Dear Friends,

If you state that the public tha

Dear Friends,
Subject: Hand extended in friendship.

Certainly when new ideas (concering
prevention) there will be a certain
"anger" in those who are continuing
the minus-lens method of the last 400 years.

You would be wise to look at the
"second opinion" and consider it -- as
developed by Steve Leung OD.

You might be able to help you
child maintain clear distant
vision through the school years.

www.chinamyopia.org

Remember this -- before
your child gets that first
strong minus lens.

There is an agreement that the
situation of nearsighedness
is ONLY PREVENTABLE in its
first stage.

These ODs will never discuss
this possibility with you.

Think for yourself.

Berst,

Otis

Robert, the purpose of my post was obviously a parody
of a post by a certain engineer (re: "respect for
opthalmologists") which was very partronizing, a tone
similar to the "learned grandfather" gently patting
the head of his mis-guided grandchild.

I was hoping this certain individual would actually
look in the mirror and admit that his post was just
another slam. But it went over his head (as always).

Robert, if you're an engineer, I'm sure you're very
competent and capable such as the optometrists here
in this group.

frank

That's the other thing about engineers.  Sometimes they have no sense of humor.

I found the following phrases from this post to be of particular importance
to Otis, Engineer:

OTIS, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY STUDIES ON HUMAN SUBJECTS SHOW NO EFFECT ON MYOPIA
PROGRESSION USING PLUS LENSES.

SAME COMMENT AS ABOVE.  DON'T IGNOR REALITY.  DON'T ARGUE WITH INDIVIDUAL
CASE REPORTS OF ACCOMMODATIVE MYOPES.

OBVIOUSLY APPLIES TO OTIS' PERSONALITY PROBLEMS

OTIS TO A TEE!

And so:

***** OTIS WARNING *****

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.

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 newcomers who might misconstrue Otis as a trained
eyecare expert.  Those of us who have been here for awhile know Otis oh too
well!

For anyone who is interested in understanding the true state of
scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following
link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf.  If you are truly
interested in Otis' theories of myopia prevention then visit his favorite
websites www.i-see.org and www.chinamyopia.com.

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 a guide regarding this newsgroup and for information
on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in
worthwhile discussions in this forum.

Dear Carl,

I have good friends in optometry.  They respect me -- and
I respect them -- despite the effort by SOME ODs on
this NG to destroy the "second-opnion" concept.

I separate engineering-science from "medicine".

The "medical" person must have an "immediate solution",
which largly consists of a minus-lens.  The public
(with rare exceptiongs) expects EXCLUSIVLY that quick-fix
with the minus lens.  I describe that as a
"medical process", that can not be "broken" by
reason, logic, common-sense or engineering-sciences.

When you realize this -- you understand the need to
separate pure-science from "medicine".

The USA has a problem with obese children.
In terms of engineering-science (objective, factual
truth) this issue is simple:

1.  Conversiation of energy.
2.  Calories into child less than child "burns".
3.  Child loses weight.

The enginering-scientific solution is absolutly clear.

Then why does "medicine" struggle with the issue?

Because the great mass of people love to over-eat.

The "engineer" knows the correct solution -- but can
never "implement" it.

The "medical" person must deal with the CONSEQUENCES
of this "over-eating".  Very few in medicine will
explain the engineering-scientific solution -- because
they know the "public" will not listen.

That is the difference between an "engineering" approach
to understanding and representing the "fact" concerning
the dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- and the
means that "medicine" uses to deal with the
great mass of the public that walks in off the street.

The problem develops when I make "clean" statements
about the behavior of a population of natural eyes
(in terms of measured refractive-state.)

This is an engineerin test to determine if the
natural eye is dynamic -- and has NOTHING to do
with "defect" at all.  The natural eye can
and does have postive and negative refractive
states.

Part of this effort is to get you (and others) to
think in an abstract way about the natural eyes behavior.
Truly and "intellectual" enterprise -- dispite the
"slams" posted by RM who either does not "like" or
even understand the concept.

This is an "open" forum, and I alway hope to
have a pleasant coversation -- where we
grown in wisdom and knowledge.

Perhaps in presenting scientific knowlege I have
hit a "nerve" in RM.  Finsal scientifc truth
does seem to hurt him -- for some reason.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

Dear Bill,

Well said.

For personal reasons, I decided to explore the concept of the
"dynamic eye" -- spcifically to avoid all the "hoopla" you
see posted against the concept.

of the natural eye could be prevented by intelligent and
forceful use of a plus -- at the threshold.

I did "wonder" what the ODs "thought" about the concept -- and
the extent that they used it.  Since I appreciated how
difficult it would be to use properly -- I thought that some
ODs would have an "intuitive" sense of the eye -- and would
use the plus "correctly" on their own children.

In effect, some ODs have in fact reached that conclusion -- and
are now using the plus on their own children.  This effectively
means long-term use of a strong plus -- for the child on the
"threshold".  It also means that the OD is going to be
making that judgment for his own child.

The work of Dr. Francis Young and Dr. Kenneth Oakley MD, demonstrated
that a properly used plus (where the child actually looks THROUGH THE
PLUS)
was effective in stopping the "down" movement of the eye.

With I that I have stated here, I do agree that "agressive" use
of the plus -- as Dr. Stirling Colgate has done it -- is indeed
difficult
since it takes a person of considerable motivation to do it
correctly -- and successfully.

Since that is the case -- it clearly can not be "prescribed" -- and
for that reason I suggest that the result must rest with
the person doing the work.

Further, for "legal reasons" -- as you stated -- the "medical" person
simply can not "prescribe" anything like this.  There is
no solution in 15 minuntes in an office -- and we may
as well stop looking for a "medical" solution.

So, except for RM, who does not understand the "abstract"
analysis of the behavior of the natural eye -- I think we
could develop a "preventive" method.  But the person
himself would have to make the judgment at the
threshold -- before any action was taken.

Since I was well-aware of RM's attitude -- and its effect,
I talked to my sister's children about this problem.

I stated that they HAD TO USE THE PLUS, and personally
verify that they ALWAYS passed the required legal visual-acuity
test -- or they would wind up with a strong minus lens
"prescibed" by this RM.

That got their attention.  As a result, they systematically
use a STRONG plus, and when they saw they were
losing their distant vision, they simply did what
Dr. Colgate did -- got a plus and persistently
used it to clear their eye-chart vision.

But this was indeed a life-time commitment to
the "correct use" of the plus.  This type of
work can NEVER be reduced to a "prescription
in 15 minutes", and it is never my intention
to even suggest that is possible.

But by technical analysis of the natural eye's behavior it
is possible to "see" that it is possible.

The issue does come down to the meaning of
SCIENTIFIC proof that the natural eye is dyanamic,
rather than "medical" proof where you attempt to
come up with an impressive "quick fix" which "works"
with out the "understand" of the person involved with it.

We should endeavor to keep a scientifc "open mind"
on representing the natural eye as a dynamic system,
where we test on an "input" versus "output" basis -- and
end the word "defect" when talking about the
natural eye in this manner.

Best,

Otis
Engineer