Talk:Myopia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Myopia article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Comments 2 Bias in the Links 3 theory vs hypothesis - consistency with wikipedia article on theory 4 the eye with myopic people 5 Article Improvement Drive 6 a short note to potential editors: on alternate usages of the term 7 JMVS? 8 Myopia-IQ 9 This is a perfect example on why Wikipedia is such a failure 10 Needs better images 11 Added section on perceptual effects of strong myopia 11.1 Perceptual effects of extreme myopia 12 Behavioral myopia 13 Wrong image 14 Readded external link on Myopia Prevention that someone removed 15 introductory content 16 Pinhole glasses 17 Treatment Options

[edit] Comments

Many claim that Myopia can be cured without glasses. Although I believe that is true, the solution adopted by prominent persons line W.H. Bates is not so clear and helpfull for a reader. Just wanted to know if any further research has been done on this subject or not.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.112.243 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC).

The 'bates' method hasn't recieved any real studies in 20-30 years, and the ones back then were disputed. I think it should atleast be mentioned as it does have a considerable following. I don't know if we should get too far into palming sunning colour days and such, but maybe an external link, and a mention of the subject.SCVirus 04:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

While i have no evidence that SCVirus is wrong, it would be nice if s/he is wrong. If anyone is aware of any recent, serious studies on the 'bates' method, preferably openly published (though medical sciences seem to be the most closed of sciences in terms of open web publishing), then please speak up. i read a book on the 'bates' method a loooooong time ago and if the NITM hypothesis is correct, the obvious next question is whether or not therapy is possible. Certainly, my subjective statistical assessments of correlations between people wearing glasses and their nearwork frequency make it hard to believe that NITM is wrong. However, it is possible that NITM is correct but that it does not imply any practical therapies.

Moreover, given that the 'bates' book has been widely sold and distributed, probably some mention of it should be made, e.g. in a section claimed therapies based on the NITM hypothesis. Boud 11:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well its been a couple months and no ones put anything in so i'm gonna do it, just add it with a link to the main article.

Bates Method doesn't actually refer to Bates' theory of myopia, but rather his program of eye exercises. There is already a link to Bates Method earlier in the section. AED 06:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Bates Method has actually recieved some attention and there are now eye excersise kits that you can buy from his successors. An example can be found at http://www.rebuildyourvision.com

I did not order the kit, so I don't know if it really works. But the example excersise (for curing presbyopia) shows that they might be pretty effective. Anyway, the Bates Method should be mentioned at least once in the article.Dtm142 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

---

This article claims that myopia is especially high in East Asia. Any scientific explanation for why this is the case? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 06:05, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

The explainations that I usually hear attribute the high rate to enviromental factors, such as the heavy emphasis on academics and studying, and higher population density (i.e. more closework). At any rate the occurance is definetely very high... when I went to school in Taiwan about 7 years ago it was something like 70-80% of the student population (presumably somewhere nearer to there for the entire adult population).-Loren 09:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

there is considerable medical literature pointing to environmental factors (near task study, over-illumination etc) and diet as associatives to myopia Anlace 06:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited this slightly to read "in some countries, such as" rather than "in places like". Firstly because we are comparing countries, not "places" and secondly because it is extremely difficult to define a country as being "like" another one and therefore ambiguous as to what other countries are "like" the ones mentioned. My correction is both more objective and logical and not merely an improvement of the English. --JamesTheNumberless 11:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The last line of the article states:

One 2002 study suggested that myopia may be caused by over-consumption of bread in childhood. So far, this has not been supported by further research results.

What does the final sentence mean?

1)Further research has been conducted but contradicts the results of this study.

2)Further research has been conducted but is ambigious with regards to these results.

3)Further research has not been conducted.

So, which is it?

- Gyan 19:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, NO research has been done... there was no study actually referenced in the article.AED 21:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a nearsighted person, maybe since the age of 10. Many opthamologists sell the idea that myopia is completely environmental, despite evidence on the contrary. Fact is they don't know. My grandmother had diabetes 2 (the most common type in the world) and also suffered from severe myopia. Myopia could very likely be emergenic caused by genetic and biochemical factors [1]. -- Orionix 02:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Can someone provide info on other myopia measurement systems? I know for a fact that Taiwan and possibly other East Asian countries use a different system of "degrees", ranging from 100 to as high as 2000 (?). When I got my glasses in Taiwan I was diagnosed with 350/400 "degrees", but am unsure how severe or how this would be measured with the diopter system. Phaust 08:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in the Links

The external links seem biased. Only websites that dispute the hereditary theory of myopia are listed. If external links are to be provided at all, they should include at least some neutral websites.

Complete thoroughness would require medical links that are more or less accepted as neutral, or at least objective; links to sources that dispute the traditional medical theories of myopia; and links to sources that defend the traditinal medical theories.

---

This claim that all the links are biased is NOT CORRECT:

The referenced Myopia Manual is explicitely giving an absolutely unbiased and neutral view on all the various aspects of myopia. Scientific sources, which are supporting the hereditary theory of myopia are presented in this comprehensive paper as well. (August 05, 2005)

i'm not sure about absolutely - as the author says himself, he's aware of the difficulty in claiming perfect objectivity in the scientific community. But certainly http://www.myopia-manual.de/ is a very impressive synthesis. People wanting to correct the wikipedia article should probably spend some time reading and understanding it... Boud 12:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I have removed the link to myopia.org (THE MYOPIA MYTH: How To Prevent Nearsightedness) since the only content on that page is a link to preventmyopia.org, which is the second of this article's external links. AJR 12:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Rather than list every external link supporting the mainstream theories of myopia, I added a link to PubMed's "myopia" research. That should be sufficient to remove the NPOV banner. AED 06:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

What about the definition for the use of the word "myopic" that pertains to narrow mindedness of people?

[edit] theory vs hypothesis - consistency with wikipedia article on theory

Here are links to the descriptions of theory and hypothesis:

theory#Characteristics:

Characteristics - There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., ...

hypothesis

In common usage at present, a hypothesis is a provisional idea whose merit is to be evaluated. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it.

Do either the genetic hypothesis or the NITM hypothesis qualify as theory, given the five points listed in theory#Characteristics? Are they supported by many strands of evidence? Do they make predictions which someday may be used to disprove them?

The article as it stands seems to present the genetic hypothesis as closer to theory, and the NITM hypothesis as closer to hypothesis. i'm not trying to start a flame war here, but if this is supposed to be an article discussing the science of myopia, then IMHO we should not be using "theory" as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." Anyway, people working on the article can probably sort this out... i know that half a year or so ago, people working on global warming were unhappy to shift from the informal use of "theory" to the scientific use of it. Boud 11:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Boud: I believe that the genetic hypothesis is not only closer to being a theory, but that it really is a theory. As to NITM, I believe that it also qualifies as a theory, but note the "T", for transient: I believe that this effect is beyond dispute and therefore qualifies as a theory--the evidence is too strong to disprove it. On the other hand, the hypothesis that NITM leads to a permanent form of myopia is still only a hypothesis.

Researich2 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Dbpsmith:

You want me to prove, as I claim, that the author (me) of the entry in “Theories” (which you reverted) and the author of the external link, are one and the same person. If I were dishonest, I think it would be fairly easy to fake it, by means of IP spoofing or some other technique. Any suggestions?

Researich2 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the eye with myopic people

I noticed there isn't any information about what the eye does differently in a person with myopia compared to one with perfect vision. Like when a person tries to focus on a distant object. Is there any? Or maybe the info is there in the article, and I just completely missed it. Perhaps someone with knowledge in this subject could contribute? Appreciate it. :) Gflores ^Talk 08:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement Drive

Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a short note to potential editors: on alternate usages of the term

In game theory (economy, math), players of a game may or may not be capable to consider the effect of their current actions on the future. The phrase "Myoptic" is used to describe players who are not or not very capable to do this. The opposite is, as in the real world, farsightedness. Onkl (no member), 19 January 2006

Agreed; I've heard the word used a number of times to describe people's views and attitudes. The article should include a short mention of this alternate meaning. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JMVS?

I'm snipping

• Scanlan's General Theory of Myopia

pending discussion, because I want someone to explain why JMVS is a "reputable source" per verifiability policy. It may well be, but at the moment I have some problems with it:

• This is an online journal that apparently has no print counterpart
• According to the archive, it has, so far, published only two papers
• the editors are not named. Their credentials are not mentioned.
• Neither the the For Authors page, nor anything else, indicates that this is a peer-reviewed journal. It appears as if submissions are reviewed only by the editors.
• Since only the editors vet submissions and since we don't know who the editors are, I don't understand how one can make a sensible judgement of the journal's accuracy or reliability.
• Google Scholar does not appear to contain any content from "Journal of Modern Vision Research". None of the 43 hits on JMVS are to this online journal
• JMVS is not among the 2,000 journals indexed by Proquest Research Library, an online database available at libraries. (I regard this list as a good rough cut at a list of clearly reputable journals).

Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just looked through the Scanlon article this morning, and have read the other article (Otis Brown) from this JMVS site previously. IMO, the only qualification for submissios must be either payment or knowing one of the "editors."

I have NO IDEA what Scanlan's credentials are alleged to be, but Brown is a retired engineer who has bandied about his (overwhelmingly unsubstantiated) theory for 15 years, totally ignoring research studies that are in direct contradiction with his hypothesis, and citing only some chimerical Hong Kong eye doc alleged to support his position. Brown has been under investigation for practicing medicine without a license.

The registrant for the domain is some Australian organization with a Hotmail account. I'd be more than curious if anybody can unearth more about these JMVS folks. Awfully cryptic, they are....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.122.244 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC).

I've removed the Scanlan bit again. -AED 04:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myopia-IQ

Couldn't the alleged myopia-IQ connection occur due to that near-sighted people tend to read more? 惑乱 分からん 15:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I think. It goes along with the theory that close activity causes myopia (which is a simple enough concept; if you look at a close object for too long, all you'll be able to see is the close object). People who read more are often said to be more intelligent than people who read less...Dtm142 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a perfect example on why Wikipedia is such a failure

This article has been completely kidnapped by the people who want to sell their "alternative" and/or "magical" myopia cures that only they know about but THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW! AND THE PEOPLE AT THE FDA HAVE GUNS FOR GODS SAKE, REAL GUNS! I mean, please, can a real doctor, as in someone who actualy went to and graduated from medical school, update this sorry ass article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.124.123.147 (talk • contribs).

Do you have any proof that these methods do not work?Dtm142 23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We typically approach these sorts of questions in terms of proving that something DOES work. Very difficult to prove a negative. AFAIK, none of these natural vision improvement methods has EVER proven effective *at relieving true (axial-length) myopia*, though there are people with "pseudomyopia" or "accommodative spasm" who--when they learn to relax their accommodative mechanism (ciliary muscles), do relieve a half a diopter or so of pseudomyopia. Depending on their chosen method, there may not be any downside.... NBeener 4/20/06 (before I officially got my "account" ;-)

Then it should go somewhere in the article, to avoid confusion. Dtm142 17:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs better images

Diagrams that show how the actual eye changes. I hate dealing with copyright crap, so maybe someone else will upload for me. But it needs to show how the eye changes, not just some vague eye diagram like many of these google images are. DyslexicEditor 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

True, the quality of the images should be improved. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I just replaced the images with colors, after many attempts at trying to upload over the files. I wish I hadn't spent the time because people on wikipedia want to delete every image here. DyslexicEditor 20:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I must point the fact that the image for myopia is not accurate and must be corrected : myopia does not simply makes things fuzzy at long distances, it makes them look a little bigger, just as if you had a magnifying glass right in front of the eye. Indeed, you can observe that correctives glasses make things look a little smaller

[edit] Added section on perceptual effects of strong myopia

I am not sure what to do here. This is documentation of a perceptual capacity which I have, that I know is real and which I can readily experience and duplicate at any time if a bright point-light source is available.

I am aware that Wikipedia is not an avenue for original research. However, since I am not a doctor of optometry by trade, it is unknown to me if these perceptions are widely known in the field of optometry or have been documented in any optometry textbooks or research materials. (And if it is known, it probably is documented using much more scientific terminology that I do not know, and am unable to make surface when I try to do Google searches that might be related to this topic.)

I can only say that such perceptual effects should be directly verifiable by anyone else with a similarly high level of myopia, and who attempts to duplicate the method of perception... which is simply to take off the glasses/contacts and look at a single lone bright point-light source, with no other point-light sources nearby that might cause overlap of the light disks..

DMahalko 07:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I can absolutely confirm this phenomenon. My eyes have a diopte of -7.0R and -7.5L and it's still possible to see these effects. I had always wondered if other people with myopia were aware of it. Drumex 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section from the article, but preserved it below. Unfortunately, the information is largely not verifiable per WP:V and lacks reliable sources. -AED 05:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perceptual effects of extreme myopia

At the extremes of nearsightedness (-9 diopter shown here) a new perceptual ability arises out of what would otherwise appear to be a disability. When a person with -9 diopter myopia views light sources at night without corrective optics, the light source is spread out into a large unfocused disk of light.

However, the disk of light is not flat and featureless, but instead reveals details about the viewer that are not otherwise within the range of perception. These drawings attempt to approximate what is seen separately in the left and right eye. (In normal stereoscopic vision, these two views of a single light source are overlapped and merge together, but can be seen separately by covering one of the eyes.)

Due to the extreme vision error, the person is instead able to see microscopic details within their own eyeball, such as the protein strings that naturally float freely in the clear aqueous humour of the eye. Rapid movements of the eye will swirl up the protein strings, which continue to swirl around for a few seconds when the viewer suddenly stops to look at the light source. The motion and shape of the strings is clearly visible.

The microscopic surface of the cornea is also visible in the light disk. Objects such as tiny air bubbles, lint, and other debris can be seen, and partially closing and reopening the upper eyelid will leave a visible ridge of liquid where the lid has pushed the liquid along in front of it. The eyelashes hanging down from the upper eyelid in front of the pupil can also be seen.

Other visible details include the size of the pupil, which can be seen as the light disk growing and shrinking in size, and the shape of the cornea, which may not necessarily be perfectly circular and shows what is being corrected by astigmatic cylinder adjustments in the lens prescription.

One final detail that is visible is a distortion of the upper part of the cornea, caused by the eyelid normally lying across the top edge of the cornea when the eyes are open. This slight distortion usually disappears after sleeping all night with the eyes closed, then slowly reappears again in the daytime when the eyes are open.

[edit] Behavioral myopia

Regarding this addition to the "Clinical entity" section:

Behavorial Myopia The most prevalent cause of myopia. Caused by spending hours looking at close objects such as a book or a computer. (Young, 1969, Behavioral myopia is cause of 100% of myopia in eskimo children) Behavorial Myopia can be prevented by using "reading" or "computer" glasses when focusing on close objects for long periods. For more information: "Take off Your Glasses and See" Liberman, OD, Ph.D. 1995

First of all, it is not proper to insert this immediately following "Goss et. al described the various forms of myopia based on their clinical appearance". Goss did not describe "behavioral myopia" so it is not proper to destroy the context of what he describe by sticking that in the middle of it. Secondly, "behavioral myopia" suggests not a classification based on clinical appearance but rather a classification based on cause. Thirdly, Young suggested no such classification nor did he use the term "behavioral myopia" in "The transmission of refractive errors within eskimo families." PMID 5258732.

Regarding the edit summary that went along with that addition:

If Goss does not recoginize the most prevalent cause of Myopia then he should not be used as a reference. (Young, 1969, Behavioral myopia is cause of 100% of myopia in eskimo children)).

The classification suggested by Goss was cited by the American Optometric Association. In other words, the classification has mainstream acceptance. On the other hand, "behavioral myopia" apparently does not as it gets a total of four Google hits. -AED 05:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this as it should, and indeed is covered in pathogenesis. Maybe the whole article is a little too technical, but it is there. Claus Diff 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong image

Isn't this image's current version wrong? Shouldn't the rays of light bend already within the glas lens and bend even more behind it? --Abdull 09:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the image is designed to show how a concave lens diverges light for proper placement on the retina; however, you are correct. -AED 06:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Readded external link on Myopia Prevention that someone removed

The external link to Myopia.org provides over 60 pages of information that is being suppressed by eye doctors, the optical industry, and our government. It antagonizes just about everyone in the eye care business. Therefore I ask the editors of this site to be vigilant and insure that no one removes it again. At stake is the vision of hundreds of millions of children around the world. Donald Rehm, President, International Myopia Prevention Assn., Ligonier, PA. If you wish to discuss this, feel free to email me from the site. 12 November 2006 (I don't know why this new topic ended up together with Wrong Image. Fix it if you can and remove this note)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.155.192.143 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC).

Your conspiracy theory website is not a reliable source. If you have references for any substantive data, peer-reviewed articles, etc. supporting your claims, please use those instead. — Xaonon (Talk) 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Xaonon. First of all, there is no conspiracy against your organization. The guidlines at Wikipedia:External links help determine whether or not your link should appear here. Among these points are that you should not insert links to websites that you own or maintain. Secondly, the International Myopia Prevention Association is still represented in the article as a cited reference; www.preventmyopia.org is currently included as #61 as I write this. Finally, you are welcome to edit the article if you think it is factually inaccurate. Please be sure that you pay particular attention to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:EL, WP:V, and WP:RS, if you do so. -AED 00:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you really feel that peer-reviewed articles are honest? These journals would not exist if it wasn't for advertising money from the optical industry which is violently opposed to prevention. Such journals have no interest in publishing a meaningful article on prevention. Even so, my site contains many references to published research by Francis Young and others that is never made available during the education of an eye doctor. And what about your link to the Wildsoet site? Here is a gal who is tooting her own horn and applying for grant money that furthers her own career. So she can link to herself and I can't? Are you on the side of big business or the consumer? Donald Rehm, International Myopia Prevention Assn—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.155.197.32 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

We're "on the side" of verifiability. If you can't deal with that, tough. — Xaonon (Talk) 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• After reviewing the site at preventmyopia.org, i'm going to remove the link from this article. The proposed mechanism of action of myopia on the website has been comprehensively disproven, and the recommended method of treatment (of reading glasses) has been shown to yeild very little benefit. Wikipedia is no place for pseudoscience or quakery, no matter how it presents itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided : Violates points 2 and 3

Fillup 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the statement on a page about Myopia:

Many people with myopia are able to read comfortably without eyeglasses. Myopes considering refractive surgery are advised that this may be an advantage after the age of 40 when the eyes become presbyopic and lose their ability to accommodate or change focus.

Question: Are patients advised that "refractive surgery" OR "Myopia" itself is an advantage after age 40?

Thanks, Joseph Williams dreamwaker@bellsouth.net

• It is an advantage to be myopic over age 40, as your near point will be closer than a emmetropic eye with equivalent accomodation. Fillup 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] introductory content

WHAT IS UP with the penis, vagina, and boobs introductory text? It says: "Those with myopia typically can see nearby penises clearly but vaginas appear blurred. The opposite defect of myopia is hyperopia or "far-sightedness" or "long-sightedness" — this is where the boobs are too flat or the penis is too short." -- tkf 169.229.143.195 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism. Now sorted. Famousdog 14:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinhole glasses

I removed the following from the introduction of the article: "Pinhole glasses are considered less likely to cause progressive myopia and thus often provide a better choice for those with low enough levels of myopia that it can be corrected by this means.^{[citation needed]}" First, it is an unsourced medical claim and thus dioes not belong in the article, second, I dread the thought of meeting someone driving at night who is peering through a pinhole as they try to see their way, out of fear that real corrective lenses might worsen their myopia. A pinhole makes a pretty lousy lens in general, just better than squinting hard. Edison 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment Options

Added paragraph "The standard treatment for myopia...." this is a factual statement. There are no external links here. If this is removed by any editing vigilante who is employed by big business to hide the truth from the public, a protest will be made to the Wikipedia Foundation. There is too much censorship on pages like this. Impa 16:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)