 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2005Otis Brown's view of myopia
Otis Brown maintains that the minus lens is unsafe based on a remark said to have been made by the American ophthalmologist W H Bates who introduced his treatment of refractive errors to the world at the beginning of the last century. Bates claimed that fitting a minus lens to a myopic eye would lead to a loss of vision of 20/200 in a very short time. Brown would have us believe that all myopes regress at such an alarming rate contrary to the daily experience of every optometrist on the planet. Brown is a middle aged man with myopia in the region of 6 dioptres and achieved this stage in spite of his knowledge of plus lens therapy. Surprisingly his vision has not worsened to the degree he forecasts for others fitted with minus lenses. He claims that making a child wear an unnecessary plus lens will prevent the development of myopia; whether or not the child has normal vision and is unlikely to develop short sight. The vast majority of the population do not become myopic anyway. As a bonus to his miracle plus therapy his treatment will eliminate myopia if caught early enough and is guaranteed to enable budding myopes to reach a standard enabling them to pass a driving test. As Brown states, why do we need normal vision when we can manage comfortably with subnormal sight? Brown cannot produce a shred of reliable evidence to support his plus lens concept. He offers some anecdotal reminiscences from his archives and would have us believe that he has worked with professional scientists whose studies incidentally are not necessarily accepted by their contemporaries. He claims to be an engineer which is probably true but that is hardly likely to qualify him as an optometrist with years of medical training behind him. Brown flourishes on a newsgroup, iSee@yahoogroups.com where he has achieved recognition as an expert on vision amongst those members who believe his preposterous statements. Best regards Robin Parsons Yes, unfortunately these newsgroups seem to be fertile breeding ground for anyone seeking attention and ego-gratification, to represent themselves as a "guru", and flood the ng with self-gratifying nonsense. (And unfortunately, there are enough gullible people around to believe whatever nonsense someone writes.) This NG used to be a much better place to read, before Otis and a few others started flooding it with nonsense. Now one has to really search to find an interesting post, quite different from a couple years ago. The unlimited free speech of newsgroups is great, but unfortunately has become a fertile breeding ground for attention-seeking trolls. > Otis Brown maintains that the minus lens is unsafe based on a remark > said to have been made by the American ophthalmologist W H Bates who [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Best regards > Robin Parsons I think you cut Otis to the quick too fast. No OD I have ever come across has ever improved my vision. They just want to get you in and out as fast as possible and slap an expensive pair of glasses on your face and tell you to come back in a year to get another pair of expensive glasses that don't improve vision overall, that is to be able to go w/o glasses which should be Dr's goals for their patients. And with the expensive as hell quickie laser surgery that can be just as harmful to you down the line as glasses, it really makes me think that only I can help myself, and Otis just gives his viewpoint w/o costing anyone a thin dime. It's all about money in vision care and until more people get that they can improve be it with Plus therapy or Bates or whatever it takes to get my vision back safely I am willing to do it. It's too bad this group argues so much since it can be a big benefit to people looking to improve their vision. Instead we get trolls like RGG that contribute nothing and looking for a quick buck also. I don't see anything to buy on any of Otis's suggestions. In fact slowly but surely I am getting my vision back because of people like Otis who voice their opinions. Killfile him if you want, in my book you either put up or shut up, and he puts up. > Yes, unfortunately these newsgroups seem to be fertile breeding ground for > anyone seeking attention and ego-gratification, to represent themselves as a [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Best regards > > Robin Parsons >It's all about money in vision care and > until more people get that they can improve be it with Plus therapy or > Bates or whatever it takes to get my vision back safely I am willing > to do it. It all sounds very good, to be able to improve your vision with exercises and "Plus Therapy". I was reading about and doing the Bates exercises 30 years ago. Didn't improve my vision. Bates has been around much longer than that, I think close to a hundred years, and thousands of people must have done his exercises. Is there any evidence that it actually works, or "plus lens therapy"? >It's too bad this group argues so much since it can be a > big benefit to people looking to improve their vision. Instead we get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like Otis who voice their opinions. Killfile him if you want, in my > book you either put up or shut up, and he puts up. I hope you are right, that "slowly and surely you are getting your vision back". Have your eyes been re-tested, and actually shown improvement? True, that there are many spammers on NGs trying to sell something for money, and Otis is not one of those. But I would say he is trolling for attention and ego gratification, so that he can be looked at as an "expert" by people who are desperate, despite the fact that years of medical science and research disproves his notions. But if you want to "believe" what he says (it requires "faith", like a religion, since there is no proof of it), to ignore scientific research and doctors, and to think that your vision is "slowly improving", go right ahead, if that makes you feel good. > True, that there are many spammers on NGs trying to sell something for > money, and Otis is not one of those. But I would say he is trolling for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to ignore scientific research and doctors, and to think that your vision is > "slowly improving", go right ahead, if that makes you feel good. The price is right to continue what I am doing with Bates and Plus lenses, and I am recording measurable improvement. Maybe when I am ready I will post my Rx from the OD this year which is about -3/-3.25 to a new written one when I am ready for that. Don't get me wrong I still need help and will research more faster ways to get my vision back that is more natural than a quickie surgery. And since I have incorporated my techniques into my daily life successfully I have nowhere to go but improvement. Nothing I have done has worsened my vision that's for sure. My recent accomplishment of getting my eyes closer to even vision by an inch has made me very excited and all it took was evening out the Rx from the OD. It does seem that the eye adapts to lenses put in front of it. But if you are of mind that it is a temp measure putting the plus in front of my eyes, why can't the same be said of the minus? Seems like common sense to me that the eyes adapt to certain conditions. The eyes adjust in a suddenly darkened room after a few moments, if a room is too bright your iris's close up to protect the retinas, why can't the same thing be said about blur? It not like a eye disease that nobody has proven that makes me go nearsighted (myopic). I think my eyes are perfectly healthy and they can adapt. I have never seen anybody who wears glasses get to the point where they don't need them anymore, only worse which makes no sense to me to continue on that track. I am not sure why this group argues like its the most controversial topic accross the board, I just want to improvement my vision to somewhere close to 20/20 and it seems realistic to me, and again w/o surgery or glasses since people can be so literal. I saw the more info the better and let me or other people decide. vile5@comcast.net (Vile) wrote in message Dear Vile, MS does not read carefully about anything I have stated about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. I have used very basic words to describe the natural eye as a "control-system", and used DIRECT experimental data to compare the PREDICTIONS of the heredity theory (Donders-Helmholtz) with the predictions of the dynamic concept. If MS can not follow the logic of that scientific approach, but he has every right to "tune out" and learn nothing at all. Furhter, I do not talk about vision "improvement". I talk about preventing the development of a negative refractive state for the natural eye. I personally agree that the goal of true-prevention is exactly that. You work to keep your distant vision clear (as advocated by Dr. Theordore Gronvenor) and other optometrists. This places responsibility for a decision on YOUR sholders. Which is the RIGHT approach. You can always turn it down -- just do not come back and ask for "prevention" after you begin wearing that minus lens. Further, I have sharply can clearly defined what I believe is possible -- and that is clearing from YOUR measurement of 20/70. I think we should ALL review the concept at that point -- to make our final decision. As far a "vision clearing" is concerned, I am certain the person must HIMSELF verify his results, i.e., clearing from 20/70 to better-than 20/40 under standard Snellen-DMV conditions. The work, and judgment must be in both the quality of judgment of the person, but also in the PERSISTANCE of this action with a plus. It does take commitment, and most people simply refuse to understand it that way. In fact I say that no person should even attempt to use the plus until he defines what he wants, and exhaustivly reviews all the issues the impinge on him. Only then (at 20/50 or 20/60) should he even make an attempt. I have spelled this out on my site: www.myopiafree.com I have seen many EXCESSIVE CLAIMS about this issue -- and I strongly oppose them. But I believe that prevention as I describe it is feasable, if the person will make a strong commitment to his goal. Only the future will determine this issue, although I am willing to lead a preventive effort among educated pilots at a four year aeronautical college. Best, Otis Engineer news:<a92f2b78.0410020724.70c419e8@posting.google.com>... > > True, that there are many spammers on NGs trying to sell something for > > money, and Otis is not one of those. But I would say he is trolling for [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > glasses since people can be so literal. I saw the more info the > better and let me or other people decide. > I think you cut Otis to the quick too fast. No OD I have ever come > across has ever improved my vision. They just want to get you in and > out as fast as possible and slap an expensive pair of glasses on your > face and tell you to come back in a year to get another pair of > expensive glasses that don't improve vision overall, that is to be > able to go w/o glasses which should be Dr's goals for their patients. I think (and hope) that your experience is atypical. It certainly hasn't been mine. I've never had an OD try to sell me glasses I didn't need. In fact, I asked my OD about getting some prescription reading glasses since my eyes need different prescriptions, and after carefully testing my close vision, he recommended sticking with OTC reading glasses because they were cheaper! He also spends as much time as is needed, and never makes me feel rushed. Since I was severely myopic (-10 and -12), glasses, and later contacts, made the difference between having a life and not having a life. I literally could not see anything further away than one inch. I have had cataract surgery in both eyes and no longer need sphere correction for distance. It's nice not having to wear glasses all the time, but I never found wearing glasses to be that bad of an experience.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net Dear Dan, Our experience is similar -- but our conclusionss are different. I agree with you that the ODs are doing the best they can -- under the circumstance. But, of course, I was curious about these issues. So I asked questions, and sought answers. Eveutually, I had to go and ask the ODs themselves what they thought of these various issues. From Dr. Raphaelson's experiemce, it became clear to me that prevention (from the 20/50 to 20/70) level was possible -- but only if the person concerned with this issue would really "work" the issue. Since most people simply will not do that, (on the advice of an OD anyway), the issue becomes more of the importance a person attaches to his distant vision. For my self, I wanted to know EXACTLY how the natural eye behaves under test -- and an engineering-scientific issue, and not a medical issue. I consider this type of quesiton of high importance, but it does take a "paradigm change" to begin to ask the "right" quesitons. If fact, most people are totally conventional, and will fight like hell if attempt to help them understand these issues. But then, we should accept that "prevention" can be "scientific" i.e., based on your judgment of facts, and not "medical" in the sense that anyone can "prescirbe" it. But I certainly respect the judgment of the people who choose to use the minus lens -- but the results will become permanent. Best, Otis Engineer > > I think you cut Otis to the quick too fast. No OD I have ever come > > across has ever improved my vision. They just want to get you in and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > correction for distance. It's nice not having to wear glasses all the > time, but I never found wearing glasses to be that bad of an experience. Dear Robin, You send a mixed message. But let us be clear. What I said was that the natural eye is: 1. The natural eye is dynamic. 2. The natural eye will move "down" (test-group relative to control-group) if a. Placed in a more-confined visual environment. b. You place a minus lens on 1/2 of a homogeneous adolescent primate eyes. I don't think there is any difficulty in understanding these objective facts concerning the natural eye's behavior. I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that this does not happen given that the natural eye is a sophisticated optical system, that controls its refractive status (which you measure) relative to it "visual environment" which you can control. I know you have a "mixed belief" about these issues and at times variously support prevention and then oppose it. Completely inconsistent. I look for consistent experimental/scientific results as described above. I really don't know what others are looking for in terms of objective science (not medicine). But, for the fun of it: > Otis Brown maintains that the minus lens is unsafe based on a remark > said to have been made by the American ophthalmologist W H Bates who > introduced his treatment of refractive errors to the world at the > beginning of the last century. That is just a remark. Not proven at all. It suggest the nature of the above SCIENTIFIC testing of the natural eye. You are free to draw your own conclusions. Bates claimed that fitting a minus lens > to a myopic eye would lead to a loss of vision of 20/200 in a very > short time. Bates was right -- but not for the reasons he stated. He gets a 50 percent. Brown would have us believe that all myopes regress at > such an alarming rate contrary to the daily experience of every > optometrist on the planet. You seem to want to represent ALL ODs. From long experience I do agree that you express the majority opinion at this time. > Brown is a middle aged man with myopia in the region of ?6 dioptres > and achieved this stage in spite of his knowledge of plus lens > therapy. I would use the words "plus lens prevention". And I had NO KNOWLEGE about the plus lens until I met Dr. Jacob Raphaelson at age 28. He convinced me that only PREVENTION was a reasonable possibility. That is why I "arm-twisted" my sister's kids in the use of the plus. Surprisingly his vision has not worsened to the degree he > forecasts for others fitted with minus lenses. I stopped accepting the "over-prescribed" minus lens at age 16 -- for fear of developing a detached retina. That stopped the situation. > He claims that making a child wear an unnecessary plus lens will > prevent the development of myopia; No one will EVER be forced to use a plus. It must be a matter of intellectual choice for the person (or pilot). whether or not the child has normal > vision and is unlikely to develop short sight. A matter of judgment. One of the published "indicators" for nearsightedness is a 5 year-old child with a refractive status of 0.0 diopters. Very few chidren in a "reading" or school enviroment will remain at 0.0 diopters. The vast majority of > the population do not become myopic anyway. A wonderful statement by Robin Parsons. As a bonus to his miracle > plus therapy his treatment will eliminate myopia if caught early > enough and is guaranteed to enable budding myopes to reach a standard > enabling them to pass a driving test. NOTHING is "guaranteed" ... ever. It takes strong motivation to use the plus. It is a wise step, but depends completely on the motivation of the person doing the work. As Brown states, why do we need > normal vision when we can manage comfortably with subnormal sight? If you like the minus lens -- then wear it. And indeed your vision will go down at -1/2 diopters per ear. You are right, most people do quite fine with "subnormal sight". > Brown cannot produce a shred of reliable evidence to support his plus > lens concept. In a strict scientific sense -- well see above. In the sense that the ODs reject, repeatable scientific studies designed to prove that the natural eye is dynamic, then the answer is obvious. He offers some anecdotal reminiscences from his archives > and would have us believe that he has worked with professional > scientists whose studies incidentally are not necessarily accepted by > their contemporaries. The ODs do not accept ANYTHING they do not like. Go figure. He claims to be an engineer which is probably > true but that is hardly likely to qualify him as an optometrist with > years of medical training behind him. ODs are trained in REFRACTIVE CARE. Ophthalmologists have extensive MEDICAL training. I thought you would know the difference by now. > Brown flourishes on a newsgroup, iSee@yahoogroups.com where he has > achieved recognition as an expert on vision amongst those members who > believe his preposterous statements. Nice convoluted language you have there Robin. Best, Otis > Best regards > Robin Parsons Dear Friends, I believe that Robin Parsons and "RM" are the same person. They post the same "broadsides" and refuse to identify themselves. That is why I prefer to examine the DIRECT experimental data to determine the natural eye's behavior -- as an engineer. Perhaps we should pay more attention to the "second opinion" experssed by Dr. Steve Leung on: www.chinamyopia.org It is as valid as the standard minus-lens, and is effective on the threshold of nearsighedness. Best, Otis Engineer > That is why I prefer to examine the DIRECT experimental > data to determine the natural eye's behavior -- as an > engineer. Perhaps you could post some of that direct experimental evidence. Monkeys raised in a closed environment get nearsighted. Humans who spend more time working up close and who work closer can enhance their risk slightly. That isn't the question. The question is whether this adaptation can be overcome by plus lenses. Please offer some evidence. Grosvenor tried it your way and said it didn't work. Thousands of optometrists believed it for decades and none of them ever found publishable evidence that it really works. COMET and CLEER and Parsinnen were well-designed studies that refute your claim. Please find us a human study that backs you up. Neonatal chick eyes can be stimulated to grow abnormally by the application of vast amounts of artificial refractive error. That isn't the question. The question is whether neutralizing correction, as it is normally used in humans, can contribute to further refractive error. Please offer some evidence. You haven't produced any citations that human myopes wearing corrective lenses get worse than those who don't. Please post your evidence. Please find someone else who can cite some evidence. Please stop offering "opinions" and put up or shut up. -MT > That is why I prefer to examine the DIRECT experimental > data to determine the natural eye's behavior -- as an > engineer. Otis-- here you go again dodging the questions. Let me restate some of them for you. 1. Please enlighten us on some of the "great deal of direct scientific experimental data" that shows that minus lenses are not safe. Those are your exact words-- tell us what the evidence is. 2. What are the "facts" that prove that plus lens treatment prevents myopia in "the entire population of adolescent natural eyes" as you have stated previously. Those are your exact words-- tell us what the facts are. 3. Please provide some of the "objective scientific facts that the natural eyes 'goes down' when you place a minus lens on it". Those are your exact words. Please show the data. And I don't mean your equation derived from a primate study where the animals were drastically overminused. Where is the proof that when you provide just enough minus lens power on the human eye to focus the image on the retina that it causes the eye to "go down". 4. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and are therefore walking around with net plus power on their eye 24/7 DO NOT become less myopic. This is optically equivalent to wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic? Optometrists have these types of adolescent patients all the time. 5. Why is it that young hyperopes, who very frequently do not wear their plus lens corrections, continue to maintain their hyperopia? They are in fact internally compensating for their hyperopia by accommodation. This is the same as being overminused 24/7. Why don't their eyes "go down" (your "scientific" terminology) and become more myopic (meaning less hyperopic)? Why is it that when you check them years later they are just as hyperopic as before, and when they approach age 40 they actually manifest even more hyperopia than before? I don't classify any of my remarks to your posts as "broadsides". I am simply pointing out that you WILL NOT provide clear and concise answers to these and other questions that anyone has asked you. If these questions "hurt", then if must be because your realize you cannot defend yourself so you cry foul. These questions demonstrate the invalidity of your "theory" and your inability to address them simply underscores the fact that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Please ask Dr. Herb and Dr. Leung to address these issues since you cannot. Geez Otis, you don't even understand the anatomy and physiology of the eye! Yours anonymously, RM OD, PhD > Dear Friends, > I believe that Robin Parsons and "RM" are the same person. > They post the same "broadsides" and refuse to identify > themselves. Well I just went back and read the post by Robin Parsons. Apparently I missed it before. While we are not the same people, I rather agree with everything he said! Go Robin! Anyway why do you say he refused to identify himself-- he stated his name to be Robin Parsons. And why do you blame anyone for trying to remain anonymous on the internet anyway. As we all know, there are freaks out there. Don't bother to reply to this posting Otis. Instead go to the previous post I just made, read the questions, and provide clear answers. Do not dodge the difficult questions Otis. Noone is being mean to you, they just want you to prove what your claims are like a REAL scientist. If you can't or won't, then shut up! Dear Robin, Please let me correct a misconception you have about what I have said -- and the basis for it. Robin> Otis Brown maintains that the minus lens is unsafe based on a remark said to have been made by the American ophthalmologist W H Bates Otis> This is false. The remark caused me to examine the experimental data ITSELF. The pure-scientific experiment is to ask about how you prove that the natural eye is dynamic. Otis> Thus you take a population of primate eyes, and test for this dynamic property -- in an "input" versus "output" basis. (Very simple -- really). Now you place a -4 diopter lens on 1/2 this group. Otis> If the group with the minus lens goes "down" relative to the control group -- then ipso-facto, the minus lens can never be considered "safe" on a pure-scientific level. It can be regarded like an "X-Ray" as perhaps a necessary evil -- but never safe. Otis> Under no circumstance would I trust Bates, or anyone else to say the minus lens is safe, or not-safe, until I had satisfied myself as to the accuracy of the above scientific proof. Robin> who introduced his treatment of refractive errors to the world at the beginning of the last century. Otis> Book published about 1920. Great detail about establishing the current driver-license standard. I always admire a man who has the "guts" to but the system and the status-quo. Robin> Bates claimed that fitting a minus lens to a myopic eye would lead to a loss of vision of 20/200 in a very short time. Otis> Bates was absolutly RIGHT, although direct, objective experimental PROOF about the natural eye's behavior did not exist at the time that Bates made his statement. Pity! Robin> Brown would have us believe that all myopes regress at such an alarming rate contrary to the daily experience of every optometrist on the planet. Otis> Robin gets confused as to the purpose of his statements of time. In fact, there are ODs who now strongly support PREVENTION with the plus -- implementing it with THEIR OWN CHILDREN. Otis> This is strong testimony as to both the NECESSITY and SAFETY of the plus lens for prevention. It is also a recognition of the true-risks posed by an over-prescribed minus lens. See: www.chinamyopia.org Otis> This is indeed the "second-opinion" to move towards true-prevention. We should "wake up" and learn what the true-fact are concerning the behavior of the natural eye. Best, Otis |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.