|
|
| Author |
Message |
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject:
Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY
CONTRADICTS your hypothesis???
----
http://tinyurl.com/pueav
The Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study: Study Design and
Main Findings
Marion Hastings Edwards, Roger Wing-hong Li, Carly Siu-yin Lam, John
Kwok-fai Lew and Bibianna Sin-ying Yu
From the Centre for Myopia Research, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
PURPOSE. To determine whether the use of progressive addition
spectacle lenses reduced the progression of myopia, over a 2-year
period, in Hong Kong children between the ages of 7 and 10.5 years.
METHODS. A clinical trial was carried out to compare the progression
in myopia in a treatment group of 138 (121 retained) subjects wearing
progressive lenses (PAL; add +1.50 D) and in a control group of 160
(133 retained) subjects wearing single vision lenses (SV). The
research design was masked with random allocation to groups. Primary
measurements outcomes were spherical equivalent refractive error and
axial length (both measured using a cycloplegic agent).
RESULTS. There were no statistically significant differences between
the PAL and the SV groups for of any of the baseline outcome measures.
After 2 years there had been statistically significant increases in
myopia and axial length in both groups; however, there was no
difference in the increases that occurred between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS. The research design used resulted in matched treatment
and control groups. There was no evidence that progression of myopia
was retarded by wearing progressive addition lenses, either in terms
of refractive error or axial length. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Odis S. Brown
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:31 pm Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:35:22 GMT, Neil Brooks <neil0502@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY
CONTRADICTS your hypothesis???
----
http://tinyurl.com/pueav
The Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study: Study Design and
Main Findings
Marion Hastings Edwards, Roger Wing-hong Li, Carly Siu-yin Lam, John
Kwok-fai Lew and Bibianna Sin-ying Yu
From the Centre for Myopia Research, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
PURPOSE. To determine whether the use of progressive addition
spectacle lenses reduced the progression of myopia, over a 2-year
period, in Hong Kong children between the ages of 7 and 10.5 years.
METHODS. A clinical trial was carried out to compare the progression
in myopia in a treatment group of 138 (121 retained) subjects wearing
progressive lenses (PAL; add +1.50 D) and in a control group of 160
(133 retained) subjects wearing single vision lenses (SV). The
research design was masked with random allocation to groups. Primary
measurements outcomes were spherical equivalent refractive error and
axial length (both measured using a cycloplegic agent).
RESULTS. There were no statistically significant differences between
the PAL and the SV groups for of any of the baseline outcome measures.
After 2 years there had been statistically significant increases in
myopia and axial length in both groups; however, there was no
difference in the increases that occurred between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS. The research design used resulted in matched treatment
and control groups. There was no evidence that progression of myopia
was retarded by wearing progressive addition lenses, either in terms
of refractive error or axial length.
|
Dear Neil,
Subject: the Hong Kong study
Re: my response
Perhaps you did not read the responses to
this study by other researchers. In their responses,
they recommended that "sub-populations" be
identified as there WERE some instances where
the plus lenses DID help slow the rate of
myopic progression slightly.
The "sub-population" identified were those
subjects with "NEAR-POINT ESOPHORIA."
This is a "convergence disorder."
Oh, wait. Isn't that what YOU have been
saying all along, Neil?? I believe it is.
Since the ONLY people who seemed to show
ANY benefit with plus lenses were those WITH a
"convergence disorder," then I must also assume
that people WITHOUT such a disorder must be at
increased risk of DEVELOPING a "convergence
disorder" AS A RESULT of an inappropriate
intervention WITH the unprescribed plus lens.
Perhaps the people at the Shoxalot Institute
here in Franklin County did not give me sufficient
joules last week.
I shall return for further treatments post
haste.
Q.E.D.
Best,
Odis
Ingenue |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Tyner
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1299
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote
| Quote: | Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY
CONTRADICTS your hypothesis???
|
Uh... 133 isn't a large enough sample.
Or... The wrong subjects were chosen.
Or... None of the authors had engineering degrees.
Or... PALs aren't "plus" lenses.
Or... The subjects weren't looking down to read.
Or... Refraction and axial length are not Snellen VA.
Or... The researchers lied.
Take your pick. The results simply MUST be wrong.
-MT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:11:34 -0500, "Mike Tyner"
<mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote
Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY
CONTRADICTS your hypothesis???
Uh... 133 isn't a large enough sample.
Or... The wrong subjects were chosen.
Or... None of the authors had engineering degrees.
Or... PALs aren't "plus" lenses.
Or... The subjects weren't looking down to read.
Or... Refraction and axial length are not Snellen VA.
Or... The researchers lied.
Take your pick. The results simply MUST be wrong.
-MT
|
Many thanks, Mike. That DOES clear things right up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon Dean
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 117
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
Neil Brooks wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:11:34 -0500, "Mike Tyner"
mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote
Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY
CONTRADICTS your hypothesis???
Uh... 133 isn't a large enough sample.
Or... The wrong subjects were chosen.
Or... None of the authors had engineering degrees.
Or... PALs aren't "plus" lenses.
Or... The subjects weren't looking down to read.
Or... Refraction and axial length are not Snellen VA.
Or... The researchers lied.
Take your pick. The results simply MUST be wrong.
-MT
Many thanks, Mike. That DOES clear things right up.
|
Thing is, even when he does reply, you know rather than dealing with the
subject at hand, he'll change it to:
Dear Neil,
Subject: Proven nature of the fundamental PRIMATE eye |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:21:26 +0100, Simon Dean
<sjdean@simtext.plus.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Neil Brooks wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:11:34 -0500, "Mike Tyner"
mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote
Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY
CONTRADICTS your hypothesis???
Uh... 133 isn't a large enough sample.
Or... The wrong subjects were chosen.
Or... None of the authors had engineering degrees.
Or... PALs aren't "plus" lenses.
Or... The subjects weren't looking down to read.
Or... Refraction and axial length are not Snellen VA.
Or... The researchers lied.
Take your pick. The results simply MUST be wrong.
-MT
Many thanks, Mike. That DOES clear things right up.
Thing is, even when he does reply, you know rather than dealing with the
subject at hand, he'll change it to:
Dear Neil,
Subject: Proven nature of the fundamental PRIMATE eye
|
Meaning ... the eye of the PRIMATE that DIDN'T NEED GLASSES.
I keep recommending (quite sincerely, by the way) that Otis inject
high-dose epinephrine directly into his heart.
I mean: why should the fact that it ISN'T MEDICALLY INDICATED stop
him?
If he is a TRUE scientist, then he SHOULD perform this experiment on
himself ... to prove the scientific behavior of the FUNDAMENTAL heart
.... as he so often recommends others do by putting a non medically
indicated lens on themselves.
I don't think it should stop him. I think he should try the epi-
thing.
Just one man's opinion.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Simon Dean
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 117
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
Neil Brooks wrote:
| Quote: | Meaning ... the eye of the PRIMATE that DIDN'T NEED GLASSES.
I keep recommending (quite sincerely, by the way) that Otis inject
high-dose epinephrine directly into his heart.
I mean: why should the fact that it ISN'T MEDICALLY INDICATED stop
him?
If he is a TRUE scientist, then he SHOULD perform this experiment on
himself ... to prove the scientific behavior of the FUNDAMENTAL heart
... as he so often recommends others do by putting a non medically
indicated lens on themselves.
I don't think it should stop him. I think he should try the epi-
thing.
Just one man's opinion....
|
Dear Neil,
Subject: Lasik in Britain
Otis
P. Off
Cya
Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acemanvx@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 732
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:53 am Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
Mike Tyner wrote:
| Quote: | "Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote
Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY
CONTRADICTS your hypothesis???
Uh... 133 isn't a large enough sample.
Or... The wrong subjects were chosen.
Or... None of the authors had engineering degrees.
Or... PALs aren't "plus" lenses.
Or... The subjects weren't looking down to read.
Or... Refraction and axial length are not Snellen VA.
Or... The researchers lied.
Take your pick. The results simply MUST be wrong.
-MT
|
Good point Mike! Let me add in a few more points....
1. The subjects looked at the upper potion
2. +1.5 add is not enough when the subjects read 8 inches away they are
still inducing axial myopia to reduce the near work stress
3. Why not tell the subjects to take their glasses off everytime they
read?
4. Do what Otis suggests and have half the subjects use plus glasses(NO
minus!) and exercise their eyes to naturally improve their vision.
Way too much uncertainity to make a conclusion there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RM
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:13 am Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
Or... Conspiracy!
=========
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7v6dnQ7tgYVV-BnZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: |
"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote
Otis? What could POSSIBLY explain THIS study ... that DIRECTLY
CONTRADICTS your hypothesis???
Uh... 133 isn't a large enough sample.
Or... The wrong subjects were chosen.
Or... None of the authors had engineering degrees.
Or... PALs aren't "plus" lenses.
Or... The subjects weren't looking down to read.
Or... Refraction and axial length are not Snellen VA.
Or... The researchers lied.
Take your pick. The results simply MUST be wrong.
-MT
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:27 am Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Good point Mike! Let me add in a few more points....
1. The subjects looked at the upper potion
2. +1.5 add is not enough when the subjects read 8 inches away they are
still inducing axial myopia to reduce the near work stress
3. Why not tell the subjects to take their glasses off everytime they
read?
4. Do what Otis suggests and have half the subjects use plus glasses(NO
minus!) and exercise their eyes to naturally improve their vision.
Way too much uncertainity to make a conclusion there.
|
1) I ... uh ... believe that Mike was being facetious;
2) "Inducing axial myopia??" WTF??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RM
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:32 am Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
<acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149562434.919899.20400@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Good point Mike! Let me add in a few more points....
1. The subjects looked at the upper potion
|
Really? They ALL did that? Don't you think they were instructed as to how
to use a bifocal?
| Quote: | 2. +1.5 add is not enough when the subjects read 8 inches away they are
still inducing axial myopia to reduce the near work stress
|
+1.5D is still a significant bifocal add. It would have reduced
accommodation significantly. And if you think that accommodation causes the
eye to elongate, then explain why uncorrected hyperopes who accommodate
during every waking minute do not have their eyes "grow" until they become
myopic. And why don't low myopes who go around uncorrected continue to
progress further into myopia. And why do undercorrected myopes produce
accelerated myopia development while overcorrected myopes produce no change
at all? The simple-minded "accommodation causes axial elongation" theory
was in vogue in the 60's but its been disproven so many times that anyone
who really knows anything about physiological optics (obviously not you)
realizes its just a worthless old idea.
| Quote: | 3. Why not tell the subjects to take their glasses off everytime they
read?
|
Its been tried in separate study and it doesn't have any effect on myopia
progression.
| Quote: | 4. Do what Otis suggests and have half the subjects use plus glasses(NO
minus!) and exercise their eyes to naturally improve their vision.
|
Separate plus readers have been tried in other studies-- guess what? No
effect on myopia progression.
| Quote: |
Way too much uncertainity to make a conclusion there.
|
The only thing that's uncertain here is why you still continue to comment on
subjects you don't understand? You give yourself way too much credit for
being intelligent, or else you think the rest of the world is full of
idiots. Sorry to burst your little bubble Aceman but there are quite a lot
of intelligent AND EXPERIENCED people who have studied this problem and
understand it WAY better than you or Otis do. Its like you guys are from a
time warp from the 1960's and don't realize all the research that has
occurred over the last several decades. And since neither of you has any
clinical experience, or even a modest understanding of the anatomy and
physiology of the human eye, its rather ludicrous that you continue to post
on this topic.
Go back to eating mushrooms and looking at girly pictures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acemanvx@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 732
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:02 am Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
RM wrote:
| Quote: | acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149562434.919899.20400@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Good point Mike! Let me add in a few more points....
1. The subjects looked at the upper potion
Really? They ALL did that? Don't you think they were instructed as to how
to use a bifocal?
2. +1.5 add is not enough when the subjects read 8 inches away they are
still inducing axial myopia to reduce the near work stress
+1.5D is still a significant bifocal add. It would have reduced
accommodation significantly. And if you think that accommodation causes the
eye to elongate, then explain why uncorrected hyperopes who accommodate
during every waking minute do not have their eyes "grow" until they become
myopic. And why don't low myopes who go around uncorrected continue to
progress further into myopia. And why do undercorrected myopes produce
accelerated myopia development while overcorrected myopes produce no change
at all? The simple-minded "accommodation causes axial elongation" theory
was in vogue in the 60's but its been disproven so many times that anyone
who really knows anything about physiological optics (obviously not you)
realizes its just a worthless old idea.
3. Why not tell the subjects to take their glasses off everytime they
read?
Its been tried in separate study and it doesn't have any effect on myopia
progression.
4. Do what Otis suggests and have half the subjects use plus glasses(NO
minus!) and exercise their eyes to naturally improve their vision.
Separate plus readers have been tried in other studies-- guess what? No
effect on myopia progression.
Way too much uncertainity to make a conclusion there.
The only thing that's uncertain here is why you still continue to comment on
subjects you don't understand? You give yourself way too much credit for
being intelligent, or else you think the rest of the world is full of
idiots. Sorry to burst your little bubble Aceman but there are quite a lot
of intelligent AND EXPERIENCED people who have studied this problem and
understand it WAY better than you or Otis do. Its like you guys are from a
time warp from the 1960's and don't realize all the research that has
occurred over the last several decades. And since neither of you has any
clinical experience, or even a modest understanding of the anatomy and
physiology of the human eye, its rather ludicrous that you continue to post
on this topic.
Go back to eating mushrooms and looking at girly pictures.
|
1. You think you can tell a 7 year old what to do and expect him to
listen half the time? Right.
2. Yes but not enough to prevent incuding axial myopia. Instead of 5 to
7 diopters accomodation you use 3 to 5 diopters. A strong plus lens is
what needs to be used, not any minus, not even a weak minus. Going
without glasses alltogether is much better than using the evil wretched
minus lens. As for hyperopes, they can and do become myopic. Most of us
started as a hyperope. Otis will say that the dynamic eye has a
positive refractive state. Please read about emmetropization.
http://www.agingeye.net/myopia/3.3.5.php
Your eyes can get worse even without the evil minus lens if you do lots
of near work then your eye enlongates in an adaptive response.
Overcorrecting a myope makes you get stair-case myopia like Otis said.
I know of people who have done it on purpose to end up high myopes on
purpose because they have a thick glasses fetish and want to be like a
-10! Its already proven near work causes near sightness.
3. Maybe if you tell them not to read with their nose pressed into the
book!
4. Otis knows the plus lens will work if used correctly and at the
threshold. He is the one who speaks from experience and considers
himself the expert.
Otis knows the living eye is dynamic and will change accroding to its
environment. Its a fact myopia is far more prevelent among the readers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LarryDoc
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
In article <1149570177.007926.28130@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
4. Otis knows the plus lens will work if used correctly and at the
threshold. He is the one who speaks from experience and considers
himself the expert.
|
Hey----I've got this bridge that I can sell you, cheap. For more info,
please go to:
www.chinamyopinonamgod.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
p.clarkii@gmail.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 247
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Otis? What HAPPENED HERE????
|
|
|
look kid,
there is no simple compensatory mechanism that modulates the amount of
accommodation and adjusts the length of the eye accordingly-- at least
not without interaction with many other mechanisms that also effect eye
length and are much more potent than simple accommodative stress.
tell us why uncorrected hyperopes, who lets say are +2.00, and who
accommodate all day long just to see in the distance not to mention the
effort they expend to see at near, do not have their eyes grow longer
and become emmetropic? how come studies show that overminusing does
not cause myopia progression? how come Chung's study on underminusing
showed that insufficient minus ACCELERATED myopia?
such a compensatory emmetropization mechanism likely IS at play during
a brief period during early childhood but myopia development is a MUCH
different subject than infant eye development.
you simply are an immature kid who reads a few superficial summaries
like the link you provided below and think you understand the topic.
the fact that you buddy up to otis is further proof of your stupidity.
go study psychotropic mushrooms and female anatomy and get the hell out
of this newsgroup you twit.
acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | RM wrote:
acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149562434.919899.20400@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Good point Mike! Let me add in a few more points....
1. The subjects looked at the upper potion
Really? They ALL did that? Don't you think they were instructed as to how
to use a bifocal?
2. +1.5 add is not enough when the subjects read 8 inches away they are
still inducing axial myopia to reduce the near work stress
+1.5D is still a significant bifocal add. It would have reduced
accommodation significantly. And if you think that accommodation causes the
eye to elongate, then explain why uncorrected hyperopes who accommodate
during every waking minute do not have their eyes "grow" until they become
myopic. And why don't low myopes who go around uncorrected continue to
progress further into myopia. And why do undercorrected myopes produce
accelerated myopia development while overcorrected myopes produce no change
at all? The simple-minded "accommodation causes axial elongation" theory
was in vogue in the 60's but its been disproven so many times that anyone
who really knows anything about physiological optics (obviously not you)
realizes its just a worthless old idea.
3. Why not tell the subjects to take their glasses off everytime they
read?
Its been tried in separate study and it doesn't have any effect on myopia
progression.
4. Do what Otis suggests and have half the subjects use plus glasses(NO
minus!) and exercise their eyes to naturally improve their vision.
Separate plus readers have been tried in other studies-- guess what? No
effect on myopia progression.
Way too much uncertainity to make a conclusion there.
The only thing that's uncertain here is why you still continue to comment on
subjects you don't understand? You give yourself way too much credit for
being intelligent, or else you think the rest of the world is full of
idiots. Sorry to burst your little bubble Aceman but there are quite a lot
of intelligent AND EXPERIENCED people who have studied this problem and
understand it WAY better than you or Otis do. Its like you guys are from a
time warp from the 1960's and don't realize all the research that has
occurred over the last several decades. And since neither of you has any
clinical experience, or even a modest understanding of the anatomy and
physiology of the human eye, its rather ludicrous that you continue to post
on this topic.
Go back to eating mushrooms and looking at girly pictures.
1. You think you can tell a 7 year old what to do and expect him to
listen half the time? Right.
2. Yes but not enough to prevent incuding axial myopia. Instead of 5 to
7 diopters accomodation you use 3 to 5 diopters. A strong plus lens is
what needs to be used, not any minus, not even a weak minus. Going
without glasses alltogether is much better than using the evil wretched
minus lens. As for hyperopes, they can and do become myopic. Most of us
started as a hyperope. Otis will say that the dynamic eye has a
positive refractive state. Please read about emmetropization.
http://www.agingeye.net/myopia/3.3.5.php
Your eyes can get worse even without the evil minus lens if you do lots
of near work then your eye enlongates in an adaptive response.
Overcorrecting a myope makes you get stair-case myopia like Otis said.
I know of people who have done it on purpose to end up high myopes on
purpose because they have a thick glasses fetish and want to be like a
-10! Its already proven near work causes near sightness.
3. Maybe if you tell them not to read with their nose pressed into the
book!
4. Otis knows the plus lens will work if used correctly and at the
threshold. He is the one who speaks from experience and considers
himself the expert.
Otis knows the living eye is dynamic and will change accroding to its
environment. Its a fact myopia is far more prevelent among the readers! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:07 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Hostgator Web hosting | Loans | Free Credit Reports | Loan | Credit Card
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Medicine forums
»
vision
