 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2005Otis/Rishi - Not as different as we thought
Did you know that s.m.v's own BestOtisEngineer *IS* also trying to sell his own book?? I didn't know that. Quoting from http://www.i-see.org/otis_brown/ You may order a copy of "How to Avoid Nearsightedness" by sending a check for $24.95 to: Otis S. Brown 11286 Weatherstone Dr. Waynesboro, PA 17268 717-749-7895 otisbrown@pa.net Wow! Dear Neil, In the interest of "open" communication, I have posted a site: www.myopiafree.com In addition, my book is free and is posted on: www.i-see.org I KNEW you would accuse me of "making money". Further, the people who have cleared their vision, or are in the process of clearing from -2.75 diopters, have my complete support -- and no money has exchanged hands. There ability to clear their distant vision (for their life) is more important to me -- than money. Further, by establishing the fact that they can clear (when ever required) means that they will never be paying $200 to $400 for minus lenses. An lastly, they are well-aware of the Gmelin study and the fact that the natural eye moves negative at a rate of between -1.1 diopters to -1.6 diopters in four years. Thus, the need to continue the use of the "protective" or "preventive" plus lenses. Sounds like two intelligent and wise students-of-science to me. What are you doing for prevention? Best, Otis The book may can be read "on line" by clicking on: www.i-see.org and then on "Library" The forward is presented by Dr. Paul Romano, (Professor of Ophthalmolgy) and suggests the nature of this "second-opinion". It is dedicated to the "new" optometrists who are concerned about the need for a "change of heart" regarding prevention of a negative refractive state of the eye -- as a natural process. It is designed to help you work with optometrists like Steve Leung, and others -- but you MUST understand the need to start the plus -- before the minus lens is used. As always, enjoy our pleasant academic discussions -- to protect YOUR long-term visual future. Best, Otis And here is the Foreword. I am certain that Neil Brooks will think up some means to "bad mouth" this professor. _____________________ Foreword Ophthalmologists, optometrists and research workers are responsible for the second opinion presented in this book, that nearsightedness (myopia) is as much, if not greatly more, due to environment (and avoidable) than heredity (unavoidable). The essence of avoiding myopia is using a plus lens (a mild magnifying glass, as in reading glasses required by older people) before the eye becomes seriously nearsighted. If the approach advocated in this book is to work properly, you must take full responsibility to develop a clear understanding of the normal eye's behavior. In addition, you must personally implement the practical method of prevention. In this situation we can only offer the student of science an accurate picture of existing practices, as well as an education about the fundamental behavioral characteristic of the normal eye. This approach will put you in full control of your visual welfare. The author has demonstrated a depth of understanding of the problems and limits that occur in existing health practice. With good judgment, and personal effort, it is highly probable that you can avoid nearsightedness. Paul E. Romano M.D., M.S.O. Professor of Ophthalmology, University of Florida, Gainesville > And here is the Foreword. <snip> > Professor of Ophthalmology, > University of Florida, Gainesville Otis, I was unable to find this study OUTSIDE your website. Please provide a CREDIBLE website that supports the above drivel. I bet you can't or won't. So much for your credibility. Allen Dr. Romano was on the faculty of the UF from 1980-1987. The last time I checked, it is now 2005. A number of people have changed their minds about many things...except Otis, who keeps jerking our chains from the garbage heap of failed ideas. DrG I guess it's not too surprising that Otis' "other" hobby is boating using a sextant to navigate. Otis seems stuck in the past. ========== > Dr. Romano was on the faculty of the UF from 1980-1987. The last time > I checked, it is now 2005. A number of people have changed their minds > about many things...except Otis, who keeps jerking our chains from the > garbage heap of failed ideas. > > DrG > There ability to clear their > distant vision (for their life) > is more important to > me -- than money. If it is so important to YOU to clear your made up subjects vision, then why charge for the book????? > Thus, the need to continue > the use of the "protective" > or "preventive" plus lenses. Dear prevention minded friends. Otis is not in the medical profession and is not in the position to provide medical advice. The above can be construed as medical advice. Thank you! Allen Dear Neil-OD, Naturally you wish to defend the "medthod" of the minus lens -- put in place 400 year ago. I understand that fact. But if you wish to "juxtapose" new concepts, why not discuss "Bates" versus the minus lens. That makes more sense. Or, Bates, Dynamic Eye, and the tranditional quick-fix of the last 400 years. Or, is the minus lens even "safe" on a scientific level? The would make more sense. Since "Rishi" also "bashed" me, I would say we disagre on many subjects. I am also against "excessive claims" and make none. So that should be the "input" for a scientific discussion about true-prevention. Best, Otis > Or, is the minus lens even "safe" > on a scientific level? Too bad nobody's ever show what "harm" they do. Then you could point to a specific reference, instead of making it up as you go along. Myths about minus lenses have been around for 400 years. Maybe one day you'll get past them. Maybe not. -MT >Dear Neil-OD, I'm not a doctor. >Naturally you wish to defend the >"medthod" of the minus lens -- put >in place 400 year ago. I understand >that fact. You make that assumption (just like you make *all* your assumptions) based on what, now? >I am also against "excessive claims" and >make none. Actually, that's all you do. Dear Neil, Thanks for your commentary. I have no interest in money -- just not my style. I do have a gerat interest in science, and the analysis of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye -- as a sophisticated system. I do deepy respect the optometrists like Steve Leung and Jake Raphaelson who have pointed out the intellectual falacy of the minus lens. Prevention is indeed difficult -- and depends on the motivation of the person -- to use it successfully. I ame pleased to report that even 14year old "kid" can figure it out -- even though you can not. Read "Teen to 20/20" for this type of effort -- and successful result. But, a man defending his "professional position", is not interested in any aspect of true-prevention of this nature. Go figure. Best, Otis > I do have a gerat interest in science, > and the analysis of the dynamic > nature of the fundamental eye -- as > a sophisticated system. So why do you ignore all the literature published about it? -MT Dear Mike, > So why do you ignore all the literature published about it? MT This is just your FALSE ASSUMPTION about the work I have done with Francis Young, Stirling Colgate, David Guyton, (as friends), as well as discussions with L. Stark, John Semmlow, and George Hung. I would ask why you totally ignore the scientific data that shows that the natural eye is dynamic, and that the natural eye can, and does have variously a negative refractive state, and a positive refractive state (direct measurement) depending on the "input" average-visual enviroment. We disagree on this scientific representaion of the natural eye's expected behavior -- and NOTHING ELSE. I do not expect that this scientific representation can ever be reduced to a "quick fix" that you supply to the public -- that expects it. But I do draw this line separating scientific preception -- versus "medical" dealings with the public. Just don't give me your bullshit that I "don't read the scientifi literature". That is pure presumption on your part. Best, Otis > > I do have a gerat interest in science, > > and the analysis of the dynamic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -MT >> So why do you ignore all the literature published about it? > MT [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you totally ignore the scientific data that shows > that the natural eye is dynamic, and that In your context, "work" really means "publication." Publishing on the web doesn't count. You've only cited ONE believable human study showing any benefit whatever for plus lenses in myopia. EVERY other human study shows the opposite. Add that to the experience of 50,000 "spec peddlers" whose decided plus therapy isn't worthwhile, after preaching for a couple of generations that it WAS. Add that to my 20 years of experience watching myopes get worse, and myopes get better, without any intervention at all. It's also because Torsten Wiesel said EVERY animal that displays deprivation myopia reaches an age where that plasticity STOPS. > We disagree on this scientific representaion > of the natural eye's expected behavior -- and > NOTHING ELSE. Nah. To begin with, you think they all work alike, and the same at every age. Even non-scientists will agree that isn't likely. > I do not expect that this scientific representation > can ever be reduced to a "quick fix" that you > supply to the public -- that expects it. I do not expect the FDA to find that plus therapy is efficacious. > But I do draw this line separating scientific > preception -- versus "medical" dealings with > the public. Can we accept the FDA as a reasonable authority on such matters? Do they practice the right flavor of "science?" > Just don't give me your bullshit that I > "don't read the scientifi literature". > That is pure presumption on your part. It's obvious to most of us that you don't read peer-reviewed human research. You only found the JT Leung bifocal study after somebody pointed it out to you. It's also obvious you ignore the simplest and most important questions, like: How do you know that minus lenses cause myopia to accellerate? There... I put it at the bottom so you can ignore it more easily. -MT <> This is just your FALSE ASSUMPTION about the work I have > done with Francis Young, Stirling Colgate, David Guyton, What "work" have you done! You have flapped your jowls and repeated yourself over and over despite numerous refutations. You are hopeless. Go play shuffleboard. >I have no interest in money -- just not >my style. Again, res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. You have an interest in science? If so, I find it rather selective. Either that, or your interest peaked in the 1970's, which is where your ideas seem to be rooted. DrG |
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.