Diapositiva 1

1
11
12
10
Step 4 - Study of the mechanisms linking
alterations of the ecological niche to the
pathogenesis of the disease
In other words, these data indicate that, at
birth, the eye is hyperopic (a little too short)
or myopic (a little too long) and astigmatic
(different curvature on the vertical vs the
horizontal plane). In the first period of life,
by means of neurological and morphogenetic
mechanisms, the length and the curvatures of the
eye are adapted to obtain the achieve the best
possible vision (emmetropization). It is like a
camera with a very sophisticated autofocus
capacity in its rest position (remote viewing)
when it comes out of the factory, it is not
focused, but it achieves, by itself, an optimal
hardware focusing for remote viewing IF WE
RESPECT THE MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS (e.g. do
NOT point the camera at anything which is too
dark or too bright!).
Thus, at birth, the eye is imperfect. The
image is focused either too far forward or too
far behind the retina. There is also a
deformation of the image on one plane versus the
other (astigmatism). The genetic program of eye
development means that, at birth, an eye will
have only approximate vision. Immediately after
birth, it is activated another program that
modulates the further development of the eye in
order to achieve optimum vision.
It is known from experiments on chickens that
the application (for 7 days, beginning at 5 days
of age), of spherical defocus lenses or of
translucent occluders to one eye, or exposure to
constant light, cause astigmatism associated with
myopia or hyperopia. In control birds,
astigmatism is normal at birth and disappears, or
decreases, over the following days 1. Similar
results were obtained in monkeys 2. In our
species too, astigmatism is normal at the birth
and disappears in the first years of
life Infants have a high incidence of
clinically significant astigmatism. Of 28
children who had large amounts of astigmatism in
the first year, all showed elimination or a large
reduction in the amount of the cylindrical error
by 4 years 3 Full term newborn babies are
known to be on average hypermetropic at birth.
Preterm babies tend to be myopic when examined at
an age corresponding to term 4
Well, our eye / camera has a hardware focusing
capacity only in the first period of life, and it
is essential that the conditions are similar to
the those to which our species is adapted. In
different conditions, proper functioning is not
guaranteed and malfunction is probable!
1 Kee CS, Deng L (2008) Astigmatism associated
with experimentally induced myopia or hyperopia
in chickens. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 49,
858-67. 2 Kee CS, Hung LF, Qiao-Grider Y,
Ramamirtham R, Smith EL 3rd. (2005) Astigmatism
in monkeys with experimentally induced myopia or
hyperopia. Optom. Vis. Sci. 82, 248-60. 3
Gwiazda J, Scheiman M, Mohindra I, Held R (1984.
Astigmatism in children changes in axis and
amount from birth to six years. Invest Ophthalmol
Vis Sci. 25, 88-92. 4 Varghese RM, Sreenivas
V, Mammen Puliye J, Varughese S (2009).
Refractive Status at Birth Its Relation to
Newborn Physical Parameters at Birth and
Gestational Age. PLoS ONE 4(2) e4469.
13
14
15
First Objection Before applying these measures of
prevention on a large scale, observation of
controlled groups in order to confirm their
validity is necessary.
Step 5 Possible restoration of the normal, i.e.
primeval, conditions or possible compensatory
conditions
Step 6 - Analysis of the results achieved and
ideation and proposal of further improvements
Such measures should be applied on a large scale,
because evidence indicates that the current
epidemic of refractive defects is caused by
alterations in the exposure rate to natural light
in infants and children.
Under modern conditions of life, particularly in
urban areas with high population densities, it is
"normal" that babies do not grow up outdoors,
with exposure to natural light. It is a
widespread belief that babies should be protected
as much as possible from the external
environment, in particular from direct exposure
to sunlight, as this will damage them in some
way. Many infants spend their first months of
life almost exclusively indoors, only exposed to
artificial lighting, with uneven and weak
brightness, and, in all cases, under conditions
quite different from those to which our species
is adapted.
But this objection would be generated by a
contradiction of current Medicine. In fact, when
a new drug is proposed, we rightly expect a
series of experiments, in several stages, before
its use is authorized. Meanwhile, the NON-use of
the drug is considered to be due and NOT subject
to preventive experimentation.
For proper eye development, babies should be
exposed as much as possible to natural light
conditions sunlight should not be avoided and
conditions should be as similar as possible to
the original ones.
On the contrary, in the case of a new habit of
life, alias a change of the ecological niche, the
new habit is introduced and accepted WITHOUT any
trial that demonstrates its safety. Now, If a new
NOT tested habit of life is suspected of causing
illness, the indication to stop this habit of
life is rightful and proper. Why, before its
suspension, should we demonstrate its harmfulness
and the benefits resulting from its suspension?
Selected groups of infants and children, growing
up under various conditions of compliance with
these guidelines, should be carefully monitored
from an ophthalmologic point of view and compared
with control groups that fail to comply with
them. It would be essential to know how much the
exposure to natural light is needed to prevent
the occurrence of refractive defects.
Such an absurd principle has been used for
decades to extend the use of smoke without that
smokers were at least warned of the deadly risks
they were running. Again, a new habit (smoking)
was introduced without any evidence that proved
its safety and for decades it was claimed that
its harm should be proved before taking action
against it.
16
17
18
Any change of the ecological niche to which a
species is adapted must be considered potentially
harmful until the contrary is proved. In the
case of a new drug, this principle is
observed! Precautionary principle
For refractive defects the case is analogous. It
is not acceptable to wait decades of
experimentation to prove that the restoration of
conditions closer to the natural ones can
dramatically reduce the incidence of refractive
disorders. Measures of increased exposure to
natural light conditions from the newborn age
must be propagandized and applied on a large
scale.
The correct scientific logic would be to take
steps against a change in the ecological niche on
the sole grounds of the suspicion that this
change is bad and BEFORE the sure demonstration
in irreproachable scientific terms.
But for other modifications of the ecological
niche, no precaution is taken. It is presumed
irrationally and stupidly, because of
non-scientific evaluations that a modification
must not be considered harmful until the
experience proves the contrary! Imprudence
Principle
Afterwards, the results in populations (or
fractions of populations), which pursue - to a
greater or lesser extent - the restoration of
more physiological (alias natural) conditions
must be compared both to confirm the expected
results and for evaluating other possible
measures. But one should not expect the results
of test samples before applying the aforesaid
preventive actions on a large scale.
Afterwards, the results in populations, and
fractions of populations, which apply to a
greater or lesser extent the restoration of more
physiological, alias natural, conditions must be
compared both to confirm the expected results and
for evaluating the necessary degree of exposure
to natural light for optimal results. But one
should not expect the results of test samples
before applying the aforesaid preventive actions
on a large scale.
19
20
21
Second Objection The refractive defects should be
attributed to the combination of environmental
and genetic factors.
Conclusion
Modern doctors, largely unaware even of the most
basic principles of Evolutionism, do not know
these possibilities. At the same time,
evolutionary biologists are unaware of the
extreme importance of these possibilities for a
rational organization of a health system that
should primarily prevent diseases.
Refractive defects involve significant costs
arising from the adoption of artificial means to
correct refraction (lenses, contact lenses,
lenses inserted artificially, laser surgery or
other methods). In cases where the defects are of
high grade, there are complications that involve
additional costs, worsening vision and often
determine the loss of sight. Even in cases where
there is no loss of sight, artificial means of
correction only partially remedy the defect and
are a source of limitation or disability for many
activities. Overall, refractive defects involve
significant costs and reduced quality of
life. Current Medicine is directed to pursue
means of correction that are increasingly
sophisticated and refined. But the best goal
would certainly be to minimize new cases of
refractive defects, reserving the cures to
exceptional cases. This would limit the
degradation of quality of life, a lot of
suffering, and - last but something to be
reckoned with - rising costs. This is possible
with the correct application of trivial
principles of Evolutionary Medicine.
This is a misleading way of describing the
case. Certainly, when an individual is exposed to
an ecological niche to which its genes are not
adapted, in the diseases that are caused by the
altered ecological niche, his genes, which are
more or less resistant to the onset of diseases,
come into play. But, we cannot and should not
consider the genes that are less resistant to the
diseases as pathological they are entirely
normal genes that in new conditions, to which the
species is not adapted, have responses that are
more or less effective against the onset of
pathological changes. For example, our species is
certainly not adapted to smoking. If, in smokers,
some suffer respiratory failure, others chronic
bronchitis and others cancer, it is not correct
to say that those who develop these diseases have
bad genes that somehow must be corrected, or for
which it is necessary to develop opportune
treatments. The logic says that we must avoid the
alteration of the ecological niche and thus
prevent the development of diseases that result
from it. It should be noted that in some cases
refractive defects are actually due to a genetic
alteration. In these cases any preventive measure
is not able to prevent the disease. But, if we
refer to data from the study of populations
living under primitive conditions, the incidence
of such cases is less than 1. Therefore, the
attribution of responsibility to genetic factors
should not be an excuse to diminish or avoid to
address the most attention and efforts on
prevention.

It is therefore essential the integration of the
knowledge of Evolutionism into the active body of
current Medicine, transforming it into
Evolutionary Medicine.
This poster is on my personal pages too
www.r-site.org/ageing (e-mail
giacinto.libertini_at_tin.it)