 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005My response to "caring" about the second opinion -- and implementation
Dear Prevention minded friends, It has been asserted by William Stacy that I "don't care" about the protection of a preson's long-term distant vision. I do. For that reason I listened very carefully to Raphaelson's statement about the "Printer's Son" and realized that the person himself must institute the plus-lens preventive method. I did not what to see my sister's kids develop stair-case myopia from an over-prescribed minus lens. Equally, this "caring" only works for your blood-relatives. In fact I would gladly PAY for support from an OD like Steve Leung OD for leadership in this preventive method. Here is my response to my "caring" about your long-term visual welfare. Best, Otis _________________________________ Dear Jon, Subject: Here I am accused of "not careing". If I had any "fault" it is that I care too much. Some people I no doubt "irritate", and that group of people (or their children) will get stair-case myopia from their over-prescribed minus. It takes a wise person to sort through these issues -- and make a success of prevention as you have done. Welcome to the would of science -- you have proven to be skillful in your vision clearing work from -1.5 diopters and 20/60 to 20/20. Best, Otis __________________________________________ Subject: Who cares for your distant vision? You personally -- or some "third party"? cc: Jon who cleared from -1.5 D (20/60) to 20/20. Mike who cleared from -2.75 D to 20/30 (still working on it). DETERMINATION Some people dream of success ... while others wake up and work hard at it. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DrG > As far as Otis goes, I doubt that he cares not a whit for your daughter, or anybody else, for that matter. Even though your daughter is being helped by her optometrist, Otis still finds fault. Otis> As you might recall the poster had made a slight distortion in her statement. I totally support prevention-minded ODs who help mothers with there children -- clearing their vision (on the threshold) to 20/20 -- if requested by the parent. Otis> Fine, that is your opinion. You say I don't care. I suggest you don't care about the long-term effect that the minus lens has on the refractive status of the natural eye. I cared deeply about Raphaelson's statement about the "Priner's Son". Rapahelson cared -- and so do I. But the implementation must be by the person himself. Otis> That basically means that the person himself implements the PREVENTIVE method of solution -- and further means that you are destructive towards that "second-opinion" goal. Otis> But we disagree on objective scientific facts that PROVE that the natural eye is dyanamic. You prefer to ignore this proof of the natural eye's bahavior, and insist (on your ability to quick-fix with a minus) that all others totally ignore this direct proof. This suggest that a person who has the ablity to comprehend the nature of the natural eye's bahvior must also have the ability to "take control" and clear his vision back to standard by heavy systematic use of the plus. Otis> The alternative is staircase myopia with the minus lens. But you don't seem to care about this proven "secondary effect". You just tell the person he has "bad heredity", and he will believe you. Best, Otis > It has been asserted by William Stacy that I "don't care" > about the protection of a preson's long-term distant vision. It would be helpful if you posted this as part of the previous thread to which it refers so at least I and other interested people (why there must be at least 2 or 3 of them) could follow the context. > I did not what to see my sister's kids develop stair-case myopia > from an over-prescribed minus lens. Equally, this "caring" only > works for your blood-relatives. Wow. Are those your true colors showing? Do I see a swastika on that little flag? w.stacy, o.d. William Stacy OD Dear William, Subject: Caring for people close to you. Wow! First you accuse me of "not caring" -- like you could "judge" an issue like that, and then you accuse me of being a Nazi -- or something like that. For my part -- I HAVE NEVER INSULTED YOU. I have only reported scientific facts accurately -- and suggested we develope preventive measures based on scientific facts. The reason for my statement about "immediate relative" was the issue of the quality of the information, and the type of motivation it takes IN THE PERSON to keep vision clear -- when otherwise the refractive-status of the natural eye goes down by about -1.3 diopters in four years. (West Point and Annapolis). If a person is adequately informed of these proven facts -- and decides to take strong "protective" actions -- he can keep his vision clear -- while his friends lose theirs. And yes, I did not wish to see him develop stair-case nearsightedness. Here is Keith's statement about his protective work with the plus. Best, Otis ++++++++++++++++++++ FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WEARING A PLUS LENS Dear Uncle, Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness". I got it yesterday after I came back from the weekend. I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I have a great deal of school work to read. I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check my eyes with the eye chart. I am able to read the 20/20 line on the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most of the time now. I have always passed the driver's license eye test. I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total reading I do. I started using them as much as possible again because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I didn't check them on a chart). I am lucky to have an uncle who showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my nearsightedness. One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and then use or adapt methods to work for me. In the last few years I have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to deteriorate. Then I realize it's time to do something to stop that process. At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I know what it does for my vision. Thanks for taking the time to tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the methods I am using. Keith B. > Subject: Caring for people close to you. > > Wow! First you accuse me of "not caring" -- like you could > "judge" an issue like that, and then you accuse me of being a Nazi > -- or something like that. You can't have it both ways. I quote directly from your post on this thread: ' Equally, this "caring" only works for your blood-relatives. ' Maybe I misunderstood that and maybe I didn't. What in the world does it mean, if not that '"caring" only works for blood relatives'? Sounds to me like a quote from Mein Kampf. Maybe you didn't mean it. If so, say so. Otherwise, in my book, you're otis brown shirt. w.stacy, o.d. Dear William, If you remember "The Printer's Son", where Raphaelson effectively prevented nearsighedness (cleared from 20/40 to 20/20), only to have the parents NOT UNDERSTAND the necessity of agressively using the plus -- to kee distant vision clear. What that suggests is that a much closer relationship must exist between the person who wishes to avoid nearsighedness (pseudo-myopia), and the person doing the "leadership". Since my sister's kids would know what I advocated, and the fact that other optometrists advocated prevention also, they learned how to make a choice ... a decision for prevention. The choice was clearly theirs -- and it meant long-term use of the plus -- clearing their vision whenever necessary. That takes a great deal of PERSONAL motivation. Since they were successful, they never had any need for your or the negative lens. Steve Leung OD also is in the same situation. It take personal commitment to your child to get him to systematically put on the plus -- when the child has is seven years old and had a refractive state of zero. You calling me a Nazi, and other insults reflects on a tragic attitude on your part. I meant "caring" as a long-term commitment to a person -- which is something you can not provide. If you suggest someting like "prevention" and the person does not "like" prevention (as in "The Printer's Son), then the person will simply disappear on the street and you will never see him again. When the person is older, like "Mike" and "Jon" and can make this critical decision (as Stirling Colgate did), the they can clear their vision themselves under THEIR OWN CONTROL. But that takes you out of the loop -- completely. It also saves them $200 to $400 since there is no negative lens involved, and the plus sells in the stores for about $10. So yes, it does not have to be a "blood relative", but the person must have the scientific commons sense of a Stirling Colgate, and understand the fact that his eyes belong to HIM, and with correct understanding of the eye's behavior, the can SLOWLY clear their vision from -1.5 diopter (20/60) to 20/20 as Jon has done it. Seeing that he is effective, he obviously is never going to allow his distant vision to move back down to 20/40 -- or if it does so -- it will only be because he neglected to use the plus for all his close work. Since this is an "iterative" process, and he can see the results -- and do it himself -- there is no need for your "services" other than to check for true-medical issues like glaucoma, detached retina, MD, or other issues like that. Best, Otis > Dear William, > > You calling me a Nazi, and other insults reflects on > a tragic attitude on your part. I meant "caring" > as a long-term commitment to a person -- which is > something you can not provide. OK then you meant "care-giving" rather than caring. Another example of troll-like language twisting. Sorry, I'll try harder not to bite next time. w.stacy, o.d. Dear William, The term "caring" means a two-way street. If you care for a person -- and he does not care for himself -- then you are wasting your time. Like cigarette smokers. You may care that the don't smoke -- but if they are warned, and continue to smoke then the resonsibility for the consequences of ignoring the warning rests with them. Same with wearing an over-prescribed minus lens -- and ignoreing the facts concerning doing so. Best, Otis > Dear William, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Otis There is a proven relationship between smoking and a number of health problems. There is no such relationship between vision and wearing corrective lenses. For you to even suggest it is totally irresponsible on your part. But, of course you aren't really a responsible person, from what I am able to tell. DrG > Dear William, > Same with wearing an over-prescribed > minus lens -- and ignoreing the > facts concerning doing so. Let's try something new. Let's have you define "over-prescribed minus lens" as precisely as you can. You use that term a lot and I'd just like a reasonably concise definition that we can work with. Can you do that in a sentence or two without trashing it up with a bunch of opinions, judgements, testamonials and the like? w.stacy, o.d. > Let's have you define "over-prescribed minus lens" as precisely as you > can. I believe he's done that in the past. According to Otis, "over-minused" is vision better than 20/40. The standard is established by the Division of Motor Vehicles. I believe "over-prescribed" applies when optometrists provide accurate refractions to a large number of people. I don't believe Otis holds ophthalmologists to the same standard. He never mentions them. -MT While I'm waiting for Otis to answer my challenge, I thought I'd post the results of my traditional care for a 38 year old female over the past few years. I first saw her in 1999, at which time her refractive error was: R -2.25 20/20 L -1.50 20/20 and she continued with that Rx In 2002 I found R -1.75 20/20 L -1.25 20/20 and I adjusted her Rx to that level. Today she was R -1.25 20/20 L -0.50 20/20 and I again adjusted the Rx to reflect that change. So I guess "stair steps" go both ways, even when full minus Rx is worn full time. w.stacy, o.d btw, her 40 year old husband went from -3.00 to -2.75 O.U. today, again with full time wear. So do you think my treatment has been in error? Dear William, I would point out that your statements are anectdotal -- since I have no way to check them at all. With primates I can verify the fundamental behavior characterist by "input" versus "output" testing. Objective, repeatable experiments. You CAN NOT do this with human-primates. No argument there. But a wise scientist can draw the correct conclusion about the behavior of the natural eye as a sophisticated system from this type of scientific experiment and study. The difficulty is in helping a person to understand the NECESSITY of using the plus for prevention -- BEFORE a minus lens is used. And THAT seems to be an impossible problem for all of us. Best, Otis > Dear William, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > And THAT seems to be an > impossible problem for all of us. It is not logically necessary that a plus lens does anything at all. DrG > Dear William, > > I would point out that your statements > are anectdotal -- since > I have no way to check them > at all. EXCUSE ME OTIS. WHERE IS THE PROOF I KEEP ASKING FROM YOU ABOUT SOURCES SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION> I HAVE NO WAY OF CHECKING YOUR STATEMENTS, THEREFORE YOUR STATEMENTS ARE ANECTDOTAL. MAYBE BY SCREAMING AT YOU, YOU CAN HEAR ME ASK YOU AGAIN. PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR STATEMENTS OUTSIDE YOUR WEBSITE. I bet you can't and won't. Allen Hey Otis, here is the challenge I put forth at the beginning of this thread. Your single response to this thread was not responsive at all to the question. Lets try again. It's not complicated. All I'm asking for is a definition: > Let's try something new. Let's have you define "over-prescribed minus > lens" as precisely as you can. You use that term a lot and I'd just [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. Otis is an expert at bobbing and weaving, but seems to know little or nothing about the dynamic nature of the eye. Perhaps he should read some of the studies published by Earl Smith, O.D., Ph.D. 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.