 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2004-20 D under self-treatment
Yesterday a girl aged 27 called me at the phone to order my books and declared her high myopia of 20 dioptres. I asked her to do a check: to grab a printed page and tell me at what distance she could read the small characters, without glasses. She answered "a little bit more than 5 cm distance". Then I instructed her to use her memory and imagination with a capital letter T. She understood quickly how to read it "in parts", one part best. Then I asked her to put it a little bit more distant, and at 8 cm she could read it with the same intensity of black. Then I asked her to pick up a dictionary with the small print, to open it at the word "Amore", and try to learn how to read the word one part of each letter best. Since the word is in nold chars, I asked her to proceed to read the explanation. The first word was Sentimento, and we concentrated on the letter "e" besides the capital S. She grasped the fact that the WHITE half-moon inside the "e" was WHITER than the rest of the page. By remembering the whiteness of the half-moon she could move the page at more than 10 cm distance without losing the letters and continuing to read. It seems we have halved the myopia in a few minutes, from 20 D to 10 D. Please I would like the learned men on this forum to explain how this could be possible under the accepted theories of accommodation. Un-learned men may visit my webpage http://TheCentralFixation.com > Please I would like the learned men on this forum to explain how this > could be possible under the accepted theories of accommodation. It's a miracle! How much did her cycloplegic refraction improve? -MT > > Please I would like the learned men on this forum to explain how this > > could be possible under the accepted theories of accommodation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -MT Please be serious! Dear Rishi, Please don't worry about Mike. He only wants to continue the minus lens put is place 400 years ago -- whilst ignoring all who suggest we should begin re-thinking the facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. If fact, when the person himself makes the measurements -- he often finds he has been profoundly over-prescribed. On 15 year old man, who had gone from about -1.5 diopters to -2.75 diopters, finally "woke up" and decided to go "cold turkey". He contacted me, and asked about prevention. I asked him to check his Snellen (AFTER his -2.75 contact prescription). When HE CHECKED he found he could read between the 20/50 and 20/70 line. I suggested that he: 1. Have another OD exam. 2. Accept the Snellen-DMV requirement as an ABSOLUTE. 3. Think very carefully about what he wanted for his long-term vision. 4. Recognize the fact that tne natural eye "goes down" from a confined visual enviroment, and the forced wearing of a minus lens. 5. Decided to take PERSONAL control of his distant vision -- in the manner of Dr. Colgate. Currently he is PASSING the Snellen-DMV requirement so the DMV does not require that he EVER wear a minus lens. If he decides to continue this effort, then I would believe that he could pass the 20/30 line -- even though it is a lot of work for him. Thus prevention is possible -- although honestly difficult. Best, Otis Engineer > > > Please I would like the learned men on this forum to explain how > this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Please be serious! > Dear Rishi, [snip] So, Otis . . . Despite my best efforts at adding you and your pet topic to my killfile in every conceivable permutation, here you are again. A couple quick things: 1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for the rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems a little narcissistic and self-serving; 2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the highest of scrutiny before introduced as "safe," "accurate," "state-of-the-art," or "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister. It's up there for you to surmount. Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of credentials, potential for harm, and untested hypotheses. Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a huge chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth by maintaining the status quo. All of this may be true (though I don't think it is). But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot. The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others. Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing, accurate data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in what you spout -- you'll be rich and you'll be right up there with Bagolini, Heimholz, Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all the other paragons whose names are memorialized in ophthalmology/optometry. Until then, you're a troll . . . who creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help. "Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt. It does nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your signature said, "I am not a doctor. My theories are my own and are not shared by most in the medical community. Consult your doctor." Neil Please explain why the myopia of that girl could be so easily lessened without glasses. There is no question of overprescribing since the girl, once left without glasses, could not see much over 5 cm of distance. She could read 1 mm letters at double that distance just after few minutes of practicing. Thanks. >er 5 cm of distance. >She could read 1 mm letters at double that distance just after few >minutes of practicing. > >Thanks. she memorized them. > >er 5 cm of distance. > >She could read 1 mm letters at double that distance just after few [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > she memorized them. No, she could read the whole sentence and so on, and when it went out of focus again, she again practiced with the memory of the white half-moon, and continued. She was accommodating. To explain it even simpler to a novice such as yourself, she was inappropriately focusing her eyes when she didn't need to. This can happen easily in young people when their accommodative system is strong. She should be sent to a real eye doctor and have a cycloplegic refraction so her true amount of myopia can be determined. You didn't help her a bit so quit patting yourself on the back. Dear Neil, I regret that your "kill-file" does not work. My primary interest was in understanding why a "quick-fix" method of 400 years ago got perpetuated beyond reason and scientific logic. It is certain that "impressing" a person (who has no interest) with a minus lens -- is very easy indeed. The difficult problem is helping the person develop a scientific (not medical) understanding of the direct-facts (i.e., input versus output) as they concern the dynamic nature of the natural eye's behavior. Obviously the engineer who can translate these objective scientific facts into a course of action where he clears his vision to the accepted legal standard has PROVEN TO HIMSELF that his natural eyes obey the same physiological law -- that is found in these OBJECTIVE scientific experiments conducted by Dr. Francis Young. If you choose to ignore this scienttific truth, and prefer an over-prescribed minus lens, then that becomes your problem. In the case in question, the man has no doubt about what he is seeing -- as well as the honest hard work it took him to "clear" from the -2.75 diopter perscription (assuming it was accurate). Since he knows that his vision will again start "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year if he neglects the use of a strong plus -- I doubt that he will EVER neglect the use of the plus again. What he gains is the ability to keep his distant vision clear (at almost no cost) for the next seven years, when his friends vision goes down at that standard rate. He is indeed a wise person to take his own ability seriously, and "protect" his vision as others are doing it. Best, Otis > My primary interest was in understanding why > a "quick-fix" method of 400 years ago got [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > "protect" his vision as others > are doing it. Again, anecdotal hype from a self-aggrandizing charlatan. Dear Neil Brooks, You would be OK, except that is YOUR opinion. The person who checked his vision on his own eye chart by OBJECTIVE measure, and keeps his distant vision clear for the next seven years (versus going "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year can form his own judgment of your statement. The measurements made by the 15 year old are OBJECTIVE. When he reports them to me (you could say) that they are SUBJECTIVE. What counts in science is OBJECTIVE measurements. That is the nature of this man's measurements. If he has his own trial-lens kit, I am certain he could supply the REFRACTIVE, OBJECTIVE measurements also. But he has to use the best measurement tool available -- his own retina -- which is very accurate indeed. Best, Otis Engineer > But he has to use the best measurement tool > available -- his own retina -- which is > very accurate indeed. When they're 45 and accommodation no longer confounds the measurement, maybe. When they're 15 and have lots of accommodation, you should know how to use Occam's razor. How many 45-year-old myopes have restored their "natural vision"? -MT NOT so many, since the market now pushes progressive multifocal lenses!!! <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in message > My primary interest was in understanding why > a "quick-fix" method of 400 years ago got > perpetuated beyond reason and scientific logic. So it isn't reasonable or logical to provide clear vision. > It is certain that "impressing" a person (who has > no interest) with a minus lens -- is very easy indeed. It is certain that self-righteous distortion is very easy indeed. > found in these OBJECTIVE scientific > experiments conducted by Dr. Francis Young. Dr. Young did not cure myopia. > If you choose to ignore this scienttific truth, > and prefer an over-prescribed minus lens, > then that becomes your problem. You can't define "over-prescribed." > Since he knows that his vision will again > start "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per > year if he neglects the use of a strong > plus You have no basis for this prediction. > What he gains is the ability to keep his > distant vision clear (at almost no cost) > for the next seven years, when his > friends vision goes down at that > standard rate. Three out of four of his friends don't. -MT 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! For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf 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 Rishi, > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Neil > On 15 year old man, who had gone from > about -1.5 diopters to -2.75 diopters, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > HE CHECKED he found he could read > between the 20/50 and 20/70 line. Dear vision prevention friends. Please ignore Otis's postings. This allegedly 15 year old child is named "Shawn". He allegedly "protects" his subjects and doesn't give his subjects the option of participating in this newsgroup. Allen But why do you litigate with poor Otis? His method here has nothing to offer, since he talks about prevention, here I would like to talk on the fact that this girl has halved her myopia, from -20d to -10d in a matter of minutes. I would like to know from the learned men here what can be the impact of cycloplegic refraction in this case. That is, the amount of myopia that the lens has produced by spasm, and that it will go away onder the action of the drug. Can it be 10 dioptres? Thanks for the answer! > Thanks for the answer! It doesn't matter what we answer. In the end, you will say doctors are fools and criminals. So why do you ask? Just call us fools and be done with it. -MT You fool and criminal. Dear Allen L., I have discussed their right-of-choice with them. The easiest thing for them to do -- was to do nothing. Given their age, and the fact that the eye goes "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year (if no "protection" is worn) they had to make an either-or decision at a relatively young age. They had every right to listen to the "majority opinion", which is to just "accept" the mininus lens and remain nearsighed the rest of their life -- or conduct a scientific effort to prevent it. The natural eye is proven to be dynamic -- for those with an engineering-scientific background. As a very minimum, (even if you hate scientific facts) the plus is advocated as the "second opinion". So they had the right of "informed choice". There are two young men, one 14, and the other 15. I say they have reached their "majority" and have a right to make this type of decision -- as my sister's children did. You have insisted they are too young to make that type of decision -- as we previously discussed. I think it is better that they look after their own visual welfare -- as Dr. Stirling Colgate did. I will send this to them for their enjoyment -- of your intellectuall blindness. Best, Otis Engineer > Please be serious! I'm serious. How much did her cycloplegic refraction improve? I'm serious too, please tell me how much can the c.r. influence the myopia. Ten dioptres? Dear Rishi, These ODs know you do not have the equipment to measure a person's refractive state -- by induced paralysis -- so they are telling you that you don't know what you are doing. This is just a simple "power play" and they have absolutly no interest in any "preventive" effort, but they wish to stop anyone from working to achieve effective prevention. THEY are the people supposedly working on the issue. Yet at every turn you run into this statement by Jan, who insists that the concept of prevention with the plus, OR ANY OTHER METHOD MUST BE DESTROYED. Why do you think they are going to take prevention seriously? Best, Otis > Dear Rishi, [snip] Note to Otis: Aligning yourself with Rishi can only /hurt/ your credibility. Dear Mr. Brooks, these are facts. This girl was genuine, she was really astonished. She bought not only my three books but also a pair of pinhole glasses. Total cost: 140 eur. I do not think that anybody could have the fancy of spending so much money on the phone for ordering strange old books, if some result was not achieved quickly! What is your comment? Please stop harassing Mr. Otis, who is an old man. Discuss the real facts. You ripped the poor women off! She needs to see a real eye doctor and have a cycloplegic refraction. You think you are some kind of miracle worker but really you are like a gypsy trying to take peoples money. Show us her cycloplegic refraction data before and after your treatment with pinhole glasses, meditation, palming, etc. Its you who doesn't have the facts or the understanding of human vision. Please I have not done anything, she, the girl, after 20 years of being harassed by you stupid men who pretend to know something of vision, decided to do something different and at least she was intelligent enought to try the only things that works, that is, rest methods. You do not know that there are millions of people in that same state of desperation, where the learned men like you, so-called, have led them. Don't you feel to be a little bit a criminal in continuing to perpetrate a business which is not only stupid but harmful? > THEY are the people supposedly working > on the issue. Yet at every turn you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OR ANY OTHER METHOD > MUST BE DESTROYED. And again Otis is quoting incorrect. The signature below is what I declare, nothing more, nothing less:  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) but how many people have you treated and cured of imperfect sight? what is your record? If he doesn't have the equipment he can't do the job correctly. If he can't measure the refractive state of the eye with and without the effects of accommodation then he can't really prove anything. Both of you are quacks and fools I am asking you how much is the amount of the cycloplegic refraction. I mean, how much can the lens influence myopia? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 dioptres? What is the statistical data? Please quote facts and research, thanks. Dear Benighted, Then what you do is to supply the man with the necessary trial-lens kit and teach him how to make the refractive measurements using the "kit" and the Snellen. That way he can veryify his vision "clearing" by with BOTH the refractive measurement AND the reading on the Snellen. Not excessively difficult -- but it does take some personal resolve, and a technical education. Best, Otis Engineer
|
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.