 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005Vision Improvement site
This is my collection of vision sites.Add Yours====== http://www.geocities.com/getmylinks//vision.html Dear Heynita, Try the following for the "second opinion" on true-prevention. www.chinamyopia.org www.i-see.org www.myopiafree.com (Myopia free has some additional links if you wish prevention from the 20/40 to 20/60 stage.) It is always good to understand that there is no "final voice" and some ODs use the "second opinion" on their own children, because the know the consequences if the do not. Best, Otis Engineer > This is my collection of vision sites.Add Yours====== > http://www.geocities.com/getmylinks//vision.html > It is always good to understand that there > is no "final voice" and some ODs use > the "second opinion" on their own children, > because the know the consequences if the > do not. Both my kids avoided myopia without ever wearing plus lenses. How did they do that? -MT Dear Mike, There can be several reasons. You might check my site to see how some kids read. www.myopiafree.com Some kids put their noses (almost) on the page as read at -12 diopters. They could do this for several minutes -- but long-term habitual reading like this changes the average-visual enviroment substantially. These bad-habit kids will see their refractive state mover (slowly) from a positive value to a negative value. Other kids are "heads up". They sit up and read at -1.9 diopters or less. This average-visual enviromet is much less thant the -11 diopter group. While this groups may come down to zero diopters, they still retain 20/20 and zero diopters. However if they enter a four year college (with refractive state zero) the "down" rate is about -1.3 diopters in four years. There is not "perfect" predictor -- but any knowledge of statistics, should create a concern in a college student -- if properly educated in statistics. Best, Otis > the "down" rate is about -1.3 diopters > in four years. There is not "perfect" > predictor -- but any knowledge > of statistics, should create a concern > in a college student -- if properly > educated in statistics. If they think the average college student graduates at -5.25 then they are badly misinformed. What are you doing to correct this misconception? -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Read the statistics correctly. I said POPULATION AVERAGE. A person entering West Point with a refractive state of -1/2 diopter, (20/40) can expect his refractive state to move negative by about -1. diopters in four years. Thus that would be -0.5 - 1.4 = 1.9 diopters I have no idea where you come up with this -5.25 diopters. To double check this, the bifocal studies show -1/2 diopter per year -- to check the -1/3 diopters per year at the Military Academies. When are you going to improve your mathematical skills? Anyone who doubts these numbers can check the original publications. Further the West Point studies showed that all who were slightly nearsighedn (-1/2 diopter) when "down" by between -1.1, to -1.6 diopters. No one got "better" in those four years at West Point. Best, Otis > Anyone who doubts these numbers can check the > original publications. and just where are these alleged publications OUTSIDE your website Otis. Web references please!!! Or are they just made up in your imaginary world? Allen Your kids were probably already on the plus side .So they didnt have to wear them.I bet there holding the reading at arms length now. ***** 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 links: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?ArticleType=SiteSpec&page=osc/apr01/lesson_0401.htm http://dels.nas.edu/ilar/jour_online/40_2/V40_2NortonAnimalModels.asp http://www.optometrists.asn.au/gui/files/ceo865276.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. > 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. !!! Dear Rishi, Subject: Telling the truth about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. Re: And posting the "second opinion" -- by ODs who support fundamental change. What do these ODs post "blasts" against me -- and not you? Best, Otis Engineer 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, Tysabri, 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 -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe your methods, 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 the annals of vision care. Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate 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, have not been proved, and are not shared by most in the medical community. I am pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses legitimately proved. Consult your doctor." Neil OD Bias -- and the second-opinion Please remember -- prevention with the plus is difficult. Also remember that the minus lens works instantly -- and discussing the use of the plus (i.e., an education as to this alternative) would take time -- on your part. If you wish an "alternative" for your child -- when he is on the threshold, you might read the remarks by a highly qualified OD -- who supports BOTH the majority-opinion AND the second-opinion. Please read: www.chinamyopia.org And enjoy our pleasant analytic review of the dynamic nature of the natural eye. Best, Otis Engineer have you noticed that nobody, especially the intelligent well-trained people who post in this forum, agrees with you? > Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate troll . . . who > creates risk for unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help. Who creates risk? Perhaps Otis creates risk, but you create great and actual injury every day! have you noticed that nobody, except Otis, cares what you have to say? 12 years ago I was wearing -4.75 -2.25 90 axis -4.50 -2.50 90 axis It took 12 years to get down to a -4 -2.00 90 axis.Im sick of waiting.Im going without them 5 or so hours a day hoping this will speed it up.Im wearing a -3.00 now so I can see the computor screen. Im doing swinging , near far ,I walked to the library with them off.Can't wait for summer.I think things will look a lot clearer in the sunlight. > 12 years ago I was wearing -4.75 -2.25 90 axis > -4.50 -2.50 90 axis [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > off.Can't wait for summer.I think things will look a lot clearer in the > sunlight. The improvement you have achieved (0.75 D) is about what can be expected if you had been slightly over accommodating (pseudomyopia) when younger and have now relaxed. You will see more clearly in bright sunlight due to your pupil being smaller and increasing your depth of focus. Neither small pupils nor relaxation of accommodation can be considered a change of refractive error or evidence that exercises, plus lenses etc are improving your vision. Dr Judy What if I get down to a - 3 .Is it still pseudomyopia.Maybe im going to get rid of all of it then what excuse will there be. > What if I get down to a - 3 .Is it still pseudomyopia. Maybe im going to > get rid of all of it then what excuse will there be. "Your feet stink and you don't love Jesus." That always works for my friend.  SignatureCheers, Bev +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I don't care who your father is! Drop that cross one more time and you're out of the parade!" You should contact Otis Brown. His e-mail address is otisbrown@pa.net. He is always willing to help intelligent people who want to get rid of their glasses like you. ----------------- > What if I get down to a - 3 .Is it still pseudomyopia.Maybe im going to > get rid of all of it then what excuse will there be. Dear Friend, My statement is that at the threshold (i.e., -1.0 diopter 20/40 to 20/70, the POTENTIAL for prevention does exist. Once you begin wearing an over-prescribed minus lens -- all bets are off. The person who first put you into a minus lens has the responsibility of telling you this. >From the "blasts" you get from RM -- this obviously is not going to happen. Pilots who "pushed" very hard with a strong plus (at that threshold) have been successful in clearing their vision with the plus. But they always do it under their own control. Tragic -- but there does not seem to be any other way. I can never tell what any given individual will do -- when offered a choice of this nature. If they are not interested -- I never hear from them again. The issue still remains a "choice" for a person on the threshold. Perhaps the most important issue is how these ODs deal with their own children. I respect them in the sense that I am certain that they will use the same negative-lens process on their own children -- as they use on the public. No "ethical" problem there. However, Steve Leung, who understands the "second opinion" has his own children wearing the plus. That is the true measure of the "second opinion", and how it can be introduced. Read: www.chinamyopia.org The "future" will probably "change" with him and the people who "learn" from him -- in the use of the plus for prevention. Best, Otis Otis, A couple of 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, don't you think? 2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, Tysabri, etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the highest of scrutiny before being labeled 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 -- converts will be lining up to describe and prescribe your methods, 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 the annals of vision care. Until then, you're an intellectually inadequate 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, have not been proved, and are not shared by most in the medical community. Further, I am pathologically unwilling to make any efforts to see my hypotheses legitimately tested. Consult your doctor." Neil > Dear Friend, > My statement is that at the threshold (i.e., -1.0 diopter > 20/40 to 20/70, the POTENTIAL for prevention > does exist. > Once you begin wearing an over-prescribed > minus lens -- all bets are off. Ok, please explain how the minus lens damages the dynamic nature of the eye? Show us the research. > The person who first put you into a > minus lens has the responsibility of > telling you this. Yep, "Sorry Mr Tan, but I have to tell you that the minus lens will damage the dynamic responce of your son's eye, I understand your son cannot function in school, but this is only temperary, why not take him out of school for a couple of years till he passes the DMV test. We will put him on the plus lenses till he recovers." Mr Tan: "DMV test? what are you talking about, he is 9 years old. Why can't you give him glasses to see?" Roland: "Oh come now Mr. Tan, That method is 400 years old. Now we won't worry if he can't see, our main concern is prevention at the treshold." Mr. Tan: "Is the plus lens a proven way" Roland: Not really, but at least the method is relatively new. Now I need to ask you some questions. Is your son intelegent? > Once you begin wearing an over-prescribed > minus lens -- all bets are off. Not all. Just the treatment requires more dedication. In fact, there is no reason why an improvement may follow to another improvement and then grant a permanent and complete cure. If you can obtain even a very small improvement, this is proof of the falseness of these learned men who exploit imperfect sighted people. To obtain such improvement is very very easy. First requisite is the total discarding of the glasses, as difficult as this may be. > The person who first put you into a > minus lens has the responsibility of > telling you this. The person who prescribes glasses IS ALWAYS A CRIMINAL and should be sentenced. > What if I get down to a - 3 .Is it still pseudomyopia.Maybe im going to > get rid of all of it then what excuse will there be. Since you are 58 years old, it is highly unlikely you have any pseudomyopia. If you are confident that you will reduce your myopia and eliminate your astigmatism please have your eye doctor document your cycloplegic refraction at this date and document your cycloplegic refraction again when your refractive error is reduced. You and your doctor can then publish the before and after results as a case report or letter to the editor of a peer reviewed scientific journal. If several cases like this are reported, serious researchers will become interested and will obtain funding for proper, placebo controlled clinical studies. Once those studies are published then there will be evidence that the plus lens or whatever method works for adults and then optometrists in the field will be happy to tell their patients about the techniques. We have pointed out this sequence to Otis many times and he has yet to follow up; maybe you will be more willing to engage the scientific community and finally provide evidence that refractive error can be eliminated with non surgical, non glasses means. Dr Judy I save all my perscriptions.The last one I got was from a doctor.He gave me -5.75 -2.25 90 axis .I didnt get it filled .I thought it was too strong,He knew I wanted to improve my vision so I think he was harrassing me. He did give me my weeker perscrioptions though. ive been wearing them for 12 years now. I wear the -3.5 - 1.5 90 axis at nite and -3 day.I think its time for an eye exam.Its been 12 years. I have a -2.75 -1.25 1.75 1.25 3 nocilinder 2.5 no cillinder .You name I have it. >I save all my perscriptions.The last one I got was from a doctor. Where else do you get a perscripshun? > He knew I wanted to improve my vision so I think he was > harrassing me. You've figured it out. We try to increase everyone's perscrishun by giving them stronger lens. > The improvement you have achieved (0.75 D) is about what can be expected if > you had been slightly over accommodating (pseudomyopia) when younger and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dr Judy This is all false, because, if this were true, WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH YOUR CYCLOPLEGIC REFRACTIONS while prescribing??? You are really tricky and criminal in destroying the intelligence of your clients. It seems you corrupt their minds to exploit them more! Now let's see your unending lies about the pupils getting smaller. If this was the case, improvement of vision due to smaller pupils, then why people have dread of light? And then, what about the refraction this poor lady got in the office? There was not solar light there and no "smaller" pupils. How can you all be so bastard? > How can you all be so bastard? How can Italy tolerate such disgrace? -MT > How can Italy tolerate such disgrace? The problem is related to the whole world. Somebody, for creating new vested interest, is starting to talk of myopia as a "pandemia". What is your comment? Aren't you feeling a dirty bastard, although very learned, in seeing that you cannot do anything against this pandemia? What is your comment? Stick to the facts. The facts are all against you. You don't have a clue and do not want to learn really what is the secret behind all this. The secret is not very much of a secret, as any young and intelligent mind can quickly understand BEFORE you put glasses on him or her. Time will tell. You wrongdoings are going to be finally exposed. > Aren't you feeling a dirty bastard, although very learned, in seeing > that you cannot do anything against this pandemia? > > What is your comment? My comment? I think it's a tragedy. For a thousand years, Italy has been the home of some of the most prestigious schools and universities in the world. We hope you do not represent the general level of public education there. Italia, we grieve for your embarrassment. -MT >> Aren't you feeling a dirty bastard, although very learned, in seeing >> that you cannot do anything against this pandemia? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >-MT Bella! Bravissimo!! Ridi pagliaccio! We have had Fascism and Mussolini. You seem to have forgotten this! You all behave like fascists. You don't know what to do when a poor patient comes to your office seeking for A CURE for their imperfect sight, AND you mistreat him so BADLY that you end up with destroying his eyesight for the worse. AND, you do not limit yourself to destroy the vision of poor people. You go on in suppressing those who are really interested in discovering the truth for themselves about the true cure of eye diseases, and ridiculize them and say they are charlatans and bufoons. As if YOU are able to do ANYTHING POSITIVE for imperfect sighted people, for the blind, for the diseased eye... You are not able to do anything. You just go on in cheating people, robbing them of their money... And you do this IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE... Great bastards indeed! Really very great bastards, fascists, disgusting people indeed. But the future is not so gloomy. Here and there people is waking up. Just today the girl recovering from -23 D has confirmed to me that she can read consistently 10 feet Snellen letters at the distance of 5 feet. Half of normal vision. After two months of treatment, a treatment she has to administer to herself without the help of anybody... She has planned to go to an optician to have her tested with the autorefractometer. We will see. But for you, great learned men, this is simply impossible, so you put your head into the sand, and meanwhile this intelligent girl is curing herself... By the way, this girl is continuosly checking her eccentric fixation, she started with 2 meters at 2 meters, and now she is not able anymore to see any eccentricity in her vision, with 200 feet and 100 feet letters at that distance. She can see perfectly clearly 34 cm letters at 18 cm. More than half of normal vision. You don't have any explanation about this case. A -23 D prescription. When she started treatment, anything beyond 5 cm was a blur. Now I am asking to the learned men here: why didn't you treat her in this way when she had 5 years old and you prescribed your beautiful minus lense? Either you were ignorant of proper treatment (and this should put you out of your business), or you knew the true stuff but did not follow accordingly, for the convenience in keeping the patient as your client to be sucked... This also is against the Hippocrates Oath. Isn't it? You are all great criminals. My words are too mild. If we could see your wrongdoings on global scale, you are really a very dangerous mafia. > > How can you all be so bastard? > > How can Italy tolerate such disgrace? Since he's neither music nor art nor food he's beneath consideration. Sensible, I think. SignatureCheers, Bev =/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\= "Sure, everyone's in favor of saving Hitler's brain, but when you put it into the body of a great white shark, suddenly you're a madman." --Futurama >Since he's neither music nor art nor food he's beneath consideration. >Sensible, I think. Neither is he wine, nor women. 8^) Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org I am not a doctor. > >Since he's neither music nor art nor food he's beneath consideration. > >Sensible, I think. > > Neither is he wine, nor women. 8^) Nor a fast automobile or motorcycle. There are tons of jokes about what poor warriors the Italians are, but I don't think that as a nation they have a single thing to be ashamed of. SignatureCheers, Bev """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid. > Nor a fast automobile or motorcycle. There are tons of jokes about what > poor warriors the Italians are, but I don't think that as a nation they > have a single thing to be ashamed of. Well, maybe a couple... -MT > Nor a fast automobile or motorcycle. There are tons of jokes about what > poor warriors the Italians are, but I don't think that as a nation they > have a single thing to be ashamed of. Please don't speak as a nation, speak for yourself and stay on topic. How many people did you REALLY helped out of their nightmare of imperfect sight and glasses? Now even the non-doctor who speaks of "quality assurance" about laser surgery... The very fact that you have to provide a service like that, QUALITY ASSURANCE means that the whole business is tricky, it is not safe, people gets damage, and the more year are passing, the worst is for the clients. I have MANY clients who come to me because of their bad experience with lasik et al. After one year or more, their "correction" is wrong again. If the correction becomes "under", they can be assured that with another pair of lenses they are corrected again, but those with "over" correction are more in pain, it seems the "plus" lenses does not help. Then there are those REALLY MISERABLE: the lasik created such imbalances that they did suffer any sort of trouble: teeth become wicked and tilted, the bones of legs start to become crippled, headaches are normal, a real hell. They had to go to any kind of therapists, homeopathic, chiropratic, ostheopatic, you know, to find some relief. Relief is served but at a great cost, thousands of euro in few years. In the deep distress of their dark condition, they too buy the book of Dr. Bates and start to study it. This at first is really a shock because if they knew this in advance, surely they would not have done the surgery, this is plain and simple. So you are great bastards because you hide the truth just for marketing and exploiting reasons. But before or after, this nonsense will wither away. People is waking up. > Then there are those REALLY MISERABLE: the lasik > created such imbalances that they did suffer any sort of > trouble: teeth become wicked and tilted, the bones of > legs start to become crippled, headaches are normal, > a real hell. Such embarrassment - we grieve for you, Italia. -MT Please Mr. Tyner, shut up. You are part of the idiots doctors who have studied LONG for what? For putting glasses on people, a thing that people themselves can do in any drugstore. They don't do it in mass because they know it is dangerous. Only the really weak go to you because they believe in you as doctors. That's where you have success: with the poor, the weak. Great bastards, really. Smart people stay away from you. Smart people are growing. >Nor a fast automobile or motorcycle. There are tons of jokes about what >poor warriors the Italians are, but I don't think that as a nation they >have a single thing to be ashamed of. Ah, every nation has something to be ashamed of. We have Don King, Pauly Shore, deep fried Twinkies...and the Congress, the Senate........ 8^) Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org I am not a doctor. > Ah, every nation has something to be ashamed of. We have > Don King, Pauly Shore, deep fried Twinkies...and the > Congress, the Senate........ 8^) Italy has Rishi, Alabama has dildo laws. Such a shame. -MT >> Ah, every nation has something to be ashamed of. We have >> Don King, Pauly Shore, deep fried Twinkies...and the >> Congress, the Senate........ 8^) > >Italy has Rishi, Alabama has dildo laws. Such a shame. Is it safe to say, then, that if Rishi lived in Alabama, he'd be illegal? ROFLOL Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org I am not a doctor. Please Mister Brooks, can you tell me if this man below who sign himself as "I am not a doctor" has normal vision? |
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.