# Optical Forums > Ophthalmic Optics >  Congenital Astigmatism

## Joann Raytar

I've been told tht folks do not just develop astigmatism; they are born with it.  If that is the case, why do so many folks who have worn spherical lenses for years and years suddenly require a correction for astigmatism?

----------


## chip anderson

If one has a good deal of astigmatism,  the floor can swim if all of the correction is given at once.   Most good doctors try to gradually increase this over the years until full correction can be achieved without undue visual disturbance.    

Sometimes astigmatism can change during growth, but all except that due to trauma is probably geneticlly programed.   Lots of such things occur later in life (like my diabetes) but the genes were there at birth.


Chip

----------


## Darryl Meister

As Chip pointed out, astigmatism is generally hereditary. Small changes in astigmatism often occur over your lifetime though. (I mean, your cornea is a blob of wet tissue -- it's kind of remarkable that it stays as spherical as it does.) Additionally, factors within the eye can affect your total astigmatism -- notably, lenticular astigmatism.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## harry a saake

Darryl; one of the doctors i work with has a theory that astigmitism, or some of them at any rate, are cause by and enhanced by constant rubbing of the eyes??

----------


## Darryl Meister

I haven't heard that one, Harry. But I have heard that some attribute with-the-rule astigmatism to the pressure of the eyelids (palpebral fissure) against the cornea. In theory, this would "crimp" an otherwise spherical cornea into a toric surface, with the steepest curve through the vertical meridian.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## harry a saake

Darryl, if your last post was a fact, would that mean contact wearers, would enhance astimitism even more or maybe worse as there would seemingly be more pressure.

----------


## Joann Raytar

Rigid contact lenses flatten the corneal surface in cases of keratoconus; wouldn't that make Harry's scenario possible outside of keratoconus patients?

----------


## Darryl Meister

I would guess that rigid contact lenses do in fact distort the cornea to some extent. Though, in general, I suspect that it is good idea in contact lens fitting to _not_ produce excess pressure on the cornea. Changing the shape of the cornea via contact lenses isn't uncommon though. Ortho-K is another example of using rigid contact lenses to reshape the cornea intentionally.

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## chip anderson

Jo:

While it is common practice to do so, you do not want to flatten or even touch the central cornea in keratoconnus (or any other fitting for that matter).  Kone patients will see a little better for a while with central touch, but will have central scarring necessitateing  keratoplasty much sooner.

You need to fit lenses with such expertise that you have an apical brush (slight flourciene darkening centrally immeadiately before blink, with some evident clearance just after the blink), your patient's eyes will last much longer.

:finger:   Chip

----------


## Joann Raytar

Chip,

In your experience fitting RGP lenses, have you noticed any patterns in patients K readings changing over time?  I guess I am thinking in the case of a poorly fit lens.  How long would it take a tight lens, for example to cause damage?  We are talking RGPs but I thought even soft lenses, if too tight, can pull away the eye's crystalline lens.

----------


## chip anderson

Jo:

A contact lens will have no effect on the patient's crystaline lens. There is about 6+ mm of distance between the patient's lens and the contact.  Now RGP lenses or PMMA lenses can:  Cause changes in corneal curvature (permanent or temporary) abrashions to the cornea, ulcers and vasularization of the cornea.  This is one reason that this should be done by a skilled fitter and follow-ups should be preformed often during the fitting process and at periodic intervals forever.

Soft contact lenses can cause:  Vascularization of the cornea, ulcers,  giant papillary conjuctivitus, and a few other things as well as changes in corneal curvature.

So all in all one should know what one is doing and be concientious through out .

Chip

----------


## Darris Chambless

I realize this thread is a little aged, but I thought I might be able to add a little bit of information to it.

"I've been told tht folks do not just develop astigmatism; they are born with it. If that is the case, why do so many folks who have worn spherical lenses for years and years suddenly require a correction for astigmatism?"

This is a mystery of science, but you have to remember that nothing is a given. Congenital implys that the genes exist for this to occur, but there are many factors that can also play as big if not a bigger part than genetics. Genetics do tend to make one prone to the presets of your parents and their ancestors genetic code however, it is not guaranteed that your genetic structure will be the same. Your eyes are no different.

I have the worst eyesight as well as the most astigmatism of any person in my entire family. So where did the genetics come from for this? Genetically speaking I should be about 6' 4" tall but I'm only 5' 10" so again where do the genetics come from for this anomoly?

So why would someone need astigmatism correction "all of the sudden"? To compensate for a change. Inter occular presures rising or decreasing, diabetes, thyroid conditions, illness, corneal scarring or ulcerations changing the condition and or shape of the cornea once healed, facelifts (hence the tightness of the eyelids as Harry and Darryl mentioned) chemical changes in the body where in cellular tissues regenerate differently than in the past and the list can go on and on. You could ask the same question of why a person has dry skin, oily hair, lots of freckles and so on.

Darryl said:

"As Chip pointed out, astigmatism is generally hereditary. Small changes in astigmatism often occur over your lifetime though. (I mean, your cornea is a blob of wet tissue -- it's kind of remarkable that it stays as spherical as it does.) Additionally, factors within the eye can affect your total astigmatism -- notably, lenticular astigmatism. 

Best regards, 
Darryl"

The fluid in the eye is rather thick and can maintain the spherical shape, especially when you factor in the internal pressures exerted on this fluid via increases or decreases in the amount being produced to fill the sphere. Also a lot of the specualtion here is that the cornea tissue is uniform in thickness all the way across, but even those that refract to a spherical script will have irregular topography on the surface mild or otherwise. This is something that you can check for yourself if you get adventurous :)

This is actually the part that prompted me to respond here:

"Sometimes astigmatism can change during growth, but all except that due to trauma is probably geneticlly programed. Lots of such things occur later in life (like my diabetes) but the genes were there at birth. 

Chip"

Perhaps this can be good news for Chip. Diabetes can sometimes be congenital through a genetic defect but not as a gene that causes diabetes later on in life. In otherwords if you're born with it and have to control it at birth then it is congenital. If it happens later on in life usually outside factors are the cause.

Chip,

A few questions of curiosity? When did your diabetes start? Are you controling it with diet or insulin? Are you over wieght (even if only slightly) or excessively skinny? I may have some info for you that you will not get from your doctor, but that you can research to find out if what I say is true or not. Many things that we think are "known" in medicine and Science are actually more myth based on educated guesses than actual fact. So goes the general progression of Science.

Take care,

Darris C.

----------


## shanbaum

Darris, if you were asserting that genetic characteristics (inclusive of "defects") invariably, or even generally, assert themselves early in life, that's profoundly incorrect.

Breast and prostate cancer (to name a couple that come to mind immediately) have been linked to specific genes; neither condition is commonly found in young people (which means, people much younger than... me).  I don't know if any of the various kinds of heart disease has been linked with specific genes, but the occurance of such disease in one's progenitors is a prime factor in determining one's risk of suffering it.

With regard specifically to the causes of diabetes, there is plenty of information available on the web, e.g., 

http://webmd.lycos.com/content/article/1667.50282

Surely you meant to say something else.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

> But I have heard that some attribute with-the-rule astigmatism to the pressure of the eyelids (palpebral fissure) against the cornea.


Actually, a person with "droopy" eyelids can _definitely_ have induced astigmatism as a side effect.  Looking at before-and-after corneal topographies of patients we've sent for blephoplasty procedures, there is no doubt that the weight of the eyelid causes with the rule astigmatism (removal of the pressure the lid imposes relieves the astigmatism in most cases).

I would be curious to know whether this "genetic" astigmatism is supposed to occur in the crystalline lens or the cornea.  If the former, I wouldn't imagine it would suddenly appear later in life.  

If astigmatism of the cornea is a genetic condition, I would expect to see it apparent from birth.  As I understand it, the membranes that determine the inner and outer limits of the cornea do not regenerate (so, any changes to their structure would seem to me to be due to mechanical, not genetic, forces).

Darryl said:



> (I mean, your cornea is a blob of wet tissue -- it's kind of remarkable that it stays as spherical as it does.)


"Blob" has to be the most unscientific term I have ever seen you type...  It really warms the heart!  :D

----------


## chip anderson

Not too long ago I saw a special on the annual "twins meet" in whatever town they meet in each year.  I learned that:
1) there are three types of twins.  a) Identical   b) fraternal  c) mirror twins.

Now the interesting thing was mirror twins.  These people have mirror reflections of each other.  In other words if one has a crooked tooth on the right, the other has a corresponding tooth crooked on the left.

One particular pair of such people were about 35 years old.  The each said that if one had a problem  the other would have it on the oposite side within three months.  They cited that one got an ingrown tow nail on the middle right toe, the other had same on the middle left toe aproximately three months later.

Maybe most of what goes wrong with us is more geneticly determined than we think.

Chip

----------


## Mike Fretto

I've been wondering why some patients we see in our office, after cataract surgery, have astigmatism they didnt have before the surgery. After talking with one of the O.D.'s on our staff I've learned that there are a couple things that could cause this. One being sutures that are to tight can actually change the shape of the cornea, most M.D.'s here use the no-stitch method but there are a couple that prefer using the other. One in particular seems to have a bigger problem with astigmatism than the other. What normally happens is it seems to get somewhat better after a couple of months but still doesnt go completely away. We had a lady just today, surgery was the end of Nov. end of Dec. shes given an Rx for +1.00 - 2.50 X 006 OD Now shes refracted at +1.00 -0.75 X 010. The other influence is the patient after surgery is put on a medication that can cause corneal problems if abused. I'm not sure if this is totally off subject but thoght it might be of interest.

----------


## chip anderson

A couple of pearls on post-operative astigmatism:

When the older methods were used, I once asked why one eye always seemed to be more symetrical than the other.  Answer:  You should have right handed surgeons doing one eye and left handed surgeons doing the other.

No one, not even the most egotistical of opthalmic surgeons can completely controll the healing process all the time.  Post operative infection or scarring can influence the resultant corneal surface.

Except in the rarest of all cases (retinal astigmatism) an aphakic patient cannot have residual astigmatism when fitted well with a rigid contact lens.

Soft lenses can allow the corneal astigmatism to "bleed through) to the front of the optical system (front of contact).

Probably the capsule can created an astigmatism especially as it becomes opaque in 50% of implanted patients.

An implant can probably create an astigmatism if it is not perfectly in line with the visual planes.   A faulty implant could cause astigmatism in psudophakic patients.

While no cylinder in most cases would be an optimum result, the surgeon's main duty is to have a seeing eye after surgery,  not just to create emetropia.  Chances are if the patient had a lot of corneal cylinder  before surgery, the surgeon will not be able to eliminate all of this by re-shaping the cornea with sutures.

Chip

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello Robert,

I do believe you misunderstood but I'm not sure why. In a nutshell I said that a person can be genetically disposed to these things but something other than just genetics causes it.

"Darris, if you were asserting that genetic characteristics (inclusive of "defects") invariably, or even generally, assert themselves early in life, that's profoundly incorrect."

According to conventional wisdom, you are correct. However, there is much more to it than the conventional. As to my assertion being "profoundly incorrect" I beg to differ. Genetic dispositions are all readily available at birth otherwise it is a condition stemmed by an outside set of circumstance. People don't have a built in time clock that tells them they will get diabetes at the age of 35. Sorry that just doesn't happen. Are some people more likely to get it than others and or have a gene that can make them more susceptible? Sure but that could happen just as easily at birth or in early years than in later. In otherwords it's something they have a disposition to at anytime in their life starting at birth and something triggers it. Your thinking is conventional wisdom but where diseases like diabetes are concerned, conventional wisdom dictates that diabetes is not a childhood disease but rather an adults disease based on genetic disposition. Why then are there so many cases of adolescent diabetes occuring and why are they on the rise?

"Breast and prostate cancer (to name a couple that come to mind immediately) have been linked to specific genes; neither condition is commonly found in young people (which means, people much younger than... me). I don't know if any of the various kinds of heart disease has been linked with specific genes, but the occurance of such disease in one's progenitors is a prime factor in determining one's risk of suffering it."

Not really. Actually there are many outside factors that lead to these deseases. Most people that have cases of these diseases in their family will be checked on a regular basis because of this disposition, that is true, but they have just as many learned behaviors and outside factors as they do predetermined genetics. These behaviors and factors have a tendency to play just as much of role in the possibility of getting these diseases as anything else. 

Think of it this way. If genetics plays a part in so many of these diseases, then why haven't I developed diabetes? It runs in my family. Why has my wife not developed breast cancer yet? Or her sisters? There is a hsitroy of it in her family. My wife has been having some heart problems but there is no history of that in her family. So if one gets these diseases it's genetics and if one doesn't get it it's not even if they have the genetic dispositiions for it? I'm just not buying it. Science has theorized many things but not proven anything beyond the shadow of a doubt and on this one I'm that doubt. 

"Surely you meant to say something else"

Nope. I meant to say exactly what I said but thanks for your concern. You're always there for me :)

Take care and sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. I've been a little busy lately.

Darris C.

----------


## shanbaum

> _Originally posted by Darris Chambless_ 
> *Think of it this way. If genetics plays a part in so many of these diseases, then why haven't I developed diabetes?*


Because you're one person, and thereby fail to constitute a statistically significant sampling.  The fact is, there is a known correlation between family history and a number of diseases, including diabetes.  To inherit a genetic susceptibility to one of these conditions doesn't make them inevitable;  to lack such  susceptibility doesn't make one immune.  It means a least of couple of things: one, you will find a greater occurrence of a condition amongst a suffciently large group of persons having the genetic predisposition than amongst a similarly-sized group lacking it, and two, if you are genetically predisposed to a condition, you have a higher risk of actually developing that condition.  The latter is of obvious significance; if your daddy died of arteriosclerosis at age 60, you may want to go easy on the chicken-fried steak - regardless of how you're feeling.

But this is more than "conventional wisdom"; it is the current paradigm of  medical science.  One doesn't have to read much, or probe very deeply, to know this; in fact, I'm surprised that someone who can apparently type would be so emphatically unaware of it.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

> The latter is of obvious significance; if your daddy died of arteriosclerosis at age 60, you may want to go easy on the chicken-fried steak - regardless of how you're feeling.


I think you are sort of intimating this anyway, but the other way of looking at this is- live as healthy as you want, but if you are genetically predisposed to having a condition, you may end up with it anyway.

For example, my dad and grandfathers (on both sides) had heart attacks in their 50's.  True, one of them smoked and was slightly overweight- but the others were the "pictures of health."  Diabetes is also quite prevalent in both sides.  While I'm not "Mr. Healthy," I do stay in shape and live a relatively healthy lifestyle...  Still, I'm "planning" to have a heart condition- or attack- by age 60, because the genetics simply aren't stacked in my favor!  

As the agent told Neo as the subway approached in _The Matrix_- "That, my friend, is the sound of inevitability."

----------


## Darris Chambless

> _Originally posted by shanbaum_ 
> *
> 
> Because you're one person, and thereby fail to constitute a statistically significant sampling.  The fact is, there is a known correlation between family history and a number of diseases, including diabetes.  To inherit a genetic susceptibility to one of these conditions doesn't make them inevitable;  to lack such  susceptibility doesn't make one immune.  It means a least of couple of things: one, you will find a greater occurrence of a condition amongst a suffciently large group of persons having the genetic predisposition than amongst a similarly-sized group lacking it, and two, if you are genetically predisposed to a condition, you have a higher risk of actually developing that condition.  The latter is of obvious significance; if your daddy died of arteriosclerosis at age 60, you may want to go easy on the chicken-fried steak - regardless of how you're feeling.
> 
> But this is more than "conventional wisdom"; it is the current paradigm of  medical science.  One doesn't have to read much, or probe very deeply, to know this; in fact, I'm surprised that someone who can apparently type would be so emphatically unaware of it.*


How do Roberto,

Someone as intelligent as yourself should be aware that statistics are only numbers and numbers are subjective. Most of these statistics are derived from study groups. If you're not aware of how these study groups are set up perhaps I can enlighten you a little on this. First we have to think in terms of "positive outcome." For me to make a case for the sake of science I must derive a viable number to substantiate my theory. Since I'm the guy with the theory I'm going to conduct my study my way (this is all hypothetical where the "I" part comes in but the rest is done on a regular basis)

Now, since I have to come up with a postitive to support my theory I'm going to choose those candidates best suited for the outcome I'm looking for. I'm going to choose...yes, you guessed it...high risk candidates. I'm going to choose those people that I know will end up getting the diseases for the reasons I've laid out in my theory. So is it objective or subjective? This is not an uncommon practice at all and is about the only way that new treatments and procedures can be conducted. You have to prove your case first then you're allowed to do it. The same is true with the rest of this as well. Someone came up with a theory, supported it with statistics and everyone patted them on the back and gave them a prize (a cookie perhaps ;)

Keep in mind I'm not disputing what your saying with regards to genetic disposition. What I'm saying is genetics don't do it on their own. There are other reasons why a person becomes diabetic, developes prostate cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer, thyroid conditions. In some cases gentics is the primary factor, but not in most. Genes predispose us to something but it doesn't mean we will develope this ailments. That's like saying our destinies are predetermined. 

"But this is more than "conventional wisdom"; it is the current paradigm of  medical science.  One doesn't have to read much, or probe very deeply, to know this; in fact, I'm surprised that someone who can apparently type would be so emphatically unaware of it."

That's what I said. It's conventional wisdom. New definitions don't change what it is. The currently accepted medical science says it's "this" so it's accepted but that doesn't necessarily make it the only or true answer. You are correct when you say that "One doesn't have to read much or probe very deeply, to know this;" referring to what you believe to be true. "One" doesn't have to read much or probe too deeply in that respect, but "One" does to find the rest of the story. The conventional wisdom that you're using I've already read and probed into. Been there and done that, the rest of it is where you do have to read and probe more deeply into. Most current science has barely scratched the surface and it will be intresting to see how far they come along before I'm gone from this life. I'll wait as long as I can to see though. No since in rushing the inevitable :)

"I'm surprised that someone who can apparently type would be so emphatically unaware of it."

Ys, I kan tipe. Im very goodly at it. I praktis as oftn as I kin. Thanks fer notisin. "Emphatically" now that's big word and I'm gonna use it when I learn how to read and understand multisylable words. "unaware"? Good call Sparky. Since you said it, I must be :) I hope this finds you well.

Darris C.

----------


## chip anderson

Why is diabetes on the rise?   A hell of a lot of it is the number one cause of death in the US is becoming obesity.   People become obise when they eat the wrong things and don't exercise,.  This has a lot to do with the those that are geneticly prone to diabetes developing it.    People prior to 1950 did a lot more things with thier own muscle power,  we don't anymore.

Do I link diabetes and obesity(incuding my own), you bet.


Chip

A small addittion to the cause of the rise in diabetes and other diseases.

A very wise ophthalmologist once told me:  "People that get appendicitus used to die.  Now we save them and they pass on thier genes where it once was on the decline because they died before breeding."

Perhaps this accounts for the rise in diabetes and a lot of other problems.

----------


## Joann Raytar

> _Originally posted by Darris Chambless_ 
> *Someone as intelligent as yourself should be aware that statistics are only numbers and numbers are subjective. Most of these statistics are derived from study groups. If you're not aware of how these study groups are set up perhaps I can enlighten you a little on this. First we have to think in terms of "positive outcome." For me to make a case for the sake of science I must derive a viable number to substantiate my theory. Since I'm the guy with the theory I'm going to conduct my study my way (this is all hypothetical where the "I" part comes in but the rest is done on a regular basis)*


... The voice continued.

"Please do not be alarmed," it said, "by anything you see or hear around you. You are bound to feel some initial ill effects as you have been rescued from certain death at an improbability level of two  to  the power of two hundred and seventy-six thousand to one against - possibly much higher. We are now cruising at a level of two  to  the  power  of  twenty-five  thousand to one against and falling, and we will be restoring normality just as soon  as  we are  sure  what  is normal anyway. Thank you. Two to the power of twenty thousand to one against and falling."


> *
> Now, since I have to come up with a postitive to support my theory I'm going to choose those candidates best suited for the outcome I'm looking for. I'm going to choose...yes, you guessed it...high risk candidates. I'm going to choose those people that I know will end up getting the diseases for the reasons I've laid out in my theory. So is it objective or subjective? This is not an uncommon practice at all and is about the only way that new treatments and procedures can be conducted. You have to prove your case first then you're allowed to do it. The same is true with the rest of this as well. Someone came up with a theory, supported it with statistics and everyone patted them on the back and gave them a prize (a cookie perhaps ;)*


"The Infinite Improbability Drive is a  wonderful  new  method  of crossing  vast  interstellar  distances  in a mere nothingth of a second, without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace. 

It was discovered by a lucky chance, and then  developed  into  a governable  form  of  propulsion  by  the  Galactic  Government's research team on Damogran. 

This, briefly, is the story of its discovery. 

The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by  simply  hooking  the  logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub- Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter  suspended  in  a  strong Brownian  Motion  producer  (say  a  nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood - and such generators were often  used  to break  the  ice  at  parties  by  making all the molecules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy. 

Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for  this  -  partly  because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties. 

Another thing they couldn't stand was the perpetual failure  they encountered in trying to construct a machine which could generate the infinite improbability  field  needed  to  flip  a  spaceship across  the mind-paralysing distances between the furthest stars, and in the end they grumpily announced that such  a  machine  was virtually impossible. 

Then, one day, a student who had been left to sweep  up  the  lab after  a  particularly unsuccessful party found himself reasoning this way: 

If,  he  thought  to  himself,  such  a  machine  is  a   virtual impossibility,  then it must logically be a finite improbability. So all I have to do in order to make one is to work  out  exactly how   improbable   it  is,  feed  that  figure  into  the  finite improbability generator, give it a fresh cup of  really  hot  tea ... and turn it on! 

He did this, and was rather startled  to  discover  that  he  had managed   to   create  the  long  sought  after  golden  Infinite Improbability generator out of thin air. 

It startled him even more when just  after  he  was  awarded  the Galactic  Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of  respectable  physicists  who  had  finally realized  that  the  one  thing  they really couldn't stand was a smart***."
Quotes from Douglas Adams
The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
*Online Excerpts*

----------


## Steve Machol

Thanks for that Jo.  It makes me want to reread the books.  But first I have to read _The Lord of the Rings_ again!

----------


## Joann Raytar

It's funny.  Darris and Shanbaum start talking about probablity and statistics and Douglas Adams immediately popped into my mind.

----------


## Steve Machol

> _Originally posted by Jo_ 
> *It's funny.  Darris and Shanbaum start talking about probablity and statistics and Douglas Adams immediately popped into my mind.*


Sounds like a natural connection to me! ;)

----------


## Darryl Meister

Don't miss his "Dirk Gently's Wholistic Detective Agency" series...

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Darris Chambless

That is our conversation to a T. Except I'm the only one with the sense of humor in it :)

Let's talk Transmogrification now shall we? :)

TTFN

Darris C.

----------


## Steve Machol

> _Originally posted by Darryl Meister_ 
> *Don't miss his "Dirk Gently's Wholistic Detective Agency" series...*


I think I only read the first one.  How many are in the series?

----------


## shanbaum

Since we're quoting Douglas Adams, perhaps we should recall that he died of a heart attack at the age of 49; I'm so relieved to learn that this could not have been the result of some congenital condition, because I'm sure he would have been distressed to think that he carried a built-in time clock.

_Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so._

from _Last Chance to See_

Now I have to get back to trying to figure out how, after 30 years of growing hair so well, I went bald.  But as I think about it now, to believe that I'll wake up tomorrow and my hair will be back - well, it just doesn't seem so outrageous anymore.

----------


## Darryl Meister

Don't make me put you two in "time-out" and ground you from Nintendo!  ;)

Best regards,
Darryl

----------


## Darris Chambless

Darryl,

Robert started it :) Not to mention he detests me and I can't blame him really.

Well Roberto,

You lost your hair due to the fact that your body is producing DHT (SP?) which supresses nuetrients including protien (i.e. cologin) that promote hair growth. All you have to do is take the time to go find out why your body started producing DHT. I already know why because I've read a lot of stuff, but since your an intelligent man you can find it I'm sure ;) When you find out the reason why you lost your hair perhaps you will be on the road to recovery and will truly wake up one day with a full head of hair. But remember there is nothing wrong with being bald and is considered by many to be a sign of virility. You stud you.

You might want to study a couple of other things so that you can understand more about the "time clock" thing with regard to heredity. Those two things being hyperinsulin and hypoinsulin. It's fascinating stuff.

Also as to genetic predispositions to prostate cancer you can read the clinical studies on testosterone and the lack of production as we age and why. But then zip on over to information on dihydroepiandrosterone, androstenedion, Norandrostene and many other testosterone precursors and their effects on said process in science, not in supplimentation.

Hugs and kisses,

Darris C.

----------


## Darris Chambless

Hello Roberto Dude-o-reenie,

I like this definition:

par·a·digm (pr-dm, -dm)n. 
1. One that serves as a pattern or model. 
2. A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb. 
3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. 

You can use www.websters.com to find this and or any other word one wishes to find, but thanks for the information.

Darris "Lack thereof Spell Checker" C.

----------

