For info on PRK and PARK in the united kingdom, take a look at :
www.demon.co.uk/optimax/
Cheers,
Gavin Galway B.App.Sc.-Optom
Optimax
For info on PRK and PARK in the united kingdom, take a look at :
www.demon.co.uk/optimax/
Cheers,
Gavin Galway B.App.Sc.-Optom
Optimax
mikem…@aol.com (MikeM727) writes:
Excessive close work requires excessive accommodation which causes chronic
ciliary muscle spasm, which eventually causes axial-length growth of the
eye. This can be PREVENTED and RECOVERED by the use of convex (plus)
lenses for close work, which eliminates accommodation. Concave (minus)
lenses exacerbate the problem.
I want to know one thing. WHY DIDN’T ANYONE TELL ME this BEFORE I
developed myopia? There seems to be precious little written about this
and made available to the public. However, there seems to be a mountain
of evidence that proves it. It seems like the medical profession knows
it, will admit it if asked, but aren’t actively promoting it. This
information should be shouted from the rooftop!
<<<<<<<<<<
You must be a newbie on this group. This has been shouted, aregued, and
almost dueled about on this group. I, for one, have gotten so worn out
from the acrimony and haggling, that I need a few more months of recovery
before entering the fray again.
William Buchman
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
BillyFish (William Buchman) wrote:
> mikem…@aol.com (MikeM727) writes:
> Excessive close work requires excessive accommodation which causes chronic
> ciliary muscle spasm, which eventually causes axial-length growth of the
> eye. This can be PREVENTED and RECOVERED by the use of convex (plus)
> lenses for close work, which eliminates accommodation. Concave (minus)
> lenses exacerbate the problem.
> I want to know one thing. WHY DIDN’T ANYONE TELL ME this BEFORE I
> developed myopia? There seems to be precious little written about this
> and made available to the public. However, there seems to be a mountain
> of evidence that proves it. It seems like the medical profession knows
> it, will admit it if asked, but aren’t actively promoting it. This
> information should be shouted from the rooftop!
> <<<<<<<<<<
> You must be a newbie on this group. This has been shouted, aregued, and
> almost dueled about on this group. I, for one, have gotten so worn out
> from the acrimony and haggling, that I need a few more months of recovery
> before entering the fray again.
Ok, Mr. Fish, I’ll take a swing in your absence …
I’m not a vision professional or MD.
I think many of us are not convinced that the evidence is all that
conclusive that it’s quite so simple. I’m one of the believers that
we’ll soon learn some workarounds for preventing myopia and some cures
for some cases of myopia (rather than simply ‘corrections’), but I’m
not convinced that it’s "close work" that caused it in the first place,
nor am I even convinced that it’s "close work" that makes it get worse.
My personal hunch is that a way to avoid myopia, to reduce its increase
once you have it, and to reduce it absolutely, is to focus FAR rather
than
avoid near. Spend time with your eyes focussed out as far as they can
go,
studying details as fine as you can see. One might do this
by using relatively plus lenses for reading, for example, and by a
change
of habits when outdoors (look at the leaves on trees rather than the
leaves on the sidewalk.)
"Why didn’t anyone tell me!" Well, a few people have tried to in
various books and so forth. However, most people, even smart, educated
optometrists, tend to obey the mainstream, because that puts food on the
table and lets them live a normal life. It takes some kind of nut to
break the rules, and it often takes the aging and death of the
establishment for real change to occur, unless some very compelling
evidence is brought forward — so compelling that a risk-averse
professional finds it safer to change than to ignore it. (E.g., he’ll
lose malpractice suits if he prescribes any more minus lenses.)
One little reference for your enjoyment:
Vision Research 35 (1995), p. 1135 (approximately)
by Schaeffel, Frank and Howland, Howard C., in a Guest Editorial
(in an entire issue devoted to myopia)
"The authors point out that it cannot be concluded that humans become
myopic from near work as long as the exposure to negative defocus
cannot be quantified (both in time and amount). The authors state that
if,
for instance, 1 hour of daily distant vision with relaxed accommodation
were
sufficient to suppress the development of myopia in humans,
concerns about negative lenses augmenting myopia would be relieved."
In article <54ra0e$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, billyf…@aol.com
(BillyFish) writes:
>You must be a newbie on this group. This has been shouted, aregued, and
>almost dueled about on this group. I, for one, have gotten so worn out
>from the acrimony and haggling, that I need a few more months of recovery
>before entering the fray again.
Yep, I’m a newbie to this group. If this was discussed before, would it
be archived somewhere that I would have access to?
Mike
Obviously there is still a lot of debate about the myopia issue. I too am
upset that I heard about this debate and potential options from outside
the medical profession. As a consumer, I think it was my right to be
informed of all my options as soon as I could understand them. I think I
could have gone all the way to having corneal surgery without one
physician ever explaning to me that myopia was more than just a
genetically determined excessively long eye. That the surgery wouldn’t be
a cure. I am appaulled at the lack of information I was given. This
subject to my recollection was not discussed in medical school or
residency (I am in family medicine). Most physicians I know still think
this is genetically determined, which is impossible given the
epidemiology. I have never seen an article on this controversy in any
mainstream medical journal. I think our editors are not doing their jobs
and are biased against non-physicians.
I wrote to a consumer advocacy group to express my concern that patients
are not being given informed consent prior to corneal surgery. You might
want to write to
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Sidney Wolfe, M.D. Director
2000 P. St., NW Ste 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
Julie
Here’s an article you might want to find-"Myopia Reduction Training-with a
computer-based behavioral technique: a preliminary report." Leray Leber,
PhD and Thomas Wilson, O.D. , Journal of Behavioral Optometry, Vol 4, No.
4, 1993, page 87. It is a short term study using pilots, I believe at the
Air Force Academy in Colorado. At the end of the article is Dr. Wilson’s
address, which may still be good. Thomas A. Wilson, O.D. 1860 Woodmoor
Drive, Monument, CO 80132
and here are some stories about discussions I have had with friends in the
medical profession about myopia-
A friend in Radiology said he would be interested in what I was learning
about vision therapy as his eyesight was deteriorating. I asked him what
he had been told about the etiology of myopia. He said- I don’t know,
it’s a "Black" thing- and he laughed. He’s Jamaican English Canadian
something. Very smart too and fun.
I was confused (and still am) about the function of the ciliary muscle.
There is evidence of sympathetic innervation to this muscle, but its
function "is not well understood" (How do we get to corneal surgery if we
still don’t understand the basic anatomy and physiology?) I’m getting
these incredible clear flashes and feel my anterior eye twitch, wobble and
sting, like I feel when I try to hold a sit up for a long time. It
certainly feels like something is working when I look in the distance, but
I am told everything is actually relaxing. So I called a friend in
pathology to see if he had more extensive information. He did not. I
asked him if he had been told not to wear the negative lenses for close up
work as this could cause the muscle tone to increase and worsen the
myopia. He said he hadn’t been told that but he had been told to be sure
and wear his glasses faithfully before his doctor visits. I asked "Why is
that?" He said, " Because if you don’t wear the glasses, your vision gets
a little better." I said- Duh! He didn’t see the problem with this bit
of instruction.
An M.D. friend remembers exactly when his vision blurred. He was in his
twenties, taking a test, and looked up, and suddenly his vision was
blurry. He was prescribed negative lenses. I think most well trained eye
docs would say this guy probably had pseudomyopia and should have been
treated with reading glasses. He dismisses the concept of functional
myopia, because- it wouldn’t have gotten this far (in reference to corneal
surgery). i.e. our profession is too on the ball to be making such a big
mistake.
I got in a very frustrating conversation with an ophthalmologist friend.
I was explaining the clear flashes and he said I must be squinting- I
think you really have to see these to believe them, especially if you were
as indoctrinate as I was. I actually wondered for a bit if maybe I wasn’t
hallucinating. He said he had heard of vision therapy but had not had
much success with it so he did not include it in his practice. He also
said he had originally wanted to be in family medicine and focus on diet,
exercise, wellness, kind of a wholistic approach. But then he started
dealing with obese hypertensive diabetics etc and got very discouraged by
their lack of compliance with lifestyle changes. So he changed to
ophthalmology because he-" likes helping people see better." I felt that
compliance could well be the factor in both weight loss and myopia
reduction and that he took the easy way out. Which is OK to do as long as
the patient is fully informed of options and is allowed to look over all
the information and make their own choice as to what type of treatment
they are willing and able to pursue.
Julie
MikeM727 wrote:
> In article <54ra0e$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, billyf…@aol.com
> (BillyFish) writes:
> >You must be a newbie on this group. This has been shouted, aregued, and
> >almost dueled about on this group. I, for one, have gotten so worn out
> >from the acrimony and haggling, that I need a few more months of recovery
> >before entering the fray again.
> Yep, I’m a newbie to this group. If this was discussed before, would it
> be archived somewhere that I would have access to?
> Mike
You can find lots of articles from sci.med.vision on Alta Vista
(http://altavista.digital.com — use the Search box and pick Usenet
instead of The Web); or Deja News (http://www.dejanews.com) which
will let you search old (18 months) articles as well.
Unfortunately, I don’t know of particular key words you’d be able to
use which would give you everything you seek. Probably your best bet
would be to make a note of any authors who write things you’re
interested in, and then read everything those authors write.
Check out http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~aeulenbe/i_see/
for an interesting collection of vision improvement articles.
In article <550a9g$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, jralls7…@aol.com
(JRalls7959) writes:
>I was confused (and still am) about the function of the ciliary muscle.
>There is evidence of sympathetic innervation to this muscle, but its
>function "is not well understood" (How do we get to corneal surgery if
we
>still don’t understand the basic anatomy and physiology?) I’m getting
>these incredible clear flashes and feel my anterior eye twitch, wobble
and
>sting, like I feel when I try to hold a sit up for a long time. It
>certainly feels like something is working when I look in the distance,
but
>I am told everything is actually relaxing.
Have you read Donald Rehm’s book? Conventional wisdom is that the ciliary
muscle tightens around the lens during accommodation and simply relaxes
for far vision. However, it is also thought by some researchers that the
*circular fibers* of the ciliary muscle are used to tighten the muscle,
and the *radial fibers* aid in relaxing the muscle. Therefore, it is
possible to have *active relaxation* of the ciliary muscle.
>I think most well trained eye
>docs would say this guy probably had pseudomyopia and should have been
>treated with reading glasses.
What is *pseudomyopia*? Is that a short-term spasm of the ciliary muscle?
Mike
Kip Bryan <k…@delphi.com> wrote:
…………………………
>However, most people, even smart, educated
>optometrists, tend to obey the mainstream, because that puts food on the
>table and lets them live a normal life. It takes some kind of nut to
>break the rules, and it often takes the aging and death of the
>establishment for real change to occur, unless some very compelling
>evidence is brought forward — so compelling that a risk-averse
>professional finds it safer to change than to ignore it. (E.g., he’ll
>lose malpractice suits if he prescribes any more minus lenses.)
Beautifully said, whatever the truth of myopia be.
……………………….
Ray
In article <32718907.2…@delphi.com>, Kip Bryan <k…@delphi.com> writes:
>I think many of us are not convinced that the evidence is all that
>conclusive that it’s quite so simple.
The evidence that I’ve seen is absolutely overwhelming. You’d almost have
to work at it to NOT believe it. It’s so logical, and the studies done
are so convincing, IMHO.
>I’m one of the believers that
>we’ll soon learn some workarounds for preventing myopia and some cures
>for some cases of myopia (rather than simply ‘corrections’), but I’m
>not convinced that it’s "close work" that caused it in the first place,
>nor am I even convinced that it’s "close work" that makes it get worse.
>My personal hunch is that a way to avoid myopia, to reduce its increase
>once you have it, and to reduce it absolutely, is to focus FAR rather
>than
>avoid near.
What’s the difference? It’s the same thing! I think we’re saying the
same basic thing, but in two different ways. That’s what positive lenses
do while reading. They take the "near world" and move it further away.
They take diverging rays of light and make them parallel, so a lower angle
of refraction is needed to focus them on the retina. This requires the
lens of the eye to be less convex, which predicates the relaxation of the
ciliary muscle.
Mike
JRalls7959 wrote:
> I have never seen an article on this controversy in any
> mainstream medical journal.
Check out
Mutti DO. Zadnik K. Adams AJ. Myopia. The nature versus nurture debate goes on.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 37(6):952-7, 1996 May.
Stefan Stefanov
Actually, I should have said mainstream, primary care journal. The meat
(just figuratively, I am a vegetarian) and potatoes stuff your average
clinician might read. I’ve only seen information about the new options
for vision loss- ie corneal surgery. In one article- Patient Care of Sept
1995, the authors(specialists) state that myopia is inconvenient, but not
a disease. Sure seems to me like it is a pathological stretch. One
audiodigest speaker discussing vision problems in pediatrics made a
reference to his own myopia. He clearly felt his problem was inherited,
that his eye was- just too long. I do not recall myopia ever discussed in
medical school or residency, or any any CME for family physicians. I’ve
never seen Bates or behavioral optometry discussed. This to me looks like
biased coverage of the full nature of the problem and options for
treatment. This is such a common problem, it does seem strange that I was
so poorly educated about it.
Julie
I ordered Rehmn’s book and have not looked up a single journal that has
been recommended to me of late. I would like to learn more about the
ciliary muscle. I don’t really get how this can be so hard to figure
out. If we can send a man to the moon, how come there’s still a debate
about how this little teenie muscle works?
Pseudomyopia isn’t necessarily short term but it is the spasm of the
ciliary muscle. The two ,pseudomyopia and myopia, may be the same thing at
different points in time. I think it is possible that chronic extensive
use of the ciliary muscle may do something to the eye to cause a
structural change and lengthening.
Julie
jralls7…@aol.com (JRalls7959) wrote:
>Actually, I should have said mainstream, primary care journal. The meat
>(just figuratively, I am a vegetarian) and potatoes stuff your average
>clinician might read. I’ve only seen information about the new options
>for vision loss- ie corneal surgery. In one article- Patient Care of Sept
>1995, the authors(specialists) state that myopia is inconvenient, but not
>a disease. Sure seems to me like it is a pathological stretch.
Dunno what a "stretch" might be, but if you MDs’d just get rid o’ that
mystical, magical *disease* concept altogether, things’d start making
a lot more sense. Nobody knows what is a "disease" and what isn’t;
they just know that pseudo-concept enhances $-tropia in MDs and their
entourage.
>One
>audiodigest speaker discussing vision problems in pediatrics made a
>reference to his own myopia. He clearly felt his problem was inherited,
>that his eye was- just too long. I do not recall myopia ever discussed in
>medical school or residency, or any any CME for family physicians. I’ve
>never seen Bates or behavioral optometry discussed. This to me looks like
>biased coverage of the full nature of the problem and options for
>treatment. This is such a common problem, it does seem strange that I was
>so poorly educated about it.
>Julie
The object of a medical education, as many MDs have made clear to the
public, is simply to tote up years in school to "justify" their price
tags. Instead of absorbing expandable knowledge bases consistent with
general modern science, they party on four years of non-technical
social games and then memorize a static wad of half-obsolescent
old-doctor’s tales, while becoming in-doctor-inated in
profession-oriented bedside manners and other role-playing.
Ray
Ray