 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2005Otis brown--Please Read
Found this while surfing the web.....Interesting Roland J Izaac (Prev73.txt) What is the judgment of Optometrists about the systematic use of a plus lens for prevention of myopia? Is it effective when used properly? *********************************** NEARSIGHTED CHILDREN CAN BE CURED [FROM PREVENTION MAGAZINE, The December 1973 Issue] Michael Clark -- (Pseudonym Cyril Maxton) with some clarifying editing by Otis Brown Major Snip It is only in the past few years that substantial numbers of optometrists have begun using a radically new treatment, involving "plus" lenses, that is said to keep myopic eyes of children from deteriorating further, and even to cure or prevent myopia. Major Snip NOT ALL MYOPIA RESPONDS There are two different kinds of myopia that Dr. Ludlam has studied. One is caused by pressure of the eye growing too fast, causing the eye to become elongated. "It literally grows right out of focus." Treatment calls for fitting the eye with contact lenses which press the eye into focus, acting like a "pressure bandage." If a 10, 11 or 12 year-old child is fitted with contact lenses, there is a good chance that the myopia will be caught and not progress further, he noted. But the other type of myopia can be reversed. It's caused by a spasm of the ciliary muscles. For example, a person is reading and then looks up. If the eye fails to focus on a distant object, the ciliary muscles are believed to be undergoing spasms. If a child comes in and tells me that he has trouble trying to focus on a black-board or a clock until he blinks a couple of times, he's accurately describing a ciliary spasm," Dr. Ludlam said. This second type of myopia is controlled by use of positive lenses which tend to take the close-up environment and push it outwards, increasing the reading distance. Dear Philip, Thanks for the paper. In fact the complete copy is listed on my site for your reading pleasure. I drove to New York and interviewed W. Ludlam, and he sent a letter to Dr. Jacob Raphaelson about his use of the plus. The "difficulties" of true prevntion are well known to me. In fact I KNOW you can not "prescribe" it to a person who has NO INTEREST in prevention. I do think you should broach the subject (as Dr. Steve Leung is now doing) for young children on the threshold -- but you are not going to do that. It is the person himself who needs to review the various "issues" for himself. And that should be a large part of an "open" discussion of the "preventive" alternative. I will post some remarks by "Mike" on his use of the plus. In fact he was at -2.75 dipoters and through intense use of the plus is at about 20/30. In seems when the person himself "makes all the measurements" he believes the results. But that is where we stand. I will also post remarks "explaining" your position and WHY you can not offer a "solution" by prevention -- using a plus. Anyone interested in prevention should understand these "reasons." Best, Otis > Found this while surfing the web.....Interesting > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > lenses which tend to take the close-up environment and push it > outwards, increasing the reading distance. Otis I realy wanted you to comment on Dr. Ludlam's Statement below which clearly states that they are two forms of myopia he has studied. and that the second type( caused by a spasm of the ciliary muscles.) is the one that responds to plus lenses. He also states that not all myopia responds. Now I would like to know what steps you have taken to ensure which of the two forms of myopia you are treating. My guess is that you are unable to tell the difference and are therefore treating both forms. If they work, well good. If they don't respond to plus treatment then: 1) They are not inteligent. 2) they were not motivated. 3) They are not engineer-pilots 4) they did not understand the behavior of the natural eye 5) they are part of the conspiracy. P.S. I am using my brothers E-Mail Thus ne name Philip D Izaac. Roland J. Izaac > Dear Philip, > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > lenses which tend to take the close-up environment and push it > > outwards, increasing the reading distance. Dear Roland, Your argument to Otis in dead-on accurate. You would score a homerun if your argument was being evaluated by a scientifically or medically-trained expert or even a rational layperson. However Otis does not deal in logic. He argues probably from a sick psychological need to create controversy and then present himself as some kind of crusader that is going to change the paradigms of medicine for the sake of the little people-- blah, blah, blah. Sadly, Otis isn't hitting on all cylinders. He doesn't respond to reason. Hence I don't think your well put argument has any impact on him. Just do a search for previous discussions in this newsgroup and you will find that others have described accommodative myopia, ciliary muscle tone, axial myopia, etc. with him before but he either doesn't understand or won't try to understand. Regardless, Otis is an internet troll. It appears that just disclaiming him whenever he makes a statement is the best way to deal with him. I would not call him out for an argument-- that's what he lives for. Regards, RM PhD OD ============= > Otis I realy wanted you to comment on Dr. Ludlam's Statement below which > clearly states that they are two forms of myopia he has studied. and that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 4) they did not understand the behavior of the natural eye > 5) they are part of the conspiracy. I wanted to echo the writing below. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by encouraging Otis Brown to reply expecting a rational dialog. It's been tried----countless times for over two years. We've just experienced a week essentially without comment from Brown, so let's let it be, shall we? Kindly do not engage the troll. > Dear Roland, > Your argument to Otis in dead-on accurate. You would score a homerun if [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > whenever he makes a statement is the best way to deal with him. I would not > call him out for an argument-- that's what he lives for. Dear Roland, Subject: To types of "negative refractive state"? Since the natural eye will "more negative" when you place a minus lens on it, (Adolescent primate research), and this is a "normal" or natural process built into the eye, I simply do not agree that you can establish a "difference" when the trial-lens test shows a refraactive status of -1/2 diopters. In any event, since Jan tells us that the concept of the natural eye (as a dynamic system) MUST BE DESTROYED, I would agree we are going to have a difficult time with this issue. What I recommend to a pilot (after a refractive and medical exam) is that they review the experimental data THEMSELVES, and work to "clear" their distant vision using an eye-chart and trial-lens tool. (This assumes that all TRUE-MEDICAL problems have been elliminated -- and that the pilot has PREVIOUSLY had 20/20 vision.) The person should clearly understand JAN'S ATTITUDE -- that draws an absolute line-in-the-sand. In effect the person now has NO CHOICE but to teach himself how ot clear under his OWN CONTROL. I will post this to those pilots who THOUGHT that you might have their long-term visual welare at heart. But EQUALLY -- prevention with the plus is indeed difficult -- and a person should NOT ATTEMPT IT until he clearly understands these issues of personal control and "empowerment". Best, Otis Engineer Snip......in a lot of already told > In any event, since Jan tells > us that the concept of > the natural eye (as a dynamic system) > MUST BE DESTROYED, I would > agree we are going to have > a difficult time with this issue. Again, as shown several times before, Otis quotes wrongly. Only querulants and /or charlatans are behaving this way. > The person should clearly understand > JAN'S ATTITUDE -- that draws > an absolute line-in-the-sand. My statement regarding yours do, not my attitude.  SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Dear Jan, Maybe you would like to be more explicit -- so I could "explain" you meaning to others who would like to learn how to use the plus FOR PREVENTION. My statement is that the natural eye is a sophisticated system -- and when tested on a scientific level -- will demonstrate this basic "control" process. I NEVER use the word "therapy" and I NEVER use the word "cure". I will only talk about the fact that when actually tested -- the natural eye (as a population) will: 1. Rafractive status will move negative when you place a minus lens on it. 2. Refractive status will move negative when you apply a "step input" in terms of average-visual environment. Since you wish to "destroy" this concept of the sophisticated natural eye you must necessarily deny the above -- i.e., the concept that the natural eye is dyanamic "...must be destroyed". Until the above issues is resolved in pure "engineering-science" no other issue will ever be resolved. Otis Engineer 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 prevention technique that is unproven. In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument. Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick psychological needs. No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. 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. If you have other topics you wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you. Don't waste your time with Otis. Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum. > Dear Jan, > > Maybe you would like to be more explicit Read former postings Otis, there are lots of them but you never read them. SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
|
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.