FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » vision
My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [39 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Dr Judy
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 304

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:18 pm    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

Rev Jessie James wrote:
Quote:
Ace,

Good post. I'm a strong believer in "you develop what you use" theory. The human body is very adaptive especially when young. Its just common sense if you use your eyes for close work for extended periods of time, the natural state of the eye is "tuned" for close up vision. Throw in minus lenses and close work, it just makes it that many times worse.

"Common sense" isn't always right. Common sense says the sun goes
round the earth and the earth is flat. When myopes are compared to non
myopes, the single most predictive thing is family history of myopia,
with near work a distant second. In other words, a person with a
family history of myopia who doen't do near work is far more likely to
be myopic than a constant reader without a family history. Controlled
scientific studies have not found relieving near point accommodation
with plus lenses to have any significant effect on myopia development.

The idea of reading as a cause of myopia has been studied extensively
for the past twenty years. There is no evidence to support it.

Dr Judy
Back to top
BD
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 148

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:47 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

Quote:
You have seen the constant "attack" against the plus-preventive method
by the M.O. ODs on sci.med.vision.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

The only person under constant attack is Otis.

The reason he's under constant attack is that he only acknowledges
people who agree with him - to them, he'll be amazingly accomodating
(ha ha) and polite; those who disagree, or ask reasonable questions
(like the ones I asked several times concerning accomodation in
primates) GO COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IGNORED.

I say again: the only person under constant attack is Otis. The
specifics of the method he supports are by now almost incidental to the
conflict.

And, he'll REMAIN under attack until he responds to the questions he's
been asked... or simply goes away. It's a battle he brings on himself,
each time he ignores the (steadily increasing number of) questions that
his position, his website, the theories to which he adheres serve to
generate.

Anyone considering what he has to say is STRONGLY encouraged to spend
some time perusing his previous posts, and the near-zealotry contained
within.

In short: DO NOT DRINK THE KOOL-AID.

BD
Back to top
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:49 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

On 14 Jun 2006 19:54:10 -0700, "otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net>
wrote:

Quote:

Dear Jessie,

You have seen the constant "attack" against the plus-preventive method
by the M.O. ODs on sci.med.vision.

You have written up an excellent analysis.

Just as *I* have written up some EXCELLENT questions ... that you
refuse to answer. Here they are again ... for your convenience:

1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in
saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly in ANY regard?
2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
minus lens, the myopia was prevented?
3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?
4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this
claim?
5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
"proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It
doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your
position.
6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you
aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
convergence disorder?
7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm
states:
Quote:
" if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount,
or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount,
problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye
fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is,
the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort.
Normal binocular vision is interfered with."

Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?

8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success
story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins
is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and
that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?
9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?
10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is,
I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If
so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy
was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
received any money for this book.
11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you
have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?
12. Presuming that you understand the difference between
accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you
please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES
axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES
axial-length myopia
13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
please provide it?
14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have
any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think
it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that
he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his
website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as
inducements to sell both your and his book?
15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though
your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she
is, at this time, a myope?
16. I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of
the myopia progression studies that you lie about
[http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/62.html]. Why do you
tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the
four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL? Please
explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate
studies.
Back to top
Quick
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:32 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:
Quote:
Dear Jessie,

You have written up an excellent analysis.

....it's just common sense... I was duly impressed.

Quote:
I would GLADLY PAY FOR THIS HONEST CONSULTATION OF THE
PREVENTIVE ALTERNATIVE.

$24.99 (to cover shipping and handling costs)

Quote:
Thus, a major "responsibility" would be transferred to
me -- and that is the way I would prefer to be treated.

The great state of Pennsylvania is looking into granting
your wish.

Quote:
If I choose the "easy-minus" (as I might") then that would
be the LAST I would see of my clear distant vision --
permantelty (except for Lasik).

It's OK. The other side of the cell is only 6 to 9 feet away.

Quote:
The issue is one of personal responsibility and choice.

Responsibility... yes, choice, maybe not so much.

Quote:
If we had done that with AceMan -- and he had chosen
the strong minus lens -- then Ace would have no reason
to "complain" -- at all.

Do you really think Ace's vision is his problem?

-Quick
Back to top
otisbrown@pa.net
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1447

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:54 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

Dear Jessie,

You have seen the constant "attack" against the plus-preventive method
by the M.O. ODs on sci.med.vision.

You have written up an excellent analysis.

I look for the day, when a more "open" S.O. OD will address this
issue with you -- and give you a CHOICE.

Granted true-prevention is not easy. But it does beat
the alternative.

Just remember, even professors of optometry (Theodore Grosvenor)
suggested
that we CONSIDER the use of the plus -- at a refractive state of zero,
or
slightly negative.)

I would GLADLY PAY FOR THIS HONEST CONSULTATION OF THE
PREVENTIVE ALTERNATIVE.

At the very minimum, I could say that the OD was honest and "open" with
me -- and offered to help me UNDERSTAND the necessity of systematic
use of the plus -- through the school years.

But he must also state that this is an "either-or" choice, and that
if I make the "wrong" choice -- then I lose my distant vision --
permanently.

Thus, a major "responsibility" would be transferred to me -- and
that is the way I would prefer to be treated.

If I choose the "easy-minus" (as I might") then that would
be the LAST I would see of my clear distant vision -- permantelty
(except
for Lasik).

The issue is one of personal responsibility and choice.

It is time that we develop more RESPECT for each other, and RESPECT
for your right to an informed, competent -- second-opinion.

That is the RIGHT way to do things.

If we had done that with AceMan -- and he had chosen the strong
minus lens -- then Ace would have no reason to "complain" -- at all.

Best,

Otis
Back to top
sr
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:14 pm    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in news:ncQjg.97228
$H71.10307@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Quote:

"Rev Jessie James" <Jessie@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ace,

Its just common sense ...

Wow, think how much time and money all those doctors
wasted in school and all the money and resources wasted
on clinical studies when they could have just used common
sense.

-Quick



The Only prob;em is I'cant see half as well with common sense as I can with
glasses. Which is plainly obvious from my spelling.
Back to top
BD
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 148

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:42 pm    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

Quote:
How about it folks, we should all answere Otis's posts with this single
quote---------"Why?"

I prefer Neil's approach - the same exact list of questions, following
up after every *peep* that Otis makes.
Back to top
Quick
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:57 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

"Rev Jessie James" <Jessie@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
Ace,

Its just common sense ...

Wow, think how much time and money all those doctors
wasted in school and all the money and resources wasted
on clinical studies when they could have just used common
sense.

-Quick
Back to top
Philip D Izaac
medicine forum addict


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:49 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in message
news:1150132820.949967.57430@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Dear AceMan,

Subject: Asking questions.

In pure-science -- you learn to ask the RIGHT QUESTIONS.

And in pure-science-- you learn to answere the questions, right?

And in unpure science you learn to ignore questions that may serve to
backfire on your theories, Right?

You say you have absolute but refuse to show us the proof.

Why?

How about it folks, we should all answere Otis's posts with this single
quote---------"Why?"

Roland J Izaac
Quote:



Best,

Otis
Back to top
Rev Jessie James
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:03 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

Ace,

Good post. I'm a strong believer in "you develop what you use" theory. The human body is very adaptive especially when young. Its just common sense if you use your eyes for close work for extended periods of time, the natural state of the eye is "tuned" for close up vision. Throw in minus lenses and close work, it just makes it that many times worse. As a child, I spent many hours reading. My eye doc gave me negative lenses and told me to always wear them. I became dependant and it was down hill from there. I wasn't in a family financially not able to afford new glasses every year, and it became very apparent my eyes changed at the same rate as I could afford new lenses. Classic stair step myopia. A few closed minded individuals in this group may claim this is anecdotal evidence, but when it happens to millions it has substantial evidence.

I consider myself very lucky that I had a near perfect outcome from lasik. As my lasik surgeon put it, "lasik can counteract the damage caused by improper use of negative lenses". He even stated, "I got out of the business of ruining eyes, if it wasn't for years of minus lenses you probably would not be here today for lasik". He also stressed natural vision techniques to use after lasik. After talking with him, I really felt like a total idiot for letting "mainstream optometrists" ruin my eyes in the first place.

Resistance is futile... your eyes shall be transformed into myopic orbs from evil minus lenses! ( only if you let them )

< disclaimer: I'm not a doctor, just a victim >


<acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1150097853.369166.276240@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I caught my sister wearing her -2.5 glasses for near work! She was
making some crafts and her -3 eyes should be in perfect focus at 13
inches. Yet she was wearing glasses and looking at her craft from 10-12
inches! She did occasionally look at the sewing machine which stood
about 26 inches away, but that was irrevelent as dad was doing the
sewing. She also left her glasses on when eating! I was supprised since
she really hates glasses and did NOT wear them when we went shopping,
she would rather go in a 20/250 blur and be vain! Why would she then
wear glasses for close work when she can see perfectly fine without
them and not wear the glasses she hates?

They are worse than useless for near work because when someone is
myopic, they see especially well from near as they eyes are adapted to
be in focus from near. Wearing minus for near causes excessive
accomodation and in response, the dynamic eyeball will enlongate to
increase axial myopia in an adaptive response to allievate the stress
of near work. She became myopic in the first place because of all the
near work she did. Now shes inducing more myopia and when I pointed
this out, my sister became rude and didnt care that shes making her
eyes worse.

Guess she will need stronger contacts and glasses pretty soon! Shes 19
so hopefully her eyes arent going to go "down" rapidly into stair-case
myopia. They can still inch down gradually, a quarter diopter here and
there then stronger correction to repeat the cycle. I bought her -2.5
glasses which was the right power last year. I also let her try my
-3.25 computer glasses and she said they were too strong. Guess what?
Her -2.5 glasses are a little weak(but still corrects well) and she
said my -3.25 glasses were great! Several months ago she was measured
with a spherical equivalent of -3(-2.5 -.75 and -2.75 -.75 to be exact)
I read that the human eye easily gets worse in childhood and early
teens. It tends to slow down at age 18 to 21 but can still worsen some.
In your 20s, your eye should be fairly stable but can worsen with the
stress of near work, espeically if you leave your minus lens on to
induce more myopia. Its common for college students to become half to
one diopter more myopic in their four year term. My sister could make
herself a -4 to -4.5 thruout her college years with bad vision habits.

My brother became a little myopic then it stopped worsening because he
never wears glasses except to drive or on other rare occasions. He does
lots of near work which is why he became myopic but without the
wretched evil minus lens to keep the cycle, he has stabalized at -1.25
in the better eye, -1.75 in the worse. This is not bad enough to need
glasses except for driving due to legal restrictions. I was not told
about the evil minus lens and vision improvement so I went down till I
was a high myope at -6 when I was 21. My vision held steady and has
improved in the last year and a half and is now -4.75 or -5 in the
worse eye and a bit better in the other, thanks to natural vision
improvement. I think I can ultimately get to about -3.5 or whatever
amount of my myopia is axial. When epithelial thinning gets discovered,
ill get it to reduce to -2 and this will nearly end my dependancy on
glasses! Even if there is nothing that can be done(lasik is too risky
to be an option) ill just live at -3.5 and be content in the fact I
dont need readers ever. -3.5 will be a huge improvement from -6. My
sister was warned and she doesnt care, probably because shes a contact
wearer so the problems are downplayed. She will be in trouble once she
loses tolerance to contacts and be faced with strong glasses(about -4),
going with 20/400 uncorrected vision or getting lasik or whatever
surgury is out by then.


http://www.chinamyopia.org/stopmyopiaenglish.htm


If you have been wearing glasses for several years and over
-3.00 D, you probably have a case of axial-length myopia. It is
impossible to shorten the elongated eyeball with the fogging-method
(plus lens) to reverse this myopia. However, the lens is significant
to prevent further myopic development as well as to reduce some part of
your myopia over a period of time.

Acquired myopia appears in school children of 7 to 9 and
progresses with age. Almost every myope has gone through the agony of
changing minus-lens glasses yearly during the course of elementary and
secondary school.

The reason behind this threshold-myopia is that the eye at
this young age is still developing. The layers of eyeball coating
are relatively fragile compared with adult eye. Minus-lens glasses are
given to children on the threshold of nearsighted and they are
encouraged to wear them all the time.

Near point stress is significantly increased when the minus
lens are worn at near work -- causing rapid vision deterioration,
that is then followed by eyeball elongation.

Generally, myopia stabilizes after reaching maturity by age
20.

In order to avoid getting into high myopia (over -6.00 D),
myopes should adopt preventative measures (how to prevent
nearsightedness) designed to relieve near point stress.

Myopia is a natural (physiological) process that the eye uses to
adapt to the excessive near focal environment. It develops because of
the way you use your eyes, and is much more prominent in young people.

The simplest way to avoid near focal environment is to give
up all reading or any close work. This is impracticable in our
modern world requiring literate and educated citizens.

Fogging with plus lens is an alternate method that allows the
near focal environment to be moved "into the distance". This
process "relaxes" the and removes the stress of prolonged close work.
The method is simple, easy and economic.
Method should be implemented with incipient Myopes below -3.00 D.
These children should take off their (minus-lens) glasses for any near
work.


Why? The glasses are provided for use at distance 20 feet
and greater. You can figure out how tired the eye becomes if you use
the minus-lens glasses at any distance shorter than 20 feet
--especially at 1 to 2 feet when doing near work. It is the major
reason accounting for your you vision shows rapid vision
deterioration when wearing these glasses. This is especially true in
young children.

Myopes over -3.00 D should consider two pairs of glasses. One for
far and the other for near. The full power one is for emergency or
driving. The other one should be reduced by 1 to 2 diopter for
comfortable near work. You will not experience too
much tiredness and fatigue with the use of the reduced prescription
glasses -- after your whole-day work in front of a
computer.

It is simpler for contact lens wearers to put on a pair of
plus-lens (+1.00 to +2.00 depends on situation) glasses any time you
are doing near-work. Such glasses have a magnifying effect and you
will see will everything larger. The stress caused by the intensive
near-work is greatly reduced by the use of the plus in this manner.
Back to top
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:15 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

On 13 Jun 2006 20:35:49 -0700, "otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net>
wrote:

[sssnip]

But skip the anecdotal BS and answer the questions:

1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in
saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly in ANY regard?
2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
minus lens, the myopia was prevented?
3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?
4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this
claim?
5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
"proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It
doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your
position.
6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you
aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
convergence disorder?
7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm
states:
Quote:
" if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount,
or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount,
problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye
fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is,
the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort.
Normal binocular vision is interfered with."

Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?

8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success
story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins
is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and
that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?
9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?
10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is,
I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If
so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy
was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
received any money for this book.
11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you
have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?
12. Presuming that you understand the difference between
accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you
please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES
axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES
axial-length myopia
13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
please provide it?
14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have
any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think
it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that
he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his
website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as
inducements to sell both your and his book?
15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though
your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she
is, at this time, a myope?
16. I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of
the myopia progression studies that you lie about
[http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/62.html]. Why do you
tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the
four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL? Please
explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate
studies.
Back to top
otisbrown@pa.net
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1447

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:35 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

Dear AceMan,

Think about this:

Long after these M.O. OD have retired, and Neil D. Brooks has
crashed his mountain bike into a pine tree in San Diego (15
years from now), only YOU and YOU ALONE are going
to make a plus-preventive decision for your child.

We all will have gone our separate ways -- for certain.

So you will have to think about what you PERSONALLY
wish to do for their long-term visual welfare.

As you know, I posted a statement by an E.E.
in Ontario -- who "figured this out" for his kids.

The result -- the consitently used the plus
and kept their refractive STATE and a reasonable
POSITIVE VALUE.

So, AceMan, that is your "Mission Impossible": task -- if
you should decide to accept it.

This message, and the M.O. ODs on sci.med.vision
will evaporate in 15 seconds.

Think for yourself.

Best,

Otis

++++++++

Quote:

I know you mean well but really your posts are worse than useless and
only serve to frustrate the genuine optometrists, doctors and 'patients'
(for want of a better term) who contribute this group. You will gain
much more respect if you better yourself in other areas of your life.

Dom




Quote:

If you call preaching me being worried about her eyes. I still shake my
head thinking about it, but there is nothing more I can do. My sister
has made the choice to ruin her eyes and doesnt care. She gets instant
gratification from contacts so she doesnt understand whats so bad if
her myopia gets worse. She will regret her very bad eyesight in the
future and wished she had listened, if she did her eyes would be so
much better and she may not even need correction. I wish someone had
told me about the evil minus lens. As Otis has said numerous times and
as proof has been presented, near work and the minus lens causes
nearsightness. I did alot of near work and overused the minus lens so
my eyes have paid the price. Save yourselves!
Back to top
p.clarkii@gmail.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 247

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:32 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
I caught my sister wearing her -2.5 glasses for near work! She was
making some crafts and her -3 eyes should be in perfect focus at 13
inches. Yet she was wearing glasses and looking at her craft from 10-12
inches!

snip

Quote:
Guess she will need stronger contacts and glasses pretty soon!

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

why don't you spend some of the time you take writing such long droning
posts to review some of the research thats been done. studies have
compared groups of myopes who take their glasses off to do near work
versus those who leave them on. the results show no difference in
myopia progression. thus your suggestion to your sister is without
merit. but you can believe whatever you want.

for someone with such a huge IQ you aren't too bright.
Back to top
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:23 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

On 13 Jun 2006 20:17:26 -0700, "otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net>
wrote:

Quote:

Dear AceMan,
[ssssnip]


Come on, Otis. Why not answer my questions???

1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in
saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly in ANY regard?
2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
minus lens, the myopia was prevented?
3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?
4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this
claim?
5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
"proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It
doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your
position.
6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you
aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
convergence disorder?
7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm
states:
Quote:
" if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount,
or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount,
problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye
fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is,
the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort.
Normal binocular vision is interfered with."

Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?

8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success
story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins
is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and
that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?
9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?
10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is,
I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If
so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy
was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
received any money for this book.
11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you
have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?
12. Presuming that you understand the difference between
accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you
please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES
axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES
axial-length myopia
13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
please provide it?
14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have
any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think
it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that
he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his
website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as
inducements to sell both your and his book?
15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though
your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she
is, at this time, a myope?
16. I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of
the myopia progression studies that you lie about
[http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/62.html]. Why do you
tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the
four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL? Please
explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate
studies.
Back to top
otisbrown@pa.net
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1447

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:17 am    Post subject: Re: My sister is ruining her eyes and inducing more myopia! Reply with quote

Dear AceMan,

Subject: The majority-opinion -- justification.

All these M.O. ODs have to do is point to your
sister's reaction and say -- there is no way
in hell that we can get a person to use
a plus for prevention.

And you know what -- they are right.

I would suggest reading Prentice's report -- on the
use of this plus.

The statement was that the person must be
VERY CLEAR ON THE NECESSITY OF IT.

And I totally agree on that truth.

So, as I previously suggested, the responsibility
must be understood by the person who wishes
to avoid ENTRY into a negative refractive state -- or
the "cause" is indeed lost.

But, 15 years from now, when your child begins
to develop a negative refractive state -- you can
decide which of these two methods
best suits his visual future.

Take him to an over-prescribing M.O. OD?

Or take him to a prevention-minded S.O. like
Steve Leung -- and follow HIS ADVICE.

Just plan to do this before the kids visual-acuity goes
below 20/50 -- or the his eyes will be a "lost cause".

Have fun,

Otis

+++++++++


acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
Dom wrote:
acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote:
snipped huge rambling post

My God aceman you really do have verbal diarrhoea don't you! No wonder
your poor, long-suffering sister "became rude" when you started
preaching to her.

You are a young man with your whole adult life ahead of you and there's
a world out there to explore - why do you waste so much of your time
babbling through your computer keyboard - get out and do something
constructive with your life! Set yourself a goal! Do a course! Get a
job! Take up a sport! Travel overseas! Anything!

I know you mean well but really your posts are worse than useless and
only serve to frustrate the genuine optometrists, doctors and 'patients'
(for want of a better term) who contribute this group. You will gain
much more respect if you better yourself in other areas of your life.

Dom



If you call preaching me being worried about her eyes. I still shake my
head thinking about it, but there is nothing more I can do. My sister
has made the choice to ruin her eyes and doesnt care. She gets instant
gratification from contacts so she doesnt understand whats so bad if
her myopia gets worse. She will regret her very bad eyesight in the
future and wished she had listened, if she did her eyes would be so
much better and she may not even need correction. I wish someone had
told me about the evil minus lens. As Otis has said numerous times and
as proof has been presented, near work and the minus lens causes
nearsightness. I did alot of near work and overused the minus lens so
my eyes have paid the price. Save yourselves!
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [39 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:36 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » vision
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts And you wonder why so many children ruin their eyes and b... acemanvx@yahoo.com vision 2 Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:26 am
No new posts My god! Corrective Corneal Contouring orthokeratology cor... acemanvx@yahoo.com vision 10 Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:23 am
No new posts I did not know even sunglasses and binoculars cause myopi... acemanvx@yahoo.com vision 7 Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:32 am
No new posts Near work causes myopia! *genes play a factor too* acemanvx@yahoo.com vision 13 Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:44 am
No new posts Plus lenses for myopia buywheels@hotmail.com vision 10 Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:27 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0283s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0022s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]