 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005========== OTIS BROWN WARNING ==========
Dear Reader, Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown (otisbrown@pa.net) writes, I invite you to review all of his previous posts. Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy, but there IS plenty that proves him wrong. Otis gets the basis of his warped, disproved ideas from concepts written a century ago and one study done on CHICKENS! Any of you folks chickens ? Otis Brown is more than simply bizarre. He's wrong. See the weekly (Mondays) "welcome to sci.med.vision" for information on how to block his ramblings. If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof of the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression of myopia in humans then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist. "Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted within the "scientific method" explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence Otis's posts can be reviewed at: http://snipurl.com/e77s http://snipurl.com/fe3d Jeeze Neil, you are really "hard over" to day. But if you are going to "warn" people about something, why not spell out EXACTLY what they are being warned NOT TO DO? Should they not listen to the scientist Dr. Stirling Colgate who used the plus -- and cleared his distant vision. Is that the nature of your warning? Should they not be offered an "empowering" second opinion by Dr. Steve Leung OD -- who is using the plus to protect his own children's distant vision? www.chinamyopia.org Do you consider them too stupid to look at direct experimental data that proves that the natural eye is dynamic, in the sense of scientifc "input" versus "output" testing. Do you want them to roll-over and play dead -- so you can put them in a strong minus lens -- and ignore the consequences. You want a passive and ignorant population to deal with -- who does not think. I suggest that is time we get away from these mindless "warnings" you are posting and intelligently discuss the second opinion with people who have the greatest need for is. Best to my THINKING sci.med.vision friends. A fighting chance -- is better than no chance at all. Otis >But if you are going to "warn" people >about something, why not spell >out EXACTLY what they are being >warned NOT TO DO? I did. >Should they not listen to the scientist >Dr. Stirling Colgate who used [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >is using the plus to protect >his own children's distant vision? They should recognize anecdotal evidence as anecdotal evidence, put little to no value on it, and press you and your buddies to provide proof in controlled human trials. >Do you consider them too stupid >to look at direct experimental >data that proves that the natural eye >is dynamic, in the sense of >scientifc "input" versus "output" >testing. No, Otis. I only cast aspersions upon *you*, especially when you throw out the red herrings of "dynamic," "input vs. output," "box camera," and "scientific vs. medical." These don't answer the question posed. They're just attempts, by a weak minded individual, to distract the--what do you call them? Thinking people--on s.m.v. from the fact that . . . you don't have any facts to support your position. Please get some. >Do you want them to roll-over >and play dead -- so you can >put them in a strong minus lens -- and >ignore the consequences. No. I only want you to prove the efficacy of what you so passionately believe to be true. Passionate belief <> fact. >You want a passive and ignorant >population to deal with -- who >does not think. We have that in you, Otis. I wouldn't wish that on anybody else. >I suggest that is time we get >away from these mindless >"warnings" you are posting >and intelligently discuss the >second opinion with people >who have the greatest need for is. I suggest that the warnings will continue until either: 1) You stop contributing to this newsgroup, or 2) You provide proof--in accordance with the commonly-accepted scientific method--that minus lenses accelerate the progression of myopia AND that use of plus lenses slows that progression. Anecdotal bull$hit just doesn't count. >Best to my THINKING sci.med.vision >friends. My comments are addressed to the thinking components. Yours reach out to the desperate and the faithful. >A fighting chance -- is better >than no chance at all. So tell me, Otis. Is there even a *fighting chance* that you'll submit any *proof*? Or will you just blather on like the cult hero you'd like people to believe you are.... Apparently scientists, second-opinion ODs, scientific facts, a person's right to an informed choice are all wrong, wrong wrong. The minus lens was put is place 400 year ago because it is obviously effective in 10 minutes. Sadly the science "behind" the method has all but evaporated. But that is the nature of our disagreement about the proven behavior of the natural eye -- measured in terms of refractive states. If you want ot NOT believe in the facts themselves, while maintaining your fantasy that the eye is a frozen-box camera that can't possibly alter its refractive state to a delta in the accommodation signal -- the keep on believing your fantasy. I prefer to examine the fact themselves -- and you warn the public against looking at scientific facts and technical analysis. Yours is hardly a scientific approach, or a scientific recommendation. But you still have failed to identify any risks involved with discussing the POTENTIAL for prevention with the plus -- with a person. They can always turn it down. How is that a "risk" my friend. Please explain in detail, since that is the second opinion as expressed by Steve Leug OD. Best, Otis >Apparently scientists, second-opinion ODs, scientific facts, >a person's right to an informed choice are all >wrong, wrong wrong. There's no proof of efficacy in humans -- in accordance with the commonly accepted scientific method. Period. >The minus lens was put is place 400 year ago because it >is obviously effective in 10 minutes. > >Sadly the science "behind" the method has all >but evaporated. And yet, what remains, is still orders of magnitude beyond the "science" of your theories. There isn't any. >But that is the nature of our disagreement about >the proven behavior of the natural eye -- measured >in terms of refractive states. What the hell are you talking about? >If you want ot NOT believe in the facts themselves, >while maintaining your fantasy that the eye >is a frozen-box camera Ahhhh, the box camera. No. Mine's a digital camera. >that can't possibly >alter its refractive state to a delta in the >accommodation signal -- the keep on >believing your fantasy. Fantasy? Me?? ROTFLMAO!!! >I prefer to examine the fact themselves -- and >you warn the public against looking at scientific >facts and technical analysis. Yours >is hardly a scientific approach, or a >scientific recommendation. Hm. I believe what I'm doing is ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE FACTS. You're such a moron, Otis. >But you still have failed to identify any risks involved >with discussing the POTENTIAL for prevention with >the plus -- with a person. Luckily, the burden isn't on me. I'm not foisting a theory--with faith as my only support system--on the unknowing. You are. >They can always turn it down. How is that >a "risk" my friend. Please explain in detail, >since that is the second opinion as >expressed by Steve Leug OD. Prove it works, Otis. Just prove it works. It's efficacy AND its safety (or lack thereof) will come out in clinical trials. Prove it works, Otis. Just prove it works. Now . . . I'm done with your sorry a$$ for a while. I will continue to post the warnings until you go away or post the proof. Remember: scientific method, not anecdotal evidence. > They can always turn it down. How is that > a "risk" my friend. Please explain in detail, > since that is the second opinion as > expressed by Steve Leug OD. Has Steve Leug OD published his efficacy data? You know, comparisons between treated and untreated human myopes? Hello? Anybody home? -MT > Sadly the science "behind" the method has all > but evaporated. Yeah. Pubmed finds nothing when you search for "myopia prevention." > But that is the nature of our disagreement about > the proven behavior of the natural eye -- measured > in terms of refractive states. But you don't measure refractive state. You measure acuity and claim that's the same thing. > alter its refractive state to a delta in the > accommodation signal -- the keep on > believing your fantasy. If you try that Pubmed search, just once, you'll find our "fantasy" is widely believed by scientists who, by and large, don't sell glasses. > I prefer to examine the fact themselves -- and > you warn the public against looking at scientific > facts and technical analysis. Yours > is hardly a scientific approach, or a > scientific recommendation. Ah... so how many technical, scientific papers have you found comparing human myopes wearing bifocals, undercorrection, plus lenses? No answer. > But you still have failed to identify any risks involved We'll jump on that as soon as you find a single paper listed on PubMed showing humans who wear glasses get worse than humans who don't. I don't know why I bother. You don't read what I write. -MT good response Neil! ====== > Dear Reader, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > http://snipurl.com/e77s > http://snipurl.com/fe3d |
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.