+- Eyesight Improvement Forum (https://www.iblindness.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Complementary Methods (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia (/showthread.php?tid=1463)
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - Pikachu - 08-22-2011
@JMartinC4: If you feel like Sorrisi insulted you with that post, you should have brought that up instead of trying to get revenge or whatever. It's frustrating to have others argue against what you believe to be true, but a personal attack doesn't help your case any.
All of us here on the forum are in it for the same purpose - to improve our own vision and to help others too. Maybe you'll disagree with other people on the exact way to reach that goal, and from what I've seen, your ideas have been quite different, to say the least. But you can't deny the facts. Your method worked for you. Sorrisi's method worked for her. They both worked, just not for the same person. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that both sets of beliefs include important principles that are conducive to good vision. As Nancy pointed out, the concept of forward motion does indeed seem to agree with Bates' writings, if you think about it for a bit. If you'd like others to take your advice more readily, I think that a good idea would be to find the connection between what you have discovered and what Bates discovered. This *IS* a Bates method forum after all.
Take it easy and keep at it.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - sorrisiblue - 08-23-2011
hi JMartinC4, I just came across this whole discussion of me. My comment in the Bates method forum you quoted wasn't meant as an insult and was not directed at you. It was referring to the many responses and questions in that thread that had nothing to do with the Bates method. I'm sorry you were offended. Let me explain:
People come onto the Bates method forum seeking Bates method advice, so... the logical thing to do with the confusion in that thread was to differentiate between Bates method/non-Bates method advice.
Your comments on this thread indicated that you've noticed I tend to write responses that stick to Bates's work. I do that because I've found it most helpful to beginners and most relevant to what they are asking. In my experience, beginners make the most progress if they start with the Bates method, and then branch out later. I'm not against new ideas or theories or furthering vision improvement research (Bates or otherwise). I just don't see the Bates method forum as the place for either casual or formal research into new theories.
Dr. Bates had a working hypothesis with much evidence, and I'm glad that there are people expanding on his work. I attribute much of my vision improvement to using the Snellen chart with the Bates method, but also to other things like autogenics, yoga, and mindfulness meditation. I respect Thomas Quackenbush, who expanded on Bates's work by drawing more attention to the relaxation effects of breathing. The vision improvement teacher I admire most is Meir Schneider, and he has expanded on the Bates method quite a bit through his self-healing exercizes and work on movement. I am in a research field and have a great desire to try out some of my ideas about vision improvement in formal research. On the one hand, I support further vision research, on the other hand, I will only recommend things to beginners that are tried and true right now. If someone agrees to participate in a controlled research study with full disclosure of possible risks/benefits, that is another matter.
That is why I made a direct reference in my post to your upside down glasses suggestion. It's anti-Bates and very impractical (how do the glasses stay on, what kind of a strain does it cause not to have the center of the cut in the center of your visual field? etc...). I thought about your suggestion to turn glasses upside down. For a myopic or farsighted problem with one weaker and one stronger eye it's like a non-uniform lens weakening (although I don't agree with turning over glasses since the other eye will get a stronger prescription). But for astigmatism as in the case you recommended, I disagree even more. It's going to flip the astigmatic axis and put it to the other eye, which could have another axis. This is a totally different and much more complex change than just flipping the lens strength. You might have even meant it as a joke, but it wasn't perceived that way. Can you see why, in a Bates method forum, I would directly not recommend someone to do what you recommended? It had nothing to do with an attack on you or your idea, but was a clearcut assessment of what was confusing the new member. I didn't think you would take it personally; perhaps what I should have written is that the merits or otherwise of turning glasses upside down should be discussed in the 'other eyesight topics' forum.
I hope the explanation above clarifies where I'm coming from and why I respond to beginners the way I do. I continue to wish you the best in your own research and vision improvement. I do find some of your ideas intriguing and hope you make some headway. Please don't be offended that I find it overbearing in the Bates method forum!
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 08-23-2011
Hi, sorrisi, thanks for posting. I see in your other posts that your signature includes your vision improvement, ending with 10/20 in November, 2009. if you would like to get out of that 20/40 rut, you might try following my advice. I recommend you read (or re-read) this entire forum-thread wherein I have clearly posted my observations, ideas, discoveries, connections, trial-and-error experiments, and what I consider necessary improvements to the original Bates Methods.
Sometimes I try to inject a little humor. Sometimes I try to confront those who prefer myth and magic to facts and science. Sometimes I try to confront those who think they're doing science when in fact they've given up and are merely regurgitating stuff that no longer works very well, and pretending that they know things when they do not. Sometimes my reach exceeds my grasp.
I guess I'm trying to breathe new life into the Bates Methods, and figure out how Dr. Bates himself would perhaps have improved or tried to improve on his own discoveries. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one doing that here.
By the way, what do you think has caused and is causing the worldwide increase in the incidence of and progressive worsening of myopia since the turn of the last century?
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - sorrisiblue - 08-23-2011
it's always good to challenge people - too bad in internet forums we can't see each other's faces, it'd be a lot easier to avoid misunderstandings!
I'm not sure I'd call it a rut, but a pause
I made fast progress and then got busy/stressed out. In the last two years, I've been writing up my phd dissertation and have been putting in a fraction of the time into vision practice as I used to. I'm pretty pleased that I managed to improve my vision during my phd so much and to have maintained that improvement while writing up. So I guess that's why I'm not too bothered by my lack of progress reporting in the last two years, I never considered really what that looks like on the outside. I'll put more spirit into it when I'm done phding (just weeks away now). I'll have more time then to catch up on your thread here, too.
Quote:By the way, what do you think has caused and is causing the worldwide increase in the incidence of and progressive worsening of myopia since the turn of the last century?
My hunch? Lots of things, among them:
Kids probably strain just as much now in school as they did a hundred years ago, but I bet more people can afford to put glasses on their kids and at an earlier age, and it's becoming more and more acceptable to do this. These glasses are overprescribed and used to see near as well as far. That locks them into the progressive myopia pattern whereas before their eyes might have sorted themselves out. My eyes were always corrected to better than 20/10, no wonder I ended up in -8 glasses.
The biggest clue from recent science I've seen points to time spent indoors causing myopia. From a Bates point of view that means less sunlight and wide views that stimulate the peripheral vision needed for normal sight.
I'd also put some (secondary) weight on the consumption of more and more simple carbohydrates (sugar, white flour) and other junk (antibiotics, hormones, fake stuff, preservatives, colorings) that ends up in our food supply.
What do you think? I've read with some interest your idea about the antibiotics eye drops that babies get. I'll have to look up some more statistics and check it out.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 08-24-2011
sorrisiblue Wrote:it's always good to challenge people - too bad in internet forums we can't see each other's faces, it'd be a lot easier to avoid misunderstandings!I think it has to do with eye dominance. I think otherwise normal humans (albeit the more sensitive/'nerdy' ones) are developing an overdominant/oversubmissive eye for 'some' reason (probably n.e.a. plus overexposure to bright light). That overdominant eye creates or is a result of misalignment of the various parts of the visual system. The misalignment produces double images which the mind finds confusing and unacceptable - resulting in nearpoint fixation and acceptance of distance blur.
I'm not sure I'd call it a rut, but a pause
I made fast progress and then got busy/stressed out. In the last two years, I've been writing up my phd dissertation and have been putting in a fraction of the time into vision practice as I used to. I'm pretty pleased that I managed to improve my vision during my phd so much and to have maintained that improvement while writing up. So I guess that's why I'm not too bothered by my lack of progress reporting in the last two years, I never considered really what that looks like on the outside. I'll put more spirit into it when I'm done phding (just weeks away now). I'll have more time then to catch up on your thread here, too.
Quote:By the way, what do you think has caused and is causing the worldwide increase in the incidence of and progressive worsening of myopia since the turn of the last century?
My hunch? Lots of things, among them:
Kids probably strain just as much now in school as they did a hundred years ago, but I bet more people can afford to put glasses on their kids and at an earlier age, and it's becoming more and more acceptable to do this. These glasses are overprescribed and used to see near as well as far. That locks them into the progressive myopia pattern whereas before their eyes might have sorted themselves out. My eyes were always corrected to better than 20/10, no wonder I ended up in -8 glasses.
The biggest clue from recent science I've seen points to time spent indoors causing myopia. From a Bates point of view that means less sunlight and wide views that stimulate the peripheral vision needed for normal sight.
I'd also put some (secondary) weight on the consumption of more and more simple carbohydrates (sugar, white flour) and other junk (antibiotics, hormones, fake stuff, preservatives, colorings) that ends up in our food supply.
What do you think? I've read with some interest your idea about the antibiotics eye drops that babies get. I'll have to look up some more statistics and check it out.
The misalignment also produces tension in all the parts of the ocular orbit (eye muscles, lids, brows, cheeks, etc.) which degrades the tearfilms and puts odd and unnecessary friction on the corneas.
But worse, they are then being prescribed lenses which make both eyes equal without helping the misalignment or nearpoint fixation, and (to keep the peace) results in worse eye dominance, which is even more unnatural and produces continuing worsening eyesight.
Do you concur? (humorous self-deprecating 'Catch Me If You Can' movie reference
)I think it also has to do with unconscious self-hypnosis or a post-hypnotic suggestion that visual blur is normal or acceptable.
I think it has to do with the mind developing while under the influence of visual blur, and thereby unconsciously believing that to undo the blur-mind connection would risk undoing the mind itself.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - sorrisiblue - 08-25-2011
I don't understand if you are saying that eye dominance itself is bad, or that eye dominance causes one eye to get blurry, which then causes the ensuing problems.
For the former, my first thought is that many (all?) people with normal sight have a dominant eye. So why don't they get myopia?
For the latter, I guess the first thing I would check is, how many people who show the first signs of myopia have an imbalance in their refractive error between eyes? My eyes and many other people always had the same refractive error, yet still get progressive myopia. I'm not trying to shoot this down, I'm just going through the steps in your argument and giving you examples of how I'm understanding it.
The next thing is, as I understand, you suggest that the dominant eye also causes misalignment problems, which would cause one to constantly hold nearpoint fixation. Do you mean alignment problems as in strabismus? I don't see a clear and obvious link between misalignment and nearpoint fixation, since many people with strabismus are also farsighted. That needs to be checked out. I'm also assuming that by nearpoint fixation you don't mean convergence of the eyes at the nearpoint, but focusing the eyes at the nearpoint even when looking far.
Overall, your idea could be a possible cause of some cases of myopia. It would be a simple thing to investigate in formalized research if you got an eye doctor on board because eye dominance and alignment can be easily quantified. An even simpler route would be to get a librarian to help you dig out research that already exists on those issues.
In terms of my understanding of your idea, though, it doesn't seem like it will fit enough cases to explain the increased level of myopia in the world today. The root cause has got to fit most, if not all, cases, right? I think that is what makes Dr. Bates strain hypothesis so enduring.
If this is hanging on the antibiotics idea, you could also find some of the early trials of that drug. Maybe you could find two similar groups of people (same country, income level, hospital, etc), those exposed, and those not. Is there a marked difference in myopia levels between the two? That would be best case data. I wouldn't say it's enough to compare myopia before and after widespread use of the antibiotics, unless it was a virtually universal shift in procedure and that shift occurred completely within a year. In that case it should be easy to see, did myopia experience a step bump up after that birth year. However, a general trend toward using the antibiotics and a general trend in increased myopia is less convincing: correlation does not equal causation.
I guess you can tell, my approach is to break the argument down into simple steps and ask questions about what is assumed in each step. Then go straight for existing data and test each assumption in the hypothesis (if possible). I think you could gather a lot of existing info and settle this within a month
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 08-25-2011
Thanks for your thoughts. I hope you're getting your PhD in vision research? That's what I would do if I had the time and the money. But I'd get it in Psychology.
sorrisiblue Wrote:I don't understand if you are saying that eye dominance itself is bad, or that eye dominance causes one eye to get blurry, which then causes the ensuing problems.No, eye dominance is normal - if it's the stronger-visioned eye. (Just as left- or right-handedness is normal when the left or right hand is stronger). I don't know if you get to work with or talk to many people with normal or near-normal eyesight, or if you've done any quick research on 'ocular dominance' - but just like handedness (which is a natural development in that it promotes quicker, more accurate reaction time and decision making), normal humans also develop one eye which is dominant, and that eye is the slightly stronger, better-visioned eye.
For the former, my first thought is that many (all?) people with normal sight have a dominant eye. So why don't they get myopia?
What I'm wondering/predicting is that young children who are developing myopia also have or are developing a much better visioned (less myopic), over-dominant eye. That would be bad enough. But my research shows that almost all common myopes who wear their prescribed lenses all the time develop a dominant worse-visioned eye. That is unnatural. When I thought about it, I realized that opticians prescribe lenses which by and large bring both eyes to 20/20 with no timing differential. Now the myope's overdominant eye has to compete again with the submissive eye, but cannot win, and in order to maintain mental peace and integrity, the submissive eye wins the battle and takes the lead every time. (Maybe because of the sudden equalization, the mind mistakenly believes its weaker eye is the stronger eye!)
(One interesting question I haven't asked or tested is whether their worse eye remains dominant when they take off their lenses. Or how long it might take them to revert back to normal better-eye dominance if they quit wearing their lenses. Or whether it's reversible at all.)
But having the worse eye dominant only leads to continuing bad eye habits - and a stronger and weirder lens prescription every year until some lowest common denominator (or perhaps full physical/mental development) is reached. Why has optical science missed this?
sorrisiblue Wrote:For the latter, I guess the first thing I would check is, how many people who show the first signs of myopia have an imbalance in their refractive error between eyes? My eyes and many other people always had the same refractive error, yet still get progressive myopia. I'm not trying to shoot this down, I'm just going through the steps in your argument and giving you examples of how I'm understanding it.Thanks for trying to shoot down the argument - that is the way the scientific method works, I believe.
sorrisiblue Wrote:The next thing is, as I understand, you suggest that the dominant eye also causes misalignment problems, which would cause one to constantly hold nearpoint fixation. Do you mean alignment problems as in strabismus? I don't see a clear and obvious link between misalignment and nearpoint fixation, since many people with strabismus are also farsighted. That needs to be checked out. I'm also assuming that by nearpoint fixation you don't mean convergence of the eyes at the nearpoint, but focusing the eyes at the nearpoint even when looking far.Without research it's impossible to know whether the overdominant eye causes misalignment (by which I mean each eye pointed to slightly different locations and distances, and the body and mind following either one or the other or neither) or vice-versa, or whether they develop together. What I'm interested in is much slighter than strabismus - which is probably the far end of the spectrum of misalignment.
Overall, your idea could be a possible cause of some cases of myopia. It would be a simple thing to investigate in formalized research if you got an eye doctor on board because eye dominance and alignment can be easily quantified. An even simpler route would be to get a librarian to help you dig out research that already exists on those issues.
sorrisiblue Wrote:In terms of my understanding of your idea, though, it doesn't seem like it will fit enough cases to explain the increased level of myopia in the world today. The root cause has got to fit most, if not all, cases, right? I think that is what makes Dr. Bates strain hypothesis so enduring.I think it would explain the increase. Statistical studies would have to be done.
sorrisiblue Wrote:If this is hanging on the antibiotics idea, you could also find some of the early trials of that drug. Maybe you could find two similar groups of people (same country, income level, hospital, etc), those exposed, and those not. Is there a marked difference in myopia levels between the two? That would be best case data. I wouldn't say it's enough to compare myopia before and after widespread use of the antibiotics, unless it was a virtually universal shift in procedure and that shift occurred completely within a year. In that case it should be easy to see, did myopia experience a step bump up after that birth year. However, a general trend toward using the antibiotics and a general trend in increased myopia is less convincing: correlation does not equal causation.The shift in antibiotics is already known - it happened around 1957. But the link has not been made or even attempted. I see you have not read much of my postings, nor of the references in my signature.
sorrisiblue Wrote:I guess you can tell, my approach is to break the argument down into simple steps and ask questions about what is assumed in each step. Then go straight for existing data and test each assumption in the hypothesis (if possible). I think you could gather a lot of existing info and settle this within a monthNo, I doubt it would take less than a year. Unless an already established lab and scientists took it under their wing.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - sorrisiblue - 08-25-2011
Quote:The shift in antibiotics is already known - it happened around 1957.
Of course you know when it was. I was making a point. Your theory rests on this event and it would be possible to look at records to see if there is a correlation (and whether that correlation is meaningful depending on the time period over which your statistics are).
Is there or isn't there a large difference in the number of myopic people pre/post born in 1957?
Quote:I hope you're getting your PhD in vision research?You don't read the links in my signature either, I guess that makes us even
I'm going to stop asking questions, thanks for the interesting discussion.
cheers,
Sorrisi
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 08-25-2011
sorrisiblue Wrote:Yes, yes, I knew you were not getting the doctorate in vision research - I have gone to your website blog and read much of your history - I was being facetious.Quote:The shift in antibiotics is already known - it happened around 1957.Of course you know when it was. I was making a point. Your theory rests on this event and it would be possible to look at records to see if there is a correlation (and whether that correlation is meaningful depending on the time period over which your statistics are).Is there or isn't there a large difference in the number of myopic people pre/post born in 1957?Quote:I hope you're getting your PhD in vision research?You don't read the links in my signature either, I guess that makes us even
I'm going to stop asking questions, thanks for the interesting discussion. cheers,Sorrisi
As for incidence of myopia pre- and post-1957, I think there may be little statistical difference, but one thing to look for is the difference in the myopic experience itself. For instance, most myopes born before 1960 do not remember ever having had clear distance eyesight - when asked if they remember being able to see clearly before getting their first lenses they say no. But ask the same question (or read the personal accounts) of most of those born after 1960, and they remember having had good distance eyesight which went bad, usually in grade school, but more often now in high school and beyond.
Thanks for taking this discussion to the next level!
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 08-26-2011
JMartinC4 Wrote:In fact for most of those myopes born before 1960, they say that they believed their blurry distance eyesight was how everyone saw - that it was normal. That is very different from the way post-1960 born myopes experienced their eyesight. What would cause the difference? You know I'm right. It is inescapable. It is the difference between the long-acting caustic 1% silver nitrate solution used before 1960 versus the short-acting non-caustic erythromycin ointment used after 1960, both instilled at the same time in the same way to virtually every baby born in a U.S. hospital.sorrisiblue Wrote:...As for incidence of myopia pre- and post-1957, I think there may be little statistical difference, but one thing to look for is the difference in the myopic experience itself. For instance, most myopes born before 1960 do not remember ever having had clear distance eyesight - when asked if they remember being able to see clearly before getting their first lenses they say no. But ask the same question (or read the personal accounts) of most of those born after 1960, and they remember having had good distance eyesight which went bad, usually in grade school, but more often now in high school and beyond. Thanks for taking this discussion to the next level!Quote:The shift in antibiotics is already known - it happened around 1957.Of course you know when it was. I was making a point. Your theory rests on this event and it would be possible to look at records to see if there is a correlation (and whether that correlation is meaningful depending on the time period over which your statistics are).Is there or isn't there a large difference in the number of myopic people pre/post born in 1957? ...I'm going to stop asking questions, thanks for the interesting discussion. cheers,Sorrisi
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - sorrisiblue - 08-28-2011
Quote:I think there may be little statistical difference, but one thing to look for is the difference in the myopic experience itself. For instance, most myopes born before 1960 do not remember ever having had clear distance eyesight - when asked if they remember being able to see clearly before getting their first lenses they say no. But ask the same question (or read the personal accounts) of most of those born after 1960, and they remember having had good distance eyesight which went bad, usually in grade school, but more often now in high school and beyond
This changes your whole argument! Now according to this you're looking at how this changes the myopic experience, not necessarily if it is the cause of myopia.
I said I would stop asking questions, but you leave so many points open ended. What is your basis for saying 'most' myopes? How many people of each age group have you asked? How random was that sample?
Quote:You know I'm right. It is inescapable.
Are you trying to hypnotise me or illicit a response?
So far, I haven't seen any evidence that is convincing me. I don't see a clear hypothesis that makes sense from beginning to end. For example, first the drugs were supposed as the cause of myopia, now you are talking about their effect on the myopic experience. Also, I have pointed out some contradictions that haven't been addressed. Here's another one: where do post-60s myopes like me with no memory of clear eyesight fit into your theory? Especially when both eyes have the same refractive error?
beliefs are dangerous in science, by the way... it can cloud your judgment and completely turn people off to your ideas if you show that you think you are right and want others to believe you, too. There's a line between testing a hypothesis and seeking data that correlates with an idea. Be careful!
Glad you've enjoyed this discussion. I realized what I'm looking for that I haven't gotten yet is an understanding of your motivation.
What is driving you to pursue this? What is the core evidence or experience you had that is motivating your belief in this?
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 08-29-2011
sorrisiblue Wrote:So you're still not convinced because you're such a good scientist?! Although I - a layman with a minimum of scientific training - will admit to changing my opinions and ideas based on new facts, discoveries, and observations, you apparently refuse.Quote:I think there may be little statistical difference, but one thing to look for is the difference in the myopic experience itself. For instance, most myopes born before 1960 do not remember ever having had clear distance eyesight - when asked if they remember being able to see clearly before getting their first lenses they say no. But ask the same question (or read the personal accounts) of most of those born after 1960, and they remember having had good distance eyesight which went bad, usually in grade school, but more often now in high school and beyondThis changes your whole argument! Now according to this you're looking at how this changes the myopic experience, not necessarily if it is the cause of myopia.
I said I would stop asking questions, but you leave so many points open ended. What is your basis for saying 'most' myopes? How many people of each age group have you asked? How random was that sample?
Quote:You know I'm right. It is inescapable.Are you trying to hypnotise me or illicit a response?
So far, I haven't seen any evidence that is convincing me. I don't see a clear hypothesis that makes sense from beginning to end. For example, first the drugs were supposed as the cause of myopia, now you are talking about their effect on the myopic experience. Also, I have pointed out some contradictions that haven't been addressed. Here's another one: where do post-60s myopes like me with no memory of clear eyesight fit into your theory? Especially when both eyes have the same refractive error?
beliefs are dangerous in science, by the way... it can cloud your judgment and completely turn people off to your ideas if you show that you think you are right and want others to believe you, too. There's a line between testing a hypothesis and seeking data that correlates with an idea. Be careful!
Glad you've enjoyed this discussion. I realized what I'm looking for that I haven't gotten yet is an understanding of your motivation.
What is driving you to pursue this? What is the core evidence or experience you had that is motivating your belief in this?
For instance, yes, I used to think my observations and research and trial and error experimentations confirmed Dr. Bates' methods for all myopia - until I discovered the U.S. National Academy of Science's study on the Prevalence and Progression of Myopia (first reference in my signature below) which was conducted due to a known INCREASE in the incidence, and PROGRESSIVE worsening of myopia worldwide - for still unknown reasons. That new knowledge germinated in my mind and eventually connected in my slow-witted mind with many other facts until I also discovered Dr. (of Law) Standlers' study of neonatal eye antibiotics (2nd reference below). That new knowledge also germinated in my mind until it eventually connected with everything else and I put the facts, observations, research, and experimentation together to suggest that the increase is probably explained by the eye antibiotics promoting an over-dominant better eye, combined with over-prescribed lenses creating worse-eye dominance.
I later realized that the definite demarcation of pre- and post- '60s era antibiotics pointed to a difference in the myopic experience itself for those susceptible to myopia in the first place. I conducted casual interviews with a dozen different people from both eras and my suspicion is, so far, confirmed. Should I wait to announce my ideas until scientists like you make the same discoveries? I don't think so. The world has suffered long enough from unobservant, regimented, career-oriented, so-called 'scientists' in the field of vision.
What is 'driving' me is a concern for human vision itself. I have strong feelings of fellowship with my fellow human beings, and I am very concerned that 'scientists' have decided to give up on preserving normal human eyesight. I hope you're not one of them.
My other 'driving' concern is that leadership in general is suffering as a result as well. Good leaders throughout history have (generally) had good eyesight.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 08-29-2011
No, sorrisi, I think you're afraid that I am correct, and that the knowledge would impose a new and onerous and risky duty on you to follow up on my ideas. Shades of Dr. Bates' banishment from the realm of science. I don't blame you. My own two sons have similar misgivings.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - sorrisiblue - 08-29-2011
what you wrote about your inspiration and motivation was really interesting and thought provoking.
Why do you have to go and ruin it with so many passive aggressive stings?
what you have completely missed, is that I haven't 'made up my mind' at all. You assumed I did. All I have pointed out is that you haven't presented convincing evidence. This does not mean I think you are right or wrong. It means there is not enough info to decide.
You have not answered or addressed any questions related to any observations of mine that are contrary to your theory. Therefore, why should I suddenly profess belief in your theory that you haven't defended?
If someone disagrees with you or asks questions, why don't you just seek to understand what they are saying, instead of immediately accusing them (directly or passive aggressively) of being fearful and close minded? Accusations are made with one finger pointing forward and three pointed straight back at you.
There are quite a few interesting points that you touch on in this thread. The senseless use of antibiotics, poor state of vision research, eye dominance theory. I wouldn't have stuck around so long if I wasn't interested in where this is going. I use my time on iblindness as a break from other things. I try to help people where I can or enter an interesting discussion. This passive agressive thing you do just kills the interesting part of the discussion and makes my 'break' seem more like an energy drain. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm just letting you know in case you're not aware that you do it. And to explain why I'm going to use my break to do other stuff for a while.
I'll try coming by again another time.
Good luck and good bye for now
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - michael_burnoute - 08-29-2011
sorrisi,
thanks.