 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2005Mike T, what would your recommend for daughter?
Dear Mike, I am fair-minded engineer who appreciates the difficulties of true-prevention. I received this letter from a woman who wishes to help her daughter become nearsighed. As I understand it, you say prevention is impossible. Unless the child it an "accommodative myope". If she is -- would you recommend the plus for prevention? I wonder how you would reply to this woman who wishes to help her child avoid nearsighedness. I identified myself as an engineer interested in true-prevention, and suggested that she read Steve Leung OD site: www.chinamyopia.org I also stated that prevention with the plus is difficult -- and takes a strong decision on her part -- to use it correctly. Thanks, Otis Engineer ________________________________ Hi, Otis, How are you? I am a high grade myope myself from Canada. My current Rxs are -10/-10. My husband is also myopic but is less severe (-3/-3). Recently, our six year old daughter has been diagnosed as being myopic as well (-1.5/-1). The optometrist wanted her to start wearing minus lenses and concluded her nearsightedness was inevitable due to genetic reasons. Being a high grade myope myself, I have always lived in fears of retinal detachment and glaucoma. I don't want my daughter to end up like me. Through my search on the internet, I found your sites, promoting a totally different approach on vision treatment. It is wonderful to see someone pushing for the truth and caring about our children. My husband got me your book as well. Since then, through the help of an open-minded optician, my daughter is wearing a pair of +3 diopter reading glasses for close work. Using Snellen chart to check her eye sight, she currently reads 20/40 for both eyes (started at 20/70 about a month ago). I just have a few questions: 1. Should my daughter start wearing plus lenses all the time (instead of for close work only)? (My daughter loves her + lenses, so she would have no problem to do so). 2. Do you know if children as young as my daughter will be able to recover to 20/20 (if so, how long does it take?) 3. For someone as myopic as myself, is there any benefit in trying some undercorrected lenses? Please send me your answers and comments. Thanks a million. Sincerely, Ms. Y. Wright -a worried mother and a high myope > I wonder how you would reply > to this woman who wishes to help her > child avoid nearsighedness. I would say keep it up, as long as the daughter doesn't mind. At age 6, it might even help. It probably won't hurt. If her 20/40 is due to myopia, she certainly has the risk factors. Ten years from now, kids like her will be on pirenzipine q.d. You may be surprised that I don't object to people trying your technique. I'm waiting for the day when you pair up your subjects with matched controls and gather a statistically significant sample to show us that it works. IMO, IF it works, it will only work in the very young. So I don't object! Surprise! But don't expect us to offer it as a "possible treatment" because our Boards and the FTC don't allow us to advertise unproven treatments, especially one with such a long and fruitless history. In the 50s and 60s, most optometrists and even some medical doctors were recommending overplus for myopia. It fell out of favor because the effects are hard to distinguish from placebo. As long as the daughter is allowed to see the blackboard, it isn't likely to do harm. Use common sense and don't require +3.00 on the playground. -MT . Dear Mike, Subject: The implications of "The Printer's Son" I ask the people I talk to to read this passage by Dr. Raphaelson. Raphaelson OFFERED THE PLUS -- and the person in question REJECTED THE PLUS -- with anger. So your remarks about the FTC stopping youi are taken with absolute seriousness BY ME. The question is, "how do you overcome this resistance in the person"? (I will post some remarks by "Jon" on that issue. Jan-OD's remarks that, "...the concept of the second opinion ... must be destroyed do not help! I hope this woman keeps her daughter in that plus lens. It is a difficult tasks and most kids will fight very hard AGAINST wearing that plus. In fact I wish I could get these people to PAY you for a discussion of this nature. But don't expect us to offer it as a "possible treatment" because our Boards and the FTC don't allow us to advertise unproven treatments, Otis> Then it forces the person himself to do the review and make the decison himself. I agree that you CAN NOT BE INVOLVED IN THIS INTELLIGENT REVIEW PROCESS. That is not your fault -- as you say. especially one with such a long and fruitless history. In the 50s and 60s, most optometrists and even some medical doctors were recommending overplus for myopia. Otis> I am well aware of that history. In fact my sister fought like hell against me and my advocacy for her kids. The "truth" hits close to home -- indeed. It fell out of favor because the effects are hard to distinguish from placebo. Otis> That is the difference between engineering-science and medicine. It depends on who has "judgment-control" over their own vision. As long as the daughter is allowed to see the blackboard, it isn't likely to do harm. Use common sense and don't require +3.00 on the playground. Otis> These issues will be evaluated by the woman, father and the child. Best, Otis Engineer > Subject: The implications of "The Printer's Son" > is, "how do you overcome this resistance in the person"? Assuming we want to. In real life, we present the evidence and then honor their decision. > Otis> Then it forces the person himself to do the review > and make the decison himself. I agree that you > CAN NOT BE INVOLVED IN THIS INTELLIGENT REVIEW PROCESS. > That is not your fault -- as you say. If we thought there was potential harm, we'd be all up in dat. > Otis> I am well aware of that history. In fact my sister fought > like hell against me and my advocacy for her kids. The > "truth" hits close to home -- indeed. Yes, she wanted control. So did you. > MT> It fell out of favor because the effects are hard to > distinguish from placebo. > > Otis> That is the difference between engineering-science > and medicine. It depends on who has "judgment-control" > over their own vision. Whatever. -MT Dear Mike T. Subject: Thanks for your candid remarks. I appreciate your remarks -- and I will forward them to this woman. What you are telling me is that you are faced by a "legal thicket" that prevents any work on prevention -- at the threshold. This is a "truth" I do understand. Anyone who wishes to work on true-prevention should understand this truth as you state it. That is you attempt to offer, or use a strong plus for prevention you will be called before a board-of-optometry and asked to "explain youself" and your actions. Further, the "patient" can also sue you, claiming fraud, since the plus 1. Had no effect. or 2. Had some "imagined" harm. In all of the above cases -- you would lose. No, I do not blame you for reamining silent. Quite honestly, if I were in your position I would probably remain "silent" also. It again forces the person on the threshold to understand the above issues -- that keep you silent about potential-prevention with the plus. Best, Otis Engineer > Dear Mike T. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > keep you silent about potential-prevention > with the plus. Mike? Can you still eat with all of those words that Otis put into your mouth?? You know he'll be attributing the above to you on his website now.... > Dear Mike T. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > any work on prevention -- at the > threshold. No Otis, please understand that it is not possible to provide an alternative method without valid proof. It is also a moral issue, How can I accept payment for a method that has not been accepted as the standard of care. Indeed this method, although widely prescribed in the past, has now been rejected. Now Otis, you have said you have massive studies to show that the natural eye follows the visual environment. We have not seen it yet. You are fighting hard for the second opinion to be accepted, so why are you keeping this critical information away from us. You are standing in your own way to success. > This is a "truth" I do understand. > > Anyone who wishes to work on true-prevention > should understand this truth as you state it. Putting words in his mouth again > That is you attempt to offer, or use a strong > plus for prevention you will be called before > a board-of-optometry and asked to > "explain youself" and your actions. Thats right, and how do we defend ourselves, Do we say "Otis said it works". Or "But they have the right to the second opinion". Or maybe "They are intelegent engineers-pilots and they understood the issues and signed a concent form" We need proof otis hard proof. > Further, the "patient" can also sue > you, claiming fraud, since the > plus > > 1. Had no effect. or So if a treatment works in 95% of cases, the other 5% should sue > 2. Had some "imagined" harm. Imagined efficacy can lead to real harm. > In all of the above cases -- you would lose. And if we lose Otis, you and all the prevention minded friends loose too. So how about letting us look at some of the massive studies that you have. > No, I do not blame you for reamining silent. > > Quite honestly, if I were in your position > I would probably remain "silent" also. Looks like Steve Lueng has more guts then you. > It again forces the person on the threshold > to understand the above issues -- that > keep you silent about potential-prevention > with the plus. Silent, what are you talking about, cant you here the noise. Roland J. Izaac > Best, > > Otis > Engineer > I received this letter from > a woman who wishes to help her daughter > become nearsighed. HUHHH?????? <SNIP> > I wonder how you would reply > to this woman who wishes to help her > child avoid nearsighedness. HUHHHH????? Make up your mind Otis!!! You can't even get your stories right in the same post! Allen Dear Allen, Sorry for the mis-print. Obviously the woman wishes to help her 6 year-old AVOID nearsighedness. For clarification read: www.myopiafree.com 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.