I stumbled upon something and I really need your opinion. I've read many research papers/ reports from that website and, based on what I know and experienced with glasses, it makes sense. I'll try to summarize it. Please listen to the Youtube channel to get a clearer explanation.
The theory is that not wearing glasses or for children or mild cases reading glasses will make the eyes relax because it need to focus at something which appears far away as opposed to straining the eye straining when we wear glasses, since minus lenses brings things closer to us and we need to contract our muscles more to look at near objects.
The above considerations strongly suggest that corrective lenses for myopia, particularly in children, will cause myopia to increase: unaided distance vision will get worse, dependence on eyeglasses will increase, and a stronger prescription will be required for perfectly clear distance vision. However, the precise effect that corrective lenses have on the course of myopia has not been tested. In studies of children using who wear corrective lenses, the amount of myopia has been found to increase for a period of years as the strength of the lenses are increased. Some modifications of the standard prescription have been tested, including a slightly lowered prescription, or spectacles with a weaker-powered area in the bottom half to be used for reading (bifocals). In randomized clinical studies involving such glasses, the course of myopia has been found to be approximately the same as with normal glasses. This does not mean that minus lenses do not cause increased myopia. Even a less than full prescription amounts to an increase in "minus" power at all distances, and in the case of bifocals, the minus lens segment, though intended for distance viewing, can be used for midrange and near work as well. In the one peer-reviewed study that actually compared those who did not wear glasses at all with those who wore them as normally prescribed, the full time minus lens wearers had an increase in their myopia twice as much as those who never wore their glasses. Unfortunately the experiment was retrospective in design and the sample size was too small to permit a firm conclusion.
Summary: "Hypothesis" strongly suggestive but Inconclusive
Basically, the theory is that minus lenses (conventional lenses) worsens our eyesight, because how it works is that it brings things closer, they bend the rays to achieve that. Then we constantly have to strain because we need to contract out ciliary muscles to thicken our lenses to focus on something near. This constant straining worsens our eye sight - and allows people to sell more glasses as we change them form time to time.
With plus lenses for reading, our eyes have to relax as if we were looking at something far away. When things are blurred or even just a little blurred (The ideal reading positon), our eyes relax - as opposed to contracting (tensing) when looking at something near. Anyone who has glasses should be able to relate to this. When I first started wearing glasses, I've had headaches and even until now, every time I take off my glasses my eyes always feel relaxed.
However they say that only people who have mild myopia can correct their vision back to 20/20. If you're like me I guess we should just relax our eyes more but only wearing our glasses if we really need it like for driving.
EDITED AGAIN to bring in more facts (seemingly):
The point of all this is that if you want to do something about preventing myopia, it is a waste of time to consult an ophthalmologist since it would be highly unlikely to find one who understands or has any interest in myopia prevention. The best course of action is to contact local optometrists to see if you can find one who uses plus lenses or takes other steps to prevent myopia.
Generally speaking, the M.D.'s specialize in those vision problems requiring drugs or surgery. The O.D.'s specialize in non-medical vision problems. Consequently, there is no more reason to turn to an M.D. for the treatment of acquired myopia than there is to turn to an O.D. for a problem requiring drugs or surgery.
He claims negative lenses are part of a conspiracy to worsen our eyesight so we keep buying glasses. But what he advocates is being able to relax your eyes, something we usually don't do if we are nearsighted, we always squint.
Is there anyone who might be educated on this subject? Tell me what you think.
On November 09 2010 20:17 munchmunch wrote: Ok, since I love a mystery, I just spent an hour typing stuff into PubMed. Mainly I learned that I don't know anything about medicine. But, as far as I can make out, the situation seems to be this: there are a lot of studies on controlling myopia progression in children by varying how much and what kind of eyeglasses they wear. These studies include giving kids reading glasses (ie. plus lenses). But the best results seem to come from giving the kids bifocals (I guess that way they have the appropriate glasses for near work right at hand). However, if there is a positive effect, it is small: at most 0.5 diopters per two years, and likely much smaller.
Randomized Trial of Effect of Bifocal and Prismatic Bifocal Spectacles on Myopic Progression --- ARCH OPHTHALMOL / VOL 128 (NO. 1), JAN 2010.
A number of well-designed prospective studies have investigated the effect of positive lenses, in bifocal or multifocal form, on myopic progression in children. However, bifocals and multifocals have proven to be relatively ineffective myopia-control treatments in children. Of the many myopia-control studies, the study by Leung and Brown showed the greatest treatment effect (myopia control, -0.47 D per 2 years with multifocals). ... A later multifocal study conducted in Hong Kong ... failed to replicate the results (myopic control, -0.14 D per 2 years with multifocals) [no significant treatment effect].
Various methods have been employed in an attempt to decrease the progression of myopia.[30] Dr Chua Weihan and his team at National Eye Centre Singapore have conducted large scale studies on the effect of Atropine of varying strength in stabilizing, and in some case, reducing myopia. The use of reading glasses when doing close work may provide success by reducing or eliminating the need to accommodate. Altering the use of eyeglasses between full-time, part-time, and not at all does not appear to alter myopia progression.[75][76] The American Optometric Association's Clinical Practice Guidelines for Myopia refers to numerous studies which indicated the effectiveness of bifocal lenses and recommends it as the method for "Myopia Control".[8] In some studies, bifocal and progressive lenses have not shown significant differences in altering the progression of myopia.[30] More recently robust studies on children have shown that Orthokeratology[77] and Centre Distance bifocal contact lenses[78] may arrest myopic development.
Basically, eyeglasses don't do well compared to contact lenses and other treatment methods. Finally, note that the myopia of the kids who go through this treatment gets worse, just at a slightly slower rate than other kids. So the idea that wearing reading glasses can fix myopia is still pretty silly.
On November 10 2010 03:14 mordk wrote: I do not have a source on this, since it is just what I got taught while doing my Ophtalmology section in med school, however it should be easy to find. This is also a VERY summarized view of what I understood from refractive defects in children.
When a child has myopia (or any other refraction defect), he/she has what is called refractive or anisometric amblyopia, which, in few words, means that because one eye is giving the brain a blurred image of something, the brain "chooses" to ignore it, and make the normal eye "dominant". In the long term, this makes the visual defect in the damaged eye worse, which makes it imperative that amblyopia is treated before the age of 9, ideally before 5 years of age. This is only one type of amblyopia and milder when compared to, for example, strabism, which if untreated can have serious consequences for the strabic eye.
According to what they taught me, the way to correct anisometric amblyopia is by correcting the refractive defect with appropriate glasses, however, it IS possible that if an inappropriate corrective lens is used, and goes unnoticed for the period in which sight develops, the lens themselves become harmful to the child, but again, this would be the product of a wrong diagnosis, selection of lens.
Myopia itself however, can NEVER be permanently corrected by glasses, this is because myopia is a genetically determined condition, in which the eyeball has the "wrong shape" not allowing light beams to be projected on the retina. This won't get better or worse with glasses, it is just a thing about how the eye is, and is a different condition from amblyopia.
In conclusion, according to my university teachers, if a child has myopia, it would be correct to prevent amblyopia by wearing glasses, but this won't make the underlying defect (in this case myopia) any better or worse, and in case of older children, with their sight development complete (they do not risk amblyopia), it is only a symptomatic treatment, and doesn't have an effect on the evolution of the myopia.
I wear glasses and I can definatly confirm that if I get stronger glasses, my vision worsens.
I started wearing glasses in first grade (the first of all my friends), and the eye doctors noticed my vision just grew worse and worse so they prescribed me stronger and stronger glasses.
In highschool, I skipped the eye doctor visits and found that my vision didn't get any worse. With glasses I don't have 20/20 but it didn't start deteriating more. I started to then ask my doctors for weaker prescriptions, and they gave it to me.
My vision has stayed the same ever sense. However, I'm blind as a bat without them
I don't know anything specifically about this, but the tone and quality suggests it's a pile of horseshit, as suggested by skindzer. I'll ask an opthomologist and get back to you.
Edit: After reading some more, I'm not even going to bother wasting anyone's time over this. This guy is a certifiable loon. There are so many parallels to people like Mike Adams it's sickening. Why can't people think critically?
On November 09 2010 14:19 LSB wrote: I wear glasses and I can definatly confirm that if I get stronger glasses, my vision worsens.
I started wearing glasses in first grade (the first of all my friends), and the eye doctors noticed my vision just grew worse and worse so they prescribed me stronger and stronger glasses.
In highschool, I skipped the eye doctor visits and found that my vision didn't get any worse. With glasses I don't have 20/20 but it didn't start deteriating more. I started to then ask my doctors for weaker prescriptions, and they gave it to me.
My vision has stayed the same ever sense. However, I'm blind as a bat without them
Same experience (my prescription is about ~5 year old) but I'm going to ask an optometrist just to make sure.
My optometrist told me to only use glasses when I really needed them too, saying that my eyes would deteriorate slower by using them less, so that part is true at least.
On November 09 2010 14:19 LSB wrote: I wear glasses and I can definatly confirm that if I get stronger glasses, my vision worsens.
I started wearing glasses in first grade (the first of all my friends), and the eye doctors noticed my vision just grew worse and worse so they prescribed me stronger and stronger glasses.
In highschool, I skipped the eye doctor visits and found that my vision didn't get any worse. With glasses I don't have 20/20 but it didn't start deteriating more. I started to then ask my doctors for weaker prescriptions, and they gave it to me.
My vision has stayed the same ever sense. However, I'm blind as a bat without them
Are you slow? Myopia regularly worsens until late teens\early 20's then stops. The glasses did not ruin you.
This reminds me chem trails, vaccine-autism, raw-food nonsense, etc
i started wearing glasses around.. grade..4-5? then i've been wearing them since. it did get worse over the years but as i got older it didn't really get worse. and my parents always said that when you're young your prescription will be more likely to get worse but as you get older it'll stop progressing.
On November 09 2010 14:51 semantics wrote: So you should do the opposite instead of giving glasses that easies eye sight we should make it harder!
Please read up or listen more first. It isn't about making it harder. It's that bringing objects closer requires our ciliary muscles around our lenses to contract and tense. He proposes a way of making it relax instead. However it works more for people with a milder case of myopia.
On November 09 2010 14:52 alffla wrote: wtf that soudns so implausible.
i started wearing glasses around.. grade..4-5? then i've been wearing them since. it did get worse over the years but as i got older it didn't really get worse. and my parents always said that when you're young your prescription will be more likely to get worse but as you get older it'll stop progressing.
My sister had a book on 'how to improve your eyesight and free youself from glasses' or some such thing once. I never tried it personally, but she honestly doesn't ever wear glasses anymore. Her perscription was very light though.
Man my right eye used to be considerably better than my left eye... until two days ago. I accidentally (I was mostly asleep) stabbed myself in the right eye with my thumb. I have done this many times before (I'm very clumsy) but this time was much worse than ever before. It hurt for an hour but it was the middle of the night and I just kinda screamed and then rolled in bed in pain and eventually got to sleep. Yesterday I got a really bad migraine (I haven't had a headache that bad in years) and it was focused behind my right eye. Been getting lesser pains there today now too. Now today I realized my right eye is worse than my left eye (maybe this imbalance doesn't match my prescription and thus is giving me headaches). Also now my right eye is like half a centimeter more sunken in than my left eye so I look awful .
On November 09 2010 15:01 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Man my right eye used to be considerably better than my left eye... until two days ago. I accidentally (I was mostly asleep) stabbed myself in the right eye with my thumb. I have done this many times before (I'm very clumsy) but this time was much worse than ever before. It hurt for an hour but it was the middle of the night and I just kinda screamed and then rolled in bed in pain and eventually got to sleep. Yesterday I got a really bad migraine (I haven't had a headache that bad in years) and it was focused behind my right eye. Been getting lesser pains there today now too. Now today I realized my right eye is worse than my left eye (maybe this imbalance doesn't match my prescription and thus is giving me headaches). Also now my right eye is like half a centimeter more sunken in than my left eye so I look awful .
wtf? None of this was a hint to go to the emergency room?
On November 09 2010 15:01 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Man my right eye used to be considerably better than my left eye... until two days ago. I accidentally (I was mostly asleep) stabbed myself in the right eye with my thumb. I have done this many times before (I'm very clumsy) but this time was much worse than ever before. It hurt for an hour but it was the middle of the night and I just kinda screamed and then rolled in bed in pain and eventually got to sleep. Yesterday I got a really bad migraine (I haven't had a headache that bad in years) and it was focused behind my right eye. Been getting lesser pains there today now too. Now today I realized my right eye is worse than my left eye (maybe this imbalance doesn't match my prescription and thus is giving me headaches). Also now my right eye is like half a centimeter more sunken in than my left eye so I look awful .
wtf? None of this was a hint to go to the emergency room?
You should go to the emergency room.
Dude I've been in the emergency room like 3 times in less than a year (all for different things unrelated) and I am so far in debt from it I dunno what I am gonna do. I keep getting collection agencies calling me and I just don't even answer anymore and I hope they won't find me since I am in a different state now.
I think I'm okay I can like barely feel it now.
But yeah I think that some of these things might be true because if you hit your eye and it becomes a different shape and that makes it worse there should be a way to shape it in a positive way through some of these things.
What is the range of mild myopia, less than 100/100? Some of my college blockmates had eyesight that was higher than 20/20 but less than 100/100, so they only used their glasses when they were seated in the back row or something and that worked for them. My eyesight is pretty shot, so my head starts hurting if I go for 30 minutes without glasses.
On November 09 2010 15:01 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Man my right eye used to be considerably better than my left eye... until two days ago. I accidentally (I was mostly asleep) stabbed myself in the right eye with my thumb. I have done this many times before (I'm very clumsy) but this time was much worse than ever before. It hurt for an hour but it was the middle of the night and I just kinda screamed and then rolled in bed in pain and eventually got to sleep. Yesterday I got a really bad migraine (I haven't had a headache that bad in years) and it was focused behind my right eye. Been getting lesser pains there today now too. Now today I realized my right eye is worse than my left eye (maybe this imbalance doesn't match my prescription and thus is giving me headaches). Also now my right eye is like half a centimeter more sunken in than my left eye so I look awful .
wtf? None of this was a hint to go to the emergency room?
You should go to the emergency room.
Dude I've been in the emergency room like 3 times in less than a year (all for different things unrelated) and I am so far in debt from it I dunno what I am gonna do. I keep getting collection agencies calling me and I just don't even answer anymore and I hope they won't find me since I am in a different state now.
I think I'm okay I can like barely feel it now.
You have an eye pushed back into your head and you're worrying about the pain and cost?
Geez and Lord mercy guy, we need some priorities in this bitch.
I know the US healthcare system is balls, but this is important.
On November 09 2010 14:19 LSB wrote: I wear glasses and I can definatly confirm that if I get stronger glasses, my vision worsens.
I started wearing glasses in first grade (the first of all my friends), and the eye doctors noticed my vision just grew worse and worse so they prescribed me stronger and stronger glasses.
In highschool, I skipped the eye doctor visits and found that my vision didn't get any worse. With glasses I don't have 20/20 but it didn't start deteriating more. I started to then ask my doctors for weaker prescriptions, and they gave it to me.
My vision has stayed the same ever sense. However, I'm blind as a bat without them
This is the same as my experience. Got my first glasses somewhere in first or second grade of primary school, and eye sight stopped getting worser after high school. But I'm suspecting, that's just because the body stops growing and changing and you're "fully grown" in your twenties.
On November 09 2010 14:52 travis wrote: I didn't get glasses for the longest time despite having terrible vision. My vision continued to get worse despite not getting glasses.
According to them, what plays a role in eyesight is how we read and that in your case, we should not tense up our muscles by squinting to look at something far away. He advocates relaxing.
Hence if you really have good habits, then I'm ready to confirm that he is bullshitting. I know my father got his problems at about 16 when he started reading while lying down.
On November 09 2010 14:19 LSB wrote: But I'm suspecting, that's just because the body stops growing and changing and you're "fully grown" in your twenties.
They claim that the puberty cause is a myth too. However that seems true in my case, though I've stopped getting worse before I started growing a beard and moustache.
On November 09 2010 15:07 ellerina wrote: What is the range of mild myopia, less than 100/100? Some of my college blockmates had eyesight that was higher than 20/20 but less than 100/100, so they only used their glasses when they were seated in the back row or something and that worked for them. My eyesight is pretty shot, so my head starts hurting if I go for 30 minutes without glasses.
20/20 actually is almost perfect eyesight. Being able to see something at 20 feet what normal people can see at 20 feet.
Thing is, I've just found out about the egg-cholesterol myth some time ago and confirmed it to be sort of busted. No conspiracies related to that though.
I've been wearing glasses since I was 2 (I'm 21 now) and my eye doctor every year says my eyes are getting better at working with the glasses prescription but worse without them.
That bit about dilation is total bullshit. Does this guy even know what dilation of the eye pupils is for? You don't get your prescription based on what you see when your eye is dilated: that is a totally different process. I don't know what quack optometrist this guy went to, because you NEVER get your eyes checked in terms of myopia with dilated pupils, and you NEVER should.
Dilation is to see the inside eye to check for defects, especially in your retinal area that you can't see typically without dilation of the pupil. It has nothing to do with myopia or glasses or whatnot. And that bit about having headaches or whatnot. That's...obvious? You're almost certainly going to get it after dilation, myopia or not, due to the increased sensitivity to light due to your dilated pupils.
As for the rest of this plus-minus stuff, I'm not really too sure. I haven't ever heard of plus-lenses, to say the least. And then so I click the first link to see what the plus lenses ARE in the first place, and I read this:
"I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye and therefore must write in very abstract terms."
...are you serious? So this guy who has no medical background, let alone specialties in the ophthalmology or optometry, is using a SINGLE SENTENCE to describe myopia, of which no one in the last hundred years has known the exact cause. That sentence isn't remotely verified and has been disputed many times. So he bases his entire theory on that sentence, of which he doesn't know the nuances of in the slightest.
I stopped reading after that. There's no way my mind can grasp anything he says as remotely credible after that sort of introduction. And that conspiracy theory is just icing on the cake.
There's also an incredible amount of bad statistics use in here. You realize that the onset of myopia occurs at any time from your days in kindergarten to even your early twenties right? Just because your father started getting vision problems when reading while lying down doesn't mean that reading while lying down caused it. Correlation =/= causation.
And this: "According to them, what plays a role in eyesight is how we read and that in your case, we should not tense up our muscles by squinting to look at something far away. He advocates relaxing."
Do you realize why we squint at something far away? It decreases the amount of light entering our eyes and therefore striking our retina, which in turn tunes out some of the blur you would otherwise see if you weren't squinting. How on earth is relaxing your eyes going to change this? It doesn't.
Oh, perhaps with his magical glasses we could, but you know what, I would put my money on it that it doesn't.
" If you're like me I guess we should just relax our eyes more by only wearng our glasses if we really need it like for driving."
This is funny. I'll use your own argument against you. I would say that it is a bad idea to not wear your glasses full-time. You have to remember why you wear glasses in the first place: to see clearly. So if you don't wear glasses you don't see things as clearly, so you start to squint at things, unconsciously or not, and then you're just going to make your eyes worse cause you're constantly squinting at things and stressing out your eyes and whatnot. So wear your glasses people, because otherwise you're just going to be stressing out your eyes more.
"So this guy who has no medical background, let alone specialties in the ophthalmology or optometry, is using a SINGLE SENTENCE to describe myopia, of which no one in the last hundred years has known the exact cause."
WTF, pray tell, would a specialty in opthalmology or optometry, do to help him fix myopia, if no one in the last hundred years, special degree or not, has figured out the exact cause of it?
On November 09 2010 15:33 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: "So this guy who has no medical background, let alone specialties in the ophthalmology or optometry, is using a SINGLE SENTENCE to describe myopia, of which no one in the last hundred years has known the exact cause."
WTF, pray tell, would a specialty in opthalmology or optometry, do to help him fix myopia, if no one in the last hundred years, special degree or not, has figured out the exact cause of it?
Nowhere on the website does he say he has a specialty in ophthalmology or optometry
On November 09 2010 15:25 DarkOptik wrote: That bit about dilation is total bullshit. Does this guy even know what dilation of the eye pupils is for? You don't get your prescription based on what you see when your eye is dilated: that is a totally different process. I don't know what quack optometrist this guy went to, because you NEVER get your eyes checked in terms of myopia with dilated pupils, and you NEVER should.
I completely agree, the dilation thing is total bs.
Also to the guy who poked his eye, anything involving the eye and pain apart from a bit of sand in the eye is reason to go to the hospital. Eyes are way too important to risk at all.
So a guy says, "oh, I have a cure for cancer!" and then proceeds to dish out this long-winded theory about his way of curing cancer. We say, "oh wow, you think that would work? What is your experience in in this field?"
He shrugs and says, "I don't know anything about cells. I just read somewhere that cells divide."
*facepalm*
The point of it is to lend some weight to his argument. Here is a guy with no credentials AT ALL, and who even confesses he knows NOTHING about the workings of what he talks about, and you would prefer to listen to him against the weight of the entire current medical community?
On November 09 2010 15:25 DarkOptik wrote: "I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye and therefore must write in very abstract terms."
WAIT wait wait, who was the one who confessed that he knows nothing? The August Schwerdfeger guy was just someone who followed some advice if you're talking about him.
I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye and therefore must write in very abstract terms. The premise under which I am laboring is as follows:
But then again, I read myopia.org and found out that he is an engineer or something. Here's a paper of someone who is (supposed) to be an optometrist.
However, you do have many good points which I agree with. I'm just wondering about the verity of this idea, arguing for it just so that I can get more points from all of you so that I judge for myself, whether it's true or not.
On November 09 2010 15:25 DarkOptik wrote: " If you're like me I guess we should just relax our eyes more by only wearng our glasses if we really need it like for driving."
This is funny. I'll use your own argument against you. I would say that it is a bad idea to not wear your glasses full-time. You have to remember why you wear glasses in the first place: to see clearly. So if you don't wear glasses you don't see things as clearly, so you start to squint at things, unconsciously or not, and then you're just going to make your eyes worse cause you're constantly squinting at things and stressing out your eyes and whatnot. So wear your glasses people, because otherwise you're just going to be stressing out your eyes more.
The general idea about this is to use your glasses as little as possible. I won't tend to squint despite having bad vision, if I really need to see something I'll just put it on. Don't know if it's just me but I feel more relaxed taking if off - when the situation arises.
I doubt this is true but I went from -1 to -2.25 in the course of 23 months which is a lot (so I'm told by doctors) so if it turns out to be true I won't be surprised.
On November 09 2010 14:51 semantics wrote: So you should do the opposite instead of giving glasses that easies eye sight we should make it harder!
Please read up or listen more first. It isn't about making it harder. It's that bringing objects closer requires our ciliary muscles around our lenses to contract and tense. He proposes a way of making it relax instead. However it works more for people with a milder case of myopia.
tbh i did notice that but i just wanted to fit the video in there fairly sure i could get away with it due to anecdotal responses in the thread already.
On November 09 2010 15:50 JieXian wrote: WAIT wait wait, who was the one who confessed that he knows nothing? The August Schwerdfeger guy was just someone who followed some advice if you're talking about him.
I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye and therefore must write in very abstract terms. The premise under which I am laboring is as follows:
But then again, I read myopia.org and found out that he is an engineer or something. Here's a paper of someone who is (supposed) to be an optometrist.
I just checked him out. He hasn't published a single paper in the last thirty five years, and the one paper that he TRIED to publish has been rejected for publication under the wholly satisfying label of "inappropriate".
I skimmed his "paper" briefly and it's a total sack of bullshit. He basically goes on and on about the whole conspiracy bullcrap, saying that people are refusing to acknowledge him because they don't want to feel responsible for destroying everyone's eyes. There's not a single shred of factual evidence in that ridiculous piece people call proof.
On November 09 2010 15:50 Shalaiyn wrote: I doubt this is true but I went from -1 to -2.25 in the course of 23 months which is a lot (so I'm told by doctors) so if it turns out to be true I won't be surprised.
If you were in your early teens that's usual. The eyesight stops deteriorating when you stop growing, usually after high school.
This is so dumb it hurts reading it.
I started wearing glasses when i had -2 on both eyes. Somehow, even without glasses my eyesight deteriorated. Now, I have been wearing the same glasses for 5 years and did not need to change them.
The only true thing in that article is that it is often recommended to have glasses which are slightly weaker then what would make your eyesight perfect.
On November 09 2010 15:50 JieXian wrote: WAIT wait wait, who was the one who confessed that he knows nothing? The August Schwerdfeger guy was just someone who followed some advice if you're talking about him.
I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye and therefore must write in very abstract terms. The premise under which I am laboring is as follows:
But then again, I read myopia.org and found out that he is an engineer or something. Here's a paper of someone who is (supposed) to be an optometrist.
I just checked him out. He hasn't published a single paper in the last thirty five years, and the one paper that he TRIED to publish has been rejected for publication under the wholly satisfying label of "inappropriate".
I skimmed his "paper" briefly and it's a total sack of bullshit. He basically goes on and on about the whole conspiracy bullcrap, saying that people are refusing to acknowledge him because they don't want to feel responsible for destroying everyone's eyes. There's not a single shred of factual evidence in that ridiculous piece people call proof.
Yeah, he's definitely a reliable source.
I've read it again and you're right. I feel so stupid linking him before reading in nicely. And I have no idea what was the dilation thing about myself.
There's another paper from a different person and this one looks much more academic with an actual test being run http://www.myopia.org/bifocals.htm
His objectives and ideas were similar but different. This is the conclusion
Under reasonably well controlled conditions the bifocal appears to be effective in controlling the progression of myopia.
ABSTRACT
Forty-three Native American bifocal wearers grouped by yearly age levels from 9 to 15 with a mixed group of 6 to 8 year olds are matched on beginning age, sex, beginning refractive error and ending age with 104 Native American control subjects. Similarly, 226 Caucasian bifocal wearers are matched on the same criteria against 382 control subjects. Although the comparisons are made on each age group, the average annual rate of progression for the bifocal Native American subjects is -0.12 and -0.10 diopters in the right and left eyes respectively against a comparable rate of progression of -0.38 and -0.36 diopters for the control subjects These differences are significant but not as significant as those found on the Caucasian subjects of -0.02 and -0.03 diopters right and left eyes against -0.53 and -0.52 diopters for the controls. The meaning of these differences is discussed.
This is really silly. Sure, it's theoretically plausible that for at least one type of myopia:
...while initially alleviating the symptoms, the minus lenses prescribed as corrective lenses for myopia intensify one the risk factors for myopia.
So it also sounds plausible that, if the stiffness caused is short-term and reversible, not using your corrective lenses or even wearing reading glasses will help alleviate this. And if your vision isn't that bad in the first place, it will be tolerable to do this and see if it works for you.
However, this is nothing new. It's well established that your eyes change significantly as you grow, and this change slows or stops when you reach maturity. It's widely held that certain activities/habits strain your eyesight and worsen your vision in the long term. But corrective lenses... *drumroll*... are how you correct your eyesight. There are therapies and methods that may or may not work reliably for trying to improve your vision, but corrective lenses always work. It's not a conspiracy to sell more lenses, it's the necessity of clear vision at all times for people to go about their day-to-day lives.
I'm quite aware that sitting in a dark room staring at a bright screen 18" from my face while wearing -4 diopter contact lenses for weeks at a time without taking them out at night is probably making my vision worse over time, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to walk around blind all day refusing to use computers and hoping that my vision will slowly fix itself. I'm so nearsighted I can't read a book comfortably without my contacts, let alone while wearing reading glasses.
I'm not educated on the subject, but I do know there is a long history of claims of simple cures for nearsightedness. The earliest method I can find with a quick google search is The Bates Method. Read the anecdotes closely: they usually concern someone with relatively minor nearsightedness, and don't claim total recovery. What's going on is that the method doesn't work---some people try it, their eyesight randomly improves over that period, and they attribute it to the method. Other people try it, their eyesight randomly worsens, and they forget about it. Thus, I was not surprised to find this
My case was fairly uncomplicated: only one diopter of nearsightedness, the same in both eyes, and no eye diseases.
in the OP's main link. By the way, I don't think giving yourself an eye exam (as the OP's link describes) is a good idea. I've been to the optometrist a lot, and once I've seen an eyechart a few times, my brain just starts to fill it in.
Finally, dude, none of those websites are close to professional. If I feel like procrastinating a bit more, I'll connect to my libraries proxy and troll PubMed for you for a bit.
I seem to remember reading about a study where people with very severe myopia were taken to live a country life away from reading in dark rooms and computer screens, and by and large their myopia improved or went away completely. The human eye is not meant to be constantly focused on targets a foot or less away all the time. Stretching it and exercising the muscles that refocus it can help myopia a lot.
That said, I wear -6 lenses and play Starcraft all day. Ah well.
Have any of the papers being cited on myopia.org been published in a PEER REVIEW MEDICAL JOURNAL? You know, a publication where people in the same field look over the paper and decide that the writer is NOT FULL OF SHIT?
Edit: Oh wait, stupid conspiracy theory. Obviously the purpose of a scientific journal is to sell shit, and not to advance knowledge. Never mind that doctors don't profit off of you buying glasses, they profit off of you going to see the doctor - what kind of glasses they prescribe you is totally irrelevant to their own income.
I started to develop migraines when I was in about 4th grade, and noticed that it was harder to see things from the back of class. Got glasses... bang, migraines gone, eye sight dramatically improved. These days..the first and last thing I do every day is put on and remove my glasses. I can't see shit without them...
In any event, basically, I don't care if they're making my eyes worse... At the very worst they're a necessary evil.
This brings to mind something my eye doctor advised me to try at my last eye exam. Because my eyes had gotten a little worse, he suggested that I try using my glasses as reading glasses to try and strengthen them again. I admit that my eyes aren't the greatest, but I can read comfortably with them off and if that helps strengthen my eyes then the better for me.
On November 09 2010 16:20 munchmunch wrote: Finally, dude, none of those websites are close to professional. If I feel like procrastinating a bit more, I'll connect to my libraries proxy and troll PubMed for you for a bit.
I'm starting to doubt its authencity a lot more now, but I don't know , I can't deny the relaxed feeling of taking off my glasses. But I eagerly await your trolling results :D
On November 09 2010 16:20 Psiven wrote: There are therapies and methods that may or may not work reliably for trying to improve your vision, but corrective lenses always work. It's not a conspiracy to sell more lenses, it's the necessity of clear vision at all times for people to go about their day-to-day lives.
I'm quite aware that sitting in a dark room staring at a bright screen 18" from my face while wearing -4 diopter contact lenses for weeks at a time without taking them out at night is probably making my vision worse over time, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to walk around blind all day refusing to use computers and hoping that my vision will slowly fix itself. I'm so nearsighted I can't read a book comfortably without my contacts, let alone while wearing reading glasses.
Just to clarify certain parts, there are alternate advocated methods such as bifocal glasses or a more shady, pinhole glasses. For you and me, reading without glasses should already have the effect of a healthier person reading a book with reading glasses I suppose - That's what I'm comfortable with anyways with ~5 diopters. Maybe it's just the effect me playing basketball without my glasses for almost 2 hours a day for a few years feeling less handicapped without my glasses, thought I recognise who's on my team based on their clothing and body sizes. Can't see any faces.
Firstly, the word conspiracy can be used as loosely as you like but it's not as if this is one of those overly elaborate theories about an evil power at work concealing a government plot. If you can accept that some of the anti-depressant ads on T.V aren't intellectually honest, or the 'science' propogated in them, you should be willing to consider this as well. It's simple enough to imagine that not all forms of medicine are actually the best known way to treat a sickness, yet may be sold under that pretense anyway, and that not all legal institutions and scientific organizations that support such medicine are without corruption or bias.
From some brief reading on wikipedia, it doesn't seem that the human eye is all that well understood. It's not actually known what causes the eye to continue to elongate, and thus continue to develope worse myopia, as people get older. But it is one theory that the eye changes its shape to adapt itself to the way it's being used, just like your brain or your muscles. Wearing glasses to counter an increase in short-sightedness wouldn't then be any different, than leaning closer to the object you're looking at. It just gives your eye more reason to adapt. Personally i tend to think there must be some kind of eye exercises one can do to return them to a more regular state.
Btw, i've been prescriped glasses more than 5 years ago, have only worn them a handful of times for the fun of it, and haven't noticed my eyes getting any worse, while being highly concious about it.
I can't deny the relaxed feeling of taking off my glasses.
That's because your eyes are relaxing. Especially if you're not used to your prescription or it's incorrect, you will get noticeable eye strain from using them. Whether it has a measurable effect on your long-term vision is another matter entirely.
It's a moot point because I can't see as well without my glasses. If they worsen my eyesight, then so be it. Having accurate eyesight is kind of important.
I can't deny the relaxed feeling of taking off my glasses.
That's because your eyes are relaxing. Especially if you're not used to your prescription or it's incorrect, you will get noticeable eye strain from using them. Whether it has a measurable effect on your long-term vision is another matter entirely.
Ya, they are relaxing, and it is supposed to be good. I don't think there's anything wrong with my prescription. I guess I'll have to try it out myself to find out about the long term effects, since I seem to have a different level of discomfort (comfort) compared to others without my glasses. (Talking about wearing them less, not totally discarding them)
On November 09 2010 15:01 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Man my right eye used to be considerably better than my left eye... until two days ago. I accidentally (I was mostly asleep) stabbed myself in the right eye with my thumb. I have done this many times before (I'm very clumsy) but this time was much worse than ever before. It hurt for an hour but it was the middle of the night and I just kinda screamed and then rolled in bed in pain and eventually got to sleep. Yesterday I got a really bad migraine (I haven't had a headache that bad in years) and it was focused behind my right eye. Been getting lesser pains there today now too. Now today I realized my right eye is worse than my left eye (maybe this imbalance doesn't match my prescription and thus is giving me headaches). Also now my right eye is like half a centimeter more sunken in than my left eye so I look awful .
wtf? None of this was a hint to go to the emergency room?
You should go to the emergency room.
Dude I've been in the emergency room like 3 times in less than a year (all for different things unrelated) and I am so far in debt from it I dunno what I am gonna do. I keep getting collection agencies calling me and I just don't even answer anymore and I hope they won't find me since I am in a different state now.
I think I'm okay I can like barely feel it now.
But yeah I think that some of these things might be true because if you hit your eye and it becomes a different shape and that makes it worse there should be a way to shape it in a positive way through some of these things.
Sorry to belabor this point but
HOLY SHIT GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM! you're already fucked by debt, how much worse can it get?
What about those contact lenses that you wear while you sleep that gradually improve your eyesight? I'm using those right now but I'm still having trouble getting them in. Just wanna make sure that my efforts arent being wasted.
Ok, since I love a mystery, I just spent an hour typing stuff into PubMed. Mainly I learned that I don't know anything about medicine. But, as far as I can make out, the situation seems to be this: there are a lot of studies on controlling myopia progression in children by varying how much and what kind of eyeglasses they wear. These studies include giving kids reading glasses (ie. plus lenses). But the best results seem to come from giving the kids bifocals (I guess that way they have the appropriate glasses for near work right at hand). However, if there is a positive effect, it is small: at most 0.5 diopters per two years, and likely much smaller.
Randomized Trial of Effect of Bifocal and Prismatic Bifocal Spectacles on Myopic Progression --- ARCH OPHTHALMOL / VOL 128 (NO. 1), JAN 2010.
A number of well-designed prospective studies have investigated the effect of positive lenses, in bifocal or multifocal form, on myopic progression in children. However, bifocals and multifocals have proven to be relatively ineffective myopia-control treatments in children. Of the many myopia-control studies, the study by Leung and Brown showed the greatest treatment effect (myopia control, -0.47 D per 2 years with multifocals). ... A later multifocal study conducted in Hong Kong ... failed to replicate the results (myopic control, -0.14 D per 2 years with multifocals) [no significant treatment effect].
Various methods have been employed in an attempt to decrease the progression of myopia.[30] Dr Chua Weihan and his team at National Eye Centre Singapore have conducted large scale studies on the effect of Atropine of varying strength in stabilizing, and in some case, reducing myopia. The use of reading glasses when doing close work may provide success by reducing or eliminating the need to accommodate. Altering the use of eyeglasses between full-time, part-time, and not at all does not appear to alter myopia progression.[75][76] The American Optometric Association's Clinical Practice Guidelines for Myopia refers to numerous studies which indicated the effectiveness of bifocal lenses and recommends it as the method for "Myopia Control".[8] In some studies, bifocal and progressive lenses have not shown significant differences in altering the progression of myopia.[30] More recently robust studies on children have shown that Orthokeratology[77] and Centre Distance bifocal contact lenses[78] may arrest myopic development.
Basically, eyeglasses don't do well compared to contact lenses and other treatment methods. Finally, note that the myopia of the kids who go through this treatment gets worse, just at a slightly slower rate than other kids. So the idea that wearing reading glasses can fix myopia is still pretty silly.
well no offence guys, less time using the screen offen is the simple good thing to do, you should take about 10 mins break for ervery hour NOT LOOKING AT THE SCREEN! , this is just basic advise xox
Hm, it's true that looking at nearby objects with your distance glasses or contacts on does seem to make your vision worse. I look under my glasses for close things like reading usually and take them off whenever I don't need them, such as for my computer.
I have 2,75% eye vision yes it really is that horrible but when I got glasses the first time I was 16years old and now i have worse eye sight im litteraly blind when im outside, I switched to contact lenses and I find them better for some odd reason...
But I agree that glasses ruined my eyesight, before I could atleast see objects and persons faces from pretty close distant and little far away, but today I cant even see that close even if you are beside me, I know that it is due the fact I used glasses and contact lenses that screwed my vision.
I still need contact lenses to be able to see otherwise my vision is all blurry and no point having it like that.
The only + side is girls looks more beautiful when im having bad vision when I put my lenses on Im like oh hell no there is no way im getting with you no matter how drunk I get it still will be NO.
This is a pile of garbage. Just like Water Flouridation was a ploy by dentists to get more cavities.
Myopia is the elongation of the eyeball. You have no muscles in the eyeball. Sure you have muscles around it which can help grip and reduce the elongation but the effects are minimal. The reason why myopic patients report a worsesning of their conditions is two fold. 1. They are genetically dispositioned. 2. They subject themselves to environments which elongates the eyeball.
Suggesting that wearing no glasses or other prescriptive lenses is almost as ludicrous as saying that looking through a kaleidscope will help your eye muscles to relax and improve your vision.
I've already edited the OP to put in the results found by munchmunch and remove some stuff. Thanks.
On November 10 2010 00:08 Zotted wrote: 2. They subject themselves to environments which elongates the eyeball.
Just in case the tone put you off from reading, the theory is that not wearing glasses or for children or mild cases reading glasses will make the eyes relax because it need to focus at something which appears far away as opposed to straining the eye straining when we wear glasses.
On November 09 2010 15:25 DarkOptik wrote: " If you're like me I guess we should just relax our eyes more by only wearng our glasses if we really need it like for driving."
Shit I was confused for a while and I realised I actually meant " If you're like me I guess we should just relax our eyes more BUT only wearing our glasses if we really need it, like for driving." But it's not exactly my view, just stating what I understand from reading that stuff, since I don't know enough to have a strong stand.
On November 09 2010 20:44 Mawi wrote: The only + side is girls looks more beautiful when im having bad vision when I put my lenses on Im like oh hell no there is no way im getting with you no matter how drunk I get it still will be NO.
This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
On November 09 2010 20:44 Mawi wrote: I have 2,75% eye vision yes it really is that horrible but when I got glasses the first time I was 16years old and now i have worse eye sight im litteraly blind when im outside, I switched to contact lenses and I find them better for some odd reason...
But I agree that glasses ruined my eyesight, before I could atleast see objects and persons faces from pretty close distant and little far away, but today I cant even see that close even if you are beside me, I know that it is due the fact I used glasses and contact lenses that screwed my vision.
I still need contact lenses to be able to see otherwise my vision is all blurry and no point having it like that.
The only + side is girls looks more beautiful when im having bad vision when I put my lenses on Im like oh hell no there is no way im getting with you no matter how drunk I get it still will be NO.
How do you know that glasses caused your sight to get worse, how do you know that it woould not happen anyway, because often that is the way things develop.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
Frankly, I've had this (similar) idea - relating to the OP for quite some time, but I've never found any good ideas supporting it. Only now I've found some half decent, some terrible ideas of it. According to what munchmunch found which agrees with another bifocal study I've found, and rereading of stuff, things seem bad or inconclusive for it. Apparently there's no incentive to fund this kind of research.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
Frankly, I've had this idea for quite some time, but I've never found any good ideas supporting it. Only now I've found some half decent, some terrible ideas of it. According to what munchmunch found which agrees with another bifocal study I've found, and rereading of stuff, things seem bad or inconclusive for it. Apparently there's no incentive to fund this kind of research.
All the money in the medical industry revolves around drugs at the moment, especially when it comes to research.
On November 09 2010 14:51 semantics wrote: So you should do the opposite instead of giving glasses that easies eye sight we should make it harder! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZeqiX4kMEc
On November 09 2010 14:51 semantics wrote: So you should do the opposite instead of giving glasses that easies eye sight we should make it harder! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZeqiX4kMEc
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
On November 09 2010 14:18 skindzer wrote: Seems interesting but the quality of the website makes it really shady, like those vaccine-autism sites.
There is a Penn and Teller bullshit show about that subject. The series is quite giggle worthy. You should check it out if you have the time. Their analogies are paralelled to that of baller's.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This would be a Lamarkist, not an evolutionary way of looking at things. Quit trying to mislead people with pseudoscience. Medicine knows it is not always right, hence it relies on the scientific method and the process of peer review to determine what is right and what is not right.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
What completely illogical comparisons.
Overuse of antibiotics could theoretically weaken your immune system by reducing the amount of bacteria your immune system naturally fights and thus strengthens itself by doing so, driving a car could weaken your physique if you never did any physical exercise at all and depended on driving to get everywhere, and staying inside all the time could result in a higher sensitivity to sunlight due to lack of exposure, but those are all parallel causes, not direct causes. It's not like antibiotics directly reduce your immune system's ability to fight disease or driving a car somehow physically atrophies you, it's possible to drive a car everywhere and exercise regularly, thus resulting in better health than someone who walks everywhere and never drives.
Plus the point you're trying to make with this post is false also. If you have poor vision and don't use glasses, your vision will just continue getting worse because squinting all the time strains your eyes.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This would be a Lamarkist, not an evolutionary way of looking at things. Quit trying to mislead people with pseudoscience. Medicine knows it is not always right, hence it relies on the scientific method and the process of peer review to determine what is right and what is not right.
I'm trying to have a discussion not mislead people.
The scientific method and peer review are also not going to be 100% accurate in finding what is right, not even close in the grand scheme.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
What completely illogical comparisons.
Overuse of antibiotics could theoretically weaken your immune system by reducing the amount of bacteria your immune system naturally fights and thus strengthens itself by doing so, driving a car could weaken your physique if you never did any physical exercise at all and depended on driving to get everywhere, and staying inside all the time could result in a higher sensitivity to sunlight due to lack of exposure, but those are all parallel causes, not direct causes. It's not like antibiotics directly reduce your immune system's ability to fight disease or driving a car somehow physically atrophies you, it's possible to drive a car everywhere and exercise regularly, thus resulting in better health than someone who walks everywhere and never drives.
Plus the point you're trying to make with this post is false also. If you have poor vision and don't use glasses, your vision will just continue getting worse because squinting all the time strains your eyes.
You completely pulled this out of your ass.
Over time the "could" becomes guaranteed. No amount of regular exercise is going make up for generations past that had to walk everywhere for everything, even more so at a macro level. What you end up with is a minority who puts in the extra effort to keep in shape while the majority continues going down the path of technology dependence. Which is exactly what you see in society today. People who can run a mile in 6 minutes are the exception, not the standard, and this becomes more and more so as they get older.
Seriously guys, evolution happens because of a changes in environment and the conflict and survival that arises from those changes. When you look at modern society with all the luxury technologies, medicines, foods, etc. you have to realize that it is a massive change in environment and this is obviously not the type of changes that will benefit mankind when it comes to being able to survive in a natural setting. Most people couldn't do this already. You think this it not the case??
I do not have a source on this, since it is just what I got taught while doing my Ophtalmology section in med school, however it should be easy to find. This is also a VERY summarized view of what I understood from refractive defects in children.
When a child has myopia (or any other refraction defect), he/she has what is called refractive or anisometric amblyopia, which, in few words, means that because one eye is giving the brain a blurred image of something, the brain "chooses" to ignore it, and make the normal eye "dominant". In the long term, this makes the visual defect in the damaged eye worse, which makes it imperative that amblyopia is treated before the age of 9, ideally before 5 years of age. This is only one type of amblyopia and milder when compared to, for example, strabism, which if untreated can have serious consequences for the strabic eye.
According to what they taught me, the way to correct anisometric amblyopia is by correcting the refractive defect with appropriate glasses, however, it IS possible that if an inappropriate corrective lens is used, and goes unnoticed for the period in which sight develops, the lens themselves become harmful to the child, but again, this would be the product of a wrong diagnosis, selection of lens.
Myopia itself however, can NEVER be permanently corrected by glasses, this is because myopia is a genetically determined condition, in which the eyeball has the "wrong shape" not allowing light beams to be projected on the retina. This won't get better or worse with glasses, it is just a thing about how the eye is, and is a different condition from amblyopia.
In conclusion, according to my university teachers, if a child has myopia, it would be correct to prevent amblyopia by wearing glasses, but this won't make the underlying defect (in this case myopia) any better or worse, and in case of older children, with their sight development complete (they do not risk amblyopia), it is only a symptomatic treatment, and doesn't have an effect on the evolution of the myopia.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century.
Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want.
Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
On November 09 2010 14:52 travis wrote: I didn't get glasses for the longest time despite having terrible vision. My vision continued to get worse despite not getting glasses.
I did need glasses but didn't get them. Lately I had a few headaches and I'm assuming it's from my vision. I see how you're vision can get worse if left untreated but then again I'm not sure what to believe anymore!
On November 09 2010 14:52 travis wrote: I didn't get glasses for the longest time despite having terrible vision. My vision continued to get worse despite not getting glasses.
I did need glasses but didn't get them. Lately I had a few headaches and I'm assuming it's from my vision. I see how you're vision can get worse if left untreated but then again I'm not sure what to believe anymore!
Go with whatever makes you happy, no one lives forever.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century.
Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want.
Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
Dead wrong. While your body does adapt to changes in environment and usage in some cases, ala the example of bodybuilders, those changes are never passed down to offspring. There is little to no controversy in serious academic circles about Lamarkism, outside of some single celled organisms that reproduce in a way quite unlike us.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century.
Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want.
Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
Dead wrong. While your body does adapt to changes in environment and usage in some cases, ala the example of bodybuilders, those changes are never passed down to offspring. There is little to no controversy in serious academic circles about Lamarkism, outside of some single celled organisms that reproduce in a way quite unlike us.
"Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."
I've had glasses since around the 4th and my eyes have gotten steadily worse (now I'm a junior in college). Lately they haven't been getting worse because I've finally pretty much quit growing. It seems that with me my eyes getting worse coincided with growth, I believe my eye doctor may have said something about this as well.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not understand evolution. The process of evolution in essence is change in gene frequency in a population. Natural selection and genetic drift work on individuals to effect these changes. You are born with a set of genes that don't change no matter what you do. If you're born fat but decide to work out a lot to get skinny you wouldn't call that evolution would you? Your kids would have the same set of genes whether or not you had them while fat or skinny. There is a important distinction between changes in populations and changes individuals.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not understand evolution. The process of evolution in essence is change in gene frequency in a population. Natural selection and genetic drift work on individuals to effect these changes. You are born with a set of genes that don't change no matter what you do. If you're born fat but decide to work out a lot to get skinny you wouldn't call that evolution would you? Your kids would have the same set of genes whether or not you had them while fat or skinny. There is a important distinction between changes in populations and changes individuals.
No one completely understands evolution, but I already posted a source that backs up what I have been saying. Honestly it sounds like you think evolution is magic...how do you think natural selection and genetic drift occur without changes in individuals?
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
Please read anything about evolution before you post, people like you are the best creationst can hope for. Even wiki (as bad as it is) would give you reasonable idea of how evolution actually works. As the poster before me said, it works between generations, nothing that happens to your body (except what happens to your sperm cells ) has any influence on the evolution of the humans directly.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century.
Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want.
Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
No you are totally wrong, you even do not know the definitions of the terms you are using. Changes in your body die with you, none of those are propagated to another generation. Yes there is a debate about that, but the effects discussed are so small that they have no bearing on this discussion. Basically except your reproductive cells anything that happens to you during your life dies with you. Of course I am talking about evolution now, some things like your works etc. may survive in the culture but that has nothing to do with biological evolution.
On November 09 2010 14:19 LSB wrote: I wear glasses and I can definatly confirm that if I get stronger glasses, my vision worsens.
I started wearing glasses in first grade (the first of all my friends), and the eye doctors noticed my vision just grew worse and worse so they prescribed me stronger and stronger glasses.
In highschool, I skipped the eye doctor visits and found that my vision didn't get any worse. With glasses I don't have 20/20 but it didn't start deteriating more. I started to then ask my doctors for weaker prescriptions, and they gave it to me.
My vision has stayed the same ever sense. However, I'm blind as a bat without them
Are you slow? Myopia regularly worsens until late teens\early 20's then stops. The glasses did not ruin you.
This reminds me chem trails, vaccine-autism, raw-food nonsense, etc
Firstly calm down. Thank you.
Secondly, notice you said late teens. Just fyi, I stop switching glasses when I entered high school. American high school starts at 14.
Thirdly, this is completely different. Perfect vision although cool, isn't that necessary. I'm saying that if perfect vision can only be maintained by destroying my eyesight gradually, no thank you. I'll live with my slightly worse vision.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century.
Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want.
Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
Dead wrong. While your body does adapt to changes in environment and usage in some cases, ala the example of bodybuilders, those changes are never passed down to offspring. There is little to no controversy in serious academic circles about Lamarkism, outside of some single celled organisms that reproduce in a way quite unlike us.
"Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."
Lets see what your sources have to say, but given my source all yours could possibly show is disagreement which would mean controversy.
Similar findings to the one in this paper have been discovered in the past and then later refuted. Obviously these recent findings need more study, but you need to note that new research is often misinterpreted. The author himself cautions that there is no direct evidence that the changes were epigenetical. The changes disappeared after a few generations. It is a fairly analogous concept to fetal alcohol syndrome influencing offspring, only slightly extended to include adolescence when the reproductive system is developing.
I wore lenses 14 years and visual acuity was -9.00 dioptres. I don't even need to look up facts to tell you the glasses aren't the problem. I got my vision corrected and I bet my vision will still degenerate, as it does when people who have poor vision get it corrected.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century.
Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want.
Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
Dead wrong. While your body does adapt to changes in environment and usage in some cases, ala the example of bodybuilders, those changes are never passed down to offspring. There is little to no controversy in serious academic circles about Lamarkism, outside of some single celled organisms that reproduce in a way quite unlike us.
I may be wrong but if I recall correctly there is discussion that specific organization of some cellular structures might be passed from mother to offspring and have some effects on said offspring. Basically that there is second information channel except genes, but even if it exists it has such miniscule importance that nothing he said would be accounted for by this mechanism.
On November 09 2010 15:06 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Dude I've been in the emergency room like 3 times in less than a year (all for different things unrelated) and I am so far in debt from it I dunno what I am gonna do. I keep getting collection agencies calling me and I just don't even answer anymore and I hope they won't find me since I am in a different state now.
I think I'm okay I can like barely feel it now.
But yeah I think that some of these things might be true because if you hit your eye and it becomes a different shape and that makes it worse there should be a way to shape it in a positive way through some of these things.
The trick is you don't have to pay anything, every year your debt becomes smaller until it's something insignificant. I owed thousands of dollars to the hospital now I owe either nothing or a few hundred. Funny thing is that it didn't ruin my credit history and probably didn't even influence it in any major way.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century.
Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want.
Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
Dead wrong. While your body does adapt to changes in environment and usage in some cases, ala the example of bodybuilders, those changes are never passed down to offspring. There is little to no controversy in serious academic circles about Lamarkism, outside of some single celled organisms that reproduce in a way quite unlike us.
"Several recent studies, one conducted by researchers at MIT and another by researchers at the Tufts University School of Medicine, have rekindled the debate once again. As reported in MIT's Technology Review in February 2009, "The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring ... The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring."
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not understand evolution. The process of evolution in essence is change in gene frequency in a population. Natural selection and genetic drift work on individuals to effect these changes. You are born with a set of genes that don't change no matter what you do. If you're born fat but decide to work out a lot to get skinny you wouldn't call that evolution would you? Your kids would have the same set of genes whether or not you had them while fat or skinny. There is a important distinction between changes in populations and changes individuals.
No one completely understands evolution, but I already posted a source that backs up what I have been saying. Honestly it sounds like you think evolution is magic...how do you think natural selection and genetic drift occur without changes in individuals?
First off, evolution is well understood. Secondly, do you even know what natural selection and genetic drift are? Changes in individuals have no relevance to them. All natural selection says is that organisms that are more reproductively fit will survive to produce progeny. New genes are introduced through recombination and mutation, and these new genes will increase in frequency if they are more reproductively fit. Its not magic, you just don't know anything about evolutionary biology.
Secondly, I'm guessing you randomly googled some stuff and found epigenetics. Yep, your article is talking about genomic imprinting. Most of the research in this field is more focused on cancer and cell differentiation and not transgenerational evolution because it makes cells behave differently. In most cases, genomic imprinting is reset every generation so methylation is removed, histones are reset so whatever happens in one generation isn't passed on. Sometimes this isn't the case (Igf4 and water fleas are most famous for this). The reason why this isn't really "evolution" is because its not passed down to further generations, over time the epigenetic markers are removed. From your own source "In Feig's study, the offspring of enriched mice lost their memory benefits after a few months.". Its an interesting topic, but only affects a limited number of genes and in no way means that we have to redefine evolution.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century.
Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want.
Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
That's...
completely...
wrong.
There is not and never has been evidence of lamarkism, and it's base logic is completely unsound.
Evolution has nothing to do with this. Unless it is used in a broader sense of the word, i.e not species-wide darwinian evolution or any variation of it as Treemonkeys has for some reason committed himself to defending, but evolution for its literal meaning, gradual change. Gradual change Can occur on the individual level, whether it's passed on through the genes or not. That is the only relevant use of the word evolution here. The question is whether an individual's eyes change over his/her lifetime according to environmental factors, and whether those factors can be controlled better by means other than corrective lenses.
And i think anyone accusing anyone else of talking out of their ass should prove their own credentials first. If you can contribute some expertese to the discussion that's great but otherwise this is a discussion for laymen, using the powers of basic research and critical thinking to speculatively draw their own conclusions. I don't know why people are so adverse to such a discussion taking place when the alternatives are a) don't have an opinion b) don't take the formation of your own opinion seriously unless you're willing to go all the way and devote at least 2 years to the particular subject. Having an opinion is great, and going acedemic on every subject is simply not pheasible, yet using all the tools of a layman to refine an opinion is always fun, and productive.
On November 10 2010 07:51 zobz wrote: Evolution has nothing to do with this. Unless it is used in a broader sense of the word, i.e not species-wide darwinian evolution or any variation of it as Treemonkeys has for some reason committed himself to defending, but evolution for its literal meaning, gradual change. Gradual change Can occur on the individual level, whether it's passed on through the genes or not. That is the only relevant use of the word evolution here. The question is whether an individual's eyes change over his/her lifetime according to environmental factors, and whether those factors can be controlled better by means other than corrective lenses.
And i think anyone accusing anyone else of talking out of their ass should prove their own credentials first. If you can contribute some expertese to the discussion that's great but otherwise this is a discussion for laymen, using the powers of basic research and critical thinking to speculatively draw their own conclusions. I don't know why people are so adverse to such a discussion taking place when the alternatives are a) don't have an opinion b) don't take the formation of your own opinion seriously unless you're willing to go all the way and devote at least 2 years to the particular subject. Having an opinion is great, and going acedemic on every subject is simply not pheasible, yet using all the tools of a layman to refine an opinion is always fun, and productive.
I'm gonna suggest you read the thread before posting, we are criticizing treemonkey's understanding of the word.
You're saying "well that guy is completely wrong but in theory he could have said something else that isn't" and then you say "you goddamn theorycrafting noobs, stop criticizing him u aren't qualified"
normally id say, "you go on right ahead with that and see how it works out for you." when it involves relatively silly pseudoscience like treating myopia with "eye exercises" but then after a while they go and rev up the wackiness when they heard that some dude looked directly at the sun and cured his nearsightedness and then take it seriously. first id think to myself, "ahahaha, ive got to record this for posterity." --but thats just way too mean.
"NO! BAD HUMAN! dont poop on the carpet! no, i mean dont go and belive any new procedure that hasnt been published in any credible medical journal."
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
Please read anything about evolution before you post, people like you are the best creationst can hope for. Even wiki (as bad as it is) would give you reasonable idea of how evolution actually works. As the poster before me said, it works between generations, nothing that happens to your body (except what happens to your sperm cells ) has any influence on the evolution of the humans directly.
This is debatable and still under heavy research. Honestly, what do creationist have to do with this at all?
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not evolve during the course of your life. During your life the traits you have determine whether or not you survive and or reproduce, and thereby selection occurs causing evolution. Again, what you are describing is Lamarkism, which was generally refuted in the 19th century.
Your body changes over the course of your life based on environment, over generations these changes become big enough to be called "evolution", call it whatever you want.
Saying Lamarkism has been generally refuted is not correct, it would be much more accurate to say that it is controversial and undecided as a whole - and all that really means is science just doesn't know yet.
No you are totally wrong, you even do not know the definitions of the terms you are using. Changes in your body die with you, none of those are propagated to another generation. Yes there is a debate about that, but the effects discussed are so small that they have no bearing on this discussion. Basically except your reproductive cells anything that happens to you during your life dies with you. Of course I am talking about evolution now, some things like your works etc. may survive in the culture but that has nothing to do with biological evolution.
You are basically contradicting yourself there, you say I am totally wrong and then admit there is a debate. So I'm not totally wrong, I'm the one who said it was a controversial issue. The effects being small is irrelevant because regardless of how small they are over long periods of time and many generations they could possible become quite big.
On November 10 2010 00:33 Treemonkeys wrote: This is actually common sense from a evolutionary and growth perspective, if you depend on something you will become weaker in that area, it happens with almost everything. Antibiotics weaken your immune system, driving a car instead of walking everywhere weakens your physique, if you never go outside you will be weak to sunlight, etc.
To say it's a conspiracy is probably stupid though, it's just science doing what it does, and medical practices are called practices for a reason. It's a little naive to think medicine is always right especially if you look at it's history, there are some ailments that can be completely cured with more organic methods while mainstream medicine has to answer.
This is not evolution. Stop using evolution in the wrong place, you're just making other uninformed people misinformed. Evolution works on populations over generations, not single individuals. Also, antibiotics don't weaken your immune system. They can kill the bacteria in your body, making it easier for infectious bacteria which are antibiotic resistant to wreak havoc in your body or select for antibiotic resistance but to say that antibiotics weaken your immune system is misleading at best.
Really? Evolution does not lie dormant and then suddenly move forward after generations passed by, it is constantly happening very slowly.
Populations are nothing but a word to signify a whole bunch of individuals, so to say it does not happen to single individuals is non-sense, it simply could not change a population without changing individuals at the same time. This is basic thought.
You do not understand evolution. The process of evolution in essence is change in gene frequency in a population. Natural selection and genetic drift work on individuals to effect these changes. You are born with a set of genes that don't change no matter what you do. If you're born fat but decide to work out a lot to get skinny you wouldn't call that evolution would you? Your kids would have the same set of genes whether or not you had them while fat or skinny. There is a important distinction between changes in populations and changes individuals.
No one completely understands evolution, but I already posted a source that backs up what I have been saying. Honestly it sounds like you think evolution is magic...how do you think natural selection and genetic drift occur without changes in individuals?
First off, evolution is well understood. Secondly, do you even know what natural selection and genetic drift are? Changes in individuals have no relevance to them. All natural selection says is that organisms that are more reproductively fit will survive to produce progeny. New genes are introduced through recombination and mutation, and these new genes will increase in frequency if they are more reproductively fit. Its not magic, you just don't know anything about evolutionary biology.
Secondly, I'm guessing you randomly googled some stuff and found epigenetics. Yep, your article is talking about genomic imprinting. Most of the research in this field is more focused on cancer and cell differentiation and not transgenerational evolution because it makes cells behave differently. In most cases, genomic imprinting is reset every generation so methylation is removed, histones are reset so whatever happens in one generation isn't passed on. Sometimes this isn't the case (Igf4 and water fleas are most famous for this). The reason why this isn't really "evolution" is because its not passed down to further generations, over time the epigenetic markers are removed. From your own source "In Feig's study, the offspring of enriched mice lost their memory benefits after a few months.". Its an interesting topic, but only affects a limited number of genes and in no way means that we have to redefine evolution.
I guess that depends, on your idea of "well understood". Nothing in science is understood at an absolute level, least of all evolution, it continues to be one of they most heavily researched and groundbreaking fields in recent years.
I didn't randomly google, this is something I read a long time ago and thought was very interesting. Not sure why that matters at all, it's a very weak argument on your end.
It passes to one generation to the next, but not to the 3rd. But one could speculate that the 2nd generation could use what was passed down to modify behavior, and the modified behavior could then effectively be passed down to the 3rd. This isn't unreasonable.
Certainly more research needs to be done and it will be done, and you are quoting the article completely out of context in a way that goes against a theme of the article. Which is that this could *possibly* be a factor in evolution (the development of life), and it is very clear that this is a confusing issue that is not completely understood. The reason he is saying this is not a reason to redefine evolution is because it does not contradict other "known" theories of evolution but it could possibly supplement them.
Yet you quote the article and try to use the quote to back up your opinion that this absolutely is not evolution, which is not what the article is saying - at all. You are just cherry picking a quote to try and make it say what you want it to say.
We have a few questions we need to answer about myopia:
1. What is the genetic component? Meaning something to the effect of is your chamber size or shape less than ideal. 2. What is the environmental component?
You could have progressively worse vision unrelated to the OP's hypothesis, in which case it would be genetic or some other environmental influence, such as a vitamin deficiency, that causes progressive myopia.
I have not seen a physiology discussion, which I think makes the hypothesis more plausible. As you look at something close you pupils do change (constrict), but you ciliary muscle also constricts. The ciliary muscle is a circular band of muscle attached to your lens by fibers. When it constricts it's diameter decreases and the tension on the fibers is released, allowing the lens to form a thicker, more globoid, form.
Now I imagine most of you have had a few lecture on optics, and I really do not want to drag out the equations, but that is not the purpose of the present exposition, and any endeavor is left as an exercise for the reader (can you tell I studied math? haha).
The point is that prolonged near focus requires a prolonged contraction of the ciliary muscle. If there are troubles with ciliary relaxation, then, we could have problems seeing distant objects. Hence the hypothesis. Note that it is more complicated than just muscle involvement. While the lens is quite "elastic" perhaps maintaining it at a constant shape decreases this elasticity making the transient myopia normal eyes have (in transitioning from a near to far object) a more permanent one that many of us have.
I would also like to note that in any study where you give children bifocals that they have to actually use them in a disciplined fashion for results to be valid, so I am slow to believe such studies unless I can see that issue addressed.
Also, I think it important that any scientist (or any intellectual) should field a hypothesis without vitriol or insults hurled towards the one who posits the idea, providing a good discussion and not an argument. I have great respect for the TL community and the dedication they have to systematizing and making a science out of sc and sc2, but want to see grace extended to people with different ideas on various topics.
EPT
. 
