Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

/#/#/#/#/#/# OTIS BROWN WARNING /#/#/#/#/#/#

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Neil Brooks - 11 Jun 2005 16:13 GMT
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

The results of clinical trials using plus lens therapy to prevent the
progression of myopia can be found at (hint: it did not work):

http://snipurl.com/fij0
otisbrown@pa.net - 11 Jun 2005 18:59 GMT
Dear Neil,

The study of Oakly Young showed
that the "minus group" went
"down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter
per year.

The "plus" group stopped further
movement into nearsighedness.

The suggests that the plus
MUST be used for true-prevention
if that is the person's goal.

Obviously you ignore ALL
objective scientific
data YOU DON'T LIKE
which makes you
extremely biased.

Fortunately there
are other ODs, (preventive)
who offer their clients a
CHOICE on the threshold.

But of even greater importance
they recognize the risks
of wearing an over-prescribed
minus lens all the time.

For that reason they put
their OWN CHILDREN in
a plus -- at the threshold.

That it the true measure
of a second opinion.

Best,

Otis
 
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.