Author Topic: Peter's Conversation with OD Mike Tyner.  (Read 2202 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Peter's Conversation with OD Mike Tyner.
« on: November 19, 2012, 06:05:05 AM »
Subject:  Why an "independent mind" is necessary to achieve personal prevention.

I have posted Mike Tyner OD's commentary on all forms of prevention (of negative status for the natural dynamic eye).  All of you are free to make your own judgment - in that discussion.  Tyner considers that ANY FORM OF PREVENTION - I A "NUT JOB" - or equally insulting remark.  I consider prevention of negative STATE to be possible, although that make me completely DEPENDENT ON THE PERSON HIMSELF.  That is truly a difficult thing to do - to turn that type of responsibility to the person.  Some people "rise to the challenge" when they are at 20/50 - and succeed. Others simply have no interest.  It is clear that Todd was successful - as are pilot who have the motivation.  But it is indeed like "weight loss" or "weight control".  Most people "fail" when it comes to motivation - however much they might desire the goal.  Here is the conversation between Peter G. and Mike Tyner OD - for your learning and insight.

Otis

++++
peterg> wrote

Peter> > Is that statement proven because the farsighted do not develop  axial myopia no matter what level of pseudomyopia they have?   Seems like good evidence for me. The people who accommodate most are least nearsighted.


Tyner> The reason why I find that one ton jackhammer statement not completely reasonable is that the scientific community considers myopia to be a genetic trait.  Similarly I have to believe that hyperope must be genetic trait as well. Perhaps some people carry both genes.  Or maybe the same gene affects hyperopia and myopia and all people have it, but it depends on whether it is activated.
My wife is a cancer researcher, and one thing she mentions often to me (relating to cancer) is how people carry certain genes which can lead to a certain cancer but they are inactive.  They can get activated when they bind to a certain protein.  There are also other proteins that act to maintain certain genes in an inactive state.  So, if it were scientifically known that excess accomodation leads to myopia for those people carrying the myopia gene, it may be that with hyperopes either don't carry the same gene, or they don't carry the gene that activates it, or they carry the protein that prevents its activation.
If you understand the principal of how genes get activated, then it doesn't seem unreasonable that a hyperope accomodates mightily yet never gets myopic, yet a non-hyperope does (assuming it was proven that mighty accomodation causes myopia).


Peter> I remember a paper titled "tonic accommodation is not
 correlated with myopia" and the conclusion was based on measuring tonic
 accommodation and comparing with refractive state.

++++

- Show quoted text -

Peter> I think you might remember that I shifted my optometrist measured perscription by .75D (slightly more in the right eye) in about 6-8 weeks doing naked eye print pushing as well as distance gazing breaks.  The 6-8 weeks is my estimate, as the next OD refraction (pre and post drops) was 3 months after the first exam.  This happened about 10 months ago, and try as I might I have not been able to notice or state that there have been further changes.  The OD I spoke with indicated that such a large change in such a short period of time is not normal (over his 30 years experience).   Given that I am in the midst of developing presbyopia, and given that reduced myopia improvement timeline, do you think removal of excess accomodation (or pseudomyopia) is the most plausible explanation?  Or do you see an equal possibility of the lens stiffening or curvature changes in that short period of time being the answer?  The OD in March seemed to imply pseudomyopia as he claimed if the Dec. OD did a cycloplegic refraction pre and post drops, he would have noticed a discrepancy.


Peter> > May I ask you another related question for your opinion.  With respect to
 the growing rates of myopia, in the US or abroad, do you think it is a  case
 of more people with the genetic pre-disposition in the current generation?
 If the rate is increasing, I can only speculate on the mechanism. It may be
 that more myopia is expressed epigenetically because of lifestyle changes.


Tyner>  Yes, I understand we are discussing ideas here and not something that is scientifically proven.  Identifying the myopia gene in lower order animals, and then finding what activates the gene would be the big breakthrough that is needed.  Can I say that as a layman, your statement means "it may be myopia is expressed because of lifestyle (or environmental) changes".   

Peter> I believe in evolution. Evolution is change in the gene pool due to
 environmental factors. If a population of animals shifts its food-hunting
 and gathering behavior from far to near there will be a corresponding shift
 in the average visual metrics for that population over time. And if you find
 a shift in the average refraction of a population, you might expect to find
 a change in feeding and gathering behavior. Why is this difficult?

This is why evolutionary biology is such a difficult suggestion.  I find it difficult to find other examples (both animals or humans) where such a rapid change has been noted.  The theory is changes occur over millenia, natural selection assisting in the process whereby those with the weaker genes are eliminated.  I don't know of any ideas expressed within evolutionary biology that suggest such rapid change over 3 or 4 decades or just a few generations.  This is why claiming evolution is a very difficult suggestion to make with respect to myopia, and can seem unreasonable based on the timeline.  Do you square that circle by believing the gene is already there from long ago, but the changes in lifestyle (environment) are what cause the activation to just be happening now?

This also goes back to your proof that over-accomodation does not lead to myopia. Cearly from an evolutionary perspective, they would not be carrying the gene even though the engage in similar lifestyles as the myope.
Peter

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Peter's Conversation with OD Mike Tyner.
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2012, 07:03:04 AM »

Peter G. stated that I had some quotes - that were not in proper order.

I wanted to capture this discussion - and that is why I posted it.

I attempted to remove this post - but am blocked from doing so.

Otis

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Peter's Conversation with OD Mike Tyner.
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2012, 08:10:55 AM »

Subject: Peter G and Optometrist Mike Tyner discuss prevention.

Re: Mike Tyner calls all who believe that prevention is possible at 20/50, "Nut Cases".  This statement truly makes rational discussions with him about even the POSSIBILITY of prevention (under control of the person himself) - IMPOSSIBLE.


https://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/3e8ec9a505fff08a

But equally, some ODs do recommend the WISE, use of a plus - as shown in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWjnNM0VYM4&feature=related

So who is right??

Otis

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Peter's Conversation with OD Mike Tyner.
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2012, 05:54:00 AM »
Subject:  The tragic, "REAL WORLD" of an OD sitting in an office.

The Real-World of an OD. He has an office full of people with myopia. (That could have been prevented in the EARLY STAGE, with "Bates" or the "Plus".) His business is not to EXPLAIN TO YOU THE NECESSITY OF PREVENTION. (You should have KNOWN THAT.) His ONLY business is to impress you with a strong minus - and send you on your way - happy. Does "successful prevention - under YOUR control" make any sense - TO HIM?? Of course it does not. Don't expect anything from him and his "real world".

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Peter's Conversation with OD Mike Tyner.
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2012, 08:20:21 AM »

Peter G's remarks - For your interest:

About 15 years ago, without any knowledge or plan, I asked my optometrist to give me a perscription .25D less than what she wanted to give me.  I just felt (as many people do) that their eyes had gotten weaker because of the glasses always being too strong.  She had no issue.  I then sent another friend who was about -3.5D there and he requested the same and received it.

Now after all this myopia improvement knowledge, I’m not too worried about ODs as I know that as the customer and as a “patient” I can make reasonable requests and I don’t see why they won’t accomodate that.  I am pretty sure most optometrists will give you 2 different perscriptions if you indicate why.   You do not have to tell them you are engaging in the “quackery” of eye improvement, just tell them you find it uncomfortable to wear your full perscription while reading and that you are also uncomfortable wearing no glasses for the same reading.  You need something in between.   I am sure they will write you a second perscription .5D less which or whatever weaker perscription you are looking for.   You then just fill the 2nd perscription.  They will probably even have you test reading with lighter perscriptions, and tell you what the perscription is.  Just play along with the game, until you are wearing they put the perscriptions you want on your face while reading, and tell them that you are “super comfortable” now.

I personally feel that the dark room/OD office concern is also overblown from my experience.   With Alex’s calculator tool, as well as with ordering some cheap minus lenses online of vaious strength, I have been able to come up with the value that would be my full perscription at home.   And I’ve had it matched twice by the OD at his office.  If you do that, and if the OD is way off, just adjust for the second perscription to be somewhat lighter.  You don’t really care about the first perscription.

Peter

++++

However you "argue" with a person -  you always favor THEIR success.  Each ONE OF US must find his OWN PATH TO PREVENTION.  I obviously have "my opinion", and I judge it is based on science itself.

Peter is exceeding the DMV requirement of 20/40 - which is all I ask of myself - or anyone.

He went from a -2.25 prescription to "no glasses" - because he passes the DMV.  This is a LEARNING EXPERIENCE. Some will succeed - and some will not.  It all depends  on YOU.

Otis