 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2005Petition to the FDA about the reisks of minus-lens use
Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: Donald Rehms petition to FDA about the second-opinion concerning prevention of nearsightedness. In the interests of "fair play", and in developing the second-opinion (that a negative refractive state of the eye CAN BE PREVENTED) Donald Rehm has posted a petition. This is to support true-prevention as offered by Steve Leung on: www.chinamyopia.org The petition can be found at: www.preventmyopia.org As should is an impartial assessment of the need for a more "open" discussion of the possibility of true-prevention. As always, enjoy! Best, Otis Engineer > Dear Prevention minded friends, Dear Prevention minded friends, Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and in no position for giving medical advise. Thank you! Allen Dear Friends, Please disregard the postings of Allen. We have no idea who the hell he is! It is true that the ODs on this site express the strong opinion, that the natural eye is not dynamic, and therefore, the natural eye will not change its refractive state in the direction of the applied minus lens. They insist that this "does not happen". In terms of pure science -- it does. Further, while there opinion is indeed "heavy handed", please remember that other ODs have advocated PREVENTION with the plus for the last 50 years. If the ODs are "expert" -- then that is fine. If they all agreed on the behavior of the natural eye -- then that would be "proof" of sorts. But in fact, other ODs directly CONTRADICT the statement made by the sci.med.vision ODs. So when they imply "trust me", a minus lens has on effect on the refractive state of the eye, and a minus lens is "perfectly safe", then please read the second-opinion as stated by other ODs over the year -- and specifically on: www.chinamyopia.org Keep an open mind. Only by developing challenging ideas is it possible to "change the system". Remember, you do have a right to an "informed choice" in this matter. You can turn it down at the threshold -- and if you do there would be no further requirement for an OD to help you with prevention. Best, Otis Engineer > But in fact, other ODs directly CONTRADICT the statement made by the > sci.med.vision ODs. So when they imply "trust me", a minus lens has on > effect on the refractive state of the eye, and a minus lens is > "perfectly safe", then please read the second-opinion as stated by > other ODs over the year -- and specifically on: You consistently refuse to tell us where you find people wearing glasses getting more nearsighted. -MT Dear Mike, I consistently told you that it is very difficult to "control" a young child -- in the use of a plus. Where a "small-segment" bifocal is used -- and the child DOES NOT LOOK THROUGH THE PLUS -- the study means nothing. This is the nature of the "Houston" study. Where a "high plus", is used, and in the Francis Young study, the plus stopped further movement into nearsighedness (a negative refractive state of the natural eye -- in pure-science). Even then, the children were not given proper instruction in the use of the plus. An older group -- say pilots -- who have intellectual "control" and good judgment, could potentially clear their distant vision from a refractive state of -1/2 diopter (20/40) to 20/20 refractive state zero or slightly positive. I have posted this proposed pure-science study on my site: www.myopiafree.com for your reading enjoyment! Let us continue to work towards an effective PREVENTIVE second opinion. Best, Otis Engineer > > But in fact, other ODs directly CONTRADICT the statement made by the > > sci.med.vision ODs. So when they imply "trust me", a minus lens has on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT > Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and > in no position for giving medical advise. In fact, the medical profession has utterly failed in curing vision. What do you suggest? Subject: Response to Allen Liberman. (Who has every right to his opinion, that the PLUS must not be offered for the purpose of true-prevention) Dear Allen, I am curious -- are you "medical". I have been very clear that my discussion is about the dynamic nature of the natural eye. Further, it is clear from Steve Leung's statements that -- in his opinion -- prevention with the plus is a WISE thing to consider -- and he is a fully qualified MEDICAL person. That is why there is a "second opinion" and that is why you should respect a person's right to know about it -- whatever you might blieve -- or not believe. The WORST that could happen, if a parent is "correctly informed" about this choice -- is that they simply turn it down -- and agree that their child should wear a strong minus lens all the time. But "decision" responsibility rests with the parents. Best, Otis ----- Original Message ----- From: "A Lieberman" <lieberma@myself.com> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: Petition to the FDA about the reisks of minus-lens use > On 31 Mar 2005 08:25:13 -0800, in sci.med.vision you wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and > not in any position to give medical advice. > > Allen > Subject: Response to Allen Liberman. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I am curious -- are you "medical". Otis, Doesn't matter what my background is Otis, but if you need to know, look at my previous postings. You will find the answer as I have directly given you that answer. > I have been very clear that my discussion is about > the dynamic nature of the natural eye. Not when you are discussing your imaginary subjects, having them use the plus system. Looks to me, you are trying to provide medical advise by having them use your system. You have been talking about so called subjects, not the dynamic nature of the natural eye. But you will think differently. As long as you post, I will continue to post my caution to others so they know to ignore YOUR second opinion. Allen > I am curious -- are you "medical". We all know that you are not Otis. You admit that you have no medical training. You admit that you have no understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the eye. How are you qualified to give anyone advise on treating eye problems? How many patients do you see? How much clinical experience do you have? You are just an guy who constantly types at your computer. Your brain has lost it's "dynamic" character-- you have become static in your thinking. > The WORST that could happen, if a parent is > "correctly informed" about this choice -- If a parent was "correctly informed" about this choice, they would have to be told that it is totally unproven! They would have to be told that some evidence even exists that slightly overcorrecting the eye with excessive minus lens power actually appearred to have lessened myopia progression in one controlled study. Do not act like you are being an objective scientist Otis. We all know the facts clearly. Your theory of plus lens prevention IS NOT PROVEN. Prove it and we'll use it. > > Dear Prevention minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Allen Id rather listen to him than you.You Q_AC_" have you noticed that nobody cares what you say? > Dear Prevention minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > www.preventmyopia.org Thank God! The FDA investigates things very seriously. As soon as Donald Rehms submits repeatable evidence in the form of a placebo controlled, double blind, matched group, long term studies that show the danger that minus lenses pose to children, the FDA will take action. And when Donald Rehms submits repeatable evidence in the form of a placebo controlled, double blind, matched group, long term clinical trials that show the effectiveness of plus lenses in preventing and treating myopia, the FDA will endorse the treatment. Dr Judy |
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.