--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
My preferred tonometers are the Pascal DCT, the ORA.
We have also started using the iCare. Our data on the iCare is very
supportive of that tonometer although I realize that the jury is still
out as far as the ophthalmology field is concerned. We may publish
results comparing the iCare to other tonometers in the future. So far
these comparisons give us confidence in the iCare although we never
rely on it without backing up the data with another tonometer.
I consider the Pascal DCT to be the gold standard in tonometers
provided one uses the DataWiz software, accepts only high quality data
(score = 1) and measures over an extended period of a minute or more.
There is no way the archaic GAT can match this level of IOP data
collection.
We try to confirm all results with the Pascal whenever possible.
>
> The numbers you are presenting are quite radical. I know people who
> meditate in the waiting room before taking visual field tests because
> it helps them relax before the test, and they show no signs of
> elevated IOP when checked by the ophth afterwards.
I question this conclusion because the visual field test itself has
been shown to increase IOP. It is recommended that IOP be checked
prior to the VF test. If someone is doing it the other way around,
that is a problem.
It is also known that the state of relaxation will affect VF test
results. So TM before a VF test might improve results of the VF test
(although to my knowledge this is yet another question that has not
been answered in any objective way).
>
> Twenty-four hour IOP monitoring can be useful to identify spikes in
> IOP that could be indicative of problems, but it needs to be done in a
> proper setting using proper test equipment.
Even the 24 hour IOP monitoring falls far short of what we seek to do.
In these tests IOP is measured only a few times - maybe six or 8
times. We have measured IOP hundreds of times over many consecutive
data under a wide variety of situations. The controlled hospital
setting and infrequent measurements fall far short of revealing the
true behavior of a subject's IOP in my opinion.
>Even the tonopen is not
> accurate compared to a Goldmann and really needs to be calibrated
> against it.
I know I'm going a bit against the grain here, but why calibrate one
instrument against a "standard" (GAT) that is known to be problematic?
Have you read the IOP consensus report from ARVO 2007? Even the non
contact tonometers are "more reliable" than the TonoPen by some measures.
No matter which tonometer is used, we like to see a large number of
IOP measurements to increase reliability of the data.
GAT only remains the standard because of inertia and habit. It is NOT
the standard because it is the best or most accurate. It is only the
standard because so much historical data is based on it.
Unfortunately, that historical GAT data is flawed due to corneal
biomechanical issues. As you probably know, GAT IOP data cannot be
corrected via CCT algorithms. There is no way to correct it.
Unless someone has IOP checked with a much more modern tonometer (say
the Pascal DCT or maybe the ORA or Langham pneumotonometer) we don't
really know what their true IOP is.
>
> Are you an ophthalmologist?
No.
>
> According to you, who are the people who are at risk of having IOP
> elevated from doing TM?
I am not sure. I have not attempted to answer this question. It isn't
part of my work or interest. I do, however, think the TM org has an
obligation to answer this question.
>
> Hard to know how to give feedback or make suggestions when your "data"
> is so sparse an there are so many unknowns.
Maybe we can discuss your other points offline. Who are you? Are you
an opthalmologist or a researcher? You are welcome to send me a
private email.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, freeradicalfederation
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My data shows that TM and the TM-Sidhis program can significantly
raise
>
> > intraocular pressure (IOP). Elevated IOP is the most significant risk
> > factor for glaucoma, one of the leading treatable causes of blindness
> > worldwide. (TM doesn't appear to raise IOP for everyone. However, I
> > think we need to understand who is at risk for this side effect.)
> >
> >
> > I have shared my findings with a couple of the movement's researchers
> > (now former researchers) and with physicians who are familiar with
(and
> > practitioners of) TM. So far I have not received any interest in
regard
> > to understanding these findings in more detail.
> >
> >
> > Over the last several years I have continued to collect data. For
> > certain people there is no doubt in my mind that TM significantly
raises
> > intraocular pressure. Given that this is such a dangerous risk factor
> > for glaucoma, I would like to understand the physiological mechanism
> > behind this IOP increase.
> >
> > Does anyone feel like speculating or offering suggestions that may
give
> > me some ideas to follow up on? The physiological parameters I have
> > monitored so far haven't given me many clues as to the mechanism.
> > However, I have not monitored changes in blood flow in the areas
around
> > the eyes. We have limited physiological monitoring equipment for
EEG and
> > no fMRI. However, we have extensive and very advanced equipment for
> > monitoring IOP and we have good equipment for ECG, GSR, etc.
> >
> >
> > To demonstrate the magnitude of IOP change, here is one example of the
> > data (in HTML table format):
> >
> >
> > LEFT EYE RIGHT EYE
> >
> > Just after waking up:
> >
> > 14
> >
> > 12
> >
> > 13
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 16
> >
> > 14
> >
> > 14
> >
> > Immediately after meditating:
> >
> > 19
> >
> > 17
> >
> > 17
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 28
> >
> > 28
> >
> > 30
> >
> >
> >
> > As you can see, each measurement was repeated 3 times in each eye
before
> > and also after meditation. The meditation values were recorded
after the
> > full recommended rest period following a full TM-Sidhis program. No
> > other activities were performed during this time period. We have also
> > checked IOP after doing just 20 minutes of TM followed by 3 minutes of
> > rest without laying down, and found elevated IOP then as well.
> >
> > The elevated IOP can persist for a few hours or more. However, unless
> > someone were to meditate immediately before having their IOP
checked in
> > an ophthalmologist's office, they would probably not know that TM was
> > elevating their IOP. There are no symptoms of elevated IOP in most
> > cases.
> >
> >
> > In this regard, TM is very similar to performing headstands. The
records
> > show that some people have developed vision damage from headstands.
> > Ophthalmologists will now often ask patients if they perform
headstands
> > but before the risk of headstands was understood, many people suffered
> > vision loss that could have been prevented. Again, this does not
affect
> > everyone that does headstands and my guess is that it doesn't affect
> > everyone that does TM. However, we need to understand more about
who is
> > at risk from elevated IOP as a result of TM.
> >
> >
> > I appreciate any feedback and/or suggestions. (And I hope the HTML
table
> > format is readable. Most of this text is cut/pasted from an email.)
> >
>
