> Do you have the name of that paper you mentioned that Otis hasn't
> read? *Wasn't sure if that was a figurative statement or not.

> <d...[at]funtaff.net> wrote
> > My original question was going to ask (was much more related to the
> > original post) about mild astigmatism. *Now that I've seen a doctor, I
> > can now see that everything really is showing up in double, and even
> > to a certain extent in the eye that was measured spherical (I see
> > things double vertically, but only about 1/3 as offset as things in
> > the other eye that was measured -0.75/-1.00). *Is that mild of an
> > issue not worth correcting?
> Spectacle cylinder ("football" shape) is a mathematical model that only
> approximates the real-world maps you see in corneal topography.
> From your rx, we know in one eye, the closest approximation was a sphere.In
> the other eye, the best model was toric. We use those simple models because
> that's how you can cut real lenses.
> Sphere or sphere-cylinder, you can see from corneal topographs that it's
> more complicated - there are peaks and valleys and plains.
> It's the plains that matter. If there's a big plain of uniform 45-diopter
> surface on the left half of your cornea. it'll form a precise image at the
> retina. If there's another big plain on the right half of your cornea, it
> can be precisely the same power (45 D) without being precisely _coaxial_ so
> that it forms another crisp image slightly offset from the other.
> Ergo diplopia, a type that increases in dim light and disappears with a
> pinhole.
> > Anyway, the discussion in this thread that seemed to approach the
> > recent debate about myopdia between Otis and company and the rest of
> > the sane world is curious to me.
> No, this thread has been blissfully FREE of that old crap.
> Otis insists all myopia results from accommodation and that parents have a
> duty to put drugstore glasses on children to prevent myopia, or to cut their
> myopic correction so they can't read a blackboard. All with the intentionto
> avoid further myopia.
> I can't find any licensed doctors that agree with him. The ones I can find
> say reading glasses don't prevent myopia.
> > * I was wondering if you, Mike, could
> > sum up your take on that. *It sounds like you're saying that the
> > ciliary muscles are smooth (so body builder logic no longer applies),
> Myopia is mostly due to the eye growing longer than average. The control
> mechanism for axial growth does not appear to involve accommodation, because
> manipulating accommodation with glasses/no glasses/plus glasses all have no
> effect,. At least not enough to warrant intervention..
> Otis hasn't read that paper yet but Otis doesn't have to keep a license
> current.
> > and implying that they fatigue over the years from reading at close
> > distances isn't a slam dunk, because we don't see rates of things like
> > say, anal leakage, at nearly the rates for myopia in the population.
> That's right. Myopes read a lot and readers get myopia but we haven't been
> able to interrupt the relationship with reading glasses or any other
> manipulation, except chemical. Ergo the tendency to myopia is mostly a
> genetic trait.
> > Now Pia, and my wife for that matter - have very strong myopia (my
> > wife is over 600, etc) - and I think the "Myopia Myth" logic really
> > breaks down strongly for these cases, but I'd kinda like to see the
> > honest truth from someone, and I've read your replies in this thread
> > and have come to respect your responses. *What about the mild cases?
> If you could manipulate or alter the outcome of ordinary myopia with glasses
> or treatments, I'd be doing it. I would patent my treatment, franchise it
> and retire to the lake.
> "Mild" cases of myopia are a blessing, a serendipitous adaptation that many
> people are glad to have after 40, when hunter-gatherers put down their
> spears.
> > Any optical system is pretty fine tuned, and the only reason there is
> > so much variance for error (there truly is, I didn't realize I
> > actually see two red stoplights until just yesterday) is because the
> > "image" we see is actually mostly reconstructed back from the already
> > processed information (aka, lines, shapes, colors, glyphs...).
> Most people can detect some diplopia or other aberration in dim light.
> > My point is that I think it's pretty safe to assume that the logic of
> > the Otis camp is clearly extreme and can't explain the myriads of over
> > -6.00 young adults.
> Or the fact that it's 10% in oklahoma and 70% in Singapore.
> > *I'd be curious what your take would be on the
> > edge cases, the IT guys who work at 12" for 10 hours a day and then go
> > home and hit up the laptop for another 3, etc. *These people aren't
> > that uncommon, and I'd love to find some solid, realistic advice on
> > that situation.
> Work hard, rock hard, eat hard, sleep hard, grow big, wear glasses if you
> need 'em.
> -MT

> My original question was going to ask (was much more related to the
> original post) about mild astigmatism. Now that I've seen a doctor, I
> can now see that everything really is showing up in double, and even
> to a certain extent in the eye that was measured spherical (I see
> things double vertically, but only about 1/3 as offset as things in
> the other eye that was measured -0.75/-1.00). Is that mild of an
> issue not worth correcting?

> Anyway, the discussion in this thread that seemed to approach the
> recent debate about myopdia between Otis and company and the rest of
> the sane world is curious to me.

> I was wondering if you, Mike, could
> sum up your take on that. It sounds like you're saying that the
> ciliary muscles are smooth (so body builder logic no longer applies),

> and implying that they fatigue over the years from reading at close
> distances isn't a slam dunk, because we don't see rates of things like
> say, anal leakage, at nearly the rates for myopia in the population.

> Now Pia, and my wife for that matter - have very strong myopia (my
> wife is over 600, etc) - and I think the "Myopia Myth" logic really
> breaks down strongly for these cases, but I'd kinda like to see the
> honest truth from someone, and I've read your replies in this thread
> and have come to respect your responses. What about the mild cases?

> Any optical system is pretty fine tuned, and the only reason there is
> so much variance for error (there truly is, I didn't realize I
> actually see two red stoplights until just yesterday) is because the
> "image" we see is actually mostly reconstructed back from the already
> processed information (aka, lines, shapes, colors, glyphs...).

> My point is that I think it's pretty safe to assume that the logic of
> the Otis camp is clearly extreme and can't explain the myriads of over
> -6.00 young adults.

> I'd be curious what your take would be on the
> edge cases, the IT guys who work at 12" for 10 hours a day and then go
> home and hit up the laptop for another 3, etc. These people aren't
> that uncommon, and I'd love to find some solid, realistic advice on
> that situation.

> In article
> <b1072490-6db4-4a05-a177-e2886b6cc...[at]k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com> ,
> *d...[at]funtaff.net wrote:
> > > As for the earth being flat....
> That one's pretty obvious, other than the hills and valleys, of course.
> :-)
> > for a moment that long periods at close distances aren't natural,
> > sitting at a computer all day (at the age of 24) might be better
> Many people have found that staring at a computer screen for long
> periods of time causes problems. *Just looking up and across the room
> occasionally will solve this problem. *Some people even set a timer to
> remind themselves. *I find that getting up and walking around makes me
> feel better, as my whole body seems to dislike sitting in one position a
> long time. *It is important to note though, that despite the preachings
> of Otis, none of this has anything to do with causing, preventing or
> curing myopia.

> > As for the earth being flat....

> for a moment that long periods at close distances aren't natural,
> sitting at a computer all day (at the age of 24) might be better

> On Mar 16, 3:21*pm, d...[at]funtaff.net wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 1:53*pm, d...[at]funtaff.net wrote:
> > > On Mar 16, 1:43*pm, Dan Abel <da...[at]sonic.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <8ece10a2-7f95-4639-8992-fd9acb1f6...[at]s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com> ,
> > > > *d...[at]funtaff.net wrote:
> > > > > I stumbled on this thread looking for info on mild astigmatism. *I'm
> > > > > 24 and had 20/15 or better through high school and just recently
> > > > > noticed a problem while at the DMV, and saw an optometrist that wrote
> > > > > me up for -1.25/sph and -0.75/-1.00.
> > > > I'm going to jump in here also. *I'm going to ignore some of yourmost
> > > > important questions, not because they aren't important, but becauseI
> > > > just don't have the knowledge. *Perhaps Mike will answer.
> > > > > My original question was going to ask (was much more related to the
> > > > > original post) about mild astigmatism. *Now that I've seen a doctor, I
> > > > > can now see that everything really is showing up in double, and even
> > > > > to a certain extent in the eye that was measured spherical (I see
> > > > > things double vertically, but only about 1/3 as offset as things in
> > > > > the other eye that was measured -0.75/-1.00). *Is that mild of an
> > > > > issue not worth correcting?
> > > > What did the DMV say? *If they put a restriction on your license,you
> > > > better wear the glasses. *I was told by a reliable source that you risk
> > > > non-payment by your insurance company for an accident, plus being cited,
> > > > if you drive without correction if the DMV requires it.
> > > > > say, anal leakage,
> > > > I believe that was intended as a joke. *A poster was claiming to only
> > > > use their anal sphincter muscle for a few minutes a day. *That's exactly
> > > > backwards. *It is normal for people to have their anal sphincter muscle
> > > > constricted almost 24 hours a day, and only relax it when sitting on the
> > > > toilet.
> > > > > My point is that I think it's pretty safe to assume that the logic of
> > > > > the Otis camp is clearly extreme
> > > > The logic isn't that bad, it just doesn't work. *Otis and others won't
> > > > let go of it, even though studies have been done that show it doesn't
> > > > work. *As an example, it is pretty obvious from a casual look, that the
> > > > sun revolves around the earth. *However, as science advanced, it was
> > > > proved that that theory just didn't work. *Even when some Pope decreed
> > > > that the sun went around the earth, it still didn't!
> > > > --
> > > > Dan Abel
> > > > Petaluma, California USA
> > > > da...[at]sonic.net
> > > Oh I read the line at the DMV, but just had a shock that I almost
> > > could not because it was totally blurry. *So in that respect, I just
> > > want to do what's best for me. *I'm fairly excited though because I
> > > can't read street signs from too far away when driving, and my wife
> > > with glasses can - so that's something to look forward to. *I'd also
> > > perhaps like to look into correcting the astigmatism for close work (I
> > > think at my script the same glasses should be fine though) - because
> > > I've always dealt with focus (concentration) issues, and the thought
> > > has occurred to me that I may be struggling because it takes more
> > > effort than normal to make out the letters, as my mind is removing the
> > > double vision. *This last thought though is slightly less informed
> > > than some of the other statements I've made.
> > > As for the Pope - any physicist will tell you that it's just a frame
> > > of reference . *The reason we say the Earth revolves around the Sun
> > > is not because the Earth is the fixed body in the equation, but
> > > because there are other bodies following a similar path around the Sun
> > > that from a broad perspective make more sense to describe as revolving
> > > around the Sun and not vice versa.
> > > As for the earth being flat....
> > > -David
> > I made a little typo about the Sun/Earth thing above, but I trust
> > you'll in good faith forgive me .
> > Also, as for the anal sphincter thing - and I think it was discussed
> > as much as a joke as it is a serious corollary - *what you said brings
> > up a good point of distinction. *That muscle feels more strongly
> > contracted (as a matter of force as opposed to distance) when the
> > rectum is full than otherwise. *The way I understand it, if we hold
> > for a moment that long periods at close distances aren't natural,
> > sitting at a computer all day (at the age of 24) might be better
> > compared to mildly needing to pass a bowel movement and withholding...
> > for 10 hours a day... every day . *This comparison makes quite a lot
> > of assumptions, but I think there is probably a focal distance and an
> > age group where this makes sense.
> > -David
> At this point, a quick e-mail to Otis seems very relevant ... since he
> has his head up his ass.... ;-)

> On Mar 16, 1:53*pm, d...[at]funtaff.net wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 1:43*pm, Dan Abel <da...[at]sonic.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <8ece10a2-7f95-4639-8992-fd9acb1f6...[at]s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com> ,
> > > *d...[at]funtaff.net wrote:
> > > > I stumbled on this thread looking for info on mild astigmatism. *I'm
> > > > 24 and had 20/15 or better through high school and just recently
> > > > noticed a problem while at the DMV, and saw an optometrist that wrote
> > > > me up for -1.25/sph and -0.75/-1.00.
> > > I'm going to jump in here also. *I'm going to ignore some of your most
> > > important questions, not because they aren't important, but because I
> > > just don't have the knowledge. *Perhaps Mike will answer.
> > > > My original question was going to ask (was much more related to the
> > > > original post) about mild astigmatism. *Now that I've seen a doctor, I
> > > > can now see that everything really is showing up in double, and even
> > > > to a certain extent in the eye that was measured spherical (I see
> > > > things double vertically, but only about 1/3 as offset as things in
> > > > the other eye that was measured -0.75/-1.00). *Is that mild of an
> > > > issue not worth correcting?
> > > What did the DMV say? *If they put a restriction on your license, you
> > > better wear the glasses. *I was told by a reliable source that you risk
> > > non-payment by your insurance company for an accident, plus being cited,
> > > if you drive without correction if the DMV requires it.
> > > > say, anal leakage,
> > > I believe that was intended as a joke. *A poster was claiming to only
> > > use their anal sphincter muscle for a few minutes a day. *That's exactly
> > > backwards. *It is normal for people to have their anal sphincter muscle
> > > constricted almost 24 hours a day, and only relax it when sitting on the
> > > toilet.
> > > > My point is that I think it's pretty safe to assume that the logic of
> > > > the Otis camp is clearly extreme
> > > The logic isn't that bad, it just doesn't work. *Otis and others won't
> > > let go of it, even though studies have been done that show it doesn't
> > > work. *As an example, it is pretty obvious from a casual look, thatthe
> > > sun revolves around the earth. *However, as science advanced, it was
> > > proved that that theory just didn't work. *Even when some Pope decreed
> > > that the sun went around the earth, it still didn't!
> > > --
> > > Dan Abel
> > > Petaluma, California USA
> > > da...[at]sonic.net
> > Oh I read the line at the DMV, but just had a shock that I almost
> > could not because it was totally blurry. *So in that respect, I just
> > want to do what's best for me. *I'm fairly excited though because I
> > can't read street signs from too far away when driving, and my wife
> > with glasses can - so that's something to look forward to. *I'd also
> > perhaps like to look into correcting the astigmatism for close work (I
> > think at my script the same glasses should be fine though) - because
> > I've always dealt with focus (concentration) issues, and the thought
> > has occurred to me that I may be struggling because it takes more
> > effort than normal to make out the letters, as my mind is removing the
> > double vision. *This last thought though is slightly less informed
> > than some of the other statements I've made.
> > As for the Pope - any physicist will tell you that it's just a frame
> > of reference . *The reason we say the Earth revolves around the Sun
> > is not because the Earth is the fixed body in the equation, but
> > because there are other bodies following a similar path around the Sun
> > that from a broad perspective make more sense to describe as revolving
> > around the Sun and not vice versa.
> > As for the earth being flat....
> > -David
> I made a little typo about the Sun/Earth thing above, but I trust
> you'll in good faith forgive me .
> Also, as for the anal sphincter thing - and I think it was discussed
> as much as a joke as it is a serious corollary - *what you said brings
> up a good point of distinction. *That muscle feels more strongly
> contracted (as a matter of force as opposed to distance) when the
> rectum is full than otherwise. *The way I understand it, if we hold
> for a moment that long periods at close distances aren't natural,
> sitting at a computer all day (at the age of 24) might be better
> compared to mildly needing to pass a bowel movement and withholding...
> for 10 hours a day... every day . *This comparison makes quite a lot
> of assumptions, but I think there is probably a focal distance and an
> age group where this makes sense.
> -David

> On Mar 16, 12:14*pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Lemme' jump in here, uninvited, with what I call my "protocol."
> > It, literally, has answered the concerns of even the lunatic fringe,
> > on this subject:
> > 1) If you're a low, simple myope, then take off your glasses for near
> > work;
> > 2) Pay meticulous attention to proper visual hygiene, including
> > frequent breaks;
> > 3) Get plenty of fresh air, sunshine, and vigorous exercise (implicit
> > in this is using your eyes to gaze way out at optical infinity, or
> > nearly so);
> > 4) Eat a balanced, healthy diet, rich in fruits and vegetables;
> > 5) Practice ocular motility exercises (a/k/a "Yoga for the eyes");
> > 6) Use periocular warming* a couple of times each day, and after
> > sustained near work. *This has been found, scientifically, to restore
> > accommodative amplitudes.
> > *Fill a sock with corn or rice. *Heat up (WARM, NOT HOT) in a
> > microwave. *Put the warm bag over your closed eyes for 10 minutes. *If
> > desired, you can also learn the technique of "lid expression" to help
> > increase flow of the meibomian glands -- a producer of one of the
> > three components of tear film, responsible for a stable tear lens.
> > Neil
> > Chief Executive Officer
> > Otis is an Embittered Whack-Job, Inc.
> Seems pretty solid. *For the (unbalanced) diet, are there some
> particular areas you can stress regarding keeping vision in good
> shape?

> *Also, any links to ocular motility exercises,

> or papers
> regarding the periocular warming you can recommend? *

> I'll look them up
> regardless, but direction always helps.
> Thanks,
> -David

> On Mar 16, 1:43*pm, Dan Abel <da...[at]sonic.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8ece10a2-7f95-4639-8992-fd9acb1f6...[at]s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com> ,
> > *d...[at]funtaff.net wrote:
> > > I stumbled on this thread looking for info on mild astigmatism. *I'm
> > > 24 and had 20/15 or better through high school and just recently
> > > noticed a problem while at the DMV, and saw an optometrist that wrote
> > > me up for -1.25/sph and -0.75/-1.00.
> > I'm going to jump in here also. *I'm going to ignore some of your most
> > important questions, not because they aren't important, but because I
> > just don't have the knowledge. *Perhaps Mike will answer.
> > > My original question was going to ask (was much more related to the
> > > original post) about mild astigmatism. *Now that I've seen a doctor, I
> > > can now see that everything really is showing up in double, and even
> > > to a certain extent in the eye that was measured spherical (I see
> > > things double vertically, but only about 1/3 as offset as things in
> > > the other eye that was measured -0.75/-1.00). *Is that mild of an
> > > issue not worth correcting?
> > What did the DMV say? *If they put a restriction on your license, you
> > better wear the glasses. *I was told by a reliable source that you risk
> > non-payment by your insurance company for an accident, plus being cited,
> > if you drive without correction if the DMV requires it.
> > > say, anal leakage,
> > I believe that was intended as a joke. *A poster was claiming to only
> > use their anal sphincter muscle for a few minutes a day. *That's exactly
> > backwards. *It is normal for people to have their anal sphincter muscle
> > constricted almost 24 hours a day, and only relax it when sitting on the
> > toilet.
> > > My point is that I think it's pretty safe to assume that the logic of
> > > the Otis camp is clearly extreme
> > The logic isn't that bad, it just doesn't work. *Otis and others won't
> > let go of it, even though studies have been done that show it doesn't
> > work. *As an example, it is pretty obvious from a casual look, that the
> > sun revolves around the earth. *However, as science advanced, it was
> > proved that that theory just didn't work. *Even when some Pope decreed
> > that the sun went around the earth, it still didn't!
> > --
> > Dan Abel
> > Petaluma, California USA
> > da...[at]sonic.net
> Oh I read the line at the DMV, but just had a shock that I almost
> could not because it was totally blurry. *So in that respect, I just
> want to do what's best for me. *I'm fairly excited though because I
> can't read street signs from too far away when driving, and my wife
> with glasses can - so that's something to look forward to. *I'd also
> perhaps like to look into correcting the astigmatism for close work (I
> think at my script the same glasses should be fine though) - because
> I've always dealt with focus (concentration) issues, and the thought
> has occurred to me that I may be struggling because it takes more
> effort than normal to make out the letters, as my mind is removing the
> double vision. *This last thought though is slightly less informed
> than some of the other statements I've made.
> As for the Pope - any physicist will tell you that it's just a frame
> of reference . *The reason we say the Earth revolves around the Sun
> is not because the Earth is the fixed body in the equation, but
> because there are other bodies following a similar path around the Sun
> that from a broad perspective make more sense to describe as revolving
> around the Sun and not vice versa.
> As for the earth being flat....
> -David

> In article
> <8ece10a2-7f95-4639-8992-fd9acb1f6...[at]s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com> ,
> *d...[at]funtaff.net wrote:
> > I stumbled on this thread looking for info on mild astigmatism. *I'm
> > 24 and had 20/15 or better through high school and just recently
> > noticed a problem while at the DMV, and saw an optometrist that wrote
> > me up for -1.25/sph and -0.75/-1.00.
> I'm going to jump in here also. *I'm going to ignore some of your most
> important questions, not because they aren't important, but because I
> just don't have the knowledge. *Perhaps Mike will answer.
> > My original question was going to ask (was much more related to the
> > original post) about mild astigmatism. *Now that I've seen a doctor, I
> > can now see that everything really is showing up in double, and even
> > to a certain extent in the eye that was measured spherical (I see
> > things double vertically, but only about 1/3 as offset as things in
> > the other eye that was measured -0.75/-1.00). *Is that mild of an
> > issue not worth correcting?
> What did the DMV say? *If they put a restriction on your license, you
> better wear the glasses. *I was told by a reliable source that you risk
> non-payment by your insurance company for an accident, plus being cited,
> if you drive without correction if the DMV requires it.
> > say, anal leakage,
> I believe that was intended as a joke. *A poster was claiming to only
> use their anal sphincter muscle for a few minutes a day. *That's exactly
> backwards. *It is normal for people to have their anal sphincter muscle
> constricted almost 24 hours a day, and only relax it when sitting on the
> toilet.
> > My point is that I think it's pretty safe to assume that the logic of
> > the Otis camp is clearly extreme
> The logic isn't that bad, it just doesn't work. *Otis and others won't
> let go of it, even though studies have been done that show it doesn't
> work. *As an example, it is pretty obvious from a casual look, that the
> sun revolves around the earth. *However, as science advanced, it was
> proved that that theory just didn't work. *Even when some Pope decreed
> that the sun went around the earth, it still didn't!
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
> da...[at]sonic.net