Because all of you are optometrists who are really really smart, who
have finished your education in optometry school, who really really
know how the eye works. So, please share it with me. Please teach me
how the eye works.

Dear DrG,

Dr. Leukoma wrote:
There are many types of cancers and many theories of myopia. Which
theory of myopia explains your success in eliminating it?

DrG

The theory of myopia I am about to share with you is very simple but
effective.

However, before I go on, I would like to get some professional oponions
from you.

In world XYZ,
Conventional Doctors only believe in theory A:
There is no cause for a wound. High impact does not cause a wound.
No one knows what causes a wound. Studies/research have
shown/proven that high impact does not cause a wound. The wound
will get larger and larger regardless of the type of treatment used.
When there is a wound, doctors will prescribe sulfuric acid to the
patient to kill the bacteria in order to avoid infection.
Studies/research
have shown/proven that the wound will get larger and larger whether
or not sulfuric acid is used. When the wound become really big,
the doctors will remove the limb of the patient where the wound is.
Millions of people's limbs have been surgically removed.

New Doctors believe in theory B:
High impact as a result of dangerous activities causes a would. When
there is a wound, use neosporin and bandages to treat and cure the
wound. If the wound is very small, simply leave it alone.
Knee protectors, helmets, etc. should be used to prevent a wound.
No one's wound gets larger and larger treated this way.
Thousands of people have been treated with a success rate of 100%.

My questions are:
Should the conventional doctors who only believe in theory A start
doing what the new doctors are doing?

Is there any reason why theory B should not be used by conventional
doctors and should not be thought in conventional medical schools?

If there is a reason, what is it?

Is there a need to do control studies or blind studies to prove that
theory B is effective and should be used by conventional doctors?

Is survey of a thousand people enough to prove that theory B is
effective and should be used by conventional doctors?

What needs to be done before theory B is thought in conventional
medical schools and used by conventional doctors?
(Please list them.)

Thank you

Sincerely,
S.Seagal

Let's talk about what happens in the real world, Dr. Seagal, where real
physicians do not pour acid into wounds in order to heal them. There
is an old retired engineer who likes to harangue us with studies from
about the time I graduated from optometry school some 23 years/ago as
if time has stood still. It was only 7 years/ago that researchers
explained how the retina of certain primates responded to defocus and
not to accommodation.

I'll consider your pre-conditions to be non-starters and insofar as I
am concerned, the discussion is over. If you have something credible,
then publish it. Myopia is a hot topic.

Dr. Leukoma wrote:
Let's talk about what happens in the real world, Dr. Seagal, where real
physicians do not pour acid into wounds in order to heal them. There
is an old retired engineer who likes to harangue us with studies from
about the time I graduated from optometry school some 23 years/ago as
if time has stood still. It was only 7 years/ago that researchers
explained how the retina of certain primates responded to defocus and
not to accommodation.

I'll consider your pre-conditions to be non-starters and insofar as I
am concerned, the discussion is over. If you have something credible,
then publish it. Myopia is a hot topic.

Half a buck says he/she/it was just leading up to Elevator Boy's
proposition anyway. Could even BE the infamous Steve Leung.

In either event, all this rigmarole put me to sleep. Seems I'm not the
only one.

Thanks for playing, S. Seagal. Boy, you really wowed 'em over at
s.m.v......

However, before I go on, I would like to get some professional oponions
from you.

dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:

However, before I go on, I would like to get some professional oponions
from you.


Can't you just make your point without all this argumentative bullshit?
Somehow all this "beating around the bush" indicates to me that you
really don't have a logical rational theory after all.

Google says that there is a Steven Seagal who often acts as a doctor in
movies.

You seem a little dense.

Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up
close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much.

S.Seagal

Dan Abel wrote:

You seem a little dense.

How pleasant!

retinula wrote:
Dan Abel wrote:

You seem a little dense.

How pleasant!

Fairly sure Dan was being playfully tongue-in-cheek.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Dan.

retinula wrote:
Dan Abel wrote:

You seem a little dense.

How pleasant!

Fairly sure Dan was being playfully tongue-in-cheek.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Dan.

dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:

Could you please explain in detail how the environment (working up
close, prolonged close work) causes myopia? Thank you very much.


Please refer to this paper:

A Unifying Theory of Refractive Error Development
GEORGE K. HUNG, KENNETH J. CIUFFREDA
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology (2000) 62, 1087-1108

These two authors discuss the neuromodulators that control sensitivity
to retinal defocus, as it relates to contrast. Hung and Ciuffreda
invoke a time-sensitive function involving a change in retinal defocus.

So, when you talk about defocus and contrast, I just have to ask, please
sir, can I have some more?

Neil Brooks <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote:

I presume you're also sitting on the infamous 200mpg carburetor?

You are out of touch with reality. It's up to 400mpg.

:-)

Besides, when is the last time you've seen a new car with a carburetor?