From: M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Pritchard)
Subject: Re: Bates and myopia treatment
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:37:39 GMT

In article <3980@sicsun.epfl.ch>
basturk@nebin.cica.fr (Erol Basturk) writes:
 
> ...
>One can mention also the constant tension in eyelens muscles to be one possible
>source of myopic sight.
 
Yes, ophthalmologists recognize that tension in the ciliary muscle (the
muscle encircling the lens) can give rise to short-term myopia -- that is,
the ciliary muscle doesn't want to unclench, so the lens is held at a
"reading distance" focus.  That's *short-term*.
 
>Whatever maybe the reason, one fact remains. Many books have been published
>and all of them say that it gives results.
 
MDs of my acquaintance do not agree.  Is that perhaps a CONSPIRACY to keep
people myopic?
 
>removal of stress as a basic condition for eyesight improvement. The origin
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
You were speaking of myopia, not eyesight improvement in general.  I have
no lenses in my eyes (aphakia).  _No_one_, not even Bates himself, can
say that "removing stress" is going to restore clear lenses to me, or
improve my eyesight.  Myopia is not the only eyesight problem.
 
>of the stress can be tensions in the neck (bad blood circulation in eyeball),
 
If the arteries throough your neck are so constricted that your eyesight
suffers, then you have far worse and more immediate problems, such as
reduced blood flow to the brain!
 
>Whatever maybe the technics and studies made, it seems in a way logical that if
>myopia or any eye problem appears, there is surely a reason, and if so, a mean
>of curing this "disease" with appropriate methods.
 
First, not all problems are "diseases."  What would you call a broken arm?
No disease mechanism there, but your body is not fully functioning.
 
Second, I agree completely.  Where my opinion differs from yours is in the
area of "appropriate methods."  The things which are effective in the vast
majority of myopia sufferers are corrective glasses and/or refractive surgery.
 
Lots of effort and lots of money is spent by myopia patients in attempts to
reduce their myopia with eye exercises and relaxation.  If these methods
actually helped, ophthalmologists and optometrists would sell these
services, as well as the services they sell already.  No, almost all
these doctors are too honorable and dignified to foist this stuff off on
patients.
 
You say you followed some course of action, and your degree of myopia changed?
Congratulations.  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? (After this, therefore because
of this?)  Myopia changes; that's why you need to have your eyes re-examined
periodically to see if you need a change in eyeglass/contact prescription.
 
>reason (shorter focal length) is know since long. To treat the myopia as an
>extern problem leads to extern solutions such as lens correction and surgery.
 
I understand the difference between, for instance, invasive surgery and non-
invasive medicines.  What is this difference between "external" and
"internal" problems?
 
>While taken as intern problems (emotional tensions and psychological causes) leads
>to methods of global cure of the myopic person, which is what I call the
>"new way" of considering eyesight problems.
 
Bates wrote at the beginning of the century.  Hardly new.  I think his methods
have been considered and discarded.
 
>Furthermore, I wonder why Quebec Institut of Visiology or American Myopic
>Association are presenting and using these technics if they are not
>efficient, refering to current ideas on the subject.
 
Now, that would be interesting.  I'm not going to follow up, though:  I do
not suffer from myopia.  (Well, yes, I do -- my artificial intra-ocular
lenses are set so I focus best at reading/conversational distances.  But
that was deliberate on the part of my ophthalmologist.)
 
>I would be mostly interested in opthalmologists and optometrists opinions on
>that subject.
 
Guess that lets me out.  I'm not a physician (not an ophthalmologist), nor do
I have any other kind of doctorate.
 
**  Hugh Pritchard,  hapritch@mitre.org,  703/883-6616
Newsgroups: sci.med