*+*+ OTIS BROWN WARNING "+"+

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Neil Brooks

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 8:53:44 PM12/30/05
to
Dear Reader,

Otis Brown is in no way qualified to give medical advice.

Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
(otis...@pa.net) writes, I urge you to review all of his previous
posts.

Otis's motives are purely financial. His book--derided by the medical
community--is what he's trying to sell you, for either $17.00 or
$24.95, depending on the website you find. The doctors who
participate on this forum have your, or your child's, best interests
in mind.

Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy,
but there IS plenty that proves him wrong. There is not a single MD
or OD who has ever acknowledged agreeing with Otis Brown's theories.

If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof
of the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression
of myopia in humans then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so
only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist.

"Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted
within the "scientific method" explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Otis's posts can be reviewed at: http://snipurl.com/i7k2

The results of clinical trials of using plus lens therapy to prevent
the progression of myopia can be found at (hint: it did not work):

http://snipurl.com/fij0

http://snipurl.com/fimq

http://snipurl.com/fimr

The details of a proper, controlled test have been proposed and can be
reviewed at the following site, beginning with Page 40, Section 7(A)
and continuing through Page 42:

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/40.html

The remainder of this text
(http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html) provides significant
information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory.
Much, in fact, directly contradicts it.

Don't waste your time with Otis Brown. Don't waste your money with
Otis Brown. Take your children to a qualified optometrist or
ophthalmologist.

--
Live simply so that others may simply live

otis...@pa.net

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 9:53:22 PM12/30/05
to

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: I no longer "sell" a book.

Re: I have placed the book on i-see
FOR FREE. It is not worth the effort.

Re: The information is for your
own personal benifit -- if you can
use it. If not -- don't bother.


Neil> Otis's motives are purely financial. His book--derided by the


medical
community--is what he's trying to sell you, for either $17.00 or
$24.95, depending on the website you find.

Otis> A long time ago. The book is now
for free as stated above. I suggest
reading it -- and reaching your
own conclusions BEFORE you
begin wearing a minus lens.

Otis> The preventive approach is
advocated by second-opinion ODs,
and they will send you to my
site -- if you wish to use the
preventive technique. This
saves them a great deal
of time in this review. Further
the cost of true-prevention
is low. I do suggest that
you have your eyes checked by
an ophthalmologist BEFORE you
do anything. Once the issue
is that your eyes have a SLIGHT
negative refractive status you
MIGHT be able to "clear" by
your own understanding and
efforts. This is in conformance
with the scientific results
achieved in the Oakley-Young
study.

Neil> The doctors who


participate on this forum have your, or your child's, best interests
in mind.

Otis> That is true -- they do what they
have been taught, and indeed will
even put their own children in a
strong minus. But the second-opinion
ODs have learned from the Oakley-Young
study, and know that they must
start their own children in the
"plus" when the child dips
slightly into nearsighedness (a
negative refractive state of the
natural eye.)

Otis> You should be provided with
this type of information before
your child is put into a strong minus -- in
my opinion as an engineer.

Otis> Make you own choice and
decision accordingly.

Best,

Otis

A Lieberman

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 11:01:37 PM12/30/05
to
On 30 Dec 2005 18:53:22 -0800, otis...@pa.net wrote:

> Otis> You should be provided with
> this type of information before
> your child is put into a strong minus -- in
> my opinion as an engineer.

Since when are engineers qualified to give medical advice. It appears by
the words, "strong minus" that implied medical advice is being given.

Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and
not in any position to give medical advice.

Thank you!

Hmmmm Just curious, what is strong minus -1 -10 -100???

Allen

CatmanX

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 11:08:03 PM12/30/05
to
Ahhhh, you are wrong Allen.

Every engineer I have ever tested has told me how to do my job. They
all know what their prescription is and what I should be prescribing.

I really should ask each patient coming in if they are an engineer and
when answered in the affirmative, hand over a prescription pad and get
them to self prescribe.

I don't know why 4 years of optometry school and 15 years of postgrad
study were worth doing, I should have done an engineering degree and I
would be doubly qualified.]

dr grant

CatmanX

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 11:10:48 PM12/30/05
to

> Hmmmm Just curious, what is strong minus -1 -10 -100???


There are 2 definitions:

1) One that outstinks a good washed rind cheese, or well used sport
socks left in a sport bag for a few weeks in the trunk of your car in
winter,

2) a minus that can do 100 push-ups and 5 chin raises and 100 sit-ups
in one session.

LOL

grant

Mike Tyner

unread,
Dec 30, 2005, 11:15:46 PM12/30/05
to

"CatmanX" <gra...@connexus.net.au> wrote

> Every engineer I have ever tested has told me how to do my job. They
> all know what their prescription is and what I should be prescribing.

I had a very pleasant encounter with a mechanical engineer today.

He started off by telling me how he has a problem with that part of the exam
where "1 and 2" are the same.

I think he left quite happy, once he understood that it doesn't have to be
confusing.

Fortunately, at 49 years old, there aren't so many situations where "1 and 2
are the same."

I have learned a lot about handling engineers. I happily show them the axis
knob and let them confirm my JCC results, or let them use the sphere wheel
to demonstrate plus-to-blur-then-one-click-minus.

-MT


Charles

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 11:48:28 AM12/31/05
to
A Lieberman wrote:

> On 30 Dec 2005 18:53:22 -0800, otis...@pa.net wrote:
>
> > Otis> You should be provided with
> > this type of information before

You guys seem really obsessed with Otis. What's the deal? Some of
what he says makes sense to me, but all I hear from the pros is that
he's not a pro - thus his ideas should be ignored. Why not address
what he says instead of just flashing credentials? I've gone to plenty
of doctors who don't seem especially bright. Just because you have
some extra letters after your name doesn't automatically mean you know
everything.

I'm an engineer too by the way. It seems that many doctors and
optometrists just want people to go along like sheep and not question
them. I guess engineers annoy (some) doctors because they want to
understand what's going on. Thing is, I question the understanding of
any doctor who can't explain to me what he's up to.

If you can't explain something to an "intelligent layman", you might
question how well you really understand it yourself.

Don't get me wrong, Otis seems kind of strange to me too; mostly
because he has suggested myopia prevention stuff to me on more than one
occasion when I'm not even myopic...

> > your child is put into a strong minus -- in
> > my opinion as an engineer.
>
> Since when are engineers qualified to give medical advice. It
> appears by the words, "strong minus" that implied medical advice is
> being given.
>
> Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical
> profession and not in any position to give medical advice.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Hmmmm Just curious, what is strong minus -1 -10 -100???
>
> Allen

--

Neil Brooks

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 11:57:20 AM12/31/05
to
"Charles" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>A Lieberman wrote:
>
>> On 30 Dec 2005 18:53:22 -0800, otis...@pa.net wrote:
>>
>> > Otis> You should be provided with
>> > this type of information before
>You guys seem really obsessed with Otis. What's the deal? Some of
>what he says makes sense to me, but all I hear from the pros is that
>he's not a pro - thus his ideas should be ignored. Why not address
>what he says instead of just flashing credentials?

We've disputed his disproved notions thousands of times. He doesn't
ever answer the criticism.

What you've been taken in by here, Charles, is style over substance.
Otis is the kindly old gentleman ... whose theory has been disproven
time and again in humans. All we ask is that he prove it or stop
asserting it as fact ... and that he stop prescribing without a
license. He's currently being investigated for that.

>I've gone to plenty
>of doctors who don't seem especially bright. Just because you have
>some extra letters after your name doesn't automatically mean you know
>everything.

When you claim to be a scientist, but can't abide the scientific
method, what does that say for you?

>I'm an engineer too by the way. It seems that many doctors and
>optometrists just want people to go along like sheep and not question
>them. I guess engineers annoy (some) doctors because they want to
>understand what's going on. Thing is, I question the understanding of
>any doctor who can't explain to me what he's up to.

Have you actually heard the doctors on this group unwilling to
question? What I've seen them say, countless times, is that the data
doesn't support Otis Brownstein's conclusions.

Your experience with *other* doc's is irrelevant to this point and
seems to prejudice your position.

>If you can't explain something to an "intelligent layman", you might
>question how well you really understand it yourself.

Again, you're taking the point somewhere else based on outlier
experiences. I'm quite impressed with the explanations given by Dr.
Leukoma, Mike Tyner, and Bill Stacy (et al).

>Don't get me wrong, Otis seems kind of strange to me too; mostly
>because he has suggested myopia prevention stuff to me on more than one
>occasion when I'm not even myopic...

When your only tool is a hammer, the world looks strangely like a
nail.

Otis has hurt people ... even people on this forum. His suggestions
induced monocular diplopia in a gentleman who is a military pilot.

Otis's ideas are the siren song because they sound "too easy not to
try," but--as a non-medical person who does NOT bear the
responsibility for his phuque-ups, he doesn't have to be right, or
have a conscience. He only has to be (mis)guided by his pig-headed
faith that he is right while all the data and the universe of eye
doctors are all wrong ... about something that has been touted for
many generations.

Snake oil salespeople pi$$ many people off. Wannabe doctors (or
pilots) who hurt people to assuage their psychoses pi$$ people off.

People who come to SCI.MED.vision and practice no science, but DO
practice medicine (unlicensed. He IS being investigated) pi$$ people
off.

A Lieberman

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 12:13:01 PM12/31/05
to
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:48:28 GMT, Charles wrote:

> I'm an engineer too by the way. It seems that many doctors and
> optometrists just want people to go along like sheep and not question
> them. I guess engineers annoy (some) doctors because they want to
> understand what's going on. Thing is, I question the understanding of
> any doctor who can't explain to me what he's up to.

Hi Charles,

The difference for what you are saying and what Otis is doing are two
different things.

You are asking for clarification of something if there is something
questionable about your medical treatment. And you should do this, so your
treatment is understandable to you.

Otis is blatantly giving medical advice without medical credentials.

He is telling people to do something with their vision, in which I don't
see you doing that.

It's one thing to give an opinion, but to tell someone they should use a
plus lens to a person who has a visual impairment sure does sound like
medical advice to me.

Allen

Neil Brooks

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 12:12:52 PM12/31/05
to
A Lieberman <lieb...@myself.com> wrote:

>It's one thing to give an opinion, but to tell someone they should use a
>plus lens to a person who has a visual impairment sure does sound like
>medical advice to me.

... and I'm willing to wager that the Pennsylvania State Board of
Optometry and the Franklin County District Attorney's office will
agree.

otis...@pa.net

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 12:15:44 PM12/31/05
to

Dear Charles,

I am certain that the concept of "prevention" would have
"sounded strange" to me also -- as a young child.

But there is a "learning process" involved. And that is
the real issue. What is pure medicine, and
what is pure "engineering"?

These ODs tell us that a plus can not be effective for
true-prevention. They then say "trust me" -- while
totally ignoring the second-opinion that says
that -- under proper circumstances -- a negative
refractive state CAN BE PREVENTED.

I have posted the Oakley-Young study which is
good clinical science.

The study suggest in strong terms, that if you ever
want to AVOID getting into nearsighedness (part
of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye) you
should review the concept and make up your
mind as to what you wish to do about it.

Life is short -- so enjoy our analytical conversations.

Best,

Otis

Neil Brooks

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 12:20:06 PM12/31/05
to
"otis...@pa.net" <otis...@pa.net> wrote:
>I have posted the Oakley-Young study which is
>good clinical science.

IF your child has near-point esophoria.

>The study suggest in strong terms, that if you ever
>want to AVOID getting into nearsighedness (part
>of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye) you
>should review the concept and make up your
>mind as to what you wish to do about it.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie. To claim anything from the study other than
the benefit inured to esophoric kids is a balls-out lie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Stop lying, Uncle Otie.

Charles

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 12:22:04 PM12/31/05
to
Neil Brooks wrote:

>
> We've disputed his disproved notions thousands of times. He doesn't
> ever answer the criticism.
>
> What you've been taken in by here, Charles, is style over substance.
> Otis is the kindly old gentleman ... whose theory has been disproven
> time and again in humans. All we ask is that he prove it or stop
> asserting it as fact ... and that he stop prescribing without a
> license. He's currently being investigated for that.
>

Certainly not! I find his "style" terribly annoying. As you say, he
doesn't seem to engage much in direct conversation.

As for disproving his theories, maybe you have. I check this forum
only periodically and may have missed it. What I've seen is "show us
the evidence". Lack of evidence neither proves nor disproves his
theory.

I'll go ahead and mention what I find believable in his theory: It
seems to be accepted that prolonged close work can cause myopia, is
that correct? If so, presumably this is from the muscles of the eye
elongating the eye for prolonged periods of time, after which it
doesn't fully rebound. Now, if you wear a distance prescription while
doing close work, won't the effect be magnified? The eye will have to
strain harder against the extra "minus", elongating it further than
would be required if the extra minus were not present. By the same
token, wearing extra plus for close work could relax the muscles of the
eye and possibly prevent myopia from developing.

I acknowledge I am very new to this subject and don't know much, but it
sounds reasonable - reasonable enough to deserve a thoughtful critique.

>
> Have you actually heard the doctors on this group unwilling to
> question? What I've seen them say, countless times, is that the data
> doesn't support Otis Brownstein's conclusions.
>

Is there data disproving it, or only a lack of study to prove it?

> Your experience with other doc's is irrelevant to this point and


> seems to prejudice your position.
>

Perhaps. I just need to seek out docs who are willing to answer my
questions, or even listen to me when I come in armed with some
information or half-baked theories I got off the internet. ;)

>
> Otis has hurt people ... even people on this forum. His suggestions
> induced monocular diplopia in a gentleman who is a military pilot.
>

> ...


>
> People who come to SCI.MED.vision and practice no science, but DO
> practice medicine (unlicensed. He IS being investigated) pi$$ people
> off.

If he has hurt people, he ought to be liable for that (as should people
with credentials). I'm pretty skeptical about charging him for the
crime of giving his opinions though. What's next? Charging people for
recommending certain diets or exercise regimens? The internet is the
place where everyone, including crackpots, can give their opinions. I
want to hear all of them, not just the mainstream view.

Honestly, people should know better than to take medical advice from
one lone voice on sci.med.vision. Not that Otis shouldn't take some
responsibility for it (and it depends on how forceful he was in his
recommendations), but people generally understand that they need to get
this type of stuff from multiple sources when it comes from the
internet.
--

Neil Brooks

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 12:27:53 PM12/31/05
to
"Charles" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>>
>> We've disputed his disproved notions thousands of times. He doesn't
>> ever answer the criticism.
>>
>> What you've been taken in by here, Charles, is style over substance.
>> Otis is the kindly old gentleman ... whose theory has been disproven
>> time and again in humans. All we ask is that he prove it or stop
>> asserting it as fact ... and that he stop prescribing without a
>> license. He's currently being investigated for that.
>>
>
>Certainly not! I find his "style" terribly annoying. As you say, he
>doesn't seem to engage much in direct conversation.
>
>As for disproving his theories, maybe you have. I check this forum
>only periodically and may have missed it. What I've seen is "show us
>the evidence". Lack of evidence neither proves nor disproves his
>theory.

If you read the original post on this thread, you'll find at least a
few of the relevant links.

>I'll go ahead and mention what I find believable in his theory: It
>seems to be accepted that prolonged close work can cause myopia, is
>that correct? If so, presumably this is from the muscles of the eye
>elongating the eye for prolonged periods of time, after which it
>doesn't fully rebound. Now, if you wear a distance prescription while
>doing close work, won't the effect be magnified? The eye will have to
>strain harder against the extra "minus", elongating it further than
>would be required if the extra minus were not present. By the same
>token, wearing extra plus for close work could relax the muscles of the
>eye and possibly prevent myopia from developing.
>
>I acknowledge I am very new to this subject and don't know much, but it
>sounds reasonable - reasonable enough to deserve a thoughtful critique.

As Mike Tyner has said here for years: it does sound reasonable. In
some primates and chickens, it even works. For whatever reason,
though, it ALWAYS fails in human trials.



>> Have you actually heard the doctors on this group unwilling to
>> question? What I've seen them say, countless times, is that the data
>> doesn't support Otis Brownstein's conclusions.
>>
>
>Is there data disproving it, or only a lack of study to prove it?

ibid

>> Your experience with other doc's is irrelevant to this point and
>> seems to prejudice your position.
>>
>
>Perhaps. I just need to seek out docs who are willing to answer my
>questions, or even listen to me when I come in armed with some
>information or half-baked theories I got off the internet. ;)

That's always the case. You should always develop a good rapport with
any doctor, but I presume you know that.

>>
>> Otis has hurt people ... even people on this forum. His suggestions
>> induced monocular diplopia in a gentleman who is a military pilot.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> People who come to SCI.MED.vision and practice no science, but DO
>> practice medicine (unlicensed. He IS being investigated) pi$$ people
>> off.
>
>If he has hurt people, he ought to be liable for that (as should people
>with credentials). I'm pretty skeptical about charging him for the
>crime of giving his opinions though. What's next? Charging people for
>recommending certain diets or exercise regimens? The internet is the
>place where everyone, including crackpots, can give their opinions. I
>want to hear all of them, not just the mainstream view.

Your slippery slope argument doesn't work here. There are limits to
free speech. When playing doctor, you run certain risks.

NOBODY on this forum is trying to suppress the douchebag's position.
We've ALL asked him to answer to the data that discounts and disproves
his assertion.

He never has. If Uncle Otie continues to trumpet the "YOU MUST DO X"
line, I feel it's important that others say "BUT X DOESN'T WORK, AND
IT MAY HURT PEOPLE."

... and the beat goes on.

>Honestly, people should know better than to take medical advice from
>one lone voice on sci.med.vision. Not that Otis shouldn't take some
>responsibility for it (and it depends on how forceful he was in his
>recommendations), but people generally understand that they need to get
>this type of stuff from multiple sources when it comes from the
>internet.

1) he's very forceful

2) do you *deal* with the general public? Have you ever dealt with
cancer patients? Have you dealt with neurotic, overly concerned
parents?? These are vulnerable people, yearning for the "easy
answer," susceptible to the notion that there is a vast conspiracy of
doctors denying this miraculous treatment to their child.

Those practitioners *hurt* (or kill) people (visit Tijuana clinics
much?). Otis *hurts* people.

Charles

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 8:07:08 PM12/31/05
to
Neil Brooks wrote:

>
> > I'll go ahead and mention what I find believable in his theory: It
> > seems to be accepted that prolonged close work can cause myopia, is
> > that correct? If so, presumably this is from the muscles of the eye
> > elongating the eye for prolonged periods of time, after which it
> > doesn't fully rebound. Now, if you wear a distance prescription
> > while doing close work, won't the effect be magnified? The eye
> > will have to strain harder against the extra "minus", elongating it
> > further than would be required if the extra minus were not present.
> > By the same token, wearing extra plus for close work could relax
> > the muscles of the eye and possibly prevent myopia from developing.
> >
> > I acknowledge I am very new to this subject and don't know much,
> > but it sounds reasonable - reasonable enough to deserve a
> > thoughtful critique.
>
> As Mike Tyner has said here for years: it does sound reasonable. In
> some primates and chickens, it even works. For whatever reason,
> though, it ALWAYS fails in human trials.
>

What part of this line of reasoning is wrong? The conclusion seems to
follow from the premises. I'll be specific and you can tell me which
part is incorrect:

1) The more time you spend with your eye muscles focussing close, the
more likey you are to develop or worsen myopia.

1b) The closer the distance of focus, the more pronounced the effect.

2) Adding plus power allows the eye to focus further away when viewing
an object at the same physical distance from the eye.

3) Therefore (based on #2) a person doing the same visual activities
(e.g. reading a certain amount of time each day) with extra plus power
will spend less time focussing closely than a person without the extra
plus power.

4) Therefore (based on #1b and #3), other things being equal, adding
plus power (for close work) lowers the likelihood of developing or
worsening myopia.

You get the idea, I think. Unless #1/1b is incorrect, doesn't
everything else follow?

Just for my knowledge, what are the studies that have disproven this
idea? Did they have some people wear preventative reading glasses and
some not, and find no difference in the development of myopia?
--

Mike Tyner

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 9:02:51 PM12/31/05
to

"Charles" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote

> 1) The more time you spend with your eye muscles focussing close, the
> more likey you are to develop or worsen myopia.

And the more myopia, the less effort is needed to focus close. Yet 80% of
Mexican myopes go uncorrected and still get nearsighted.

> 1b) The closer the distance of focus, the more pronounced the effect.

But removing the effort with spectacle lenses doesn't interrupt the
tendency.

> 2) Adding plus power allows the eye to focus further away when viewing
> an object at the same physical distance from the eye.

But children who wear plus in the form of bifocals still get nearsighted at
the same rate as those who wear full distance correction. Children who
remove glasses to read get nearsighted at the same rate as children who
leave their glasses on full-time.

> 3) Therefore (based on #2) a person doing the same visual activities
> (e.g. reading a certain amount of time each day) with extra plus power
> will spend less time focussing closely than a person without the extra
> plus power.

So why doesn't it work?

> 4) Therefore (based on #1b and #3), other things being equal, adding
> plus power (for close work) lowers the likelihood of developing or
> worsening myopia.

So why doesn't it work?

> You get the idea, I think. Unless #1/1b is incorrect, doesn't
> everything else follow?

Just because it seems logical doesn't guarantee it will work.

> Just for my knowledge, what are the studies that have disproven this
> idea? Did they have some people wear preventative reading glasses and
> some not, and find no difference in the development of myopia?

Otis is right about the one thing that hasn't been tested. TMK, nobody has
performed a trial putting plus lenses on children _before_ they start
getting nearsighted - treating 100% for the sake of the 25% that will
eventually get nearsighted. I'm looking forward to that - perhaps one day
Otis will find enough support to get it done. Hopefully they won't produce a
bunch of hyperopes.

Meanwhile we can look at the populations that _have_ been tested.

---------------
Br J Ophthalmol 1989 Jul;73(7):547-51 Related Articles, Links
Effect of spectacle use and accommodation on myopic progression: final
results of a three-year randomised clinical trial among schoolchildren.

Parssinen O, Hemminki E, Klemetti A.

Two hundred and forty mildly myopic schoolchildren aged 9-11 years were
randomly allocated to three treatment groups and the progression of myopia
was followed-up for three years. The treatment groups were: (1) minus lenses
with full correction for continuous use (the reference group), (2) minus
lenses with full correction to be used for distant vision only, and (3)
bifocal lenses with +1.75 D addition. Three-year refraction values were
received from 237 children. The differences in the increases of the
spherical equivalents were not statistically significant in the right eye,
but in the left eye the change in the distant use group was significantly
higher (-1.87 D) than in the continuous use group (-1.46 D) (p = 0.02,
Student's t test). There were no differences between the groups in regard to
school achievement, accidents, or satisfaction with glasses. In all three
groups the more the daily close work done by the children the faster was the
rate of myopic progression (right eye: r = 0.253, p = 0.0001, left eye: r =
0.267, p = 0.0001). Myopic progression did not correlate positively with
accommodation, but the shorter the average reading distance of the follow-up
time the faster was the myopic progression (right eye: r = 0.222, p =
0.0001, left eye: r = 0.255, p = 0.001). It seems that myopic progression is
connected with much use of the eyes in reading and close work and with short
reading distance but that progression cannot be reduced by diminishing
accommodation with bifocals or by reading without spectacles.


---------------
Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1982 Oct;59(10):828-41. PMID: 7148977
Attempts to reduce the rate of increase of myopia in young people--a
critical literature review.

Goss DA.

Results with, and opinions on, various experimental treatments for
increasing myopia in young people are presented and discussed. None of the
many different therapies has been shown to be consistently effective in
reducing the rate of increase of myopia. The difficulties encountered in
conducting clinical research of this nature are discussed.

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

Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1987 Jul;64(7):482-98. PMID: 3307440

Houston Myopia Control Study: a randomized clinical trial. Part II. Final
report by the patient care team.

Grosvenor T, Perrigin DM, Perrigin J, Maslovitz B.

In a randomized clinical trial designed to test the efficacy of bifocal
lenses for the control of juvenile myopia, each of 207 children between the
ages of 6 and 15 years wore single vision lenses, +1.00 D add bifocals, or
+2.00 D add bifocals for a period of 3 years. For the 124 subjects who
completed the study, the mean changes in refraction were found to be -0.34 D
per year for subjects wearing single vision lenses, -0.36 D per year for
those wearing +1.00 D add bifocals, and -0.34 D per year for those wearing
+2.00 D add bifocals. These differences were not statistically significant.

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

Ophthalmology 2002 Mar;109(3):415-21; discussion 422-4; quiz 425-6, 443
Related Articles, Links
Interventions to retard myopia progression in children: an evidence-based
update.
Saw SM, Shih-Yen EC, Koh A, Tan D.

CONCLUSIONS: The latest evidence from randomized clinical trials does not
provide sufficient information to support interventions to prevent the
progression of myopia.

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

Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Vol 40, 1050-1060, Copyright ©
1999 by Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

Tonic accommodation, age, and refractive error in children
K Zadnik, DO Mutti, HS Kim, LA Jones, PH Qiu and ML Moeschberger
College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210-1240, USA.

PURPOSE: An association between tonic accommodation, the resting
accommodative position of the eye in the absence of a visually compelling
stimulus, and refractive error has been reported in adults and children. In
general, myopes have the lowest (or least myopic) levels of tonic
accommodation. The purpose in assessing tonic accommodation was to evaluate
it as a predictor of onset of myopia.

CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to document an association between age
and tonic accommodation. The known association between tonic accommodation
and refractive error was confirmed and it was shown that an ocular
component, Gullstrand lens power, also contributed to the tonic
accommodation level. There does not seem to be an increased risk of onset of
juvenile myopia associated with tonic accommodation.

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

Optom Vis Sci 1999 Jun;76(6):363-9
Effects of spectacle intervention on the progression of myopia in children.

Ong E, Grice K, Held R, Thorn F, Gwiazda J.

The literature on myopigenesis suggests an active emmetropization mechanism
regulated by optical defocus. The strongest evidence comes from compensatory
ocular growth in response to lens-induced defocus in different species of
animals. Based on these results, it has been suggested that, however useful,
spectacle intervention for the optical correction of human myopia would lead
to its exacerbation. The present study seeks to evaluate the progression of
juvenile-onset myopia in children differentiated by their lens wear
patterns. Data from 43 myopes from our longitudinal study of refraction were
evaluated, with myopia defined as a spherical equivalent of at least -0.50
D. Refractions were obtained in the laboratory by noncycloplegic retinoscopy
performed by one experienced optometrist at regular intervals. Information
regarding the subjects' prescription lens-wearing history was obtained from
the subjects and their eye care providers. Based on their wearing patterns,
subjects were divided into four categories: (1) full-time wearers; (2)
myopes who switched from distance to full-time wear; (3) distance wearers;
and (4) nonwearers. Exponential functions were fit to the individual
refraction data. The age of onset of myopia, the mean myopia at onset of
spectacle wear, and the refractive shift over a period of at least 3 years
were derived from these fits. Results show that the 3-year refractive shifts
are not significantly different among the four groups. A comparison of the
extreme conditions, i.e., full-time vs. nonwear categories, also revealed no
significant difference when the data were corrected for age effects despite
the fact that the nonwearers exhibited an age-adjusted 3-year progression
approximately one-half that of the full-time wearers. In summary, the
present study failed to demonstrate any overall effects of spectacle
intervention on the progression of human myopia. Further investigation using
a larger sample is warranted.

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


Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 9:03:31 PM12/31/05
to
Charles,

The premises are wrong.

DrG

Glenn - USAEyes.org

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 9:22:41 PM12/31/05
to
Ye

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org

"Consider and Choose With Confidence"

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

unread,
Dec 31, 2005, 9:23:16 PM12/31/05
to
Yet another example that nothing screws up a perfectly good theory
faster than reality.

otis...@pa.net

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 12:19:39 AM1/1/06
to
Dear Charles,

As an engineer -- I learned to trust the
experimental data concerning the
natural eye's behavior -- completely.

That is the only thing that does
not "fib".

You have it correctly here, and
your logic is good.

The second-opinion ODs
(rare) now support PREVENTION
with the plus.

It is up to the informed parent
to accept it or reject it.

I always favor "informed consent"
in this matter, and would gladly:

1. Pay a man for his time -- for
this information (He could send
me to supportive websites if
he did not have the time.

2. Support for my own child, to
make certain he always uses
the "plus" correctly on the
threshold -- when it can be
effective.

This is completely ethical and
honest. If I were an OD, I would
supply this information, and
because of the obvious
hostility of this "majority opinion"
I would ask the parents to
sign an agreement about this
type of support -- so they
clearly understood the issues
involved.

A discussion of the Oakley Young
study would be in prominent
display.

I PERSONALLY wish I had
this "lecture". At least
I would have had a
"fightin chance" at effective
prevention.

Just one man's opinion.

Happy New Year,

Best,

Otis

Quick

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 12:47:30 AM1/1/06
to
otis...@pa.net wrote:

First,

> That is the only thing that does
> not "fib".

then,

> Just one man's opinion.

Why the disclaimer?

-Quick


Mike Tyner

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 12:51:37 AM1/1/06
to

<otis...@pa.net> wrote

> As an engineer -- I learned to trust the
> experimental data concerning the
> natural eye's behavior -- completely.

Engineers believe that all materials behave the same under all conditions.

In the biological sciences, we assume the opposite.

-MT


Dan Abel

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 2:16:45 AM1/1/06
to
In article <0XFtf.692138$xm3.513506@attbi_s21>,
"Charles" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:


> What part of this line of reasoning is wrong? The conclusion seems to
> follow from the premises. I'll be specific and you can tell me which
> part is incorrect:
>
> 1) The more time you spend with your eye muscles focussing close, the
> more likey you are to develop or worsen myopia.
>
> 1b) The closer the distance of focus, the more pronounced the effect.
>
> 2) Adding plus power allows the eye to focus further away when viewing
> an object at the same physical distance from the eye.
>
> 3) Therefore (based on #2) a person doing the same visual activities
> (e.g. reading a certain amount of time each day) with extra plus power
> will spend less time focussing closely than a person without the extra
> plus power.
>
> 4) Therefore (based on #1b and #3), other things being equal, adding
> plus power (for close work) lowers the likelihood of developing or
> worsening myopia.


Part of the reason that Otis appeals to some people is because his ideas
*do* seem reasonable. The main reason, of course, is that he offers a
cure for myopia.

Unfortunately, we have to add this reasonable argument to the other list
of reasonable arguments:

1. Otis likes experimental direct evidence. Try this one: go outside
on a sunny day, several times, and observe what happens to the sun. It
rises on one side, travels to the other, and then disappears, only to
reappear roughly 24 hours after it appeared before. Obviously the sun
rotates about the earth. No one could question this.

2. Take two objects, a heavy one and a light one. Drop them. The
heavy one falls faster. Direct experimental evidence shows that gravity
pulls harder on heavy objects than light ones. Obvious and
incontrovertible.

3. I have a big pickup truck. It doesn't get great gas mileage. It is
obvious that if I take off my tailgate, I will reduce wind resistance
and increase my gas mileage. I see lots of pickups on the road with no
tailgate. I see others with a mesh tailgate. They can see the obvious
also. Everybody knows this. So consumer reports gets a truck and puts
it in a wind tunnel. They test wind resistance with and without a
tailgate. The wind resistance is *less* with the tailgate on. That's
counter-intuitive. It isn't reasonable. They consult an aeronautical
engineer, who explains why wind resistance is *less* with the tailgate
on. So all those people driving around with no tailgate are actually
increasing their wind resistance and decreasing their gas mileage.

4. The plus lens. See above.

--
Dan Abel
da...@sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

Dom

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 6:12:37 AM1/1/06
to Charles

Charles you are definitely an 'intelligent layman' and your reasoning
seems reasonable! But for whatever reason it simply doesn't work. I
don't know that anyone fully understands the pathogenesis of myopia and
myopic progression (it's an area of active research), nor the reason
that a plus lens doesn't work. But we do know that it doesn't work, so
there's no point selling it to our patients.

Plenty of intelligent researchers over the years have thought that a
plus lens 'should' work and conducted experiments to test their theory -
some experiments better designed than others. While a small number of
studies may have shown a *small* effect, the consensus when you look at
all of the studies is that there is no demonstable, repeatable,
significant benefit of reading through a plus lens.

Maybe all of the big studies are flawed and in 20 years we'll have
proven that a plus lens does help. But as clinicians in 2005 (2006 now!)
we can't sell products to our patients when the latest research tells us
it is totally unnecessary.

Those who believe there is some conspiracy among optometrists (not you
Charles but some others...) should remember that from a purely financial
point of view we'd be happier if it was common knowledge that a plus
lens (reading add) prevented myopia. Then we could routinely prescribe
and sell preventative reading glasses to those at risk of myopia (those
with a family history, avid readers, those of asian descent, students,
teens, etc), and also we could sell bifocals/progressive/a separate pair
of reading glasses to those already myopic. All of which would mean more
income! So our evil scheme to make people myopic isn't really that smart
anyway.

To attempt to answer your point form premises (I won't quote references
for every sentence I write as I am a clinician not a researcher):


Charles wrote:

>
>
> What part of this line of reasoning is wrong? The conclusion seems to
> follow from the premises. I'll be specific and you can tell me which
> part is incorrect:
>
> 1) The more time you spend with your eye muscles focussing close, the
> more likey you are to develop or worsen myopia.
>

Myopia is associated with near point blur at the retina as distinct from
hours spent with eye muscles in any certain posture. If your eye muscles
(and the rest of your eyeball structure) are very good at close
focussing and give you a very clear image when reading, then you're less
likely to develop myopia. If you have a large lag of accommodation (i.e.
your eye muscles focus only just enough to make the print out without it
being perfectly clear) then you have near point blur. Clear enough to
read it, clear enough not to stimulate further accommodation (or there
is insufficient response to that stimulus), but blurry enough to
stimulate myopic progression which is a different feedback mechanism.

> 1b) The closer the distance of focus, the more pronounced the effect.
>

Seems reasonable as a closer distance might cause a blurrier retinal
image, BUT I'm not sure that this direct link has actually been
demonstrated/proven.

> 2) Adding plus power allows the eye to focus further away when viewing
> an object at the same physical distance from the eye.
>

Theoretically yes but maybe the plus lens causes your accommodation to
relax (because it can, for the reason you state just above) therefore
the same lag of accommodation or other near point blur that was there
before is still present.

> 3) Therefore (based on #2) a person doing the same visual activities
> (e.g. reading a certain amount of time each day) with extra plus power
> will spend less time focussing closely than a person without the extra
> plus power.
>

See my responses to 1 and 2 for why this doesn't follow.

> 4) Therefore (based on #1b and #3), other things being equal, adding
> plus power (for close work) lowers the likelihood of developing or
> worsening myopia.
>
> You get the idea, I think. Unless #1/1b is incorrect, doesn't
> everything else follow?
>
> Just for my knowledge, what are the studies that have disproven this
> idea? Did they have some people wear preventative reading glasses and
> some not, and find no difference in the development of myopia?

Look up the COMET myopia study. And others quoted already in this thread.


What I have said is not definitive fact but my understanding of recent
myopia research. The key points again are that mypopic progression is
certainly not fully understood but we have done many studies already and
a good clinician does not advise patients contrary to the findings of
the best research available to us.

Hope it helps.

Dom

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Jan 1, 2006, 9:15:47 AM1/1/06
to

otis...@pa.net wrote:
> Dear Charles,
>
> As an engineer -- I learned to trust the
> experimental data concerning the
> natural eye's behavior -- completely.
>
> That is the only thing that does
> not "fib".

IF you were honest, you would examine ALL the data. You even ignore
the most important part of the study you purportedly support.

DrG

otis...@pa.net

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 11:05:16 AM1/2/06
to


Dear Charles,

You are correct as an engineer who
understands the proven behavior of
the natural primate eye.

Here is a study by a medical
doctor who "cleared" vision
to exceed the legal standard
required by the DMV.

The majority-opinion studies were
run with a low-placed plus. There
it is doubtful that the kids did
much looking thorugh the low-placed
plus -- and so the conclusions
are not valid on a scientific level.

Indeed, the plus must be strong enough
to be truly effective, and the "plus"
must be adjusted by the person
himself for his habitual reading distance.
In any event, here is the second-opinion
on these studies.

Today a great mass of explict DIRECT scientific data spells out
the true effect that both a "confined environment AMD a minus lens
ultimately have on the refractive state of the fundamental eye.


Best,

Otis

_________________________________


Excerpt from Chalmer Prentice, M.D.
on prevention with plus.


The foregoing in connection with limited tests of more than
two hundred similar cases suggests an answer to that most
important question, 'What shall we do to prevent myopia in school
children and students?'

In a nomad, who is reared out of doors, who follows such
pursuits that his vision is mostly used at twenty feet and greater
distances, the nerve-impulses to the ciliary muscle become
established so that the easiest vision is for the far point, and
in many years of such use, these impulses become more or less
fixed; while the child of a higher civilization spends its life
within doors, amuses itself with toys, picture books, kindergarten
amusements and learning to read.

We will assume that such a child generally holds its book or
toy ten inches from the eyes, in which case the crystalline lens
requires a much greater convexity, or higher state of refraction
to bring about perfect vision; and this is brought about by an
increase in the ciliary nerve-impulse which contracts the ciliary
muscle. Through long continued use, this excessive impulse
becomes comparatively fixed, and in some instances refuses to
suspend itself sufficiently to bring about distant vision again,
and so myopia has set in.

The regular work of the student and those other pursuits
which require the use of the eye at the near point, tend to
perpetuate this disease and make it progressive.

Again, the important question, 'How are the advantages of a
high civilization to be attained wihout the foregoing
disadvantages?' If the eyes are to be used at a distance of ten
inches, aid them artificially by a ten inch magnifying glass; then
the nerve-impulses to the ciliary muscle will be no more than if
the patient were leading an outdoor life and viewing objects at
twenty feet or more. The nerve-centers are not called upon for so
excessive an impulse, and they become habituated to sending the
same amount of nerve-force as if an outdoor life were led.

In conjunction with this artificial aid to the ciliary
centers, it may be found advantageous to suspend, in a measure,
the excessive nerve-impulses to the interni, by the use of prisms,
base in. Under these artificial conditions, the eyes may be used
in the attainment of all the advantages of the highest
civilization while the nerve-centers are no more taxed than if out
of door pursuits were being followed.

If the little student at school or any other person using the
eyes at the near point, were to be supplied with such glasses
during the hours of study, on leaving the school room they could
be taken off and the natural use of the eye at all other times
would be quite sufficient to cultivate and establish the habit of
accommodation. At least the danger of disturbing the
accommodation would be much less than the dangers resulting to the
eyes and nerve-centers without such aid.

I simply suggest the above as a possible answer to one of the
most important questions of the day.


[The partial chapter is printed below. OSB]


The Eye in its Relation to Health

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

By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.

Chicago, A.C. McClurg & Company

Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004

----------+ | Chapter IX | +--------


The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia
which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at
the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to
reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more. In most
cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and
patience; but a few experiments after the following example will
suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is
possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by
repression at the near point.

This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes
an open question.


EXAMPLE CASES

Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
-1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of
two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
just perceptibly less.


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

Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;

...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.

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


[Comment: Anyone considering "prevention" must understand this
issue. There is no "easy way" of prevention. As
Chalmers said -- the person must fully understand this
issue. It is for this reason that I suggest full
transfer of "control" to the person himself. If he
lacks the motivation to look at the chart, and "clear"
himself, then no "third party" (i.e., OD) can do it for
the person. This is why I separate a true-medical
problem from preventing a negative refractive status in
the natural eye. I believe that the above staement
simply clarifies that point. OSB]

[Comment: We also have the "Neil Brooks" effect which must be
understood. Specifically, so people are half-psycho,
if not half-wits. These rabid people will SUE
ANY OD WHO EVEN MENTIONS PREVENTION-WITH-PLUS.
For that reason, no majority-opinion OD
will EVER help you with true-prevention -- and
I don't blame them. I would not put up with it either.
Just one man's opinion. OSB]

Neil Brooks

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 11:15:20 AM1/2/06
to
"otis...@pa.net" <otis...@pa.net> wrote:

>[Comment: We also have the "Neil Brooks" effect which must be
> understood. Specifically, so people are half-psycho,
> if not half-wits. These rabid people will SUE
> ANY OD WHO EVEN MENTIONS PREVENTION-WITH-PLUS.

I've never sued anybody in my life.

If you had a shred of honesty, it could only help your credibility.

If you refrained from using libel as your preferred persuasive tactic,
it could only help your credibility.

It's a great start to 2006 for Otis Brown, failed airline pilot,
wishing he could have made a difference as his twilight years roll by.

... and the beat goes on.

Charles

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 11:58:22 AM1/2/06
to
Dr. Leukoma wrote:

Which ones?

--

Scott Seidman

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 12:10:18 PM1/2/06
to
"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:J5Ktf.3045$M%4.1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

Absolutely not. Having learned the hard lessons, like the brittle state
of steel under cold in the Titanic, engineers understand well that things
behave differently under different conditions.

Just like I don't let the docs Otis lists in the "second opinion" column
leave an impression of what an OD does for a living, please don't assume
that Otis represents many engineers. Logical flaws are logical flaws,
regardless of discipline.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Charles

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 12:20:01 PM1/2/06
to
Thanks for all the replies. So, just for my understanding, are these
statements true?

1) The devlopment of myopia is correlated with close work (e.g. college
profs and computer programmers are more likely to develop it than
otherwise similar people who work outdoors).

2) However, it does not appear to be simplistically related to the
amount of muscular effort exerted by the muscles of the eye - and the
exact mechanism is not precisely known at this time.

Neil Brooks

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 12:22:05 PM1/2/06
to
Scott Seidman <namdie...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Just like I don't let the docs Otis lists in the "second opinion" column
>leave an impression of what an OD does for a living, please don't assume
>that Otis represents many engineers. Logical flaws are logical flaws,
>regardless of discipline.

Otis, Engineer: http://nbeener.com/Otis_Engineer.jpg

otis...@pa.net

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 2:28:30 PM1/2/06
to

Dear Charles,

Subject: Modeling the natural eye's behavior.

I am not certain what type of engineering you are in to.

But, if you designed a sophisticated auto-focused camera,
you would find that:

1. You place a minus lens on a population of these
auto-focused cameras, and the "living eye" camera
will change its refractive state to:

2. An applied minus lens.

3. An an applied "nearer" enviroment.

These are scientific answers to what is directly
measured. You are jumping to conclusions. The
natural eye simply has this proven and expected
characteristic.

It would help a lot if you used the term "refractive status",
to avoid the intense bias that exists with these ODs.

They keep on providing knee-jerk responses to the
wrong questions.

But you are right. The refractive state of the
primate eye (change of) is highly correlated
to a "shift" in its visual enviroment (in diopters.)
(Primate of adolescent eyes. This was absolutly
direct control, where the eye were placed in
a "box" with good illumination, were the
other primates were kept in cages.
Standard "drops" were used for the
refractive-state measurement.

Shortly, you will be told that you must ignore
ALL PRIMATE DATA, because the
majority-opinion ODs do not like
you getting the correct and accurate
idea about the natural (living eye's) proven
behavior.

Enjoy or engineering analysis.

Best,

Otis

Dr. Leukoma

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 3:05:00 PM1/2/06
to
I don't know what kind of engineer Charles is, but I give him a whole
lot more credit for intelligence than you do.

DrG

otis...@pa.net

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 3:45:54 PM1/2/06
to

Dear DrG,

A majority-opinion statement from a person who is
not an engineer, and does not understand
the dynamic behavior of the living eye.

Charles will have to make up his own
mind accordingly.

Otis

Quick

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 4:02:37 PM1/2/06
to
otis...@pa.net wrote:
>
> Subject: Modeling the natural eye's behavior.

Errr, now I'm having problems making my direct
correlations between posts. Here we're talking about
the "natural eye". Last time we were talking about
the "fundamental eye". Below you qualify the
"natural eye" as the "living eye" (as opposed to
dead?).

You also speak of "primates" (held in cages) and
refer to "ALL PRIMATE DATA".

(prmt) A mammal of the order Primates, which
includes the anthropoids and prosimians, characterized
by refined development of the hands and feet, a
shortened snout, and a large brain.

I got the impression in some posts that this group
was restricted to monkeys and chimpanzees (which
I understand to be different animals) and not restricted
in other posts.

Could you provide a small glossary of all these kinds
of eyes and terminology and then use them consistently
so we can follow along? I am an engineer (software) and
have found it of some importance in discussions to use
consistent and defined terminology so that all the participants
are discussing the same thing...

-Quick


imacr.gif
prime.gif
amacr.gif
lprime.gif

Dom

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 4:07:44 PM1/2/06
to Charles

Yes.

The best current theory, as I understand it, is that hyperopic blur at
the retina stimulates growth of the eyeball.

Dom

Neil Brooks

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 4:29:10 PM1/2/06
to
Dom <do...@spam.me> wrote:

Charles-

Here's a good resource for you. It lays out the current ('02)
thinking on myopiagenesis, the status of testing of proposed
intervention methods, and a set of conclusions based on known data.

They're saying what everybody *else* on this board says: most myopes
can take off their (mild plus) glasses for near work, Atropine can
help some people, used /with/ bifocals (reduced minus -- nobody else
says plus), and that Pirenzepine is pretty effective in chickens.

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1123161

OR: http://snipurl.com/l89n

HTH,

Neil

Mike Tyner

unread,
Jan 2, 2006, 6:21:45 PM1/2/06
to

"Charles" <nos...@nospam.com>

YES!

At least as it pertains to humans of an age to wear glasses.

At birth, humans show a wider variety of refractive error than they do at
age 1 or 2, demonstrating that there is certainly an "emmetropization"
process that leads to a smaller standard deviation, concentrating the
distribution around +1.00 D (a "kurtotic" distribution, more of a "spike"
than a "normal" curve.)

Presumably this is the period in chickens and "primates" where inappropriate
lenses CAN influence refractive error and likely would in humans as well. So
doctors are justifiably stingy with corrective lenses at that age.

But after age 6 or 8, when myopia starts, humans begin to diverge again (the
standard deviation INCREASES) and the best evidence comparing groups shows
that accommodation is not likely to be the mechanism - wearing or not
wearing corrective lenses seems to make no difference. Uncorrected hyperopes
don't get less hyperopic, and myopes (who accommodate LESS) tend to get more
myopic.

-MT


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages