 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005Current "vision clearing" by Mike from -2.75 D
Dear Friends, Given all the "hoopla" about prevention, and specifically Raphaelson's problem with "The Printer's Son", it would be difficult to see how any OD could be involved with true-prevention. Rishi rejects the use of the plus lens for prevention. Andrew -- wants the "brain" to "solve" the problem. But lastly, it is a matter of the person himself to make a choice. This is an open forum, and all ideas are "open". Please remember -- Mike had an exam, and all MEDICAL problems were elliminated -- i.e., he had NO medical problem. He personally decided to REJECT the use of the minus -- on his own. Only AFTER that point did is suggest that he follow the advice of Dr. Stirling Colgate (Physicist) who had cleared with a +2.5 dipoter lens. Warrning: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DO THIS -- UNTIL YOU PERSONALLY LOOK AT OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC DATA YOURSELF. Professor Theodore Grosvenor personally recommended the use of the plus FOR PREVENTION -- but provided no "plan" to implement his recommendation. In a way, Mike is implementing that "plan". It looks likd Mike will alway pass all legal visual acuity requirments that apply to him, so he no longer has any need for OD involvement. Please think about these issues. You can expect the normal "blasts" against "clean" statements about potential prevention. I regret that, because there are now ODs who support the concept of prevention with the plus. The real problem is "public rejection" of the concept -- which "shuts down" any OD who would be bold enouogh to discuss this possibility with you. This staement is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Jacob Raphaelson (OD) As always, the name has been changed to protect Mike from the "blasts" you post against him. _________________________________________ Subject: Realizing the importance of wearing a plus not just for reading. Mike (Previously at -2.75 diopters) Dear Mike, Subject: Respecting you and your right to protect YOUR long-term vision Forty years ago, many mechanics and pilots worked in the "high noise" enviroments of jets. Today, they are seriously deaf -- to a large extent. As a result, pilots and others who work in a very high-noise enviroment wear "noise supression" muffs. To me, the situation where your natural eyes move from a postive value to a negative value -- is exactly the same. People working in these "confined" enviroments become massively nearsighed. In Taiwan, the medical staff runs about 92 percent. Why can't we make this "connection"? You are using the "plus" and are passing the visual standard required of us around the world, or the ability to read 1.8 cm letters at 6 meters. If you regard the "plus" as "protective" -- same as "ear muffs", then you will maintain your clear vision -- while everyone else in this "near" enviroment will lose their vision. People who think they can "avoid" the protective plus -- and keep their distant vision -- are kidding themselves. You have made a wise decision to use the "plus" correctly. More commentary; ________________________________________ Dear Mike, Mike> One of the reasons why I chose to improve my vision was so I wouldn't have to wear negative lens glasses. Otis> Your most important decision was to quit the minus 2.75 diopter lens, "cold turkey" on your own. Once you decided to do that -- it becomes essential that you PASS the LEGAL DMV requirement of reading 1.8 cm at 6 meters. By that act, you have assumed personal responsibility to "protect" your distant vision for the next six years. Otis> You gain may benefits. By keeping your vision clear, you avoid all the expenses of "a new minus lens" every year or so, to the tune of $200 or $300. The "medical" part for $100 is worth it, to look for anything "medical". Mike> I have been diligent in wearing a plus for reading and near work but I haven't been wearing a plus constantly until recently because I now realize the importance of wearing a plus not just for reading. Otis> Once you get into serious nearsighedness -- it is very difficult and probably impossible to get out of it. This fact should be a "spur" to begin using the plus "correctly" at the threshold. Stirling Colgate was wise to recognize that a minus lens simply made a near environment even "nearer". I think that is why he "cleared" quicker. Mike> 20/50 was tough for me to pass and to me that is not acceptable. I am now wearing a plus constantly. You could say that I was developing myopia again. Otis> There is no doubt that keeping your distant vision is tough. This is very similar to wearing muffs to protect your hearing. It was very difficult to get pilots to wear these muffs -- because they thought it was "unnecessary". That is also why using the plus is so difficult. Mike> One bone-head OD said that Jon and I are children. My opinion is that we are getting to an age were the DMV eye test is important and we are working to pass it. Otis> You were old enough to make a wise decision. For some reason most people are not that smart (with due respect). I resent being led down a "prim-rose" path with the minus lens. My anger at that treatment forced me to work on "prevention" so that you could "protect" youself -- and your vision. These ODs on sci.med.vision DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. Only you personally can care about your long-term vision. They may not want to "hurt" you with the minus lens -- but they refuse to help you. Mike> Plus I will be 16 this year. My prediction is that he will change his difinition of a child from 16 and under to 18 and other. You should tell him that and see if I am right. Otis> Just our conversations proves your abilities are far above average. You have the right to have your long-term vision protected. I support your right to an "honest" second-opinion. The ODs on sci.med.vision don't think you are owed a "choice". I do! People might be "angry" with me because I fight for YOUR long term vision -- but that is the way it is. I seek to "empower" ODs like Steve Leung who, like Jacob Raphaelson is helping his own child with the wearing of the plus -- because he knows the consequences of NOT wearing the plus properly. Best, Otis > Dear Friends, > > Given all the "hoopla" about prevention. Again a gigantic snip in the same old garbage spam by story teller Otis.  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 Friends, > > > > Given all the "hoopla" about prevention. > > Again a gigantic snip in the same old garbage spam by story teller Otis. Better a story teller than a criminal and a liar. At least a story teller has a dignity, a liar none. >Better a story teller than a criminal and a liar. And for a person like yourself, Rishi--for whom both of these is true? What does that say about you? > >Better a story teller than a criminal and a liar. > > And for a person like yourself, Rishi--for whom both of these is true? > What does that say about you? Dear mister the idiot, you just do a search on google and I have plenty of proof to serve to you. Dear Rishi, If 10,000 ODs believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." > If 10,000 ODs believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." And if 30,000 ODs and 10,000 ophthalmologists and a couple thousand PhD vision scientists believe the benefits of plus are negligible, one or two fools will not change their minds. -MT > And if 30,000 ODs and 10,000 ophthalmologists and a couple thousand PhD > vision scientists believe the benefits of plus are negligible, one or two > fools will not change their minds. I don't think anybody is interested in changing their ROTTEN minds. The problem is serious: all those people HAVE NO CLUE about vision problems. Just yesterday a client has written to me. You may find in the text some reference to an endless series of desperate attempts by the official physicians and ophthalmologists that have simply destroyed this man's life. The text is in Italian but I understand that you will be able to CATCH the names of the diseases SINCE THEY ARE ALL FROM LATIN WORDS. It will be interesting to know what you could offer more to this poor man of 42. Now he has come to me, to Dr. Bates. I bet what you want THAT HE WILL FIND IMMEDIATE RELIEF if not a cure, to his sufferings. And if I say IMMEDIATE I mean it. Here is his letter: > Gentile Sig.or > Gatti > Come le ho accennato nella precedente lettera, ho letto il suo breve racconto che l'hanno portata alla conoscenza ed alla consapevolezza da lei descritta. > A fine lettura mi sono chiesto se la sua esperienza di vita poteva tornare utile anche per me. > A tale domanda mi sono autorisposto con questa considerazione: < nella situazione in cui ti trovi, nessun Sig. Gatti e nessun Sig. Bates può aiutarti > . > Poi, usando una classica frase < per non saper ne leggere e ne scrivere >, mi son detto : proviamo lo stesso ad interpellare il Sig. Gatti; può essere che ne possa scaturire qualcosa di positivo. > Il fatto è questo : > Da moto tempo l'occhio destro (e solo questo) è stato interessato da una infiammazione < uveite ipertensiva >. > A causa di ciò, nel corso degli anni, si è reso necessario - all'età di 43 anni - l'intervento di cataratta. Successivamente un'altro intervento, sempre allo stesso occhio, per regolarizzare una sinechia. > Indi, nel 2002, si è reso necessario un trapianto di cornea (sempre allo stesso occhio). > Dopodichè ho dovuto sopportare un nuovo intervento di cataratta all'occhio sinistro ( conseguenza - questa - del massiccio uso di cortisone e dell'uveite all'occhio destro). > Oggi mi ritrovo a dover risostenere un secondo trapianto di cornea. > Il punto è che questa Uveite ipertensiva ha avuto, nel corso degli anni, step dopo step, periodi di recidività continua e periodi di astensionismo e la medicina oftalmica (nonostante sia stato letteralmente rigirato come un calzino) procede per terapie aspecifiche presupponendo e basandosi sul fatto (non pienamente accertato) che il tutto sia dipeso dal virus dell'Herpes. > Vi sono medici che mi hanno dichiarato che i dottori ficcano e rificcano la causalità herpetica (ed il relativo cortisone) quasi dapperttutto quando non sanno dove andare a pescare. > DOMANDA : > nonostante nella mia sconfinata ignoranza dia per scontato che ha questo punto non ci sia Bates che tenga, Lei ritiene che vi possano essere - ancora - margini per manovre dettate dalle regole di Bates e quindi evitare il prossimo trapianto di cornea ???? . > Ho dovuto essere necessariamente sintetico; se lei lo ritiene necessario, sono a sua disposizione nella discesa di dettagli. > Cordiali Saluti. NOW LET'S SAY WHAT THIS MR. TYNER, A PART OF THE MULTI-MILLION QUANTITY OF PHDs WHO HAVE INFESTED THE WORLD ABOUT ITALIAN HUMOR, OR ABOUT THE SHAME OF ITALY, OR A B O U T - T H E - S H A M E - O F - Y O U R - D I R T Y - P R O F E S S I O N - O F - B U T C H E R S. http://TheCentralFixation.com > It will be interesting to know what you could offer > more to this poor man of 42. > Now he has come to me, to Dr. Bates. I see references to recurrent hypertensive uveitis with synechiae and cataract. The letter describes a long history of treatment with steroids and a corneal transplant in one eye (was this actually cataract extraction?). The doctors presume the uveitis was a result of herpes, and they don't know where to fish. Of course, you are certain Dr. Bates offers cures for all these conditions, and treatment with rest methods will save the remaining eye. You recommend they stop all medicines, discard their glasses, gaze at the sun and learn to practice rest methods. I think you will find it challenging to convince someone with active uveitis to stare at the sun. I think you should offer them a written guarantee. In Braille. -MT > Of course, you are certain Dr. Bates offers cures for all these conditions, > and treatment with rest methods will save the remaining eye. I AM CERTAIN THE MAN ITSELF WILL FIND SOME TRUE HELP TO HIS PROBLEM. > You recommend they stop all medicines, discard their glasses, gaze at the > sun and learn to practice rest methods. NO, I DON'T RECOMMEND ANYTHING, JUST I SELL A BOOK, WELL MORE THAN ONE, ALMOST 3500 PAGES TO READ, AND PEOPLE CAN DO AS THEY WISHES. > I think you will find it challenging to convince someone with active uveitis > to stare at the sun. I THINK YOU ARE A BEST IDIOT. IF YOU WERE A LITTLE BIT MORE INTELLIGENT YOU COULD HAVE SHOWN A DIFFERENT MIND: WHAT HAS THIS POOR MAN TO DO??? DESPITE ALL HIS TREATMENTS ADMINISTERED BY YOUR OWN COLLEGUES AND PEERS, HE HAS SIMPLY CONTINUED TO WITNESS HIS EYES AND SIGHT WITHER AWAY. > I think you should offer them a written guarantee. YOU SHOULD HAVE OFFERED IT TO HIM: WHY YOU DIDN'T, YOUR PEERS DIDN'T? WHAT THIS MAN HAS TO DO N O W ????? > In Braille. I DESRESPECT THE BRAILLE SYSTEM SINCE I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE WITH BLINDNESS RECOVER FROM BLINDNESS. > Warrning: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DO THIS -- UNTIL > YOU PERSONALLY LOOK AT OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC DATA > YOURSELF. Please Otis, direct us to this OBJECTIVE proof. Not on your website, but a website OUTSIDE of yours. You probably can't since it probably does not exist OUTSIDE your website. > Mike> Plus I will be 16 this year. My prediction is that he will > change his difinition of a child from 16 and under to 18 and > other. You should tell him that and see if I am right. Gee, another child, another facticious subject???? Allen > Dear Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But lastly, it is a matter of the person himself > to make a choice. Who cares? This forum is sci.med.vision That stands for science, medicine, and vision. Nothing that you, or Rishi, or Andrew has to offer has anything to do with the first two of those subjects. Go post in some other forum, or else PROVE what you propose so that it actually falls in the realm of science and medicine. > Go post in some other forum, or else PROVE what you propose so that it > actually falls in the realm of science and medicine. GO CURE YOUR CLIENTS AND THIS FORUM WOULD DISAPPEAR ! snip > Professor Theodore Grosvenor personally recommended > the use of the plus FOR PREVENTION -- but provided > no "plan" to implement his recommendation. As usual, you misquote others. Grosvenor published well controlled studies clearly showing that the plus lens DOES not slow myopia progression. He speculated that, PERHAPS, MAYBE, using a plus at near before the development of myopia MIGHT prevent it. He called for further study. He certainly did not recommend plus for prevention. Dr Judy Dear Judy, Subject: Bifocal studies Francis Young ran a good bifocal study where a reasonable-strength plus was used in the "plus" segment. This was a "high segment", were the child had little choice but to look THROUGH the plus segment -- i.e., the plus was ACTUALLY USED BY THE CHILD. While this type of study was not a full PREVENTIVE study, the indications were that if a greater strength plus were used the result would be effective prevention could be much more effective -- provided that the person would "push print", i.e., achieve maxim effect with the plus. Dr. Francis Young did NOT participated in the "Houston" study. As I understand it, some one "accidently" put his name on that study. The Houston study, (as I understand it) used a "small" or "low segment" where the child could easily avoid looking through the plus -- at all. Since the "blind study" protocol prevented: 1. Any instruction in the use of the plus. 2. Prevented any checking -- at all. It is doubtful that the "Houston" study had much "scientific" validity -- since no one really checked to see if the kids actually used the plus. So, while the minus-lens (quick-fix) method will prevail, it still remains the "majority opinion", the second opinion is still valid. But it clear that, to be effective, it must be done by the person himself who has the motivation to do it. Francis Young and Theordre Grosvenor were correct. Prevention with the plus is possible, PROVIDED the person (like Mike) has the fortitude to do this work correctly -- as the second opinion. His eyes belong to him -- and he has the right to exert "control" to protect his distant vision. Best, Otis Engineer Your reasoning on this is totally irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that the Young study was done on children who had nearpoint esophoria. This is a special subset of myopes whose myopia is probably more accommodative than axial. Even in subsequent studies, this is the only small subset of myopes for whom bifocals and plus lenses seem to have some effect. You either haven't read the study, or you choose to ignore certain aspects of it because your thesis would be partially discredited. DrG snip of discussion about Francis Young in response to statement about T Grosvenor Here are Grosvenor's actual comments, published just after he did the plus lens research; please note that he DOES NOT say anything to support use of plus, in fact, he states such methods have had limited success. "Comment in: a.. Optom Vis Sci. 1990 Feb;67(2):150-2. Myopia: what can we do about it clinically? Grosvenor T. College of Optometry, University of Houston, Texas. Methods that have been used by vision practitioners for the control of myopia include visual training, biofeedback training, undercorrection, overcorrection, the use of bifocal lenses, the use of contact lenses, the instillation of atropine, and refractive surgery. With some exceptions the use of these methods has achieved only limited success. The lack of success with the less-invasive methods--which are based on the supposition that myopia is caused by accommodation--may be due to the fact that they are used for eyes that are already myopic and therefore have already undergone axial elongation and scleral stretching. If it were possible to predict which children were at risk for the development of myopia, vision practitioners would be able to institute procedures for the control of myopia when only a minimum of scleral stretching has occurred. Risk factors that warrant investigation include the axial length/corneal radius ratio and the resting state of accommodation." And here is the Houston study, note that the differences between treatment groups was not significant: 1: Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1987 Jul;64(7):482-98. Related Articles, Links Houston Myopia Control Study: a randomized clinical trial. Part II. Final report by the patient care team. Grosvenor T, Perrigin DM, Perrigin J, Maslovitz B. In a randomized clinical trial designed to test the efficacy of bifocal lenses for the control of juvenile myopia, each of 207 children between the ages of 6 and 15 years wore single vision lenses, +1.00 D add bifocals, or +2.00 D add bifocals for a period of 3 years. For the 124 subjects who completed the study, the mean changes in refraction were found to be -0.34 D per year for subjects wearing single vision lenses, -0.36 D per year for those wearing +1.00 D add bifocals, and -0.34 D per year for those wearing +2.00 D add bifocals. These differences were not statistically significant. When subjects in all three treatment groups were combined, it was found that the rate of progression tended to be the most rapid for subjects who entered the study at an early age with a large amount of myopia, and tended to be the least rapid for subjects who entered the study at a later age with a small amount of myopia. It was also found that subjects having with-the-rule astigmatism progressed more slowly than those having no astigmatism or against-the-rule astigmatism. Dr Judy an excellent post. Otis please visit the National Eye Institute's website for additional experimental results that demostrate that biocal spectacles have a negligible, if any at all, benefit on myopia progression. These are real scientific studies-- controls, etc. Please provide your data supporting your (unfounded) theory: http://www.nei.nih.gov/news/statements/bifocal.asp http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/static/study9.asp but these studies have been presented to you already so I'm sure you don't care and you will just ignor them. Why do you behave in such an irrational unscientific way? Dear Retin, Subject: Plus lens -- prevention, versus "bifocal" -- where the kids do not look through the small-segment of the "bifocal". I have worked with Francis Young for a number of years. It is very hard to work with a young child -- not to mention his parents. In medicine you run totally BLIND STUDIES. The means that you have no means to check to see what the hell the child is doing -- nor do you care -- in any event. For this reasons, there these so called "bifocal" studies do not mean squat -- how many times they are run. Because THE KIDS DO NOT LOOK THROUGH THE PLUS -- silly. And since these studies are completely blind, or doubl blind, you simply have not a clue. That is why, when an intelligent and MOTIVATED "Mike" uses a STRONG PLUS, and takes COMPLETE CONTROL and reviews the scientifc datat HIMSELF, he reaches the contclusion that the only way he can PREVENT this situation is to avoid you and your BLIND STUDIES -- that don't mean anything. That is why he is becomming successful in this use of the plus, and is now able to pass the 20/40 line for the DMV. This is what Stirling Colgatge did -- and that is what is recommended by Steve Leung. It is true that (as per "The Printer's Son" ) that you can NOT do this for a person. He must figure this out for himself. And when he does -- there is a good possibility that he can be successful in the long-run. But that will depend on Mikes judgment -- and NOT ON ME, and not on you either. They are his eyes, and provided he always passes the DMV, he has no need for anything you might have to offer. And as RM says -- who cares. In this case -- Mike cares -- and is left no choice but to "clear" under his own control -- as he states. We should ALL assist a person with this type of motivation. Best, Otis Engineer > In medicine you run totally BLIND STUDIES. The means > that you have no means to check to see what the hell the > child is doing -- nor do you care -- in any event. I'm going to butt in. That is not what "totally blind studies" mean. What "blind" means is that the researcher does not know what treatment group that patient is in and vice versa. This assures that bias does not enter into the study and taint the results. But you knew that anyway I'm sure-- you just wanted to twist some words to try to make an argument supporting your case. This problem with bias is a big problem with you Otis! In the face of several different studies, which all show that bifocals have no useful beneficial effect on myopia prevention, you continue to conjure up arguments and disagreements against them. Of course all studies have some limitations and have some room for criticism, yet the weight of the scientific proof is clearly against you. The question is a good one- why do you continue to act in an unscientific manner and argue against the only good data? Is this what "engineering science" is? If you want to really find out for yourself whether bifocals work, or whether plus lenses work, then you need to do some studies yourself to prove it. Until then, you are swimming against the current and rightly so! By the way-- I'm sure the researchers involved in these studies thought of your argument. It's not rocket science to understand that you need to look through the bifocal. I'm sure it was controlled for as best as could be done. Dear "RM", RM > By the way-- I'm sure the researchers involved in these studies thought of your argument. Otis> They may have "though" about it -- but there is no evidence they did anything about it. Checking to see if they have a "low-segment" on their face in not sense ensures they are looking through it to read. RM > It's not rocket science to understand that you need to look through the bifocal. Otis> Given the results of Francis Young's "high-segment" plus, i.e., plus group zero diopters per year, straight miinus, -0.5 diopters per year (over 250 students), I would say that these kids DID look through the plus. RM> I'm sure it was controlled for as best as could be done. Otis> From all the intense bias against the plus -- from you and others -- I rather doubt that they did much checking. Otis> But you have no interest in true-prevention in any event. Forces the person concerned with the issue to learn to "clear" for himself as Mike and Jon did. You can not do it for them. Best, Otis Engineer >From all the intense bias against the plus -- from >you and others -- I rather doubt that they did much checking. Oh. You found out. Well I guess we should just all admit it now. It's a conspiracy between the AMA, and AOA, and the eyeglass companies. They paid off the researchers big time to put the seg heights so low that the bifocal was actually cut off on the glasses those kids were wearing. Haven't you noticed how all the researchers mysteriously retired in Aruba the year after the report was published. Otis Brown, private eye Dear Retin, Subject: Checking to see if the child actually looked through the plus (Houston Study). Re: Getting Jan (The concept that the eye is dynamic ... MUST BE DESTROYED). Yes, I supposed I should hire a man like "Jan" to run this study. Completely un-biased. Yes, Jan is going to check to see that the child is actually looking through the plus. Sorry -- if you think I trust a person with that level of bias to do any meaningful checking -- you must be another P. T. Barnum. But that is why a "second opinion" exists -- and why this kind of "blindness" will continue. There is no doubt that the minus lens is easy to use -- and perhaps most people want nothing else. Again, Franis Young's study showed the POTENTIAL for "vision clearing" at the threshold. In the "lead" statement, this young man, Mike, had received first a -1.5 diopter, and then a 2.75 diopter lens. I posted Jan's statement, "...prevention with the plus MUST BE DESTROYED", and he understood Jan's "un-biased" point-of-view. But he did not wish to develop stair-case myopia either. Obviously, intense use of the plus is difficult -- and you can not "deliver" prevention -- for that reason alone. But you "bias" is obvious -- to most -- except you. It is clear that "Mike" will be working to always pass the required visual acuity standard that is required of him. As long as he does so -- he will not be wearing a minus lens. Having cleared, he now will enter college, and is well-aware the the "down" rate is between -1.1 to -1.6 diopters in four years. That means that he will be checking his eye-chart, and further is aware that the "protective" plus is very wise for him -- with that knowledge about the behavior of the eye. So prevention is a lot of hard work. The advantage is its low cost. But finally, only Mike will be judging the results -- when he graduates from college. Prevention witht the plus is a choice -- not a guarantee. Best, Otis Engineer |
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.