An optometrist discusses Myopia Prevention

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

otisbrown@pa.net - 19 Dec 2004 20:31 GMT

Dear Friends,

The second-opinion, that nearsighedness can be prevented
has a long history.

It is very easy to "quick-fix" a person with a
minus lens. The result is instant an effective.

It is hard to argue against this step -- until
you examine a mass of experimental data which
demonstrates that the natural eye goes down when:

1. You put a mild minus lens on it, and

2. You put the eye in a more-confined visual environment.

Here is "Dr Steve" who explains that the
public in China recognizes some of this
problem.

Enjoy this pleasant discussion.

In the future, an optometrist might volunteer
a discussion about prevention. You might
take a positive response to that advocacy
for your own children.

Best,

Otis

_______________________________

From: Dr. Steve

To: Herb

Dear Otis,

Could you express my deepest gratiude to Dr. Herb Black for
his write-up?

I hold the belief the responsibility of optometrist is
caring/protection of vision in the first place instead of
destruction of vision especially in young developing eyes. I am
glad he looks through the bullshit of "genes" about myopia in
twins and got the experience. All the matter is the signal of
accommodation and the accelerated exacerbation effect by minus
lens.

One thing that is quite different here is the age of myopia
onset in children. They getting young and getting in to it at age
3 to 4. Most of their parents have some sort of experience that
glass is not a good idea. They presume that all medical and
optical personnel would give glasses for all and they do not
possess any knowledge of the existence of plus glasses to prevent
myopia.

So they would try their best to stay away from optometrist at
the earliest stage of myopia -- missing the chance of recovery.

At last, they came for opinion or glasses at a status over
-1.50 or 20/125 reluctantly. Even though they heard about the use
of the plus, they decline 1st use because they cannot wait. Very
rare case who come to my office at status -0.50 or 20/60 at an age
around 15.

I noticed in your last email about the dispute with those
stone-headed ODs. I have been preparing my records to show the
board an evidence of science of my work. I hope the data would be
of a help for your agrument with those stone-heads.

Sincerely,

Steve

Reply to this Message

- 19 Dec 2004 21:22 GMT

Major snip in what looks like another story out of the thumb of Otis

> I noticed in your last email about the dispute with those
> stone-headed ODs. I have been preparing my records to show the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Steve

Seeing is believing.

Signature

Free 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)

Reply to this Message

RM - 20 Dec 2004 01:13 GMT

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.

> Dear Friends,
>
> The second-opinion, that nearsighedness can be prevented
> has a long history.

Reply to this Message

otisbrown@pa.net - 20 Dec 2004 05:41 GMT

Dear Friends,

RM -- who is a "who has no identification" -- we do not know who
he is, his backgound, his experience -- posts these "broadsides"
against anyone who suggests that fundamental change is
necessary to begin the process of nearsightedness prevention.

While RM is free to express his opinion -- that a the traditional
minus lens is "safe" -- a great deal of direct, scientific
experimental data says that it is not.

This same judgment is expreseed by other ODs who
are more compssionate than RM ( if he exists).;

I have posted the remarks of Dr. Steve Leung who
expresses the "second opinion" that prevention
with the plus must start before the minus lens is used.

I am certain that unidentified RM will post remarks AGAINST
Steve Leung. Steve posts his own web site -- and will
help with BOTH methods.

To respond to RM's "automatic posts"

This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup
thread
that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
"otisbr...@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer".

Otis is not an expert in any field of vision.

True -- but I pay close attention to the objective scientifc
facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.
I also pay very close attention to Dr. Steve Leung,
who is a highly qualified optometrist with
16 years experience in the field. We can
only GUESS about RM -- who does not post
under his own name. You can decide who
is more credible.

His medical and eyecare
training is nil.

Otis> True -- but I always post at an "Engineer" so there
is no error of judgment. Equally, Steve Leung
has extensive eyecare training. Who knows,
maybe greater than RM!

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.

Otis> If RM said MEDICAL studies -- I would not argue the
point. But when he uses the word "science" then more
basic rules apply.

He has posted and reposted
his ideas approximately 1000 times over the last two years despite
being
repeatedly debunked

Otis> But people who totally ignore to objective scientific fact
that the natural eye goes "down" when you place a minus
lens on it. More RM bias -- indeed.

by numerous doctor practitioners and vision scientists.

Otis> The VISION SCIENTIST Steve Leung supports
the second-opinion as I do. Claiming that the minus lens
is "safe" with no objective proof -- is not science.

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.

Otis> And shortly, RM will think up reasions why any highly
qualified optometrist (that he disagrees with) is not
a traind eyecare expert. Apparently RM does not
understand the concept of a "second opinion".

DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll!

Otis> That is RMs singular advice. I would suggest
you open your mind and pay attention to higly qualified
optometrists like Steve Leung, versus our
unknown friend, RM

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.

Otis> As thank you for keeping an open mind about prevention,
and its possibilities.

Reply to this Message

nipidoc - 20 Dec 2004 13:36 GMT

Otis,

When can we expect Dr. Herb Blacks list of references that show that
the use of plus lenses prevents the development of myopia in patients
who have not worn minus lenses??

I have also not been able to find any mention of a Herb Black, OD on
google. I have only found one listing for a Dr. Herbert Black who
works at the Target Optical in Littleton Colorado on the AOA website.
Is this the "Dr. Herb Black" with whom you are corresponding??

nipidoc

> Dear Friends,
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> minus lens is "safe" -- a great deal of direct, scientific
> experimental data says that it is not.

Reply to this Message

RM - 20 Dec 2004 14:57 GMT

> RM -- who is a "who has no identification" -- we do not know who
> he is, his backgound, his experience -- posts these "broadsides"
> against anyone

Not just anyone Otis-- only you. You have been engaged in deep discussion
for over a year with numerous vision experts in this newsgroup and you never
offer any proof, or never respond to any questions that point out the
fallacy of your "theory". You seem to believe that you can imperially
proclaim your theory to be correct for "the entire population of adolescent
natural eyes" (your words) without any proof.

You are a danger to any vision care of any unsuspecting person who reads
this newsgroup.

> While RM is free to express his opinion -- that a the traditional
> minus lens is "safe" -- a great deal of direct, scientific
> experimental data says that it is not.

Please enlighten us on some of the "great deal of direct scientific
experimental data" that shows that minus lenses are not safe. Don't try to
cite studies that show that high myopes have an increased incidence of
retinal detachment-- of course that is true but there is no correlation
between high myopes and minus lenses except that minus lenses are what they
need to see clearly. If thats going to be one of your arguments, then you
need to prove that minus lenses cause high myopia. Of course over the last
year you have been asked over and over to produce this proof but you don't
respond, or you tell us a story about a pilot-engineer friend of yours, or
you drop the name of an old optometrist who had a similar idea years ago
before it was disproven by scientific studies.

And of course there will be other valid arguments that you will make too I
assume since you said there is "a great deal of direct, scientific
experimental data" that shows it. Give us the list! Don't dodge the
question Otis.

> Otis is not an expert in any field of vision.
>
> True -- but I pay close attention to the objective scientifc
> facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

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. Show us the data, not the names of one or two acquaintances who
also believe this theory. And since you admit you are no expert, how can
you so blindly and prolificly attest that this theory is true when you are
unable to judge it yourself. Geez Otis-- by your own admission you don't
even know the anatomy and physiology of the eye and you can't even explain
what the dynamic components are!

Go start another crusade on a topic that is engineering related where you
might be able to utilize some of your own expertise and judgement. Build us
a better vacuum cleaner. I won't come to your newsgroup and argue that I
understand the design better than you.

> I also pay very close attention to Dr. Steve Leung,
> who is a highly qualified optometrist with
> 16 years experience in the field.

Dropping a persons name does not constitute proof Otis.

> His medical and eyecare
> training is nil.
>
> Otis> True -- but I always post at an "Engineer" so there
> is no error of judgment.

Let this speak for itself. Otis knows nothing about the eye and admits it--
but still he proclaims his theory is correct even though he cannot explain
why.

> Otis> But people who totally ignore to objective scientific fact
> that the natural eye goes "down" when you place a minus
> lens on it. More RM bias -- indeed.

Please provide "objective scientific fact that the natural eyes goes "down"
when you place a minus lens on it". I don't mean you stupid 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
eye of a human to focus the image on the retina that it causes the eye to
"go down" (whatever that means-- neither a medical nor a scientific term
obviously).

> I would suggest
> you open your mind and pay attention to higly qualified
> optometrists like Steve Leung, versus our
> unknown friend, RM

So now it appears your shield to criticism will be to repeatedly drop the
name of Dr. Steve Leung. Perhaps he will come here and provide the proof
that you have been asked to provide. He will be welcomed here by me and I
suppose by any of the other vision docs as long as he seems to be able to
carry on a conversation and respond to questions of a scientific and medical
nature. I would love nothing more than to provide my patients with the best
vision care whether it be with minus lenses, plus lenses, growth factors,
eye exercises, counseling etc. We all would. That's what we are trained to
do. You however, cannot bear the burden of proof for anything you say and
thats why I have no respect for you. Thats why we do what we know works
until someone proves something is better. Go get the proof and quit posting
your unsupported theories where innocent patients might read them and be
misled!

Reply to this Message