Vision - school myopia

Author

school myopia

William Stacy

2005-04-13, 4:41 pm

Andrew:

I read most of the "school myopia" piece, and appreciate your sending
it. Quite an exhaustive review of the literature on the subject. One
thing that stood out was the prevalence of myopia in Taiwan. The 80%+
numbers would seem to support my argument that low to moderate levels of
myopia a really a normal adaptation to the near point environment. It's
natures way of allowing close focused folks to maintain clarity at the
near point throughout their lifetimes naturally.

w.stacy, o.d.

Dr. Leukoma

2005-04-13, 4:41 pm

I gather you are referring to the study published in Investigative
Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2005 Jan;46(1):51-7 by Saw, Tong, Chua
et.al. of the Department of Community, Occupational and Family
Medicine, National university of Singapore.

The points I found most interesting were:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The 3-year cumulative incidence rates of myopia were higher in Chinese
(49.5% vs. 27.2%) and in 7-year-old compared with 9-year-old children
at baseline (47.7% vs. 32.4%), though the latter relationship was of
borderline significance after adjustment for race, gender, amount of
reading (books/week), and parental myopia (P=0.057). Premyopic children
with greater axial lengths, vitreous chamber depths, and thinner lenses
were more prone to the development of myopia, after controlling for
age, gender, race, reading, and parental myopia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure how Andrew will explain away an environmental basis for a
premyopic structural/anatomical risk factor for the development of
myopia, but I suspect that a doozy of an attempt will be made. No
doubt the word "sugar" will figure into it.

DrG

Scott Seidman

2005-04-13, 4:41 pm

"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in news:1113396197.657762.279070
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> The points I found most interesting were:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The 3-year cumulative incidence rates of myopia were higher in Chinese
> (49.5% vs. 27.2%) and in 7-year-old compared with 9-year-old children
> at baseline (47.7% vs. 32.4%), though the latter relationship was of
> borderline significance after adjustment for race, gender, amount of
> reading (books/week), and parental myopia (P=0.057). Premyopic children
> with greater axial lengths, vitreous chamber depths, and thinner lenses
> were more prone to the development of myopia, after controlling for
> age, gender, race, reading, and parental myopia.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>

I love the term "borderline significant":

I maintain my own personal tongue in cheek dictionary of scientific terms:

borderline significant: not significant

qualitatively similar: quantitatively different

typical (in the context of "figure shows typical data"): the very best I
could find

....

Scott

William Stacy

2005-04-13, 4:41 pm

Actually it was "How genetic is school myopia?" by Ian Morgan and
Kathryn Rose.

w.stacy, o.d.

Dr. Leukoma wrote:

> I gather you are referring to the study published in Investigative
> Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2005 Jan;46(1):51-7 by Saw, Tong, Chua
> et.al. of the Department of Community, Occupational and Family
> Medicine, National university of Singapore.
>
> The points I found most interesting were:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The 3-year cumulative incidence rates of myopia were higher in Chinese
> (49.5% vs. 27.2%) and in 7-year-old compared with 9-year-old children
> at baseline (47.7% vs. 32.4%), though the latter relationship was of
> borderline significance after adjustment for race, gender, amount of
> reading (books/week), and parental myopia (P=0.057). Premyopic children
> with greater axial lengths, vitreous chamber depths, and thinner lenses
> were more prone to the development of myopia, after controlling for
> age, gender, race, reading, and parental myopia.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not sure how Andrew will explain away an environmental basis for a
> premyopic structural/anatomical risk factor for the development of
> myopia, but I suspect that a doozy of an attempt will be made. No
> doubt the word "sugar" will figure into it.
>
> DrG
>

otisbrown@pa.net

2005-04-13, 4:41 pm

For Andrew and William,

Actually the percentage of "myopes" is higher. So
I guess William is correct. The natural eye will
"adapt" by changing it refractive state (as a natural
process, if you place it in a long-term "confined"
visual enviroment.

Best,

Otis

________

MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT
FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS

Re: Changes in ocular refraction and its components
among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
National Taiwan university medical students, the myopia
prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year
period.

g.gatti@agora.it

2005-04-13, 4:41 pm

> myopia a really a normal adaptation to the near point environment.
It's
> natures way of allowing close focused folks to maintain clarity at
the
> near point throughout their lifetimes naturally.
>
> w.stacy, o.d.

This william stacy is something.

He has great degrees in learning but comes off with very stupid and
ubelieving answers.

The same old rotten answers given since hundreds of years.

What is your way to cure myopia?

Be serious!

Mike Tyner

2005-04-13, 4:41 pm

<andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com> wrote

> At the end of the say genetic factors are there but environment is more
> influential.

Everyone has an opinion, but this one isn't consistent with real life.

In the US, most bookkeepers and close-workers don't get nearsighted.

Myopes have more schooling but the majority of people with schooling aren't
nearsighted.

Why does the environment fail to produce myopia in 70% of the US population?

Only 30% are anxious?

-MT

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com

2005-04-14, 8:40 am

William wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
myopia a really a normal adaptation to the near point environment.

Millions are being spent on myopia research in chinese asians
countries. No single factor has yet stood out as being the cause of
myopia.

William Stacy

2005-04-14, 8:40 am

"No single factor"? Why are you unwilling to settle for less than a
single causative factor? If they are spending millions in asia to find
"THE" answer, that's fine, let 'em spend away. It's pretty obvious from
the literature that it's at least partly the increased demands of modern
near point stress that's triggering it in susceptible individuals. It's
like spending millions to find out why people are getting taller, or why
they are living longer. The causes are similarly complex and not
answerable by a single factor, but they are pretty well, almost
intuitively, understood.

Maybe a better analogy would be to ask why is Arnold Schwarzenegger so
muscular? The answer is a complex interaction of excercise, diet and
genetics, at least. Everyone know that.

Whatever the cause(s) of mild to moderate myopia, I'm not losing any
sleep over it/them.

Sorry to hear that some people are...

w.stacy, o.d.

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com wrote:

>William wrote
>
>
>
>myopia a really a normal adaptation to the near point environment.
>
>Millions are being spent on myopia research in chinese asians
>countries. No single factor has yet stood out as being the cause of
>myopia.
>
>
>

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com

2005-04-14, 8:40 am

William Stacey wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
the literature that it's at least partly the increased demands of
modern
near point stress that's triggering it in susceptible individuals.

Susceptible individuals?

You mean "The genes are known you fool! everybody knows its genetic
you moron. You are so unscientific! Goodbye weirdo!"??

You know i would be almost depressed but I wrote to a prominant myopia
researcher the other day and he sent me that school myopia study and
said
..
"Regarding the twin study dilemma I attach a very recent paper (which I
feel will have a significant influence on how the research community
view myopia) by Ian Morgan and Kathryn Rose. In the light of your
comments I think you will find section 3.5 very interesting."

Change is hard i guess.

Andrew

Francine

2005-04-14, 8:40 am

Andrew,

There is some material on PubMed about a population's variation in
susceptibility to near point stress. I believe it has been calculated w/re
to the speed at which the ciliary muscle can relax at a distance after a
period of time spent doing near point work. There apparently is a difference
in nerve innervation to the ciliary muscle in various individuals, and this
seems to play a part in their different responses. I believe that in about
30% of the subjects in one particular study (done in the USA, I think) there
was no difficulty in relaxing accommodation after prolonged work at near. I
could look up the article; I think I have it in my files but you can of
course find it as well.

Cheers,
Francine

in article 1113446048.888768.100890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com at andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com wrote on
4/13/05 10:34 PM:

> William Stacey wrote
>
> the literature that it's at least partly the increased demands of
> modern
> near point stress that's triggering it in susceptible individuals.
>
> Susceptible individuals?
>
> You mean "The genes are known you fool! everybody knows its genetic
> you moron. You are so unscientific! Goodbye weirdo!"??
>
> You know i would be almost depressed but I wrote to a prominant myopia
> researcher the other day and he sent me that school myopia study and
> said
> .
> "Regarding the twin study dilemma I attach a very recent paper (which I
> feel will have a significant influence on how the research community
> view myopia) by Ian Morgan and Kathryn Rose. In the light of your
> comments I think you will find section 3.5 very interesting."
>
> Change is hard i guess.
>
> Andrew
>

William Stacy

2005-04-14, 8:40 am

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com wrote:

> You mean "The genes are known you fool! everybody knows its genetic
> you moron. You are so unscientific! Goodbye weirdo!"??

I don't think I meant that, but, whatever...

night, night...

w.stacy, o.d.

Dan Abel

2005-04-19, 10:44 am

In article <04j7e.2712$dT4.1727@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, William Stacy
<wstacy@obase.net> wrote:

> Maybe a better analogy would be to ask why is Arnold Schwarzenegger so
> muscular? The answer is a complex interaction of excercise, diet and
> genetics, at least. Everyone know that.

I don't know if you're kidding us or not. It's hard to tell on
newsgroups. It's steroids. He has admitted to using them.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com

2005-04-19, 10:44 am

Maybe a better analogy would be to ask why is Arnold Schwarzenegger so
> muscular? The answer is a complex interaction of excercise, diet and

> genetics, at least. Everyone know that.

>I don't know if you're kidding us or not. It's hard to tell on
newsgroups. It's steroids. He has admitted to using them.

Well if steroids are part of your diet then strange things happen.
Diet alone would not have created Arnold. He did exercise too, and was
enormously determined to be somebody when he was earlier mr nobody.
Clearly genetics must play a part there somewhere.

But take away the steroids and the exercise and you would have mr
puniverse from Austria.

Similarly the environmentalists argue that if you take away the complex
environmental factors at play in myopia then myopia becomes very
unlikely.

otisbrown@pa.net

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

Dear William,

" It's
natures way of allowing close focused folks to maintain clarity at the
near point throughout their lifetimes naturally. "

It would seem from this statement that even
you would agree that, since the natural
eye "adapts" its refractive status (by moving
from a positive value to a negative value), then
at least the "first-step" in a solution is to have the person
completely elliminate the "near" enviroment with a strong plus.

In fact, when "Mike" did this, his refractive status changed from a
negative value (20/50) to a positive value.

The only real difficulty is "Mike's" motivation to do this work
successfully.

Since you have already stated that you are not going to "lose any
sleep" over these statistics, then I believe that "Mike" is warrented
understanding your "casual" attitude, and taking responsibility to do
this work himself -- under his own control

You may not have much concern about this issue -- but Mike does.

Maybe that is the issues that separates "Medicine" from pure science.

In any event, true-prevention with the plus
remains the "second opinion", in my judgment.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

William Stacy

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:
> Dear William,
>
> " It's
> natures way of allowing close focused folks to maintain clarity at the
> near point throughout their lifetimes naturally. "
>
> It would seem from this statement that even
> you would agree that, since the natural
> eye "adapts" its refractive status (by moving
> from a positive value to a negative value), then
> at least the "first-step" in a solution is to have the person
> completely elliminate the "near" enviroment with a strong plus.

A very simple and intuitive thing to do. Unfortunately, has been tested
extensively and found not to be very successful. I've tried it in tha
past with similarly mixed results.

>
> In fact, when "Mike" did this, his refractive status changed from a
> negative value (20/50) to a positive value.
>

I'm sure you've been advised that your notation is incorrect. 20/50 is
an acuity value, not a refractive state. 20/50 simply means the eye can
only read down to the 20/50 size letter at 20 ft test distance. This
sub-normal performance can be caused by myopia, by hypermetropia, by
astigmatism, by macular degeneration, cataract, amblyopia, solar burn of
the retina, diabetic retinopathy, and a host of other conditions. Your
attempt to simplify standard terminology simply confuses the issue.

> The only real difficulty is "Mike's" motivation to do this work
> successfully.

Sure, blame the patient. That always works.
>
> Since you have already stated that you are not going to "lose any
> sleep" over these statistics, then I believe that "Mike" is warrented
> understanding your "casual" attitude, and taking responsibility to do
> this work himself -- under his own control
>
Whatever. I don't think mild myopia is harmful. In fact I CHOSE it
when I had my cataract surgeries, for one of my eyes.

> You may not have much concern about this issue -- but Mike does.
>
> Maybe that is the issues that separates "Medicine" from pure science.

No. In health care we help patients by the thousands. Your brand of
"pure science" trys to help a few gullible people who are upset with the
cards they were dealt. Most of the time you guys do no harm, but I've
seen some potentially harmful suggestions on this news group and as long
as I'm here, I'll fight that. It's my hippocratic duty.

w.stacy, o.d.

William Stacy

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

since the natural
> eye "adapts" its refractive status (by moving
> from a positive value to a negative value), then
> at least the "first-step" in a solution is to have the person
> completely elliminate the "near" enviroment with a strong plus.

By the way, my own belief is that it's not just accommodation that's at
fault. I think prolonged convergence may be even a greater factor. The
internal rectus muscles pulling continuously on the side of the eyeball
can not be dismissed as a partial cause. So maybe strong plus lenses
with around 15^ of base in prism would do the trick. Who's going to pay
for and wear those beasts? Just to avoid a little myopia? It's like
trying to hit a fly with a sledge...

w.stacy, o.d.

Mike Tyner

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

"William Stacy" <wstacy@obase.net> wrote

> for and wear those beasts? Just to avoid a little myopia? It's like
> trying to hit a fly with a sledge...

Except with the hammer, you can be reasonably sure of your results.

-MT

g.gatti@agora.it

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

William Stacy wrote:

> No. In health care we help patients by the thousands. Your brand of

> "pure science" trys to help a few gullible people who are upset with
the
> cards they were dealt. Most of the time you guys do no harm, but
I've
> seen some potentially harmful suggestions on this news group and as
long
> as I'm here, I'll fight that. It's my hippocratic duty.

Nobody is helped by you.

People stop to visit you out of desperation.

Not because they are cure or have found some kind of relief.

Primum Non Nuocere, it seems you have forgotten.

You only do harm to poor people, gullible people who trust you because
of your titles.

And you cheat them.

Please, bring one case where you were able to cure even half a dioptre
of myopia.

At least poor Otis is able to quote a few cases.

But you?

You just put on eyeglasses, and create a patient who has to come to you
again in a 6 months time, to have the glasses changed...

Isn't this a great harm?

It's real injury.

We are finally creating our Society for Perfect Sight.

I will be glad to get member and their testimonials of persons who
could cure themselves by the simple use of a Snellen chart as Dr. Bates
has discovered it can be done.

Children expecially. They are very easy to be cured, if they have never
worn glasses and are less than 12 years old, they are cured by
themselves in a few days or weeks or at the maximum months.

Dr. Bates claimed NO EXCEPTIONS, to these kinds of cures.

NO EXCEPTIONS means 100% scientific.

It is always reproducible.

Truth is on my side, we will see.

This message is for the record. Not for your conviction.

otisbrown@pa.net

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

Dear William,

You should be clear on several points regarding, Jon, Mike
John and others who are working to clear -- or have cleared their
vison to pass the required legal standard, i.e., read 1.8 cm
letters at 6 meters.

1. They all had a MEDICAL examination -- and any MEDICAL
issue was repored to them.

2. They all understood the nature of the "second opinion" and
the honest difficulties of true-prevention -- and accepted that
they PERSONALLY had to do the work themselves -- to
clear their distant vision to normal.

3. They ALL understood the difference between visual acuity
checking and refractive status measurements (using a
trial-lens kit) and made BOTH measurements.
(Trial lens kit was the use of a minus lens of proper
strength.)

4. The are well-aware that you don't lose any "sleep" about
nearsightedness -- and obviously don't care -- but THEY DO.

And I certainly agree that it takes a person of considerable
fortitude to do this work "correctly". For that reason,
success depends on the qualities of judgment and motivaiton
of the person -- and not on your qualities.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

William Stacey
[vbcol=seagreen]
at
fault. I think prolonged convergence may be even a greater factor.
The
internal rectus muscles pulling continuously on the side of the eyeball

can not be dismissed as a partial cause.

Why should there be any significant tension on an eyeball during
reading? Muscles can have various lengths without significant tension
being felt on an anchoring point. But that is not to say that for
**some** people there is in fact significant muscular tension at the
anchor points of muscles when doing some activities.

I would argue that its not the reading position that might be damaging
but *how you read* or *why you read*

For example, since accommodation is an essentially unconscious process,
reading that is not done for pleasure (perhaps by myopes wanting good
marks to please anxious parents) and reading that is done for pleasure
(perhaps by hypermetropes who generally dont like reading) are likely
to create different scenarios.

I these are irrelevant considerations as to why some children get
vision problems and why some dont.

Andrew

A Lieberman

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

On 16 Apr 2005 14:06:50 -0700, otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

> Dear William,
>
> You should be clear on several points regarding, Jon, Mike
> John and others who are working to clear -- or have cleared their
> vison to pass the required legal standard, i.e., read 1.8 cm
> letters at 6 meters.

Dear William

Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and
not in the position of giving medical advice.

In addition, the above individuals that Otis claims to clear their vision
appear to be a part of his imagination since none has come forward in the
newsgroup to share their experiences.

Thank you!

Allen

Mike Tyner

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

> And I certainly agree that it takes a person of considerable
> fortitude to do this work "correctly". For that reason,
> success depends on the qualities of judgment and motivaiton
> of the person -- and not on your qualities.

Is that why there are no controlled studies showing that it works?

-MT

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

> For example, since accommodation is an essentially unconscious process,
> reading that is not done for pleasure (perhaps by myopes wanting good
> marks to please anxious parents) and reading that is done for pleasure
> (perhaps by hypermetropes who generally dont like reading) are likely
> to create different scenarios.
>
> I these are irrelevant considerations as to why some children get
> vision problems and why some dont.

I see, so focusing the eyes at the same focal plane, at the same working
distance, and with the same amount of convergence, are different scenarios
depending upon whether the person is regarding the near object out of
self-interest or not? Is control of heart rhythm similar as well?

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

>>I see, so focusing the eyes at the same focal plane, at the same
working
distance, and with the same amount of convergence, are different
scenarios
depending upon whether the person is regarding the near object out of
self-interest or not?

I did not say that. I said:

>since accommodation is an essentially unconscious process,
> reading that is not done for pleasure (perhaps by myopes wanting
good
> marks to please anxious parents) and reading that is done for
pleasure
> (perhaps by hypermetropes who generally dont like reading) are likely

> to create different scenarios.

Francine

2005-04-19, 10:45 am

A Lieberman

2005-04-23, 8:53 am