America's vision gets blurrier
Mike Tyner
From: "Pritchett" <nee...@mindspring.com>
To: "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:52 PM
Subject: American vision gets blurrier
You betcha!
The statistical association between myopia and near work has been known for
several decades.
Myopica is rarely congenital, usually acquired between ages 10 and 30, more
common in urban settings, positively correlated with education, income, and
IQ.
And since the 50s, optometrists have tried furiously to "treat" or prevent
or even slow down myopia, using glasses to convince the eyes they were
focused far away.
It's easy to do.. for a 2-diopter myope, they just remove their glasses.
Far vision is blurry but the eyes must _relax_ to focus at 20 inches.
For a 4-diopter myope, they wear glasses made for a 2-diopter myope. Far
vision is 2 diopters blurry, and the eyes must relax to focus at 20 inches.
For someone who isn't nearsighted, but reads a lot, you use +2.00 "reading
glasses." Far vision is blurry, but the eyes are relaxed when focusing at 20
inches.
All these conditions create the same effect - a book 20 inches away will
have the optical properties of an object 20 feet away, supposedly removing
the "stimulus" to progressive myopia.
If you do this just right, make the kids wear glasses or not wear or
whatever it takes to "relieve the stress of focusing at near" then that
should stop myopia from progressing, no?
Problem is, it's been tried sixty ways from Sunday and the best studies, the
best textbooks, they generally agree it doesn't work. There's a little
effect, in strict laboratory conditions, but not enough to justify
disrupting a child's far vision.
What does stop it? Atropine drops every day. That blurs the vision too, but
it's proven halt progressive myopia where nothing else does.
So "Get out and play" is the best advice we can give right now.
Because we can create myopia in animals using extreme conditions, but it
only takes brief breaks in those conditions to prevent the development of
myopia.
-MT
Otis
Good statement of your majority-opinion.
Here is the PREVENTIVE second-opinon:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html
Please note the word PREVENTION.
There has been no study ever conducted with wise students, who were
given the scientific facts, and taught "correct use" of the plus,
while they still had FUNCTIONAL vision.
But, here is a video on how the preventive plus could be implemented.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuC7a1lkrk
Obviously, the intent is not to allow ENTRY into a negative STATE.
That will require and educated parent and child.
Enjoy,
On Dec 29, 9:54 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pritchett" <nee...@mindspring.com>
> To: "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:52 PM
> Subject: American vision gets blurrier
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/video/health-15749655/america-s-vision-gets-blu...
Neil Brooks
> Good statement of your majority-opinion.
Actually, Mike states facts ... backed by clinical testing.
> Here is the PREVENTIVE second-opinon:
Whereas you tell stories ... based on nothing but your opinon [sic.
Pathologically sick].
..
It's important to understand why Otis is pathological, obsessive, and
dishonest about this subject.
From: http://www.chinamyopia.org/Preventionmagazine1973.htm
"When Otis S. Brown was a young boy, he dreamed of someday
becoming an airline pilot. In fact, everything he did throughout
those early days in grade school was aimed at achieving that goal.
Then, disaster struck, and Otis Brown's dreams of becoming a
pilot faded as he was fitted with increasingly stronger minus
glasses to correct a worsening case of myopia, or nearsightedness,
a condition which causes distant objects to appear blurred."
I'm sorry your dreams were shattered, Otis, but that's no excuse for
lying and hurting people.
Otis
Gee wiz, Mike, have you ever payed attention to a child's habits?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2it-JitFUY&feature=fvw
Are you telling the scientific community that this child's habit has
NO EFFECT ON THE NATURAL EYE'S REFRACTIVE STATE.
No wonder this kids refractive STATE moves from "plus" to "minus".
Enjoy,
On Dec 29 2009, 9:54 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pritchett" <nee...@mindspring.com>
> To: "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 8:52 PM
> Subject: American vision gets blurrier
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/video/health-15749655/america-s-vision-gets-blu...
Otis
Add a "simple" minus lens (that we all agree is impressive in a few
minutes), and the result becomes stair-case myopia.
What is the second-opinion about that minus?
Here it is, by highly qualified SECOND-OPINION PROFESSIONALS.
++++++++
SCIENCE -- VISION -- PREVENTION
OPTICAL POISON
From Spectacle Hobby by Jacob Raphaelson, OD, 1961:
The bad effects of minus lenses on vision and health have been
recognized by many optical men in earlier years, in this and other
countries.
There have been many voices raised against the promiscuous use of
minus glasses at the beginning of th century, and a few feeble voices
were heard up to the decade of 1950.
In the decade of 1950, the fitting and wearing of minus glasses
became the rule rather than the exception.
In the last century, in the land of the Tzars (Russia), minus glasses
were sometimes used to evade military conscription.
A few months before the appearance for army examination, the
conscript
went to an optical doctor and got a pair of strong minus glasses
which
he wore steadily until prior to the examination.
He was then sure that he would be rejected on account of his vision.
The minus glasses had weakened his eyes and made his distant vision
very poor.
...
+++++++++++++
S. Drucker, O.D. Optical Journal-Review,
One of my clearest impressions in handling myopia cases is that
almost
all cases of stationary myopia consist of young people who refuse to
wear their correction except for those occasions that make a positive
demand for normal vision.
Conversely, almost all cases of progressive myopia appear to be
individuals who adhere most faithfully to the principle that their
corrections must be worn constantly.
From a clinical point of view, the conclusion would seem inescapable
that minus lenses are an important factor among the causes of
progressive myopia.
===============
In 1914, when the state of Maryland secured its optometry law, a
clause was inserted to the effect that optometrists could not
prescribe minus lenses to children under 15 years of age "except on
an
order or advice from a physician."
In 1938, Neville Schuller, vision specialist of Toronto, Canada,
stated, "I would like to have a law established forbidding the
prescribing of minus glasses without extenuating circumstances.
O.D. Rasmussen, O.D., Kent England, stated in his book, "Myopia, in
more than ninety-five percent of cases, begins between five and ten
years of age.
It increases largely because the myopic eye is given distance lenses
for reading."
C.P. Rakusen, O.D., Shanghai, China, said, "from my experience in
this
land of myopes (i.e. China) I have formed strong prejudices against
the evil of weak minus prescriptions in all ages."
Samuel Druker of Brooklyn, N.Y., in the Optical Journal wrote,
"The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of
progressive myopia it might b necessary to list concave lenses
themselves.
From many articles that have appeared in the past on the subject of
'Optical Poison,' a familiar term a decade ago, many other
optometrists appear to have the same idea."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Kennebeck, OD (in Why Eyeglasses are Harmful for Children and
Young People, 1969, pp. 53-54) tells how minus lenses turn functional
myopia into structural myopia:
Dr. X said my patient allowed him to go over her eyes, and he
reported
that he found Miss Y should have minus .50 glasses, the same Rx I
found but would not fit at the time, which I told Dr. X. He asked me
why I would not prescribe it.
I told him that Miss Y's dynamic skiametry findings were plus 2.00
[farsighted], and that I was giving her orthoptic treatment, etc....
He said with WEARING THE MINUS .50 FOR A WEEK OR TWO, THE DYNAMIC
SKIAMETRY PLUS 2.00 FINDINGS WOULD BE GONE. ....
What became of the plus 2.00 dynamic skiametry findings?
Something had to take place, and change.
I reasoned that this was eliminating the plus 2.00 skiametry
findings, and creating a worse condition.
To think that the wearing of minus .50 would do that, and it would,
meaning the refractive media would have to become permanently 2
diopters more convex, and that the circular ciliary muscles would
have
to become stronger than they were--too strong.
Science and second-opnion best,
> > -MT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks
> Are you telling the scientific community that this child's habit has
> NO EFFECT ON THE NATURAL EYE'S REFRACTIVE STATE.
Do you mean the eyes of a rhesus macaque??
It's VERY difficult for US to understand what you're talking about
when YOU so clearly don't.
Neil Brooks
> Add a "simple" minus lens (that we all agree is impressive in a few
> minutes), and the result becomes stair-case myopia.
So ... your totally unfounded BELIEF in that -- arising from your
shattered dreams of commercial aviation -- have you conjuring
theories?
Great plan.
It's important to understand why he is pathological, obsessive, and
Mike Tyner
"Otis" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> Are you telling the scientific community that this child's habit has
> NO EFFECT ON THE NATURAL EYE'S REFRACTIVE STATE.
No. The scientific community is telling you YOUR CURE DOESN'T WORK.
> No wonder this kids refractive STATE moves from "plus" to "minus".
So, every hyperope becomes a myope?
I didn't know that.
-MT
Otis
Dear Mike,
Please define "Emmetrope" -- EXACTLY.
It means a refractive STATE of exactly zero -- no tollerance.
But why play games with this "invented " word.
You are asking the question, WILL THE NATURAL EYE CHANGE ITS
REFRACTIVE STATE FROM "PLUS" TO MINUS".
Your so-called "hyperope" to "myope".
But that is exactly what happens:
And yes they were "normal" Emmetropic" for the "instant" they had a
refractive STATE of exactly zero --by your "cooked" definiton.
Or do you continue to insist that a -3 diotper lens has NO EFFECT on
the refractive STATE of the natural eye (with 20/20) and a "hyperopic"
status of +1/2 diopter?
See
SCIENCE -- VISION -- PREVENTION
OPTICAL POISON
From Spectacle Hobby by Jacob Raphaelson, OD, 1961:
The bad effects of minus lenses on vision and health have been
recognized by many optical men in earlier years, in this and other
countries.
There have been many voices raised against the promiscuous use of
minus glasses at the beginning of th century, and a few feeble voices
were heard up to the decade of 1950.
In the decade of 1950, the fitting and wearing of minus glasses
became the rule rather than the exception.
In the last century, in the land of the Tzars (Russia), minus glasses
were sometimes used to evade military conscription.
A few months before the appearance for army examination, the
conscript
went to an optical doctor and got a pair of strong minus glasses
which
he wore steadily until prior to the examination.
He was then sure that he would be rejected on account of his vision.
The minus glasses had weakened his eyes and made his distant vision
very poor.
...
On Jan 2, 12:54 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Otis" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
Neil Brooks
> Dear Mike,
>
> Please define "Emmetrope" -- EXACTLY.
>
> It means a refractive STATE of exactly zero -- no tollerance.
>
> But why play games with this "invented " word.
>
> You are asking the question, WILL THE NATURAL EYE CHANGE ITS
> REFRACTIVE STATE FROM "PLUS" TO MINUS".
>
> Your so-called "hyperope" to "myope".
>
> But that is exactly what happens:
>
> And yes they were "normal" Emmetropic" for the "instant" they had a
> refractive STATE of exactly zero --by your "cooked" definiton.
Let's see.... The above is hardly even English. Off the meds again,
huh?
> Or do you continue to insist that a -3 diotper lens has NO EFFECT on
> the refractive STATE of the natural eye (with 20/20) and a "hyperopic"
> status of +1/2 diopter?
You are an absolute fucking idiot and a pathological liar.
Have you NO control over that, whatsoever??
Astounding.
Mike Tyner
"Otis" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> Please define "Emmetrope" -- EXACTLY. It means a
> refractive STATE of exactly zero -- no tollerance.
I don't agree but it isn't relevant.
> But why play games with this "invented " word.
So, why do you?
> You are asking the question, WILL THE NATURAL EYE
> CHANGE ITS REFRACTIVE STATE FROM "PLUS" TO MINUS".
I am not asking that question. I'm asking how you know that you can PREVENT
it. You seen incapable of answering.
> And yes they were "normal" Emmetropic" for the "instant" they had a
> refractive STATE of exactly zero --by your "cooked" definiton.
I don't understand. I prefer use the definitions I find in textbooks and
dictionaries. I can't find any reference in Stedmans for "negative
refractive STATE."
> Or do you continue to insist that a -3 diotper lens has NO EFFECT on
> the refractive STATE of the natural eye (with 20/20) and a "hyperopic"
> status of +1/2 diopter?
I don't often find +050 hyperopes wearing -3 lenses. When I do, they usually
have headaches and refuse to wear their glasses.