 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2005A minu-two dopters over prescription?
Dear RM (Not otherwise identified.) RM-OD> I have asked this question of Otis many times before and he never answers. Otis> The answer -- in terms of the natural eye's dynamic behavior -- is provided below. Subject: Visual Acuity -- and your -3 diopter "prescription". You have either made this up -- or your are substantially over-prescribing a minus lens. You did not report this man's visual acuity. You say that this young man quit wearing a minus 3 diopter lens -- and worked without any necessity of using it -- for 2.5 years. The normal "translation" of "diopters" to visual acuity is that 1 diopter clears 20/70 to 20/20. 2 diopters would clear 20/140 to 20/20, and 3 diopters clears 20/210 to 20/20. It is almost impossible to function unless your visual acuity is in the 20/40 to 20/70 range. If his actual visual acuity was 20/210 -- he would have not gone without wearing your minus three diopter lens. What you report here indicates that this young man was probably over-prescribed by about minus 2 diopters. But of course none of us have any possibility of checking anything you say -- since you you don't identify yourself, and for that reason your story must be considered anectdotal. There are other indications that you "made up" your "prescription". Perhaps this young man should have checked both his visual acuity AND refractive status himself -- using his own trial-lens kit. You stated that he "remained" at -3 diopters (by your measurement) after three years. The standard "down" rate for children wearin a minus lens is about -1/2 to -6/10 diopter per year. Thus, in 2.5 to 3 years he could expect his refractive state to go "down" by about -1.5 dipoters -- to the total of -4.5 diopters. So, by avoiding the use of an over-prescribed -3 diopter minus lens this man avoided the "start" of stair-case myopia. It depends on how you look at it. Best, Otis Engineer ___________________________________________ Date: Sat, Feb 19 2005 8:51 pm From: "RM" Dear Prevention minded friends, I am a practicing optometrist. Today I had an adolescent male patient who I had seen previously 3 years ago. At that time his refraction was approximately -3.00 -1.00 X 180 in both eyes. [Comment: It is very rare that astigmatism will measure at EXACTLY the SAME magnitude and exactly 180 degrees. Typically you will see different "angles" in the astigmatism measurement. This looks "made up" to me. OSB] He bought a pair of glasses and wore them for about 6 months but then lost them. He has been going around for the last 2.5 years without any spectacle correction at all. This condition is optically equivalent to wearing +3.00 -1.00 x 180 lenses in both eyes all the time. His refraction again today was the same as what it was 3 years ago. If Otis' theory of plus lens prevention is correct, then why didn't this patient's refraction improve? I have asked this question of Otis many times before and he never answers. [That is because of the "made up" nature of this story. It is anectdotal, and I have no means of verifying any of it. Further, I have no idea who RM is, since he does not identify himself on this news-group. OSB] Otis -- please answer this time. Why not ask your good friends Dr. Young, Dr. Cheung, etc. to reply since you obviously are at a loss. [Comment: Because of the "made up" nature of your story, and you choose to be "not-identified". Nothing can be checked here, and your story must be classed as anectdotal. OSB] [Comment: Vision scientists Francis Young's study, not anectdotal is clear about the potential of prevention with the plus. That is a scientific publication -- not your anectdotal story. OSB] PS -- for anyone really interested in the REAL TRUTH about the status of scientific research regarding myopia prevention, I offer the following unbiased medical references: 1. http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf 2. http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp? ArticleType=SiteSpec&page=osc/ap r01/lesson_0401.htm 3. http://dels.nas.edu/ilar/jour_online/40_2/V40_2NortonAnimalModels.asp 4. http://www.optometrists.asn.au/gui/files/ceo865276.pdf Regards, RM PhD OD (RN says Trust me -- however he can't identify myself on sci.med.vision for obvious reasons.) Dr. Francis Young has 50 published papers on the study of the eye's behavior. He is both techncially accurate and a respected scientists. Who you gonna believe -- published scientific studies -- or "RM" who may be anyone. Enjoy! Otis Engineer > Perhaps this young man should have checked both his visual > acuity AND refractive status himself -- using his own trial-lens > kit. Oh, now THAT's how you get reliable measurements! Gee I wish you'd told us that before. Do you think the young man lied, when he told his doctor -3.00 was clear and -2.75 was blurry? -MT Date: Sat, Feb 19 2005 8:51 pm From: "RM" Dear Prevention minded friends, I am a practicing optometrist. Today I had an adolescent male patient who I had seen previously 3 years ago. At that time his refraction was approximately -3.00 -1.00 X 180 in both eyes. [Comment: It is very rare that astigmatism will measure at EXACTLY the SAME magnitude and exactly 180 degrees. Typically you will see different "angles" in the astigmatism measurement. This looks "made up" to me. OSB] Roland: Its not that rare Otis. It does not look made up to me. He bought a pair of glasses and wore them for about 6 months but then lost them. He has been going around for the last 2.5 years without any spectacle correction at all. This condition is optically equivalent to wearing +3.00 -1.00 x 180 lenses in both eyes all the time. His refraction again today was the same as what it was 3 years ago. If Otis' theory of plus lens prevention is correct, then why didn't this patient's refraction improve? Roland: Actually like wearing a +4.00 -1.00 X 90 in both eyes all the time. I have asked this question of Otis many times before and he never answers. Roland: So whats new, we all know that he does not have the ability to answere [That is because of the "made up" nature of this story. It is anectdotal, and I have no means of verifying any of it. Further, I have no idea who RM is, since he does not identify himself on this news-group. OSB] Roland: Oh Otis come off it. Made up or not, it is still a valid question. Believe it or not, but I am sure many practitioners have come across such patients, I know I have, several times. (Must be influenced by Rishi) You cant answere---admit it. Otis -- please answer this time. Why not ask your good friends Dr. Young, Dr. Cheung, etc. to reply since you obviously are at a loss. [Comment: Because of the "made up" nature of your story, and you choose to be "not-identified". Nothing can be checked here, and your story must be classed as anectdotal. OSB] Roland: RM has identified himself as an Optometrist. You don't need to check the authenthicity of the story (Its just your excuse). Just answere or get your friends to answere, for goodness sake. [Comment: Vision scientists Francis Young's study, not anectdotal is clear about the potential of prevention with the plus. That is a scientific publication -- not your anectdotal story. OSB] Roland:Actually you dont have the qualification to credibly interprit the results of that study. PS -- for anyone really interested in the REAL TRUTH about the status of scientific research regarding myopia prevention, I offer the following unbiased medical references: 1. http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf 2. http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp? ArticleType=SiteSpec&page=osc/ap r01/lesson_0401.htm 3. http://dels.nas.edu/ilar/jour_online/40_2/V40_2NortonAnimalModels.asp 4. http://www.optometrists.asn.au/gui/files/ceo865276.pdf Regards, RM PhD OD (RN says Trust me -- however he can't identify myself on sci.med.vision for obvious reasons.) Dr. Francis Young has 50 published papers on the study of the eye's behavior. He is both techncially accurate and a respected scientists. Who you gonna believe -- published scientific studies -- or "RM" who may be anyone. Enjoy! Otis Engineer > Subject: Visual Acuity -- and your -3 diopter "prescription". > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > What you report here indicates that this young man was > probably over-prescribed by about minus 2 diopters. ------------------- This is pure Otis logic. As you said yourself I never reported an acuity for the boy. But you just extrapolated it based upon your own incorrect reasoning (-1.00 DOES NOT clear 20/70 to 20/20; and there isn't a good rule of thumb to equate acuity to diopters anyway)! Otis tries to conclude that I made an error in refraction to explain away the result. Otis-- have you ever heard of SQUINTING! Works pretty well. Young kids can be very myopic and not realize it until they get to about driving age. The story is very true. I did round the axis of astigmatism to X180 when it was somewhere between X170 and X10 but that doesn't change a thing. >> You stated that he "remained" at -3 diopters (by your > measurement) after three years. The standard "down" rate for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It depends on how you look at it. Otis-- you will argue anyway you want to using "Otis logic" (aka bias). This is why you are not a scientist and not a person to listen to. You cannot objectively evaluate the information. You cannot compare observations to your model to give it a true test. If you did, you would see that your model cannot explain: 1. Myopes who do not wear their glasses (and thus are wearing net plus lenses all the time). By Otis' model these people's refraction should all improve over time-- THEY DON'T. 2. Hyperopes who do not wear their glasses (and thus are straining as if wearing an overminused lens all the time). By Otis' model these peoples refraction should all "go down" and they should become less hyperopic and even myopic over time-- THEY DON'T. Why not Otis? Explain. It has nothing to do with me not identifying myself. It has nothing to do with me not giving the details of my patient's exam records. All eye doctors see these types of patients all the time and if you can't explain these results in the context of your "model" then IT'S WRONG. And you are not a good scientist for not accepting the truth and forming a better model. The answer, Otis, as some of your much-heralded OD scientists from the past have already come to realize, it that there are two types of myopes. Accommodative myopes and anatomical myopes. You can't change the refractive state of an anatomical myope with your foolish treatments Otis. Back to the drawing board. But for Otis it's back to the spin factory so he can make up some more "Otis logic" to explain uncorrected myopes and uncorrected hyperopes. Or maybe he'll just ignor or sidestep these questions AGAIN. Anonymously yours RM PhD OD ----------------------- > Anonymously yours > RM PhD OD Your degrees seem absurd in the face of the truth! your "truth" seems absurd to everyone who can read you are an idiot. You can't answer his questions so you try to attack him. By the way, if the person is a simple myope, then 20/70 corrects to 20/20 with about a -1.50 to -1.75 prescription. Your estimate is wrong. And this type of estimation doesn't apply well to astigmats like the patient RM describes. There are many patients like RM describes. Kids often don't wear their glasses since their world usually involves things that are close to them until they get older (like about driving age like he says). You can squint and see pretty good. Just admit your plus theory is wrong. Dear Retinula, (Who eveer you are.) The statement I have made is that the natural eye is a sophisticated system. When you test the natural eye for this characteristics (versus the concept that the eye is not dynamic), i.e., predictive experimental accuracy, direct confirmation, then you determine that the refractive state follows the following PREDICTIVE function. e ^ -t/TAU Which is the expected perforance of a well-designed controls system. But this is basic "input" versus "output" experimental testing and has noting to do with your "medical" concept. The use of the word plus-lens THEORY is an error. Just accept that the natural eye is dynamic in the above sense -- and the concept can not be reduced so supplying a "quick-fix" in a office in 10 minutes. We work at cross-purposes if we attempt to "mix" these to disparate concepts. And you jump to endless an "wrong" conclusions from this paradigm of the natural eye's proven behavior. Best, Otis Engineer > you are an idiot. You can't answer his questions so you try to attack > him. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Just admit your plus theory is wrong. > When you test the natural eye for this characteristics > (versus the concept that the eye is not dynamic), [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Which is the expected perforance of a well-designed > controls system. So the same equation describes those who get nearsighted AND those who don't? Big leap, Otis. > But this is basic "input" versus "output" experimental > testing and has noting to do with your "medical" concept. How does one input give different outputs at different ages, in different families, in different locations? > The use of the word plus-lens THEORY is an error. Until you measure it in humans, "hypothesis" is the better word. > Just accept that the natural eye is dynamic in > the above sense -- and the concept can not > be reduced so supplying a "quick-fix" in a > office in 10 minutes. When they need to see, we're supposed to tell them "No." > We work at cross-purposes if we attempt > to "mix" these to disparate concepts. We aren't working at cross purposes. Your hypothesis can be tested in humans. It will have to be tested on emerging myopes at age 5-6, before I'm satisfied that it does or doesn't work. Until such results are published and accepted, you're just pissing in the stewpot. The most effective thing you can do to change the standard of practice among doctors is to subsidize or otherwise support such a study. If your treatment is effective for school myopia in humans, please show us. I promise we'll use it. -MT > The statement I have made is that the natural eye > is a sophisticated system. Nobody could argue with that. In fact, the whole body is a quite sophisticated system. I remember arguing with my OMD, because I wanted my eye fixed and he didn't think it was time yet. He said that they just couldn't compete with God as far as fixing eyes.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > But of course none of us have any possibility of checking > anything you say -- since you you don't identify yourself, and for > that reason your story must be considered anectdotal. There > are other indications that you "made up" your "prescription". Otis, I asked you for you to provide proof of your statements. You have yet to identify yourself. You provide zero, zilch, nothing when I ask for web based proof of your studies OUTSIDE your website. You are worthless, zilcho, nothing, as you make up everything you type. You don't let your subjects come to the newsgroups, you don't provide proof of your statements OUTSIDE your website. What makes you better???? > Who you gonna believe -- published scientific > studies -- or "RM" who may be anyone. WHERE ARE THESE STUDIES OTIS???? WHERE ARE THE "PUBLISHED" SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OUTSIDE YOUR WEBSITE. THERE ARE PROBABLY NONE SINCE YOU MAKE THINGS UP, YOU MAKE UP SUBJECTS AND YOU DON'T PROVIDE ANY UNBIASED PROOF OF YOUR STATEMENTS. ENJOY!!!! Allen |
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.