Mike Tyner wrote:

- quote -

IOW, (Scr)Otis:

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

Thanks.

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

And as we all know, 14-year-olds NEVER get pseudomyopia.

-MT

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

Perhaps you can share your evidence for believing emmetropization continues
past infancy.

Perhaps not.

- quote -

Whatever you believe, myopes wearing glasses don't get nearsighted any
faster. You've never pointed to a study showing they did, and I've given you
several citations showing they don't. Your imagination and distortion of
Oakley-Young doesn't outweigh the evidence.

- quote -

First you say you can cure myopia. Then you say myopia can't be cured, only
prevented. Then you say you can cure a diopter of myopia. Which is it?

- quote -

I didn't "assume". Colgate "assumed." You said so.

- quote -

So how is that not a "cure"? But you can't "cure" myopia. But he just said
he did.

- quote -

How many pediatricians or ophthalmologists agree with you? Yeah, whadda they
know.

- quote -

Another false assumption.

As they
- quote -

It does not. Three quarters of them don't change.

- quote -

You're lying here to make your point, because you don't know what happens in
the real world.

1) How is a one-diopter lens "over-prescribed" for a one-diopter myope?

2) I do not tell -1 children to wear glasses full time. Who does?

- quote -

Nonsense.

- quote -

Is that why hyperopia eventually disappears? It doesn't, you know.

- quote -

So genes have nothing to do with it.

- quote -

No, one "real" issue is that you don't know the difference between
accommodation and axial length.

- quote -

So you think myopes never get better. Never happens.

- quote -

Or review the Parssinen study, Grosvenor, Shotwell, COMET - WHY DIDN'T IT
WORK?

- quote -

Nonsense. Myopes get myopic whether they wear glasses or not. SHOW US
OTHERWISE.

- quote -

I see. Colgate wasn't myopic when he started. O....K.

- quote -

And I advocate that every cancer patient should be told the benefits of
peach pits and coffee enemas, before that first chemotherapy is ever tried.
Because once you start treating it, it never goes away.

-MT

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:

- quote -

You would appear to be describing one of the members of your plus
lens/pseudomyopia cult. To think that I exert some form of "control"
over my patients can only be described as some sort of paranoid
ideation.

DrG

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:

- quote -

Stirling Colgate should stay with his strengths, and not pretend that
he knows how to prevent myopia. Stirling Colgate is also bright enough
to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific
evidence.

You, however, do not.

DrG

Once again your stupidity astounds me.

An optometrist went to the head of an Air Force Academy.......

There once was an optometrist that worked for the Air Force. His name
was Colonel Roy Rengstorff. He did studies on myopia prevention in
military personell by using bifocals.

His statistical analysis found quite conclusively that bifocals reduced
myopia in all the bifocal wearing group and that the control group
continued to deteriorate.

The only problem was that when you looked at the raw data, every one of
the bifocal wearers got worse. The statistical analysis gave false
results.

This only goes to prove the veracity of the addage: Lies, damned lies
and statistics.

Now there is a new saying: Stupid, really fucking stupid, then there is
Cletis.

dr grant

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
- quote -

Please cite your source for this.

I have shown that the studies you PURPORT to cite say nothing of the
sort. Is it a fundamental mis-understanding of statistics on your part
or flat-out dishonesty.

Or both?

But, it is essential that the entering student at
Annapolis, West Point or the U. S. Air Academy
have an accurate understanding of the fact that
the eye goes "down" at a rate of -1/3 diopter per
year at these academies -- as he would enter
into a plus-preventive study. See below

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

Subject: How Can You Predict Nearsightedness Development at a
Four Year College?


Re: A question from Sci.med.vision. Otis -- If a person is slightly
myopic (20/25) at the time they reach college (the USAF Academy)
what
are the chances that he will become more nearsighted from
the required reading load? Has the USAF run any experiments
to find out about this nearsightedness change in their
personnel? Bill.

REFERENCES

1. Reynolds Hayden, M.D., "Development and Prevention of Myopia
at the United States Naval Academy", Volume 25, (old series
Volume 82), Number 4., The American Medical Association.

2. Gmelin, Maj. Robert T., MSC, USA, "Myopia at West Point:
Past and Present." Military Medicine, 141 (8) 542-3


Dear Bill,

Let me rephrase your question as follows. If you know the
refractive status of an "entering" student, can you predict the
resultant refractive state after four years? The refractive
status is easily measured with a trial-lens kit.

Once you know a person's refractive status you can predict the
resultant status change (degree of nearsightedness after four years in
college.

If you check the person's focal status, and find it to close to
"zero" or "plano", on entry, (20/20) -- then what is the probability
that
that person will retain 20/20 for the four years.

The probability is about one percent -- as stated by Dr. Hayden,
and confirmed by a study at West Point. (References 1 and 2)


Note: The natural eye can have a negative or positive refractive
status depending on the visual environment. A positive
status is called "hyperopia" or "hypermetropia" and a
negative status is called "myopia", "nearsightedness".


Here is the information that I have on your question about
"base-line data" concerning the behavior of the natural healthy eye at
the Naval Academy.


OVER-ALL SYNOPSIS OF THESE MILITARY STUDIES OF THE EYE'S
DOWNWARD MOVEMENT WHILE IN A FOUR YEAR COLLEGE.

The studies of military cadets in the United States have
shown that their vision changes over the years of their academic
work. Records reveal that a large percentage of the cadets (39%
of those at the U.S. Military Academy in 1956) [2] became
nearsighted and needed a negative lens by graduation. Further, of
those who developed 20/25 vision, only one percent recovered to
20/20 over the four years, [1].

In early years the cause of their degraded vision not known,
and later, on any number of factors wear speculated, but the
upshot of these studies was that none of these circumstance were
really behind the cadet's loss of visual acuity.

The development of nearsightedness (negative change of focal
state) was a result of the fact that the natural eye controls its
focal state to its average visual environment. Roughly, that is
looking close, studying, reading, looking at books, for long
periods of time -- rather than at distant objects.


SUMMARIZED STATEMENTS FROM DR. HAYDEN, REFERENCE 1

"...For many years the high incidence of myopia which
developed among midshipmen after admission to the United States
Naval Academy with supposedly normal vision was a cause of serious
concern to all those interested."

Dr. Hayden stated that many methods and efforts were made to
"save" the men with previously perfect vision.

"...and by retaining may of them (who became nearsighted) in
the Naval Academy for one to three years in the hope that their
vision would improve."

"...In the vast majority of cases their vision did not
improve, and the midshipmen was forced to leave the naval service
after two to four years in the Naval Academy. Experience showed
that only about one percent of such men had 20/20 on their final
physical examination."

[In summary -- if their focal status became even SLIGHTLY
negative (20/25) they had virtually no chance of clearing their
distant vision to 20/20. At that time there was no attempt to
offer systematic use of a strong plus lens for the purpose of
recovery and prevention. Otis Brown]

"...Furthermore, an excessive number of junior line officers
were being retired because of defective vision, and the records
showed that the vision of 3/4 of these had become defection
defective (negative status, vision less than 20/20 for each eye)
at the Naval Academy."

"...Any candidate, however, who if found to have any degree
of myopia following the use of a cycloplegic, even -0.12 or -0.25
diopters is rejected."

[There are two methods of measuring refractive status of the
natural eye, eye chart and induced paralysis or cycloplegia. They
produce slightly different values for the refractive status of the
eye. OSB]


NECESSITY OF A POSITVE REFRACTIVE STATUS (HYPEROPIC RESERVE) ON
ENTRY AS DEFINED BY DR. HAYDEN


[I have paraphrased this rather long section. OSB]

A review of the refraction of the eye of candidates at the
time of preliminary entry physical examination showed that the
great majority of candidates whose refraction was of the
plano-type, (refractive state 0.0) to +0.25 diopters).

At the first year their examination a significant number
would show that they had myopia.

Occasionally a candidate who showed as much as +0.5 diopters
"hyper-metropia" on preliminary physical examination was found to
have become -0.25 diopters of myopia in the first year.

DR. HAYDEN STATES THAT EMMETROPIA IS NOT NORMAL FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS

[EMMETROPIA IS DEFINED AS NORMAL OR PERFECT BASED ON THE
DONDERS-HELMHOLTZ CONCEPTUALIZATION -- OSB]


"...As is well known, the emmetropic eye is for practical
purpose is an abnormal eye -- the great majority of persons with
so-called normal vision being actually hyper-metropic. Those
candidates, then, whose refraction was of the plano (emmetropic --
focal status exactly zero) had borderline conditions definitely on
the way to myopia. For all practical purposes, experience here
has shown that patients with +1/4 diopters of hyper-metropia are
in the same class."

"In view of the experience at the Naval Academy during the
past three years as described, it is evident that a reserve of
preferably one diopter or at least 1/2 diopter is necessary at the
time of preliminary refraction to be reasonably sure that the
candidate will pass his physical examination for admission."

"Furthermore, in order to be reasonably sure of being
visually qualified for a commission in the line of the Navy after
four years at the Naval Academy -- it is necessary that the
student have a reserve (positive refractive status) of at least
one diopter of hyper-metropia at the time of admission."

"Of course, an occasional candidate will +1/4 to +1/2 diopter
of hypermetropia at the time of admission will survive visually
after four years and receive a commission, but that is
exceptional."


DR. HAYDEN THEN DISCUSSES ATROPINE A DRUG FOR INDUCING PARALYSIS
FOR PURPOSE OF MEASUREMENT.

He details the loss of people in various classes who were
"emmetropic" (focal state zero) on entry, using various drugs and
percentage mixtures of those drugs. It was hoped that different
drugs would produce better results and these emmetropic eyes could
be "saved". However the drug of choice for measurement and the
results were the same.


DR. HAYDEN PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF ILLUMINATION
LEVELS AND EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THESE LEVELS, BUT CONCLUDED
THAT THIS HAD NO EFFECT.


CONCLUSION BY DR. HAYDEN

"It is considered that during the past three years the Naval
Academy has definitely proved the necessity of midshipmen having a
"hyperopic reserve" of at least one diopter at the time of
admission to the Naval Academy, and of their meeting the present
visual requirements if the visual standards of the Naval are to be
maintained."

"...Any candidate having less than 1/2 diopter of
hyper-metropia at the time of a preliminary ocular refraction
should be informed that, while visually qualified at the time, he
has a borderline condition which may progress to a low degree of
myopia by the time he takes his physical examination for admission
to the Naval Academy, and may therefore be rejected."

"Any candidate having from 1/2 to one diopters of
hypermetropia at the time of a preliminary ocular refraction
should be informed that, while he should pass the physical
examination for entrance to the Naval Academy, he stands no better
than an even chance of visually obtaining a commission in the line
of the Navy on graduation."

__________________________


The Gmelin Report

Selected items:

In the report by Maj McKenney "A Study of Refractive Trends
at West Point", he concluded:

1. Pseudo-myopia during periods of stress associated with studying
may result in blurred vision in cadets with little hyperopic
reserve **

** [Their refractive status was very close to zero]

2. The average increase in myopia was -1.37 diopters (the range
being -1.12 diopters through -1.62 diopters).

3. 39 percent of the graduating class (1956) has less than 20/20
vision at graduation

4. Recommendation that the visual standard remain unchanged --
that hyperopia over +2.0 diopters and myopia over -1.5
diopters should be cause for ENTRANCE disqualification.


** The natural eye changes its refractive status in a negative
at a rate of -1/3 diopter per year (where accurate records
are maintained) in a four year college.

***********************

Note 1: All these men had healthy retinas. All retinas had the
capability of resolving 5 minute-of-angle targets at 20
feet. Their natural eye's behaved as expected. The
controlled their focal state to the visual environment.
For this reason an "undesired" focal state does no
indicate an "organic defect" or words to that effect.
For that reason I use the term focal state so their is
no confusion in your mind about that point.


Note 2: The words emmetropia and ametropia were introduced by
Donders. Donders took the focal states of the normal
eye to be DEFECTS of the eye. Any non-zero focal state
of the eye was, by definition, a defect (ametropia). A
focal state of EXACTLY zero was defined as "normal".
Under this definition, very few, if any, animals or
humans have eyes that are normal!


__________________________________________________ _____


The Gmelin Summary:

After a century of investigation, it has been established
that the cadets at the United States Military Academy become
progressively myopic (or less hyperopic) ** during their four
years of education. Still to be accomplished however, is an
in-depth study of myopia progression and prevention among these
USMA Cadets.




Dear Friends,


Subject: 99 percent go "down" at West Point.

MikeT> If you believe one percent survives four years without
negative refractive change, then you believe 99% DID
experience negative refractive change.

MikeT> Is that how you arrived at 99%?

Otis> It turns out that your are correct.

Otis> Mike -- Actually 100 percent nearsighted got worse. Thus
your 99 percent was not accurate -- it was 100 percent. No
one "improved" to 20/20.

Otis> Here are the figures for those cadets who are
nearsightednss at West Point -- who were nearsighted on entry.


__________________________________________________


Gmelin: Myopia at West Point: Past and Present Military
Medicine, 141 (8) 542 - 3 Aug 76

2. The average increase in myopia was -1.37 diopters (the range
being -1.12 diopters through -1.62 diopters (over four
years).

Otis> Always glad to "correct" your 99 percent got worse to 100
percent for those who were nearsighted at West
Point.

Best,

Otis

_______________________


Otis> Are you just playing dumb? I stated that the POPULATION
AVERAGE moves "down" at a rate of -1/3 diopter per year.

MikeT> Yes, but you also "stated":

- quote -

years with NO FURTHER NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE CHANGE.

MikeT> If you believe one percent survives four years without
negative refractive change, then you believe 99% DID
experience negative refractive change.

MikeT> Since it doesn't happen, we must assume you simply spout
figures without understanding them.

[I don't "spout figures". Here are the published values
for those who "cleared" their vision from nearsightedness
at West Point. In fact NONE did. OSB]

Otis> It is true that even high school students can figure out the
implications of that statement.

MikeT> Is that how you arrived at 99%?

Otis> Actually this West Point study is how I arrived at the
percentage of myopes who went "down" at the college.
How did YOU calculate the percentage?


Best,

Otis Engineer


___________________________________


Gmelin> The subject of progressive myopia among the cadets remained
dormant at the USMA for ten year. Renewed interest in among
the cadets remained dormant and not further investigations
were made the subject of myopia was generated by the study
of MAJ McKinney MC, on the Cadet Class of 1956. In his
unpublished report, "A Study of Refractive Trends at West
Point", MAJ McKinney concluded:

1. Pseudo-myopia during periods of stress associated with
studying may result in blurred vision in cadets with little
"hyperopic reserve".

2. The average increase in myopia was -1.37 diopters (the range
being -1.12 diopters through -1.62 diopters (over four
years).

3. 39 percent of the graduating cadets of the 1956 had less
than 20/20 vision at graduation; and

4. Recommendation that the vision standards remain unchanged --
that hyperopia over +2 diopters and that myopia less than -1.5
diopters be cause for entrance disqualification.


Best,


Otis






Salmon Egg wrote:
- quote -

And of course, where the individual is "bright" and
able to "figure it out", and get is own plus lens,
he can clear his distant vision as this
student did:

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/august20.html

But of course he was not under "control" of these
majority-opinion optometrists either who insist
that vision-clearing from 20/70 (-1 dipoter)
is IMPOSSIBLE.

Best,

Oits



Salmon Egg wrote:
- quote -

Dear Bill,

In fact we have prepared a proposal of this nature. See:

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/Embry.html

This follows the leadership of the Oakley-Young study, where
the single-minus group went down at -1/2 diotper per year,
while the "plus" group did not go down.

The only issue is to run the study as an "open" scientific
study rather than a "medical" study.

Thus the entering student would have to have the
intelligence and WILL POWER of Stirilng Colgate,
and would have to receive detailed instructions
as to the correct use of the plus lens.

This would preclude the possibility that effective
prevention could ever be a "blind" study.

But, given the education of the person (knowledge
of science and the history of the "problem", I
think that a highly motivated pilot could
understand the engineering and scientific
analysis, and the dynamic-eye paradigm to
conduct an effective PREVENTIVE and
vision-clearing study.

Best,

Otis


Salmon Egg wrote:
- quote -