| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » The Cause of Myopia
Page 3 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:05 pm |
|
|
|
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: Dr. Leukoma wrote:
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Do you need explanation with physics/math equation and drawing/diagram
OR simple explanation is enough? Before I answer this question, I like
to know what you think (I was going to ask you this question):
Why does myopia stop getting worse at adulthood or older?
Ever heard of adult-onset myopia?
Dear DrG,
Yes. Now, do you know the percentage of adult-onset myopia among
myopes? 80%? 50%? 30%? or 5%?
S.Seagal
Dear DrG,
You forgot to answer my question here. What is the percentage of
adult-onset myopia among myopes and (another question) why is that?
S.Seagal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr. Leukoma |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: Yes. Now, do you know the percentage of adult-onset myopia among
myopes? 80%? 50%? 30%? or 5%?
S.Seagal
Dear DrG,
You forgot to answer my question here. What is the percentage of
adult-onset myopia among myopes and (another question) why is that?
S.Seagal
According to your previous statement, Mr. Seagal, it should be 0%.
Are you changing your mind?
DrG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tyner |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<dr.seagal@yahoo.com> wrote
Quote: So how do you explain when they quit getting worse?
Dear Mike Tyner,
Do you need explanation with physics/math equation and drawing/diagram
OR simple explanation is enough? Before I answer this question, I like
to know what you think (I was going to ask you this question):
Why does myopia stop getting worse at adulthood or older?
I know! It's because they quit wearing glasses.
Quote: You see, in the US we must apply for licenses to practice optometry. If
we
advertise false claims, like you're doing, they take our licenses away.
Perhaps the requirements are not so stringent where you are?
What makes my claim false claims?
Several reasons:
1) You're the only one who believes it.
2) You haven't applied any statistical methods.
3) It contradicts published experiments using accepted statistical methods.
4) In the US, state governments and the Federal Trade Commission prosecute
doctors who claim to cure myopia.
5) Entire generations of optometrists used to believe as you do and now they
don't.
6) It contradicts my own experience.
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tyner |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<dr.seagal@yahoo.com> wrote
Quote: The data which I posted is just a small portion of what I have. I
guess I should post maybe 100 or 500 or 1000 or more to prove the
theory. But I thought DrG said one is suffice.
The data you posted is not organized into experimental and control groups.
You must learn some statistical method before you can hope to contradict
studies like those published by Parssinen, Shotwell, Grosvenor, Ong, and
Gwiazda.
Quote: No, I never said that. I said myopia is caused by prolonged close work
which you admitted in the beginning, remember?
Nonsense. I said prolonged close work contributes, but it doesn't contribute
much. If you'd read any of the existing literature, you'd know that.
Quote: Use common sense, my friend, rings only cause their neck to grow
longer, nothing to do with the eye. And glasses cause myopes' eye to
elongate as a result of sustained accommodation.
Then common sense says hyperopes should get BETTER if they don't wear
glasses.
Practicing in Asia, you may not get to see many hyperopes. We have tons of
'em here. They accommodate all day and don't get myopic. Why not? They want
to. We want them to. It just doesn't happen.
And by the way, we don't insist hyperopes wear full time, either.
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Abel |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1167606524.512083.209330@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
Quote: Dan Abel wrote:
I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED (Otis talk) if a -7D myope didn't wear
corrective lenses. It isn't fun to be without vision.
I won't find anybody around here not wearing shoes, either.
Wait a minute. I'm not wearing shoes. I often don't wear them in the
house. I never wear them in bed.
Sometimes I am NIFOC (Nude in Front of the Computer). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:52 am |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Leukoma wrote:
Quote: dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes. Now, do you know the percentage of adult-onset myopia among
myopes? 80%? 50%? 30%? or 5%?
S.Seagal
Dear DrG,
You forgot to answer my question here. What is the percentage of
adult-onset myopia among myopes and (another question) why is that?
S.Seagal
According to your previous statement, Mr. Seagal, it should be 0%.
Are you changing your mind?
DrG
Dear DrG,
No, I never said 0%. You asked:
Quote: Ever heard of adult-onset myopia?
And I said: Yes. That doesn't mean 0% and I am not changing my mind.
Now, again, what is the percentage of adult-onset myopia among myopes
and why is that? Don't try to sidetrack to something else as Mike Tyner
did.
Dear Mike Tyner,
Could you please also answer the two questions above, based on your
textbooks, etc.?
S.Seagal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr. Leukoma |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.sea...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
No, I never said 0%. You asked:
Ever heard of adult-onset myopia?
And I said: Yes. That doesn't mean 0% and I am not changing my mind.
Here is what you said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you need explanation with physics/math equation and drawing/diagram
OR simple explanation is enough? Before I answer this question, I like
to know what you think (I was going to ask you this question):
Why does myopia stop getting worse at adulthood or older?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if I show you one case where an adult's myopia gets worse, I win.
Don't you agree?
The fact is that axial -- and not accommodative -- myopia can and does
get worse in adulthood.
The way you phrased it, and according to you theory, if I demonstrate
at least one case, your theory is wrong.
DrG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr. Leukoma |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
And I said: Yes. That doesn't mean 0% and I am not changing my mind.
Happy New Year everybody. Time for bed.
Always be careful what you ask for.
DrG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Abel |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <dcidnTUwleM-5AXYnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote:
Quote: 4) In the US, state governments and the Federal Trade Commission prosecute
doctors who claim to cure myopia.
My Ods fixed my myopia. They gave me glasses and contacts. What's hard
to understand about that? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tyner |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<dr.seagal@yahoo.com> wrote
Quote: Could you please also answer the two questions above, based on your
textbooks, etc.?
Have yours gone missing?
After age 65, the entire population average shifts toward myopia. Myopes get
more myopic, hyperopes get less hyperopic.
Now pretty please, tell us how you cure myopia so we can do it too.
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:49 am |
|
|
|
|
how come bifocal spectacles, plus reading glasses, and removing glasses
for reading don't slow myopia progression?
are the rigorous statistical studies that demonstrate the above
treatments don't work all wrong and only your old theory right?
explain?
how come one study showed that myopic undercorrection actually caused
INCREASED myopia?
how come one study showed that myopic OVERCORRECTION did not result in
increased myopia in children? it should have caused them to get more
myopic according to your (=old disproven) theory.
do you believe there is a conspiracy among educated vision researchers
around the world to hide the real truth so that they all cook their
data to show that these treatments, which should work if your idea is
right, don't actually work at all? do you think they are stupid and
only you are smart?
are your REALLY a doctor graduating from a REAL accredited optometry
school?
how come credible eye doctors don't agree with you? if you claim they
do, then please list them.
can you actually answer these questions directly?
????????????????????
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: Dear all,
Since the conventional optometrists here kept hiding what they know
about the cause of myopia, I will share a little bit (which is all I
know) about the cause of myopia.
Myopia is caused by ......
(check it out here)
http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare
Sincerely,
S.Seagal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| William Stacy, O.D. |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mike Tyner wrote:
Quote: dr.seagal@yahoo.com> wrote
Could you please also answer the two questions above, based on your
textbooks, etc.?
Have yours gone missing?
As I've said, I'm not sure if he/she/it has even graduated high school
yet. And responding to this troll's posts directly is just what it wants. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| LarryDoc |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1167615563.581049.224450@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
Quote: LarryDoc wrote:
Geez, yet another looney nutcase. And you guys are doing an Otis on him.
Gee, sorry mom. The problem is not the person but the ideology, and
make no mistake, it is an ideology. It must be a profitable one at
that, or else why would they keep promoting it.
There really is very little downside to their scheme.
DrG
You might be confusing or combining separate issues, that of zealotry,
compulsive and impulsive behavior and profiteering into a single
ideology. Of course we've never seen that successfully implemented in
the real world. If it was, the result might be a polarization of
political, social and economic society that could lead to serious
conflict and even war.
Flame on.
LB |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr Judy |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: If the long-necked Paduang women wore their rings on frames out in front of
their eyes, would their eyes get longer?
-MT
Use common sense, my friend, rings only cause their neck to grow
longer, nothing to do with the eye. And glasses cause myopes' eye to
elongate as a result of sustained accommodation.
Wrong on both counts. The neck rings do not cause the neck to get
longer, they push on the collar bone causing it to drop down closer to
the ribs, neck bones are unaffected.
Can you provide any evidence for your statement that minus lenses, used
to correct existing myopia, cause sustained accommodation? Or that
sustained accommodation causes myopia? Even in the animal studies
using high minus on non myopic animals, accommodation was NOT a factor
in axial growth: animals with their accommodative system nerves cut
became myopic without accommodation.
Dr Judy
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr Judy |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dan Abel wrote:
..
Quote:
Sometimes I am NIFOC (Nude in Front of the Computer).
Too much information!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 3 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:42 pm
|
|
