 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2004How Credible is Otis?
Otis quotes a scientific study to back up his ideas about using plus to cure myopia: otisbrown@pa.net wrote in message news: 1102366074870908.81370@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com 1. Frank Schaeffel, Adrian Glasser and Howard C. Howland, "Accommodation, Refractive Error and Eye Growth in Chickens", VISION RES., Vol 28, No. 5 pp 639-657, 1988. Pergamon Press. I point out that the study was about emmetropization, and not relevant to myopia treatment and he replies that emmetropization is not real: Otis: "The word "emmetropia" is an invented word -- and means almost nothing. Likewise, the word "emmetropization" is worse." Yet the very author he quoted does research in emmetropization and uses it in the titles of his studies: Rohrer B, Schaeffel F, Zrenner E. J Physiol. 1992 Apr;449:363-76 Longitudinal chromatic aberration and emmetropization: results from the chicken eye. Does Otis actually ever read the literature? Dr Judy Dear Dr;. Judy, Subject: Credibility in understanding the fact that the natural eye is dynamic -- and proven to be so under SCIENTIFIC (not medial) experimental methods. Re: Who "sits in judgment"? I maintain that the first order of business is to establish whether the natural eye is dynamic, using basic English statments, and testing on an "input" versus "output" basis. This testing will verify the fundamental concept, and verify that the eye's refractive state "follows" a negative step-input. Thus you run the test on the adolescent eye (expecting dynamic performance) and you get it. The natural eye is a sophisticated control system, (first order) and the refractive status of control group, "tracks" the applied "delta". The correlation coefficient is 0.97. If the same test were repeated 100 times, the correlations coffecient woud lie between 0.90 and 1.00. You don't understand this issue very well. But I will post your remarks to the people who are interested the SCIENTIFIC study of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. After all, it will be the person himself who is using the plus -- and clearing his vision from -2.75 diopters who must take this quality, scientific researsh -- and understand the reasons why you totally ignore it. It becomes that man's judgement of these facts that determines the actions he is now taking to "protect" his distant vision -- for life. Enjoy, Otis Engineer > Subject: Credibility in understanding the fact that the natural eye is > dynamic -- and proven to be so under SCIENTIFIC (not medial) > experimental methods. So, to improve your credibility, you start with the statement that medical experimental methods are not scientific. > I maintain that the first order of business is > to establish whether the natural eye is > dynamic, using basic English statments, > and testing on an "input" versus "output" > basis. No, that's been done. YOUR first order of business is to establish whether ALL eyes respond the same under ALL conditions. > This testing will verify the fundamental > concept, and verify that > the eye's refractive state "follows" > a negative step-input. You seem to want to repeat experiments that have shown these effects. > Thus you run the test on the > adolescent eye (expecting dynamic > performance) and you get it. For a lark, you might test your theory on adolescent humans. > The natural eye is a sophisticated > control system, (first order) > and the refractive status of > control group, "tracks" the > applied "delta". And the input-output relation is identical for all species under all conditions at all ages. According to Otis. > The correlation coefficient > is 0.97. If the same test > were repeated 100 times, > the correlations coffecient > woud lie between 0.90 and > 1.00. And the input-output relation is identical for all species under all conditions at all ages. According to Otis. > You don't understand this > issue very well. And the input-output relation is identical for all species under all conditions at all ages. According to Otis. > But I will post your remarks > to the people who are > interested the SCIENTIFIC > study of the dynamic nature > of the fundamental eye. And tell them the input-output relation is identical for all species under all conditions at all ages. According to Otis. > After all, it will be the person > himself who is using the plus -- and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the reasons why you totally > ignore it. So hey... why not test this relationship on -2.75 D humans? See if those who wear glasses full time get more nearsighted than those who leave them off? What do you get? > It becomes that man's judgement > of these facts that determines > the actions he is now taking > to "protect" his distant vision -- for > life. And the cart continues to push the horse. -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Scientific truth depends on your perspective. You confuse MEDICAL-truth with SCIENTIFIC truth. I separate the two. I expect that the persons I discuss this issue with -- will understand the difference. Obviously the work to "clear" distant vision takes a lot of understanding -- and I becomes a judgement ot that man as to whether he will follow your concept of the "Box-camera" eye, or the concept that the natural eye controls its refractive state to its average visual environment. You have lost "judgment control" in this argument, and the young man who now measures his distant vision at 20/40, and got "measurement control". I suggested to him that (in the future) that he obtain a low-cost trial lens kit, so he could confirm the refractive status of his natural eye -- also. This would indeed take you completely out of this scientific understanding of the dynamic nature of the eye. I will again forward this to him -- and he can make his own judgment of your habit of over-prescribing a minus lens. Best, Otis Engineer > Subject: Scientific truth depends on your perspective. No, Otis. The goal of scientific method is to DISTINGUISH truth from "perspective." What you call perspective, we call "bias". Kepler's laws don't become void if you stand in some other spot. Ohm's law doesn't suddenly fail if you change the words you use for voltage and current and resistance. > You confuse MEDICAL-truth with SCIENTIFIC truth. No, Otis. Confusion is thinking scientific method is somehow different in medicine than in other branches of science. Confusion is thinking that human physiology and development are simple input-output functions. > I separate the two. I expect that the persons I discuss this issue > with -- will understand the difference. And you will repeat your bias over and over until they do. Or at least, until you do. > Obviously the work to "clear" distant vision takes a lot of > understanding Yes.. just think.. if you understood the effects of cycloplegia you could identify those who are capable of "clearing" their distant vision and separate them from the MAJORITY who cannot. Don't you wonder why your technique only works for a few, and fails for so many others? You call it "difficult" because you don't know in advance who the accommodative myopes are. Your technique seldom succeeds for anyone over 40, and frequently works for those who under 20. Don't you wonder why? > and I becomes a judgement ot that man as to whether > he will follow your concept of the "Box-camera" eye How many box-cameras grow myopic? No answer from Otis. How many box-cameras have muscarinic receptors that affect their dimensions? No answer from Otis. How many box-cameras stop growing myopic if you sprinkle them with pirenzipine? No answer from Otis. > You have lost "judgment control" in this argument, and the young man > who now measures his distant vision at 20/40, and got "measurement > control". So control is an important issue for you, Otis? > I suggested to him that (in the future) that > he obtain a low-cost trial lens kit, so > he could confirm the refractive status of his > natural eye -- also. This would indeed > take you completely out of this scientific > understanding of the dynamic nature of the eye. I see.. do you feel you were "controlled" at some time in your past, Otis? > I will again forward this to him -- and he can make his own judgment of > your habit of over-prescribing a minus lens. If he's my patient, I made him reassure me that one step less minus was blurry, at the end of each refraction. Was he lying to me, Otis? -MT > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I separate the two. I expect that the persons I discuss this issue > with -- will understand the difference. Otis is just plain confused. He is stuck in a confusion of his own making. No, actually he has painted himself into a hopeless corner from which he cannot escape. He has made a minor celebrity of himself by clinging to unconventional, non-scientific treatments. Therefore, any talk of scientific truth by Otis is hypocritical. His definition of scientific truth is that which he chooses it to be. TRUTH = TRUTH. If it is true scientifically, it is true medically, and so there is no difference. DrG Dear Dr G., Sorry, scientific truth is the repeatable experiment that proves that all NATURAL eyes are dyanmic. Quick-fixing the eye with a minus lens is the standard "medical" treatment of the last 400 years. It works instantly on the general public, and perhaps they do not mind the "stair-case" myopia that develops. You look for a "magic pill" that will impress the public "instantly" There is not doubt that the minus lens accomplishes that goal -- as it has since its inception. But you never check for the "safety" of this lens by testing it on the natural eye -- and you certainly do not like the objective, scientifc facts that develop from this type of scientific testing. QED Otis > Sorry, scientific truth is the repeatable > experiment that proves that all > NATURAL eyes are dyanmic. And the input-output curve is the same for all species at all ages under all conditions? No answer from Otis. > It works instantly on the general public, > and perhaps they do not mind the > "stair-case" myopia that develops. I'm sorry.. did I miss your evidence that such a thing exists? Where have you found that all myopes wearing glasses get worse faster than those who don't? You never did say. No answer from Otis. > But you never check for the "safety" > of this lens by testing it on the natural > eye -- and you certainly do not > like the objective, scientifc facts > that develop from this type > of scientific testing. No, we test it by comparing those who wear it more with those who wear it less. What happens? No answer from Otis. -MT > Dear Dr G., > > Sorry, scientific truth is the repeatable > experiment that proves that all > NATURAL eyes are dyanmic. Nice try, Otis. But what you are doing is making an "a priori" assumption. That is a very "anti-scientific" attitude. Saying that NATURAL eyes are dynamic is not very informative. You first need to define "NATURAL," and then "dynamic." The rest of this post is just pure unadulterated biased opinion of Otis. DrG > Quick-fixing the eye with a minus lens > is the standard "medical" treatment [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Otis Dear DrG, The issue is scientific credibility in developing an equation that reproduces the behavior of THE NATURAL EYE before the word "defect" is added to the conversation. Thus when you look for the behavior of an entire population of NATURAL adolescent eyes, you find on an "input" versus "output" basis that the natural eyes change THEIR REFRACTIVE STATUS to a step-change in their average visual environment, and the function is: e ^ (t/TAU) The only other possibility is that the natural eye is NOT a control system, and therefore that the Refractive States of the test group would = the refractive states of the test group. But you do not seem to understand this type of "high level" scientific testing to establish fundamental truth about the built in behavior of the eye. The issue is the credibility of this type of concepualization, and the overt facts of this test. You choose to come up with endless excuses to totally ignore these basis scientific fact -- and then state that your method of the last 400 years is "scientific". Incedible! Depends on who is doing the judging and the nature of the subject. Best, Otis Engineer > Dear DrG, > The issue is scientific credibility in developing > an equation that reproduces the behavior > of THE NATURAL EYE before the > word "defect" is added to the conversation. Again a major snip.......in old stuf brought by Otis. There is the word ''defect'' again, a word in these matters only used by Otis. Otis, the explanation of the words "defect" and ''error" have to be looked up in the Webster by you. Maybe this should clarify your vision. Real eyecare professionals use the word "error'' and only you the word ''defect'' which to my believe means ''out of order'' or ''not functioning'' Eyes with only an refractive ''error'' are still functioning. Defect eyes without an refractive error are not functioning TMHO.  SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be destroyed. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > The issue is scientific credibility in developing > an equation that reproduces the behavior > of THE NATURAL EYE Do all species behave the same at all ages under all conditions? Otis doesn't answer. > before the > word "defect" is added to the conversation. Who besides Otis uses the word "defect?" Otis doesn't answer. > Thus when you look for the behavior of > an entire population of NATURAL [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in their average visual environment, > and the function is: And do all species respond the same at all ages and in all conditions? Otis won't answer. > The only other possibility is > that the natural eye is NOT > a control system What effect does pirenzipine have on the development of myopia? Otis won't answer. > But you do not seem to understand > this type of "high level" scientific > testing to establish fundamental > truth about the built in behavior > of the eye. Who gets myopic faster, those who wear glasses full-time or those who wear them part-time? Otis won't answer. > The issue is the credibility of > this type of concepualization, > and the overt facts of this > test. Do all species respond the same at all ages and under all conditions? Otis won't answer. > You choose to come up with > endless excuses to totally > ignore these basis scientific > fact -- and then state that > your method of the last > 400 years is "scientific". And you fail to answer questions when the answers disagree with your bias. -MT > Thus when you look for the behavior of > an entire population of NATURAL [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > e ^ (t/TAU) Here you go again generalizing a few observations, or experiments that have been performed on animals that are severely overminused, to the "entire population of natural adolescent eyes". Untrue and frankly incredible Otis! Why does the -2.00 D adolescent human who does not wear their minus lenses and therefore goes around with a net plus power on their eyes 24/7 not improve? Why do they sometimes get more myopic? This is the most aggressive type of plus lens treatment but it doesn't work for them! Why! Why does the unfortunate hyperope who actually gets minus lenses from an optometrist and wears them all the time not have their eyes "go down" (your words) and become myopic or less hyperopic? Why is it that when you refract them again that you find they are still hyperopic to the same degree? What structures within the eye change when plus lens treatment is used-- does the eye get shorter, does the cornea flatten, does the index of refraction of the ocular media decrease? Otis-- your theory does not apply generally. It applies to a small subpopulation of young people who develop excessive accommodation in response to a lot of near work. These are ACCOMMODATIVE MYOPES, the rest are anatomical myopes. They accommodative myopes are the people you write about and are the people you think are representative of everyone. These are the "young pilot engineers that are in a 4 year college and are intelligent" (your words). Nice equation Otis-- poor thinking (and very poor listening)! > The only other possibility is > that the natural eye is NOT > a control system, and > therefore that the So you know that the "natural eye" has to be a control system. What higher power clued you in to this conclusion. If you didn't learn it in church, then I assume you have some experimental data that proves it. > But you do not seem to understand > this type of "high level" scientific > testing to establish fundamental > truth about the built in behavior > of the eye. By "high level" I assume you mean some kind of "high level" theorizing or "high level" confabulation because you have not proved anything by your statements and your equations. How can you say that your theory describes the "behavior of an entire population of NATURAL adolescent eyes" (YOUR WORDS). You dug a deep hole Otis. > The issue is the credibility of > this type of concepualization, > and the overt facts of this > test. Yes it sure is! > You choose to come up with > endless excuses to totally > ignore these basis scientific > fact What are the FACTS that are being ignored? > Incedible! Indeed! > Depends on who is doing the > judging and the nature of > the subject. Sure does, and you are apparently a terrible non-objective judge Otis. Why does every other knowledgable person in this newsgroup not agree with you Otis? > > Thus when you look for the behavior of > > an entire population of NATURAL [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > Why does every other knowledgable person in this newsgroup not agree with > you Otis? Dear RM, You make a sweeping judgment here, my non-identified friend. There are ODs who agree with me that we need to take the first steps towards fundamental change. It is true that the ODs, Judy, Jan, and Larry, present the standard "majority opinion" that the minus lens is "perfect" and no one should object to the continued use of the method put is place 400 years ago. But remember, times change, and to objective facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye point to the possibility of effective prevention -- if the plus is used before the minus is used. So keep an open mind. It is time we work together towards this better way of preventing a negative refractive state of the dynamic eye. Oh, I forgot! Jan insists that the "dynamic concept" MUST BE DESTROYED, and Judy insists that all animal experiments mean nothing. It is going to be very hard to work WITH you under your IMPOSED CONDITIONS. I would say IMPOSSIBLE. Best, Otis > So keep an open mind. It is time we work together > towards this better way of preventing a negative > refractive state of the dynamic eye. We have an open mind Otis. We just accept the principles we that we see truly exist when we treat our patients UNTIL SOMEONE PRESENTS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND DATA to convince us otherwise. It is called the scientific method. It is the basis of modern medicine (Yes Otis, Science=Medicine). Where is your evidence Otis? Quit trying to quote older researchers you don't even know. Quit referring to romantic stories about "The Printer's Son". SHOW US THE DATA, not your endless pontificating. You somehow picture yourself as some kind of romantic crusader who is going to weild the sword of paradigm-shifting and prove to the established medical community that you are right and all of us are wrong. Just show us the data and until you have it, shut up! Don't duck the questions-- answer them: 1. Why does the -2.00 D adolescent human who does not wear their minus lenses and therefore goes around with a net plus power on their eyes 24/7 not improve? Why do they sometimes get more myopic? This is the most aggressive type of plus lens treatment but it doesn't work for them! Why! I see this type of patient in my practice all the time. 2. Why does the unfortunate hyperope who actually gets minus lenses from an eye doctor and wears them all the time not have their eyes "go down" (your words) and become myopic or less hyperopic? Why is it that when you refract them again that you find they are still hyperopic to the same degree? I have seen this type of patient in my practice on a number of occasions. 3. What structures within the eye change when plus lens treatment is used-- does the eye get shorter, does the cornea flatten, does the index of refraction of the ocular media decrease? What's in the eye is important Otis. The eye is not a black box. There are contractile elements that are dynamic and there are many other elements within the eye that are NOT dynamic. To prove your "dynamic system" theory Otis, you need to understand what's actually in the eye and how it works! 4. And finally Otis-- the biggest of the questions you never answer-- what type of clinical or scientific training and credentials do you have that qualifies you to give anyone advise about eyecare? I may keep my identity anonymous, but for anyone to take you seriously why don't you explain to us what kind of credentials YOU have. Yours anonymously, RM PhD OD > Dear RM, > > You make a sweeping judgment here, my non-identified friend. > > There are ODs who agree with me that we need to > take the first steps towards fundamental change. Unfortunately, there were more ODs who agreed with you several decades ago, and their numbers have been dwindling since. > It is true that the ODs, Judy, Jan, and Larry, present > the standard "majority opinion" that the minus lens > is "perfect" and no one should object to the continued > use of the method put is place 400 years ago. "Perfect" is your term. I have not observed that any of the aforementioned have used it. There is a good reason why there is a "majority opinion," but it is not to protect the "cult of the minus lens." > But remember, times change, and to objective facts > concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye > point to the possibility of effective prevention -- if > the plus is used before the minus is used. You are correct that times change, but it is YOU who have not changed with them. > So keep an open mind. It is time we work together > towards this better way of preventing a negative > refractive state of the dynamic eye. Open your mind. If you wish to work together on prevention, then join those of us who are interested in effective prevention, and not simply recycling old disproven theories. Get out of your armchair. > Oh, I forgot! Jan insists that the "dynamic concept" > MUST BE DESTROYED, and Judy insists that all > animal experiments mean nothing. No, Jan is insisting that your methodology be revealed for what it is: nonsense. > It is going to be very hard to work WITH you > under your IMPOSED CONDITIONS. I would > say IMPOSSIBLE. You are the impediment, not us. You aren't interested in working with anybody. What you do is scour the universe, looking for the odd individual who supports your ideas. Then, when you cannot find one, you manufacture agreement. This is getting truly pathetic. DrG > Thus when you look for the behavior of > an entire population of NATURAL [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > e ^ (t/TAU) Please explain what data proves that this equation is valid for the "entire population of natural adolescent eyes" as you state. Please cite the research studies and authors that shows this is true for all human adolescents. DON'T DUCK THE QUESTION LIKE YOU DO MOST OF THE TIME. Or perhaps this is how you "think" it works. I suspect that this is so. Then this is called a "theory" and should be identified as such. Then you must try to test it with experimental data. That approach is called the "scientific method"-- ever heard of it? Have you done performed any experiments that test your theory? No? Then get to it and shut up! And why is it that there are a number of clinical observations that can be made (e.g. the myope who doesn't wear their correction, etc) that fly in the face of your theory? Perhaps it isn't true. I suspect so! > The correlation coefficient > is 0.97. If the same test [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You don't understand this > issue very well. At least she understands it better than you do! Any statistician reading your posts would throw up their hands in despair. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >> Otis> The correlation coefficient >> is 0.97. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At least she understands it better than you do! Any statistician reading > your posts would throw up their hands in despair. If the correlation works as Otis believes it does, every infant and every law student should get nearsighted. -MT >>> Otis> The correlation coefficient >>> is 0.97. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If the correlation works as Otis believes it does, every infant and every > law student should get nearsighted. Until yesterday, the affected population was just "young pilot-engineers who were in a 4-year college and who were intelligent." But now its "the entire population of natural adolescent eyes." Otis> Dear Dr G., This this thread is about "credibility", then I look to the optometric experts for information concerning the "majority opinion" -- which you express with great force. I also look for the minority opinion, which is that the eye is dynamic, and, with reasonable care, a negative refractive state COULD BE PREVENTED. Your claims of "science" fail, since experts directly contradict experts. That means that there is a second opinion, and it is valid in the context stated. Here is an optometrist's SCIENTIFIC OPINION about wht the experimental data actually tells us about the behavior of the fundamental eye. Best, Otis Otis> Sorry, scientific truth is the repeatable experiment that proves that all fundamental eyes are dyanmic. DrG > Nice try, Otis. But what you are doing is making an "a priori" assumption. That is a very "anti-scientific" attitude. Saying that NATURAL eyes are dynamic is not very informative. You first need to define "NATURAL," and then "dynamic." DrG > The rest of this post is just pure unadulterated biased opinion of Otis. DrG _________________________ Dear Dr G., You express a pure unadulterated biased opinion about the behavior of the eye -- as it has been taught for the last 400 years. I regret that you do not even pay attention to the facts and the second-opinion of other optometrists. While you express a strong MEDICAL opinion, yours is an opinion with very little scientific facts supporting it. Here are the remarks of BOTH as SCIENTIST and OPTOMETRIST about the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye. Best, Otis ------------------------------- Dear Friends, Subject: Statement of OD SUPPORTING prevention with plus. While a large percentage of ODs believe that there is no relationship between the eye's environment and its refractive status -- equally there are a substantial number of ODs who believe in SCIENTIFIC (not medical) proof, and say so explicietly. Here is a statement of Dr. Herb B., supporting your right to an informed, competent second opinion on the prevention of nearsightedness with a plus. Thank you Dr. Herb B., for your honest scientific assessment of the objective experimental data concerning the dynamic behavior of the eye. Best, Otis _____________________________________________ From: Dr. Herb B., MS, OD To: "'Otis S. Brown'" <otisbrown@pa.net> Subject: Plus Theory (Dynamic eye concept) Dear Otis; I just wanted to thank you for your efforts on behalf of myopia prevention. Also, personally, for clearing up something in my life, which is why do I not understand the majority of my colleagues who don't believe in any kind of rehabilitative or therapy work to improve myopia (and other visual skills, such as tracking, accommodation, perceptual skills, etc.)It is SO frustrating to me and I think they are so closed-minded. But your comments on how SCIENCE proves the concepts valid whereas MEDICAL thought does not! That is what it is, because I was (am a scientist) long before I went into optometry (MS, Geology) and I tend to look at the data and facts and proof, not just believe in cook-book recipes that were fed to me in optometry school. I hope that this little email will also help other people who are confused as to how OD's (and MD's) and scientists can think so differently. Or is it that so many OD's and MD's don't think, just do what they were taught? And scientists are taught to be intellectually curious and dig up the truth as best they can. Sincerely, Herb B., MS, OD ______________________________________________ Dear Friends supporting the second opinion Subject: Plus lens and DYNAMIC behavior of the native eye. While I advocate the plus FOR PREVENTION, I would say that the concept depends on the fact that the natural eye is "dynamic", and controls its refractive status to its average visual environment. I believe that the scientific (not medical) proof for the above statement in excellent, and if correctly understood, can lead a young person to a point where he personally clears his distant vision from 20/60 to the legal statdard. But I get massive objection from may ODs who only want to put a minus lens on you -- and say THAT IS SCIENCE. As a result I do a lot of "fighting" about this issue. Ultimately it is the person himself who decides the issue -- by either taking prevention seriously at the 20/50 to 20/60 level -- or rejecting the concept with scorn. The fact that high quality, intelligent optometrists SUPPORT the conept gives us hope for the future. Otis > Otis> Dear Dr G., > > This this thread is about "credibility", then I look > to the optometric experts for information concerning > the "majority opinion" -- which you express with > great force. WTF are you going on about? Do you take the time to read anything? ever? Do you take the time to reply? Here's a tip: * REPLY HERE * Next bit... I thought the original post on this thread, was about you citing a scientific study to back up your results, while not actually believing the information contained within, ie, emmetropization? * REPLY HERE * Course, Im just a layman, but I sure as hell can't follow these arguments when you dont actually reply, you just divert at a tangent with no real reference to the original text, or so it seems. * REPLY HERE * Course I probably just made a huge fool of myself, because within all this garbage there's probably bounds of subtext in reference to the original subject from the first post. * REPLY HERE * Cya Simon This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown", "otisbrown@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer". Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia (i.e. nearsightedness) prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects even been disproven by controlled scientific studies. He has posted and reposted his ideas approximately 1000 times over the last two years despite being repeatedly debunked by numerous doctor practitioners and vision scientists. No one means to suppress the opinions of others. This message is only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll! Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually appears on Mondays for information on how to filter out his posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. |
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.