Dear Mike,

- quote -

Thank you for your reply -- you make a very good point that I had not
considered.

I believe that pain is one of the human body's most intricate
systems,.and I admire the system for its ingenuity. I have considered
that there are many different types of pain - each with its own form
of consequences and similarities. In addition, each sector of pain may
be divided into its own classification of grouping. I take your point,
Mike -- however, it would be an injustice to claim that because a
certain pain shows no relative visible harm, that it may be so easily
disregarded, without first considering the so called 'invisible'
effects or even its longterm effects.

The types of pain to which I was referring (this is simply a
fabrication of my entire concept) may include -

1. Internal pain
2. Mental pain
3. External pain
4. Memory of pain
5. Imaginary pain
6. The anticipation of pain

1, 2, 3, and 5 would obviously be in the present, whilst the concept
of numbers 4, and 6 would be either in the past or, in the future. I
mention this because, Mike, I remain unsure as to whether you should
be disregarding any one type of pain without allowing a further
consideration of another. In addition, each type of pain would lead to
its own branch of consequences (made up of either another pain in
itself, or a harm/damage) - though one may not conceive of the many,
and only the singular, clear, obvious damage.

Therefore I do not agree with your implications, that simply because a
singular, external pain shows no clear damage, that you have
disregarded the many series of consequences that may be visible or
invisible to the current instruments used by the medical profession to
detect such signs of harm.

P.S. Sorry for my long and boring post, but I just thought I should
try to explain why I do not agree with the current medical concept of
pain, expectation, and consequence.

-KH

Dear Brainy,

I deeply apologize for my annoying and stupid questions. I know
sometimes my teachers at school also get very aggravated with me,
because I am always asking them things about everything. The thing is,
I have an obsessive personality where I must find out everything
possible about a subject, and it is this unending curiosity that
sometimes gets me into a lot of trouble! Again, I apologize when I
take up your time with my many questions! (I do it too much, I know!)
But I am hopeful that my inquisitive nature will be accepted by this
group, in which I see that many scientists and great thinkers are
participating. Dr.Tyner is no doubt very generous in answering all my
silly questions! It is certainly rare to come across men of such
brilliance and kindness as is his. His patience never fails to impress
me, and I do believe that there are some remarkable geniuses within
our community. I can only anticipate my future, when I become a neuro-
ophthalmologist, I will with the greatest amount of luck and grace, be
as intelligent and knowledgeable as he is.

On Jul 6, 2:18 pm, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

you are basically correct with regard to the effects of
overprescription in patients middle-aged or older ( approx. > 45).
excessive minus lens power usually results in reduced acuity along
with eye strain, headaches, and possible double vision.

in younger patients however, excessive minus lens power can still
result in good acuity although patients still will sometimes complain
of headaches, eyestrain, diplopia, etc. Furthermore, young people who
are overminused sometimes actually prefer their vision this way
because the combination of excessive minus lens power, along with
excessive plus lens power which is reflexly added by accommodation
within the eye in order to maintain good acuity, gives their visual
world a darker, higher-contrast appearance. "young people" refers to
those less than ~40 years of age who can still recruit some
accommodation to help them see clearly through excessive minus lens
power.

and you are right also about eye doctors being careful not to
overminus their patients. Otis simple-mindedly believes that eye
doctors just crank up the minus lens power on patients excessively.
In practice, minus lenses are used primarily in nearsighted patients
whose retinal image is not clear because either their eyeball is
slightly too long, or their corneal curvature is too steep. Just
enough minus lens power is given so that the patient can see clearly.

interestingly, studies have shown that when excessive minus lens power
is used in humans, it DOES NOT stimulate further development of myopia
as Otis continually claims it does. he knows about these studies yet
he will not comment on them and they do not cause him to question his
own beliefs whatsoever as they would a truly rational person. Otis is
truly an objective thinker, huh? he makes up his mind and then just
ignors facts that contradict them.

I have provided the citations and abstracts for those studies below.
The studies were undertaken to see if overprescribing minus lenses
would be beneficial in the treatment of other disorders aside from
investigating whether they induce staircase myopia as Otis claims, yet
the data is still relevant and bears directly upon the claims of Otis
Brown, Engineer. If Otis were a real man he would comment, but he
won't!

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

Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic
progression.
Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...013&query_hl=3

Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages from
7.38 to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over the
power required to correct their myopia exactly. These 36 experimental
subjects were matched by control subjects selected at random from the
files of the Indiana University Optometry Clinics. The criteria used
in matching were sex, beginning age, beginning refractive error, and
duration of time covered by the record. The mean rate of change of
refractive error for the experimental group was (minus indicating
increase of myopia) -0.49 D/year (range, +0.37 to -1.95 D/year) on
retinoscopy and -0.52 D/year (range, +0.21 to -1.32 D/year) on
subjective refraction. The mean rate of change for the control group
was -0.47 D/year (range, +0.06 to -2.03 D/year) on retinoscopy and
-0.47 D/year (range, +0.28 to -1.72 D/year) on subjective refraction.
Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly
different. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis
that an overcorrected myope has a lower rate of increase of myopia
than a myope wearing a conventional spectacle correction.

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

Arch Ophthalmol. 1999 May;117(5):638-42.
Does overcorrecting minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia
cause myopia?

Kushner BJ. Pediatric Eye and Adult Strabismus Clinic, Department of
Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
USA. bkushner[at]...

http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ract/117/5/638

RESULTS: At the time of initial examination, the mean (+/-SD)
refractive error was 0.00 +/- 1.40 diopters (D) in the control
group, 0.00 +/- 1.50 D in the study group, and -0.10 +/- 1.50 D in
the 5-year study group, all of which were essentially identical.
Five years after initial examination, the mean change in refractive
error was -1.40 +/- 2.80 D in the control group, -1.52 +/- 1.80 D in
the 6-month treatment group, and -1.54 +/- 1.80 D in the 5-year
treatment group. These differences in the change in refractive error
(myopic shift) were not statistically significant (t test), and the
differences are clinically unimportant. CONCLUSION: Overcorrecting
minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia does not appear to
cause myopia.

-----------

On Jul 6, 12:55 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...[at]mindspring.com> wrote:
- quote -

Sometimes pain might even be beneficial, as in "no pain -- no gain."
Physical exercise, for instance, might stretch the pain for a few
days, but result in developed muscles and/or incereased flexibility.
Physical therapy hurts even more, but provides restoration of mobility
and healing.

P.S. Higushaki Konsumoki asks extremely idiotic questions, Mike.
Please don't waste your valuable energy answering them, and then get
hit by his insults and "noise" claims. He is a Batesian, you know,
and believes only in relaxation (combined with spiritual palming,
sunning and nude bathing).

"Kisame Hoshigaki" <absolutelyinvincible[at]hotmail.com
- quote -

It's pretty hard to explain. All it means is that lots of young people
choose more minus than is anatomically necessary.

I test every prescription and ask them to confirm that one notch less minus
is blurry. Sometimes they lie, and Otis blames me.

- quote -

Tension headaches hurt, sometimes a lot. But after the headache is gone,
what "harm" remains?

Menstrual cramps hurt. But two weeks later, what damage remains?

Tic doloreaux is one of the most painful conditions to occur in humans. What
harm does it do?

-MT

Dear Mike,

- quote -

Please could you explain this part? I don't understand.

- quote -

And I don't understand what you mean; if something causes pain then
isn't it doing harm?

"Ms.Brainy" <mikabrainy[at]gmail.com> wrote

- quote -

Young kids have copious ability to accommodate and they frequently
over-accommodate in the exam setting. With the extra minus, letters look
"blacker" and if they misunderstand testing isn't careful aren't tested
carefully, they think this is "better".

The doctor should have caught it, and probably would, once the glasses cause
headaches.

But any doctor who "makes a habit" of prescribing excess minus will also be
"in the habit" of re-making lenses.

Excess accommodation might hurt, but it doesn't do any harm. Ask any
uncorrected hyperope.

-MT

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

Since I have you to express my opinions for me, there's nothing more to say.

-MT

On Jul 6, 10:56 am, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
- quote -

I haven't read the mother-and-child story (don't have time to examine
all the anecdotal fairy tales), but the question is: Can an over-
prescription provide higher acuity? Mt logic suggests that if the
answer is "yes", then it's not over-prescription. My experience is
that over-rx provides lesser acuity, not better, and the OD will not
prescribe it. Without knowing the details of the case, I would doubt
the credibility of the mother's claim.

Dear Mike,

Subject: PROVEN over-prescription by -4 diopters.

You seem to have MISSED THE POINT!

The mother checked the child's Snellen at 20 feet,
and the child read 20/20 THROUGH a -6 diopter lens.

This is basic verification by the mother.

But I am certain you will insist that the mother was
too stupid to make the measurement.

Let others judge the -10 diopter prescribed for
a child who could read 20/20 through a -6 diopter lens.

You say that ODs do not over-prescribe by 4 diopters.

I say the mother made a correct measurement.

Otis




On Jul 5, 6:55 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...[at]mindspring.com> wrote:
- quote -