So myopia is a diease huh. It is progressive and does not stop.

So myopia is a diease huh. It is progressive and does not stop.

 

Dear Spockie,

Subject: The refractive states of the
dynamic eye.

Re: Refractive states (slightly positive
and slightly negative) are NOT
diseased states.

It is always an error to jump to
conclusions.

By not understanding the proven
dynamic behavior of the natural eye
you make the eye "defective"
when it has a normal positive
refractive states.

A lot of the problem of scientific
communication means
"re-learining" the proven behavior
of the natural eye.

But I do agree, that when you
place an over-prescribed
minus on an primate eye with
a SLIGHT negative refractive
state -- the refractive state
will simply "follow" the effect
of now BOTH the "near" enviroment,
made even "nearer" by that
minus lens -- worn all the time.

This situation is at least preventable
in that first stage.

But that is the nature of our
arguments.

Best,

Otis

 

Dear Spockie

It appears that Otis is giving medical advice above. Please disregard
Otis's postings.

Otis is not in the position to give medical advice as he is not in the
medical profession.

Thank You!

Allen

 

Dear Spockie,

Subject Use of exact words to describe what you measure.

The natural PRIMATE eye (entire population) is either
a sophisticated dynamic system -- or it is not.

I absolutly do not provide ANY medical advice -- at all.

I suggest you analyize the facts themselves concerning
the behavior of this system -- and reach your own conclusions.

If you think a scientific assessment of the natural eye's
beahvior is "medical" -- then think again.

Lieberman's mind is foggy on that issue.

That is the real nature of a discriminating mind.

Best,

Otis

 

Dear Spockie,

Here are some remarks about
"Mexican Myopia" for your interest
and understanding.

Mexican myopia report (44 %) and remarks by Don Rehm on the
tragic situation.

"When will we ever learn"?

____________________

Prevalence of Myopia among 12- to 13-Year-Old
Schoolchildren in Northern Mexico.

Optometry & Vision Science. 80(5):369-373, May 2003.
VILLARREAL, GERARDO M. MD; OHLSSON, JOSEFIN MD, PhD; CAVAZOS,
HUMBERTO MD, PhD; ABRAHAMSSON, MATHS MScEE, PhD; MOHAMED, and
JESUS H. MD, PhD

Abstract:

Purpose: The aim of this article was to report the prevalence
of refractive errors, mainly myopia, among 12- to
13-year-old children in a metropolitan setting in
Mexico.

Methods: A total of 1035 schoolchildren were examined in a field
study in Monterrey, Mexico. The examination included
best-corrected visual acuity and refraction during
cycloplegia. A sample of the children was sent to a
pediatric eye clinic and underwent cycloplegic refraction
with an autorefractor.

Results: We found a prevalence of myopia ( > = - 0.5 D SE )
of 44%, whereas bilateral myopia was present in 37% of
the children. In the total sample, high myopia ( >
= - 5D) was found in 1.4%. The prevalence of myopia was
significantly higher in girls. Only 20% of children
with bilateral myopia used prescription glasses; 8% had
prescribed glasses, but did not use them. Hyperopia ( >
= + 1 D ) was present in 6.0% of the total population,
and astigmatism ( > = - 1.5 D ) was present in 9.5%.

Conclusions: The prevalence of myopia among 12- to
13-year-old children in Mexico is high. The
majority of cases are low grade, and a large number
of the myopic children do not have, or do not use,
prescription glasses.


++++++++

Dear Don and open minded scientific friends,

Truly incredible.

These ODs make field-trips and then discover 44 percent
nearsighedness Mexico.

The same thing happend with the eskimos running 88 percent.
Gee wiz -- someone should do somgthing by gosh. But not the OD.
And not the child. If fact no one does ANYTHING, except sit at
their computer and type "complaints" about it.

The ODs then go "home" and publish a "gee wiz" statement,
and go back to over-prescribing the minus.

This trgically described BOTH the OD AND the general public.

It would be nice if they just SUGGESTED the possiblity of
true prevention with the plus on the threshold -- as the
second-opinion. Is that asking too much?

Best,

Otis

=========

What gets me is statements from people in the far east saying
"we shouldn't teach our kids to read so soon" or "We should cut
back on their homework."

Why can't they take the next step and think of plus lenses?
I think that day is coming.

Don

 

please provide the scientific data on the human eye which shows that
minus lenses cause an acceleration in myopia and that plus lenses
reduce it.

please also provide any data on human eyes to the contrary so that you
can assure all the objective thinking people here that you are indeed
truly informed of all the evidence, that you have considered it all,
and that you have made a corrective and objective assessment when you
offer your advise.

 

That's right, plus lenses really helped these kids stop going myopic.

Have you read the literature that says that blurring people out makes
them go more short sighted more quickly??

dr grant

 

One may have a tendency to blur concepts.

Wearing reading glasses for distant vision does not tend to seem
a good idea. But proper reading glasses for myopia-prone adolescents
may make some sense.

 

"One may have a tendency to blur concepts.

Wearing reading glasses for distant vision does not tend to seem
a good idea. But proper reading glasses for myopia-prone adolescents
may make some sense. "

---------

Sorry dicky but the only concept blurred was yours. dr. grant is
right-- there is evidence that suggests undercorrecting myopes may
worsen the situation.

the best evidence says keep a sharp retinal image all the time

this is why people like Otis might be dangerous.

 

I don't think you grasp the concept. Did I invoke undercorrection?
Did I mention myopes? Well maybe I should have pointed out that
"reading glasses" means glasses to be used for reading. Proper, in
that context means appropriate to the refractive state of the wearer,
and such as to fool the eyes into thinking near objects are distant.

There is much fuzziness here.

I am definitely for that.

He might be, then again he might not be. He is too old to do much
damage, but I think that Ace may become an optometrist.

 

No, just kids predisposed to myopia. You guys seem really hellbent on
distortion.

Ordinary (hopefully competent) refractions, maybe one to start, and the kid
checks back if he finds some difficulty reading the small letters on the
black board. Of course, if parents think they are going to have to pay $300
for eyeglasses on a regular basis, there will not be much interest. But there
is always Zenni and a few more. And Walgreens readers for some, if not
most. But maybe base-out prisms -- that is something to think about.

Just to be clear, I do not think that reading glasses should be used for anything
but reading and similar close work. And I strongly doubt that myopia, once
it occurs, is reversible. But progression may be slowed or halted.

I know, Mike, you want to sell loads of those designer frames and Trivex
lenses with AR coating and I want to wish you loads of luck.

 

Never going to happen. Unless he grows up. But I don't think he is
that young. To be become an OD, you need to go to school for a long
time. At school, they expect that you will listen and learn, not tell
the teachers how things work, especially when you don't know.

 

LOL!

DrG
www.leukoma.com

 

Or you can be one on TV, on the Internet. You can be personally
trained by the opthamologist whose refractions and tests you are
doing. Well, maybe not quite an OD. Call it OS to further
equivocate their lexicon. (I can't mention what I take OS to stand
for in this context.)

With regard to reading glasses for adolescents predisposed towards myopia

It took quite a while to figure it out about the planets and the sun.

That is another thing that has never been shown. It I do not see why
it should if it is done right. Anyway, I do not think it is too big a deal
to figure out which kids are on the verge of myopia. We certainly would
not want to do it for hyperopes.

Yes, it is hard to get kids to wear eyeglasses, even if just for reading. I'd
guess that would be a factor in why the alleged studies have failed. As
far as expense is concerned, single-vision eyeglasses start at ~ $19, and
refractions done, like in the military or at an HMO, by a technician, can
cost very little. Maybe school nurses could be trained. They are not
always stupid.

Well, it does keep the discussion going, doncha agree?

 

dicky,

lets not be fuzzy about this point-- i thought you already knew it--
plus readers don't slow or prevent myopia progression. if they did
then then your idea would be great but its been shown that they don't.
neither does bifocals, contacts, overcorrection, and anything else
thats been tried with the exception of some recent experiments that
suggest that anti-muscarinic eye drops might help.

you are likely confused because you pay attention to otis brown too
much. otis may have been a good engineer in his day but he is totally
misinformed about the visual sciences.

 

Dear Dicky,

Subject: Skill level.

The original "Doctor" of optics degree took a two week
course -- and then you could go out and prescribe
lenses.


Best,

Otis

 

Dear Dicky,

Subject: ODs and MDs who advocate for true-prevention with plus
(and other means) -- as the second opinion.

There has been a consistent advocacy for prevention among
the ODs themselves concerning true-prevention. But, unless
the person himself "understands" advocacy for prevention,
and ACTUALLY uses the plus, not much is going to change.

Let me state that some "obsolete" words are used to
describe the refractive states of the natural eye.
Specifically, the natural eye can have a
positive refractive state (zero to +2 diopters) and
be COMPLETELY NORMAL. Calling such normal
refracitve states hyperopia, ametropia, and the like
distorts understanding of the actual performance
of the natural eye. Thus, depending on the
average visual enviroment, the eye can have a
positive refractive state, a refractive state of
EXACTLY ZERO ("emmetropia") and a negative refractive
state. (Which is generated by a minus lens -- for objective
testing.)

To further respond:

DrL> 1) It has never been shown to have reliable impact in humans who
actually
start getting myopia.

Otis> That depends completely on WHO is using the plus
and judging the results. When Dr. Colgate used a
+2.5 dipoter for reading (at 20/60) he was VERY successful.
But that was because the effort was under HIS control -- and
he had the motivation to do the work "correctly".

Dicky> It took quite a while to figure it out about the planets and
the sun.

Otis> If you dig deeper -- then that is the nature of our SCIENTIFIC
arguments. It is a matter of respecting the natural eye as
a dynamic system -- and working on true-prevention on that
basis.

Otis> Given that successful use of the plus, means that
the refractive state of the eye must move from a negative
value to a positive value, then clearing to 20/20, from -1/2 diopter
must necessarily mean that the eye' refractive state "moved positive".
This is just use of a poor definition of the natural eye's behavior
to "scare" people away from intelligent use of the plus for
true-prevention. Jeeze!
In fact, at the Naval Academy, the were going to insist
that the entering midshipman have 20/20 AND a positive
refractive state of 1.0 diopters -- because refractive
states of zero were virtually certain to move negative,
(20/25 or greater). So a positive refractive state
is a valuable "buffer" to avoid enterning into
a negative refractive state.


Dicky> That is another thing that has never been shown. It I do not
see why
it should if it is done right. Anyway, I do not think it is too big a
deal
to figure out which kids are on the verge of myopia.

Otis> In fact, given the records at BOTH Annapolis and West Point,
it is clear that a person with 20/20 (but a refractive state of zero)
will see in refraction move "down" by -1.3 diopters in four years
AVERAGE (with the spread being -1.1 D to -1.6 diopters).
(Data from the 201 personal records.) This is consistent
across the years. But the person must be informed
of this situation -- on entry. It would be up to
HIM do determine if he wished to take ANY preventive
work -- under his OWN control. It is obvious, from the
hostility on sci.med.vision, that the person will
get NO HELP, and NO SUPPORT for his own preventive
work.


Dicky> We certainly would
not want to do it for hyperopes.

Otis> There would be no point for a person with a refractive state of
+1.0 diopters.
But a person with a refractive state of -1/2 diopter (20/30) who
verifies
this with BOTH his eye chart and his own trial-lens kit -- could
make his own "preventive" decision -- if he had the motivation
for it.

Otis> That is a VAST PRESUMPTION. That would depend
on the parent's understanding of these issues. It is true
that you make yourself DEPENDENT on the person himself
for true-prevention (self empowerment) but when he realizes
that he must take personal responsibility to do ALL THE
WORK HIMSELF, then the issue can not be classes
as a "medical issues" at all.


Dicky > Yes, it is hard to get kids to wear eyeglasses, even if just
for reading. I'd
guess that would be a factor in why the alleged studies have failed.

Otis> You got this right. But I believe that the person
should go through an "educational process" on this issue
before a minus lens is ever used. I consider our
discussions on sci.med.vision to be part
of this scientific, educational process. Success or
"failure" will depend on the person himself and
NOT ON THE OD.


Dicky> As
far as expense is concerned, single-vision eyeglasses start at ~ $19,
and
refractions done, like in the military or at an HMO, by a technician,
can
cost very little.

Otis> In fact, the "readers" cost about $8, and you could train
the person himself to measure his refractive state. The only
true "show stopper" his the question of how much
does he "value" his distant vision -- at the threshold. If
he does not value it -- then he is going to
lose is in a four year college as previously described.
(This was the "education" my nephew received on this
subject. He just use the $8 "reader", monitored his
eye chart, and always passed all legal visual
acuity requirments imposed on him. Real credit
belongs to him -- for his obvious success. He
won -- everyone else "loses".)


Dicky> Maybe school nurses could be trained. They are not
always stupid.

Otis> Most people are not stupid. But is very difficult
to deal with people who have no understanding of these
issues. But even if they did, true-prevention takes
strong personal motivation -- and most people
lack that motivation. The minus is so much
"easier".

Well, it does keep the discussion going, doncha agree?

Otis> I will post my statement RESPECTING DrL in
the "confines" of his office -- and his un-proven "medical"
theory.

Otis> The reality of the natural eyes PROVEN behavior
(on a scientific level) is the real natura of our arguments.
Since sci.med.vision has SCIENCE as part of the
description -- the science of the natural primate
eye will be evaluated. And not by DrL's fiat's
against the concept.

Otis

 

You don't have a clue, Otis. You reject the current scientific
evidence in favor of old, outdated, and disproven theories. Show me a
study published within, let's say the past two decades in support of
your advocacy for the plus lens, as well as your antipathy toward minus
lenses for the correction of refractive error.

Show us that any of the natural primate studies translate into an
effective clinical method for the prevention of myopia.

DrG

 

There is some research going on into this, such as H5 antagonists,
retinal blur, and many others.

The research to date is that nothing exists to stop myopia, we cling to
some old beliefs that we ( I ) can slow the process, but there is
really no evidence to justify this, in fact the research is coming out
in droves now that we were wrong all along (god I hate that).

One thing we are seeing in the newer studies are better controls,
better scientific method and greater scrutiny of results. The glaucoma
studies of mid to late 90's were the classic examples, large,
multicentre studies, longtitudinal format, double blind, well
controlled sample groups, subject matching and so forth. They are
landmark studies as there was NO real research into progression and
prevention of progression of glaucoma at that point, and they sat down
and put together a study that we can't shoot down due to poor
methodology.

Where is your controlled studies Otis? Young was fatally flawed and his
findings have been shown in successive follow-ups to have not been
valid.

dr grant

 

My current doctor of optometry degree took four years. My Ph.D. degree in
Physiological Optics was earned separately and took 4.5 years. How long did
it take you to earn your degree in Optometry, Optics, Ophthalmology, or
Physiological Optics.

Oh, I forgot. You met Bates one day and then read a story by Raphaelson and
became a zealot overnight.

You are an old fool Otis Brown. Go back to your Yahoo newsgroup of
herbalists and psychofreaks.