YEARS AGO AS WELL AS REPOSTING HEARSAY THAT HAS NO SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY?

    Stop spamming the board and answer the question.

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Oct 24, 2006
    #6
    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.